tv U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN June 2, 2010 10:00am-1:00pm EDT
i was laid off from high tech industry. i was laid off because i contracted pancreatic cancer. when i applied for unemployment, i found out the kind of bureaucracy that goes on. i happened to make a cooment in an elevator. one of the employees made said to me which make common sense, the government is hiring a lot of people, mostly minorities, and that cannot get jobs any other place. when you talk about downsizing, downsizing the government, who are you really going to take the jobs away from? it is minorities. host: harrison on the democratic line. washington, d.c. guestcaller: i was calling aboue
the chief constable cumbria is working with the other forces and emergency services to make sure a coordinated response to these rapidly moving events. the government will do everything it possibly can to help the local community and those affected and to keep the house informed. a full statement will be made to parliament tomorrow. when the lives and communities are suddenly shattered in this way, our thoughts should be with all those caught up in these tragic events, especially the families and friends of those killed or injured. >> mr. speaker, all parties in this house will welcome the coalition's proposal to limit that crime and to shift power away from an elected functionaries to elected representatives. the legislative chamber largely appointed by the executive. will my right hon. friend confirm that you will bring forward proposals in the next 12 months to make all our lawmakers
accountable to the ballot box? >> well, i am grateful to my friend for asking that question. [laughter] i don't always give them answers that make him happy, but this time i can. there will be a draft by december that the house can vote on. i have always supported a predominantly elected house of laws. i can already hear what a challenge around the house is going to be to achieve the consensus that we need. but i hope that after all the promises of reform, this time we can move towards a predominantly elected second chamber. >> harriet harman. >> can i join the prime minister in paying tribute to the corporal and marine from the ford, and will marines. as the prime minister said, they
were brave men who died in service of our country and we will never forget the sacrifices they made. and i strongly support what the prime minister has said about the dreadful shooting in cumbria. we offer our deepest sympathies to the families of those who got killed and our strongest support for the police, the emergency services, and at the local communities in cumbria. mr. speaker, can i ask the prime minister about the israeli interception of the causgaza flotilla? i am sure he agrees that this is a tragic loss of life that has angered palestinians and dismayed is a real, too. can he tell the house what the position is of the british nationals, and how the government and contribute to international efforts to make israelis recognize that the blockade of gaza is prolonging the suffering of the palestinians and making peace and the middle east even harder
to achieve? this blockade must end. >> i thank the right hon. lady for what she said about our troops, and also for raising the issue of the events off the coast of gaza. what has happened is completely unacceptable, we should be clear about that but we should also deplored the loss of life -- which should be clear about that. wheat should also deplored the loss of life. i've extended might send these to the prime minister of turkey. -- my sympathies to the prime minister of turkey did in terms of the specific questions, the british nationals, there are 42 british nationals caught up in this. i believe the 37 of them have had consular access and there will be coming home and we need to make sure it they are reunited with families as quickly as possible. she also raised the issue of international bids to get a blockade (as she knows, and the
shadow foreign secretary knows, we should do everything we can with the resolution is absolutely clear about the need to end the blockade and open up gaza. friends of israel, and i count myself as a friend of israel, should be saying to israelis that the blockade actually on that the hamas' economy and on gaza. >> harriet harman. >> i thank you for that answer, and i know we will be hearing from the foreign secretary. can i raise an issue, one that i raised last tuesday, about prosecuting rape? we know that it is often after many rapes that the defendant is brought to court, and it is then went previous victims find the courage to come forward. by making defendants anonymous, he is going to make it harder to bring rapists to justice.
>> i know the right hon. lady cares deeply about this issue, as do i., and the fact that rape convictions are so low in this country is a scandal, and we need to improve that. that means working with police and doing more with rape victims, including backing represses centers but i sat on the committee that examines this issue, in the last parliament dominated by labor members. we can to the conclusion that there was a case that saying between arrest and charge, there was a case for anonymity. the collision that mentioned the issue of anonymity -- collision that mentioned the issue of anonymity -- we will be bringing forward proposals that the house can examine and debate. but i understand what she says, that it is important that the publicity about the case can help other people come forward. >> harriet harman.
>> well, i will come this recognition of the first point, but doesn't he also -- i will s -- welcome is recognition of the first point, but doesn't he also recognize that singling out rate offenders -- wake defendants cents a powerful message to juries, and it sends a devastating message to rape victims that uniquely of all victims, they are not to be believed? that.don't accept the committee look at this carefully and concluded that there was a case for extending anonymity, and also, in rape cases, those who have been raped have anonymity themselves. we will be bringing forward proposals that can be debated and discussed in the house of commons. we all want the same thing, to increase the number of successful it prosecution's --
rape prosecutions and send more rapists to jail. .> harriet harman reporte >> i'm sorry, mr. speaker, but that is a disappointing answer. he does not realize how seriously this will turn the clock back. can i turn to another area where i believe that the government should reconsider, and that is the married man's tax allowance? it would only go to one in three married couples, it cost half a billion pounds a year. can he tell the house how that would contribute to cutting the deficit? >> well, i am an unashamed supporter of a family's an average prepare -- families and an average. this simply don't understand why -- i remember being lectured by the other set a house -- so many european countries recognize marriage and the tax
system, and we don't breed we should bring forward proposals to recognize -- and we don't. we should bring forward proposals to recognize marriage in the tax system. i support marriage and i say that we support so many other things i had the tax system, including christmas parties -- in the tax system, including a christmas party spread what we recognize marriage? >> the prime minister knows that will not keep couples together. he just -- he is just hoping that will keep his back benches on the side. he does not answer how this planned tax cut helps to reduce the deficit. >> if we are going to get control public spending in this country, we should attack the causes of higher spending, and one of the causes of higher spending is family breakdown. i think we should do far more to recognize the importance of
families, the importance of commitment, and the importance of marriage. let me say this -- any recognition of marriage we put in the tax system would also be a recognition of possible partnerships, because a commitment is important, whether you are straight or gay. >> so he seriously thinks that a three-pound-a-week taxpayer, which would cost the exchequer half a billion pounds a year, will help keep families together? no wonder the deputy prime minister is sitting so quietly by his side -- [laughter] because on this one, nick agrees with me. we don't need it, it will work, they should drop it. -- it will not work, they should drop it. >> the lady has a slightly short memory, because when she was sitting here, an enormous recognition of marriage in the tax system was introduced by the
labor government, in -- wait for it -- the inheritance tax. they massively increased the threshold for the inhabitants tax, which would be transferred between husband and wife. -- for the inheritance tax, which would be transferred between husband and wife. why don't we do it for the lesser off? >> order. order. >> can i associate might right hon. friend with the to -- the tribute to those who lost the lives in afghanistan and those who lost their lives in cumbria. what means do you hope to use to achieve the stated unnecessary objective to of the private sector -- to expand sector and this is our objective to allow the private sector to expand in parts of the northeast? >> the hon. gentleman raises an
important issue, because we will to make difficult decisions about public spending, and everybody knows that no region of the country should be singled out. but he is right to say that some parts of the country to have a very high dependence on public sector jobs. what we need to do on the budget that will come forward on the 22nd of an june is to bring forward ideas that will fire up the private sector. for instance, at the idea that any new firm established does not have to pay national insurance on the first 10 employees. i think that will help. but he is right that we should also be looking for ways that as we get the private sector growing, as we make difficult decisions in the public sector, how do we help those regions that could be adversely affected? this is something the government is looking at seriously, because we want to take the whole country with us as we deal with the one under 60 billion-pound deficit -- 160billion-pound deficit.
>> a lot of young men and women are serving in afghanistan and elsewhere at the moment. he will know that one of the most important things to protect our armed forces is to make sure they had the best training, technical and military expertise that is possible. will he therefore commit himself and his government unambiguously today to be turning college in south wales -- to the training college in south wales that would save lives and the armed forces? >> i am grateful for the hon. gentleman's question. and what was spent time in south wales and with the military -- anyone who has spent time in south wales and with the military knows that there is a case for this establishment, but he understands that we have had to have a proper strategic defense review. we have not have one since 1998,
and everything has to be included in the review. but i would say that if he feels so strongly about this, given that he was in the last government, there was the opportunity to give the project the go-ahead, and they did not do it. >> thank you, mr. speaker. now we know that the last government spent 1 billion pounds on advertising, does the prime minister -- is the prime minister surprised that there is no money left? >> we are not surprised, because of the lesson we got from the former chief secretary. i am glad he has apologized about the letter, but he has not apologized for the legacy. my old friend makes a good point. in addition, we have discovered a 320 million pounds being spent on hotels, 1.5 billion on consultants, and one that did amaze me -- one department spent over 140 pounds per person on cut flowers and pot plants. you will have the luxury of
finding out which one. >> mr. speaker, four i schools across my constituency are in the last throes of building the schools for the future program. can the prime minister guarantee that this program will be seen through to its completion, which will help many of the construction workers in my district? >> i am grateful for the hon. tilden's question. i know he will be pleased to see that in making the 6 million- pound reductions that we made, and many warnings were made about what that would mean, we have protected the school budget and made sure that schools and shore start are protected -- sure start are protected our plan when it comes to education is to make sure that new schools are provided and that we have
real experts in the secondary sector in particular. that is what is about. building schools for the teacher is exactly what is involved. >> is the prime minister aware of my constituent was facing extradition to italy -- who is facing extradition to italy, and will he look at the matter urgently? >> i am very happy to look at this case, and i will discuss it with my my old friend, the home secretary, who is bringing forward worked on the whole issue of deportation. there are clearly the legal processes that have to be followed, but i will discuss it with my old friend. >> now that taxpayers are getting a return on the enormous amount of money they are putting in, when does the prime
minister indigent selling shares to friends in the city quiet -- envisioned itselling shares to friends in the city? >> i would much rather sell to constituents. there might be an opportunity to do that. clearly, there will be an important decision to make in terms of making sure on the one hand we get the maximum amount of money back for the taxpayer, who has had to put so much money into the bank, and all the other hand, we want a fully competitive banking system that serves business in this country so that they don't get ripped off by the banks, and at the same time, yes, i think privatizing those banks back in the private sector where they belong to help encourage private capitalism once again. >> will the prime minister join me in congratulating the man from stratford upon event for his nomination as entrepreneur of the year? think about earnings, was the
prime minister surprised that so many people in the public sector earn more than he does parks ? >> i join my friend in congratulating the tournament he refers -- the gentleman he refers to. this is good for democracy and accountability to see how much people in the public sector are earning, and when people see how much people are paid in the public sector, the pressure will be on to keep top pay levels down. having said that, i think it will be worthwhile, and we will all holding our review to get this done, to have a maximum multiple, a maximum of 20 times earnings. you should not have people at the top of the public sector spending more than 20 times people at the bottom. it is the kind of progressive idea that we are looking forward to putting on this side of the house. >> does the prime minister share the concerns of two school teachers and a chesterfield who came up to meet this weekend
that children from areas that have greater deprivation are going to support disproportionately from the 10,000 university -- [unintelligible] all, can if welcome the right hon. tunnel onto his place as a member parliament, -- what hon. gentlemen to his place as a member of parliament, because the person who had that seat wanted to spend more time doing politics. we want to help children from less well off the backgrounds by having a pupil premium, and we will make sure that it is well- founded said that children from the poorest, go to the best schools. in terms of university places, we are expanding the number of in a risky places by 10,000 -- university places by 10,000 in number. >> thank you, mr. speaker.
