Transcripts For CSPAN Key Capitol Hill Hearings 20141011

Occurring is that when people get the disease, they get scared, and they run to people they think can them. Traditional healers, centers of faiths, or friends and relatives even. And that in turn leads to the movement of sickness and disease into new communities and new chains of transmission and that has let to the wide spread dissemination of the disease and the virus. Third point, how then do we respond as the disease spreads . Well, we have to recognize it is spreading rapidly and probably doubling a number of cases every 34 weeks and that means a huge facility for people with the disease, a great increase in community centers, a lot of work with societies to help them respond to the disease and others to help get prepared. A massive social mobilization on an enormous scale. Not just in the most affected countries, but in neighbors ing countries and indeed throughout the world. This going to scale so Everybody Knows about the disease knows how to prevent it, knows where treatment is available, involves thousands of Health Workers around the world, thousands of Community Mobilizers and hundreds of people to help con struct centers and staff them and make sure they are started. The scale is 20 greater than it was at the beginning of the month and it involves every country in the world, certainly every donor agency in the world, many nongovernmental organizations, all working in support of the president and people of the affected countries. Because without that mass without the Global Movement it will be impossible to get this disease quickly under control and the world will have to live with the ebola virus forever. And that is why your leadership and the leadership of the security council, the leadership of the president , the leadership of the chair of the African Union and i would like to , particular single out the decisive role played by the secretary general of the United Nations in recent weeks gives me some hope that we now have the mechanism to bring together all of the different partners to scale up action and to achieve results rapidly. We will continue to need and request resources from all of you. Doctors and nurses coming in as teams to help staff treatment centers. Airplanes and helicopters and vehicles and motor bikes to provide transportation necessary for logistic systems that go deep in the villages and the townships of the affected countries and to provide expertise in neighboring countries. And we will continue to ask for cash because this is an ex pensive job requiring contracts and arrangements that have to be setup now. So that we can get the scale up as quickly as possible. And that is why we are super grateful to everybody for contributing to the trust fund. The last point about the coalition. As far as it can find its way a virus can find its way through defenses if there are wholes in the defenses especially. It can find its way into the bodies of Healthy People and it can find its way from village to village and town to town if people are frightened and not provided with proper care. And that is why we are seeking to encourage all who are responding to come together in a coalition which will be facilitated i the United Nations. The deputy second general will chair it and that will help us working together know what we are doing and keeping each other informed. This is the most extraordinary challenge that the world could possibly face. Sometimes you see films about this sort of thing, and you imagine, how can such a thing happen. This is more extreme than any film i have seen. This is a real challenge to all of us that is going to require every piece of ingenuity and collective action that we can mount to work to respond to it. Because the enemy in this case it is a virus, a tiny microscopic thing that is invisible to our eyes, and many of us dont understand it. So we have to be prepared to respond to whatever it brings to us. And i thank you for making this possible. Thank you, sir. I thank the special envoy for his briefing. I now give the floor to the special representative and had onthe United Nations mission ebola. He is joining us by a Video Conference. Mr. President of the General Assembly, mr. Deputy secretary general, excellencies, and distinguished delegates, thank you for giving me the opportunity to brief you on the activities of the United Nations mission for ebola Emergency Response. I am grateful to you, mr. President , for your leadership on the ebola crisis and for convening this session and for ensuring the response for fighting the ebola epidemic remains on top of the global agenda. I wish to thank the director general of the world health organization, margaret chan, and all the u. N. Agencies, funds, and programs for their support in terms of material and personal. Since the establishment on the 19th of september, which was welcomed by the General Assembly, the secretarygeneral made clear his expectation that the United Nations of system move rapidly and decisively in responding to the ebola crisis. And we have been moving swiftly. On a number of fronts. My colleague detailed his efforts in building a Global Coalition to respond to this disease. He and i working closely together. Dr. Nabarro is leading the ernational garnish International Effort to garnish support on the plague. He is focused on operational responses on the ground. Following my point by the secretary general, i deployed to the region with the small but now growing team to start up the mission. I am thankful for ghana for having us. That has immensely facilitated the work of the mission. In rapid succession i have , visited the most affected countries, sierra leone, guinea, and liberia, for two days each. I went on the trip to listen, learn, and identify areas where this can be the most helpful and accelerate the response to the crisis. I met there with the president of liberia, the president of sierra leon and the president of guinea. I also met with government ministers and officials, with Civil Society actors, womens groups, ngos and there diplomatic community. I had the opportunity to visit two Ebola Treatment Centers. One Holding Center for patients, as well as a who training center. My first hand impressions were vived and deeply worrying. We saw how brave, tired and immensely dedicated national and international Health Workers are carrying on under difficult circumstances. Over 230 of the Health Workers have died in liberia alone. We saw people and resources stretched to the limit with more being done with less than can be considered acceptable. We saw families grieving for last ones, but also fearing for their own health as well. We saw patients being turned away from a lack of beds at the facility. We saw a woman lying dead in a street, unattended. The human response is to care emphasize empathize, to pay respect to the departed. With ebola this type of response can be fatal. To defeat the virus we will have to change behavior. Excellencies the consequences of , this disease are catastrophic. In order to fight it, we shall be guided by the following principles. First, our top priority is to keep the staff healthy. Without that, nothing is possible. Second, we must support National Efforts and National Leadership. Third the work must not duplicate national plans. And fourth, the response of the mission must be taylor made to each country and situations. Our focus and our effort is on bringing this crisis to an end as soon as possible and as soon as the task is completed we will close our doors. We must also concentrate on prevention and preparedness in other countries and preventing transmission two and other within other countries is a critical component of the mission. Sure countries are able to rapidly detect, control and eliminate the virus if it is introduced. We will collaborate closely with the African Union, the man of river union and the west african state leaderships. I had the honor of meeting with the head of the outbreak of the African Union and i commend the African Unions deployment of Health Workers to fight the disease and i hope others will follow their lead. Mr. President , excellencies, allow me to present some of the findings and conclusions at the initial stage of the mission deployment. The crisis caused by the outbreak of ebola is severe and unprecedented. The world has never seen anything like it. Time is our enemy. The virus is far ahead of us and every day, every day the situation worse. Gets worse. Almost 3,900 people in seven countries have died. The ebola epidemic isnt just a health crisis. It is a complex multidimensional crisis in two main ways. First, it is having a broad impact on the societies where there is an outbreak, it kills people, destroys Health Systems, harms economies, disrupts education systems, Food Security and livelihoods. The three most impacted countries have a recently shown some of the highest Economic Growth rates, not just in africa but in the entire world and now the growth rates may be cut in half by end of the year. Second, the response necessary to end the crisis requires intense effort across local sectors, not just health, but logistics and social issues as well. There are intricate complexities surrounding issues such as burial practices. People in the affected countries still live in denial that ebola israel. Is real. Many resist changing the practices. Science can help in this area, but it is