Skip to main content

tv   Hearing on Threats and Encryption Issues  CSPAN  July 8, 2015 2:30pm-4:31pm EDT

2:30 pm
the trail of tears because of the tears shed by the ones that lived for the ones that did not. that's why i get so riled when i'm up here talking. and representative rutherford, yu you and i are on the same page so often fighting against the overreaching of government at all levels. not just the federal government, but state government and local government as well. this is an atrocity that's represent ive representative representative iveative of what happened and what can happen. stand watie was so mad, angry. i don't have words to describe what he must have been feeling about how betrayed the nation was by the president who they
2:31 pm
saved. that he chose to take up arms and lead the cherokee on the southern side of the civil war. he hated the federal government so bad that he was the last confederate general to surrender. this amendment recognizes his actions, his reasons. and it calls for the fence that borders the flag pole in question to be remove edd and a square memorial depicting his actions as a memorial.
2:32 pm
and i think that very worthy. was he fighting for slavery, or against slavery? no. was he fighting even for states rights or against states rights? no. he was not. he was fighting in revenge for what had been done to him. was that a bell i heard? >> mr. pitts those are staff bells. they won't effect you. >> these hearing aids pick up sounds sometimes. my wife says they pick up ducks but they don't pick her up. i told her i didn't have them in. she accuses me ladies, that i have selective hearing. have you ever accused a man of
2:33 pm
selective hearing? she wanted to know one day we were sitting on the deck and i said stop, i hear mallards. we live on the lake. she says how can you hear those ducks and you can't hear me? i said god blessed me. folks, i didn't eat for the next two weeks a home cooked meal. i love my wife very much. we've been married 41 years as of the 28th of last month. she also has some of that native american heritage in her. and she was surprised and proud of this particular amendment. how would this memorial that i'm talking about be done? how would it be arranged? it would be done much like the memorial, the african-american memorial that was done a
2:34 pm
committee appointed by the speaker and by the president protem of the senate to design, depict and come back to us with a plan of how to do it and what needed to be done there. i ask you to search in your hearts. i ask you to look deep inside. put yourself on the trail of tears. think of how you would have felt at that point. mr. hosey, those people decided they were going to fight. mr. smith, james smith, those people decided they were going to fight. eric beddingfield those people decided they were going to fight. many of you others is that have served in the military, mr. williams, mr. hart, it's not an easy thing to take up arms.
2:35 pm
you hear people all the time saying we should fight we should go to war. most of those people have never seen violence firsthand. violence firsthand, especially aspects of war is not a pretty thing. people die. not like a kid's game, not like a tv show where they jump back up, bounce back up. they don't come back. robert brown you served. thank you for your service. if we were attacked today, each of you including myself would be ready to take up arms and face whatever came at us. i'm fat and old. i'd be cannon fodder today. but i'd be willing to take up
2:36 pm
those arms. and if i had been treated the way the cherokee nation did, i would have been ready to take up arms at that point. so i'm going to ask you today to support this amendment. it does change. it does alter. it takes the fence down. and creates a memorial to a man that i consider great, the great stand watie. now, if you looked up there, it doesn't look like watie, does it? his cherokee name i can't remember. but what his cherokee name meant was stand firm. stand firm. i'm going to ask you to stand firm and help me with this particular amendment and help me pass this particular amendment.
2:37 pm
i'm looking forward to you helping me pass this amendment. and several others as we go through the day. i have read the senate's bill that they've sent over. i have questions about the senate bill. i have questions about the senate bill that i will address in a further amendment. and i think there are some serious problems with the senate's bill as a whole. i think it was inartfully drawn. it was brought to my attention. and i think i'll let mike talk about it when that amendment gets here and gets drafted to some degree, unless mike gives me permission to go ahead and talk about it. there's a part in that bill --
2:38 pm
and i know there's a move to not amend, to do exactly what the senate did. there's a call from the senate, there's a call from the governor to do that. but in that language it says specifically that only two flags can fly on the state house grounds. the u.s. flag and the south carolina flag. what happens to the war memorial that sits on the state house grounds that has seven flags? >> mr. pitts your time has expire expired. >> thank you, mr. speaker. >> pending question is adoption of substitute amendment 1. all in favor say aye.
2:39 pm
>> mr. cobb-hunter request a roll call. second? roll call is required. vote is on the board. >> during the roll call mr. herb kershman recognized. >> ladies and gentlemen, if you come to order please give mr.
2:40 pm
herb kershman your attention. >> thank you, mr. speaker. ladies and gentlemen, i want to come to you today to the well to talk about just for a minute about something that happened yesterday with the thing we talked about, i know it's a done issue. but when i come up here i had said that this paper was brought up by the governor's office and put on someone's desk because that's the information i had yesterday. and, you know the person that had printed these out and puts them on the desk came to me yesterday and told me they had done it. i did not -- i wanted to come up here and tell you it did not come from kathrine and haley, the governor's office. i apologize to them if anybody thought it did. i was wrong. the substance of the letter, that was wrong in itself i'm not changing that. but the delivery of it was my fault. i was wrong. i wanted to make sure everybody knew that. i think the worst thing we can do is come up here and to not tell or imply the truth.
2:41 pm
and yesterday i thought what i was saying was the truth. i found out afterwards it wasn't and i wanted to let you all know that. >> thank you. we appreciate that. time has expired. clerk will close polls and tabulate by vote of 29-90 amendment 1 substitute failed. >> amendments number 2 through 26 have been withdrawn. 2 through 26 have been withdrawn. amendment number 27 is by representative herb kershman which he asks to pass over which brings us to amendment number 28 by mr. pitts. number 28 mr. pitts. >> mr. pitts is recognized to speak on amendment 28. >> mr. smith is recognized for a point of inquiry.
2:42 pm
>> mr. speaker, can you advise the body how many amendments are currently on the desk to be considered? >> yes, sir. >> thank you. >> there are six including mr. herb kershman's that we skipped over at this point. mr. pitts is recognized to speak on amendment 28. >> thank you mr. speaker. this particular amendment says if the flag comes down, the flag being the current battle flag that is on the amendment -- on the poll, what would be done with it? i want to talk about that flag
2:43 pm
for a moment. this particular flag that flies out there goes back to my childhood days. my ancestors fought in this war on both sides. strung out on my maternal side from danville virginia all the way down to lawrence county on my paternal side. but my maternal grandmother was an appalache mountain woman. and please don't misunderstand what i'm saying. she was dirt poor.
2:44 pm
she and her family were subsistence farmers. and at this point i wish my good friend ken kennedy was here because he and i talked about these things. we talked about our grandfathers plowing behind a mule to feed their families. i'm not going to stand here and tell you i walked barefoot 20 miles in the snow to school or anything like that. but i was 13 years old before my family had indoor plumbing. it was cold going to the outhouse. some of you shaking your heads. you know what i'm talking about. well, that was my grandparents, folks. they were subsistence farmers. they made a living, if the lord didn't shine on them that
2:45 pm
particular year they didn't eat. and my paternal grandfather was where some of my cherokee blood came from. correction, my maternal grandfather. not only was he a subsistence cotton farmer a subsistence farmer, but he raised cotton. and he and one of our neighbors mr. nealy, who was african-american shared some fields that they grew cotton in. and i walked behind the plow and knew how to hook up trace chains and all that kind of stuff. and i walked behind a plow holding the crossbar because i was not old enough to plow the mule. by the time that i was old
2:46 pm
enough to plow that mule by myself, he had actually gotten a tractor and could do a little better. but they were no better off than each other. they shared those cotton fields. they also shared meals with each other. the young nealy children and i shared meals together. and we didn't see anything unusual about that. because my grandfather saw the world through eyes that weren't clouded by race. he was a good man. mr. nealy was a good man. his grandson and i eventually both served as police officers at the greenville p.d. together.
