Skip to main content

tv   U.S. House of Representatives  CSPAN  February 23, 2012 5:00pm-8:00pm EST

5:00 pm
country. i am happy to compete and a level playing field. i know americans can compete but it is time for the government to say let the competition began on a level playing field and do not tilt in favor of union bosses. [applause] and return to the principles of the declaration of independence and the constitution. i feel your seeing is this country is the move towards the government-dominated social welfare folk states you have seen in europe. -- social welfare states like you have see in europe. i believe that was part of the american greatness and what makes us the economic engine that we are today is the brilliance of the founders and
5:01 pm
the inspiration of providence. when they wrote the declaration, they wrote these words, that we are endowed with our creator with our rights. among them were life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. in this country, we would be free to pursue happiness as we choose. we would not be directed by our government as to how we could pursue our happiness. we would not be limited by the circumstance of birth parents to we would not even be told that we have to join a union against our will. -- we would not be limited by the circumstance of birth. we would not even be told that we have to join a union against our will. these things but people all over the world here seeking opportunity. we are an opportunity nation.
5:02 pm
this nation and his friends are trying to turn us into a nation that we would not recognize. that is what makes america who we are. if i am president, i will keep america true to the constitution and the principles of the declaration of independence. i will work with you, i'll work with the american people and make sure that this nation is as it has always been, the hope of the earth. thank you so much and i appreciate your help. [applause] [applause] [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national
5:03 pm
cable satellite corp. 2012] >> we will have more from mitt romney coming up tomorrow. he will be speaking to the detroit economic club talking about his jobs and economy plans. this afternoon, we will be live in half an hour as retired general jamesartwright takes part in a discussion with it william fallon. they will be talking about iran and dealing with the nuclear program. this afternoon, organizations reported that house republican leaders are planning to drop their five-year highway transit bill in favor of a shorter reauthorization of federal highway and transit programs. this is scheduled to come to the floor this week. the democrats were united in opposition and there were doubts that speaker boehner could get the votes in his own caucus to
5:04 pm
pass it. up next, our conversation from this morning's globe washington journal" looking at last night's republican debate. -- from this morning's "washington journal" looking at last night's republican debate. make a decision about what he believes. might be a chance to pick a more effective candidate. might be a great thing to cover. it's just not who republicans are. it's so against the basic temperment. republicans are instinctively locked in to discuss their problems in public. so democrats have a problem, they convene a meeting and have an intervention, and people cry and talk about their childhoods, and someone goes to rehab. when republicans have a problem, they just sort of take the drunk person and put them
5:05 pm
in the closet and let them sleep it off and don't mention it again. it's the sweep-it-under-the-rug party. host: do you have a horse in the race? guest: no. do you mean am i supporting anyone? no. the president, though, has earned a loss. but as far as who replaces him? no. covering it, i don't really know what i think. host: 19 debates and maybe one more to go. has this process been helpful to the g.o.p.? no. probably -- guest: is no. probably shot? . as sarah palin said, probably not. it's probably exposed the weakness of these candidates in a way that's scary to a lot of republicans. that's why we're talking about a brokered convention. because there's a great dissatisfaction with the offerings.
quote
5:06 pm
it's been helpful for me, just as an observer, someone interested in who these people are. but it's diminished them for sure. host: on the "daily caller" this morning a great headline this morning. guest: we specialize in great, big headlines. we believe and yes there's a ran paul story. ran paul said that he would be open to being picked as a vice presidential candidate for a presidential candidate other than his father. maybe that wouldn't be a bad choice. there's a stubborn core of libertarian support within the republican party for ron paul and i think some of those will go to gary johnson, the libertarian candidate in the
5:07 pm
general election, so republicans ought to pay attention to that. i don't know if picking ran paul is the answer. i don't know. but they ought to pay attention to the libertarians. because a lot of republicans hate libertarians. but the fact is they need them to win. host: i just noticed you're not wearing a bow tie. guest: i joined the main stream now. host: how long have you not been wearing a bow tie? guest: probably five or six years. i wore it from high school to my late 30's when i decided people hate you so much when you wear a bow tie that it's probably not worth the conflict, having people scream obscenities to you when you walk through train stations and stuff. host: we're going to begin taking your calls for tucker carlson in a minute. but from think progress.org, tucker carlson, a ron deserves to be annihilated. guest: yes.
5:08 pm
i did his show tuesday night with some friends of mine. a fun show. and i was actually trying to make the opposite point but i was doing it in a very inarticulate way. and i said something like -- of course von evil and deserves to be annihilated. but actually we ought to pause before supporting any such action and think about what the effect on our economy would be among other things. i mean, what would that mean for our energy prices and the american economy. i was actually urging caution. i'm not particularly hawkish to be honest with you. i'm actually not hawkish. so that was a matter of me being entirely inarticulate. i was a pretty aggressive opponent of the iraq war for most of it. and i guess i'm all for war under certain circumstances. it just seemed to me that a, we're not very good at
5:09 pm
foreseing the consequences of things like this, and b, our economic strength is the key to our military strength. and so we should be very careful before we undermine it. so no, there's all these pieces about how i'm a blood thirsty neocon warmonger which is a little hilarious if you knew my view. i'm not necessarily for bombing people indiscriminately at all. host: clinton handed bush a surplus and 22 million new jobs, bush handed obama a deficit and loss in jobs. return to that policy? guest: it's a little long for a bumper sticker, but it's probably -- look, this stuff is conference indicated. the question if it's did busch spend snooch there's no question. i mean, there's really no defending the medicare part b
5:10 pm
thing, it's passed by a republican president and i would never defend something like that. it was appalling and an entirely political move. is barack obama an effective steward of the economy? of course not. he has no idea how the market works, and our debt has grown more quickly under him than under any president except during world war ii. truly he has no idea what he's doing. but that's no defense for bush at all. they have a lot of deserving blame but obama deserves more. it's a math question. host: one tweets -- guest: media matters. it's a self-described media watchdog group whose aim it is to make press coverage more friendly to democrats as if -- as if it's not already.
5:11 pm
so we know that the head of media matters, david brock met at the white house with valerie jarrett, arguably the president's top advisor and the white house communications director and we know they conduct a weekly conference call with the white house, which is a little odd for a non-profit organization to be in effect part of the obama political machine, and we know that -- so yes, there's coordination. the precise nature of it? we know the outlines. we know when media matters went after fox, a political organization, the white house parrotted that line almost word for word within a week, etc., etc. so look, there's a lot of coordination going on in the white house. this is certainly an example, i would say, of like minded folks getting together.
5:12 pm
this is from february 12 by tucker carlson and other reporters at "the daily caller" -- guest: yes, all that is true and uncontested. media matters' spends all this time rebutting what it believes is in corrupt news articles has not reported that in any way because it is factually true.
5:13 pm
we have the sources all round the david brock so there is no denying we got the story in this case. he has struggled with mental illness. this is a matter of public knowledge. we revealed his executive assistant, his secretary kerri de glock to events around -- carried and a glock a rounded d.c.. he did so in order to protect david from threats from right wing spot -- sniper teams and assassins. apparently d.c. is crawling with conservative saboteurs and assassins trying to murder the heads of effective nonprofit protected groups, that was his view. brock is having a cigarette on the roof of his building in chinatown and we have more law
5:14 pm
enforcement per-capita than anywhere in the world in washington. i have lived here my whole adult life and it is very safe. his two bodyguards and are assistant appear and bundled him up and bring him downstairs because they are afraid of snipers. mean butrying to be clearly, let me diagnosed that even though i am not a shrink. host: the goal of this series is to tell our readers something they did not know about something of national importance. media matters has a great effect on news coverage. a left-wing donor wanted to affect the news cycle, giving money to media matters would be effective. there is a lot that people that did not know.
5:15 pm
we document in another story their effect on specific reporters. we documented case where they sent a reporter from "political" a 90-page memo how they were going to attack fox. it was interesting and they did not print the bulk of it for a year. we think that is an example of a reporter doing the bidding of his group in think that is newsworthy. >host: tucker carlson is our guest -- caller: if you said earlier it would be a good idea to have a convention and choose someone who was not running. i'm a strong ron paul supporter and i disagree that it would be a good idea to put rand paul
5:16 pm
with mitt romney. i think he has done a good job in the senate and i think he would be a stronger candidate coming up in 2016 on his town. own. vice president joe biden is just sit there and wait for someone's heart to fail. wtie and iour bo like your work. >> what do i know? i'm not sure a brokered convention would be better for the republican party. it would be interesting. i have a built-in bias in favor of drama because i'm in the news business. i am an editor so i want the more dramatic thing. i am not always thinking about what is best for the republican party because that is not my job. as for rand paul, i don't know.
5:17 pm
that is interesting. the bulk of vice-president don't have an effect on history but some do. if you are a small government person or a sincere conservative during the last administration, you are probably a dick cheney fan. he had a great implode on the bush administration. the rand paul basic philosophy is far enough from the romney basic philosophy is they probably would not be compatible as a ticket. stranger things have happened to. caller: harrisburg pa., a democrat, go ahead. since obama became president, you jump on the bashing wagon. you are telling me that everybody that voted for obama is wrong. guest: no, i would say not
5:18 pm
everyone that -- i was said not everyone had voted for a bomb is wrong, obama is wrong. i live in washington, d.c. which is a city that voted 94% for obama, the highest in the nation and i know a lot of obama voters who live on my street. i think a lot of them regret it. there is a lot of dissatisfaction among independents and moderate democrats. as for jumping on the obama bashing wagon, i am a little hurt. i hope to be leading that wagon and head of the wagon train. you consider me another follow er. --t: here is a tweete
5:19 pm
guest: i don't think there's anybody in the republican party that wants to campaign on contraception. i doubt think anybody is suggesting that contraception be bent banned. there is a debate about contraception. cause of the obama administration's administrative actions and regulation around obamacare, it has become a question of policy whether the government should force people to purchase a product that violates their core beliefs. that is not a question about contraception. it is a question about liberty and freedom of conscience and how powerful a government should be. those are completely valid issues. the press is rooting for obama
5:20 pm
against republicans and they have made a big issue about it and many republicans are really inarticulate and not very good at politics and in some cases dumb so they're not good at managing these issues. to be totally clear, i don't think there is really a debate about whether people should be allowed to use contraceptives. i hope there isn't. host: an independent from houston, texas. caller: all want to give you a brief characterization of a conservative voters. republicans are constantly sacrificing their conservative principles when they are elected in office. bush and santorum are the same story. that is the main reason white conservatives are so wish
5:21 pm
you washy. if this trend continues among conservatives, and we go toward a brokered convention, do you think it's possible for a washington outsider to enter the race? it could be someone like herman cain or it could be david petraeus, how would that work? >> i think you're absolutely right that it is actually hard to govern conservatives. i am not making excuses for dishonest politicians who believe one thing and don't. there are plenty of those. the truth is, it is difficult to govern as a conservative because conservative economic policies mean denying people things they want republic wants more spending and that's why we have it.