not sufficient. We must understand and respect different Cultural Values and find solutions that protect people from infection but will be accepted by the affected communities, families and individuals. In my short time in the region , it is clear that the greatest need is comrehensive crisis management. Much good work has been done since march by national governments, United Nations agencies, ngos but it has been a patchwork of good work. The crisis needs to be managed like the multidementional crisis it is. Not just as a health crisis. Excellencies, the challenge is immense. The work started only two weeks ago and we are late but it is not too late to still fight and win this battle. We have deployed to four countries. We have deployed staff, vehicles, planes, helicopters, and communication capabilities. We are moving resources to where they are needed the most with strong support from un agencies. This is what we will do. We shall support National Leadership and national ownership. We shall play the role of crisis manager and not just cordinator. Our heads of missions are ebola crisis managers. We will work to make sure there comprehensive plan in place to stop ebola in each country. Each line each line of action will be assigned to an organization with clear timelines and accountability. We shall fill gaps and support that which needs back stopping but we shall not be the only player in fighting the fight. Everyone must play their part. Most importantly we shall work , with a wide range of partners. Anyone who can make a contribution to ending the crisis. The crisis is unprecedented and it requires an unprecedented, creative, Rapid Response to bring it to a close. Our priority shall be to accelerate action. To achieve results fast, we must have your and the worlds support. In particular, first the highest priorities are Ebola Treatment Centers with skilled managers and medical personal. Second, we need diagnostic laboratories and it cannot be that people are willing to contribute to this effort are are because of financial resources. We need to be able to treat and evacuate if necessary aid personal working on the crisis. I would like to add here that the crisis faced by the county shouldnt be compounded by the isolation. Countries and airlines should we isolate the virus not the country. Let me take this opportunity to thank the General Assembly for its rapid approval of the budget 31 december 2014. As i mentioned earlier, when this crisis is over, we will close. But the United Nations funding programs will have much more work to do to support the countries recover from the crises and help them build up so they never fall victim to this disaster again. Even now, as they focus on the emergency we need to incorporate , early recovery and longterm needs into our efforts at the beginning. Mr. President , excellencies, the ebola crisis is an emergency of profound consequences and grave risk. There is no other way to describe it. Like special envoy nabarro mentioned, in my career, not as long as his, but a long one facing many crisis, i have never seen such a terrible, difficult challenge. The world must now act to help the people and governments of guinea, sierra leon and liberia. And by helping them, help the rest of the world. A failure to help now could lead to unpredictable but dire consequences for the people of the countries and well beyond. As long as there is one case of ebola in any one of these countries, no country is safe from the dangers posed by this deadly virus. We are on the ground and we are committed to doing our job. We are doing it now. But we cannot do this alone. Neither can any single country or actor. We need a broad Global Coalition as the secretary general of the , deputy secretary general have called for. The whole world must contribute and each country should contribute what it can. It is only by working together, and fast and inventively that we can end the crisis. We must rise to the occasion and must defeat this disease. Thank you. I think the special representative of the head of the United Nations mission for ebola Emergency Response for his briefing. Before proceeding further, i would like to welcome any form ministers fromrs liberia by have come here. They are joining us by a Video Conference today. I now give the floor to the minister of health and social welfare of liberia. Thank you, mr. President of the General Assembly and the deputy secretary general, and thank you people. ,t is on behalf of my president that i thank you for organizing this meeting to address ebola. I have listened very carefully to the statements by dr. Nabarro and then by anthony. And i have here visiting with me the person who has been appointed by the United Nations to help us fight this in the countries. In the person of peter black. I also have with me my incident management for the ebola incident. Let me go back again to say i have listened very carefully to David Nabarro and to anthony and what they have said have clearly described the situation in our country and the need that we have. So i dont need to go over those things again. I do want to say, however, that ebola has exposed in liberia a week Health System that we are trying to build. Ebola is a bump in the road of our Health Care Delivery program. But when it is over we dont want to have a big beach at the end of it or behind it. The information i seem to get seems to say we are coming to get rid of ebola. I want to remind you people, all of us, that ebola is in the Health System that should be less stronger when ebola is over. Therefore, when i see people saying we are going to get rid of ebola and then close the door, i am saying to myself no, ebola is over the International Community is just beginning to help us to build the Health System that hasnt been damaged so badly by ebola. Our countries have been devastated, not only the Health System but the economic system. Of our people that were helping us to get funding to do Different Things in our country have left. Companies have slowed down and some have left the country. So when you finish we will just be beginning to rebuild. So i want to thank all of you. The United Nations and all of the organizations that are helping us now the United States of america is bringing in more than 3,000 soldiers to build and to help us, the west African Health organization, the west African Union all of you. There are many people. Including the international ngos. All of these people are accelerating the fight we have been trying to do by ourselves and we are very appreciative of this and i want to say thank you but i want to say it to you you are not fighting ebola, you are helping a weak Health System get rid of ebola and when ebola is finished the Health System will be stronger. That should be the goal; to leave behind a Strong Health center. System. And i appreciate David Nabarro very much, who i have met, who is committed to Something Like this. I wasnt in the city when you came to liberia so i am seeing you for the first time. And i appreciate what you are doing. But please, please, please leave , behind a Strong Health care system. Dont get rid of ebola and run. Thank you. I thank the minister for health and social welfare of liberia. I doubt give the floor to his excellency, the minister of health and sanitation from sierra leon. Thank you very much, mr. President. Your excellency, president s of the u. N. General assembly and excellencies, let me thank the president of the General Assembly for convening this session to share information on the west african ebola outbreak. Since the first case of the disease in sierra leone in may peoplear, well over 2500 have been affected in our country alone. 500 peoplech, over have lost their lives and most of the infected are women and children. Over 2 3rds of those affected belong to the category of 1550. While we have made some progress in the fight against this cause with your support yet significant challenges still remain. One, we see challenges in identifying cases because of a weak contact system. Two, we face challenges in moving cases from communities to Management Centers due to log istic constraints like ambulances. Three, we are not in a position to hospitalize all of the infected patients because of bed space. Four, our laboratories are too few in numbers. As a result we are not able to deal with the workload. Specimens are waiting for days in the laboratories. As a result, the Holding Center s are now breeding grounds for spreading the epidemic. And families are anxiously waiting for the results might get infected. Five, we have not cut up with burial, one of the most significant ways of infection. Sixth, there are still pockets of denial among our people. Since the containment of the disease rest squarely on our ability to promptly identify and remove from the community all those who are infected, addressing both issues is therefore paramount for this fight. It clear that all of the ingredients for a fullblown epidemic until and unless we are in a position to address all of the volatile entities, we are far from being out of the woods. This is why this information is particularly welcomed and i want to on behalf of the , president , his government, and people of sierra leon to extend thanks to the president of the 69th u. N. General assembly for this initiative initiative. Ebola isnt a disease we brought upon ourselves. We are merely implementing programs to better