2:47 pm
and laughed say we both have come a long way since the early days. now, i'm going to go back again into history a little bit. think about those apalachee folks, think about your ancestor ancestors or some of our an ses ancestors ancestors, both african-american and caucasian. they lived on farms. they didn't have cell phones. they didn't have televisions. they didn't have a daily newspaper. how did they get their information? they got their information when they made an occasional trip to a general store somewhere to get supplies groceries or whatever they needed, tools. that's how they got information. now, do you think those people
2:48 pm
were able to know what their government was doing? think about today folks. we've got instant technology. people think that you and i are supposed to be 24/7 oncall. they get mad if they don't have instant access to us because of cell phones and computers. yet my 9-year-old granddaughter knows more about cell phones and computers than i ever will. she program my tv when she was 4. but think about this. what we do down here generally how much of your constituency actually knows what's going on, and how many of them actually
2:49 pm
know what's inside of what we do the bills? how many calls do you get by people that were misinformed about something we did or something we intended to do? how many? well, now let's go back to those folks in the mountains that i'm talking about and start of this great war. they didn't know the issues. they didn't know it was states rights. they didn't know it was slavery. they didn't know anything except what they heard at the general store. the yankees have moved in on ft. sumter, and they won't leave. now they are attacking us. the northern states are attacking the southern states. and we're called in to arms. that's why my folks went
2:50 pm
flogging it off to fight in that particular war. they were dirt poor. they didn't have much of anything except squirrel rifle and the clothes on their back to take with them. but they went to defend their home state the state of south carolina. had nothing to gain by it except dying. to defend their state. that is all they knew they were fighting for. now let me point this out. when i was five years old, my grandmother regaled me with stories of the heroics of her uncles and other members of the family doing battle in that war. she let me told the saber that
2:51 pm
one of them carried in that war. she showed me the discharge papers of one that was wounded. i wish i had those things now. they would be worth a lot of money. i don't know where they ended up. she showed me letters written back and forth. again, i don't know where those got to either. i wish i did. but what a point i'm trying to make to you is, the reason that my family went to war to fight -- went to fight in that war was not about the current issues, the issues that people scream about today and what i saw the flag that's under question about the
2:52 pm
misrepresentation and the abduction, not the coopting but the abduction by despicable hate groups that took that flag as a symbol was not what i grew up with, not what i recognized. i grew up with that flag, yes, to the national media, as a heritage. it was the stories told me by my family growing up. and again, when i was with mr. nealy's grandkids i didn't see issue. and i don't see issue now. let me make something perfectly clear -- >> mr. pitts your first ten minutes has expired. >> second ten. >> granted. >> these two men sitting here to my left are two people that i consider two the best friends i've got in this body.
2:53 pm
bill claw burn and i serve on commitys and lonnie and i serve on a budget committee together. hear me very well. there is nobody in the state of south carolina that i respect more than lonnie hosy. my respect is not given, it's earned. i don't have many heroes but you are one, lonnie hosy. all member put their pants on the the same way. we are all equal. some of us rise to the occasion at difficult times and became heros. i've said this up here before and some of you maybe didn't
2:54 pm
hear it and i'm going to talk about it. why is lonnie hosy my hero? lonnie hosy in vietnam as a young marine, eric beddingfield, a young marine, was caught in an ambush moving forward to save a company that had already been ambushed. our military guys, two l-shaped ambushes had been set up the first one to catch the first company and the second ambush to catch the second company coming to their rescue as they knew they would do. lonnie was wounded trying to save other marines. but yet he fought forward. lonnie was wounded a second time as he continued to fight forward to try to save the first marines.
2:55 pm
at the end, he had reached the first company that had been ambushed. and at that time, he had reached a point where he could fight no more. and he started calling for a corpman, for those of you that are soldiers a medic and he started calling corpman up. and he realized that the enemy had overrun the position and were bayonetting the wounded marines and lonnie quit calling for a corpman at that point and started calling on a maker. lonnie i know this is hard for you, but it is a story that needs to be told. he started calling for the ultimate help. he started talking to god.
2:56 pm
and then he realized that orange tracers were going over him one way and green tracers were going over him the other way. what does that mean? he was caught in the cross fire. he had a chance of being hit by both people shooting at each other. he continued to pray. eventually his brother marines came and pushed the enemy back and saved him and the members left that were wounded. lonnie told me that that day he promised the lord if he lived he would serve him the rest of his life, lonnie, you have given me no reason to believe other wise. you are one of the best men i know. [ applause ]
2:57 pm
you're my brother. what i want to say to you is this we are politicians, we live by polls we understand them. they don't dictate all of us, but we do pay attention to them. polling in my district says leave that flag where it is. strong polling. polling that could kurt me in the next election. but let me tell you something i ain't worried about the next election. i've been threatened with that. i've been threatened with a lot of stuff in the last few days since word got out i have 500 amendments, and i don't have 500 amendments but i've taken a lot of abuse in the last couple of
2:58 pm
days. but i'm willing -- i'm willing to remove that flag from the pole at some point if it causes a twinge in the heart of lonnie hosy or bill clyburn my friends. but at some point, i'll ask for something in return. because i believe in fairness. i believe in balancing of scales. lonnie hosy, if that flag hurts your heart it hurts my heart. and that is a point i have reached. and as i see it, i grew upholding that flag in reverence because of the story of my ancestors carrying that flag into battle and serving under it. miss cobb hunter i made a
2:59 pm
statement to my wife if i never had to hurt another person in my life it would make me happy. my life has not always been easy. as a soldier as a police officer, everything does not come easy to you. and i didn't grow up easy. i grew up hard on a farm in a school of hard knochks. some others around here have too. so life hasn't been all that rosie. but you know what god blessed me. he blessed me by putting me amongst these folks and putting me in this state, in this country, the greatest nation on all of the earth in spite of all of its faults. it is a place where you and i can disagree and we don't have to fight. if you watch national tv and you watch other nations, and watch
3:00 pm
their parliament, it breaks out in fistfights. well we've had those in here a time or two in the past. i'm told that is why they don't allow weapons or beverage on the floor any more. although john drummond told me it was much more civil in here when people were armed and much more cordial when people were drinking for the most part. john drummond, another old warrior that makes me proud. this amendment simply says what we do if we take that flag down, we put it in a case, a bronze case outside next to the monument itself the last flag flown. that is what this particular amendment does.
3:01 pm
does it change stuff? yes, it does. and i have other amendments that i will talk about at a later time. how about taking that flag down. but i wanted you to understand very clearly why i'm so agreeable to doing that. i'm going to take some abuse back home by saying i would take that flag down. but the lady that told me we'll send you home. you won't go back to columbia. it brought to mind bur rabbit and bur fox. and bur fox said please don't throw me in that briar patch. what happens if they send me home? i'm not down here three or four
3:02 pm
days a week i'm not getting the abusive calls i listen to all night last night i'm spending time with grandkids and hunting and fishing all of the time. that is all i'm going to do at that point. and i can be very content doing that. and i had one that told me they were going to make me have to go to work. [ laughter ] or at least that all i got was minimum wage. i said [ inaudible ] for the hour i put in, in service. it goes back to the 24/7 i was talking about. how many of you can go to your
3:03 pm
local store and come back home immediately? how much are you going to listen to before you get in the store and back out of that store? >> mr. pitts unfortunately you can't tell those constituents their time has expired, but on this amendment, your time has expired. >> thank you, sir. >> pending question is adoption of amendment number 28. mr. hart, mr. bedding field is recognized to speak on the ameantment. >> thank you very much mr. speaker. members, thank you for the opportunity to be here before you. mr. pitts, thank you for your eloquent words. and history lessons over the past few moments.
3:04 pm
i'm deeply grieved over what transported in charleston. many of you in here wouldn't know that i even knew reverend pinkney but a number of you wouldn't know that i know a number of senates across the hall and worked with them in many ways but i did have the pleasure of working with him on a couple of things and meeting with him. and i found him to be the most honorable man. i regret i had injured during the time of the funerals and i wasn't able to attend but i watched every moment on tv. been praying for the situation constantly since then. as a young man, i don't have the same kind of stories to tell that mike pitts told about living on a farm and plowing.