could i press the prime minister a little further on accepted pay? my constituents are outraged on the -- by the amount of money some senior managers are receiving. what can the coalition do to reduce this expe -- this excessive compensation? >> the first thing is by having transparency for the first time, we are able to see who was earning what in the public sector, and i think that will actually cause pressure on people with top pay in the public sector to keep pay levels and down. in nhs specifically, our plans are about removing centralized bureaucracy, removing some money of the centralized targets that have caused that bureaucracy to grow. our ambition is to make sure that people at the front line, nurses, doctors, people involved in clinical care, that is where it is, instead oo the increasing management we have seen in recent years. >> many of my constituents are
employed -- [unintelligible] could the prime minister confirmed that the 20 million- pound plan will be honored to develop the next generation of electric cars? >> can i welcome the hon. lady to replace and said i, too, have visited the area, and it is wonderful to see the incredible investment that has gone in there, and the many jobs that have been created, not just in the plant, but the supply chain? i want to see electric cars being developed. we discussed that specifically. in terms of the grant, i don't have a specific answer for -- it is a funny old thing, you know? i will give answers instead of making them up on the spot but i would be delighted to let her know as soon as possible. >> mr. speaker, and noting the
very high standards of professional care, can the prime minister lindh is support to -- hend his support to the union? maternity unit? >> this maternity unit was under threat from the previous administration, and our plans, putting money in the nhs, will follow decisions made by doctors about where to be treated, and hospitals across our country can once again breathe easy. >> to i associate my right hon. thend's comments about tributes to the sacrifices made earlier? on the offset of a new parliament and new administration, to give a categorical assurance to our troops that they will always get the equipment and resources they need on operational duty, to the
servicemen and women who are returning home that they will always get the help and advice they need to return to civilian life, and to the millions of wounded, that however long it takes, despite all the budget pressures, they will always get the care and compassion they need and deserve for however long it takes? >> cat i thank the hon. gentleman for his question? and i think the way he put it in terms of making sure we protect those on the front line with everything they need, and in terms of looking after their families and helping those who are injured -- that is where our focus should be. it is all those things, and all through the lifetime of those people. having visited some of the places, you can see the incredible work being done. but what we have to realize as a country is not just getting the equipment to the front line, not just renewing the military, and, so actually we are serving our armed services, but recognizing that these people who had been injured so badly in iraq and
afghanistan, they are going to need a lifetime of help. i don't think that the services realll woken up to the high demands that these people will place on all the health services. that is why i have a strong defense and health team that will work together to make sure we deliver for these people who have done so much for us. >> number 10, mr. speaker. >> afghanistan is my top priority. that is why we set up a national security council, and why it met on the first full day of the new government. in terms of the military strategy, we are six months into the troop surge ordered by president obama. that is to provide a counterinsurgency campaign, protecting the people while tackling the insurgency. we back that strategy and we must give a time to work. there are signs of progress, such as markets opening up again and a better district government. we have got to support the
military strategy with a political surge, of which the piece being launched in kabul poday is part. i spoke to president karzai today about a political solution where everybody feels that the government of afghanistan is a government for them. >> is my right hon. friend aware of the concept of the sovereign bridgehead. that could meet our needs in afghanistan for a fraction of the cost in life, limb, and expenditure, and would he consider taking a briefing on this subject in the present and, if possible, of the service chiefs of staff? >> i am grateful to my hon. friend for asking that question. i know he has great expertise about this area. i understand the idea of a bridgehead. i think that while it is worth examining, there are
difficulties with it, which is the current strategy of counterinsurgency is about trying to protect the public in afghanistan from the insurgency and to enlarge the area of the country where normal life can continue. what is in our national interest? that is what we should focus on, afghanistan that is stable enough and secure enough to bring our troops home. i will listen to his ideas, but the strategy we have -- we have got to give it time to work. >> i am surprised at the reaction. are we not all in this together? apart from a small sect in favor of strengthening the united kingdom -- the vast majority of us is like, distrust, and despite -- the vast majority of , distrust, and
despise the liberal democrats. [laughter] is there no better than an aircraft carrier? >> i was eagerly awaiting the question on afghanistan sudley forthcoming. -- sadly forthcoming. >> what is the prime investor during to make sure that foreign nationals engaged in terrorist activity in this country will be deported to the country of origin? >> i am grateful to my right hon. friend for raising this question. i think it is extremely important. when there are people threatening our country, foreign nationals, but we don't have the evidence to prosecute them, it is essential that we are able to deport them to their country of origin. what i have asked the foreign secretary to do is to work to draw up agreements with as many countries as possible that we are able to deport these people and keep our country safe.
all the effort, including effort for myself as well, will be done to make sure we keep our country safe. >> i heard what the prime minister has to say to the previous question about the military covenant, and the veterans' group, how it is relieved to see in the coalition that document a commission to providing expert support for federal and mental health needs. but i was alarmed to read that the 2 million pounds set aside by the previous government for mental health needs was under review by the present government. does that mean, in fact, therefore, that the prime minister is able today to renew that commitment, or is this a commitment that will face hurdles? >> first of all, let me congratulate him for the work he does in terms of the veterans. it is extremely important and i welcome what he does. we have a strong ministerial team at the department of health, very strong team at the
ministry of defence. i understand the huge pressure that is going to be put on our held services because mental help stress on people who fought in combat. he has might -- we will do everything to help them. he has my word, that will happen. for all the years into the future. there are figures that suggest that more people commit suicide after the falklands war that were actually killed in combat. i take this extremely seriously, and he has my word that those services will be properly looked after. >> i was greatly encouraged by my right hon. friend's response to catching terrorist suspects, but would you not agree that the best way to get these people is to scrap the human rights act? [laughter] >> my hon. friend, as so often, is going to tempt me. it is very clear that we would be better off with a british bill of rights rather than the
human rights act, and that is being examined. but i have to say to him, and these tested though i myself am about the policies -- enthusiastic i am about the policy, what is needed is agreements with countries like pakistan to get a guarantee that people we send back are not mistreated. with countries like pakistan, we should be able to achieve at third we are a major aid donor, a major partner, and should be able to encourage them to give that guarantee so that we do not keep a foreign nationals in our country that threaten to do as car. -- do us harm. >> in the economic context, when the united states sneezes, the united kingdom catches cold, and this england gets new money appeared -- northeast england gets pneumonia. does he think that this is good
medicine for pneumonia? >> first of all, can i will attend the hon. gentleman to his election to this list --? gentlemen tohon. judgmen his election to this place? how can i refuse an offer like that? what i would say to the hon. gentleman is on the issue of the regional development agency, what we have said is that in areas of the country where they work well and where local authorities want to keep them where they are, they can breed but in many parts of the cut to come -- including the part they can -- they can. but in many parts of the country, including the area i represent, there is enormous waste in the system. whatever regional development agencies are, we think there is a -- wherever regional development agencies are, we think there is an enormous
amount of waste in them to rethink the authority should be given back to local store is where if they belong. we want to generate enterprise and help businesses get going, but we also want proper local government that actually controls the things local government ought to do. .> foreign secretary pre >> with permission, mr. speaker, i will report to the house on the events surrounding free gaza flotilla and the immediate action our government has taken and the next steps. the israeli innerforces intercepted the flotilla and the incident led to death and injury of many of the passengers on one of the vessels. we await details on all of the capitol is an fatalities, but it is clear that many will be -- all the casualties and fatalities, but it is clear that
many will be turkish citizens. the intercepted vessels were brought to port and two of the boats have been delayed by mechanical difficulties and remain at sea. we believe they are en route to gaza. it appears that total of the 37 british nationals were involved in sunday's events. this is different from the number the by minister gave a short time ago, based on what the israeli ambassador has said before. but i have spoken to our ambassador in tel aviv in the last 45 minutes or so before coming into the chamber. the latest figures are 37 british nationals, including 11 and dual nationals. we have so far received access to 28 of these individuals. one of whom was deported yesterday. we understand that if you are more british nationals agreed to be deported the -- this morning four british nationals agreed to be deported this morning. we have expressed our disappointment to the israeli government about the levels of
preparedness on their part, and the fact that we have not yet been given full information about british nationals detained and access to all of them. we are urgently pressing the israeli government to resolve the situation within hours. there is understandable and justifiable anger at the events that unfolded. the position of the government is as follows -- are clear advice to british nationals is .ot to travel tipo gaza we have made clear to the israeli government that we deeply deplore the loss of life and encourage them to do everything possible to avoid a repeat of this situation. we continue to demand information about an access to all you can nationals involved. -- nationals involved. their welfare is our top priority at this time, as well as those of their families who are deeply worried.
on the access to international waters, this part of the investigation should form a key part. i've spoken to the israeli foreign minister and the undersecretary of state has been in close contact with the israeli ambassador in london. the embassy in tel aviv has been in constant contact with the israeli authorities. i'm grateful to the right hon. members who have been in contact with the office in relation to the constituents and their families and have provided information. we recognize the intense concern for those involved, and we need to keep members updated. israel has told us they want to move as quickly as possible to deport those people from the flotilla currently held in israel. if they agree, there will be deported very quickly. those unwilling to leave will stay 72 hours in detention, which is the time limit to allow against deportation.
our understanding is that after that, they will be deported. it is our understanding that the israelis will transfer to jordan detainees who are not represented in israel. we understand that those individuals allegedly involved in violence against israeli servicemen will have their cases examined in line with israeli legal advice. we do not currently believe that there are any british nationals in this last category, although i help with the -- i hope the house will appreciate that this is a fluid situation our partners in the international community are working, as we are, to secure the quick release of those detained. the turkish authorities have indicated that detainees of other countries will join the flights and some of the british nationals referred to earlier are on these flights. the united kingdom has played its full part in the european union and united nations and agreeing on the need for a full, credible, impartial, independent
investigation into these events. our goal as a process -- is a process that ensure is full accountability, and wheat what the confidence of the international community. further discussions are taking place and other international forums, including nato and the human rights council. we will take the same principled stand across all are difficult -- all of our international efforts and stressed the need to the israeli government the need to align with its international obligations, given that its actions appear to have gone beyond what was warranted or proportioned. we need to know what more should have been done. -- what more could have been done to minimize the risk and the injury. these should not be viewed in isolation. they are rise from the un accessible and unsustainable situation in gaza.
as long been the view of the british government, including the previous, that restrictions on gaza should be lifted, reflected in the united nations resolution that calls on states to alleviate the humanitarian and economic situation. that this has not happened is a tragedy. it is essential not only that there is unfettered access to meet its humanitarian needs of the people of gaza, but to allow the reconstruction of homes and livelihoods and permit trade to take place. the palestinian economy, whether in gaza or the west bank, is essential to of viable palestinian state that i hope one day will live alongside israel in peace and security. as he wants productive private sector has been decimated and -- the once productive private sector has been decimated, it is
hamas bankers who benefit. growing even more radical and violent, they are finding a place in misery and frustration found in a generation of young people. in this context, current israeli restrictions are counterproductive or israel's long-term security. we will therefore continue to press the israeli government to lift the closure of gaza and promote early discussions with israel about what more can be done to ensure unfettered flow of aid while making sure that it reaches those who needed and is not being abused. i discussed this with secretary clinton last night and we will be having discussions on this subject certainly proud the house should not forget the role played by hamas in this conflict. violence has continued in recent days, with rocket fire from militants in gaza and israeli
military incursions and air strikes in response. we call on hamas to make immediate and concrete steps towards the -- principles on conditional release upper -- un conditional release of gilad shalit. is clear more than ever that the only long-term and sustainable solution to the conflict that has spawned these tragic events is a two-stage solution that achieves a viable palestinian state living alongside a secure israel, with the right to live in peace and security recognized by all of her neighbors. the proximity talks, the underway are more important than ever. these events should not undermine peace talks, but instead, underline jin importa -- underline just how important they are. the government will continue to keep the house informed of developments. >> david miliband.
>> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i said in the queen's speech debate last week that a policy of a ignoringgaza in the searchaza for peace will not work. the blockade is a barrier to any hope of peace at all. the attack by the israeli defense forces is the latest in a series of a self-defeating and deadly moves by successive israeli governments in gaza. on this side of the house, we joined the international condemnation of an operation that was not self defense, but defense of a failed policy. israel does nothave the right of security against terrorism, but we are talking about a policy that does nothing to defeat terrorism. until people in gaza and be confident of education in schools not crumbling around
them, of being able to feed and , there isquately com no way that the call of negotiation and peace will be heard. as far as secretary, i negotiated the security council resolution -- as a foreign secretary, i negotiated the security council resolution that brought to the gaza conflict to an end. the implementation but all sides must be the central demand of the international community. that means even, at eu, and pressure, -- u. n, eu, and pressure, not just engagement. the block eightad -- blockade brings misery to palestinians, and smuggling taxes fund assets. the latest episode cost lives --
fund hamas. the latest episode costs lives and further isolate israel in the international community. the only people smiling of the rejectionists. -- are the rejection desperate i was glad to to the prime minister talking about parts of the talks, but they only -- proximity talks, but they are only worth having as a prelude to negotiation. i have a set of questions for the foreign secretary. first, the welfare of good citizens, the lack of clarity about the position of british nationals is completely unacceptable. we're talking about 37 people, not 37,000 people. they should be given support immediately. if it is being denied, we should be announcing -- we should be denouncing it, not saying we are disappointing. -- not saying we are
disappointed. second, the legality of the action. it is clear that the turkish government intends to pursue this question. can the foreign secretary tell the house that he believes the action, which she tells us is -- which he tells us is illegal, that he will discuss this with the turkish government, and if not, why not? surely the point to ask is white arm and a lethal force was used at all -- why armed and lethal force was used at all. the language of condemnation is used very sparingly in international relations but it is our view on this side of the house that the loss of innocent civilian life should always be condemned, and we have done so since monday. the language was repeated in the u.s. presidential statement on monday night, which it says that
the security council condemns the act. we welcome this. but the foreign secretary and the prime minister have not used this language themselves. we call on them to say about and clear that the british government does condemned because of -- the loss of civilian life. . does not do so, he is setting a very dangerous precedent and sending a very bad message indeed we know that the u.n. has called for an independent investigation. but there are outstanding requests for investigation into incidents during the gaza war 18 months ago. and the foreign secretary explain whether or not the u.n. investigation and now -- if not, why not? can he tell us how long he will give the israeli government to agree to an independent inquiry? finally, the document that
opening borders only benefits pass -- the argument at that opening borders only benefits hamas has been exposed at the present situation damages israel. what action is the government prepared to take for the daily lives of those living ingaza? doesn't the european union have to stand in capacity to -- standing capacity to be deployed at checkpoints in and out of gaza? mr. speaker, this is a political crisis, not just a humanitarian one. rocket attacks will only be defeated by a substantial political process up with the palestinian state. this is the greatest responsibility of all the parties. we will support all efforts on the part of the government to make gaza part of a larger international drive for peace and the middle east. without such an effort, there will be no peace in the middle east.
>> mr. speaker, i am grateful to the shadow for a secretary for the broad support for what has been cleared by policy for the house and a concern for the people of the gaza that is felt very deeply in all parts of this house. he did indeed play an instrumental part in negotiations of the u.n. resolution and has always argued, as we have argued, that ignoring gaza will not work. this is a problem that must be addressed. i am grateful for the implicit support he has given to the government's position, and for the argument that he makes that the israeli policy towards gaza does not listen, but taken as the grip of hamas on the people of -- tightens the grip of hamas on the people of gaza. he can tell that i'm
disappointed with the israeli response. the reason i did not condemn them unequivocally is that there is a complicating factor, which is that many of the people who are aboard these ships did not have their passports were destroyed all their papers. it is not immediately obvious necessarily which nationality to which they belong. but to handle this number of people and this number of consular inquiries, our staff has been working extremely hard to ask people if they are british. it is a chaotic situation, completely unsatisfactory, and i am glad that some of these people are now able to leave the country. but it is the most in need of the urgent part of our work to make sure that this is put right and that all the british nationals have been identified and seen. he asked whether i had spoken to
the turkish foreign minister, and i certainly did speak to the turkish foreign minister. one of the point of having an investigation will be to learn more about the legality of what may have happened. but the turkish foreign minister particularly thanked me for the role played at the ambassador to the u.n. security council, because the presidential statement was of course on behalf of the members of the security council, including britain did that is very much, therefore, our language as well. we certainly condemn acts that lead to the deaths of civilians. i have done that before, and if you of not heard me do so before, i certainly do so again. on the matter of an investigation, i think that the critical thing is that an investigation is prompt, that it is independent, that is credible, that it is transparent, and it is certainly my view, and in view of the
united states, but the discussions i had last i -- from the discussions i had last night, that that should have an international resence. you will recall that there have been occasions and the past where they have established and israel commission or in great that is delivered a stinging criticism of the israeli government and armed forces. other times they have not want we thought it might have been married. but we look to them to heat the international -- might have been merited. but we look to them to heed the international call. we would be adding our voice in that case for one conducted under international auspices. he is right that work needs to be taken forward on providing a mechanism for access to aid into
gaza and trade in and out of gaza while giving israelis assurance that will not be used for the smuggling of arms and things we would not like to see being taken into gaza. that is being taken forward with our partners in the eu and united states and something we will need to come back to the house on. >> it is easy to be condemnatory of its rail - -- of israel and call for the lifting of the blockade, but the thing to ask is whether these things by themselves will bring about the solution we all seek. drawing on our colonial experience and our recent experience with northern ireland, is it clear that sooner or later, however controversial it will be, hamas will have to be brought into the circle of discussion? >> well, i always listen to my right hon. learned friend. he is sitting on the side of the
house with great care on these matters. he will be aware of the core principle, which has been very clear, for some years, and as for a -- swears that if -- that have less force for its violence -- hamas for swears of violence and recognizes the state of israel. what i referred to earlier was the need for them to make concrete movement towards those principles in order for the rest of the international community to engage with them. i continue to believe that that is the right position. is the longstanding position, one that we have in common with our allies and the whole rest of the international community acting on the affairs of the middle east. that position remains the same. >> mr. speaker, in welcoming the town of the foreign secretary -- tone of the foreign secretary's statement and his condemnation of the loss of innocent life,
may i ask if he recognizes that there is innocent lives might well have been included -- might well have included any of that the seven united kingdom citizens who were present in the situation with the -- the 37 united kingdom citizens were present at a situation where israelis may have committed a war crime, and all this in pursuit of upholding an illegal blockade on gaza, which amounts to collective punishment, as i thought myself what i was at the international parliamentary delegation there earlier this year? will he assure the house that if the israelis fail to comply with the perfectly modest and satisfactory request he has made of them, further action will be taken to make israel rejoin the international community? >> yes, mr. speaker, i think it
is very important that israel responds to the calls from across the whole world for the prompt, independent, credible, transparent investigation or inquiry for which we have added our voice and the calling. as i mentioned earlier, in response to the shadow foreign secretary, if no such investigation or inquiry is forthcoming, we would also want to advocate such an inquiry under international auspices. he is right that whatever the precise words we use, a blockade of gaza is counterproductive, wrong, not serving the interests of the security of israel, and he is right to point out that fatalities could have occurred, of course, among the british nationals caught up in this. it is our strong advice, has been our advice to them and will be in the future, british nationals, not to travel to gaza. let me make that absolutely clear. they are going into a dangerous
situation. it is absolutely wrong to maintain this blockade, and that is the position of this government. >> the debate to follow this statement is very heavily subscribed. i do not need short questions and short -- answers -- do now need short questions and short answers. >> those of us able to enter gaza in the aftermath could only come to the conclusion that there was a disproportionate use of lethal force of dubious legality. does he agree that there has been a repeat of that, and what will the british government due to ensure that there is not the same repetition again and again and again? >> well, hopefully, mr. speaker, i have covered that point in the statement i have been given. i referred earlier to the actions taken by israel as appearing to go beyond what was
warranted or proportionate, and i await those words very carefully -- weigh those words very carefully and i have also said it is unacceptable and israel must act with restraint and in line with international obligations. we have given a strong message to the israelis, and in the conversations we have had, there can be no mistaking how strongly we feel about this. my right hon. friend asks how we feel. >> bearing in mind that this was in international waters, clearly if you attack a ship like this, that is against the natural world and what should be condemned by yourself as an elite -- that is against the international rules and why should be condemned by yourself as an illegal act. >> it can only legally happen in the most exceptional and
extraordinary circumstances. that is the basis we are working from here. >> my constituent was injured in the flotilla at tak. he is safely home with his family. the 45 tons of medical equipment he helped collect are currently floating above the ships in the mediterranean. will the foreign secretary take diplomatic efforts to make sure that this vital aid is delivered to gaza? >> we will look into what is happening to that specific shipment. i believe that some of the aid on some of the ships involved is now arriving in gaza, but we will look into the shipment she refers to. >> this is a dreadful, deplorable tragedy, but can be a
foreign secretary tell us what steps he would take to ease the transfer of the essential goods so that security needs can be met? does he understand that israel has a legitimate security needs against an enemy that is seeking to distort it? -- destroy it? >> of course, israel has a legitimate security needs. this is a very important part of the entire situation as well. we do need to find a way in which israel can be assured that smuggling of arms does not take place into gaza and yet the flow genuinen gand a economic trade can take place clearly, assurance needs to take place for that to happen and that is what we're working on
now. >> the restrained way in which the foreign secretary dealt with this difficult matter -- may i ask him a very precise question? has it been clear for a very long time that the blockade of gaza is illegal and amounts therefore to cruel and unusual >> but the argument i made is the legality. it does not achieve its objective. it is not the right thing for israel to do. no doubt the government would make a legal argument. that blockade -- they are acting in their own self-defense. this is not serving their own security interests.