p enter our people. The evidence is there for all to see. We have been riddled by world the situation is still complex and challenging. It has continued to pose a serious threat not just to our nation, but also to her crucial and economic development. We need your help. Today pass uslet by. Lets fasttrack the commitment on the ground. We need to get ahead of this evil iris. Her us, this is a risk that we must win. Im hopeful with your support we shall win this fight. We have to ensure the survival of tens of thousands of more. It can only happen with the support with your support. I thank you very much. Friends, i now give the floor to distinguished representative of guinea. Mr. Deputyident, ladies andneral , my delegation is grateful to you for the initiative you have taken to whichze this meeting comes from the will of the International Community to spare no efforts in order to find an combating thee to ebola virus. Mr. President , i would also like to thank the excellencies and liberia asalth of the firsthand information that they have through their very edifying reading on the complexity of the multidimensional crisis. The Health Prices and the socioeconomic isis being faced by the affected countries where the illness was such economic crisis being faced by the affected countries where the illness was around. As has been described by panelists, please dont doubt the vital need for the International Community to in order urgent action to reverse the current trend. President , the. Time has come for specific actions. We need to act quickly. Suppress the spread human disease and save lives while there is still time, to maintainorder stability and the gains of the last few years as part of his peace. G and social essential for the u. N. Mission to be deployed as quickly as possible. Effectivelyrespond to the most pressing needs of the effect did countries. In our opinion. His mission should also help capacities asalth was said through making available mobile hospitals, protectiveorse vehicles, and qualified medical workers in order to take care of. Therefore let us hope that this mission will have a heavy dose of communication that it will work to teach local populations more about best practices to be a dock did and also to vanquish the hesitation that was rough and still eloquently a few moments ago by the briefing. Believe thatct, we the mission could use local communicate a Public Service message in the national in order to reach hesitating to believe the extent of the disease. May i then launch a pressing appeal on behalf of all members feelher to reiterate our to all Member States that are unable to do so to assist effort through a support of Human Resources of logistical and Financial Support as well. The commitments made in the promises of contributions that have been made, i would like to appreciationeep partners will as or the who almost workers invest themselves on a daily basis to suppress this disease and do so at risk to their own lives and with total dedication. Thank you. Coming up next, the supreme hearing oral arguments. And a Defense Department panel considering changes to the way the military handles sexual assaults. Here are the comments we recently received from our viewers. Im a nurse. Troopscspan regarding going to iberia in regards to the ebola virus. Im ok with that. However, i really do believe that the only way to keep americans safe is to prevent anyone coming over from a liberia to the united state. We dont have a vaccine for this yet. It is just not fair of the to the american people. It is not keeping us safe. Im retired nurse practitioner. To an say in listening associate and medical experts speak to the american public, with the comment regarding the virus. Some viruses are the most contagious. Enough localh colleges to find out you are right. It hasnt changed. The u. S. Is not prepared to deal with this in inefficient way. Home and insecurity is not efficient. The transportation and security did not do its job. It seems to me people from should not bes allowed to come to the u. S. Are be touring teamed or be put in a special camp or at least forced to undergo and a medical examination. Continue to let us know what you think about the programs you are watching. Us, or send as a tweet tweet. Like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. On monday, the first day of the spring Court Supreme the question whether the search was legal under the first amendment. This is an hour. Our first case is heien v. North carolina. In a country dedicated to the law, officer should be presumed to know the law at least as well as a citizens are. That being so, when questions arise in the Fourth Amendment, they should be addressed against the back drop of the law and not simply any plausible reading an officer might have. Lineup north it did have a goodfaith exception to the exclusionary rule. What would be your argument today . It was still be arguing about where the case that not only the Fourth Amendment was violated, but that the goodfaith exception didnt apply. You wouldnt have to reach that in this case. That would be a debatable argument. Why would it be more debatable than argument you are making here . I more or less anticipated your answer. I think it has to be. I think you have to tell it even if the good faith applied. Exactly the court is held that reasonableness of mistakes of law could be take into account to remedy. But then why isnt that a you sayfor you when there couldnt be a reasonable mistake . We know there can be. There is a difference between rights and remedies. We asked the question of what is reasonable as to whether or not the Fourth Amendment was violated, a jurisprudence in criminal cases and other case is, you would do that assessment against the correct interpretation of the law. Dichotomyhave this mistake. A lethal it is a difficult one interesting question. It seems to me cap to make the same argument here with a have a good faith exception and that you have a problem. If the problem with that come it undermines your argument. I do not think so, justice kennedy. I think the best clinician of bestish prudence jurisprudence when they at the Fourth Amendment was violated, we do not take the state of the law in account. This is the premise from which three derive. I have a preliminary question. Even if you have a mistake of law, the traffic stop ended with a warning citation. The traffic stop is over. At that point, the police thecer ask he could expect car in the answer is yes. There a consent to search the end of this case . Because it would be the fruit of the poisonous tree if the stock is the legal pure there never would have been on. Pportunity to ask for consent the consent wipes away the Fourth Amendment question. Suppose the officer had said im giving you a warning here it youre free to leave now, by the way, may i search your car . I think that is more or less what the officer said. Even in that situation, that would be the fruit of the poisonous tree . Yes. The stop would not have taken place. Seizure. Stop is a over, theng mr. Heien officer are needed reasonable suspicion to do so. The only argument is the stake of North Carolina law as to the brake light in this case. I understood you say earlier you do not take distinguishing the exclusionary rule. You do not take reasonableness into account when it comes to mistake of law. Justice. Rry, mr. Chief and think what he said is you do not take the reasonable mistake into account when you ask if the Fourth Amendment was violated. You do sometimes ask about the remedy. The fourth and limit itself protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. It was a stronger argument for taking the reasonableness of the officers actions into account in the mistake of law. As opposed to remedies and qualified immunity. The court rejected that precise argument that actual argument that the word symbol and this means the Fourth Amendment incorporates mistakes of law. As of a deep commonlaw which is im sorry. I thought we said that . Even though we will look at in terms of remedy, that was not to say that the reasonableness did it go to when it was a violation of the Fourth Amendment. My understanding is it would be a mistake of the fact case. It would have been a factual question and not necessarily a legal question. Leon, the courts as the officer acted as a reasonable officer could and should have acted. In time and again, this is officer acted reasonably because you can take into account whether the officer reasonably misunderstood the law. Forgive me. Why does it make sense to say that you do not take reasonableness into account when it only protects against unreasonable searches and seizures . Three reasons a practical reason, theoretical reasoning, and a jurisprudential reason. The deep commonlaw heritage in this country that we have is that thewed criminal law is presumed to be definite and noble. In allconference settings whether he punishing someone citizensother actions are government engages in, we assume a correct understanding of the law, even if it is later construed by the court in a way that wasnt exact the didnt the court hold in cheek in that circumstance there . Because of the special whether it is a paragraph or two that sets out numerous citations this principle that justice holmess condominium others that terminal lot is presumed to be definite and noble. Went to take the presumption and put into the Police