tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN April 1, 2015 5:00am-7:01am EDT
ownership, if that is the correct legal word. when she left the department in 2013 it is commonplace for government officials to have special attention paid to them and particular attention paid to them for purposes of records management and archival activity. i had the career appointee and the proper delineation made at what is personal and what is official. in the official category, what is a record and what is not a record. some things will be preserved through the archives and some will not. that, apparently, did not take place. what happened in 2014, according to clinton and statements made
on her behalf, is that she was responding to a special request by the department of state and it is fuzzy what that is all about. nevertheless, she undertook a step of revealing, analyzing dealing with the e-mails that were on the personal server. i will use round numbers here. she said there were 67 e-mails. -- 67,000 e-mails -- roughly 60,000 e-mails. roughly 30,000-31,000 were deemed to be personal. she then took action with respect to what was on the
official side of her delineation. that amounted to 55,000 pages from 31,000 e-mails. it was not produced in electronic form. she sent that in paper form to the department of state, leaving the remainder, which she said at a press conference, to be destroyed or deleted. the question becomes, there is deletion and there is deletion. were they completely deleted? she is saying to a house committee that she is -- that they were, indeed, deleted in entirety.
this amounts to a flouting, if not a violation of the federal records act requirements because the federal records act says to all federal agency employees you have an obligation to take some steps to preserve things for posterity. you cannot preserve something that does not exist. the first obligation of the federal records act is to memorialize action. memorialization used to mean a creating a piece of paper. the question was, would something that describes the action taking place, would it be reduced to writing and be deemed appropriate to be preserved for posterity in the national
records archives administration? with electronic mail, that is itself, the very vehicle of agency action. it is not just memorialization. it is how, in part, as this is done. -- business is done. what she did, by not just using a personal e-mail account in exceptional cases and not having an official account at all, she acted contrary to the federal records act. what i've first looked at it, i could not tell, for sure, with any personal knowledge, as to whether the state department had contacted the national record archives folks who oversee the implementation, just as i had at the justice department with foia. no contact was made. the archives have sent a formal
request to the department of state asking for a report on how the hell this all happened. i do not believe there has been a response. i understand why the archives has made this "request." we come to the freedom of information act. it is not unimaginable that there will be a request made to the department of state that could be subject matter request that, by their nature, could logically encompass e-mail communication at a high-level of the department. or and this is probably more to the point for the purposes, requests that specifically ask for her e-mails and it could mean e-mails from her as a sender or to her as a recipient.
from what i gather, there has been resounding silence, with respect to the focus on that. it is consistent with the fact that, if you are at officer in the state department and you are responding to requests in 2012-2013, you go to the secretary office and you say, we have the requests and we need to search through secretary clinton's e-mails. the answer would have been, that will not take very long because we do not have any to search through. we do not have her as a center or recipient. as a practical matter, that is not a search that is fireball under the freedom of information act. that is why i have referred to her regime as a prescription of
blatant circumvention of the freedom of information act. the other ingredient i should add on top of that is, because i have worked on so many scandals during the administration. i have stopped counting at the number 23. anything that is regarded as a scandal or controversy has records and it becomes an issue what happens to the records under foia. will they be made public under any other way or subject to subpoena disclosure and civil litigation? having worked on those. -- having worked on those, and i do not profess to know every last scandal, i know enough to know that clinton had knowledge of how the freedom of information act works. i worked with fulks in the white house, briefly, cheryl mills
and there is no doubt that she, in my mind, based on my first-hand experience, she knows full well exactly how it all works and what she was doing. now, i am going to suggest to you, before i talk on too much longer, that, the way of looking at this, consistent with the old-fashioned paper form and the new fashioned e-mail form is that, what everyone is focusing on is the paper form. every e-mail that she sent or received, including attachments that were official, they were piles of paper and were on a desk right here. i will suggest there are eight piles on the desk.
the first would be outgoing e-mails she sent to people in the department of state. indeed, they exist at the state department on the recipient level. foia requests could never adequately search, given the practicalities. the others would b communications from the department of state. state department people, piles one and two. the next would be federal employees not at the state. she is fast and loose on that at the press conference. she had it both ways. there are federal employees at other federal agencies who were at least recipients, if not centers, to her stop those are piles three and four. -- to wear. those are piles -- to her. those are piles three and four.
then, recipients and senders from her. people who send or receive something from her who are other people, not feds. state employees, u.n. employees, other people, whatever that means. she had a press conference and place emphasis on the fact that the vast majority of her recipients of her correspondents were within the state department. what about the minority? those are piles five and six. i will suggest that seven and eight are what she has determined to be personal. things she sent, one pile. things she received, another. i'd not think anyone doubts or quarrels with the fact that are someere are some things that are
appropriate. one could say that, perhaps if 50% of her e-mails or personal, i know when i was a government official and i had personal e-mails, my wife would say, you are going to be late and get on my case about it. it did not amount to 50% of my e-mails. how can it be 50%-50% in her case? that provides suspicion. there is the mysterious ninth pile. i will review with that. what would the ninth pile be? reportedly and here i will be clear to say that what i am telling you is not first-hand.
all i know is what i've frread online. it has been reported that her three top aides used her personal accounts -- again, i do not know this for a fact -- or their own personal accounts to communicate with one another. i would suggest that is a distinct potential pile that ought to be a matter of distinct focus and concern in this case. i have no ax to grind with hillary clinton. i am a registered democrat and a self-described liberal. i do not use progressive. i am a liberal. i am amazed by some people
saying they are going to vote for her and not the republican. i just call it as i see it under the law. tom: thank you. it is good that you are retired. the justice department would be unhappy. dan: i was constrained in the past. you would be surprised how candid i was before i retired. tom: i do not know if we could do much better than the careful analysis of the issues here. as i said in my introduction, a force to be reckoned with on these areas of law and scandal on how we respond to officials.
his experience is hard to match and we are lucky to have him. >> thank you. one hardly knows where to begin in this matter. the vast array of targets for legitimate inquiry is truly astounding. after years of increasing accountability transparency, and openness, this incident involving the secretary of state e-mails has stopped the clock on accountability. this is the end of the road for all of the people who care about
getting information from their government. as someone who has investigated crime, espionage, insider trading, and other things, who has investigated teamsters and other things, the basic facts in this case cry out for a formal investigation under the law. not just by congress, by the department of justice. let us take a look at what dan just said. what you have here is a rai brazen decision to prevent the disclosure of public information to the press, the congress, the
courts, and the american people. it was a deliberate strategy from the beginning of her tenure as secretary of state. i will ask this question to dan and paul as a rhetorical question. i do not think it will be. what if, in fact, the department of state, from day one, was the one who put the server there? i think they did. they have known about this before they ever told anybody about it. i think it will be proved. i believe it to be the case. i do not know it yet. investigations and how you do them, i will come back to the department of justice in a
minute. let's look at how this got started. the investigation of benghazi one of the phony scandals, as they have been described, have began with committees in the house. armed services, foreign intelligence, and oversight doing a generic investigation. one of the things you learn as an investigator is to create opportunities for the people you are looking at to make mistakes. you give them a rope. one of the ways you do that is you issue subpoenas. you do not send letters asking for information. you send subpoenas with the force of law.