5:22 pm
entitlements, specifically medicare and social security, are popular. people like free stuff. fiscal conservatism requires telling them they can't have that. who wants to do that? it is really tough. are the candidates running for the republican nomination, only ron paul who will not get the nomination has a plan that would actually reduce the size of the debt. as for a total outsider being chosen as a nominee at the convention in september, highly on likely because you have to have a candidate that is thoroughly vetted. their risk of finding out something devastating about any of us at the last minute is too high grading need someone who has been through before and has been through intense scrutiny and to not all the sudden reveal some embarrassing thing. i don't think they would ever
5:23 pm
pick an outsider like that. david petraeus might be a great candidate. i wish he would run. host: did you know the reporter that was killed in syria? guest: i did not. host: president obama has apologized for the burning of the koran in afghanistan. guest: why was present obama burning the koran? was that the story? host: that's not quite historic. guest: my impression was that it was an accidental burning i don't know. host: here is a tweedt -- guest: i guess they should be upset about it. my office is across the street
5:24 pm
from the occupy d.c. people. i am trying to remember the slogans. one of them is 'corporations are not people.' i guess they should be met by running to democrats all the time to think obama is a sellout and is to right wing. it is like an interplanetary conversation. host: williamsburg, virginia, republican line. caller: good morning. i'm a small-business owner in virginia and i own a business called virginia is for education. i operate mobile fitness centers that goes to elementary schools and we have stationary bike programs inside those trailers. i go to schools and public housing and i take on faith crack generals on the corner. i change the environment for the children there. i find there is large
5:25 pm
racketeering among the virginia schools. it is hard for me to break through one transient educrats move from one division to the next. when pe instruction is $70 an hour and i can show for $100 an hour and have they held out, and change the morale of the students and their health and engage them in ways no one else seems to accept with a video screen. host: very quickly, what would you like tucker carlson to respond to? caller: there are many things you can look into in education in virginia. these transient educrats come benigno after that federal money and interest themselves -- host: i think we have enough to work on. we will look on it as an
5:26 pm
education issue. guest: i would be against transient educrats and i guess for trucks with stationary bikes and from a schools -- look -- it is pretty upsetting as a father of four lives in the district of columbia. i have to pay for private school because the high schools and middle schools especially are so bad. it is a complete outrage. i am not sure what the answer is. clearly, a teacher tenure is an outrage and indefensible. i have been fired a bunch of times and is hard for me to say my tax dollars are allowing a person to which he or she can't be fired does not compute. is that the single biggest problem? no, of course not. my schools -- my kids to school is a good school because the moms are involved.
5:27 pm
they don't put up with any nonsense. it seems that parents are the basic problem. if parents don't care, the school will be bad. there are a lot of really bad parents out there. they are negligent. and they don't care about their kids' education. we know that because the schools are bad. why don't they march on the schools and chained themselves to the front doors on? a lot of single parent families had up to a disaster. i know you are not supposed to say that but i don't care. it is terrible for kids to grow up with, on the average, overall, it is terrible for kids to have communities where everyone is a single parent. that is the problem. host: chesapeake city, maryland, democrats line -- caller: good morning, i want to
5:28 pm
make a comment and ask you a couple of questions. i would like to point out that many people have to pay taxes and their tax dollars are used for things which are against their beliefs but we have to go on paying taxes anyway. some u.n. and some you lose. -- some you win and some you lose. i have a question about the bowtie because you stopped wearing it to stop people from yelling obscenities at year. you. recognize you't without your bowtie. no one ever screams obscenities at you now? guest: of course people scream obscenities at me now. i do yell obscenities back. i have limited self control but
5:29 pm
fewer people do and it may be that i am blending in. i may face in the crowd. that would be a great thing, personally. i had someone come up to me recently at an airport and say has anyone told you you look like tucker carlson but he is more handsome, no offense. >> and i said no offense taken. he is a handsome devil. i am fully integrated into american society. it feels good. host: have you ever had your kids with you when someone decides to take you on? guest: most people are really, really nice. america is a nice country compared to many other countries. no, i don't think -- yes, i have. i almost got into a fistfight
5:30 pm
with a guy from peta going to the circus in d.c. a number of years ago. i was carrying one of my kids and my arm and this guy gets in my face with a picture of an elephant with an abscessed leg. it was a horrible picture and i >> you can watch all this in our video library at c-span.org. we're going to a discussion on u.s. policy options for an iranian nuclear program. one of the panelists include retired general james cartwright. it is hosted by the center for strategic and international studies, along with texas christian university. >> thank you for being here. we have a terrific program tonight. thank you for coming out.
5:31 pm
this week, we lost a couple great journalists, and i wanted to remember them. they had a relationship with acis. his cousin just left to go to business school. our middle east program director who was a friend of anthony's for 20 years, and i encourage all of you to watch it. this will also be live tweeted tonight. >> welcome on behalf of tcu. boy, do we have a good one today. we are right on top of this, because we are going to talk about iran, what could be done
5:32 pm
about it, what should be done about it. jim cartwright, the u.s. marine corps, retired, harold brown, the eighth vice chairman of the chiefs of staff, served across the hot presidential and administration's. on our right, a former commander of the u.s. central command and the u.s. pacific command, the strategic command and the u.s. atlantic command. and here general david sanger -- [laughter] in knows a whole lot about everything. he was the chief washington correspondent for the "new york times." [laughter]
5:33 pm
54 bit. in this day of the internet -- [laughter] in more than 25 years at the paper, he has reported from new york, tokyo, and washington. if you of not seen his biography it lately, that is because he is in the process of writing another book. what is this book going to be about? >> the new book is going to be about the obama administration's national security policy and pakistan. it deals a lot with iran, as you could imagine and the arab spring. mostly, it is an effort to explore what is different about this administration versus the bush and administration. how they can live with what
5:34 pm
actually happened. >> when does it come out? >> it comes out in jan. >> alright, we will all be ready for it. -- it comes out in june. >> if president obama called to, if you were still on active duty and out what to do about iran, what would you tell him? [laughter] >> i will start with an easy question. give us an idea. >> my concern with iran, if he were to get one of those telephone calls -- if you were to get one of those telephone calls, is that we as a nation had embarked on a negotiating diplomatic approach along with a delaying strategy to try to stretch out the timeline to have an opportunity for a diplomatic solution.
5:35 pm
there are those around the world, certainly in the united states, who believe that clock is ticking and we're starting to run at a time. so, what several logical next step you would worry about, you want to think your way through. and so, several presidents now have said "not on my watch, no way would we ever allow that to happen." what does that mean? we said that about korea, too. what does that mean. are you going to do something more provocative to slow this timeline down? a lot of people are thinking along the lines of a military strike. what would be encountered be? and your way through that. is there more negotiating that can be done through sanctions
5:36 pm
and the laying it strategies that might be successful and fruitful? -- and delaying strategies that might be successful and fruitful? if the iranians want to announce their moving this way, what ramifications to you have with that? i think you have to worry about a country that is war weary, a world in financial discord and challenge, a likely strategy that would deny the iranians would require an invasion and a change of the ministrations in iran. the likelihood this will happen in the same year that you get a new chinese government, a new french government, in new united states -- a new united states -- , those are the things better on the table. likelihood that something in the
5:37 pm
year of 2012 occurring that would challenge that, i think, is pretty high. >> admiral, let me ask you, how close do you think iran is to achieving nuclear capability? >> short answer -- i do not know. i do not know that many people outside of iran or whether the iranians really no. -- really know. there's a lot of opinion out there about what their intentions are, how far they have gone, whether they have the means to weapon is some nuclear capability -- weaponize some nuclear capability. i think it remains to be seen. i think they have been particularly clever, particularly if their intention is to proceed. what strikes me now is again at
5:38 pm
we are reaching this crescendo of talks. this constant -- like the old movies, you know, the black and whites. beating the drum. certainly not very helpful. general cartwright certainly to adopt better than a dozen of them here. -- certainly text of -- certainly ticked off better than a dozen of them your. in the media, it seems simple. it is not at all. i think we should go back to a couple fundamentals. one of them is the iranian regime, which has been in place now for several decades, and the united states have had virtually no dialogue. there have been talks. a couple starts.
5:39 pm
there really has not been any meaningful dialogue since the revolution. and it is a pretty nasty history here, which a lot of people are aware of. getting a dialogue started is taught. it is. particularly with the regime, and be notion that the u.s. -- the efforts to demonize the u.s., it is challenging. >> david, tellus where you think this is right now. are they close? >> the deeper you get into it, the more uncertain you become of exactly the question you have asked. how far away are the iranians? he is right when he says ambiguity is the iranians'
5:40 pm
friend right now. in many ways, having capability or near-capability is as useful to them or perhaps more useful than actually having a weapon. if you think they actually had a weapon, they know what would happen if they use it against israel, the united states, other targets. i think that is unlikely. i think what they are interested in, they would be interested in the influence they could have in the region. and they would get that influence or almost as much of that influence by having all world that knew they had the capability to build a weapon in matter of weeks or months and it keeps them and it keeps the u.s. intelligence agencies able to say that there still is no evidence the iranians had made a political decision. a political decision to go ahead with a weapon. why would you make a political decision to go ahead with a
5:41 pm
weapon when you could get many of the same benefits and be just short of a weapon? i think both sides have learned, as general cartwright said, the lessons of north korea. one of the lessons was you can keep saying you will not tolerate it, but one day, and that is where we are in north korea. in north korea, they looked at it and say, may be stepping -- may be testing it is a step too far. >> what they have, i think, is an open issue. but the idea of drawing lines is a challenge. so you draw a red line, and someone is perceived to have crossed it come up what are you going to do? -- and someone is perceived to across it, what are you going to do?
5:42 pm
>> leon panetta says there is a red line. when he says that, what do you wall interpret that to mean? what is the bread line? -- what is the red line? >> i do not perceive to get inside is ted. i agree with admiral fallon. -- i do not perceive to get inside his head. i think with the administration is saying is that if there is any kind of evidence that there is weaponization going on, any external signature to that effect, or if the iaea inspectors are thrown out and not allowed to return, those are steps that could be thrown out and used as redlines. those are things you could actually see and draw lines
5:43 pm
from. >> this is not something i know a great deal about. what iran seems to be moving toward is something like the situation you have in japan where they do not have a nuclear weapon, but they could build one in very short order. is that -- >> you have a fuel cycle that takes you to an enrichment activity. that activity is cut off a very low percentage. what the iranians have done is go to the next percentage, using it to the medical research. that is a half step to weaponization levels of and richmond. the technology associated with enrichment as understood -- is understood. it is now understood by the iranians.
