tv FOX News Sunday With Chris Wallace FOX News June 30, 2013 3:00pm-4:01pm PDT
>> i'm john roberts in for chris wallace, immigration reform faces an uncertain road in the house after it sails through the senate. >> the yeas are 68 the nay are 32. >> we're getting right with the law. >> we're joined by two members who helped draft the bill. john mccain and charles schumer together only on fox news sunday. then we'll example prospects in the republican led house. >> we're not going to bring up the senate bill. we're going to do it in our own way because we wanted to make sure we get the stuff right. >> we'll discuss with two
key congressman mario and trey gowdy. and key rulings from the supreme court. >> that is not enough. it's got to go nationwide! >> we'll ask our panel what is next for same-sex marriage. all right now on fox news sunday. >> john: after much debate it secured a victory in the senate with the passage of bill giving millions of immigrants to eventually become u.s. citizens, it has long road to go before it becomes the law of the land the ballot moves to the house as they propose a pathway to citizenship. joining us are two members of the gang of eight responsible for drafting the senate bill, john mccain of arizona he is in jerusalem and charles
schumer of new york. let me start with you senator mccain. after years are going after this, after suffering the slings and arrows you did, you finally have a bill. are you concerned that your colleagues in the house may derail all of the work you have done? >> well i'm concerned about the task ahead of us. i believe that it's a fact that the overwhelming majority of people in america support the measure once explained to them. i believe that the coalition that we have assembled of support ranging from evangelicals farm workers, business and labor and growers, it's a coalition that i frankly have never seen such widespread support. i'm hopeful that we can convince our house colleagues. i intend to address them with respect.
i believe that speaker boehner has a tough job ahead. i admire his leadership, but we've got a lot of work to do. >> john: senator boehner says the house will write its own bill and house, the way it's going, it's in bite-sized chunks with path to citizenship being the last of chunks. president has said he is not going to sign any immigration bill that does not include a path to citizenship. from the outset, are you concerned that immigration reform may be dead? >> no, not at all. in fact i believe that by the end of this year the house will pass the senate bill. i know that is not what they think now and they will say, no, that is not what is going to happen. let me explain why. first i understand where speaker boehner is coming from. i have a lot of respect for the house. he has a whole lot of republican members, they will vote no. they fear republican
primaries from the right if they vote yes. i think the dynamic will change and they are still worried about their primaries but let it go for four reasons. first, the coalition john mentioned, its broad and deep coalition of people usually don't side with democrats, catholic church and evangelicals, business community. now, they are going to feel the very enthusiastic. they will get have a desire to get it done. second, the national republican leadership will tell john boehner, if you don't pass a bill, then we're going to be a minority party for a generation. he is the house leader and third leader. third, it has a potential for being one of greatest civil rights movements we've ever seen. i could see a million people on the mall in august asking for the bill,
who is going to be on stage? not the usual, but the bishop and business leaders. finally and very importantly, we're not going to let this issue go away. strong supporters of immigration are going to be at the townhall meetings of republican congressmen. they will be visiting them in their offices. they will be in the hall of congress. you put that altogether, you add one more fact. i don't think speaker boehner can pass a piecemeal bills. let's take the toughest one enforcement, no will vote without a path to citizenship. 40 republicans saying they won't vote for any bill because they don't want to a conflict. within several months, speaker boehner will find no bill or let a bill pass with a majority of democratic votes and some chamber of commerce type republicans. he'll find that the better choice.
we'll pass it by the end of this year. >> john: do you agree senator mccain that the house will pass the senate bill? could republicans be perpetually in the minority and thirdly, speaker boehner says he is not going to bring it to floor with the majority support of caucus. he has invoked the hasert rule. would you encourage him, would you encourage him to wave the hastert ruling in this case? >> i respect and admire john boew. we've been colleagues and friends for many years. i respects his leadership. i really don't feel it's appropriate for me to tell him exactly how he should handle this. one thing i want to emphasize. there is always friction between the house and senate. a lot of it understandable, but i respect the house of representatives.