i will explain to you why that is important and give an example from the teamsters investigation of the 1990's. the reason you send a subpoena is to create a legal duty, an obligation to comply to a committee, a court, or to a grant jury. or in a civil case, when you are asked to produce evidence in a civil case. we will get to that. house committees, with limited exceptions, the armed services committee, ed royce and mike rogers conducted in competence -- incompetent investigations.
it is hard to describe the incompetence -- incompetence that led to the fact we know to be true. none of them, not a one, new that hillary clinton had a private e-mail account from which she conducted all of her business. three committees conducting investigations over 1.5-year's and none of them knew that she had that server. you cannot imagine the conversations that are going on for people in law enforcement and outside of law enforcement. people who used to work and permanent subcommittees on the
republican investigations. the incompetence is staggering and it is the reason that mr. dowdgowdy's committee it just -- exists. i will try to easily about the server and the attempt to get it. when you are a prosecutor, you have search warrant's and subpoenas. when you are in the house, it is not the same. you are a public grant jury. you cannot arrest anybody. the house as the ability to arrest someone and hold them in contempt. that has not been done since the 1800s. i urge them to bring it back. the powers to investigate are generally powerful.
it is not the same as a federal prosecution. now, you have options and you can make a problem exist in a bigger way. you have to issue subpoenas which those committees did not due to the end of -- until the end of their investigations which is an embarrassment. we were investigating a corrupt union run by ron. it was outrageous what was going on. we were retained and the special counsel was gingrich. we began the investigation. the process resulted in a reform president, hoffa, being made president and he has been reelected several times.
in the course of our investigation, we discovered the teamsters had meetings and we wanted those. we subpoenaed them and we were conducting an investigation. the attorney in new york was conducting an investigation of the teamsters. the teamsters general counsel calls white and said that he had gotten a subpoena from the house. for their board tapes, he wondered if he could deliver them to the u.s. attorney to new york so that we would not get them. she said that would be fine. they delivered them to new york. several years of tape. we discovered that and we called
the u.s. attorney in new york and said, you realized the tapes that were handed over to you are the house of representatives' an d they said, "yes, that does not matter." i said, "will you please turn over the tapes." i said, we will be back tomorrow. we had a subpoena that said, "give it to me." it is not a search warrant it is just as good under the law. if you don't comply, you better have a good reason. it was the first one ever issued by the house. it was delivered to new york. we called the u.s. attorney and said, would you turn over the tapes. he said, "no."
i said, "here are your two choices." you can turn over the tapes or be held in contempt of congress. make the decision. you have five minutes. we got the tapes. what in the world is the house not doing about the server? the notion that they have to wait -- the evidence has already theoretically been destroyed according to the secretary and her lawyer. all of the lawyers she deems personal have been permanently deleted. when i began this, i said, this is crazy. think of what they have admitted . she has admitted that she destroyed government documents under subpoena by the house of
representatives and under subpoena in civil litigation all over the united states. who says that the deletions were personal? her, her staff, and her lawyers based on her representations. not good enough. what is going to happen now is, upon the hill and in all the freedom of information act cases , there are going to have to be affidavits filed under oath. these will be doj lawyers, department of state lawyers people who do records management at the department of justice and the department of state cheryl mills, and a whole bunch of other people, including clinton. clinton is going to testify in a federal court.
she is going to half to testify. so is cheryl mills. i do not know if any judge will say that cheryl mills is both loathesome, like lambert did. there will be keen interest in why no one was ever told that a private e-mail system was the sole basis upon which the secretary of state conducted business. let me say this again -- this is the secretary of state. this is not someone over epa who is working on a bureau trying to figure out carbon dioxide problems. this is the secretary of state. a historical figure, in terms of the operations of the united
states government. if you go back and look at benghazi going there just for a minute because i don't want this to be about benghazi, but when they did the investigation on the slaughter, they made it their business to not interview clinton. really digging, worth a? -- weren't they? mr. pickering the head of the review board along with pathetic admiral mullen. her indications have set the stage for a major constitutional confrontation. she has destroyed history.
for anybody who cares about government republican, democrat, tea party lefto- nutzo, she destroyed history with no accountability. she has no right to do that. there should be a federal criminal investigation going on right now the department of justice. they do not have to have a panel with a grand jury. a cap preliminary inquiries. -- they can have preliminary inquiries. she used her staff and, with the advice of counsel, destroyed evidence. nobody knows whether what she has is evidence until somebody looks at it. if she is right and everything she had was personal, and i bet you the clinton foundation is considered personal, she has
committed a crime unequivocally. if there is not a preliminary inquiry, it is a disgrace. now, i will just say this, all the people who are lawyers involved in this and will have to produce affidavits, the better get good lawyers. this is not going to be pretty. thanks. tom: thank you. if i can clarify, clinton said there was no classified information on the server. yesterday, in a court filing, the agency suggested they would be reviewing the records. reading between the lines, it was clear they would have to review the records raising other issues on the handling of classified information. we have had some really special
testimony here from the gentleman. i thought it would be appropriate to close with you, paul. remarks are in terms of what ought to be done, we generally know what will be done. it is going to be up to judicial watch to get to the bottom of this and get the justice department's conflict of mr. sears -- interest here. a political lack of interest in doing the hard work that joe suggesting and putting it charitably incompetence. judicial watch has proven itself time and time again and being able to get information and the accountability that joe has been imploring other institutions and to dissolve through -- too often it is all through judicial washes watches -- judicial
watch's work here. can you bring our listeners up-to-date here on where we are and where we are going and your view of mr. metcalf's comments? paul: i thought it would be good to talk about what judicial watch is done about the revelation of senator clinton's e-mails. we did what we always do which is start our foia. we served at least 17 new foia request in the past three or four weeks on the state department including, as joe was glad to hear, foia requests about the server. what the state department knew about the , and the state department paid about the server.
they are responsible for security at the clintons residents. we have also sent out foia requests for records about the secretaries ipod usage like their usage, iphone usage. we have asked for her separation statement. there have been some news reports that she did not do one. we are waiting to see if there are records on that. if there is no record response it might indicate she didn't do it. we ask for all 55,000 pages of records. we ask for records about who knew what and when. we got about 17 request outstanding and some more in the offer. some of those will start, in early april and you can be that -- that that lawsuits will be filed in april. pending foia request to identify request that implicated mrs. clinton's e-mails. we saw one new foia lawsuit within two days of the revelation on march 2.
we file hundreds of foia lawsuits over the years. so one of the things that we had to do was go back to our database of pending and even closed foia lawsuits to see what this revelation -- what effect it might of had on any pending or closed cases. we have identified at least nine pending cases that could be impacted and eight closed cases. with respect to the pending cases, we have asked courts for status conferences and reached out to cost -- council on what the state department is planning to do. what the things they are saying they plan to do is process all 55,000 records in response and make them available through foia. daniel: precision is important in this area. joe:paul: it is pages of records.