5:44 pm
>> so we have added these distinctions. iran wants to talk. -- so, we have added these sanctions. iran wants to talk. are the sanctions working? >> i am not sure that those statements are connected. >> what is the effect? >> the -- their ability to conduct business. i have felt for some time, getting their pocketbook is a way to get people to pay attention. that appears to be the case now. i have seen a lot of evidence. it is getting very, very difficult for them to do simple things, like it food into the
5:45 pm
country. nobody will deal with them in dollars, and their currency is not worth too much now. >> what if they said they wanted to talk? >> who knows. there's a history here of people saying things with the lack of follow-up or things that actually back up. who knows? maybe there is an effect. at the end of the day, the supreme leader is the guy who will most likely be making the decisions, calling the shots here. one of the challenges we have in this country is understanding how they make decisions. who has got influence in what areas and how they go through whatever steps they might go through to reach a decision. >> there have been sanctions that the u.s. and the united nations that put on iran for many years. but the sanctions we've seen in
5:46 pm
the past six months are the first to get their attention, and why is that? they are the first aimed at their central bank. that means that is how they clear revenue for their oil. for the first time, we are in directly going after their oil revenue. their currency has fallen in value to the dollar by about half. a lot of people that have been operating in the currency itself, is making it very difficult for them to sell oil in dollars. that is difficult for trade agreements. then you ask the question, can sanctions alone lead the iranians to come to the conclusion that the program is not worth it? you get differing opinions. you get some people in the administration who say, look, the iranians will only say we
5:47 pm
will never give been -- give in to pressure until that magic day when they give in to pressure. there are others to say when you weaken the regime and its hold on power, but in the end is not unlikely -- it is not likely to reverse the nuclear program, because it is popular among even the opposition parties. you have to ask what are you really accomplishing? >> with had an embargo against cuba for many decades, north korea not enjoying free trade agreements. but in recent weeks and months, a number of things are beginning to add up here. so, countries that were flaunting the embargoes in the past, the sanctions are now coming into line.
5:48 pm
i think it is very difficult to actually get things done. whether that is enough, i do not know. >> my sense is all of that is accurate. when you do not know at the end, which way is it going to go? is it going to convince them to proceed, or will it galvanize them to proceed? that is the unknown here. >> is there anything we can do short of military action to convince them is not a good idea to go forward? or is that something that is in their e those -- or is that something that is in their ethos, that they have decided they have to have? >> i do not know what the leader has decided yet. the likelihood there is a single action that will flip the switch is probably very low. it could be the staff of several activities. the sanctions, the loss of their
5:49 pm
ability to work with their airline and their shipping lines and to get safe harbor and refueling rights, things like that. all these things could step up in a way that convinces them. but you have the same problem if you decide to take kinetic action. are you going to seal their resolve to go ahead and do this? or are you going to delay for a few years and get back into negotiation? the likelihood, i think, my thought process is it is more likely to galvanize their thought process. you have the libya example sitting out there. this is a country we got to agree to abandon their nuclear aspirations, and then we replaced the leadership. that is not a good precedent for the iranians to be looking at. >> well, there has been a middle range option for the obama administration. the president came in saying he
5:50 pm
wanted to open up the association. he did a broadcast on the iranian new year. to the iranian people. i think there is a lot of debate about this among the iranian people. they started to work on these different sanctions right away, assuming the diplomacy would not work. and then there are other things happening to the iranians. they have had what? five scientists now assassinated? a lot of people think that is the work of israeli intelligence, but maybe it is not. we have had missile plant -- we've had missile plants blowup. remarkable coincidence. we saw the computer worm, the
5:51 pm
stuxnet virus, slowing down the iranians and their ability to produce. when the iranians see this, this is redouble their determination to move ahead, or does this convince them is not worth that. -- or does this convince some -- convinced them is not worth it? if we just look at the iranian in richmond's -- enrichment activity that we know about? >> let me just ask you whether it is the right or the wrong thing to do. israel seems to be drawing the line in the sand on this. how credible is their posture on iran? do they have the ability to take out iran's ability to build a
5:52 pm
nuclear weapon if they decide to? >> no. >> no. >> no. >> they can slow it down. some people estimate two years to five years. that does not take away intellectual capital. that does not take away the ability of the iranians to proliferate the ability to do business in a hidden my. so, no. you are not going to do that with a kinetic attack the bank that is a delaying tactic. that is not a change tactic. >> do you agree with that? >> it has taken historic lee evans like the iraq strike -- it has taken has directly -- historically events like the
5:53 pm
iraq strike. this is a very different issue. this is not a single target. in fact, as the general indicated in his opening statement, but to really take care of the problem and to do it militarily, it is going to take quite a few of them in the country, which is not likely to happen. there will be debate and then what is going to happen? >> are they spread out over a wide area? why is it such a hard thing to do militarily? >> this is part of the calculus of red lines. for a long time, most of their activity occurred at one site, which was somewhat underground, but certainly strikeable.
5:54 pm
over the past two or three years, they have talked about alternative sites, one that is pretty well understood, which is deep enough underground and there are not weapons that go deep enough to penetrate that kind of activity. when you start to franchise this activity and distributed around the country and you have this understanding of the enrichment process, the number of places you could put that far exceed our ability to discover them all. and even if you could, they still have the yen -- but still have the intellectual capital to rebuild somewhere else. >> what would happen if israel does decide to do this? >> do what, bob? [laughter] >> strike. take military action.
5:55 pm
my guess is the united states would advise against that. but israel does not always take advice. >> countries are going to do what they perceive to be in their best interest, or if they feel they are backed in a corner, the least obnoxious joyce given all viable options. -- the least obnoxious choice given all viable options. it is very difficult, i think, because of the level of effort that is likely to be required. but there are a lot of shuttle endeavour. this is not a one time shot. -- but there are a lot of targets. they could probably been inflicted some damage, but then -- >> what do we do? let's say we get the call. at the planes are in the air.
5:56 pm
what do we do? obviously, neither a cure in the government now, but what do you think the u.s. reaction would be? >> that is a real conundrum. if they are in the air, there is not much you can do to get between them and any shuttle endeavour they may have. -- to between them and any targets they may have. do you passively watch it happen or aggressively join in? that is the range of things you may be able to dip. which when you do is probably a decision that is more likely to occur with their launch. the situation will dictate what the art of the possible is. having choices is probably the
5:57 pm
thing they're most concerned with right now. >> by extension, given the iranian rhetoric to dates, linking the two of those, israel and the u.s., no matter what happens, so we would be prepared to protect our forces and our people for whatever might happen. but i think a couple of thoughts here. 1, we have a lot of things in common with israel. we are often portrayed as yes- no, yes-no. but we share a lot. we have an interest in getting to all long term state of better security and stability. we are certainly going to share intelligence. we think the weaponization of this capability in iran is not
5:58 pm
in their best interest. we will try to come up with ways to deal with this that will result better. we do not know where it is going to go. >> the issue was one of the ones the bush should ministration to up in 2008 when the israelis came to the administration and i asked for the refueling capabilities they would need to be able to do this more effectively. and they were turned down by the bush administration. if you go back in some of the memoirs, it was a pretty active debate in the administration on that issue. one of the issues that came up, if you work over iraqi airspace, which at the time the united states still controlled -- i think the bigger concern is not
5:59 pm
just what happened that day, but as admiral fallon said, the question is, does the u.s. gets sucked in to whatever follows? i have only seen the old classified word game. there was one at brookings a year ago. one at harvard. in almost every one of these, the u.s. gets sucked in at some point. then they are off to the races. that is the big concern the administration has now. >> turkey's foreign minister spoke here last month and he said military action against iran would be a disaster that would complicate developments in
6:00 pm
the middle east at a crucial juncture. as a nato ally, the turkey's stance complicate u.s. options on iran? where are they reflecting reality? >> reflecting reality, certainly as he perceives it. i was going to take us back to the output of this equation reverses the input. yes, there is a strike and all that happens. the economic side of this will be significant, both in the revenue side, but then globally in the instability that will cause in the market. that is a piece of it that i am sure turkey is very concerned about, at a minimum. and they rely on an obvious path to and from israel in iran.
6:01 pm
and they have a neighbor, iran, that is going to be affected and probably is going to want to lash out. there's a lot at stake beyond the weaponization issue. >> no one i am aware of thinks there is a possibility of a military strike were conflict. 1 has a hard time conjuring positives out of something like this. what does that mean for us? it seems to me, you never know what instrument actually gets the job done in these situations, and you never know how things are going to stack up, because you were never in their head. as we lurched down the road here, it seems we ought to be
6:02 pm
doing a couple things. 1, -- one, make it very clear that we have to come to an end of this weaponization drive. and frankly, it needs to be bigger than that. needs to be stability. we certainly are not going to be standing by if they tried to close the street or any of these other things -- close the strait or any of these other things. it seems to me, if you look down the road apiece, so what if iran comes out and says, hey, guess what? we have got a weapon. whether they do or not -- where do we want to be in that situation? there are other countries that
6:03 pm
have nuclear weapons right now. it seems to me what me -- what we may want is some kind of policy where we make it very clear publicly that the use of a nuclear weapon against ourselves or certain allies would not only knocked be tolerated and -- would not only not be tolerated, but get a response in kind. we do not treat this lightly, and this is a very touchy region. that might be another thing we want to consider in terms of policy options. >> you remember the strait of hormuz. general tmz told me that the iranians could in fact -- general did see -- general dempsey told me that the iranians could in fact close
6:04 pm
the strait of hormuz. do you think they have developed the technology? >> i remember something about it. [laughter] there are a lot of factors here. where are the courses? i think general dempsey has got it exactly right. they might, but not for ron. -- but not for long. they have pretty limited capabilities when all is said and done. yes, there are things we need to be concerned about. the posture we put our forces in, but there is not a lot of comparison between what they have and what we could bring to bear if we needed to. >> we talked about iran posing a threat to the united states. do they pose a threat to the
6:05 pm
united states? could they have the capability to give the -- to deliver a weapon, a warhead to this country? they do not, right? >> not in a normal sense. there are ballistic missiles. they are working for the technology that will do that. the more worrisome activity, number one, for them to deliver a nuclear weapon any place, having one or two is not going to make a lot of sense. it is more worrisome that a weapon or the technology could be proliferated to somebody that is anonymous someplace in the world. and whether they take it there or just say it is in city x, do the following -- the so-called black male approach to this, that is more -- that is the so-
6:06 pm
called blackmail approach to this, that is more worrisome. the closing of the straits, people argue that is equally detrimental still iran. the question is, when does their calculus come to the point where one way or another here, we have to change the game? i think we generally averaged about 14 ships and about 17 million barrels a day through the strait. -- that is 20% of oil per day. that is pretty significant to deny at. we are nonce -- we are not in their head.