>> speaker -- mr. speaker. i note the demand for access. can he tell them why he believes in the absence of a blockade of shipping into gaza that people can be protected by the assaults of rockets and other armaments there being imported into gaza? >> that is why i have referred to the international work that needs to take place to give insurance while humanitarian aid and economic aid can take place. i stressed is not serving the interest of the security of israel to maintain the current position, which is putting more power in the hands of hamas.
that does not serve the security of israel. >> should israel resists from making their case to the media rather than engaging in the full inquiry? >> that is a powerful point. we're doing well if we can persuade everyone to stop using selective footage in the media. but it does underline the need for the impartial inquiry for which we have called. >> israel has killed 1,400 people. now they have killed people on the high seas. i support that condemnation. isn't it time we took sanctions against israel, such as lifting
the trade agreement so they cannot act with impunity the way they did on the high seas? >> israel will be listening to the condemnation in this house. i do not think the right policy is to impose sanctions. i think we should urge on the course of action i have urged today, the lifting of the blockade of gaza and the setting up of an independent investigation. those are the practical way forward and the right foreign policy for this country. >> thank you. would he agree the effect of the brutal israeli blockade of gaza is to drive the oil trade into the tunnel, some of which are large enough to accommodate
certain vehicles? >> yes, that is a powerful point. hamas is able to tax the importation of goods through the tunnel providing funds for themselves while further impoverishing the people from gaza. this is not an effective policy. >> the israelis are aware of the world wide revulsion of what has happened this week. without any justification whatsoever. taken without measures. this is not clear -- is it not clear israel seems to show no concern for international opinion? it is out of control. firm action should be taken or we'll see further actions of
this kind. >> i would not reach the conclusion there is no awareness about international opinion in israel. remember that israel is a democracy. there is free expression of opinion. sometimes they are critical of their own forces. we saw after the lebanon war four years agg. i think you are perhaps over simplifying it. that is what we have to express ourselves in a way that is responsible and ask them to do reasonable things that are in their best interest. >> thank you, mr. speaker. aid from israel to gaza has been up 1 million tons since
january 2009. we do acknowledge that the reason for the blockade, which we all want to end come is because of continued terrorism by hamas and the smuggling of arms from iran into gaza. >> it is important to remember the role played by hamas. we need to see an end from the rocket fire into israel as well as other measures we have called on israel to take. >> we're leaving the british house of commons. you can see the rest of this right now that c-span.org. we will hear from john ashcroft at the heritage foundation. you are watching live coverage.
across and only hit the peaks. i have lost many elections. i lost elections and happen to be the only person to have lost a senate seat to a deceased opponent. to cast me in the role of a winner is something for which i am grateful. i have a lot to say and that may mean i make a lot of mistakes. i'm not as immune from attack as when i was a member of the senate. i believe that the defense of america is tantamount to the defense of freedom. and freedom is worth defending. freedom is what the alchemists were looking for in the middle ages.
in those days, it was thought that if you could just touched ordinary metal with some magic substance, you could change it into pure gold, sort of the pixie dust that would make us into what we hope we would be. there is no such thing in the natural world. we know that. we memooize the periodic table and understood elements have their own character and are not susceptible to transition. there is a pixie dust in human existence and it is freedom. is what changes ordinary people into world beaters. some people, like i was, grew up thinking we were maybe better than older folks in the world on me that wed dawned
are other folks. it made it a priority, a city on a hill to the fight to bar the phraseology of one of america's greatest presidents. it was that freedom was respected here and it was the nature of this special alchemy, which changes based metal into gold and changes the also-rans into world beaters. freedom is a value which is without parallel. people came to me on a consistent basis and said you have to balance freedom and security. we all have a sense of the necessity for security. i always wanted to reject the idea that freedom had any peer in terms of values. there is no such thing as the
need to balance freedom. there is a need to enhance and support freedom. there is the need to safeguard freedom. i think we should say there is the need to secure freedom. security is not a counterweight to freedom. it's a way to make sure that freedom stays intact and has positive values on the character of humanity. security is not a competitor to freedom. when we speak of security, we should specify the object. the secure your home, a car -- you secure your home, a car. providing security for this and varmint which establishes an honors human dignity in ways that have never been honored in human existence in any other
setting. when the declaration of independence says we hold these truths to be self evident, the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, we know that is related to freedom. the ability of individuals to pursue the things to which they aspire. that is what freedom is about. we are fast learning that the provision of happiness by government defines and delivers debt rather than freedom. when it does, it impairs freedom. the pursuit of happiness is the definition of freedom. the provision of those things that might make them happy
frequently has a high cost. i am delighted to be here because the heritage foundation and understands the opportunity to seek productivity, this reinforcement of human dignity that comes from having faith in mankind, that is what this institution is all about. when we convert needs into rights so that we do not pursue things that meet our needs and expectations but they are provided by government, we find that freedom is shrinking and the value of human dignity is undermined. when government protect my pursuit of happiness, it enhances my liberty. when it seeks to provide my needs, it frustrates my freedom. i am grateful for this
institution, which understands freedom and seeks to protect it. this is an annual event here and is a wonderful, wonderful month. we find ourselves talking about the defense of freedom. to me, it may not mean the same to others. america, the last best hope of freedom is to be protected not just for sentimental value or because our ancestors were here but because the conditions exist that reinforced human dignity and reward the achievements of individuals, reward the risks taken in those achievements by individuals who willing to exercise freedom. freedom is under attack.
it is such an appealing that it is hard for us to believe that freedom is under attack. it is under attack by those who say that they are -- we have watched nazi germany. freedom has been under attack by those who say we did not worship the right god. those who would want to impose upon us, who do not lead spirituality is not something of inspiration, something of imposition -- their views of the way god should be inspected. something that america rejects because america believes in freedom. people are attacking freedom because they did not believe that mankind is worthy of freedom. it is subtle.
they say if we understood what we would do for them -- they cannot understand. we need to take charge and impose the imposition of those things which are unwanted is the denial of freedom, regardless of the virtue that is being imposed upon us. i believe there may be people who could make better decisions about my life than i could. the fact that you might make better decisions does not mean i want you to make those decisions. there is a virtue in my being able to make my own decisions. i cling to the ability to be able to make my own mistakes. freedom is an important quality. i believe it must be defended aggressively and that is what i
express my appreciation for featuring this month long discussion in the defense of america. it must be defended legally and in accordance with principles. it must be defended in a way that respect freedom itself. the law provides an intersection with expectation of freedom and the protection of freedom come together. when the principal might be in question, we seek to adjudicate those. that happens during habeus corpus. i am not a latin scholar or legal scholar, but habeus corpus stands for have the body. if you have challenged someone's detention, the court says let's have the body. we'll find out if there has
been and appropriate detention of this individual. this is a rich part of america's history. i think perhaps the most charming -- it is exciting because it is sold -- story comes when andrew jackson was fighting in the battle of new orleans. you may remember a folk song about this. he took a little trip down the mighty mississippi. i think this crowd is far too young. he took a little bacon. the best verse is the second. we grabbed an alligator and fired another round. when we touched the powder of the gator lost his mind. you do remember. absolutely. jackson was an aggressive
defender of freedom. he loved it. that was not the age of the blackberry or the cell phone or the telephone. they did not invent two tin cans and a string at that time. he was fighting and not knowing the treaty had been signed on the 24th of december of 1814. after he pretty much slaughtered the british, it was a brutal battle in 1815, early in january. no one knew about the treaty having been signed. it was not official. it became apparent the british were not a threat like they once were. an editorial appeared in a french-speaking newspaper in new orleans that said, you are a
great general, but please give us our freedom back. you have declared martial law. the editorialist requested to have the city back. jackson was not what you would call a civil liberties enthusiast. writer of found the right her the editorial and have him jailed. writ of habeas corpus. the federal judge issued the writ and said bring the writer of the editorial. he ordered the editorial writer
to be brought forward. jackson had his difficulties with members of the judiciary later on when it came to stories about the bank. instead of bringing in the editorial writer, he incarcerated the judge. he eventually relented and took the judge to the edge of the military district at which time he gave him the right foot of fellowship. the judge -- this story has all the charm that fiction would have except you would not believe it were fiction. the news of the peace treaty comes. the civil government is restored in new orleans. the judge who would issued the order of habeas corpus which had
not been followed and had been disobeyed, he orders and finds jackson in contempt of court and finds jackson $1,000 in 1850. $1,000 in those days was enough money to buy between three midwestern states. that was a lot of states. jackson paid it and went into his career as a public servant becoming president of the united states. it is amazing to me. on his deathbed, the congress of the united states votes to refund the $1,000 to anjou jackson. habeus corpus has been a significant part of adjudicating the right principle, the limits on what can be done to defend the constitution and to defend
freedom in america. the executive branch operates within limits and the legislative branch operates within limits. at times, the judicial branch has operated within limits, although i think they define their own limits. they evolves when they want to make it sound greenest, they say they have an organic constitution. what do they call it when the japanese shape -- they banzai the constitution. never mind. i would like to run through -- as we get towards events that are so current, i would like to run through a series of cases of habeus corpus that i think will
help put in a frame of reference when this happened over the last century. we will jump from bench to jackson to get up and to the ii area.ii war one case was part of history that somehow escapes my junior year in high school, where i thought i learned all the was to learn about the second world war. there were eight individuals released from submarines off the coast of long island in new york and florida in the southeast. they came in and were apprehended. they were released on about the 15th of june by the 15th of august, they had been -- those
who had been adjudicated and eligible for the death penalty and not reprieved in some way, they had been executed. the president had convened not as a result of military commission established prior to their appearance but military commissions created specifically to deal with their cases. president roosevelt had convened the commissions. the commissions were ruled appropriate. they had been executed within 60 days. it is not a proud time in american history. it is kind of interesting that the president seems so intent on making sure there was such alacrity and dispatched in the way the case was processed. some of those individuals who had come into the country went to the fbi and said, we are
here to destroy critical infrastructure in america. it is it anyunproud moment for unproud - is ait is an moment for the fbi. they took this serious. the president is reported that the president was upset and j. edgar hoover was upset over the idea that americans could be so vulnerable and susceptible to damage in this way that the president said, we had better move quickly here if at all possible and signal to the world that we are not week in this respect. i think the president deserves at least the credit for preserving the safety and
security of american freedom as a result of moving with dispatch. the principle involved is that the way in which you deal with individuals will signal and set a standard for and provide either a disincentive to or perhaps an invitation to individuals who might think that the way in which things are undertaken for dealing with or otherwise processing these kinds of matters would provide an opportunity to disrupt the freedom of the united states of america. oddly enough, the commission was meeting regarding the innocence or guilt of these individuals whose basic charge was that it operated without uniforms and therefore violated the laws of war. the penalty has been up to and
including the death penalty. they were given the death panoply. -- they were given the death penalty. these things were on a perilous tracks. he did not first clear this through the courts. this was a multi-tracked. the verdict was rendered in early august. the court said it affirmed the right of the commission to act and that the opinion would follow. it is something of an embarrassment to the respect we have for freedom in the the united states. the opinion happened a couple of months after lives were taken for the crime which had been committed.