3:05 pm
i had grandparents who did that and i spent part of my time in urban areas and some in country areas and feel like i've been schooled a little bit in both directions. went to bakers chapper elementary school in greenville county and tanglewood middle school and carolina high school. played sports with people of all ethnicities. and at the right ripe old age of 17 years, because i finished high school a little early, somehow convinced my patientrents to sign some documents that allowed me to go to paris island. i don't say that in a boastful or a brag-adoeshs fashion, but it is the place where relationships begin to solidify in my life. i learned quickly, mr. hosy mr.
3:06 pm
go van not to understand color except one color, and that was green. you were a dark green marine and i was a light green marine. that is all with you -- all we knew. i knew i had a brotherhood and i could count on everybody who was beside me. there was to reason to believe that any person that i was surrounded by wouldn't lay down their life for me just as i would have for them. i don't stand here today with war stories to tell and, god lord knows mr. hosy you have done more things in your life than i ever will in mine and i honor and i praise you for that, semper fi sir. it is difficult for me in these times, in these days, to want to
3:07 pm
in any way cast a dispersion on a veteran who laid down their life for a cause that they believed in for a state that they loved and that is what this issue has turned into for some people. i understand that there are differing views on what a symbol represents. it grieves me too that some people see that in a hurtful and dishonorable fashion. but in an attempt to try to recognize that there are differing views i have literally struggled -- within myself over these things.
3:08 pm
prayed for an understanding heart, wished and continued to pray for understanding. and i feel like the lord has given me a lot of that in the last few days. hasn't allowed me to sleep a lot. but it has granted me some understanding. and that is why i want to find a way to respect both sides of this issue. it seems almost impossible, but i was elected to be here, to make decisions and to be held accountable for those decisions and that is all i will ever try to do. i've taken this well before and
3:09 pm
been demanding of sorts and demonstrative in ways and yet somehow today i can't find that in me i can't find the desire to want to run my way of thinking down your throat. but i do want my opinion to be respected and the people that i represent. and i just have to believe that you will. the phone calls, the e-mails social media. none of it has been fun. not even when people tell me they think i'm right does it feel good.
3:10 pm
even last night at 10:00, i was trying to get my grand daughter down and to bed and the phone was ringing off the hook and i wanted that moment with my grandchild grandchild. but i had to call my wife into the room to take care of that so i could return some more phone calls because they just wouldn't stop coming. i'm not a smart guy, i guess because i publicize my cell phone. but it has served me well. i would like to think i'm responsive to even those who disagree with me. and last night's phone call, at 10:00, was not a kind one. but in an attempt to be kind and talk my way through this call i found myself taking very
3:11 pm
long pauses just to listen. you are really amazed at what you hear when you listen. and that is the reason i was very measured about coming to this podium now. however, as i listen to the gentleman i was on the phone with last night, i thought to myself, there are so many things that we probably agree on that we're just not talking about today. so i tried to focus on those things. and the phone call ended you know maybe not as nicely or reverently as i would have liked for it to. but the gentleman had his say. he was able to share. and i was able to listen.
3:12 pm
there was a second phone number that kept calling in during that phone call and i decided i would return it. i felt like if i returned it then i wouldn't have to deal with it today. and it was the opposite side of the issue as you can imagine because honestly i think this issue divided us pretty well. some districts probably lean more one way than the other and it is one. reasons i've chosen today to just honestly be as respecialful as i can be to anybody that comes to the podium that talks about each side of the issue. but during that known call the issues that this particular gentleman wanted to discuss being the opposite side of the
3:13 pm
issue, brought him to tears in discussing it with me. and in all honesty i hadn't really, from my own perspective been able to view this as something that would necessarily bring me to tears. but the gentleman told me and i have a lot to say about this conversation but i'm going to try to limit it at this particular time in the well. he centered the call and tied it so much to purely a veterans' issue, someone who laid down their life for a cause that was important to the state of south carolina. >> mr. beddingfield, your first ten minutes have expired.
3:14 pm
>> i'll take a least a few of the second. >> yes, sir. so ordered. >> and many of you know i have stand in this well, time in and time out and fought against an oppressive federal government overspending issues in south carolina and in washington, d.c. and as this gentleman spoke to me last night i realized what i knew, that this war was fought over many things,ing things we don't always agree with. i can't for the life of me, understand bondage or slavery none of -- just for anybody, regardless of skin color or regardless of origin. that is the most ludicrous thing i've ever heard of. but when it comes to fighting an oppressive federal government i still do it in this chamber
3:15 pm
today. we over-spend we over-regulate and everything we do is an attempt to be governed by somebody else instead of allowing this state to governor itself. and as the gentleman kept talking to me, and honestly the more upset he got talking about his ancestors and his beliefs of what the flag stood for and the reason the monument was there and the reason it was on the dome at one time and moved to its current place it caught me on those two fronts. these were people that laid down their lives for things they leave believed in and fighting for state's rights and fighting an overreaching and oppressive
3:16 pm
federal government. and somehow or another that completely stuck with me. and i tried to communicate with the gentleman, between moments of tears, where i could understand nothing that he was saying trying to calm him down trying to keep from getting upset myself trying to keep a lid on what i wanted to say and just listen. but what i walked away with after the phone call, and this is one of many was the agreement that was reached in 2000 did not please everyone. it did however, satisfy those who view this issue as part of their family's history and their
3:17 pm
heritage. it has remained that way for the past 15 years for those folks. that doesn't underscore that it means something different to others and became something more and i'm not denying that. however, the conversation humbled me to the point to where i thought about what if we did not honor veterans in the way we should, what if we didn't honor the people who fought in the vietnam war or world war i or world war ii. where would we be as a nation or a country if we did not have respect and honor for these folks. i'm very fortunate. i spent my time in the marine corp not having to see the things that lonnie saw, not having to see death and
3:18 pm
dismemberment on my person. sure there were people around me who had that happen to them or -- but i've not -- i've not been to a place where only the veterans have suffered. i'm sitting here today thinking there is nobody left here who fought in the civil war. all we have is a memory of those people. all we have is family and ancestors trying to be memory and reverend to that. i've heard people dismiss that and say it is over, the war was 150 years ago and it is still here today for the families that lost loved ones that have attempted to pass down the
3:19 pm
memories as they have to mike and to me and to others in the body. so in an attempt to be respectful to everybody in this issue, i want to find a solution and i just don't think the solution that came over from the senate is the solution that respects everybody. i don't know how many more amendments are on the desk i know there has got to be an answer to this issue. i'm thankful that i serve in a body that is willing to hear from people on both sides of an issue. try to make a corporate decision. it is that is respecialful to everyone. i'm thank. to mr. pitts for this amendment. and i'm supportive of it. mr. speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak.