we asked the court to open some close cases. the state department had represented to us in some cases that they searched the office of the secretary, and what is called the executive secretariat, which is the central office for high-level state department officials correspondence and records including the e-mail. in some of those cases, we were told those offices were searched . at no point were we told that secretary clinton's e-mails were not captured for that other high-level state department employees, like delete brains and a couple of others. they were likely not captured either because they were using a private server, so we have reopened -- moved to reopen one case. we are in negotiations with the state department to reopen a second case. we have others that we are looking at for reopening. the federal procedure will allow
you to reopen the case if there is new evidence that is discovered -- and surprise is great fun -- i'm not sure what it means. also for fraud misrepresentation or misconduct. the first cased we moved to reopen, we moved under the provision of authorizing cases for fraud misconduct, and misrepresentation. the state department did not oppose that. interesting. they claim that they do not realize that we were opening under fraud and misrepresentation, but it was plain in the papers. they seem to be open to reopening cases to go back and revisit how foia requests were affected. that is just sort of a hands-on practical approach to what the group uses foia how is impacted, what it has had to go through in order to try to figure out how its efforts have been affected and what can be
done about it. i'm sure we sent -- spent hundreds of thousands of staff hours working on the problems. it has been a tremendous strain on the organization just to respond to mrs. clinton's decision that she did not want to follow the federal records act. tom: let me ask you and start the questioning with -- i always said the catch me if you can presidency and the shell game that is taking place with these records. it seems to me the legal position -- the best i can tell if there is a legal position is that well, hillary clinton took these records out of the state department or she didn't have them within the state department, or they were in control of the state department. too bad, we searched everywhere we thought they would be. foia didn't recover this. we will look at those and may get some info.
anything before that, we do not have an obligation to search those records. what is your response given your list. -- experience into foia that the head of an agency can of a foia simply by removing records from the office? paul: as professor metcalf reference, the federal records act requires the records be kept that official government actions -- those records after they are made have to be processed stored, and available to be used. it is the head of the agency's responsibility to do that and make sure that records are being kept and are accessible and can be used and requested. this notion that the head of the agency secretary clinton, could concoct this game by which should would board all of her obligations under the federal records act is not an acceptable response. the question is what remedy foia
allows. there might be some other provisions of law that allow remedies, like some criminal provisions. one criminal provision makes it a crime to remove federal records from federal agencies without the permission of the archivist. i think our position is that these records were federal records and they were removed when mrs. clinton concocted this scheme to make sure that all these records would be on a private server and not on the state department server. we are going to have to test when we get to the stage in court when we are talking about remedying. daniel: it might depend on your definition of her move. paul: we are talking about the clintons. daniel: from point a to point b it made never have existed at point a and only came to exist
that point b. it was arguably a functional removal in some way, i suppose. paul: it was on the computer until they hit the send button. daniel: was her personal account. it was not on any state department computer i'm afraid. paul: those are some great facts we can get into with discovery and foia request, but right, it depends on what's the definition of removing spirit ite is. it is not like sticking the records in the stocks. daniel: the glories of old-fashioned paper copies as opposed to just electronic impulses. paul: it strikes me given my layman's understanding, given that you are the head of an agency and you set up a system to conduct all government business that the government counts. tom: you may pretend to have
personal e-mails on that, but many folks conduct personal business on government accounts. it is frowned upon, but frankly, it shouldn't happen. as mrs. clinton said, hundreds of people in the agency knew that she had this account, and as head of the agency, everyone knew what was going on. the idea that she removed this in any substantial way that would prevent them from being subject to foia. our goal is with recovering the e-mails that were deleted and preserve those that are still out there and make all of it subject to disclosure as long requires. -- as the law requires. the justice department is conflicted on this. we have justice department lawyers that i believe new what their client was doing in the foia litigation in keeping this material from us and they did not tell the court. we ran into the story with the lowest e-mails. i'm convinced that the force of
disclosure of the lost e-mails. they would not have told anyone, but for i think the foia process , for requiring the disclosure. when we were told those e-mails were lost, we pushed harder against the justice department and in my view, they continue to mislead the court. but it became, especially since the court one of more explanations, they fessed up and said they may be on secret e-mail service that our backups. there are other e-mails out there. when it lost e-mails became one lost very quickly. joe: let me just say that i am embarrassed. i'm absolutely astounded by what judicial watch has a compost in this arena. it is amazing watching this being conducted the weight should be. excellent lawyers, good
arguments, and in covering some of the most important facts that have yet to be revealed until now. i want to go on top of what dan has said. when mrs. clinton decided, from the beginning of her tenure as a constitutional officer, she's a constitutional officer. that she would procure a server that i don't believe with assistance of the department of state and installing it in her home, that when she did that chappaqua became the department of state. those records were in possession of the united states government at that point. i'm going to be fascinated by the argument that she is going to make that they were not. she moved the secretary's office from foggy bottom to chappaqua. there's simply no disputing that. she made the decision that her business would be conducted on
that server. that was her decision and not anybody else's decision. when she did that, she transferred federal records into that house. and into that server. they may very well argue whatever they want to argue about it, but i think they are going to have a really tough time convincing anybody but those were not government records from day one in her possession, in that place. and when she ordered them to be permanently deleted, and nobody knows what she ordered deleted nobody knows. representations are irrelevant. they mean nothing. they are of such limited evidentiary value. given this scheme that worked out here to deny access and information, that this is going to be fun to watch. daniel: that line of reasoning is basically twofold. when she established or began using her personal e-mail account, that was functionally
an official e-mail account and that when she involved her private e-mail server, that was functionally a government e-mail server, as a practical matter. there is some basis in law not resume to add -- to presume to add to legal analysis -- if you look at footnote 10 in the kissinger decision, you would ask the court to apply footnote 10 and expand upon a little bit on this extraordinary fact pattern. that would be supportive of what joe was saying. tom: so the kissinger decision was essentially a decision based on how the government could get records from a former official was arguably government records. my understanding of the
kissinger decision, and i do not know if this is the footnote you reference, it is kind of tough on times. it is not to say the court gave itself and out that ahead of an agency taking all the records of the government -- all the government activities and keeping them off campus means the government or a foia requester has no recourse under law. am i right? daniel: footnote 10 basically identifies the particular fact that happened to be the face and kissinger which is that the foia request filed by the oppressed -- press was received by the agency after the "removal." that remains the question that the court played with a little bit as to what the outcome would've been had that not been so. had the foia request been in place and perfected, so to speak, prior to the removal.