i respect their views. we have a job ahead of us. we're not going to be alone here as chuck and i mentioned. there is coalition the likes i haven't seen. congress sooner or later responds to public opinion. when you ask the american people if they supported this if these people are here legally, learning english, plus a tough border security provision, plus an e-verify, in other words, everybody who applies for a job better have the right documentation, think you have a winning combination. it's not going to be easy, but again, i really hesitated to tell speaker boehner how he should do. this i think republicans realize the implications much of the future of republican party if we don't get this issue behind us. by the way, we do share the common goal of believing that the defacto amnesty is
there we need to bring them out of the shadows. >> i would say one more thing. in three times in the last six months, speaker boehner has violated the so-called hasert rule and fiscal cliff, on sandy and in the violence against women act. he hasn't done that yet in the farm bill but he may do it on the farm bill. you are right. he starts out by saying this. he has to for his caucus. i have huge respect for the man he tries to do the right thing under difficult circumstances. i think the dynamics that john mentioned and somebody that i have said is going to force him to abandon that hasert rule otherwise he'll just have the senate bill and lesser of the two evils is senate bill. >> john: there is a lot to talk about. something that is going to very close to you. huge protests going on in egypt today.
instability of that largest of the arab countries in terms of population. right there on the border with israel. are you concerned about the level of instability that there has been in that country and continues to be. it looks like it is escalating since the overthrow of m uh-uh? >> i'm very concerned about it -- hosni mubarak. >> it's part of what is happening across the middle east. my focus and concern is really more on syria. it is now going from a civil war to a regional conflict. jordan is the destabilized, lebanon is destabled and proxy war between the united states and iran and we are watching this happen. we need american leadership. we needed a no-fly zone. we need to understand that when russia and assad
crossed red line use of chemical weapons, if we do nothing, iranians aren't going to believe we are serious about nuclear weapons. >> john: the president announced he is going to provide arms to syrian rebels. c.i.a. will vet rebel groups before it arms them. a question a lot of people have, how do you adequately vet a syrian rebel group? >> i think that is one of the reasons the president has been cautious. syria has a broad range of groups groups, some are pro democratic, some are just sunnis that have been oppressed but some are pretty bad, affiliates of al-qaeda. people are talking about qatar is giving them shoulder held missiles that can take out airplanes. they sent it over to al-qaeda they could knock down a commercial airliner.
there are a lot of worries. it's a difficult situation. >> john: senator mccain, you were recently in syria, as a result of that trip there were several reports that claimed you had a photograph taken with a notorious exited kidnapper. your spokesman says it was are regrettable and said if you don't know who your photo taken with, how do you know who you are giving weapons to? >> i know who i met with. i met with a group of syrians yesterday. they are brave people and fight for freedom. i know the general and his leadership. it is their power that has given assad -- a 100,000 people have been killed, 8,000 have been children. massacre goes on. it cries out for american leadership. we need american leadership and that is what i get in
every country and every one of these people that i talk to. yes, i know the difference between him and the legitimate people who we should be supporting the. the best way is give them a safe area to operate out of in syria. we can do it with crews missiles. we do not need boots on the ground. >> john: another topic, latest in the nsa leaks investigation, snowden's as a kind of guest of russia at the airport. president obama addressed this in his press conference. let's listen to what he said. >> i have not called president putin personally because the reason is number one, i shouldn't have to. no, i'm not going to be scrambling jets to get a 29-year-old hacker.