3:20 pm
>> they are considering removing the confederate battle flag. they are at a break and when they come back we'll have a final vote today or tomorrow following the south carolina senate approval of the vote yesterday 36-3. while we wait for them to come back in here is more on the supreme court rulings from the washington journal and we'll show you as much as we can until the house of south carolina resumes its session. >> joining us is congress louie gomer, republican of texas, thanks for coming back and talking to our viewers. >> certainly. look forward to being with you, greta. >> let's start with the debate in south carolina, because it passed in the state senate and now it is going over to the house side today and our viewers have been following this debate
3:21 pm
here on c-span and they can catch it though morning when they take it up and what is your view on reviewing the confederate flag. >> i think it is up to the state. i understand when people say that it is a symbol that is offensive to them and that is one of the things that we look at when making decisions does the offensiveness overcome any usefulness that he has. i don't think it is necessarily to completely remove it off of tombstones and things like that for heaven sake it is part of our history but it is not the reigning flag over south carolina but i won't tell south carolina and i don't think the federal government has any business doing it but i will tell you one thing i'm convinced after seeing what happened after the shooting and that is that the people in south carolina particularly charleston and
3:22 pm
places just crazy about -- those are good people. and the way they came together. race was not an issue. you had one nut case that just was violent. but i'm telling you i don't see how anybody could keep from being touched deeply by the way the family members reacted in love as christians are supposed to. i don't know if i could be that loving. but as a christian, i'm supposed to be. but wow, what a testimony. >> there has been some recent news that texas is considering removing confederate monuments from around the state. do you agree with that. >> it depends. you have to do an assessment. and that is what the state officials in texas are saying. let's take a look. some of them may not be accurate. as an old history major in college, history student every day, i think that is important. anything that is not accurate or
3:23 pm
that is offensive more than it is useful to our heritage then it is not a problem to remove it. but i have complete faith in the folks in austin and around texas, they'll make the right decision. but i think it is a good idea to take a look at it. >> and there has been a lot of focus on the council of conservative citizens, it has been called a white nationalist group and dylan going to the website and citing statistics from that and airplano holt iii gave you contributions and do you plan to return them. some colleagues are doing so. >> i'm not returning them to him, but we're sending them to the church in charleston. in fact i durped the amount of his -- i doubled the amount of his contribution they weren't that big, but doubled that amount and sent it to the church
3:24 pm
in charleston where i know it can do some good. i'm allowed to do that. i didn't want to send it back to him, send it to the church where it will do some good. >> okay. what do you make of the debate happening in our country and in the south and in south carolina after that shooting at that church, and how it has shifted, the confederate flag was removed and there was a debate back in 2000 to remove it from south carolina and now move it from one place on the capitol grounds to where it stands now and now the debate of take it down and put it in a museum. >> well now as i understand it, let's take it out of museums and everywhere. and just like -- i think it is inappropriate to fail to discuss how outrageous and what an affront to civilization that hitler was, you can't not
3:25 pm
discuss part of our heritage. so there are parts of our heritage -- slavery for example -- it is an abomination. it did massive damage to the country and to the families and individuals that were enslaved. but you don't not talk about them. because you can't grow better unless you look at warts and all of your heritage. and as you look at our heritage we have an awakening in the early 1700s. spiritual revival that many said that led to churches coming out, and helping lead the charge for the revolution. and then a second great awakening that drove churches to push for an end to slavery. there were some on the fringe that supporting it but that was not a very christ-like way to go. and then you have arnold king
3:26 pm
jr. that helped -- well some say he helped african-americans. no, he didn't. he helped everybody in america. i was a little white kid in east texas and because of his work and what he gave his life for i was able to grow up treating brothers and sisters like brothers and sisters. so we've seen it play throughout our history. nothing is gaped by ignore -- gained by ignoring the bad parts of history. and the discussion that many are having in the south and in texas and south carolina is to many who didn't -- most of them didn't have slaves, it was about the federal government not telling our state what we can or can't do about state's rights. but it is kind of hard to separate the state's rights' argument from the fact that slavery was the biggest element of that state's rights'.
3:27 pm
and if you look at the history of ache ham lincoln and there is a big book on his struggle with god and his evolution to the point of becoming president. but i talked to historians who passed away professor rufus fears from oklahoma i love that guy, such a great historian, and he told me that lincoln believed that for a guy that looked like him and sounded like him to be elected president god had to be in it and he had a purpose and that was to end slavery and that originally he believed he was supposed to immediately start to end slavery and he didn't do that. of course states started seceding and he said once i've held the union together then i'll end slavery. and dr. fears said that after his -- his first son died -- or
3:28 pm
the first one of their sons to pass had died, lincoln blamed himself. he felt like, and i'm not sure that is right, god was punishing him to not immediately move to end slavery and that drove him to push for the things he started moving on later in his presidency. but i don't know if god was punishing him for not trying to immediately end slavery but it does give a glance into the difficulty lincoln was encountering internally. >> and talk about this a little bit because here is "the washington post" editorial how texas is whitewashing civil war history. >> that is funny coming from the wash post. this fall texas schools will teach that moses took part in
3:29 pm
history. the books threaten texas and pose a danger to school children all over the country. >> i'm not sure that is accurate in every state. but from our study of texas history, slavery was not a big deal in texas. it wasn't something that just overwhelmed texas. so for some states, slavery was what the civil war was all about but in texas it was more of a state's rights issue. and the washington post, it is probably just their ignorance about the bible and our history, but it wasn't as much moses as it was teachings through the bible and how god divided -- we get to three branches, you had judges you had the executive
3:30 pm
and the kingship and then those who made the law. often that was rolled into one person. but they saw that as three separate distinct roles of government and we ended up with three branches arising out of that. but if you come into the house chamber, there are side profiles of all of the greatest law-givers in the history of man, started from the time it was done. the only one with a full face is moses. and that is because at one time he was thought to be the greatest law-giver of all time. he had ten good commandments and now the supreme court would say maybe five or six of them are pretty good. but if i was listening to oral arguments, i was licensed to practice law before the supreme court, but i was listening to arguments about whether or not texas could keep the statue on the state capitol grounds for
3:31 pm
the ten commandments and their arguing back and forth about the symbol and i looked up to my right on that marble wall and you have mosesen scribed on the wall looking down with the ten commandments and i thought what kind of world am i living in they are talking about whether texas can keep a monument dedicated to it and of course moses was such an important thing that they enkriebscribed him in the wall. and i didn't know until i saw -- and c-span may have played a role in this a documentary about the supreme role in the last few years that taft got the separate money for the supreme court, and when they first opened it in 1935, the judges were appalled. they said they were taken through and said judges should not have a palace, this is a palace. and some of the judges for a long time did not move in because it was a palace. and i don't know if you are
3:32 pm
aware, they are okay with a palace now. but they are okay with it now. >> and c-span did do a documentary. and viewers can go to our website. and also we'll have you weigh in on supreme court decisions on immigration debate and i do have to get some calls in here. so mike in pennsylvania, an independent. mike, good morning to you. go ahead. >> hi, mike. >> i was wondering if the representative would explain to the fearful people in texas that the federal government is not going to be invading texas, thank you. >> oh, well, i guess he's talking about operation jade helm. now there is some people that have ascribed things to me that i didn't say and that is not unusual. i'm still called a birther and i've never been a birther. i signed on to a bill that bill posey did back in 2009 that said, before the next election, any future election, whoever is
3:33 pm
running should prove that they are qualified and they are american citizen as required and that they are 35. but i thought that was a good idea and i still think it is so we don't have those disputes after people are elected president. and i'll calmed a -- i'm called a birther. and now i never saw the american government would take over texas. but what i find offensive. is in the jade helm exercise i've never seen this before but a map was provided that showed the states including texas, texas was red, considered hostile, utah and other very conservative state was considered hostile and another area in southern california was considered hostile and participated in military games and i've helped plan them and was in the army for four years