paul: let us remember what kissinger did. when his time was over, he removed official documents. in his term was over, he removed all the. mrs. clinton started her removal of documents at the inception of her secretariat. she began with a purposeful action to conceal and to eventually, according to her and her lawyer, delete information which is presumptively public record. it is in my view what kissinger did is normal. he wanted to write his memoirs and took the papers. to get bunches of them back, but they existed. he didn't destroy any. she admits that she destroyed more than 50% of everything that was on that server. if anybody thinks that everything that is official has been turned over, you are living
in a dream world. tom: i do not know what the facts will show. i suspect that when she said the secret service is protecting the server, she was not so naive to think that physically protecting a server from being stolen out of her house was sufficient. if that wasn't an accidental truth,, the secret service was maintaining the server, and indeed was a state department server whenever she deleted those records, who in the agency knew that they allowed us as clinton to delete those records from the state agency server? who in the white house new about this issue? why do they allow her to delete those records? the implications here are somewhat really staggering. you can see why you have the sensitivity and initially, smart democrats on the hill, not really knowing what all the facts were, they have been around the block, people like senator feinstein and even dick durbin. they came out and said just tell
us what happened. mrs. clinton did not read between the lines and decided to be truthful to those requests. i think folks on both political parties understand there is a big issue here. we have gone over, but i want to leave some time for questions before we go. mark of "washington examiner" in front here. i think we have a microphone. we are going to take one of the microphones from here and if dad joe could share. reporter: i want to go to the meeting that clinton got at the outset. if i had to kennedy and that meeting, and i say to her, he used government e-mail and she says no i'm going to use my own what are my legal responsibilities and obligations at that point to attempt to ensure, or at least to
memorialize, what happened to that meeting? daniel: this is a civil matter so i will take it. tom: for the moment. [laughter] daniel: for the moment, right. i can only speak to comparison i what happened to the justice department every time that was a new attorney general. routinely, the sort of meeting would be held in one form of fashion sooner rather than later. i would dare say the top administrative career official of an agency house the responsible to of to make it clear of what the policy requires, to be more refined and say, well just because you are not prohibited from ever using a personal account does not mean that you can always use a personal account. there's a lot of data between the two. assuming the worst for the
purposes of this question that he learned in that meeting, if he in fact was there, and we are speculating. she did not intend to do that. then, i believe he would've had an obligation at a minimum to contact with people at the national archives and records administration who hold the statutory responsibility for popper believe implementing -- properly implement and the federal records act with the idea that the arguments having learned of this development would then call the secretary and say, secretary clinton, you just can't do that. it is not consistent with the federal records act. if on the other hand he did not win that, or no one learned that, it was just stated to be what should be done and she went away and did what she did on her own, then the question would be -- when was that learned and with that same obligation arise? reporter: the next part of my
question -- at some point, it became obvious that she was using nongovernment e-mail. was there an obligation at that point? daniel: those anonymous people as recipients -- i'm going to cut them a bit of a break, so to speak, because they do not know as mere program people, they are not administrative people. they do not know what took place in the meeting. so maybe they can assume -- they're not supposed the experts of the federal records act. maybe they can assume it is ok. i do not think they have a direct obligation to do otherwise is to take any action. it really is on the administrative people who have been delegated authority from the archivist to make sure that the federal records act is followed at that agency. so the records management people learned thereafter, yes, they indeed would have that. at the assistant secretary us the -- if the assistant secretary of state of foreign affairs and of that, that would
be a different matter entirely. reporter: the question is at the heart of the matter. mr. kennedy is a very important person and this entire scenario of records production and a policy issues related to record production. paul: mr. kennedy is one tough cookie. joe: mr. kennedy is one tough cookie. the ruins peoples careers forward. if he was the person to brief mrs. clinton on what her duties were, i can assure you that would've in a groveling presentation. the bottom line here is that -- whatever the duties were of a whole bunch of people at the state department, they did not perform them. i agree with dan. you cannot put the onus on the people inside the state department getting e-mails from hillary. as far as they are concerned that is one e-mail.
they do not know where she is or what she is doing. at a certain point, the information management people at the department know that she is not using an official e-mail cap it they know that for a fact. because she does not have one. it does not take a lot for somebody to start asking questions like, excuse me, madam secretary, just how are you communicating with people in the department and where are those records? this is a staggering in the brazenness of evasion a legal duty by everybody at the state department, and especially the secretary, it is simply staggering. it is unbelievable. the straight face, she stands up at the u.n. and talks about yoga left -- lessons and laughs about it in a media meeting and
jokes about her e-mails. and the media in the audience laugh uproariously at this wonderful event. what she has done has undermined people's confidence in the ability to get valuable public records. her records were valuable. what ever you may think of her, she was the secretary of state. that is a pretty big job. and she took it upon herself to change history. she does not have the right or the authority to change history. but she did. tom: and mr. kennedy still is that the agency and responsible for managing records and the idea that there is a distinction between mrs. clinton personally -- she is agency for legal purposes here. there is no daylight as far as we are concerned between this
current state department and mrs. clinton. this is state department responsibility and the folks there are liable potentially as joe points out. daniel: can i make one minor little point? there are a lot of facts that are undisputed and they come from senator clinton herself. i do not know for a fact that patrick kennedy was in such a meeting. for all i know, for sure, he might have been having surgery that month and could of the a deputy or two deputies or something like that. we really do not know for sure but the responsibility is in his office for somebody to take the lead on such important matters. tom: there have been several court filing since the scandal broke and i think we have all the lawyers here from judicial watch have been involved and i think i'm correct in saying that the state department has yet to disclose to us when they became aware of these accounts of mrs. clinton.
joe: i agree completely with what dan said about not knowing who it was. here's the better question -- we did not get a briefing at all. i will tell you something -- he didn't get everything. she treated -- she was treated how thomas bickering -- pickering was treated. you don't get cheryl mills degree at you by asking tough questions. she was treated like a queen. she got a pastor and she did not have to do anything. i would be amazed if she got the traditional breathing that other secretaries of state have gotten when they came in to office. they probably would've given it to mrs. mills. daniel: i'm going to agree with your speculation and one respect. i happen to know firsthand that it was an attorney general of the justice department that was treated not unlike that. that makes it believable and more plausible. that was a portal and solace. -- alberto gonzales.