6:07 pm
it is difficult to say this is what they are going to do and this is what we are going to do. >> the relationship with israel is superheated, or seems to be getting that way. >> it is interesting. in the past two weeks, u.s. seen the but israeli officials -- you have seen two israeli officials make the claim that iran would have the ability to reach the united states with a missile within five years or so. maybe they will, maybe they won't. i think it was interesting that the israelis felt it necessary to say that publicly, because i thought that was an effort to get iran moved in categories for the obama administration to
6:08 pm
a specific threat to the united states. i do not think that will succeed, but i think it is interesting. one of the concerns -- a weapon that comes in on conventionally. this is why we have the territory policy against north korea, where president bush after the first north korean nuclear test issued a declaratory policy that basically said, if we see your material anywhere around the world, we are going to treated as a direct attack. we have not seen that kind of policy yet issued about iran. questionsake some from the audience. right here. right there. you were the first hand up. >> would a change of regime in syria not be a better policy, because syria -- jahant -- iran
6:09 pm
loves syria, and we have to in syria? wmd's >> who would like to take that? >> i will start and everybody jump in. it would have an effect to say, i you can tell -- but to say you could tell now what that effect would be is difficult. it is the stack up of activities. it is like the blind man approaching the cliff. you do not know exactly where that cliff is and where it will change. what the effect would be and over time how that would manifest itself is hard to forecast. >> no, there are very few
6:10 pm
countries standing tall with syria these days. iran happens to be one of the few. do you have a question? >> [unintelligible] john from csis. i want to take david's notion versus the notion that there is an israeli attack and a series of things that could come from that. if those are two possible scenarios, what was the middle east look like in five years' time if that is where we are? either the iranians move forward, having some sort of ambiguous weapons capability in five years' time, or there is an
6:11 pm
israeli strike that somehow involves us an whatever secondary things come from that -- where is the middle east then, given general cartwright's notion that you can slow down a bomb, but you cannot stop one forever? >> first, it is not an ambiguous capability. i think you see a number of states in the region thinking about an ambiguous capability of their own. a few years ago, you saw the gulf communities announced they were interested in uranium enrichment as well for peaceful power production purposes. but they wanted to make it clear they could also get things going. the one to watch most clearly is saudi arabia. again from which he leaks --
6:12 pm
wikileaks, the saudi king said to cut off the head from united states. presumably, they could go out and buy a capability from pakistan, some other place. whether or not they would want to risk buying of full capability or just try to assemble all the component parts, if the iranians, too, were a screwdriver away, i think that could be a likelihood. i do not think there would be an israeli strike six months after, much less five years after. i do not know how the region could readjust to normal, if you call anything in the region normal. when you talk to a israelis about the operation, their
6:13 pm
answer is, well, if we get two or three years, that is two or three years. that is a sort of mowing the lawn approach to the issue. i am doubtful they could do this multiple times. >> right here. >> thank you. if you could elaborate a little bit on something you briefly touched upon before, that even if the iranian internal opposition looks favorable to a nuclear weapon, or at least a nuclear program, is your sense, gentleman, that should there be real regime change internally generated in iran, more secular,
6:14 pm
whatever, an opposition force comes in, that we will be dealing with the same situation? in other words, still an iranian leadership that still want to weapons programs? or would they be more inclined to be compliant? etc, etc.? >> good question. i am not sure about some of the data here. what i have seen is some significant support within the population for their ability, being able to have a domestic nuclear capability, not weapons, not bombs. i think again, there's a lot of fuzziness here. i have not seen anything at all that indicates the general population thinks it is a great idea to have a nuclear weapon. i think the reality is time may
6:15 pm
be running against the regime of. against the regime. they can play this game of ambiguity. maybe they are stalling. if they get the capability, it is game over pretty quickly. meanwhile, it plays out and the israelis will probably continue to be nervous. but meanwhile, what else is going on? so, as the sanctions begin to bite, the other countries are around the region are scrambling to figure out how they can take this market away from the iranians. we have something in the wings here in iraq, for example, where the economy has stagnated
6:16 pm
for years. there are a lot of oil experts in the country working to change that around. the potential is huge. other countries, the uae is working hard on a pipeline from the red sea. meanwhile, inside iran, things are getting tougher, pretty clearly. it seems to me in their calculus, their understanding of where they are, time is not on their side. they are going to have to start doing something other than yakking. that does not mean go blow something up. if you think about the consequences, that would be a very dumb thing to do. >> i cannot guess what is going to happen in five years, but i think the trend here is the intellectual capital to create a nuclear weapon is out there.
6:17 pm
this problem we are experiencing with north korea and iran, even if you take them out of the equation, is not going away from the world. proliferation of knowledge is out there and engineering. this is not undoable. we think of this activity like the eisenhower build up and all of these things, that they are going to make this exquisite weapon. there is no reason to do that. there is no reason to go to the proliferation and all of these things. this is not a problem we will solve by having iran change its mind. it is more a problem we will have to handle as a global community. yes, ma'am? >> thank you. barbara up from the atlantic council. i am trying to understand the
6:18 pm
ramifications of iran with a neuke? would it affect their ability to keep the strait open to traffic? and how do we convinced that this is not an exit -- and existential threat to israel? >> the israelis are going to convince themselves what they want to do, and it will be based on their perception, at how they read the situation. iran, again, with nuclear weapons -- i expect we would make it very clear that if things were used, that is probably one of the last things the leaders would get to do. so, we have a lot of national
6:19 pm
interests, and so do other countries. there are a lot of other things going on in the world. if you just stop for a second and run the clock back nine months or so, it seems to me, for nine months, there was very little you heard about in iran. why? other things going on. the arab spring. season.e in the hype the baseball season has not begun yet or something. [laughter] >> you both have had a lifetime in the military. you know what is going on in the military community. you know what military people are thinking. is there any school of thought amongst the military that we ought to take military action, that this thing poses such a danger that if we find a nuclear
6:20 pm
weapon, we should take them out? >> that is a difficult question, because at the leadership tells us to go, it does not matter what we think. [laughter] >> i understand that. that is why i am trying to get to that question. before a political decision has to be made. >> as a former military person -- [laughter] i do not see a lot of value going in. >> do you know anybody that does? >> fox might. i do not know. [laughter] >> it is in inverse proportion to those who have had experience of what happens in wars to those who have an awful lot to say about it. it is certainly not anything someone who has a real sense of
6:21 pm
what happens in these conflicts would wish to have happened. sometimes you are forced into situations. >> what about you, david? who you talk to? >> i have never interviewed any current or former military person who had an opinion different from what you just heard here. in fact, many say other methods, whether it is sanctions, covert actions could baez as much time, maybe more time than a military -- could buy us as much time, maybe more time than a military action. unless the iranians believe there is a significant military option out there, and they have no option under diplomacy, no leverage elsewhere. they have a dilemma where they have to talk up the military option and have our real military option.
6:22 pm
if they hope to gain the leverage not to use it. at think the american concern is while they would happily bill that up -- build that up, this administration is clearly concerned the israelis would go off and use it if they get to the point where the program is buried so deep or spread out so far that there is no way military action would make it viable. >> ok. back to the back here. that is right. >> cameron lucey. i would like to go back to the rhetoric. history has a history of misreading signals, all -- what can we do to ratchet the rhetoric down?
6:23 pm
>> shut up. [laughter] actually, i think i read last week that that comment was made by benjamin netanyahu in israel, exactly those words. just turn it off. how do we get people to understand our intentions? often a challenge when you have lots of preconceived notions and 34 years of bad history here. being consistent, getting support from friends and allies in the region, having demonstrated capability. i was never one to like to drag on terrific people and what they can do, but we can demonstrate and we certainly have demonstrated our capability. it should not even be an issue.
6:24 pm
>> does israel have the capability to do this? do we have the capability? i guess if you use nuclear weapons, we would. >> you mean to stop them? no, no. if they have the intent, all the weapons in the world are not going to change that. because the knowledge of their. >> ok. over here. >> thank you. my name is nathaniel markowitz. my conundrum is that given that diplomacy requires a federal force, and on one hand, wrist debate is part of democracy, -- vigorous debate is part of democracy -- is it possible that
6:25 pm
even having the discussion publicly is actually limiting the options and might even increase the likelihood that people think we might have to make an attack? >> my 2 cents would be it is certainly possible that is the case, but probably unlikely. they do not know exactly what is in our head anymore than we know what is in their head, and that ambiguity works in our favor. you always build up your adversary to be 10 feet tall. because you have to. you do not want to take the risk of underestimating your adversary. it is unlikely that will undimi nish the likelihood of a strike. while you want to turn down the rhetoric, you want to work hard to have an official channel that is open for dialogue.
6:26 pm
so, the ambiguity at least can be addressed, out whether you believe the guy on the other side of the table or not is another issue, but at least to have an official dialogue so when something goes awry, whether it is in the gulf or some other way, that there is clearly a way to diffuse it as quickly as possible. iranians have demonstrated an ability to manage escalation. they really have stayed below the threshold that would precipitate a counterattack. >> yes, sir? >> just to add to what general cartwright said. i think it is important that at the end of the day, these are people. 70 million of them. they have aspirations. desires. there needs to be, before demonstrated cooperation and to
6:27 pm
walk away from things that are detrimental to the region, something in this for them, some light at the end of the tunnel. not closing off all options, but hey, we will play a role in the region. you have a lot of people that would be helpful if you would be cooperative in dealing with issues in -- with your neighbors. >> the iranians have indicated that many moments over the past decade and openness to talk to the united states. in 2001 after 9/11, and unrequited offer they got faxed to the state department in 2003. it never went anywhere in the bush administration. again, at one point in the discussions with the europeans when the iranians said they
6:28 pm
were willing to only enrich for their energy needs, which would have put a significant limit on it. that is what president obama tried to reverse with his early outreach to them. the problem is the outreach happened a few months before the iranian elections were put down with such force, and after that, it never really recovered from all of that. >> thank you. >> this will be our last question. i am sorry. >> would you discussed the role of china -- would you discuss the role of china and how that would affect u.s. policy and u.s. interest in the asia-
6:29 pm
pacific region? >> good question. let's go around the horn here. that will be our last question. >> in relation to iran -- the chinese obviously feel they it need -- they need and our customers to the oil production associated with iran and other economic agreements that go on. bair in a very difficult position here. how do they support not having a weapon be developed and not undermine their need for the energy resources they are buying? in trying to do the calculation of cross-benefit, right now, as with other countries, what they would like to see happen is a diplomatic solution to this activity. probably even if it included some sort of nuclear capability,
6:30 pm
whether it be for energy or more. if that gets for closed, then they have a hard decision and they have to think through that and if they have to go somewhere else for that energy, that would put pressure in the south pacific. >> they clearly have their needs or other energy sources -- they have another issue, still. there is an aversion to activity by eight nations -- by nations that metal with -- meddle with internal affairs. they want to maintain the status quo with china. one of the things that is very unsettling with them is the activity is destabilizing.