3:34 pm
at ft. benning and i've seen games, and i've never seen real names used like that and especially not in the united states. it is an affront. it is an offense. for heaven's sake back in the late 70s when we thought we were going into iran, war games didn't use the name iran, we made up names. so i found that extremely offensive, that this administration or this commander-in-chief would say texas is hostile, we have to take it back over. that is just so wrong. but there have been military games going on around the country for decades. that is not as much a concern as the affront of naming texas and utah as a place to be recaptured. >> to oxford maine. jim, a republican. >> good morning. >> good morning. >> thanks for taking my call. >> sure. >> assuming that south carolina wins and they take down that confederate flag, what would be everybody's reaction if all of
3:35 pm
the indian tribes around the country say we take down the american flag. if anybody has a grievance, those people really have a grievance. >> did he say the mexican -- >> no. that native americans. >> native americans. well, that is an interesting point. i don't -- i don't see that happening except that in some places around the country that battle has been fought, verbally. gee, we have to take down the american flag some people think it is an affront. people have alleged that and the american flag needs to stand as long as this is the united states of america. that american flag needs to stand and wave proudly too many have given their lives trying to make that happen. and native american, that is another issue we ought to be
3:36 pm
looking more into. i'm on a committee with jurisdiction and i hope we see better ways that native americans are treated. >> natural resources committee, you are referring to. >> yes. congressman gomer, a member of the judiciary panel and the commerce resources committee. and this is dan in texas. good morning. >> good morning. >> good morning. >> i've got a question for representative. i'm a vietnam vet. >> thank you for your service. >> thank you, sir. >> my question is, does he believe that we're trying to do away with our so-called history that has made this country as great as it is today and the stuff that our supreme court is doing, i think they're going against our forefather's rights that they fought for this country to make it so great and they're getting away from god's law and trying to make their own law to replace god's law and what does he think on this
3:37 pm
issue? >> well, thank you for that question, and yes i think the supreme court, not all of them but some of them, have been violating their oaths of office. and they are not concerned as many about the constitution as they are looking good in the editorial page of the washington post and the new york times and they've done massive amount of damage. if you look at the decision, and i've got it here on obama care that they've done in the last two weeks, i thought justice scalia said it -- he said words no longer have meaning if an exchange not established by a state, is quote, established by the state. i mean, the court was just making stuff up re writing the legislation. it was an outrage what they did. and so it is kind of hard to take justice roberts the next day coming down on the majority on friday when he was part of a
3:38 pm
ridiculous majority. but when it comes to the decision on marriage look, i know that a lot of people don't believe the bible, like i do. and if you think moses was crazy when he said a man shall leave his mother and father and the woman leave her home and the two shall become one flesh and that is marriage or you think jesus was crazy a madman when he repeated that as the law on marriage and what he adds was what god has joined together let no man separate but if you took four couples men and women, a couple, man and wife, and put those four couples on an island that had everything needed to survive and then you took four couples of men maybe we could have a big government survey and study and spend billions of dollars to study this and put four couples of men on another island with all they needed to
3:39 pm
survive and then another island with four couples of women with all they need to survive and come back in 400 years and see if you don't believe in god and what nature has done and which group of civilization has survived and which has ended and that will tell us, if you don't believe in god, what nature dictates should be a marriage, a building block. and people have loved individuals from the same sex and prohibited from seeing them in the hospital, those kind of things, we should fix, if you love somebody and they love you, you ought to be able to see them in the hospital you ought to be able to leave them property there are things we could fix without destroying the building block. but in the case of marriage, two of our justices kagen and against against -- againstsberg presided over same-sex marriage and that
3:40 pm
means they were disqualified. the law 28 usc 25 said any justice of the united states shall disqualify, not maybe shawl disqualify in any proceeding in which impartiality might be in question. we had two judges that were totally disqualified and they acted illegally and they violated the constitution. that is an illegitimate and improper decision and when the highest court in the land has two judges that are that condescending and that willing to violate the law in order to impose their unelected will on american people, then god help us we are in a lot of trouble and that is where i think we are. >> your reaction to the front page of the washington time same-sex marriage is saying that the court cited, striking down
3:41 pm
state bans on same-sex marriage could translate to loosens restrictions for concealed carry licenses, and not recognizing other states to do so. >> and greta, that is trying to put a silver lining on that abominable decision but what the writers at the washington times don't realize is how the supreme court has no problem whatsoever being completely contradictory. if they were a consistent court and used the same logic, used precedent and followed that, then that would be a good point. but the trouble with this supreme court they won't even follow their own precedent. for heaven sake, you look at the doma case. they said members of congress have standing because they passed the law and they got it passed and it was theirs but marriage is an issue for the states. the federal government has no role whatsoever in it. that should keep them getting involved in the same-sex
3:42 pm
marriage case but it didn't because they are completely hypocritical. but in that same set of cases they also ruled on a california case where people voted on it, got it passed, it was a referendum and they said the people didn't have standing. same situation as the members of congress were on doma and they said they didn't have standing. or look at the decision on obama care originally. at page 15 justice roberts writing for the majority said, look this is not a -- this is not a tax, it is a penalty because if it were a tax, then the plaintiffs wouldn't have standing and we wouldn't have jurisdiction. congress called it a penalty. clearly it is a penalty and not a tax. and since it is not a tax, we have jurisdiction and plaintiffs have standing and then he goes for 40 pages or so and then comes out and said since this is a tax and not a penalty, it is constitutional. they didn't mind being massive hypocrites in the same decision.
3:43 pm
i mean just a few dozen pages apart. so the washington times makes a good point if this were a consistent court but they've gotten so far away from the constitution and unanchored from anything we can rely on. >> back to calls. ron, a democrat in florida, hi ron. >> good morning, greta. you are looking good again, this morning. >> she look like she got a tan, didn't she? >> yeah. congressman. >> yes. >> let's start out with your comment about the states and the nazis. i don't remember us allowing the nazis to put up any kind of flags or any kind of remembrance or stones for all of the good battles and everything that they did good for their fights. a couple more comments.
3:44 pm
if you were to taken those 55 or 60 different you know, take that health care out of there instead of repealing it and replaced it 55 times out of 55 times, you might have come up with one good plan that the president could have okayed and then you wouldn't have had that good supreme court to come in and take care of your problem. they are doing a good job. and i'm a christian. i've read the bible. and i would never stone my children because they didn't take and follow my rules. read the bible. god said -- >> all right, ron. >> thank you. and i do read the bible every day and i'm glad that he reads it time to time. but, yeah, that is what jesus brought us. but if you will read what he said in matthew 5, it was a crime to use -- to say raqqa
3:45 pm
about someone. if you say raqqa to somebody then you answer the courts. if you look at romans 13, it makes very clear, the government is supposed to be an encouragement to do good but if you do evil, be afraid because the god doesn't submit the government in vain. and if you submit a crime capitol punishment is an appropriate punishment. and i don't want anybody understanding or apparently the caller did about my mentioning the nazis, and the point i was mentioning whether you agree or disagree with something in the past, you don't just take it out of the history books like stalin did and my friend that called in is obviously not aware, but there was a time, even as abominable as the nazi flag was, it was allowed in some places in the united states. not because everybody -- nearly
3:46 pm
everybody wasn't offended. we were. but because this is america and there is freedom here, or there used to be. and so i was not comparing the confederacy to nazi germy, i was pointing out you don't eliminate parts of your history you don't like altogether. but any way, we did have a time in this country -- >> we're going to break away from this portion of washington journal. can you see this and all of washington journal on our website at c-span. back live now to columbia south carolina. their house of representatives there in south carolina are back in session debating the confederate flag on the house grounds. live coverage here on c-span 3.
3:47 pm
3:48 pm
3:49 pm
3:50 pm
>> members please record your presence.