when i deposed him on his understanding of the federal records and privacy act, that became painfully clear. tom: it is time for one more question. yes, sir. reporter: the department has a category similar to for official use only. something like that. it is above a classified, below classified. i am wondering that so many of the daily e-mails within the department -- if they are not classified, they would probably be this hello you category. -- lou category. does that make some difference on the security or lack thereof on the server in new york? daniel: having some familiarity with what is called sensitive, but unclassified information as
i wrote the dam white house memo and march of 2009 that started everything off on that, i do know that the state department uses to such designations. it is called a pseudo-secrecy realm. one is called no form and the other is no dis. it might be used for some official reason. they have to do with labels that are attached to records most feasibly in the paper route that call for special safeguarding on special handling. your point is a good one. i touched on it in the political magazine article that i wrote a couple of weeks ago that even if nothing on her server was classified, which is what she has said, and for all any of us in this room know is entirely possible, it was not reviewed for classification which is another matter. even if that is so, it is very hard to believe there was not at least some sensitive but
unclassified information of that level that was there for which a special handling requirement would have been warranted under how the state department ordinarily operates. tom: if we take mrs. clinton that her own word that this server was private -- just imagine the types of information that would've been left on the equivalent of an internet part wrench by mrs. clinton as a result. you have classified information potentially. personnel issues are presumably part of her day-to-day duties. someone's personnel files are on the internet part bench. some of privacy act protected files are on the internet part bench. sensitive information. maybe sources that need to be protected are on the internet part bench. maybe the private information of
corporations doing business with the state department are on the internet part bench. maybe security concerns about benghazi or security issues related to other diplomatic duties are on that park bench. you have all this information that the agency was supposed to protect. and protecting that information she is protecting other people in the agency and the citizens outside of the agency. and other government officials outside of the agency, both here and abroad. there are a lot of people that have been harmed by this misconduct potentially if this is not as secured as it was supposed to be. this is why you get the reaction that you are getting from joe and as paul has pointed out, we have been gained as well. we have access to the courts. we have got great lawyers
but a lot of people have been gained and will never get justice by this. i will disclose on this note. as i said, i think this whole case was broken open because of our insistence on getting information from mrs. clinton and her office about her involvement in the benghazi scandal. we talked about the benghazi scandal is just a political issue, but is about whether or not for americans died unnecessarily as a result of decisions made by mrs. clinton and the obama administration, both in terms of fusing to ride security that was requested -- refusing to provide security that was requested. and when they were attacked, not going to their aid. there are people who have died that need to be vindicated. that is why we are investigating this. and if a legal or to go protect those people, the failure to provide them security, and then lying about what happened for political purposes has really
decimated the morale of the military and other civilian personnel the plate overseas. because the compact has been that of things hit the fan, the government will be there to save us. we were invest getting why that compact was torn asunder by this administration and this is what we have uncovered. even after all that became public and the controversy in the select committee asking questions, this person, voted, deleted all for e-mails. by the emission of her own lawyer. -- admission of her old lawyer. this is not a typical political scandal. daniel: can i just touch on one point with respect to the word delete? and that is a relatively recent development as of friday last week went, i believe the phrase used by the committee or subcommittee is that he heard from david kendall that it was a
light clean. i'm told by my technical experts, which is largely my security computer daughter who works for google out in california, that traditionally in the old days to wipe something clean you would degauss it with an electromagnetic fix or you would even mechanically take a hammer to the darn hard drive, but nowadays, there is software, especially something called kill disk aptly named perhaps whereby it is approved by the nsa if you run it three times over, it will sufficiently overwrite what is there and i'm told that is everything. not just the text of the e-mail itself, but the metadata surrounding it and the server logs. if she did that and took that extraordinary step, and perhaps it would all be gone but then the very taking of that step might be a basis for inferring intent and that would be more joe's area as to what she was
taking great measures. joe: i hope you didn't give her any good ideas now. tom: let me say one thing factually about the ghazi. it is white house or kennedy is such an important person. just remember who he was. joe: all those african commons during the 90's, he was in charge of security. he got promoted during this disastrous. there is his tenure to this day during benghazi, ambassador stephen wanted security increased. he had 30 people and he wanted more. the country was a disaster. do you know what kennedy did? he reduced it from 38 to nine. ever nine security people. that is it. tom: we just obtain these records about mrs. clinton's top staff, cheryl mills, her executive assistant, which is an
ambassador raking in the state department. it is not what we traditionally understand an assistant to be. you have the rank of ambassador. what did they know about these e-mails? there's no doubt that mrs. clinton and her top people were being updated about the truth of what was going on in benghazi as the attack occurred, and yet, they put out that false information. what is there to hide? there is a great incentive, not only on benghazi but on abusing her office to raise money for her political operation and the foundation. basically to launder money for her personal benefit is something that will be of significance. as i said, this idea of personal versus official records is one that you have to take their explanations with a grain of salt. i am pleased to say that our litigation team here at judicial watch are going to be raising
issues with the courts. and various courts and we are set -- we are ready before to federal court judges. we are prepped to go to other court judges. there has got to be accountability here. i would encourage those of you listening to ask the members of congress why they aren't doing what judicial watch is doing? why aren't they hiring judicial watch to do another special prosecution of the scandal? and why is justice department continuing to do nothing, and arguably and he'd further information gathering about the scandal and acting as a cocounsel, it looks to us, for mrs. clinton personally and legation that we are currently involved in -- in the litigation that we are currently involved in? it is getting worse, not better for mrs. clinton and the media will try to move on saying it is all about politics as she run
for presidency. running for president should not make you immune for any serious accountability under law. that seems to be the way it works in washington and we are going to change that through our litigation. running for high office does not place you above the law. and mrs. clinton said line that, -- should learn that and the state department and the white house itself should start paying attention to the obligations of public interest as opposed to the political future of the democratic party, which is where i think i fear it is going. i just hope there is an honest man and the administration or an honest woman who says we are done and we are going to let all hang out and there is no harm in coming forward and being forthright to the courts and to investigators. but to continue the cover-up which is ongoing in my view, that really shows you what we're up against. if congress gets it at together
and the justice department gets its act together, they would bring some of these folks before him or her and ask questions and allow us to ask questions -- that really could work wonders. we are prepared to work hard and we appreciate the work of paul at judicial watch and mr. metcalf, who has tried to provide an honest analysis of what the legal issues are and what the facts are based on his experiencee. daniel: i believe in a good rule of law. tom: tom: he is available at the washington school of law's load site -- website. joe has been doing humans work in this area has well. and i hope more people pay attention to his analysis. congress needs to really re-figure and restructure their
investigations and how they go about conducting oversight because although we are happy to do it, it really is outrageous that we are doing the job of both the congress and the media -- just little old judicial watch taking on the 4 trillion dollar federal government. my gosh, we need the help in congress needs to start doing its job. we thank everyone for participating and you can learn more about this and check the scandal at judicial watch.org. you can google joe and mr. metcalf. what is your website joe? you can google him and find out about their great work. daniel: the easiest way is to go on and google. my family favorite worksite which is because my daughter works if it for.
and the impact on unions. a look at potential republican responses to the afford will care act and the indiana religious state of law. >> this weekend, the c-span cities tour has partnered with cox communications to learn about the literary life of tulsa, oklahoma. >> he was famous for writing "this land is your land." he was born in oklahoma in 1912 and we are very proud to have his work back in oklahoma where we think it belongs. he was an advocate for people who are disenfranchised. for those people who were migrant workers from oklahoma kansas, and texas during the dustbowl era is found themselves in california literally starving. he felt the best difference between those who wear the haves and have-nots and became their spokesman.
woody recorded very few songs of his own. we have a listening station that features 46 of his songs in his own voice. that is what makes the recordings that he did make so significant and so important to us. ♪ this land is your land and this land is my land from california to the new york islands ♪ >> saturday at noon eastern on c-span book tv and sunday at 2 p.m. eastern on c-span3. >> indiana governor mike has has now called for a clear face -- clarification to the states religious freedom law to not give license to discriminate. the governor blames negative reaction to the bill on inaccurate reporting to have the clarification on this bill.