>> john: the president seems to be playing down the significance of edward snowden. is that the way you see it and should he be picking up the phone? >> i don't know whether he should be picking up phone or not. i do know this is direct slap in the face of america. we should be now finally realizing what vladimir putin is. he is an old colonel kgb operations officer and he dreams the restoration of the russian empire. he is funneling assistance to assad. they thumb our nose no matter what the issue is. we should deal realistically, not a return to the cold war but realistically with vladimir putin. that means missile convicts in europe, expansion of the magnitski bill and recognizing that vladimir putin is, if we could push
the reset back down to 1955. we have to deal realistically with an autocratic ruler of russia that continues to oppress people in russia and behaves in a manner that is not the cause of world peace and good relations between russia and united states. >> john: you sewed pointed things about president putin a week ago. seven days have gone by, nothing has happened. what is your thinking and do you agree with senator mccain to up the pressure? >> i do completely. i'm not sure it should be done publicly with snowden in russian hands. they should pay a price, diplomatic or geopolitical for doing what they did. they are putting their finger in our eye. we ought to be clear with ecuador they are going to pay a price if they take snowden. we should cut off aid of
$10 million. no more trade status. preferred trade status. that will put them in on box, because colombia and peru have free trade agreements with us. no business visas. there is 85,000 business visas between ecuador and u.s. putin it's a complicated relationship. i agree with john mccain. he ought to pay a price here because he goes out of his way to stick his finger in the eye of america. he is not -- he has lots of vulnerabilities. >> john: what senator schumer was referring to john biden to ecuador please do not give asylum in your country. president of ecuador, we're not going to think about that now because he is not in territory and maybe we will and maybe we won't.
then on national television he made grievances against the united states. should the vice president have called him? >> i'm not saying he should or shouldn't or vice president should or shouldn't. we have a deal with he is countries in realistic fashion. they are not friends of ours. they will do whatever is necessary to damage america's national interests. by the way, we are hearing now that al-qaeda and other organizations are changing their strategy in means of communications as a result of mr. snowden's revelations. so these things don't happen without some price to be paid. there should be a price to be paid. i would like to throw in, back to immigration, i hope that they show the american people and fellow members of congress that we can work together. maybe this will be a
precursor for others things. >> john: we'll be watching very closely. senators, thanks so much for joining us today. >> thank you. >> john: coming up, president obama is urging the house to pass immigration reform before the august recess. republican leaders are saying not so fast. we discuss the prospect to compromise with two key members of congress coming up next. mine was earned in djibouti, africa. 2004. vietnam in 1972. [ all ] fort benning, georgia in 1999. [ male announcer ] usaa auto insurance is often handed down from generation to generation.
>> john: speaker of the house john boehner rejecting the notion that his chamber will rush through immigration reform just because the senate passed a bill last week. he has said whatever the measure they take up must have the support the republican majority. joining us is to, congressman of trey gowdy, he is chairman of the subcommittee. we're hoping to speak with mario diaz on immigration reform on the house. we are having technical difficulties with him. a power failure just before we went on the air. we hope to have him join us. let's go to south carolina, good to see you. congressman gow dy. >> good morning. >> john: i assume you heard senator smoom schumer talk about i am.
what do you say the house will pat the senate bill? >> i was moved almost to the point of tears by schumer's concerns for the prospects of the republican party. we're not going to take his advice. senate bill is not going pass in the house and pass for myriad of reasons. i support immigration reform. think the current system is broken. we have two legislative bodies and same they it did for a reason. house runs every two years with the theory being that we will be close eser to the will of the people. under the assumption that they gave us two legislative bodies and house of representatives with 435 members we are going to work our will like we have for the past week. we have passed four separate bills and additional bill out of homeland security. we are making progress and we will continue to do so. i'm more interested in getting it right than doing
it on senator schumer's schedule. >> both schumer and mccain, there is a lot of pressure being brought to bear on the house from varied coalition of groups, some that have not traditionally sided. u.s. chamber of commerce, law enforcement and growers and many churches who are saying to republicans across the land, it's time to pass immigration reform. will you be able to resist the pressures that are coming from those groups? >> no, i don't think it's a question of resisting. it's a question of meeting with the groups. i have met with every one of those groups multiple times. the issue is not the broad principles of immigration reform and humanity and respect of the rule of law. everybody agrees on the principles. where we have a difference of opinion are the details. everyone agrees on border security, for instance.