3:51 pm
3:52 pm
3:53 pm
so as you can see this is a procedural vote there in the south carolina state house. the house of representatives bring their members to the floor and as that goes on we will show you some of "washington journal." there could be a final vote on this measure to bring that confederate battle flag down from the state house grounds today, perhaps tomorrow, a number of amendments were debated earlier and we're going to continue our live coverage as long as the house of representatives in columbia, south carolina is in session today. but while we wait for them to get to the floor and back to business here is some of the morning's "washington journal." >> mark warner democrat of
3:54 pm
virginia sits on the budget and finance committee as well as a lot more panels than that. you're here to talk about the gig economy. what is it and how big is it? >> the gig economy is something that not even everybody agrees with the term, whether it's called gig economy, the on demand economy, sharing economy, it's -- think of the idea of someone who is an uber driver part of the time, i.t. consultant, might be renting out their home to airbnb. the combination of two or three revenue streams to come together to form an employment. some is coming about after the recession because people lost their traditional nine to five jobs and had to cobble together a variety of income sources. a lot of this amongst the millennials, the largest age cohort in america, bumped my age group baby boomers off the stage and they're 83 million strong are actually people doing this by choice, who don't want to work nine to five, like the freedom of cobbling together the
3:55 pm
new type of employment sources and it's actually the fastest growing part of the whole economy. there's some really good things about it but also some real big policy questions because a lot of folks may be doing very, very well but there's absolutely no social safety net, no unemployment, workman's compp, disability, they can go from doing well to if they run too a bump back on public assistance with nothing to catch them. >> why is it a big deal they don't have the traditional safety net? how big is the fastest growing sector of our economy? >> there's not really good data but most folks estimate it's up to a third of the economy. some of that are people working full time and simply having a second job. some of these are traditional independent contractors, some folks who may be scientists, some who may be an actor, many journalists or independent contractors, but this is clearly a phenomena when you think about an uber north of 200,000 drivers, think about an airbnb
3:56 pm
that has more rooms than marriott in a company that didn't exist seven years ago this is something that has been driven by, frankly your smartphone and gps technology which has allowed you to disaggrate between a traditional employer and employee and monetize something you weren't able to monetize in your past your spare time, a ride, a spare room in your house or apartment, so it's a big factor in lifestyle choices. >> you're spending time talking about this. we followed you to we work ans office sharing company here in washington, d.c. you sat down and talked to millennials, but there were baby boomers in that audience there that were taking your questions and asking you questions. but your concern is that because there's not a safety net, the tax a payers could be on the hook, right? >> how do we make sure that we don't stifle the innovation, we
3:57 pm
don't try to put out kind of 20th century solution. right now, washington thinks about this in three categories. you're employed, unemployed or independent contractor. each carry different sets of legal requirements. i don't want to try to fit this new economy into these hold classifications, but i do realize that if there is no unemployment, no workman's comp, no disability, someone who might have a bump in their life as we all do could end up being back upon the taxpayer dime because there's nothing in between. there's no kind of ability to catch you on the way. now, health care in light of the supreme court decision, folks can still access health care. and i'm not saying i've got the absolute solution at this point but i do think we ought to think about options. maybe there could be an unemployment exchange model. a model that the old building
3:58 pm
trades unions used to use. think about a carpenter who in the '50s or '60s might have worked for ten different contractors, they would -- the contractor and the carpenter would contribute into a social welfare fund based upon the number of hours you worked and that would be administered not by the government by a third party, and it would pay out if the person became unemployed. maybe that model. might be a consumer driven model. get out of that uber car and put a little tip there that goes into a social insurance fund. i'm not sure what the right answer is, but i do know for the fastest growing area of our economy, we need to be thinking about this so that there's not the circumstance where we suddenly have not millions but perhaps tens of millions of people in this part of the economy and then if we have an economic downturn, then having to turn basically back to social welfare programs as their only option. >> hasn't this sector of our economy always existed? >> well -- >> why is it something new and now being called gig economy or shared economy? >> there's clearly i'm sure some
3:59 pm
of the viewers rolling their eyes saying, gosh this is nothing new. this is called getting by for folks who have had to cobble together two or three different jobs in the past. what is different is a lot of these -- this new type of employment, we could even question whether it's called employment, because you work completely on your own hours, because you have no set schedule, because you choose to work when you want and there's not the kind of direct supervision where you show up at a certain location and do a certain set of things, it really is a different kind of frame. it's really how you monetize some of your spare time or monetize some asset you have oftentimes with you directly dealing with whoever is paying you, with actually no intermediary at all. that's what some of the technology companies argue. i think from talking to a lot of these companies, and i'm finding frankly no politicians are talking to them at this point which i find a little surprising, 25 people running for president at this point and nobody has talked about the
4:00 pm
fastest growing sector of our economy, that many of them want to do the right thing but trying to figure that out in a way to continue to allow the innovation freedom and choice but also make sure that we kind of get this right is something that we at least need to start this conversation. >> you talked to the airbnb ceo, other ceos. what do they tell you, how is government hurting them? >> you do see oftentimes, let's take airbnb for a moment where you have lots of kind of conflict with the traditional hotel industry and sometimes with folks if you're in an apartment building and do you really want a series of other people coming into that apartment building staying overnight? there are those kind of local zoning issues. when you think about a task rabbit which is you know, the ceo who invented task rabbit was having a party she and her husband were having a party and needed dog food and thought i bet there's somebody in the
4:01 pm
neighborhood that would get the dog food for me if i could figure this out and they've got 30,000 plus folks now doing it. 70% of them of the so-called task rabbits are people with college educations that are doing this a mom who may have kids but got a little spare time, that can monetize her time. so what i find from a lot of these, you know, millennials who actually the good news is they want to work for and buy from companies who have social responsibility, i think many of these entities want to do the right thing. it's trying to think, you know, maybe we need a hybrid classification that doesn't fit into the traditional models, maybe we need to try the variety of states different models but i think they want to do the right thing. >> we're talking with senator mark warner about the gig economy, the near more than one third of americans who are stringing together jobs to make a living. want to get your questions and comments on this for the senator. we'll begin with mark in lovingston virginia you're on
4:02 pm
air with the senator. go ahead. >> caller: hi, my name is marnl actually. >> i apologize. go ahead. >> caller: that's okay. i wanted to ask the senator about the pipeline that they're trying to build through virginia that is totally unnecessary and that could be used, the money could be used for other things so easily. we could develop wind and solar energy and the pipelines will be obsolete in no time at all and destroy the beautiful county i live in. >> i'm familiar with what's going on in terms of the challenge in nelson county and, you know, for process is going through its proceedings at this point. one of the things that i've said is that i want to make sure that all the citizens of nelson county and other counties affected get their say and called upon for the -- to have a second hearing because it seemed the first hearing was a little bit skewed towards the advocates
4:03 pm
in favor. i do believe we have seen this enormous growth, particularly in natural gas, around america that's actually allowed america to become more energy independent and actually has allowed america because using natural gas lowers our carbon footprint to be one of the few nations in the world to hit the kyoto climate accords even though we didn't sign kyoto. there's a use for natural gas, challenges around how it's shipped where it's piped and one of the things that i want to make sure at least, this proceeding is going to go forward, i want -- i'm watching this proceeding but i alsos want to make sure that any of these proposed pipe lines if they are going to be put in place, they're done in the most environmentally conscious way possible. they've moved the pipeline route a couple times. i'm looking at whether they can use some of the existing right of ways but i think this issue is continuing to play out through the pros ses. i'll stay abreast of it.