this 35 minute news conference from the indiana state library tuesday is courtesy of w x i and in indianapolis. -- wxin in indianapolis. gov. mike pence: thank you very all for coming. it has been a tough week in the hoosier state, but we are going to move forward. as governor, i've the privilege of serving the grievance -- greatest people on her -- the people of indiana. let me say first that i was proud to sign the religious freedom act. i believe that religious liberty as president clinton said when he signed the federal law in 1993 -- that i believe that religious liberty is our first freedom. and it is vital to millions of americans who cherish faith as i and my family do. but it is also vital to the framework of freedom in our nation. and this legislation was
assigned -- designed to ensure the vitality of religious liberty in the hoosier state. i believe that hoosiers are entitled to the same protections that have been in our federal courts the last 20 plus years and the law and other 30 states. clearly, there has been misunderstanding and confusion and mischaracterization of this law. and i come before you today to say how we are going to address that. we have been working over the last several days, literally around the clock. we have been talking with people across the state of indiana talking to business leaders, and talking organizations around the country restaurant time in indiana and enjoy the hospitality of the people in indiana and we have been listening. let me say first and foremost that i've said to each one of them that the religious freedom restoration act was about
religious liberty. it was not about discrimination. as is the last week -- i said last week, had this law had been about legalizing discrimination, i would have vetoed it. this law does not give anyone a lysis -- the licensed to describe it. the religious liberty freedom act does not give anybody the right to deny anyone services to anyone in the state. it is simply a balancing test used fire federal courts and jurisdictions across the country are more than two decades. let me say on the subject of the bill itself -- i do not believe for a minute that it was the intention of the general assembly to create a licensed to discriminate or a right to deny services to gays, lesbians, or anyone else in the state and it certainly was not my intent. but i can appreciate that that
has become the perception, not just here in indiana, but across this country. and we need to confront that and confronted boldly. in a way that respects the interest of all involved. a personal reflection for a moment if i can -- i a poor discrimination. -- abhor this permission. the way that i was raised, like most hoosiers, was with the golden rule, that you should do unto others that you would have done unto you. i believe in my heart of hearts that no one should be harassed or mistreated because of who they are, who they love, or what they believe. and i believe every hoosier shares that conviction. but as i said, we have got a perception problem here because some people have a different view.
and we intend to correct that. after much reflection and in consultation with leadership of the general assembly, i've come to the conclusion that it would be helpful to move legislation this week that makes it clear that this law does not give businesses the right to deny services to anyone. let me say that again. i think it would be helpful and i will like to see on my desk before the end of this week legislation that is added to the religious freedom restoration act in indiana that makes it clear that this law does not give businesses the right to deny service to anyone. we once make it clear that indiana is open for business. we want to make it clear that hoosier hospitality is not a slogan, it is our way of life. it is the reason why people come
here from around the world and the comeback again and again and again. because hoosiers are the kindest, most generous, most decent people in the world. let me say that i believe that this is a verification -- clarification, but it is also a fix. it is a fix of a bill through mischaracterization and confusion that has become greatly misunderstood. and i'm determined to address this this week and move forward as a state. and i know that we will. indiana has come under the harsh clear -- blair of criticism -- glare of criticism throughout the country. in some of us get paid to be under that harsh glare of criticism. the things that have been said about our state have been at
times deeply offensive to me. and i will continue to continue to use every effort to defend the good and decent people of indiana. i think it is important that we take this action this week. i've spoken to legislative leaders all the way through the last hour and we are going to be working to make that happen. now, i will be happy to take questions. go ahead. reporter: i like to ask you again. under this law as it is written, is it illegal to deny services as it is written? gov. mike pence: this law does not give anyone the licensed to deny services to gay and lesbian couples.
look i could've handled that better this weekend. going into that interview this weekend, i was determined to set the record straight about what the slow -- this log really is. i am very pleased that the reporting about the religious freedom restoration act has significantly improved over the last several days. i think there is a growing public understanding that indiana has passed the law here that mirrors the federal law that president clinton signed and it mirrors the loss and statues of some 30 states. i'm grateful for that. on sunday, my intention was to set that record straight. but i want to be clear on that point and thank you for the opportunity. reporter: do you regret that? gov. mike pence: absolutely not. religious liberty is vitally important in the lives of our
nation. and to ensure that hoosiers have the same level of scrutiny, and what they believe religious liberty is intruded upon and our state courts, and in our federal courts and that 30 states have had for some time, is simply the right thing to do. it is that important. i was pleased sign it -- just find it and i stand by the law. reporter: [indiscernible] gov. mike pence: jim, i've never supported that. i want to be clear. it is not on my agenda. i think it is a completely separate question. we're talking about the religious freedom restoration act, which is about restoring the highest level of scrutiny in our state courts when matters of government action intrude upon the religious liberty of
hoosiers. that is where i want to stay focused. but i do believe that moving legislation this week -- that would make it clear that this law does not give businesses a right to deny services to anyone that would be appropriate. that is still under discussion and consideration, but that is the direction. yes, please. reporter: governor, [indiscernible] gov. mike pence: was i expecting this kind of backlash? heavens no. to be candid with you, when i first heard about the legislation and heard that it was already federal law for more than 20 years, heard that it was the law through statute and
court decisions and 30 -- in 30 justices -- jurisdictions, and the weight of the hobby lobby case, i thought it was an appropriate addition to indiana statutes. it moved through the process with good debate but not a considerable about the controversy. so candidly when this arrested last week, even though i made my position clear weeks ago that i would sign the bill without much discussion, i was taken aback. i have to tell you that the gross mischaracterizations about this bill early on in some of the reckless reporting by some in the media about what this bill was all about was deeply disappointing to me and the millions of hoosiers that were making progress on that.
we are turning back. i'm grateful that we have had expressions of support given around the country, including many in the media who are taking what this is all about and we will continue to move forward on that. reporter: a lot of the concern is why in indiana this is happening. let's make it clear -- was your loss to be specific in what human rights ordinances are? gov. mike pence: let me say that the smear here against this bill is that it created a license to discriminate or license to drive services. that is just completely false. and baseless.