Officers mind in this case or any other actor who asked by mistake a law, then there is no reasonable suspicion. We presume they presume the law when they acted. You know, i have been going we do not know about this when light or too light thing. Two light thing. Better get this fixed. I think there are two questions in their. There. [indiscernible] i think there are two questions in their. One is whether the officer can look to poor decisions or other thirdparty sources to help him do his job. That is what the court has said in other cases in which you take into account Police Manuals and court decisions. Butcourt has embraced that, they have also said it is offlimits. I think there is an element of if allestion asked king the officer was worried about was a safety on the roadway . That would be a different case. If there is a stop done for reasons aside from possible cause, the purpose of that stop might take in. The state hasnt made any argument in that respect in this case. They were clear the officer was following a criminal investigation. We do not review opinions. We reviewed justice and results. What you are complaining about of whatthe admission was discovered in the search of the car, right . What difference does it may weather that was lawfully admitted because it was a tonstitutional search, or iy was lawfully admitted because the remedy of excluding it would not be applied if there was a mistake of law, a reasonable mistake of law . Me whether it is properly admitted because it wasnt violated or whether it was properly admitted he covers the remedy for that violation is evidence,ion of the national and no one needs to address it violates the Fourth Amendment to make the search. We would then have to and order to decide whether this judgment is lawful, we would have had to decide whether the remedy of excluding that evidence has to be applied. Forgive me. With respect, i do not and the court needs to do that. I think the court can vacate and remand the judgment just as it s numeral other betimes numeral other times. Even if this was purely a federal case, think i would be saying the same ink. No one has briefed or argued exception in this case. You have. You and knowledge that it applies to remedies. No, no, no. That thecknowledged question of whether the mistake was reasonable would be relevant if it all with the remedy stage. What you do if you ask the question if this were a federal case we had to reach the question, you would ask whether the officers mistake of law in this case renders appropriate. I would add that holding that it did render appropriate would be goodtension of the words faith doctrine apply. The most he can get from us is a remand . Thats right. The court would decide whether the remedy thats right. Im not sure if it is any different if i said i mainly not ititled to of remedy may or may not be entitled to a remedy. Thee Court Address lower Court Address he is saying we do not give you a remedy unless we believe that one is warranted under the Fourth Amendment. Since we apply, it doesnt not hereod faith are to what we apply in terms of determining whether an violation is subject to any type of remedy. For you it is a good faith exception. I think that Justice Scalia is question and i do not you have answered it. The reason to remand it is the lower court hasnt addressed any question of remedy. In the first instance you should send it for a full briefing i thought that if the violent the Fourth Amendment that is it. We dont handle the good faith exception. Isnt that what the North Carolina law is now . Answer the good faith exception. It would be futile think the analogy i gave earlier is more or less on point. The court is held that the constitution is violated if they do not get a remedy unless he satisfies that test. That is because they would be applying federal law. They would be answering the question. Mainly whether the concert to should requires that this evident be stricken from the case. If it is indeed they are not going to ask that question when we sent it back, it seems to me we have to answer that question here before were able to reverse or affirm the North Carolina court. It is a federal question. They are not going to get to that youre asking us to invalidate this conviction on the basis of federal law. He seems to me we cannot do that unless there has been a violation of the Fourth Amendment. It must be exclusion of the evidence. That is a federal question we will have to decide if he send it back to north airline. North carolina. No, i do not believe they should or would. Favorableve a more jurisprudence and give automatic , the court would be prohibited from ending it back date state. States can choose for themselves to have more favorable remedies. The court deals with the federal question. There is no question if North Carolina applies a state constitutional analog. They could have a more extensive remedy than is recognized under our for the many cases. The argument is they could adopt a state law rule for Fourth Amendment violations. That is more protective of defendants than federal case law provides. That would be your argument, right . I dont need to make that argument. I think it would be an interesting question. Stateions of the constitution cannot be overlooked on good faith doctrine. Was is based on the state constitution . We would send it back down. A preserved an argument that violation of the Fourth Amendment also violates the North Carolina constitution. Reverse it on the basis of federal law . Youre asking us to send it to a state court which is not going to require any further federal law. Even though federal law arguably even if concede says there is a Fourth Amendment violation, if there is a good faith reasonable believe that the law was violated, the remedy of exclusion might be imposed. That is what the constitution requires. Youre asking us to say no, there has been a violation of the constitution and we are going to reverse this judgment. Even though we havent inquired into whether the remedy you want is required. It seems to me i do not see how we can do that. Seeing the same thing . I will type to say it one of our time. I think it is customer to the case from state courts were a state court issues a ruling on federal law there might be many other cases in this state. If the question of federal law decides incorrect, this court to reverse that judgment and so you got that are a lot of wrong and we will send it back down. But it chooses to decide on only half of the federal law. North carolina more or less that as of this way . Us up that way . Their judgment didnt get that role long wrong is indeed a good faith of law doesnt include the exclusion of evidence from the trial. If that is the case. I think the analysis got federal law wrong. We dont review analyses. We review judgments petey or send this conviction has to be satisfied. We are reviewing the conviction and not the opinion. If you wanted to set the good faith question, they havent been briefed by any party. I suggest you might want to tread carefully. Maybe what i need to do this before i sit down and reserve my time for a rebuttal is maybe if you feel you need to get to that question which i dont think you need to, but if you did of why you should say that the good faith doctrine doesnt apply the argument is morning has confused me on something i thought he understood you i thought the reason why you have argued this case the way you have trying to convince us to draw a sharp distinction is because you believe that north airline a has the right North Carolina has a right to divide write its own version of the rule you if that isnt your argument, im puzzled by what you are doing. Thing theeling only thing i need to make clear is the reason it works that way is that the state has held that violations of hours eight constitution cannot be subject to a good faith exception. The constitution is he relevant. Youre arguing whether there could be whatever we hold on that, North Carolina can do whatever it wants on the same question with first to the state constitution. Right, buty, you are what North Carolina has said is we construe the state counterpart Fourth Amendment. To statearallel constitutional law questions. If there is a violation , you suppress. If there is a violation, suppress. One holding it wasnt a violation and the other was it was a violation. The good faith operates and so the evidence comes in. Is there any difference between those two holdings . I think the difference between those two holdings may play out differently in North Carolina. Know, if it were a federal case no, if it were federal case. Im sorry. I miss that. It would be important reasons. Important reasons nonetheless to make sure that you render that holding. Witheason is what i opened. The government should be presumed to know the law. It would undercut Public Confidence in Law Enforcement and the common law rule to say the government doesnt have to be some people say the existence of a rule remedy gap undermines Public Confidence in the law. Why should we take back argument anymore seriously than the role remedy gap problem . That argument is academic literature and mine comes from the courts jurisprudence. There is an important reason to announce the right even if youre not going to give a remedy. The practical reasons for this as well. The court has given leeway to officers only to the extent the officers relying on