4:04 pm
thank you. >> manchester, connecticut benjamin, a republican. >> caller: good morning. >> good morning. >> caller: i have a question. for you, senator. is eta overreach in last night's congressional hearing and voting on amendments? is overreach -- >> i'm not sure what you're talking about. >> caller: is the epa regulations hurting transportation, renewable energies in states rights? >> well, again there's a lot of controversy about a variety of epa regulations. i know there's controversy about the waters of usa regulations that have been put out and, obviously, there's a lot of controversy and something i'm watching very closely about the carbon regulations that are still being reviewed and will come out some time in the fall. i think we need to deal with the real challenges around carbon. i think we need to deal with
4:05 pm
climate change. i accept the fact that 98% plus of the scientists agree this is an enormous challenge. i think the pope weighing in recently adds a moral voice to this issue. speaking specifically about the regulations in virginia, i want to make sure the regulations ac foj the fact that a state like virginia that has nuclear power actually you can argue pro or con, nuclear, i believe nuclear ought to be part of our mix but nuclear power doesn't create any carbon footprint and we need in virginia to get credit for what we've done. i think a lot of states will look at their regulations on an individual basis but those are the two that i know that a lot of folks are talking about at this point. >> back to the so-called gig economy, you said earlier you know, 25 people are running for president, no one is talking about the fastest growing part of our economy but what about lawmakers on capitol hill, are they talking about it? does it necessary have to be a government solution to the
4:06 pm
problems that you're seeing or potential problems? >> i don't think this is going to cry out for a bill tomorrow in congress. but if we don't come out with some policy framework what you could end up happening -- have happening is literally thousands of cases of litigation all over the country. that's not going to be good for the companies who are engaged in this sector. that's not going to be good for the company or the individuals working in this growing sector. there are traditional firms. i talked to the ceo of kelly services yesterday that used to be a temp firm, i think kind of when i was a kid the notion of the kelly girl that was somebody who was a kind of a secretarial role now kelly is placing people as top level scientists in top 100 companies. they place people across the whole working framework. they're looking at this issue very closely as well. how do they make sure they look at providing benefits for the
4:07 pm
folks who work for them. so i think there will be at some point actually a crying out from these companies to say hey, give us a set of rules, give us some framework to work at or at least a series of options because if not, you could end up with a series of court cases being litigated on the local level across the country. a case in california about overtime pay for an uber driver. you know i think that has no precedence value beyond the individual case but kind of doing this on a one off litigation basis, doesn't make sense if we believe that this is a sector of the economy, one that's going to grow, two, that many people actually like working in and choose to work in because of the freedom and flexibility it has, so how do you do it, but in a way that also makes sure that the taxpayer doesn't end up kind of in effect holding the bag if things -- if you hit a rough patch. most of the companies and those who work in the sector
4:08 pm
understand if there was a way to be some kind of collaborative contribution to create an unemployment, workman's comp, disability, easier platform into health care, that would allow the sector to grow. >> in the uber court case the court was deciding whether or not this uber driver was an employee or an independent contractor. what's the difference when it comes to the tax code and why does it matter? >> if you are an employee a whole set of rules come in in terms of what types of funds are withheld, do you have to pay overtime if you go beyond a certain number of hours and, you know clearly there are some firms around the country, particularly in the kind of janitorial services, who i think simply in an effort to get away from paying benefits have simply classified all their employees as independent contractors. they still have to show up at a certain time, wear a uniform i have no sympathy for those companies because they're trying to skirt the law in terms of the benefits they have to pay. if you're an individual that
4:09 pm
might drive for lyft twice a month and rent out your apartment once a month and maybe you do some crafts that you sell on etsy a couple of times a month, are you really an employee for each of those three firms? i'm not sure that definition works as well. there may be a hybrid model or hour bank or exchange model that might be more suited for this 21st century kind of employment. >> that's our topic those folks doing two to three different types of jobs to have a stream of revenue coming in. tim in littleton colorado what do you think? >> caller: senator warner i find this an interesting research area you've gotten into. the gig economy seems to be a response to our changing economy. and one of the -- and so i kind of have a two-part question. you know i've watched democrats and republican ss agree on two
4:10 pm
things that are rare, trade agreements and nsa. when i see republicans and democrats agree on anything i'm astounded so there's something there. now, my question i guess is specifically, do you think that there's something in the trade agreements that could be done differently, whereby maybe companies have to produce x amount of their goods that they're producing, cars whatever it is, in the united states, and when -- then they can go offshore and do the other 50% or something to help maintain what would be traditional employment because the gig employment looks like the alternative like the scraping the bottom of the barrel trying to keep afloat, so -- >> sure. >> let me address this. let me take in reverse order. i think there are some folks in the gig economy, i think about certain friends my age who in
4:11 pm
the recession, lost their jobs many of them in the finance world, now are in the gig economy, not by choice, but because that's how they have to put a living together i also know there's a whole lot of folks that i meet with who are millennials who frankly don't want to work in a traditional nine to five job, don't -- have a completely different mindset the idea that opening a house and owning a car is the key to the american dream you know, they have the idea maybe they'll share a car collect a series of experiences, and love the idea of trying to be micro entrepreneurs and the notion that they're cobbling together a couple different things gives them a set of freedoms that frankly my generation and my folks' generation didn't have. they're doing this by choice. i don't think this is all scraping the bottom of the barrel. if you look at the workers in this so-called gig economy, they're actually college grads and graduate school grads doing this by choice. on trade i actually firmly
4:12 pm
supported the trade deal. i think that when you look at our economy it's a mature economy. 95% of all the future customers for american businesses are going to be abroad. i want to make sure we can sell them our stuff and services but i want to make sure, particularly when we look at asia, it's america setting the rules and not china setting the rules. china seemed to always go to the lowest common denominator and what i'm going to be looking for in the trade agreement is to make sure that countries like the vietnams and malaysias and others part of any tpp agreement, that they've got strong labor standards, strong environmental standards, that there are human rights standards. this is going to have to be a much better agreement than the so-called nafta agreements in the '90s. this notion of content, domestic content, that's part of what a trade agreement ought to be looking at. at the end of the day, where america is going to be add the most value we're going to add the most value around high skilled jobs around jobs that
4:13 pm
are created from intellectual product, advanced manufacturing. some of the assembly jobs kind of on the low end, lower end of the scale, probably will be done elsewhere. but if we can dot basic research, the kind of advanced manufacturing components and as -- we see other industrial nations do this, germany has maintained a strong advanced manufacturing sector if we can have that and sell those materials to countries all over the world people want to buy our goods, that's going to be net good for american jobs. one of the reasons i supported the trade votes last week or two weeks ago i guess it was. >> to william in virginia. democrat. hi, william. >> caller: good morning. how are you? >> good morning. >> caller: senator warner, i would like to thank you for your service to the commonwealth. i met you back in the '90s in elementary classroom in lynchburg, virginia, you were first campaigning and later on through the virginia education association i met you several times so thank you it for your service. just listening to you talk about
4:14 pm
these streams of income, i was a teacher but i worked three, four jobs until i was 50 years old. i worked for one company for 13 years straight and i never could get the 900 hours that was required for me to become part of the retirement system or get any of those incentives. i was wondering the importance of social security for people who retire, never rolled about rolling it over or having to contact anyone or anything i would like to know, do you think that keeping that strong for these streams of income, or do you have a possible plan for separate something where people could contribute where it's going to be there when you get old like i've gotten? >> thanks for the question. i think we have to maintain the integrity of social security. it is critically important. it is critically important for
4:15 pm
folks who are qualifying and i just hit 60 this year, so i'm just a few years away myself, but i think we need to be honest about social security. when i was a kid there were 16 people working for every one person on retirement receiving social security and medicare. today three people working for every person that's retired. that's not because anybody in politics messed things up. it's because thank goodness we're living longer. anyone that denies the math around social security is still working, can't read a balance sheet. i believe we need to make sure the promise of those in their 20s and 30s you talk to millennials, none believe they will have social security, so we don't have the 20% plus cut in security benefits that will 2032 which sounds a long way away but isn't. whether it's raising the cap on the amount of income taxed. i've supported what the president supported chain cpi,
4:16 pm
a different measurement of consumer price index, i think there are a variety of knobs you can turn. the sooner we start the process in place to shore up social security the better in terms of making sure we keep that commitment and promise to our ter. young people. at the same time, we need to realize, think about the changes in retirement. my dad's generation he worked for the same company for 40 years. he didn't make a lot of money but he got guaranteed a pension there were good benefits had health care. think about my generation we kind of moved from a defined benefit plan to a defined contribution plan. kind of the 401(k) generation, so we've got a some level of back-end guarantee but much smaller. this next generation, you know, outside of social security has very little. i think when we think about social safety net, we ought to be not only thinking about unemployment, workman's comp