professor congo, who i quoted in my editorial this morning and "the wall street journal," said it well. there is no license to discriminate. i think the proper legislative remedy is to focus on the perception that has been created by the mischaracterization and to make it clear that this law does not give businesses a right to deny services to anyone. reporter: thank you, governor. speaking of the backlash, i'm going off of what valerie said. [indiscernible] gov. mike pence: you mean the
public reaction? i think it was explained by the fact that this was grossly mischaracterized advocates who oppose the bill, and quite frankly, some sloppy reporting for the first several days. i really do believe that. look i -- if i read some of the stuff about this bill, i would've had the same concern that millions of hoosiers have had an millions of people across the country have had. it just isn't so. when president clinton signed this bill in 1993, the american civil liberties union said then that the regis -- religious freedom restoration act was the most important legislation considered by congress since the first amendment was approved. ok? when then safe -- state senator brock obama voted for this bill
in illinois, it was with rod and bipartisan support. one of the great pieces of legislative history of the religious liberty restoration act was broadly supported on a bipartisan aces. i would suggest that explains what the concern that they have expressed an across this nation as a mischaracterization. in a very real sense, that is why i think we need to focus specifically on this perception that this creates some license to discriminate and that is why i am calling on the legislature to do. reporter: what about [indiscernible]? gov. mike pence: i think the
link which is still being worked out. -- language is still being worked out. i want to make sure that it is clear to the hoosiers and the people i serve. and frankly, clear to anyone who would come to visit our state that there is in this legislation no license to discrimination, no right to deny services. i think we can develop that language. reporter: you just this morning issued an e-mail to supporters that they should be protected. -- he'd just this morning issued an e-mail to supporters that this should be protected. gov. mike pence: this law does not give anyone a license to discriminate. it does not give anyone the
right to deny services. the language that i am talking about adding, i believe, would be consistent with what the general with what the assembly intended. reporter: with the language include antidiscrimination? gov. mike pence: i'm calling on the general assembly to assemble a bill that focuses on the issues here. that focuses on the smear that has been leveled against this law and the people of indiana. that is that somehow there are legislative process we enacted legislation that created a license to discriminate. that is so offensive to me as a hoosier and i know it is offensive to people across the state of indiana that we have to correct that first, just because
it is not true. secondly, we have to correct that perception because it has to do with the perception of our >> [inaudible] governor pence: we need to make it very clear. irrespective of where those ordinances are in community are not, that this law does not give businesses the right to deny service to anyone. ok? that's what i have to say about that. go. >> [inaudible]
governor pence: the intent of the law, when president clinton signed it, when i signed it, was to give the courts in our state the highest level of scrutiny in cases where people feel their religious liberty is being infringed upon by government action. >> how does the state of indiana get its good name back? governor pence: the state of indiana has a good name. this law has been smeared. we are going to mark our 200th anniversary next year.
the name and reputation of the people of indiana is strong and secure. the reputation of this law and the intention of our legislature have been called into question. i believe we need to deal with it, we need to deal with it this week, and we will. we will fix this and we will move forward. that is what hoosiers do. >> [inaudible] governor pence: no comment. tom. >> what exactly do you want to see? governor pence: i want to make
it clear in the law that the religious freedom restoration act does not give businesses the right to deny service to anyone. i have said before to people and i want to stipulate the coverage on this has gone better and more fair. but early on there was some really reckless and irresponsible reporting about this. i would just submit to you that it is important that we address the principal allegation here. with legislation in this law that makes it clear that it does like you businesses the right to deny service to anyone. maureen? >> [inaudible]
governor pence: maureen, i wasn't talking about you. frankly can i say this, i don't want to let the indiana press off the hook here. but i will anyway. i think the indiana press has had this right from early on. some of the national reporting has been ridiculous. i would encourage you to do a quick google search. on this license to discriminate business. you will find all of it. yes, sir? >> [inaudible] governor pence: i have been on the phone. talking to business leaders, i have been reaching out to the
leaders of associations and corporations around the country, setting the record straight about what this actually does, and what our intention is in passing it, and our determination to correct the perception that has taken hold. >> [inaudible] governor pence: i think the more relevant event with the hobby lobby case by the supreme court. which is a case in point of the value of the religious freedom restoration act. it really is. obamacare was passed into law. it included mandates on health care coverage for businesses and hobby lobby and the university of notre dame, among others filed federal lawsuits to
challenge obamacare under the religious freedom restoration act. the supreme court in the majority opinion last year , upheld the right of private business owners, under the religious freedom restoration act. citing the act. here is the background. in 1993, the federal law was signed by president clinton. in 1997, the supreme court of the united states ruled that the act did not apply to states that did not have their own statute. and that is why you have 19 states that have adopted statute. 11 other states that have adopted it in their case law.
indiana never did. and so in the wake of the hobby lobby decision, to ensure that hoosiers in our state courts have the same level of scrutiny when their religious liberty they believe, is infringed upon, the general assembly room to this legislation. that was the precipitating event. >> [inaudible] governor pence: people are entitled to their opinions. but this law does not create a license to discriminate in this law does not give businesses a right to deny services to anyone. i think it would be helpful if the general assembly were to get legislation to my desk that made it clear. and made that clear in the statute. yes?
>> court -- court cases where -- governor pence: i did not hear the first part of your question. the purpose of the religious freedom restoration act is to give the people of this country the opportunity to go into our courts state, and federal, for more than 20 years, where they believe that government action has imposed and impinged upon their religious liberty. that is the foundation of this idea. this is about restraining government overreach. i want to say again, the reason why this is such a broad and bipartisan measure over much of the last two decades is because
every american cherishes religious liberty. we all understand the importance of the freedom of conscience. it is in trying in our constitution and the constitution of the state of indiana and that is what this is about. i understand that the perception of this has gone far afield from what the law really is. we have been doing our level best to correct the perception, however imperfectly. we will continue to do that. i am extremely grateful for voices around the country who have's stepped up and stood by indiana as we stand by this law. as governor of the state of indiana, i believe it would be the right thing to do to move legislation that would make it clear that this law does not give businesses the right to deny services to anyone. john?
>> [indiscernible] governor pence: those conversations are ongoing. i remain hopeful that if we focus on the principal misperception that we will garner support and restore confidence. and we will be able to move forward. >> [indiscernible] governor pence: i think a number of the 30 states to have the standard in their courts are also in the same position indiana is in and the same position the federal government is in in terms of protected status. let me say with great respect, i
think that is a separate issue. it is not my position. i am not advocating for it. i understand some people are. that is a separate question that should be considered separate from this idea of religious liberty and that we will give our courts in indiana, and have given our courts in indiana, the ability to discern at the highest level of scrutiny where the people of our state believe that government has intruded on their religious liberty. she is right here. >> [indiscernible] governor pence: why is it contained?
you would have to speak to the indiana general assembly and the members who crafted the legislation. i am pleased to support it. i believe it would be appropriate to make it clear that this law does not give businesses the right to deny services to anyone. >> [indiscernible] governor pence: i do not support determination against gays or lesbians or anyone else. i do not support determination -- discrimination against days or lesbians or anyone else. i am poor -- i ambhore discrimination. no one should be harassed or mistreated because of who they are, who they love, or what they believe. i believe it with all my heart.