6:31 pm
if they see or perceive that people are ganging up to instigate similar trouble in iran, iran today maybe try tomorrow. that is a drag, a break on activity we would like to see move forward to get china to be more cooperative and helpful. china decided, ok, we will go somewhere else. it would be a huge additional terms of the screws with iran. whether they do that or not is probably up in the air. >> the above lot. -- a ministration tried to come up with alternative energy. they talked with other suppliers. iraq is giving up production. it comes back in. it is not clear that any of that is going to win the chinese of this oil.
6:32 pm
the chinese see at a great opportunity. they believe the iranians are going to sell their oil at a significant discount. given the sanctions. the behind-the-scenes diplomacy they try to get the oil to backfill and by. -- that will be the struggle of the next few months. >> one thought here and i will shut up. there are different ways to approach this. gra village person on the neck and beat on them. the other one is to look around and see how many tools you can bear. things are changing. there is availability of natural
6:33 pm
gas in this country. a lot of things are in play. and emphasizing those things as things that could be helpful in the situation rather than we're going to beat amar not. -- b. them or not. -- beat them or not. >> thank you. [applause]
6:34 pm
6:35 pm
>> from this year's economic forum in davos. see the heads of the world bank and international monetary fund along with other global leaders. as they talk about the future of the world's economy. >> no one is immune in the current situation. it is not just the eurozone crisis. it is the crisis that could have collateral effects, spillover effects in the world. what we're seeing in numbers and
6:36 pm
forecast is no country is immune. everybody has an interest. in making sure this crisis is resolved adequately. >> i have been in public service, most of which is involved in public finance for over four decades. i have never been this year is now. what is happening in europe, looking at what our experience is in the crisis. and the crisis we had in the 1990's. this is very big issue. first of all, i agree entirely with christine. nobody is immune. we are all connected with each other. >> you can see this discussion tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. we will have more from the world economic forum tomorrow including a panel on the political and economic future of africa. and the ceo's of several major corporations talk about the role
6:37 pm
of their companies are playing in the global economic recovery. >> friday, former massachusetts governor and candidate mitt romney unveils his jobs and tax cut plan, speaking before the economic club in michigan. four days before that state holds its presidential primary. see it tomorrow at 12:15 p.m. eastern here on c-span. next, a discussion on the impact of law as requiring voters to have state issued id cards. laura murphy is the that is the director for the aclu. -- is the director for the aclu. from the national press club, this is one hour.
6:38 pm
>> good morning, everybody. hello. good morning, everybody. welcome to the national press club. we are a global body of more than 300,000 members. if you are not familiar, please do visit our website, press.org and become a member and if you're in d.c. you have amazing benefits. with that, i will shift to the subject today. that is the new voter i.d. laws that are coming up in all the state's one by one. and we have two major experts here. we have laura murphy, director of the of legislative office of the american civil liberties union. we have hans -- i hope i
6:39 pm
pronounced that much. he is now with the heritage foundation but has been in the field for some time. without wasting much time on my panelblah, i will ask asour is to introduce his opening remarks -- panelist to introduce his or opening remarks. -- his opening remarks. >> it is a little unusual. we're here today opposing each other on voter i.d.. i should say we are not always on opposite sides. we're on the same side on the
6:40 pm
citizens united decision where i filed a brief along with other commissioners and a sealed -- aclu filed. one of the key principles of any fair election is making sure that the person to cast a vote is legally eligible to do so and the fairest way to do that is by making sure that individuals authenticate their citizenship when registering to vote and authenticate their identity when they appear at the polling place to vote. this kind of requirements also increase public confidence in our election process. lincoln chafee, when he signed idand -- rhode island's new law, in a state the democrats controlled the senate, he said it was a reasonable request to
6:41 pm
ensure the accuracy and integrity of our elections. unlike what opponents say which this can only in person -- prevent impersonation fraud, sometimes it will admit it. others say it does not happen. that is incorrect. it can prevent people from voting under fictitious voter registration names or voting in the names of other individuals like people who are dead. we know because of a study that there are 2 million people who are deceased or on the voter registration rolls. it can prevent double rowling -- coatings -- double voting. also it can prevent illegal aliens from registering and voting. there were examples of that that have occurred around the country. when justice john paul stevens was not exactly a conservative justice, he is one of the
6:42 pm
liberal stalwarts wrote the majority opinion that help -- upheld the indiana voter i.d. law he made the point that such examples have been documented throughout history by respected historians and journalists. not only is the risk will but it could affect the outcome of a close election. the idea that this will prevent individuals from voting that claim it is intended to suppress the vote and the elderly has been disproven in the courtroom and is proven in the polling place. the aclu filed a lawsuit against the state of georgia in 2005 when georgia passed its total ideologue. there was two years of litigation. the exact same claims being made today by the aclu, and others that there are hundreds of thousands of people who will be not able to vote because they do
6:43 pm
not have a photo id and will not be able to obtain the free flow idea that every state has provided as part of their lot. it turned out the reason they're lawsuit was dismissed by the federal judge is because -- this was from the georgia federal district court. although plaintiffs claim to know people who claim they lack from friday, plaintiffs have failed to identify those individuals. the failure is acute in light of the plaintiff's contention that a large number of voters lack acceptable photo id. the fact that plan gives in spite of their efforts have failed to uncover any one who can attest to the fact that he or she will be prevented from voting provide significant support for conclusion that the requirement does not unduly burden the right to vote. the interesting thing about this
6:44 pm
is it can find almost the exact same quotes from the federal district court judge in the indian act case. when the case was dismissed, the judge said despite apocalyptic assertions of wholesale voter disenfranchise, plaintiffs have produced not a single piece of evidence of any identifiable registered voter who would be prevented from voting. what happened in the polling places in indiana and georgia since these laws went into effect, they have been in effect for five or six years. we have had to federal elections, numerous local elections, and contrary to the assertions this would depress the turnout especially of minority voters, the exact opposite happened. in 2001 turnout went out generally across the country, we had one of the highest turnout in the presidential election in
6:45 pm
decades. the turnout of democratic voters increase by over six percentage points for over -- in 2004 when there was no photo id law in effect in georgia. they had the largest turnout in an election in georgia in history. that was the fifth largest increase in voter turnout of any state in the country, including many states that do not have photo id. the same thing happened in indiana. they had an increase in democratic turnout of eight percentage points. the largest increase of any state in the country. for those who say that 2008 was a special election, that does not work. you'll get turnout in the 2010 elections, you also had a big increase, the turnout of african-american voters went up by seven percentage points from
6:46 pm
2006, the last midterm congressional election when there was no photo id law in effect. in indiana in 2010, the black share of the vote to in the midterm election was larger than the black share of the vote in the two south -- 2008 presidential election. much is made of this idea that there is not any voter fraud in the u.s. there have been cases prosecuted across the country for many different problems and election crimes. there is a case going on right now in new york where 46 voters have testified they did not vote in the election and yet ballots were cast in their name. that case involves an absentee ballot fraud. in fact, if combined with changes to the ballot laws, can help produce the kind of fraud, also. in october, arthur davis, former
6:47 pm
congressman from alabama, a former member of the black congressional caucus, wrote a commentary in the amontgomery newspaper. he said i have changed my mind on voter i.d. laws. i think alabama did the right thing in passing one. i wish i had got it right when i was in political office. what i was a congressman i took the path of least resistance on this subject without any evidence to back it. i lapse into the rhetoric of various partisans and activists. he goes on to say that for those who say no voter fraud, he saw it in his elections in alabama. he was approached by a vote to brokers who for the right amounts of money would manufacture the ballots needed in the polling place or through absentee ballots. he said some of the worst victims of voter fraud were in
6:48 pm
fact in the african-american community. i saw that in the case i wrote about of a federal prosecution in the mid-1990's in greene county, alabama where unfortunately local commissioners and city councilmen were stealing votes and winning elections by doing that and the person -- the people they were stealing votes from four other democratic challengers. people who wanted to clean up local government. the right to work in the u.s. is just as fundamental right as the right to vote. under federal law, if you want to get a job, you have to authenticate your identity and authenticate your citizenship. or your work visa to be able to work as a non-citizen. that is no different than what states want to do in the voting context. i would end with a quote from
6:49 pm
john bryan who said, "voting is one of the most important rights and duties we have as americans, and it should be treated accordingly." i certainly agree with that. thank you. >> i am director of the aclu washington legislative office. i am laura murphy. i could not disagree more with what hans has said. his statistics on the state of georgia and indiana are very flawed and several election law scholars around the country in the nonpartisan brannan center have divined his assertion that there is no relationship between the photo id laz in georgia and the electoral turnout that increased in the 2008 elections. the methodology he has used has
6:50 pm
been analyzed and it shows that it does not control for certain other factors. there has been a huge migration of a map -- african-americans to the south. it was documented in the "washington post" series. there is -- he wants to say that voter i.d. has not caused a lower turnout. we do not know the relationship to the top of the ticket in 2008. we do not know whether or not turnout would have been greater in 2008. but for photo id requirements. i want to get back to some of the fundamentals. the supreme court has described the right to vote as the right that is preservative of all rights. hans talks about the right to work but voting is a much more cherished right and much more upheld right in our constitution than any other right. it is protected by the first,
6:51 pm
the 14th, the 15th, the 19th, and the twenty-fourth, and the 26 amendments to the constitution. unfortunately, there is a tragic history of american political parties using fraud allegations to restrict the electric for partisan advantage. after the 15th amendment was passed in 1870, newly freed slaves were allowed to vote and were able to elect several african-american republicans to the house and the senate. in the democratic party at that time -- the democratic party became enraged and energized itself to alleged fraud by black voters. barriers like literacy tests were erected to circumvent the 14th and 15th amendment. there was a resistance to fundamental constitutional rights that ushered in nearly a century of jim crow laws. those laws were not addressed again until 1965 with the passage of the voting rights
6:52 pm
act. the people have to be beaten, fire hose, bitten by police dogs, and sometimes killed in order to win the right to vote. finally lyndon johnson and others said that we need stronger and more elaborate measures. that is how the voting rights act of 1965 came about. fast forward to this era. hans is quick to point out that some democrats have supported photo id legislation. the vast majority of state legislatures that are in -- enacting total id laws and other barriers are republican- controlled legislators who may fear that low-income people, students, the elderly, the disabled, and racial minorities are taking aim at their political power. so to regain our strength than
6:53 pm
the electoral advantage, largely republicans and in some small cases, democrats, are foisting upon us the largely faceless and abstract allegations of voter fraud as the rationale for a series of voter suppression laws. in the 2011 legislative session, progressive and burdensome measures were introduced in more than 30 states which -- with 16 states advancing new or expanded barriers to voting. the most common was the voter ideologue. the others include requiring proof of citizenship when registering to vote, shortening the time allowed for early voting, eliminating same day voter registration, making it more difficult for a third party organizations like the league of women voters to contact voter registration, and rolling criminal entrenchment -- enfranchisement laws. while these tactics are different, the attack -- the impact is the same.