4:17 pm
disability but what 21st century pension plans would look like so that some of these millennials who are cobbling together and living high and enjoying the so-called gig economy that they're also having some abilityr. to put away resources for the retirement. depending on social security alone is not a long-term good fiscal plan. >> couple tweets from our viewers. here's bjs says are people working multiple low wage jobs a part of the glamorous gig economy, do you think that all workers deserve living wage? first of all, not everyone who's working in the so-called gig economy are working low-end jobs. some of these contractual jobs are quite high paying, i think about the airbnb statistics show somebody by renting out an apartment once a month gets about $7,000 in additional income on an average basis over a year. that's a fairly good chunk of resources. data has shown at least in the top end there's still some question about this, that in
4:18 pm
many cities, uber drivers are making more than cab drivers. there's still a debate about the level and the pay for some of these jobs out there so i don't think you can categorize them one way or the other. i do think this is another issue that i've been working on, that we need to think about how to make capitalism work in the 21st century. i cofunded nextel, blessed to do very well, but i worry about an economy today where somebody can work, 40 50 hours a week and depend on government assistance to get by. what has happened and i say this as a proud capitalist with the kind of enormous focus on short-term quarterly profits, over long term value creation, i worry the focus on short term and capitalism will destroy capitalism and that the traditional kind of macro economic model that says we have
4:19 pm
abundance of labor and shortage of capital and everything in our tax code promotes capital over labor that has switched around in america that you look around we have lots of capital sloshing in the system, we don't have a lot of qualified labor, so how you can re-set some of the tax code to actually incent investments and pay quality labor in upskilling of labor, is something i really think we have to wrestle with. long term if you get this right, you could have higher disposable income for people. a more trained work force and actually, the government have less obligation to pay out or benefits. >> another tweet who says this if companies desire solution to what you're talking about, it order. will only be because they fear unions and unions would help here, he says, in this gig economy. >> there is twa a woman named sarah hor wit whoz put together the free holders union in new york. she's looking at different
4:20 pm
models on, you know, cobbling together folks who are easure freelancers economy or on demand or 1099 economy, we have to come up with a common term we use, she's saying how can people come together and pool some of their resources and try to make sure that some level ofvi benefits are provided. that would be another model that rela needs to be looked at. i'm not sure that the -- i've sat down, for example, with the labor movement and said what are your ideas around here?ong wi they have looked a lot at this i notion of an hour bank, where ifme. somebody may be cobbling together a series of revenues from different sources and different types of employments, one point you're driving, another point you're working on an i.t. project, another point renting out your apartment you maybe -- pu another part you may be making alcom handy craft selling on the sp etsy, you may have four different quote/unquote employ employers but if everyone contributed a little bit into
4:21 pm
the socialof a welfare fund that might be a way to kind of get it right. i think we're going to need to look at a series of models and frankly probably try a series of experiments, to get this right but i do think the idea of having -- not having policymakers talk about this is a huge mistake. >> no legislation pending? >> no legislation pending and one of the things that i don't think we want to have is washington rush to a solution s amen before we even thought through the problem.tative but we at least ought to be thinking through the problem because you -- for some folks -- >> we're going to break away from the washington journal segment. you can see that at cspan.org. the south carolina house of representatives debating amendments on that proposition to bring the confederate battle flag down from its position flying above the state house grounds. live coverage here from columbia south carolina. on c-span 3. >> african-american history monument, the scope only allows
4:22 pm
us to take up matters relating to the monument on the front of the state house dealing with the confederate soldiers monument so for that matter, and on that basis, the amendment would be out of order and outside the scope. >> the resolution, mr. smith reads, south carolina bat battle flag of america. >> that's correct. this is a different monument on the other side of the state house, the african-american history monument and i believe he's trying to address the bronze flag on that monument. >> thank you. mr. pits. >> i would argue that -- thank you. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i would argue that these are the state house grounds. these memorials and monuments are all on the state house grounds. >> thank you both. mr. pits the resolution was
4:23 pm
narrowly drafted and i'm going to stains mr. pits' point of order on amendment. mr. smith's point of order on amendment 31. sustained. mr. pits. >> next amendment number 32. mr. pits, number 32. mr. smith. >> i yield. >> mr. hart. >> thank you, mr. speaker. ats they time we raise a point of order. amendment 32 removed the bronze regiment battle flag from the african-american history museum. this is out of order with the resolution also stated by representative james smith. >> same point of order. >> that is correct. >> okay. >> sustained. >> thank you, mr. hart.
4:24 pm
>> 32 is out of order 33, pits taylor and putnam. >> representative pits is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. this is one that i would -- i put up with with mixed emotion. and i put this one up with mixed emotion because i believe it is my duty to make a decision as the representative and elected official from my district. i believe i am the voice of the people in my district. but i have heard very loudly and very clearly from people in my district that they would like to have a say in this matter. and this particular amendment calls for an informational referendum to allow them to express their opinion and give their voice in the next presidential election.
4:25 pm
>> mr. pits you yield the podium? representative james smith is recognized. representative smith. >> thank you mr. speaker. members of the house this is one of these opportunities where you can do the right thing and the constitutional thing in the same time. this amendment if we adopt is facially unconstitutional. it would give this decision to the people of south carolina. and our state supreme court has spoken on this clearly several times. we cannot delegate our authority. we cannot hand off no matter how much we might like, even when it's a difficult, tough decision, that we don't want to make ourselves we are not permitted under the constitution to give that decision to the people we represent. so it's unconstitutional to do it. it will not survive any level of
4:26 pm
constitutional scrutiny. we're on notice it's facially unconstitutional. more importantly this is the wrong thing to do. this is a terribly, terribly divisive issue in our state and we need to resolve it collectively and come together and take care of this matter ourselves. let's do that. thank you. >> representative corley is recognized. i'm sorry. corley and clearly. >> thank you, mr. speaker. ladies and gentlemen, i think a number of us were informed that there was an official opinion from the attorney general on this matter. i want to clarify that. the attorney general did not give an official opinion on this matter. he was asked on thursday, july 2nd for an opinion and that was by senator grooms and the attorney general replied by saying that with the fourth of july holiday looming they had not had sufficient time to prepare formal opinion. there is no formal opinion from the attorney general's office.
4:27 pm
even if there was it's just an opinion. what the attorney general did give us, he answered two questions. number one, what is the constitutionality of a binding referendum and he said that is unconstitutional citing the joy time case and that is correct, about what we're asking for is a nonbinding advisory referendum. now the second portion that the attorney general provided us skritss three cases. the first case is the grigs case in which there was a dispute over the location of a hospital in chesterfield county in the '50s. the general assembly passed a nonbinding referendum for the residents to determine where they wanted the hospital. then the general assembly after passing that passed an act, act 428, which gave the hospital board the authority to decide. the petitioners in that case attempted to say that the general assembly was bound to the advisory referendum.
4:28 pm
now the ruling did not say that an advisory referendum is unconstitutional. it said the general assembly is not bound to it and further said that enabling act 428 would have superseded that anyway. that was actually listed as a case that would allow for a nonbinding referendum. the two cases that are listed by the attorney general's office that would say that it's unconstitutional for this amendment, for this referendum excuse me, is the case which says advisory elections for magistrate court judges are unconstitutional because there is already a set constitutional standard for appointing a magistrate judge. that was not a statewide advisory referendum. that was an -- yeah, an advisory election. that's different. completely different. the other case that's cited is state versus green, in which there was a criminal trial the defendant was found guilty and
4:29 pm
the judge then asked the jury, to go into the jury room and give him a recommendation on sentencing. and that was i guess assumed to be a nonbinding referendum of 12 jurors. but neither one of these cases given by the attorney general in his opinion that's not really an opinion, says that a nonbinding advisory referendum is unconstitutional. i'll take any questions. # >> thank you mr. speaker. i want to get a little clarification. how is it determined in south carolina if we want to have a resolution are referendum say concerning the lottery how is that? liquor, gay marriage, how do we do those? >> an advisory referendum? >> whether it's advisory or binding, what -- >> a binding referendum is not constitutional. >> how do we determine -- >> we can decide that.
4:30 pm
>> so we -- when we did the lottery in south carolina, didn't we have a resolution -- i mean a referendum? >> i think i was an undergrad when that happened. >> i wasn't. but we can do a referendum? >> i believe we can do a referendum because this opinion not really an opinion -- >> do one in 2014 on gay snarnlg marriage? >> i believe we did. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> mr. burns, recognized for a question. >> i can't hear him. representative corley thank you for getting up and explaining that to us. many, many of the do you know that i've got about 4,000

32 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on