a clear directive from a third party like a legislature or a court. This is different. This is like the johnson case from 1982 where the court held if the officer acts on his own view of the courts unsettle the rule of law, we not only find the Fourth Amendment violation, we suppress. Is is a reasonable interpretation of state law . I would dispute in the chevron sense. I do not issue be viewed as a reasonable mistake under the good faith doctrine. The good faith doctrine deals with directives from third parties. I dont mean to ask this in the context of the courts case. Just in the commonsense understanding of the term. Was it reasonable . Think it would be reasonable for the attorney to conclude that you need to have two functioning brake lights and not just one . I think in the commonsense way, i could concede that would be reasonable. There is a legal way of asking what is reasonable and what is not. The court has never taken into account ambiguity or the possibility for error and asking whether an officer gets the law of right. Secondly, you have to define the concept of reasonable. If you think this mistake was reasonable, the other side hasnt given a definition of what it would say would be a reasonable mistake to the law. These languages a foothold. An usher what the definition wouldve im not sure what the definition would apply here. The definitions are very, very broad. Hold thehouldnt Fourth Amendment to satisfy here is because if you say anything , you vastlye expanded Police Officer discretion to conduct a traffic stop. Officers have an enormous discretion. Let me try one last time before your time. You assert that we should not decide the remedy question because it hasnt been argued. It your responsibility to argue it . Youre ask enough to set aside a judgment of the North Carolina court. That judgment could be set aside only if the Fourth Amendment was was violated,r it but the remedy does not have to be does not have the exclusion of the evidence . It is your burden to establish not just that the Fourth Amendment was violated, but also excursion was necessary under the cousin to shin under the constitution. You havent argued it. That is the problem. I would refer you to the piper argument in the opening brief explains why even if you move good faith into those of the my arguments. The other kids that comes to mind is a case from several you the other case that comes to mind is a several case is a case from several years ago. The Court Reversed and sent it back down. What im asking for is different. Sent back down to the court to decide that he spit but this court will not decide. Sent down to the court to decide, that this court will not decide. I would like to reserve the rest of my time. Thank you, mr. Fisher. Mr. Montgomery. The Fourth Amendment or not requiredoes officers to be all that is required is that a Police Officer has a reasonable view of the facts and lies those facts to a reasonable and applies those facts to reasonable law. When will we get a right understanding of the law . It still hasnt told me whether it is one or two brake lights. The next Police Officer who wants to stop someone will not know that either. He might be found by the Appellate Court decision, but that will not help clarify the state of the law. Isnt what you are doing going to leave criminal law unclear . It is one thing to say you want to not subject officers to civil liability. It is another to state you want to leave the law unclear in a criminal prosecution. In North Carolina, therolling comes from court of appeals. That is not to say the Supreme Court may not reach a different decision someday. For now, Police Officers would be bound by what the North Carolina court of appeals decides. The lot has been decided. An officer who makes a stop tomorrow because one brake light would be acting unreasonably under that decision. It doesnt leave criminal law uncertain. It does if it is taking your view that it can find out whether the officers reading of the law is reasonable. It basically means that anyone can question Police Officers who rule in favor of the right to search. Whether thes on question is an open question and whether that interpretation is reasonable. It certainly may be an unreasonable interpretation. To find what would make it unreasonable. It would be unreasonable if there was some language of the statute that no one could breach and interpretation at all or if there was a definite decision by an Appellate Court. It would be unreasonable for the officer to interpret in his own way. The whole standard would be a reasonable person standard. Would a reasonable person be able to take this view of the statue . That is a very broad definition of reasonable. I understand when 99 out of 100 think you need to have to break lights like you have have everywhere else. It is reasonable for the officer to think that. Its helped me like youre adopting the same standard that would apply in qualified immunity that gives officers quite broad scope. That is troubling. It is not the same as qualified immunity. Paying that is the standard here. I think what the chief justices asking you is to describe a case for us where the officer would receive qualified immunity, but wouldnt count as reasonable for these purposes. This court and other courts can look beyond officers interpretation like this you could look to other matters. It could be in officer who had an unreasonable interpretation on the statute. Yet he might still qualified have qualified immunity because he was told by a judge or that attorney general or someone that this was correct and that was a complete misunderstanding of the statute. In my the that their officer would be protected i that that the it might be officer would be protected by qualified immunity. Lets say the cases flip and the most reasonable rating is you only need one brake light. You pull them over. Needsonably thought i only one. The court says i need two. In that case come ignorance of love wouldnt save him, would it . No, it would not. Officers believe you needed all of your break lights. Brake lights. Words, the defendant here could not be held liable for the brake light violation. It is not the fact that an officer thinks recently that the law that doesnt make it the law just like a citizen does not think that is the law, that doesnt mean he could escape liability. Officer was in stopping him because of the brake light. The Police Officer was involved in criminal and admitted this was a prefix. A lawful prefix he thought. He wasnt there just to tell him that. And driverake light away, there were never be a lawsuit, correct . That is correct. How many citizens have been stopped or one brake light and asked to have their cars search . Is that something we as a society should be encouraging . Stopnocent people are. Uite often because of mistake for instance, that is part of citizens have not committed any criminal offense and yet they were stopped. This is another example of that in which an officer acted reasonably just as was the reasonableness take of act. It turns out this was not actually a violation. I would like to hope is on your definition of reasonableness. Lets say you have two court of appeals decision. One says you need two brake lights and the other says you need one. It is is it reasonable to pull an officer over when one of their brake lights is burned out . It would be reasonable than for the officer to decide which he felt was the better rule. If there were two different decisions from the court of appeals, which is not supposed to happen, if it did come it would be reasonable for the officer to rely on one of those. Maybe this looks like a remedy question. It doesnt look like a rights question. It opened since on the focuses on the officer when we think about immunity or the exclusionary rule. White isnt that exactly right why isnt that exactly right that they should be upheld on remedy reasons rather than rights reasons to fit in with our basic understanding of what remedies and rights do and do differently in our law . Looks at Different Things when it looks at the rights versus the remedy. Might heeness that considered, but also the culpability of the officer and whether he was deliberately disregarding the law. This court has addressed mistakes of law both in the right and the remedies stage. Address be important to the right stage in this particular case because we dont get into the source of things that would be necessary in the remedy stage. What about the dissent in the North Carolina court of appeals . Case in North Carolina has [indiscernible] does is itcision aroundthe police to get the absence of a goodfaith exception. Wasnt that the decision of the dissenter . It is a functional equivalent of a goodfaith exception. That was the position of the dissenting justices at the North Carolina Supreme Court. Again, this gets back to the reasonableness as the standard for the Fourth Amendment. That is what this court has said is important at that stage of whether an officers acting reasonably. There are other considerations that take place. The state was asking for nothing more than the weather this violated the order amendment and not about remedy. Counsel, maybe you have the answer to the questions i was fisher. R. If the answer is you havent argued that point, right . Briefd not assert in your and havent inserted it in oral argument thus far anyway that even if it did constitute a violation