but i can't sell in south carolina a border security plan where the security comes after the legalization. i can't sell a border security plan where janet napolitano tells us the border is secure. i can't tell sell a border security plan when the executive can turn on and off triggers for politically expedient reasons, nor would i try to sell any of those plans. you can agree on theory on border security but disagree strongly on how it is achieved. you can agree on path of citizenship but whether border security is a condition precedent which it would be in my case, is very important distinction. i welcome the input will all these constituents and faith community. that matters greatly to me as does law enforcement. take the law enforcement for a second. house plan allows state and local law enforcement to assist if they want to, if
they want to assist federal law enforcement in enforcing immigration laws. that is non-starter in the senate. senate is fine with law enforcement enforcing every other category of crime, from murder to narcotics traffick to go bank robbery but haven't gotten involved in immigration. the reason we have two bodies and reason you have debate so you can take these broad principles and write them into legislation. that is what we're trying to do right now. >> john: when you look at the senate bill of majority to 68, they didn't get to the 70 they wanted because they thought it would put more pressure on the house. it's a comprehensive bill. you are doing it much more bite-sized chunks. the chunks, highly skilled workers, great authority -- create a new program for agricultural workers and
e-verify but nothing about citizenship. when you look at the 11 million people in this country illegally. there is according to senator mccain, is de facto amnesty in place if you do nothing. why do you feel the need address all those other issues first before you approach the issue of a path to citizenship or the very least some sort of legal status? >> i do agree what we now is de facto amnesty but i also agree with this. there is did i minimum use of trust diminished but trust us on e-verify that is not going to fly in south carolina. i doubted it will fly in arizona or new york's. there is lack of trust in
institutions of government. i think it's important to tell our fellow citizens we got the lesson from 1986. we learned our lesson. we're going to have security mechanisms in place to respect for the rule of law then we're show humanity that defines us as republic. i'm fine with showing the high the man but the order that it is done is important. 11 million is not a homogeneous group. all of the 11 million desire citizenship. so to force citizenship on someone that does not want it, all the 11 million can't pass a background check. all the 11 million are not similarly situated. you should have a different level of scrutiny for a child that was broht here as opposed to a 30-year-old for three weeks. you would want not want the same level of analysis for the same groups. it's tempting to say one
group with the same characteristics but the reality there is number of sub groups that frankly that are worthy of different levels of scrutiny. i hope the house plan will have that. >> john: i want to switch gears. it look like we're not going to have congressman diaz with us. there is power failure there in florida. let me switch gears to the irs. you wanted lois lerner back before your committee. let's go back and let's listen to what she said. >> i have not done anything wrong. i have not broken any laws. i have not violated any irs rules or regulations and i have not provided false information to this or any other congressional committee. >> john: she made a statement and then promptly took the fifth amendment declining to testify which
is her right. you say, congressman, the way she did she waived her fifth amendment rights. you are a former prosecutor. what do you plan to do about it? >> well, you say that is her right. it is her right to remain silent. it is not your right to offer a lot of exculpatory information and say i'm not going to be subjected to cross-examination. the right to confront witnesses and cross-examine witnesses is also in the constitution. it's in the sixth million and not the fifth. what are we going to do? i would hope that lois lerner would feel motivated to share the information she has with congress, whether a proper or limited immunity agreement. i would like to have her information. i have to be guaranteed that her information is complete. i am committed to getting to the bottom of what happened with the irs
speaking of lack of trust in the institutions of government. i'm not going to give immunity to lois lerner until i hear what she has to say and corroborate or not corroborate her information. >> john: her attorney waived off what the committee saying it has no legal impact. you hope you would come before the committee. do you have any legal way to compel her to come back and testify? >> unless your name is jock bower you can't make people talk. we can bring her back but you can't make someone talk but you can insist on them to talk. we do that in criminal justice system by limited immunity agreements. look, her attorney was sitting right behind her when she, my advice to him, i don't know him, but my advice to him, notify your