it was not a normal crime. it was something adjudicated by a military commission, which means it was a war crime. the adjudication relates to the adjudication of war crimes. the first case of the century i would point out to you is the court validated military commissions used to try individuals who had committed these kinds of crimes. a second case happened to be the case of a group of germans who were involved in china. the war was declared over between the united states and germany. the did not cease to fight.
they went on to assist the japanese. it is a war crime once your surrendered -- theree are being held in a prison in germany. we still have a presence in that area. they filed a habeus corpus and said get this out of prison. the court said -- is now in dispute. the court said we do not have jurisdiction to handle things that don't have a nexus to a u.s. territory. this was in germany. the court refused to grant writ of habeas corpus there. one thing that struck me was 27 -- of the 27 cases brought,
only 21 were convicted. there is a methodology that i think needs correction. there is a suggestion that they do not operate fairly and that they do not provide an opportunity for innocent individuals to be adjudicated in a context which is acceptable. what i have notice is that about 77% conviction rate after the second world war. generally it is in the upper 80's. it is my experience that the conviction rate of u.s. attorneys are in the mid to upper 90's. anything below that would be an embarrassment. is not an automatic that if you have due process that is undertaken by way of military commission rather than by courts that attend -- that that is
somehow unfair. the rights of individuals are respected by our military. people give their lives to defend those rights. because you have a military commission, somehow you will be disrespecting justice. the case pretty much said if you're outside the limits of the united states, you are not going to be having habeus corpus. i want to leapfrog from the second world war to the cases that relate to the modern circumstance of the war on terror. they take us to the cases that relate to the detention individuals at guantanamo and other settings. the first of the guantanamo cases, there were two cases that
came out on the same day. one case was a bit of an anomaly because the man was an american citizen. american citizens always have the right in american courts to petition the rights for habeus corpus. he was born in the united states and at a tender age taken to the middle east and became a park their. once a citizen always a citizen. as soon as it was discovered it was the case, he was moved to the united states so that questions about whether geography would control habeas corpus would be non existent. the other individual was not born in the united states. he was incarcerated as an enemy combatant.
you get the courts beginning the process of migrating the idea expressed that if you're outside the united states, you are beyond the limits of our own course to use habeus corpus. so the idea of somehow you are asking about the nature of guantanamo and isn't guantanamo a part of the united states? if we do not have de facto sovereignty -- if we do have the fact of sovereignty and if you don't have legal sovereignty, all we controlling a place so profoundly that we should act as it is a sovereign part of the united states. ultimately the courts have come to the idea that you could have such profound control of an arena at that there is space for
having habeus corpus. let me take a minute to talk about policy that that raises. the truth of the matter is you do not want to incarcerate anybody anywhere we do not have pretty good control. if you have control -- if the court can go there, you have to yourself, does that mean anyone is controlled? you control and doesn't invite the presence of the court? so we begin our road through this idea that we did not have the clear, bright lines of distinction that geography would provide. you begin to ask questions that relate to the circumstance. you invite the court's into the matrix of understanding and
defining the conflict -- how the conflict is undertaken. most of us have gone through the discussions of what is important to have a strong executive with the flexibility to be able to make quick decisions to defend the united states. we have watched congress operate. i have been in the congress. congress is a deliberative body. if you need a military decision, you might not want to call on a body which meant that takes something to the floor of 46 months. -- take something to the six months. he was an enemy combatant and susceptible for being detained
until the end of the conflict. he was -- he could have certain rights to protest and to challenge the condition of his detention. the next case -- i did not realize i'm acting like a senator here. once a sender gets the floor, only god can kick him off the floor. in the hamden case, he was slated for a military commission and indicated there was not a clear authorization for military commission in the law for the president. the authorization to use military force was passed by the congress. the gresolution was general.
it was the view of the administration that that provided the authority to conduct a war in such a way as including the killing those who violated the law. the congress had made that kind of a generalized authorization. the supreme court said no, but the congress could not do something that would provide a basis for the court for the education of people like hamden who was said to be osama bin laden's driver. congress created the act. i will buzz through this and then we will talk about the current case and then you can all go eat. boomadin was another military
commission case. the congress had enacted special authority with the effort to remedy what the court said. it was not done correctly in hamden and the court said you did not do this well enough, either. and what was interesting in that case, there was a tremendous confusion about matters because it was thought by the congress that they could satisfy the court, although they originally disagreed with the court in regard to its jurisdiction. they tried to say there would be no jurisdiction. they tried to draw a line for habeas corpus.
the court set those things aside. justice scalia said this produces a crazy results. you very seldom get that kind of language from a judge about opinions of other judges. roberts talked-about bait and switch justice, as soon as they legislate in the area, you get into the migration of the law. scalia chided his colleagues. he said, "just kidding." you cannot do that. scalia said had to handle enemy with the willall ally
branch that knows the least. the judicial branch is the best place to decide how to fight a war. this is the background that has thus looking at a case now m aquella vs. gates. in these four cases, hamdi, rasul, hamden, justice department's position was overruled in each case. the 12 justices that were voting on these cases, 11 of the 12 supported the position. the appellate judges were convinced the department had followed the law. it was not until you get to the
area where the law is easily adjusted or where it migrates or where it is organic where you got to the uncertainty that surrounds the area of detainee processing at this time. i just want in the syllabus for the hamden case, it tells you something about the fragmentation of legal opinion. i want to read this quickly. here's what the syllabus says. "stevens delivered the opinion of the core. part six through and part 7 in which kennedy, souter, and breyer joined. in which souter, ginsburg, and breyer joined.
kennedy filed an opinion concurring part in which souter, ginsburg, and breyer justices joined. scalia filed an opinion. there was a dissenting opinion in which sculley joined and alito joined as to all the parts 3b2. there was a consenting opinion. roberts, the chief justice, took no part of the case. i think the one thing you can be clear about is that roberts took no part in the decision of the case. if we are trying to say that the rule of law provides a set of boundaries in which people can make decisions with confidence
and in the defense of the united states of america come we need for the objective branch to have a set of rules in which they cannot operate confidently. if we cannot operate constantly, what does it give to our enemy? it says that we are morally ambiguous and that we don't know how we're operating and what we can do. the defense of freedom requires the rule of law, and the rule of what is one of the greatest supporters of freedom. we move to the last case which is the case now before the courts. the court of appeals has again sustained the position of the department of justice so the question is whether individuals
held in von brunn -- in bagram are eligible for habeus corpus treatment. it was ruled that they were. virtually anybody anywhere would be subject to the reach of the court's jurisdiction. the judgment has been reversed. interesting part of this is that with the solicitor general of the united states being nominated for membership in the court, it is unlikely that she would be able to sit on this case. further, given the fact that she argued a strong position in support of the military's capacity to maintain this detention center at sent interference by the court as a
result of granting of habeus corpus, it might even be better if she were sitting on the court when such a decision is made. regardless, given the fact that the court of appeals has ruled 4-4 -- has ruled in favor of the position of the department of justice, if there is 4 a-4 split on the court -- if there is a day4-4 split, it would not overturn the decision in the district court. we would have the position of the united states military in detaining individuals on interfered with. that to me is an interesting anomaly in the way in which this matter is unfolding. it is possible as well that as a results of the opinions in the case, the decision at the court
of appeals level which seeks to employ a three-prong tests in which kennedy expressed himself regarding these test elements, there couud be a majority decision. the best we can hope for in the defense of freedom is that we have a majority decision which brings certainty to this agreement so that when the military encounters and seeks to detain individuals, there is a matrix and which does not in some way undermine either the moral high ground that the united states deserves for the decision-making capacity that the united states must have in order to defend itself. freedom is the value worth
defending. its defense must be undertaken aggressively and in accordance with law and principles. there is an opportunity in the case which will now appear before the united states supreme court. there will be an opportunity for a clarification of the appropriate conduct of the part of the executive branch running the military in the united states of america which could strengthen america. that is what we are all about. it is the stuff in which freedom is made and i thank you for giving me the opportunity to discuss these matters. [applause] >> thank you, general ashcroft for we had more than 500 people
watching on our webcast. we encourage you to send questions if you have any. thank you for speaking. many americans have shown a renewed interest in the constitution and other documents. why is this a good thing? >> maybe i should take off on this to make a quick speech. it is a good thing when americans care about the constitution. the oversight of american government is found in the american people. i think the courts have forgotten that. when they have expressed a distress, particularly in the area of the tension. congress gets elected and there are a lot of them. the courts are independent. somebody has to be a check on the executive branch. the american people are a big check on the executive branch.
the executive branch is the only branch of government that the entire american population .otes on this year, gerrymandering could be irrelevant in the anger of the american people. the senate only comes up every six years instead of every four years. we to understand how important it is for the american people to be attuned to these things. i do not think they get the credit for being the oversight they deserve. that is more available now than ever before. so many things in government used to be hidden. they just were not known. there is too much money to be made by the news industry in
being the ones who scoop it and the opportunity to comment on it. [laughter] >> project yourself ahead. what would you have done if you tmo? told to close gimo >> i am not going to answer that kind of hypothetical. i will have argued to close gitmo. i think it is a good place to detain people. people are safe there. people are treated humanely there. this is an act of mercy. consider the alternatives. take a prisoners was a barbaric
way of doing business. it was to slaughter your enemy on the battlefield. never has to been a challenge to the idea that removing a person from the course of a battle and maintaining the removal until wasend of the , that anything less than an act of mercy. it is right to dislocate them. the alternative is to kill them on the field or to send them back out to take another shot. or to detain them. i think the tension is the only acceptable thing. the problem exists when people confuse the tension for purposes of removing people from the stream of the battle. that is confused with punishment, which is also incarceration. we have gone through a lot of important things and i would be
them.tle none of i think there is understanding that it may not have been the right thing to do. it is too easy to judge in retrospect. others were asked to run into the fire of the enemy because they were drafted. either one -- the defense of liberty is not free nor cheap. but the idea that there is something evil about one, mo i think is a bankrupt idea. this most recent case and the court seems to be focused on this. the idea is that you should keep
the prisoners in the theater of war. the prisoners are at much greater risk there. it puts our people at greater risk because people would try to liberate them. there were attempts made to liberate people and have them fight on the other side of the line. the dislocation of people seems to be a reasonable thing to do. this idea that the court says, if you control the area too much, somehow we will honor your right to do things as long as you are in the battle zone. it is an idea that has another side to it and should be considered. these are difficult questions. part of the thing is that we need resolutions of these. the amendment of the weekend to leaves no one with an
the kindate basis for of executive decision making. >> there is one along the line of your last response. follow up. should any people be read miranda rights? >> they should be if they are tried in the criminal courts. if they are tried as war criminals, there is a different protocols. you're either a war criminal or a criminal that violates the criminal code of the united states. many acts will violate both. the decision on how do move forward relates to what are your objectives?