6:54 pm
making it more difficult to vote. with respect to voter i.d. in particular, 31 states have laws requiring voters to present some form of identification to vote in federal, state, and local elections. some laws or ballot initiative passed in 2011 have not yet gone into effect. some also must be pre-cleared by the justice department under section 5 of the voting rights act. in 16 of those 31 states, voters must or will soon be required to present a photo i.d. that in many states must be government issued in order to cast a ballot. voter i.d. laz deny the right to thousands of citizen voters who do not have or cannot obtain limited forms of identification that states except for voting. many of these americans cannot afford to pay for the required documents needed to secure a
6:55 pm
government issued photo id. while in some states the fatah id is provided free of charge, the supporting documents, the birth certificates, marriage certificates, the passports can add up to significant costs especially for low-income people. more than 21 million americans of voting age lacked documentation that would satisfy these photo id laws. these americans are disproportionately low-income, racial, and ethnic minorities, the elderly, and disabled voters. to put this in perspective, as many as 25% of african-americans of voting age lack of government issued photo id, compared to only 8% of their white counterparts and nearly one in five americans over the age of 65 do not have a government- issued photo id. in texas, the new lot permits an
6:56 pm
individual to show a license to carry concealed firearm will -- but will not accept a college student's idf is sufficient to cast a ballot. furthermore, no eligible citizen should have to pay to vote. the aclu believes requiring voters to obtain a government issued photo id in order to about is tantamount to a poll tax. although some states issue id's for free, the supporting documents, birth certificates and other things i said earlier required to obtain a government issued id cost money and many americans cannot simply afford to pay the for them. state -- millions of dollars when providing id's to voters who do not have them. given the financial strain many states are experiencing, this is truly an unnecessary allocation of taxpayer dollars.
6:57 pm
also, what about the additional time and resources it would take to check id at the polling places? already longines enough? people say if you do not have a photo i.d., what should you do? state should allow people to sign an affidavit attesting to their citizenship and identity and face prosecution for perjury or other criminal offenses if they turn out not to be who they say they are. stopping voter fraud is a positive rationale for these laws. there is no credible evidence that in person voter fraud, the only type of fraud that friday could prevent is a minor problem. in part this is because in person fraud by individual voters is such an ineffective way to influence an election. at most, it yields one additional vote. with federal and state criminal
6:58 pm
penalties for election fraud, in all 50 states, there are severe and effective mechanisms for deterring in prosecuting the rare cases of actual individual voter fraud. there is much more evidence, however, that citizens are disenfranchised by these measures then there is evidence of individual voter fraud. these anti-fraud laws are the real threat to our constitutional rights. our nation should be expanding the franchise. we should end practices which threaten the integrity of elections such as improper purges of voters, voter harassment, and the distribution of false information about when and where to vote. none of these issues, however, are dressed or can be resolved with the photo id requirement. by raising the unsubstantiated specter of voter fraud, proponents of these measures are imbuing the electorate and the election process with
6:59 pm
unjustified fear. that is the true harm being perpetrated on the american people. the widespread voter suppression measures enacted by state legislatures and your ballot initiatives is nothing short of a crass power grab by certain groups of lawmakers and interest groups to stop people from voting against those empowered and the ideas they support. the effectiveness of these laws is broader [unintelligible] even though racial minority groups will be affected disproportionately. these laws burden constitutional rights of many other groups. for example, local registrars in college towns have pressured students not to vote and young people do not have the resources to fight back. there are citizens in rural areas who cannot get an idea because they did not own a car to get to the dmv and public transportation is not accessible.
7:00 pm
people cannot afford to leave their hourly wage jobs to get to the appropriate state offices during normal business hours. for those with disabilities, of voting is already challenging and these laws interfere with their constitutional rights as well. should these issues interfere with such a fundamental right of citizenship? the state photo id bills have been keeping the three prongs of the aclu's work in full tilt. lobbies, voting laws and state legislatures that we find suppressive, we pursue litigation in courts, and we educate and mobilize our members and others. we have put down briefings and provided testimony on capitol hill. we're also challenging the laws in court. in wisconsin, the national aclu and its affiliate in the national law center on homelessness and poverty filed a federal lawsuit charging wisconsin voter i.d. laws are
7:01 pm
unconstitutional. we're challenging the law under the 14th and 24th amendment on behalf of 17 eligible voters who may not be able to vote under the law. they include ruth frank, 84, who has been an elected official since 1996. she cannot produce her birth certificate to get the state required friday because she was born at home in 1927. it includes choral -- carl ellis, whose veterans id card is not accessible -- acceptable in wisconsin and includes anthony sharpe who is 19, a young african-american man who does not have his birth certificate and cannot afford the $20 to get a certified copy of his birth certificate. i look forward to your questions. i want to end by saying our
7:02 pm
country has come a long way since the passage of the voting rights act. voter i.d. requirements are a major step backwards in our ongoing quest for a more democratic society. elected officials should be seeking ways to encourage more voters, not inventing excuses to deny voters the ability to cast their ballots. right now, there is the looming possibility that many voters will be to my -- be denied their ultimate and -- expression of democracy. that is voting. i look forward your questions and i look forward to a vigorous debate with tons -- hans. >> thank you very much. that was quite a bit of information. i would like to add that when you ask a question, please see
7:03 pm
your name, organization, and please do not start a political discourse. keep your question to the point. is there first question -- a first question? >> i have one question for each of you. first, laura. if so many people do not have id, we keep hearing of cases and elections where it does not seem to be a problem. we have the wisconsin primary this week. by all reports, there were few if any problems with the new id requirement. that is my question for you. and hans, the cases we have seen of voter fraud have been very
7:04 pm
organized. they are by one party or another or by election officials. if somebody is intent on committing fraud, why do they not just use fake i.d.? we have fake i.d. all around this country. this election officials are not going to be able to determine what is or is not a fake i.d.. my question is how will id, that requirement going to stop this efforts? >> the wisconsin vote demonstrated those people who were able to get friday and come out and vote. it did not demonstrate the people who did not have the resources to purchase a photo i.d. or the resources to get one. i do not think that you can judge the outcome of the effect of the wisconsin photo id law unless you look at the cases and the individuals that we're bringing forward and see the barriers that were erected in
7:05 pm
their participation in that election. >> a quick comment. the same claims have been made now for five or six years. in every election, none of these claims have materialized. on your question, no one says that photo id is a perfect solution to this kind of security problem. i am an election official in virginia. i can tell you there is a series of steps you have to take to provide security in the election process. yes, if someone gets a fake id, perhaps they will be able to vote. that makes it much tougher to do that. the great example of this is in new york city, brooklyn, kings county. the mid-1980's. a grand jury report was released there and the state grand jury report detailed a 14-year-long organized voter fraud conspiracy
7:06 pm
to cast thousands of fraudulent votes in democratic primaries and one of the ways they did it is they had crews of people who went from polling place to polling place voting in the names of people who were dead but still on the list, voting in the names of individuals who had moved out of that jurisdiction who were still on the list. they could have perhaps gotten a fake i.d. for lots of people to stop doing that. that would have been much tougher for them to do. it is not a perfect solution. there is no security that is perfect in anything you do including in the voting process. >> i want to add one thing about evidence where we have -- we do have all the laws have interfered with the voting. three years after indiana passed its 2005 voter ideologue, 1000 people showed up at the polls without identification.
7:07 pm
most of their ballots were not counted. that is not a huge number compared to the 2.8 million indiana voters who voted in that election. but it does -- the is not include an unknown number who did not vote knowing they lacked id. the question is, what is our default position? our default position should be that if you are 18, if you are a u.s. citizen, you should be allowed to vote. we do have a problem in this country with failure to purge and clean up voting rolls. no one is contesting the fact that there are problems in our electoral system. the problem is not individuals by and large misrepresenting themselves. the problem is we do not have laws that are in compliance with the national voter registration act, with the help america vote act, we had -- the rules are
7:08 pm
being cleaned up so people can not appear and show up and vote in the name of a dead person. >> can you respond to the 1000 people who showed up in indiana without id and could not vote? >> they could have easily got -- in the aclu case in georgia, the same claim was made. i got copies of the depositions in that case. in each deposition of a witness that was brought forward it turned out that in the questioning each of these individuals could have easily gotten a photo id. they just did not bother to do it before the election. that is not a problem -- the judge, that is what the judge said. people can read the opinion and they will see how the case was dismissed. the case was dismissed and the
7:09 pm
law has been in effect since the dismissal for five years. in that time, the aclu has not gone back to court and come up with any individuals who would be not able to vote because of the law. by the way, half a dozen of the plaintiffs named in the lawsuit in wisconsin are people who have followed drivers' licenses from other states. their complaint is they do not want to have to trade in their driver's license from another state and get a wisconsin drivers license. normally you only get a driver's license where you are a resident. if i have driver's licenses from other states, they could i guess be attempting to vote twice and perhaps the aclu wants them to be able to vote twice because they have photo i.d. from other states where they are supposedly not residents. >> just to clarify one thing.
7:10 pm
both of you are mentioning about the photo id. can both of you in two sentences defined a common photo i.d.? applicable ever wear? >> there is -- that is the problem. there is not a photo id applicable everywhere. some states, there are degrees of friday. some states will not allow you to use an expired photo id from the same state. some will not allow you to use a photo id from out of state. some states will allow you to show if you have a driver's license from out of state, you have moved there you can produce a utility bill or something else to show that you are in fact a resident. some states allow that. there are arranged of laws. is statewe're seeing legislatures are adopting much more restrictive laws prevented my mother to the polls.
7:11 pm
she stopped driving at the age of 70. she ran for elected office to times in baltimore. she died at the age of 84. she did not have to use an updated photo id to fly, to enter a government office building, or to vote. she was a very active member of society. i do not understand why this most important expression of citizenship should be so burdened by costs. you look at any congressional district, you will find hundreds of polling places. you are not likely to find hundreds of department of motor vehicle offices. you have to go great distances. a lot of people do not have a photo id in nyc because they do not own a car.