malpractice carrier first of all because you let your client testify. bring your client in and do what is in her best interests. it's in her best interests to work this out with congress with the oversight committee. that would be my advice to lois lerner. >> john: there is a slight resemblance between you and keefer sutherland. we'll see if you compel her to come back or similar fashion. thanks for joining us. appreciate your time this morning. >> john: cheers and celebration after high court's ruling in same-sex marriage cases, new battles are already brewing on the state level. our panel is next. [ male announcer ] running out of steam? ♪
>>. the opportunity to right a wrong, now, when we leave this earth, they will say paul and jeff and so many did not stand for treated as second class citizens. i hope we did a little bit to change the path toward equality. [ applause ] >> john: pair of plaintiffs in california's ban on same-sex marriage, tying the knot after they lifted the stay on marriage licenses to same-sex couples. sponsors of the state ban called the 9th circuit of appeals action disgraceful, kim better strassel is with us. juan williams, jennifer rubin good morning all. what do you think the upshot of the rulings are? >> i think for the republicans it's a blessing for disguise. this is off the national table for them. they can claim whatever personal feelings they have
about traditional marriage or not traditional marriage but it goes back to the states because it's very odd opinion we got from justice kennedy, states in the they're term are going to decide it for themselves. republicans can put a nod to the social conservatives and at the same time they can let the states work it out on their own. >> john: which issue is more significant? >> the doma case, this is complete mass confusion still. there was no clarity in this decision whatsoever in that you had anthony kennedy writing the decision. he in part said this was because this is federalism issue a states should be allowed to do what they want, but it may be a equal protection issue and constitutional argument against any of these state laws that define marriage as only between a man and woman. we don't know. and because the court simultaneously punted on
the prop 8 case in california they didn't have to rule on that issue. >> john: i think the prop 8 case has got coattails because california is such a huge state. tens of thousands of same-sex couples get married, that will have a spillover affect but doma, anyone opposed is enemy to human decency. a state law restrict go to the traditional definition and charles krauthammer said if it is discriminatory to not allow same-sex couples to enjoy benefits, maybe it's discriminatory to not allow them to get married? >> maybe its slippery slope down to same-sex marriage and that is where we may end up. but i agree with jennifer that this courted gave
conservatives, especially conservative presidential candidates who want to run in the republican party a comfortable place to land to say this is now up to the states. i also think if not handled correctly it exacerbates the republican party has that they are not in-sync with caking public opinion. >> john: let's look at the polls. if you look a back 2012, 42% favors it now, 46-47, that is even. >> yes, but tremendous shift. this was a major wedge issue in american politics on the basis of what those numbers you just cited. you can see the wedge is going away. all the momentum is in favor of people saying pro-choice. kennedy's language was saying moral and sexual choices should be constitutionally protected. if that is case then, what
is the basis for any state old hoelgd there is a ban on same-sex marriage. in fact, justice scalia said given what the majority wrote, we are waiting for the next shoe to drop. i think that is where it goes. on terms of the politics what you are going to see a tremendous fight at the state level. you are going to sigh the ooflgs and people that feel it's an abomination, they will make a stand here. the question is whether they become a fringe movement or able to generate mainstream sympathy. in terms of the black church in this country, they would get some sympathy. >> john: let's listen to something that was said immediately after the decision from thomas peters from the national organization for marriage about the fight conservative groups are going to mounted in the days ahead. >> american people constitutional amendments as over 30 states have we're going to offensive
like ohio. it was not just history is moving in one direction. >> john: it sounds like they are going to mounted a big fight and be well funded, as well. >> this is in part what happens when courts get involved. how much of those polls you show showing public sentiment is because of the reality states have been able to fight this out. they have been able to have a public debate in a legislative manner in their states. it begs the next question, if they feel compelled on justice kennedy's logic and say this is a constitutional right to gay marriage, do you make this the next abortion rule where people are opposed and something we fight over for decades. >> conservatives said one thing was not accurate it was roe v. wade but in row they monopolized the field. they didn't leave states to hash this out.