i think you should think about a couple of things in making the decision. it will be a decision that has to be tailored to the needs of the circumstance and what your objectives are. one thing we need to understand is that in everything ww do we teach. the enemy will learn something with what ever we do. certain kinds of exposures and information will teach the enemy very valuable things that would be iimproper for us to teach them. we should not have the kind of exposure that regular trials offer if it is possible to adjudicate the individual in another setting which would not provide that kind of exposure. we should not teach the enemy anymore than we have to. there should be certain limits. we should try to learn
everything we can, especially in the uncertain arena of terrorism where knowledge is the best friend of security and freedom we have. we should use the kind of mechanism for adjudication that are most suited to our national defense, that are within the rules. maybe think outside the box. never outside the constitution. but if a military commission is available to adjudicate war crimes and by doing so, we can avoid the compromise of information that would be detrimental to the liberty of the united states, then i think do that. complex questions based on individual facts and various settings. but i think that is more than
enough answer to that. [laughter] >> here is another one that brings up a slightly different set of facts and circumstances. you lawyers do earn your keep. >> bring the man a glass of water. he is about to endorse lawyers. the obama administration has authorized the targeted killing. does the fact that this man remains at large bring up new challenges? >> we have not had this considered in a recent cases. i guess that is the easy way out of that question. but let's go back to the earlier case. saboteurs came in and some of those people were american
citizens. when we are fighting for the defense of freedom and we encounter an american citizen on the other side, i think there is an accepted idea that we can treat them like an enemy because they are fighting for the other side. one of the other cases, they said that in detention, an individual has the right to have a proceeding about -- it doesn't have to be a full court proceeding, which was part of the problem relating to haunt tamdi. there was something between judicial due process on the judicial side and i believe there is. i don't believe all due process has to be judicial. i would suspect that in a decision made in any administration to pursue someone as an enemy in circumstances
like that, with substantial finding somewhere to support that which was ordered and that those findings in my judgment and in the individuals who would come to review such a circumstance would probably be more than sufficient to support the requirement that an appropriate process, an adequate process -- the most recent case talk about an adeqqate process. some do not want the word due process. it is constitutional. it would be an adequate process. i think it is possible to fight enemies as enemies. >> last question. big component of national security is economic stability and growth. d.c. any hopeful signs we will
get our economic house in order? >> this is a matter of will and priorities. i am worried about the financial condition of the united states. if i were to talk about threats to security long term, long-term stability, liberty, interest of the united states, i would consider our reckless financial maybe this is part of what happens when you get as old as i am and you have grandchildren, but we continue to spend absent any real plan for the provision of the resources necessary to indemnify the spending, it is tantamount to spend -- from
stealing from our grandchildren. i worry about the mall component of a culture which seeks to displace its own pleasure and the cost of it on to generations yet to comment in such a profound way that it may endanger their ability to remain secure. in the current setting, we weaken our ability in the world when we are debtors to the world's and we do not have the ability to signal our self- sufficiency in dealing with competitors in the world scene. i am not so concerned about the competitors of the past, although i do not think we should ignore our friends in europe and the like. i do not think greece, for
instance, it is -- raises a specter of competition so much. it raises a warning flag to us. but what we think about the emerging high energy productive cultures that are going to be challenging in terms of the productivity, like china, and india has great potential as well, i think we have to be careful that we do not find ourselves so burdened with debts that we inhibit our capacity to exercise the leadership that the world expects from us and that we deserve to provide for the next generation in terms of securing freedom. i am very concerned about our finances and i do not think that the american people are so ignorant that they do not want to buy more government. i think they are so intelligent that they do not want to buy more government. i think they understand that being in debts significantly in
paris the ability of one to be as free as one would otherwise aspire to be. [applause] >> thank you, a very -- thank you very much. i want to prevent -- presented with the heritage foundation necktie. >> this is good. >> we match. at this time, i would like our vice-president and director of our center to come up and wrap up today's program. >> thank you.
that was quite a tour. we have had some very good speeches, but that is one of the best ones we have had in the whole series. you walk us through not only history, but also the legal. i want to thank you for that. we launched the series to protect -- last year. in general, we felt that the issue of national defense needed more attention from the american people, and from the media. we all know that we are consumed with a lot of very important issues and we need to be focused on them, but we also need to be focus on the issues that you talked about as well. we have had a number of events so far this year. this is the concluding eeent for
protect american month. we have done a number of things. we have had a steady stream of publications highlighting the importance of national events and homeland security. we even ran a public awareness campaign posting a list of defense books encouraging people to have book clubs to discuss them and we showed our 33-minute film on missile defense as well. it has been exciting to see americans in gauge over this past month -- engaged of this past month. on behalf of heritage, let me close by thanking all of you again for joining us for our final event for 2010. it happens every may so i hope you will stay engaged this year and join us next year. this closes the event. [applause]
>> we have got three new c-span books for you. abraham lincoln, the supreme court, and who's buried in grant's tomb. to order, potogo to c-span.org /books. >> this weekend, noted feminist author and legal scholar. the university of chicago law professor has written or contributed to more than 20 books on liberal education, ethics, and legal justice. joyner 3 hour discussion with your e-mail and phone calls. sunday at noon. >> now want to south carolina politics. the primary race is next week to
replace her cover rent -- republican gov. mark sanford. we take you live to a debate between the three democratic candidate in the race tomorrow. that is starting at 7:00. yesterday, for republican candidates running for the nomination debated at the university in florence. this hourlong debate is courtesy of wbtw. >> good evening. i want to welcome our viewers and those joining us watching us live on c-span.
tonight, we're joined by the four republican gubernatorial hopefuls that hope to be south carolina's next governor. the primary is next tuesday. our candidate include andre henry mcmaster, and nikki haley. please give the candidate a warm-up south carolina welcome. [applause] he is also the immediate
president of the south carolina press association poun. she is the current metro editor of the morning news. please welcome our panel as well. [applause] [applause] this debate will focus on job creation and long-term economic growth across all of south carolina. each candidate will have a chance to answer tee questions posed by each panelist and the candidates have one minute 30 seconds to enter the qution when it is their time. the other three candidates have 30 seconds for rebuttal. we have a series of corn ponces to determine the order -- quintana says -- coin tosees to
determine the order. >> the recent poll among registered voters found that jobs and the economyr their top priorities with little or no concernbout welfare. is your attention on the welfare question only a hot-button issue to appeal tooters in the gop primary? was absolutely not. we will have a record drop in the amount of revenue we have to stop. not only do we have to create new opportunities but we have to make up shortfalls. we have to make tough decisions. i do not have political advisers. i decide what is best for sout carolina by being out on the street. we have to make some tough cuts next year. we havto look at every program out there toind out what is effected and what is not. the fastest growing segment in the budget right now is the welfare. it is bigger than what we spend
on military spending, the fastest-growing segment is welfare. body wants to talk about it. we have to address that. more than that, we have to talk about ways to bring this is to south carolina. i and the only one that is still running a business. i deal with it every day. i see how difficult is to pay the taxes ttat are continually placed on the. more and more government bureaucrats make it more difficult to do things to run a business. every time i turn around, the things that made me ssccessful as a young man an older person are being taken away. it is more and more business for private business owners to make a living. >> mr. barrett. >> i do agree jobs is an important issue. but putting south carolina back to work, it is it business
principled plan about how we turn this economy aund with the private sector. how we empower people and not the government. it includes comprehensive tax reform. it talks about education and infrastructure. i hope we get a chance to share those thoughts with you. >> jobs is number one. no doubt about it. we are at a crossroads. if we do not mak the right choices now, we will be some. we have been drifting for 12 years because we did not hav a plan. i have a plan that will work. i know how to get things done. i am not aolitician. i am a prosecutor. the prosecutor has broad authority in this day. i have been leading the state with a record of accomplishment of getting things done. i want to lead us to that path prosperity. i have the maturity and judgment and credibility to get it done. >> its important for us to look at the jobs problem.
we also he the fact that we did not have the skilled work force for our businesses now. we have a lot of jobs in south carolina going out of state and country. the first thing we he to do is eliminate the corporate income tax. anwhen you give businesses cash flow and give profit buttons, the first big they do is hire people. we need a strong commerce plan that understands it is the qualy of companies and we have to strengtn our technical schools so we can get skilled made them. >> the next question will go to congressman barrett. >> you have expressed a dese to create economic positions in north carola- south carolina. what specificlans to you have to establish the enhanced infrasucture needed like broadband internet access to lure business to the poorest parts of the state.
>> that is a great question. i was hoping somebody was going to ask that. we have a plan. it is called putting south carolina back to work. it is and eight step plan of how we turn this economy the first comprehensive tax reform. we need a system that is fair. we look at property tax and sales tax. now cigarette tax. look at the system we have. eed a system where every option is on the table. a system that is fair an encourages business and industry to come and position business. infrastructure, roads, water, bridges. not just where we put them but how we pay for them. one out of every 10 jobs. it is extremely impornt to to roll up his sleeves and get rey. my wife is a first-rate school
teacher. note child should lead the third great that is not at or above third grade level. for tt, we need dollars spent in the classroom. we have to make sure those dollars make it to the classroom. the last thing is restructuring. i would like to see the hand of the governor strengthened. we have a governor that not only has a responsibility but the authority to make a difference. printing south carolina into the 21st century. that is how we change jobs. >> i think we need a leader who knows how to get things done. ever served in legislative office. this office is the only office i have held. i know how to get things done. pou have to use the assets you have and the full team. we have not been doing that for 12 years. are we encouraging industry?
we need the agriculture, tourism, technical college and a new tax system to make them lower and more fair. >> ms. haley? what's your question was about economic conditions in rural areas. what we need to understands we have to have this tax structure that works. if we have to look at our educational system. we are spending $12,000 --we that does not touched the school districts. and we have to set up vocational programs starting in the ninth grant so they are rey for a technical school so in these rural areas, and we are getti the skilled work force that can brg these companies and i know we can build those areas of. >> mr. bauer. >> we need for regional offices. it's not just be in colombia.