7:12 pm
this does not impede people's access to the polls, the idea is ridiculous. if you do not believe the aclu, i would like you and to any of the reporters in the room, i would be happy to send you a 2005 letter from the secretary of state who was but -- betting the governor not to sign the photo id bill into law. she said it was not necessary, it creates significant obstacles in voting, it was not likely to receive pre-clearance of the voting rights act by the justice department. it violates the constitution of georgia. it was hans who made sure that voter i.d. lot got cleared over the objection of six career employees who wrote to congress to denounce him after he was
7:13 pm
appointed to the federal elections commission and successfully got him to withdraw his application to be becauseed by the sec be care they said he used some of political influence to uphold that lot. hans is deeply invested in voter i.d. laws. he has the right to his beliefs. it is not just the aclu who is concerned about this. there are many secretary of abouts who are concerned the burdens these laws place on the electoral process. >> i did not realize this would devolve into personal attacks. i believe i have the ability to respond to that. the justice department pre-clear they'd laugh because all the data that was submitted by the state showed it would not be discriminatory. the chief of the voting section,
7:14 pm
a 30-year veteran of the department testified before congress. his opinion was it was not discriminatory. who was correct, some of the employees who complained? in the aclu lawsuit that was filed against the georgia boater ideologue, a claim was made that the law was discriminatory under the voting rights act. the court found it was not discriminatory. the proof in the pudding is the fact that, in elections since the election date that i got from america at university and from the secretary of state's own voting site, show that in fact, turnout went up and they have had no problems with the law. i might mention kathy cox was planning her run for governor
7:15 pm
which she then lost. >> thank you. i would like to remind you that this discussion is about the actual and potential impacts of the new law. if the questions and the answers can stick to these, please. >> [inaudible] i have two questions. student voting. the university of virginia has 50% of students out of state. there is a movement that we have to present a student id in order to vote. i would think there is potential fraud there. my second question is about to immigrants voting. we have -- [inaudible] talking about a new campaign and
7:16 pm
we know that immigrants are not citizens. how do -- how does the aclu feel that citizenship should be verified? because of the driver's license or a utility bill is not going to verify citizenship. >> your question is addressed to both? >> i think your heritage foundation has done some work. >> there's all kinds of cases showing citizens, people who are not citizens voting. anyone who wants to see the most recent story, just google an nbc station in collier county. they found 100 individuals in one county in florida who were registered and who had voted in local elections and were not u.s. citizens. the only way to do this is to do
7:17 pm
what arizona, georgia, and kansas have done. require proof of citizenship when you register to vote. for those who are interested, georgia because it is a section 5 state had to submit its proof of citizenship requirement to the justice department for pre- clearance. the justice department, the obama administration pre- cleared the law and said it was not discriminatory under section 5 and that is why that law is in effect and in place in georgia. >> i would only ask that you look at the numbers of people who have attempted to vote who are non-citizens. you will see that they are infinitesimal part of the electorate. in many times people who are in naturalization proceedings make the mistake of assuming they are able to vote. it does not necessarily show
7:18 pm
because some people have tried to vote that their intent, it does not prove their -- it was their intent to defraud the system. sometimes they're under the impression they are eligible to vote when they are not eligible to vote. the same thing has happened to people who have served their debt to society through criminal penalties. some of them believe they're eligible to vote when they are not. i think it is important to look at the proportion of people who engage in this behavior compared to the number of people who vote and are voting lawfully. you will find the percentage is infinitesimal. we have to ask ourselves whether the burden to go after this tiny group of people is worse than the burden placed on legitimate, eligible voters.
7:19 pm
states are the people in charge of who is eligible to vote and who was qualified to vote in that particular state. if the student declares residency in their college town, the question becomes, do they have to transfer their driver's license from their home state? do they have to pay bills? what is it? i think if a student declares residency in their college town, and they are otherwise qualified to vote, the question i have is, why should they not able to vote if they have declared and they are duly registered. why should they not be eligible to vote? >> a moment of rare agreement. i certainly agree with that. >> what impacct do you expect from the doj decision on south
7:20 pm
carolina? have they considered similar laws or not? >> the south carolina attorney general has filed a lawsuit to overturn the justice department's decision. i think they're going to win. the data that south carolina submitted after the adjusted it showed that they took their voter registration lists and compared it to the dmv list. once they had taken out people who were dead, and tens of thousands, there were still on the registration lists. there were tens of thousands who had moved at a state. once they took a bad dinner out, it showed that before they have done anything to try to get people free aideed who do not have one, only 1% -- a little over 1% of individuals registered to vote do not already have a driver's license.
7:21 pm
the idea that it is going to have a discriminatory impact, i do not think the justice department will be able to prove that in court and they will lose and south carolina's law will be upheld at a federal district court. smallnk that is oa difference. not only does south carolina provide a free photo id, they put in another provision. it says if you shop at a polling place without an id, and you sign an affidavit in which you say you had are reasonable impediment, that is the language in the law, that prevented you from getting a photo id trade with -- you will be given a provisional ballot and the ballot will be counted unless local election officials had evidence that you are not the person who you say you are. >> the supreme court in the prof
7:22 pm
-- crawford decision challenging the law in indiana said they would not strike down a lot on a challenge. they left open the door for an as applied challenge. and so what we now have the burden of doing in the states that are passing photo id laz, it is the expensive task of finding out who is infected and who was not affected and bringing forth their stories. we think we're gathering compelling stories in missouri and wisconsin and arizona. we intend to litigate this as long as we are around. we think this is an egregious and unnecessary barrier to voting under the guise of
7:23 pm
attempting to do something about fraud. we all should look at the pew study. it did talk about the flaws in the voting system. the flaws would do more to poor record-keeping. we have to clean up our voter rolls and if we get more states to comply with the national voter registration act and help -- the help america vote act, we would not have so many poorly maintained voting records. the problem is with the way that the state operates the election laws, not with the numbers of bend -- individuals who are trying to commit fraud. again, if you go to the polls and represent that you are not the person you say you are, you are only successful in changing one vote. that is not an intelligent way to go about fraud.
7:24 pm
the real fraud comes in coming false information, telling people, moving polling places at the last minute, not purging the roles of dead people. that is where you get into the real numbers. these cases of individuals going to the polls and representing they are not someone who they are are rare. we also have to take into account that people have the same names. there are four william h. murphys in my family. what is deceased and three are alive. they have the same name, two of them have the same card that looks just alike. it is easy to transpose the social security number or some other -- and a dress. some people will look at that is fraud. when that is really poor record- keeping that leads people to that conclusion.
7:25 pm
that people are trying to double blow. -- double vote. >> you kind of answer this but i was hoping you could sum up what you think [inaudible] what effect they will have on the presidential election in november. >> they will prevent people who are not eligible to vote from voting. where would that make a difference? it will make a difference in any state where there is a close election, you do not get that that often in national elections but you get it all lot in local elections which are often decided by a very small number of votes. a good example of this is the state senate race in tennessee where they passed the photo id law. the state senate race which was 13 votes.
7:26 pm
in 2005 and 2007. the race, an election was overturned by the state legislature. why? because when the end -- the investigated not only were there some local election officials committing fraud, there were votes cast by individuals whose address was a vacant lot. and people who lived not in the district where this was going on. that shows how this kind of fraud can affect a close election. i agree with laura. we have a problem with sloppy voter registration records. the pew center report shows that. something that has gone unmentioned. a year-and-a-half ago there was sworn testimony before the u.s. commission on civil rights by two former career lawyers in the voting section of the civil- rights division department of justice including the former chief of the voting section, long time career lawyer at the section who said that he had recommended eight states for
7:27 pm
investigation for not complying with the provision of the voter that requires cleaning up roles and nothing was ever done about it. he was specifically told by the political appointees within the division that the administration had no interest whatsoever in enforcing this particular provision of the law. >> that is certainly not what the attorney general. officials at the justice department have told us. they have told us they are interested in enforcing the voting rights act. then that -- national voter registration act and the help america boat act. i do not know who these officials are. the impact going back to your question on the 2012 elections, what we do know is that it is not likely that these laws will be adjudicated before the election. the supreme court is not going to likely hear any more cases
7:28 pm
before the november 2012 election or issue any verdicts. and so, we are figuring out ways to educate people. we believe there will be many eligible voters who will not turn out because they believe they do not have the proper identification to vote. we believe the fraud allegations have the potential to scare people away from the polls and we're concerned about that. and so it is incumbent upon the media and interest groups who want airbus and participatory society to educate people about what the state law requires and to seek assistance of organizations like ours in trying to turn out and vote. i think it will have an impact on the elections. we just do not know how it will
7:29 pm
impact. >> just following on what laur murphree just said. if -- you said you don't think the supreme court will resolve this before november. if the allies enjoyed in wisconsin -- the law is wisconsin -- q>> [unintelligible] >> the supreme court would to re this before november. >> it is hard to predict. >> can either of you relate we
7:30 pm
did in this filing, texas said the court must give clearance to the photo id law and order to avoid constitutional question about section five. they are saying if he did not let us use this law, can you relate this to the ongoing litigation over section 5? >> there are a number of pending cases that say when section 5 was renewed in 2006, it was unconstitutional. the basic claim is that in 1965 when it was passed, it was a temporary five-year emergency provision. it was consider constitutional. there was systematic official discrimination against african american voters. the claim is being made and they are contesting this. it was renewed.
7:31 pm
there is no evidence of the widespread discrimination that justified it in 1965. there's no evidence to show that states like virginia, which is still covered, but are today so different from the neighboring states like maryland and pennsylvania which are not covered that the federal government should have approval rights over laws that are passed by the state. it is a very extraordinary intrusion into the rights of a sovereign state. there are two of their cases -- other cases that are at the court of appeals. did the texas case is behind that. i think they have a good claim that this photo id law, there is no evidence that it is discriminatory. if the justice department objected to it, that is further
7:32 pm
evidence that section 5 is not constitutional anymore. >> no. congress went to great pains to establish a record in 2006. it was signed into law by a republican president. i do not know who was in control of the congress at the time. it was split control. republicans have used the voting rights act in redistricting and relied upon it ever since it passed none could 1965. i doubt that in a split congress with a republican president if there was a record that was absent that did not demonstrate
7:33 pm
ongoing discrimination based on race, i seriously doubt the law would have been extended the way it was done could 2006. there was a case -- chance to make the case that was the longer a nation rife with racial discrimination. the opposite case was made. it was made that there is discrimination based on english language discrimination. 19: not think30 to a-have been extended in -- i do not think it would have been extended in 2006. >> i was wondering if there any other measures they you think would be adequate to prevent the fraud issue.
7:34 pm
it would stop anyone that would be allowed to vote. perhaps there is some other one. has there been an example they have approached people saying some other form of identification where they have proven they were impersonating someone else? >> i do not know about that. a couple of this ago i am sure you saw the undercover video in of new hampshire at the gop primary. in new hampshire has been a photo id law. did they found the names of people who were still registered and dead and went in and asked for balance. there is a case from 2007 in new jersey where this happened in a real election where a poll watcher who happen to be the
7:35 pm
former president of the zoning board noticed a group of individuals on a street corner been handed index cards. he went past them and into the polling place. one came in, gave the name of a voter, tried to vote in that person's name, and when this gentle man challenged him, he ran out of the polling place. he chased him down, called the police. they arrested him. he admitted that he and this other group of individuals were from a homeless shelter. these two gentlemen had come to them and more pain than $10 each to two boats in the name of another voter. -- paying them $10 each to vote in the name of another voter. this was documented in newspaper articles. they documented what had happened. that is a recent example.