this issue of dissemination has been an anthem throughout my life. i started out in politics as a democrat. when i was in high school. i was the democrat party court nader -- coordinator in my hometown. not exactly a community organizer but we worked door-to-door. dr. martin luther king jr. was one of the heroes of my youth and is one of my heroes today. five years ago some john lewis approached me and asked me if i would cochair, or cohost, the annual pilgrimage to selma with him. it was one of the greatest honors i had during my 12 years in congress. we felt strongly about it -- so strongly about it, not only did
my wife go with me, our three teenage kids went with us. the 45th anniversary of bloody sunday. the night before in montgomery we sat in dr. king's church and talk to people who had been there. we were deeply moved by the courage and faith of the people who were there. i will always counted one of the greatest times of my life that i was walking across the edmund pettus bridge with john lewis. i think that is probably what has been most greatest me about the debate last week is that i am very typical in indiana. hoosiers are a loving, kind generous, decent, and tolerant people. we are known all over the world for that. i am just one of them. so the suggestion that because we passed a law to strengthen
the foundation of religious liberty in our state courts, that we had in some way created a license to discriminate was deeply offensive to me and millions of hoosiers. and we are going to correct it and move forward. kevin? >> [indiscernible] governor pence: the difference in what? >> [indiscernible] governor pence: i do not want to talk about private conversations or interactions, but we all understand that this
is a perception problem and we need to deal with it. and we need to deal with it because it is the right thing to do and we need to deal with it so that everybody around the country and the world knows that indiana is a welcoming place to everybody. i agree, we have to correct that perception. the whole state about how we got here we're are where we are. as the ceo of the state of indiana, i am determined to bring people together and figure out and move forward. yes? >> the personal believe that christian businesses that have believes about marriage should be compelled -- [indiscernible] governor pence: this law does not give a license to
discriminate, to deny services. >> [indiscernible] governor pence: i do not does -- i do not support determination against anyone -- discrimination against anyone. the question you pose, i believe -- we are dealing in a free society where there is a careful balancing of interest. the facts and circumstances of each case determined the outcome. what this legislation does, what he did when president clinton
signed it into law in 1993, and what is served in the some 30 states where it has been law is provided framework for determining whether or not government action puts a substantial burden on a person's religious liberty. it is counterbalanced against whether there is a compelling interest. the first question is -- in any case -- does the government action place a substantial burden on the free exercise of religion? under this standard, as it has been applied for decades the next question is, is there a compelling state interest and what courts have found, without exception, over the last 20 plus years, is that the state has a compelling interest in combating discrimination and i support that interpretation.
eric? how about the last one. ? >> [indiscernible] governor pence: the conversations had been ongoing candid. we have been listening, sharing facts about this law and our determination to step forward and provide the kind of solution that will allay the concerns and correct misperceptions. there have been lots of ideas shared, but for my part, as i said, i do not believe for one minute that it was the intention of the general assembly to create a license to discriminate or a right to deny services to anyone in our state by this legislation. it certainly was not my intention and i have made it clear to those businesses that we will take such action as necessary to correct that
misperception and move our state forward. ok? thank you all. take you all very much. >> the alliance for health reform and the kaiser family foundation team up today for a discussion on health care costs. topics include the impact of private health insurance, medicare, and hospital care on long-range health spending. see life on noon eastern here on c-span. -- see it live at noon eastern. c-span is pleased to present the winning entries in this year's student video documentary competition. it is c-span's annual competition that occur just middle and high school students to think critically about issues that affect the nation. students were asked to create a document is based on the scenes of three ranges and you, to demonstrate how a policy, law, or action by one of the three branches of government has
affected them or their community. does of sexton from explorer 2000 school is a second prize winners, his entry focus on the topic of integration. >> if nature did not diversify we would not be around. the whole species would be extinct. it is part of our system, our need. not only as human beings, but as physical beings. ♪ >> for more than 200 years our tradition of welcoming immigrants from around the world have given us a tremendous advantage over other nations. >> as -- the new executive action the president announced last month is an extension of
the different action for childhood survival so people who entered this country when they were children, and then crew appear and never became citizens. it would give them an extra time to get the paperwork in order so they are not deported from the u.s. something new called daca. so the parents of children that were born in this country now have a chance -- it is not a pathway to citizenship, but gives them more time to get their paperwork in order so they have more time to get employment visas, social security cards. >> the presidents executive action has caused a raucous. opponents say it rewards those who plot our laws compared to those who immigrate legally. others say the president is acting like a king. supporters say all the
presidents have done the same, even ronald reagan gave amnesty to illegal immigrants. helping all immigrants, legal or undocumented, helps stabilize committees and encourages diversity. supporters claim that adversity is necessary to our country. a perfect example of how diversity was brought into society is the immigration act of 1965. like obama's recent action that version action was designed to be inclusive, that law passed by congress got bit of a quota system that i one-time favorite western and northern europeans over asians and africans and had a huge impact on my family and my community in a jersey city, new jersey. >> in germany in 1967. i wanted to go back to korea but at the time [indiscernible]
>> my first day of kindergarten i did not speak it word of english. i felt like an outsider. i do not think the other kids knew anyone else that was asian back then. >> i am from india, i settled with my family. in that 1974, i came here. >> to the u.s. in 1988 because my parents and sisters were here except for me and my twin sister were in india. >> and six grade, for the first time ever there was a brother and sister that were from korea. >> people step outside the door
and open up to the world. jersey city's diversity is probably its biggest asset, the most diverse city in the country. >> we get together and go to temple and see each other. we have our own community. >> any city benefits from diversity, otherwise we would just live in one village where we would continue to do the same thing the same way for the same old people. bringing in new ideas, new people, new ways of doing things is great. >> diversity in any country is great. i do not believe we should have policies that should encourage diversity for diversity's sake, a nation is known by a shared culture and if the culture is so
diversified that there is no shared culture. >> president obama's executive action is a great step in the right direction. they have been adding back to society, working hard, raising families, they have children that our citizens and are going to school, getting jobs, going to college. they are living the american dream. this executive action helps them fulfill their dreams. >> i wish he had gone further. it will be difficult for some of these people to prove they have been here and have been paying taxes in order to get a five-year extension. even a five year extension will not make them sleep well at night. >> i take it will work, because it is almost forcing -- [indiscernible] >> and not be deported, in my
case, i can help the family to come to the united states and they have to wait five to eight years. >> many of the reports will cite the act ronald reagan signed. by president obama's own sense of authority, oversize, took upon himself to create a law which, under our system, -- >> the world is moving on, it will globalize. mix people, not just exchanging product, but changing people. >> give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. i gaze at lady liberty, a big and or millions of immigrants
who passed through ellis island. the golden door, the wish they hope to attain, the american dream. >> to watch all of the winning videos and to learn more about our competition go to c-span.org and click on "studentcam." tell us what you think about this documentary on facebook and twitter. >> the blue-ribbon study panel on i/o defense holds a meeting on response and recovery from biological and chemical threats. panelists include warmer members of the intelligence community. first responders, medical doctors, and health policy officials. that is live at 9:30 a.m. eastern on c-span2. later, the under secretary of the army, rat carson, discusses the army's vision for future operations. join remarks for the center for strategic and international studies.
>> live today on c-span, "washington journal" is next. the brookings institution get updates on a rise nuclear negotiations. at noon, the alliance for health reform examines the state of health care costs. later come at 6:30 p.m. eastern, another event, on the array and negotiations from the world affairs council -- on the iran negotiations. and 45 minutes on "washington journal" leo gerard come united steelworkers president on current trade negotiations and the reactions from unions. at a: 30 am eastern president of the american health policy institution is here to talk about the need for republican alternatives to the affordable care act if the supreme care -- the supreme court rules against the restoration in king versus barnwell. at 9:15 a.m. come our spotlight
on magazines features sam baker of the national journal on his piece examining indiana's new religious the law. -- religious >> i think it would be helpful and i would like to see it on the desk -- on my desk by the end of the week. a law that makes it clear this does not give it the right to deny services to anyone. ♪ >> reportedly, legislators might as amended that law as early as tomorrow. this as legislators in arkansas passed out there own version at