it should be working with the local folks to fd out what they need. whether it is plastics right here in this area. i ve been to taiwan and build a relationship with them. we need a port in south carolina for when the panama canal is finished. i have been there and met with the shipping companies. you have to start planning for the future whether you do a public-private partnership, we need eight intermodal port. we have to do something about our tax structure. we do everything we can to discourage people from investing in south carola. if you look at what we charge to properties owned by businesses. we are putting the burden on businesses. >> time is up. the next question will b addressed to m mcmaster. >> you made the fight against internetrimes against children and more recently the fight against the federal health care bill some of the hallmarks of
your time as attorney general of the state. what can you do to make economic development for all of south carolina a hallmark of your time as governor? >> as i began to explain one minute ago, it was an executive position. i note that you have to have a team working together to know all about the problem you are trying to solve. what i would do with economic development is do something that has not been done befor we need to change the way we do it. we need to have it led by the confederate. there has to be a strategic plan. i published one on how to get there. if you need to have all these assets. we have one of the best ports in the country. it is deep water. our agriculture potential run the i-95 corridor is second the
amount we are not marketi it. if the farmers are not getting the kind of information and strategies of a need. they need to be a part of working with the department of commerce. tourism. i would separate tourism off from parks and recreation. have great economic engines and terrorism but we are not promoting them. the technical college system is second to none. we have to get our tes down. we need a leader that gets things done. i have gotten internet creditors lost through. i have talked to fight but i know how to work with people and get this done. we have to keephe federal permit off our back. that is why i sued them. we have to step forward and to immigration. >> ms. haley. >> we look at economic development, i will get someone
who leads the commerce department that things out of the box and understands it is about quality of companies. i will talk to that person on daily basis. there will meet with the regional dirtors on a mohly basis. let's look at boeing. they were a great win for south carolina. they came for two reasons. we keep the units out. we have to say that way. also, they got tax incentives. and what are we not taking care of the businesses we have? when y create that environment, businesses will come here because it makes sense for their bottom line. >> if you are a business person, you did not jus look at taxes. at 3 state is throwing out tax incentives. when its business comes here, you have to sit down with them and have them a comfortable and let themnow there is a capable workforce. let them know that their project
will not be held out and bureaucrats will not stop the project. city and county government have to be there to work with them. things have a combined interest for the person that is looking at moving here. they have to have a comfort lel with the person they are working with. >> when i think of econic development, i think of a two- onged attack. offshore natural gas reserves, 4 billion cubic feet. the national petroleum institute says that could be too -- and $50 million in royalties and 2200 jobs that we could use. there are four nuclear reactors on board in nuclear -- in south carolina. those four nuclear reactors are% $25 billion investment into south carolina which are real jobs, real growth, and real economic opportunity. >> the next question from harry logan. it is for niki hayley. governor, did you think
questions raised about your personal life would affect your ability to recruit drops to south carolina? with the questions raised about my personal life are not true. it is funded there were no questions brought up until two weeks prior to the election when i became a double-digit leader in the polls. erything i have done in the general assembly has been accountable to bring out the truth whether it is the third term limits are getting legislators to disclose income or shows spending on line. that will tell you that my husband and i have been proud unfaithful to each other for 13 years. i think it is sad that this is south carolina politics at its worst. i was caught by sarah palin, mitt romney and they said this is what happens -- called by sarah palin and mr. romney an they said this is whahappens when you are in the day. the funds have not stopped ringing with positive calls.
we he run out of yard signs and bumper stickers. i will lead the way i have always led which is not to sit there and please the guys at the state house but make sure i am working for the people of this state. that is what they want. i have gone agast the assembly on seval thing that will not stop me from fighting. >> having run against the governor's son and members of the legislature and against the establishment all my life, they always supported somebody else. they have gone after every bit of my personal life. i do not know what else is left. [laughter] >> maybe they can find something. [laughter] >> i am sure they will try. >> for the record, andre bauer is a good guy. >> it has no place in south
carolina. south carolinian is to serve better and expect more. unfortunately, character does matter. might that to me early on it is the only thing that matters. if there has ever been a time when we need leaders of both reproached it is today. people look and pay attention. we have to turn the page in south carolina. >> the governor of all people is always under a microscope. you haveo do the right thing. we have all been subject to unfounded personal attacks. i ha one newspaper that has been following my children around for a couple weeksrying to find something. unfortunately, nikki, it is a part of politics but it should not be. if you stand up for the people and you try to attack the problems we have and work hard, we will be all right.
>> the next question is directed toward andre bauer. >> your program which is designed to protect senior citizens from fraud has been criticized for duplicating services offered in the private sector. how you reconcile to that for a reductionn government funded public assistance. " the federal vernment and state government demanded and required that i do something about senior fraud. therivate sector says they do it. if so, why is there so much seni fraud? why is the joint assembly on aging come together and say please do something? the people came together and said somebody has to take up the cause. we did. the taxpayers now get a check back every year when they sign up for this program. seniors actually have some work
they can go to make sure they have a comfort level second to none. they do not have to worry about somebody taking advantage of them. that isould government is supposed to do. >> in my experience, i have never seen anything the gornment can do better than the private sector. we have to do everything we can within our power to streamline the procs. we have for educational budgets. -- four educational budgets. you cannot say that is effected. we have 64 different funding source the time has come to spend taxpayer dollars wisely. we have to figure out how we can do it better. e government is taking more and more money and putting us into perpetual debt.
taken off the cliff a things have gotten worse. the same is true for a lot of state governments. i guarantee if i am governor, i will use that veto. we willot raise taxes or grow government. we will streamline government. we will also's my plan to establish a cot system that will save us hundreds of millio of dollars. >> i can tell you that one of the first thgs i do order every agency in the cabinet. that never go back and seef these programs work. they never follod through. we will go to every agency and say what do we have to have and work our way out. the second thing is we have to understand the private sector is more efficient, the quality is better and tare more effective. the government tends to mess up more than it fixes.
what the privatt sector can do we can let them do. >> the next question is for congressman gresham barrett. >> you mentioned and eight step plan and touched on this topic. what can you do to continue to maximize south carolina's netwk of interstate highways and the port of charleston and the port of georgetown and other manufacturing infrastructure components to continue to grow the economic oprtunities for workers in south carolina. >> part of the pn we worked, of course it has comprehensive tax reform. infrastructure is extremely impoant. one of the major infrastructure projects is i 73. what is good for the lower part of the state is goodor the upper part of the state. we are too small to fight about it. i live within 15 miles of the corridor. what about the i-95 corridor?
or the 20? we can duplicate that process across the state but it takes forward thinking. volkswagen came to my district and they wanted to put a plant there. we told the we wou give them the bridges, roads, waters, sewer. there went to tennessee because they did it thnext day. we have to be prepared when industry comes looking. we are 18 months away from making major infrastructure decisions so we are ready for the ships. we have to have a covenant that will roll up their sleeves and put people in the same room. we have to solve the problem. when infrastructure is right, the whole state can work. we can gain that growth.
it is not just the portf charleston. >> mr. mcmaster. the charlestonork tinted boats at high time. george time -- the charlestown port can take boats at high tide. we all agree on the basic ingredients. the difference with me is i s that we can think big and globally and there is no end to what we can do. have to work together to accomplish real change. whatanford year's show us happens when we do not do that. i am ready to continue working together. >> your question was about ports andimizing interstate highways. we need to learn from georgia.
they ran with it. yohaa a port board her recognized they needed a legislature that could strengthen them and then walk away and let them do their business. we had a governor that was not as engaged and we had a legislature will not let go of the ports. we need strong ports. we have to have distribution centerr. but we need to expand the interstate highways and rails so we are not contesting the interstate with trucks but by doing the things, ich will maximize the amount of freight that comes in and out. >> we have got to have been intermodal pt. i went to dubai and met with them. we have a plan region have to plan ahead and see -- we have to plan ahead and do those intermodal ports. why hone our skills, make us the
most efficient and effective. the third used fuel you can horn -- can burn, do something about these and number five. butarmers produce fuel that saves us from tearing up the environment in gives them an incentive to come to north carolina. >> the next question is for mr. mcmaster. >> our next question comes from the voice of the voter project. there woullike to know what you would do to better educate the people of south carolina? >> good question. that is where we are really falling short. unfortunately, our education system from top to bottom is dysfunctional. there is very little accountability. i am for choice in education, good schools and new ideas. here is the problem we have.
if we have a governor that wants to do something about education, he has no direct authority othe than the ability to veto. we had a superintendent that is elected separately that may or may not agree with the governor. he does not have power over the 70 members of the board of elections which a elected from around the state. most people do not know who is on the board. below that, tre are 86 school districts. they do have some authority but they are not compelled to do much from above. below that you have the principals and teachers. that is where the rubber is meeting the road. they are filling out federal forms and trying to get the sort of things done. they cannot teach. the wonder is that we are doing as well as we are. what i would do, and i differ from my colleagues, i would focus early chou of agitation. if we cannot get them up to that
first grade and reading by e thd gde and up to an acadic college or technical college, both of which we have plenty of, we will never get ahead. that is what i would do. >> this haley, 30 seconds. >> i was born and raised in a rural area. i now represent lexington county where every publicchool is like a private one. schools in lexington, the is a smart for. we have t to reform our education funding. we have to change the way to fund education. when we start to do that, including meritased pay for teachers, understanding we have to and sent -- incentivize this. if we have to think outside the box. we have to reform the way we nd education if we want to see any changes in the inequities. >> as a substitute teacher, i
can te you. the money shoul be in the classroom. do not the full. we continue to hear abo money. if you do not put discipline back in the classroom and parentengagein their children's ecation, you'll never fix the system. we have some schools thaare great but those a schools that are filledith engaged parents. other schools, they cannot make it wk matter how much money. my right hand and graduated from e of the worst schools in the president. he came from a broken home and qualified for free lunch. his mother decided education was first and foremost. he got it down. my wife is a first-rate schooleacher. she says congressman and first graders have a lot in common. no chi should did the third grade that is not at or above the third grade reading -- reading level. that is a long-te goal that we n fix. we have to get the dollars to the classroom. we need discipline.
we need for the ability for teachers and principals to decide if that child needs to leave the classroom. we need school choice. my children were home school. there went to a christian school and probably that would from public school. one size education does not fit all. >> the next question is directed to nikki haley. >> where do you stand on the state gambling laws which outlaws all games? the specific question is -- >> i think there are a lot of things we can focus on. one is creating jobs. we have 44,000 jobs that need to be filled and they are going out of state to get them. i do not want my focus to be on creating gambling chops or anything else. i do not think we need to compromise south carolina is.