7:36 pm
i have talked about photo id citizenship and something else that states should do is require all county court clerks and the federal government should require all federal court clerks to notify when individuals under the jury duty are excused after they confess their not - they are not citizens. there is a report of the reported instances of this all over the country. there'll be another way of getting people who are not u.s. citizens of the voter rolls. >> i think it is really important that we not legislate by antidote. hans is full of these wonderful antidotes. that is a very different thing
7:37 pm
been having people come to the state houses and put information in the record that can be reviewed and analyzed by both parties. it is a permanent part of the record. in the 38 year history of the main same day voter registration law, and there are only two examples of a voter fraud in maine's history. it was not even a hearing that demonstrated fraud was a problem before legislators attended to get rid of same day voter registration. in indiana, there is no legislation needed -- legislative record made that demonstrated any widespread fraud in indiana. what we are seeing is state such a passing these laws based on
7:38 pm
these kind of antidote rather than hard evidence that there are widespread issues. we have got to push back on that. we have got to demand more of our legislatures. they should not be able to bring in copycat bills and spew them out. they insist on more-said that can be reviewed by impartial entities. >> thank you for your time. in this election year, this is a major subject of debate. we look forward to more debate on the subject. thank you very much for your attendance. thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute]
7:39 pm
[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> we got started because there are a lot of conservative ones that work across issues.
7:40 pm
there have been no progress of organization that worked on economic policy and national security. >> president and ceo of the center for american progress on the mission of the washington, d.c. think tank. >> we think there is an ideology behind particular arguments that are made with very little facts. part of our job is to make the arguments and the evidence based argument behind our own views. i do think sometimes when the facts do not argue for our position, we reexamine them. we fundamentally believe the most important thing is to be right about what's there are. >> a look at the center for american progress and a night at 8 eastern and pacific. >> hillary clinton hosted the
7:41 pm
first ever global business conference this week. it focuses on international business and strategy to strengthen the u.s. economy by promoting u.s. businesses and increasing u.s. exports. these remarks are 50 minutes. >> thank you. welcome to the state department. i want to thank bob for his leadership here in implementing the agenda and he just briefly describes. i also want to thank tom for his work pulling the conference together and to all of our friends and colleagues from not only the state department but across the government and private sector who have been participating over these past two days, coming together on behalf of our common objective. i want to acknowledge secretary
7:42 pm
bryson from the secretary department. our friends from boeing who we will hear from in a minute and so many more. i am particularly pleased at this luncheon is being held in the ben franklin room. america's foreign-policy can champion u.s. businesses abroad and drive recovery here at home and also help provide a strong foundation and effective economic tools that can strengthen and sustain america's
7:43 pm
global leadership. we call this economic statecraft. we have worked to position ourselves to lead in a changing world where security is shaped in financial markets and on factory floors as well as in diplomatic negotiations. that is why more than 1000 economic officers on six continents are working with american companies, local businesses and local and national governments to open market and find new customers. we are forming new partnerships with companies, universities, and philanthropies to put private sector ingenuity to work solving some of our most difficult global challenges and driving sustainable development. i think it is fair to say, and i see a lot of my experience colleagues in the room, at this
7:44 pm
is not a -- this has not always been a traditional focus. why is the secretary of state now spending as much time thinking about market swings as missile silos ta? americans need jobs. every $1 billion of goods we export support is one of 5000 jobs here at home. in industries like telecommunications and aerospace. that is why president obama set a goal of doubling america's exports over five years. i am proud that we now expect to hit that target ahead of schedule. thanks in large measure to the passage of the free trade agreement with south korea, colombia, and panama. the tireless efforts of our trade representatives and service officers around the world and the most important,
7:45 pm
resilience of the business community. we understand that america's economic strengths and global leadership are a package deal. you will not have one without the other. our power in the 21st century depend not just on the size of our military but also on what we grow, how well we innovate, what we make, and how effectively we sell. rising powers by china, india, and brazil understand this as well. we cannot sit on the sidelines while they put economics at the center of their policy. we believe that increasing trade and growing prosperity will benefit not just our own people but the people everywhere. to our economies are interdependent as ever before and so are our fates. america's economic renewal depends on the strength of the
7:46 pm
global economy. the global economy depends on the strength of america. i will be the first to limit that in some ways we are playing catch up here. let's be honest. we have fallen behind some other countries. they use diplomacy. the state department has not always been the first call when you're looking for help. we can and we will and we are doing better. that is what this conference is all about. we want to hear your concrete suggestions based on your experiences of how we can be better partners. be want to share with you the steps we're taking here in washington and around the world. i have made jobs diplomacy a priority mission. just as our companies are ready
7:47 pm
to out work, about innovate, and out compete their rivals, so we diplomaticbbe champions for prosperity and growth. this begins with partners. we're changing the way we do business. we need to see the world by the global supply change. we are changing for finance and this. we're working on to leverage. we have created a new unified one for economic growth and environment.
7:48 pm
i am proud to announce he will name heidi as the first ever chief economist at the state department. we the 42 her contributions to our team. jobs diplomacy requires partners on the ground with deep knowledge an extensive network. this is where all of you come in. some of the members a chamber are here today. one tell me about her job as a local manager for citibank. she is helping an american firm navigate a growing market. to is also helping her fellow citizens by their first home. they are delivering all over the
7:49 pm
world. we train our people, find our partners. the real question is, can jobs diplomacy deliver jobs that make a chance. we are pursuing three lines of action to do just that. first, promoting u.s. businesses, attracting investment back to the united states, and leveling the playing field for fair competition. let's start with how we advocate to try to win contracts and make sales. this is not about picking winners and losers. it is about helping all american companies but the best foot forward to get a fair shot in every market. when we think about this, we think about are very large multinational corporation.
7:50 pm
jim can offer a firsthand experience about how this works. the obama administration has gone to bat for boeing and workers and others over the world. they have hired thousands of new engineers, machinists, and factory workers right here at all. -- at home. every boeing jet comes a millions of parts comproduced by tens of thousands suppliers many american businesses. that is job diplomacy in action. from our first days in office, we started talking with others of going about their interest in doing more business in russia. in october 2009, we pressed the case of russian officials. our embassy argue that boeing is the global gold standard.
7:51 pm
it worked. in late 2010, the russians agreed to buy 50 373s. to build them, they are creating tens of thousands of well paying american jobs. this has been repeated again and again around the world. just this month, an indonesian airline signed a contract for more than 200 planes, a deal that president obama helped seal on his trip to november. job diplomacy is not about giants like boeing or d e r caterpillar. we are just as committed, and i want you to be as well, it to helping small and medium-size businesses. when iceland began looking for help converting its vehicles to electric power, our embassy
7:52 pm
championed a dynamic startup from ohio that does this work as well as anyone in the world. in the end, they won a contract worth $100 million and sold 1000 electorate suvs. because international trade has to be a two-way street, we're looking to attract foreign investment. we call a global investment into american communities. this is the second focus. to make this a priority across our government, president obama launched the satellite usa initiative last summer which i'm sure you'll hear more about. the department of state and commerce are working hand in hand. we are already seeing results. last year we brought together american and chinese governors and other state and local officials to discuss investment opportunities.
7:53 pm
one of the largest heavy equipment manufacturers in china announced a $60 million investment in peachtree city, georgia with plans to add an additional 25 million across the state and hire 300 engineers in the next five years. we are working with local leaders to help them replicate the success. these are important and worthwhile efforts. signing one of deals even for dozens of airplanes will only get us so far. we needed thing bigger and broader. that is why the third focus of jobs diplomacy is leveling the playing field. american companies can compete and succeed everywhere we recognize that for all the tantalizing opportunities comment there are still significant obstacles that make it harder for american businesses. some of these are familiar
7:54 pm
hurdles, a correction, red tape, outdated protectionist policies. we are also confronting new challenges like the so-called "tollbooth" that forced on fair terms on companies to expand a market. like forced technology transfers, the government abetted piracy, and preferential treatment for state owned or state-supported enterprises. the united states is committed to a global economic system that is open, free, transparent, and fair. we're working to institutionalize those norms and regional and global trade agreement and institutions. we're pushing for reforms that allow more people to participate in the economy, especially women who represent enormous untapped potential but are still marginalized.
7:55 pm
as president obama said in the state of the union and as vice president reinforced, we will not stand by when our competitors do not play by the same rules. this administration has already brought trade cases against china nearly -- and nearly twice the rate of our predecessors. a new trade enforce the unit is being established to go after unfair trading practices. last friday the president announced that when other nations provide unfair financing, we will offer matching support to computing and -- competing u.s. firms. every day there pressing government to comply with international standards and to treat our companies fairly. we stand up for entire industries like when our team in australia helped beat back unwarranted legal action against american pork producers, leading to a sick of vacant
7:56 pm
increase in exports last year. -- a significant increase in exports last year. washington state faced a crisis when canadian regulators sit there products with a higher tariff. the canadian regulators realize and have made ina mistake reverse their decision. we're standing up for an economic system that benefits everyone. when our embassy worked with filipino authorities or when our negotiators requires that enterprises compete under the same rules as private companies. we are here to help. we want to come with you as we open new markets and create new opportunities.
7:57 pm
when you confront unfair regulations and when you need help, come to us. to make this even easier, our ambassadors are now holding monthly conference calls with the u.s. business community. we're standardizing comers real information so u.s. companies can find the answers they need in one place. there will blunt this, a virtual one-stop shop for services and information they need to help them grow and export. it will help deliver results. we're going to push even harder. we will not rest until the u.s. government is the most effective trade. i want to close by asking you to consider how you can help us help you.
7:58 pm
american companies today have the best, most productive workers in the world. they have the most talented innovators. many are sitting on large cash reserves. foreign leaders often say to me. -- how come they are not competing for the deal? what are they doing? this is miss trichet is doing everything it can to help american companies. it is up to you. we cannot help you if you're not hungry enough to compete for the business that is going to be available. it is up to leaders to retrain your employeemployees.
7:59 pm
this is a key factor in our future success, are innovation comment -- our innovation,. we need to you to take risks. we need to recapture america's dynamism and stain our global leadership. we appreciate greatly you're traveling from everywhere in the globe to be part of this important work. we really believe that our best years are ahead of us if we are willing to do what it takes to grow our own economy and compete for opportunities that may be challenging but which i have no doubt we can win and succeed in doing. >> up next, a discussion on the global business outlook and the effect the eurozone financial problems are having on developed countries.

77 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on