so conservatives and americans want to bottle this out, that is -- battle this out. marriage has been in the realm states. from a policy standpoint or political standpoint to have these battles. >> 13 states allow same-sex marriages. there are handful of other states that allow civil unions but not same sex. in the doma decision it only pertained to same-sex marriage. could you make the case a state like new jersey that allows civil unions to say, wait a minute, they are only offering federal protection for people that are actually married therefore it is unconstitutional for you, governor, to put me in a civil union as opposed to marriage? >> it's unconstitutional but it's a political argument. i think it helps people that are looking for a
movement towards a more inclusive definition of marriage. i don't biggest problem conservatives have with the courts. biggest problems is the american people. and on issues of fairness and inclusion. and it's not on their side. younger republicans, younger evangelicals, movement is all in one direction. >> i think it's kind of like the game is over pretty much. it is interesting in terms of the politics whether it's going to energize that base of people who say, i just can't abide by this. do they have impacted? i don't know. on the states we're going to see rhetoric and talk, but i think it's going to be more of the heat than actual substance. >> republican party will have to manage that internal conflict. >> john: we're going to take a break and be back with a texas sized battle over abortion. reaction to one woman filibuster that would impose some of the toughest
tune with public opinion, and, right now, late term abortion is not a popular issue with the public in general. she made a very dramatic show and got a lot of attention. politically she is on the wrong side of the issue. you think of the opposition of planned parenthood and there are lots of people who think, you know this has gone too far. the question is: what happens to wendy davis? i don't think she comes out politically, jennifer is exactly right if you look at the polling on this, abortions after 20 weeks are not popular with anyone. the fact is, people in the pro choice movement feel they are under siege from all the
republicans legislatures, republican governors, who in catering to their base, are trying to pass more restrictive law on abortion in this country. >> gregg: there is in question it benefits her. >> in question. it benefits her. to go back do what you said, they can talk about this but it is not something that has changed public view. texas is not abnormal compared to the country. 71 percent of americans who do not think abortion shoulding legal in the second trimester and 86 percent in the third trimester. so there is a great deal of unanimity. >> gregg: and a clip of perry who took aim at wendy davis if a personal way. >> she was a teenage mother herself. she managed to eventually graduate from harvard law school and serve in the texas senate.
it's just unfortunate that she hasn't learned from her own example that every life must be given a chance to realize its full potential and every life matters. >> gregg: there was a lot of those who share his views but planned parenthood said the remarks are condescending and insulting to women which is why the vast majority in texas believe that politicians should not be involved in a woman's personal decisions. >> and wendy davis said, i made a choice. that is what i want for every woman. she an instant folk hero. anyone who can stand on their feet for 13 hours they get to be that star. she is a star. in terms of the abortion debate, though, in the short-term, she will lose. i agree with kim that when republicans talk about gay marriage, immigration, contraception but on the issue of abortion especially late-term abortion they are on solid
ground. if general, though, the war on women, the perry being condescending to wendy davis, the advantage is to of this n: goes pro-choice. >> the big decision of the week we want to get to is voting rights, what happens when you strike down section four of r voting rights act and leave se section five in place. the supreme court said in its decision that times have changed. juan, have they? >> i don't see how they come to that conclusion.ac it is interesting to me, they basically placed a bet. if you do away with preclearance for nine states and some other jurisdictions in terms of preclearance, these jurisdictions have history of ha discriminatory behavior in termy of voting patterns, if you do away with it, are we risking reversing 50 years of games di stopping discriminatory treatment of people, and we don't know. but i will say this.ig what we do know right now there are i think 31 blocks the justice department placed on
changes in those states since '06, the last time the lam was expanded.d. what we know is that texas, lese than 24 hours after the supreme court decision said we're goingb to put back in the voter id law. virginia. k in the voter id law. >> andvi we know that in the la election -- can be challenged voting rights. >> had to berm challenged after the fact, not in terms of preclearance. to me, this is a big step, one that carries such tremendous ty weight because the republican party right now is overwhelmingly has incentive to depress prient votes in the co country because they don't vote republican. >> fundamentally it is a constitutional issue, and there isn't evidence, that's the issue the court had to put in front of it, right now, black, white, registration and turnout in these states is pretty much even. lower than the average in terms. of gap, right now, the state that has the worst gap in terms of black, white turnout is in
massachusetts. so what happened, too, the court said you want to continue to don this, go ahead, rewrite it, but you have t o make it fit current circumstances. that's one of the reasons we are not likely to see it, you're going to write laws about massachusetts voting. >> that's what the chief justice said, congress, we're putting it back in your hands. fix section four. >> surprised that happened. in response to kim, it had a prophylactic effect. if you say now in terms of the t turnouts we are seeing it is just about i equal, it could be because we had a voting right act. and remember, the supreme court isto supposed to show to congress -- they didn't say it is unconstitutional to do this, they said we don't like your ted formula, we think it is u outdated. >> unconstitutional to use thate formula. >> let's move forward. supreme court decision is done. now something has to be done fo about it withur section four. what happens?goin >> nothing is going to be done r >> nothing is going to be done r nothing.