of the Fourth Amendment, the remedy did not evidenceusion of the and that remedy is indeed subject to reasonable mistake of law. Youre the decision want to put all your eggs in the basket of whether it is a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Am i right . That is right. Argumentnt make that mr. Fisher is correct in that it is our state constitution that says there is no goodfaith exception. If a defendant had only raised a Fourth Amendment question in our courts, the goodfaith exception would still be available if that defendant didnt make a claim under the state constitution. Im not too sure it makes sense to allow north airline is supreme or carolina sprint or what is in North Carolina Supreme Court what is an abstract question. To give an answer without reference to the fact that part of the Fourth Amendment the goodfaith exception. It bears unreasonableness. That is correct. This court has in cases like in the rightt stage rather than the remedies gauge, that has been briefed in this instance. That is correct. One of the things that is different is that we are not talking about excuse me. This cases we decide is a case in which unless the remedy these exclusion, there is no basis for us to set aside the judgment of the North Carolina Supreme Court. Unless the remedy is exclusion. If we cannot say that if it hasnt been argued, i guess we could do that. That is correct. The difference between this case and another he is this involves rather than aaw mistake of law as to the Fourth Amendment itself. The difference in that is that a reasonable violation of the Fourth Amendment is still a violation of the Fourth Amendment. If there is a statute that gives an officer the opportunity to make a seizure or less than what is required by the constitution and less than probable cause or reasonable suspicion even if officer is reasonable, that is still a Fourth Amendment violation, which is why the court would have to go to the remedy portion to decide whether the exclusionary rule applies. To acase was a mistake as statute that was used by the officer is part of the facts and circumstances of this case. The officer considered what he thought was the correct. Correct law. Why is there a line drawn between the Fourth Amendment is if the statute is wrong, then the Fourth Amendment is not violated . The fact that he gets the statute wrong doesnt mean that he acted necessarily unreasonably. The fact that he made a mistake of what the ornamented with hires could also be reasonable what the Fourth Amendment requires could also be reasonable. In another case that this court decided, there was a situation with a statute that was found unconstitutional and void for vagueness. Yet this court found there was probable cause in that case for the officer to make an arrest based upon that statute. That was one case in which this the right stage as a mistake of law rather than the remedy stage. Do you think we would conceptualize it now as a remedies question . I think the court would decide it the same way. Said that that cases are still liable in terms of the Fourth Amendment. The law said what he thought it said. What do you classify as a mistake of law question . He asked according to a statute. Officerst ask police to ignore the law. That is correct. This is a mistake of law. He was following the law. One case is important because you had some and who is acting innocently. He was not committing an offense at all. In this case, you have some and ing innocently and not violating the law. Even though the conduct was innocent, there still is probable cause despite the mistake of law. That is all we are saying. Isnt there another difference between those two cases . Therealked a lot about was a presumption of constitutionality for any statutes. We do not want officers to go around questioning the constitutionality of statutes . Statute. Re is a an officer is not supposed to read as broadly as possible. Qs poster read it fairly. Theres no presumption he is supposed to read it fairly. There is no resumption. Data want officers to inquire into this area. They do not want officers to inquire into this area. Not to push every statute to it the furthest it could go without being found utterly unreasonable. That is correct. We do want them to act reasonably and enforce the law and not turn a blind eye to what might be a violation. What were the exact words of the statue . Statute has two parts. It has a subsection b. Where do we find that . The respondents brief. 5 has all of the relevant portions of the statute. Rearsubsection involves lamps. Every Motor Vehicle should have all rear lamps or the equivalent in good working order. That is the relevant portion of subsection b. Saysction g on page three no portions shall sell any Motor Vehicle after a certain date unless it is equipped with a stop lamp on the rear of the vehicle. That is a language the North Carolina court of appeals said when it said a stop lamp. That meant only one was required. In in theion comes last sentence of subsection g. It says the stop lamp may be incorporated into a unit with one or more of the rear lamps. Where the confusion comes in is that set that sentence is that the stop lamp is a rear lamp. It could be incorporated into a unit with one or more rear lamps. Anothero back to subsection, that is a section that says all originally quick to a quick lamps must be in good working order. There is some conflicts. That applies to all rear lambs and other lamps. That is correct. Going to apply to the rear lambs, of course. My time is up. Thank you. Mr. Chief justice, and may it please the court, since its founding, the probable cause standard has allowed Police Officers to make stops when there are reasonab grounds to believe a person committed a crime he even if the officer later found not to have been mistaken about the facts of the law. Kennedy observed, given the court case has been recognized, there may be a real reasonable mistake of law. If i can go to a question that Justice Kagan asked about why this question has been more perfectly addressed been at the remedy stage, we think there are three main reasons. The first is history. Since the founding, the court has treated the probable cause standard of allowing for reasonable mistakes of law. That you the cases cite, including riddle, on the context of a statute that did not permit customs officers to suffer damages. Yes, your honor. For purposes of an air of law, correct. That is correct. None of those cases involved the Fourth Amendment. Correct, they are our interpretations of the probable cause standard. How is this different from the analysis of those cases from what we ultimately find is a qualified immunity standard with respect to civil damages today. Dont they follow exactly the same reason . I dont think so. Those cases, the probable cause reasoning in those cases is what the court has done at the merit stage of the Fourth Amendment. This course has routinely cited illuminating the probable cause standard and eliminating thosewhen he looked at cases and made the point i just made, he was wrong . There is no doubt in those cases the court question was answering was liable, but the way he was answering this question is was determining whether the officers had probable cause. Probable cause is a constitutional standard, and that is why this case this court has relied on those cases. Assume for the sake of argument i agree with you, that a reasonable mistake of law is an excuse, but what is a reasonable mistake. Now, that is what i would like you to address, and in together would you have objection to it rare, be one, exceedingly two, objective, 3com has to be three, that has to be reasonable that the policeman was right. And if a careful scrutiny in construing the law as it turned out he is wrong. What do you think about that or some other sentiment . I think we agree with each of those descriptions. If you agree about those, what about this case . After all, it does say a stop light. What is the difficulty of construing that to mean a stoplight . The North Carolina Supreme Court and court of appeals were right that an officer can reasonably interpret the statute to consider after careful scrutiny in serious difficulty and construing the law does it turn out the officer was wrong. What is the difficulty . Its a stoplight. Version requires all originally reached quit originally equipped with rear lamps to be working. That includes the stop lights and any other lights. Stop lights, the turn lights, the backup lights. Agreed, it is not the plural. It is the fact that all originally equipped rear lamps have to be working. Originally equipped with multiple stop lamps, as cars now are, if one of them is broken, one of the originally equipped rear lamps is not working. That is the difficulty. This is very hard question of statutory interpretation. So when we come out with the hypotheticals, is it reasonable for the officer to say i will take us one and follow that . If the officer is in a jurisdiction whose court of appeals has decided the question, we think the officer is bound by that interpretation, even if other courts of appeals come out differently. But if the officer is in a jurisdiction where the question is undecided and different courts have come out differently in other jurisdictions, we dont think the fact one court has is wen one way think the court looks to this question of is this a difficult question. I