it is not about what you spent but how you spend. it is not about what the environment is but where it needs to go. when you are in business, you do it thislan. you did not just handing things for today. yolook at 3, 5, 7 and look at where you want to go. that is what i will do as governor. there are other ways. we did not have to compromise our state in any way to bring good jobs to this day and to bring good quality businesses. >> no. >> mr. barrett, you ggt 30 seconds. " nobody thought video poker any hard than i did. -- fought video poker any harder than i did. i would not do anything to allow any type of gaming my answer is no. gambling is outlawed by our
constitution. we should not attempt to bring it back in any way. governor campbell said those are not the kinds of jobs we want to be knownor we are concerating on these children in school yet making money on gambling which does t lead to much and causes problems. education is so important. i would have fought the superintendent of education. i would make a stateoard of education advisory. that is where the answer is. >> the next question is directed to andre bauer. >> this question also comes from the boys of the voter project. they want to know if south carolina is faced the same immigration issues that arizona is dealing with, as governor, how would you work with congress to deal with it? >> we have to addrs the real
problem. nobody wants to talk about it. just illegal immigration oblems. we deal with the fact that there are jobs that americans no longer want to do. let's call a spade a spade. there are people at they get so much money from the government that they willot do certain jobs, picking peaches, working in a hotel. nobody waats to talk about that. whether you want to agree with that or not, that is the truth. until you get people that get up -- get off their duffs, you will have an immigration problem. nobody will enforce it. we should enfor the laws on thbook. we have the second toughest laws and the entire u.s. we have to really go back and say why do we have this problem? the reason is we continue to
give more away to able-bodied people. new jersey said five years and you are off of welfare. if you have a child, you have to get the father's name and if not, you lose the benefits. we have to look at why we have an immiiration problem. government giveaways have become so good that people have chosen to take those rather than working. >> got us the governor of arizona. she is trying to tak back her state. e federal government has failed to enforce immigration laws. and we need to make sure we hold our employers accountable with a system where they can verify illegals. we need to fully implement a 287 program. it is a program where we train our local andtate law- enforcement officials on how to enforce immigration laws so we
can be the masters of our own destiny it is a pblem. we have a problem with the obama administration and congress passing things like the individual health care mandate to threaten our sovereignty and liberty and doing nothing about immigration. we have a lot that punishes employers. that law will fish the loop on that and give the best migration laws and the country. i sued an opinion last week sayingt is unconstitutional. i know how to enforce laws. i am the only one that has been in the business of enforcing laws >> i think that every senate did what they had to because the government failed to react. i applaud every effort to bring that. i am a co-sponsor of the arizona-stop legisti. let's also lo at the fact that the immigration laws that south
carolina passed, when they looked at it last year with the stimulus, there was not the first dollar put in that prosecution fund. it was known -- it was one more instance of government passing something and not going back to look at it. had those dollars been put in there, we could already see accountability and how the law was being handled. >> the next question will be addressed to ♪ gresham brett. >> what bill or bills did you get past and congress to bring economic development to south carolina? >>part of the bills that i hoped pass was extending the sh tax cuts. you have a federal government that wants to be telling you what to be and how to be it, how much you will make a more than that, where you get your health care. i have been in washington the
last 7.5 years. sitting here tonight, t answer to this nation cause problems are not in washington d.c.. there is an amendment of the 10th amendment which is the state's rights. the governor of arizona knows that. it is time we had a governor to std up and say we are not doing it anymore. we are taking o country back. i am working on a bill with jim demint. south carolina is a donor state when it comes to transportation dollars. for every dollar we send up, we only get back 93 cents. this says that federal governme, you take care of the interstates because those are yours. we will take care of the rest. we keep our own dollars and soe our own problems. that is what is states during the states should be theotbeds of experimentation and freedom. empowering people, not government the government has a role.
that is to sethat table. once we do that, we need to get out of the way >> in this position for eight years, i have done a number of things. one is to protect our precious supply from north carolina taking too much. it is in the u.s. supreme urt. we wou do the same thing with georgia. i have gotten a lot of legislation passed. going after the we beaters. we have securities legislation passed. environmental legislation. methamphetames. those are all major pieceof i had to fight like the dickens r some but i got them done. i have more eces of major legislation passed the my colleagues have combined and i am n in a legislative body. >> 30 seconds. " i served on the worker's comp conference where we worked as hard as we could to mixture of small business had stronger
workmen's comp laws. we saw some investors pulling their money out on the coast bee the insurance got high. that was another way of keeping jobs. my fight right now is making sureethat every single legislator has a voton the record. wh you can see the spending habits of your legislators and hold them accountable, we can make sure we have a good government for south carolina. >> i have travelled to over 20 countries this year as a lieutenant governor. not once have you paidor a cup of coffee. it was paid for privately. i have continued to me with businesses that want to meet in south carolina. a fortune 500 company, i sat down wh them a few weeks ago because they are interested in moving corporate headquarters to south carolina. nobody has even met with them. i met with aompanyhat wants to put a solar farm. i put them into touch with
several different people. iave been doing a lot of things as the number 2 guy in the state. >> thank you. the next question is for mr. mcmaster. if you said you are committed to a new knowledge-based economy citing a research university. as far as reaching that goal, what role will colleges play in your plan? interval parts and they will know that they are involved and there is lot talent at this place. i see dr. carter sitting right there. we have all sorts of talented people. i differ a little because i do not want to close any of the schools ddwn. we have a 33 pubc suppoed institutions you have a q s c
branch rig next to a -- you have a branch rednecks to wait committed to college. i want to fill the mouth. the answer is getting children through school is the only way to get into the knowledge-based economy. a hot every time you see great economic prosperity across the country, every time the see a great resech universities involved, you see a network of educational institutions that are pushing people. the personal pathways to success is what we've follow. and we he toet those children on the first round of that letter -- rung of that ladder. if we do that with allhe
innovative businesses that we have, if we form a network or the government is leading that charge, we canompete with the entire world. >> that was dr. fd carter, the president of francis marion. >> i think the answer for the schools is to make sure we hold all of higher education institutions accountable. if y take state funds,, how many dollars get inside the classroom. whether your programs are helping south carolina businesses. we do not need to fund schools based the numr of lobbyists at the statehouse. has to b because they are efficient and effective for the students and the families that pay that the schools can be effective in terms of helping with south carolina businesses and make sure the mo is right. it is all about accountability. -- frances
marion is providing a vehicle to summon the people in this community. they cannot take all the students that want to come here. that is what the role of some many of these universities are. educate young people and provide them new opportunities there would not have otherwise. i voted to keep all of colleges and universities in south carolina opened because we have that the man. there should not be a quarter with the governor is not sitting down with the head of these research institutions to talk about how we can work together and better serve south carolina and how we can co-op our two- yearnstitions. i call them community colleges. we have to work together and
figure out how we can collaborate. figuring out collectively how to move education for work. >> the next question is directed to nikki haley. >> y want the support the party and sarah palin. what did you do right away as governor of the state to work within the existing power structure in columbia and washington to make sure south carolina did what it's -- gets what it needs. >> i have fought for people to know the power of their voice. i also fought for elected officials to remember who it is they work for. i will have an agenda every year. i will take that to the general assemblynd say pick three major items. what ever items they pick, i will tell all of the public
about it. i want the public to know about legislation before it happens. i will work on the committee level and set level and house level so that it will have been a team effort by the time it gets to my desk. for all of this legislators that go against googovernment reform, i will go in their districts and holtheir hand to the fire because the people deserve to know that. when we were dealing with on the record voting, the bill came up in one legislator came up and said we wanted to note that we are going to kill the bill. i said if you do that, i will say it is very clear the republican leadership does not accountable. he passe bill, i will say it is clear that republican leadership understands the importance of being accountable. the person that was going too kill it moved for its passage. when you give them the option to
do the right thing, the legislature will make the right decision 70% of the time. at the end of the day, we are going to get things done. our days of debating are over. it is time for action iould say she does not have of the tea party. a lot of them are supporting me. the most successful goveor in the history. -- and the governor of the state was carol chambers om the -- . they have given money back, inuding part of my pay. if we got that done working with the legislature. >> in my lifetime, there has never been a better governor than carroll campbell. think about what he did.
the change he instituted, you do not have to lose your conservati principles to be a good leader. it is working together. had legislators and economic developers and professors across the state to formulate a plan so when it goes forward, it is our plan, not my plan. that is how you have to govern. >> >> i a only write out one thing? >> i think governor campbell did superior job. they did things the string -- the same way. there were strong leaders. they kept mostf the debate behind the scenes. l of those kinds of things were behind the scenes. i think they recognize that an effective leader is one that has to get things done. you haveo stick to your conservative principle. i am not blaming anybody but the sanford years haveaught us
that you have to work with people in order to get thgs done. i have been getting things done for eight years. >> we have another question from the voice of the voter project. each candidate has one minute to answer. this comes from richard gregory. he wants to know how much funding will you give to the interstate 73 project to help the economies of northeastern south carolina at diversify and get better? thank you for that question. >> i would say this, we need to look at where we are getting funding from. we should l the private sector run rest areas. find new ways to cree revenue without asking the taxpayers. we can come up with creative ways to have revenue. myrtle beach is subsidid so much of the state. we te so much money from them
and did not send much back. we have to send that back to e of the crown jewels. revenue.ngs in some much that money has to come back. i would look at all kinds of things. hire a new architect wheneve we build a new school. and why not build template drawings and use it again? you save $500,000 for every hool building. costs would come down 30% on every building. that can be passed on to the i- 73 corridor. we know we will have a lack of funding next year. >> i-73. >> i said earlier, the number one proje needs to be eye-73. it is more than an economic engine. it is a safety route. agine if a hricane hits
during the middle of peak season. we have to be sure we can keep citizens safe and secure. when we talk about securing funding, i am excited about the energy project. it is how we can bring js and growth to north carolina. there are 4 billion cubic feet of natural gas off of south carolina. the national petroleum institute says it could be to lend it $50 million of royalties. that is money we can use as we see fit. i imposed we use 70% for infrastructure and poll but charges. couple that with nuclear energy, we have a tremendous tax base for that of the structure. >> until we get our 73 done, the grand strand will never reach its full potential.
it is almost impoible to get in or out. that is primarily a federal responsibility. the is another exaaple of washington not doi what it should be doing. what i would do as your customer is working as hard as i could with their congressional delegation. you have to work with people to see that it is funded. we are sending the money up there and we are not getting it back. we need to be sure we get the money back. that wil open up our economic engine. you can get to those places. greenhill has become an economic engine because of the enlightened learship and the kind of team approach i am talking about. i would take the department of naturalesrces and giv them parks and recreation. keep terrorism as a sepate agency. tourism is to sell myrtle beach every day globally. >> 73 is important for a couple
levels. tourism is our number 2 industry. we need understand we need to do whatever we can treduce complications in getting to myrtle beach. you see the loss of companies coming in because it is hard for them to do that. what i wildo is meet with the fedelelegation every quarter so we understand actly where we are and go back and understa it is n what you spend but what you spend. it is priorities and understanding that if we think tourism is iortant, we need to show what. we need to show what by the way that we spend an act. >> because of time constraints, we will cut the closing statements to one minute of peace. we wil start wh andre bauer. >> i am running for governoro take on the tough issues. most of them to not wanto tal about the politically