the question for me politicallye will there be backlash to this in the states. you saw in 2012, governor rick scott in florida changed early voting hours, huge backlash in r the community, people died for this right, they turned out probably in bigger numbers than they would have if you hadn't done that. i think republicans move forward with strict voter id laws and redistricting at their peril. >> i think it cuts two ways.te in many states, voter id is a ub winning issue for republicans w and winning issue with groups that you might be surprised to hear about, because they believe there's a prophylactic to use your term prevention of fraud, voter fraud. i think it cuts both ways. one thing is clear, however, that the catastrophe about the decision is incorrect. prospectively, juan, you can go to court, try to get in junction under section two, you can prevent these things going forward. it is not the last word on it.
we're going to have a lot of legal battles down the road. >> give juan the last word. >> what we have seen is indicative of what is to come, gerrymandering, purging voter roles, limiting times for voting, no sunday voting, voter id. what is it intended to do? depress minority turnout, and it is not racist but to the benefit of republicans to do it. h >> hold on that.we we have the panel plus come up. we will get to that. we also have a story heading to independence day of a medal of honor winner that only wants one thing for independence day, his long lost medal of honor back. the ones getting involved and staying engaged. they're not afraid to question the path they're on. because the one question they never want to ask is "how did i end up here?" i started schwab for those people. people who want to take ownership of their investments,
♪ ♪ >> john: finally as we finally as we head toward independence day, a story about an american hero that helped keep our independence possible. his name is art jackson. he received the medal of honor for con speck with us gallon and tree in world war ii. >> reporter: storming the beaches, jackson's unit was pinned down by murderous japanese fire. taking the initiative, he stormed a bunker, single handedly taking out 12 of them, killing 50 enemy soldiers. he completed to the complete annihilation of the enemy on the island. president truman put that around his neck the following year. a few years later when he took jackson to new york city, he left his medal on his bed in the
room at the waldorf-astoria. when he returned later that night, it was gone. 42 years later in 1987, jackson got a call his medal was on display at a tv repair shop in chester, south carolina. the owner told me he bought it for $300 at a gun show in charlotte. he agreed to send the medal back, but what he sent back wasn't jackson's medal of honor, it was a fake. for the next 25 years, fbi agents thought shockley kept the real medal for himself, giving jackson a facsimile, though they could never prove it. after we started to look into it, new evidence came to light that he may have never possessed that medal, what he bought at the gun show was a fake, which means art jackson's medal of honor is still out there somewhere, in a display case, drawer, tucked in someone's safe, inscribed with his name, president truman, september 18,
1944. the statute of limitations on theft or selling or buying a medal of honor, that's illegal, too, has long since run out. jackson has replacement medals, but the fbi was like to return to him the genuine article, the one he received from the hands of a president 67 years ago. the congressional medal of honor society has agreed to receive the medal anonymously if necessary and get it back to art. their address, 40 patriots point road, mount pleasant, south carolina, 29464. >> jackson is 88 years old, one of ten surviving world war ii recipients of the medal of honor. his determination to save his brothers in arms helped preserve the independence of this great nation. he is too modest to ask for his medal back himself, but he sure would appreciate its return. heroes like art jackson deserve nothing less. and that's it for today. have a great week, a happy
fourth of july. we'll see you next fox news sunday. the fox report. tonight, waiting for a break. in a heat wave that's turned out to be a killer. and the national football league said no to promoting obama care. now the white house is enlisting a new group of people to push the president's landmark health care law. is it in trouble? thousands of libraries across the country suddenly morphing into recruiting centers for the obama administration. it is the next big phase of taxpayer funded health care. fox report. why an army of librarians is on the public front line of this