forgot one thing which may be obvious. We are not talking about the difficulty of construing the Fourth Amendment itself. We are talking only about a difficulty in construing a criminal statute where in fact the reason for the stop or seizure is based on a violation of criminal law. Thats right, we think the probable cause standard allows for the officer to act with reasonable grounds. What about the qualified immunity standard . We think in order to have reasonable grounds for a stop, he needs something in the statue to affirmatively support his view. This seems to acquire a president of what the officer does. In order to protect those who except those who are clearly incompetent. The only thing in your brief i did not follow is the importance in getting this question solved. Is the question, what is the rule, one light or two lights. The evidencease that came and had nothing at all to do with the Traffic Violation. Would not need to decide the Traffic Violation case. I think the North Carolina immediate Appellate Court said there was consent. We never consent, and have to deal with what the traffic regulation was. That is correct, and this comes up into context. Sometimes it will be litigated because the officer issued a citation. Our concern is if the court takes the position that whenever an officer is wrong about the law he violated the Fourth Amendment. Its going to deter officers from making stops when their arguments on both sides. If there is any legal stop, the consent is the fruit of a poison tree . That is a difficult question. We dont necessarily agree with that. Was a bot forop cause, that does not necessarily tree,t was a poisonous but it has not been briefed here. We would address simply the question. You start your argument by saying you were going to give three reasons why they should be the right question rather than a remedy question. Which franklyry, i think history probably does not say as much as you think it says. I want to know what number two and number three are. We think this is a simple standard to simply ask officers to decide, the courts to decide whether an officer could reasonably think a person has committed a crime. You dont have to separate the question of law or fact. We dont think there is a normative reason to treat the stakes of law and fact effort lay. When an officer makes a stop in this situation, he can just as reasonably confused as to what the law is under the statutes as to what the facts are. Treatare going to mistakes of fact as the right analysis, it make sense to treat of lawnable mistakes in the same way. Mr. Fischer, you have three minutes left. I would like to make four points. To start with reasonableness. Yourhief justice, i think hypothetical of differing court of appeal opinions in a state, i think there is the analysis that it would violate the Fourth Amendment in half the states and not the other states, because each would be binding in its own component of the state. That shows why this court has rejected that kind of analysis and cap amended only to the remedy stage. Then this case, do dissenters in the North Carolina Supreme Court say the adoption was surprising . All we have to say unreasonableness is if it is surprising, if the correct interpretation is surprising, then the contrary interpretation is reasonable. Would we have to defer to them on that . I think you do because you have to give more teeth to it. With the Inspector General said is you have to have a foothold in the statute. I think that is more or less what was recited today. There is a recent d. C. Court of appeals opinion that holds that a Police Officer could argue that all license plate frames are illegal. They rejected that under the code, but that is one of innumerable arguments a Law Enforcement officer might make in the reasonableness test would give grace. Other court one way, the court the other way, the officer loses. It has to be unusual. Think, justice breyer, the problem with that is the core presumption the officer needs to understand the law as it is construed, and mr. Chief justice, i think you asked about the ignorance cannon. States response is, well, if somebody is reasonably mistaken about the law, we would convict them. The reason why as we would assume that if the court of appeals split and this court they areive four, still convicted because we assume they knew the law when the active. All we are asking for todays the same assumption comply to Police Officers. We do respect the founding documents dont help them. The year are only remedy cases. They are only remedy cases. What the court did not distinguish his rights from remedies. If you want to look at the founding, the controlling rule would be the commonlaw rule. As we said in our brief, with no disagreements on the other side, the commonlaw rule dating back theuries was ignorance of law on the Police Officers part, even if perfectly reasonable, did not justify the stop. If i could say one last thing, Justice Scalia, with all due respect, i really do think there is nothing unusual about a party litigating a case up through the courts. Federal court or state court, but they can choose the arguments they choose to raise. Our we got a judgment in favor from the North Carolina court of appeals, it was up to the state at that point to choose what argument that wanted to pursue further. Party maya state, a look at the right questions instead of a remedy, we think that all applies here. Thank you, counselor. The case is submitted. On the next washington journal, Campaign Funds raised and spent this year. Then a discussion about samesex marriage. And center for Audit Quality executive director Cindy Kern Ellis on the implementation of dodd frank regulations after the 2008 financial crisis. Washington journal live at 7 a. M. Eastern on cspan. Be part of cspans campaign to me 14 campaign coverage. Campaign 2014 campaign coverage. Debate previews from the politics team. Cspan is bringing over 100 debates, and you can instantly share your reactions to what the candidates are saying. The battle for control of congress. Stay in touch and engaged by following us on twitter at cspan, and liking us on facebook at facebook. Com cspan. In the wisconsin governors race, scott walker is up against democrat mary burke. Race is listed as a tossup. Here are some of the campaign ads airing in wisconsin. Hi, im scott walker. Im pro life, but there is no doubt in my mind the decision of whether to end a pregnancy is agonizing. Thats why i support legislation to preach safety and provide more information for a woman considering her options. Leaves the final decision to a woman and her doctor. The reason people disagree on this issue, ira priority is to help protect our priority is to protect the health and safety of all wisconsin citizens. The midwest is coming back. Minnesotas unemployment numbers are down. Job numbers are up. Onthe economic recovery is track to outpace all 50 states. In wisconsin, scott walker slasheds for the top, public education, and we are dead last in midwest job growth. We are behind most of the country in job growth. Scott walker is not working for you. Hi, im scott walker. Thanks to our reforms the average families have an extra 320 dollars to spend. What are you going to do with your savings . More school supplies. 96 gallons of gas. See the grandkids. New tires for my truck. 2700 diapers. My opponent criticizes the comeback. She wants to undo our reforms. I want you to keep it. 11 by you in wisconsin . How about pizza . Scott walker thanks 11 buys your vote. Under your tax plan, the average wisconsin taxpayer has just 11 a month. 10e corporations got 6 million in tax cuts. Millionaires got at least 1400 per year. And you . Well, enjoy your meal. Millions for them, pizza for you. This was the first of two televised debates. Is one hour. [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] the Wisconsin Broadcasters Association foundation 2014 gubernatorial debate. Good evenin. We are sponsoring debates in major wisconsin campaigns. This year, the association is hosting two statewide face anything right and require. This is made possible in part because of generous grants from the Wisconsin Association of independent colleges and universities. I would like to introduce the moderator for the debate, a longtime wisconsin broadcaster and member of the hall of fame, jill. We encourage the candidates to share specifics about how they plan to govern. This is the format. Each candidate will present a twominute opening statement. The order was chosen by coin flip. After that we turn to the panel for questions. Every candidate will have one minute and 30 seconds to respond i encourage you to provide responses that are detailed and stay on topic. If you change the subject, we may restate the question and give you an additional 30 seconds for a focused reply. I also asked you to be faithful to the time limit you agreed to. There is a countdown clock visible to both of you, and i will respectfully remind you if you exceed your time. Should you persist i do not think you well i would invoke these the the state motto by saying it is time to go forward, and your microphone will go silent. We will conclude with threeminute statements from each candidate. Finally, there is a balanced audience of invited guests tonight, and they have promised to hold applause until the end of the broadcast. We will begin with opening statements, and by coin flip, we begin with ms. Burke. Thank you to the broadcast association and everyone viewing tonight. I am running for governor to focus on what works for you and your family. I am a fourthgeneration wisconsinite. My grandpa george was a mailman used to deliver the mail to the house i live in today. Every day i am reminded of my Wisconsin Roots in the values i was brought up on. One of those i use is that everyone deserves a fair shot to get ahead if they are willing to put in the hard work. Unfortunately, that opportunity is getting out of reach for too many. Four years ago, Governor Walker promised us jobs. Were not even close. We are dead last in the midwest in terms of job creation. His approach is not working. The typical wisconsin family has seen real income drop nearly 3000 in the last four years. 3000. Governor walker cut taxes for those on the top while raising them for working families and making the biggest cuts to education in the country. As a businessperson who opt create good paying jobs in wisconsin, i know how to do this. First, we will invest in education, not cut it. Second, stop the tax breaks for the wealthy and focus on Small Businesses. Third, reduce the cost of college. The economy is not better until it is better for you, and we can do better. A lot better. Wisconsin has everything that it takes, but we have to focus, bring people together, and use the best ideas. It is time for a new approach and new leadership, and tonight, i look forward to sharing my plans with everyone. Thank you. Governor walker . Thank you to the Broadcasters Association and the moderator and panelists. Thank you to my opponent for joining us. And thanks to all of you, it is great to be back in eau claire. And thank you all the home for turning in for what i hope is an honest discussion about the future of the great state. I love wisconsin. But in 2010, when i was traveling the state, Software Stand the effect of losing 130 ,000 jobs. People like michael, who, after 20 years working as a press operator, and it up seeing his company downsize them out of a job. These are real people with real families and communities all across the state. I decided then and there that i would aim high, set a big goal of 250,000 jobs. We have come a long way, but we are not done yet. We went from losing 130,000 jobs to gaining more than 100,000 jobs since. We rank third in the midwest for privatesector job creation from july of last year to july of this year. Fourth from august to august. Our Unemployment Rate is the lowest it has been since october 2 008. My opponent will try and use old and outdated data to criticize the comeback. This week alone, the wisconsin sentinel said that these attacks are false. Instead, i will focus on facts, the facts from our website. We have a comprehensive plan, and i will show that plan tonight and in the days to come. I look forward to a real discussion about the future of this great state. Will begin the questions now. I will begin with shawn johnson. He has covered a state politics for public radio for a decade. As we see here tonight, because of a 63 decision from the Supreme Court, wisconsin will not implement voter id for the november election. First, our voters better off or worse off because of the ruling. Second, they are exploitin exploring efforts to institute that again. Do you support the attorney generals efforts . I think what is important is that every eligible voter in wisconsin has the chance to vote. I think the Supreme Court made the right decision, because i heard stories from so many people about the difficulties that they were facing in being able to cast their vote. A woman, living in senior housing. She did not get her drivers license renewed, because she did not drive. She was faced with how she would get to the dmv and find the paperwork. I think it is a part of democracy here in wisconsin and across the u. S. That people are able to vote. In terms of the attorney general pursuing the voter id, i am concerned that people that we are putting roadblocks in front of the ability to vote. The federal judge had indicated that there are 300,000 people in wisconsin that could be hurt by this law. While it seems like a reasonable requirement, when you talk to folks about the hurdles that that places in their lives in order to get back, i am concerned that we are not doing get that, i am concerned that we are not doing the right thing and shutting down peoples voices. The law of the state of wisconsin is simple. It is easy to vote and hard to cheat. This is a common sense reform. I was out of town hall meeting in appleton, and took questions from the crowd, and i was asked how many cases of fraud there have been. I said, does not matter if it was one or a hundred or a thousand. Who was that one person who would want to have their vote canceled out by a vote canceled illegally . We used that in 2012, it worked well. There were no problems reported. The problem is going back and forth in the courts, and that is the problem with the Supreme Court decision. Whether or not the attorney general has the ability to move forward, i have not talked to him directly. Certainly we will abide by what the court say. Rebuttal . It is shocking to me to hear that the governor would say that he does not care if there was only one instance in fraud, and would put these roadblocks in front of 300,000 people would find it difficult to get the id and to vote, even though there are no identified cases of fraud and it could cost millions and millions of dollars to implement. That is just not common sense and is not what i would do as governor. In 2008, the Milwaukee Police department issued a report on the fraud they saw alone in 2004. There is more than just one case, there are many cases. Again, i go back and say that this is common sense reform, it has been in place or three years. We offered free id for people who do not have access to a drivers license upon request. Since the wisconsin Supreme Court upheld the law, we offered a process where they could get access to documentation. We are invoking our effort to press for specifics. What about the plan to reinstate the lot with less than a month ago for the election . As i understand it, he has stated that, but we have not seen a specific plan. I think it will ultimately be upheld, but i would rather spend the time in the debate talking about creating jobs in building a better economy. Improving our schools and advancing the state. Yes, i do not believe that we should pursue that unless we are assured that those 300,000 people who are facing roadblocks in terms of casting their eligible vote, that we have the proper processes in place with the state to assure us that that is not a hurdle that they face. Lets go to the next question, for mike thompson, and an anchor. I want to begin with jobs, because it is arguably the most important issue in this election. I think you would both agree that we are not where we want to be with employment in the state. So my question to you both, specifically, what is one thing that you will do to create jobs or bring more jobs to the state that has not been done before . That may declare has not been done before . Governor walker . We will build off the successes we have had over the past year. You look from july through july, third in the midwest for privatesector job creations. If you look at the updated figures for a month after, august, fourth. Either way, we are in the top five. We are seeing things gel. There was a manpower report that shows the projection is twice as big as it was a year ago in terms of employers looking to grow in the state of wisconsin. We want to go forward with things that were cannot go backwards. Not just because of the 130,000 jobs that we lost, but when my opponent was in congress. Were 42nd and job creation, and the Unemployment Rate was worst in the nation. That was during the three years that my opponent worked as the head of congress. We do not want to go backwards, we want to go ford. The and employment is the lowest it has been since october of 2008. I want to build on success, put money in the hands of Small Business owners and help build from the bottom up. Not the top down approach. The fact is, the economy is not growing at the rate that it needs to grow. The wisconsin economy 50 wisconsin economy had cap taste with the rest of the nation, it would be 4 billion a year bigger. That is money that could be spent on our businesses and education. It is a tax rate to grow the economy, infrastructure, education, while reducing taxes. We need to do something different. The one thing you said what i would specifically do that was not done before, i would reduce the cost of college. My jobs plan shows that we have to have 670,000 more degree holders. We have to increase capacity and reduce costs. Under Governor Walker we have seen cuts to technical colleges in Higher Education which has left 41,000 people on the wait list for Financial Aid for tech colleges and universities. I will prioritizes and the state budget and reduce the cost of Higher Education. Technical colleges and universities. Rebuttal . If you look at the rate when my opponent worked in congress, we would have half as many jobs. I do not want to go back to that, i want to build off of that. You can read my 62 page plan that talks about the things that my opponent has talked about that we have been doing. Investments in Higher Education, investments in a tecic