Transcripts For CSPAN Washington Journal 20130426

they believe syria has used chemical weapons on their own people. we want to get your thoughts. here's how you can reach out to this morning -- >> if you want to reach out the on social media, twitter is available to you and you can post on our facebook page and our email is journal@c-span.org. the white house released this letter. text of it can be found. here's a little bit of it regarding the evidence spoken about yesterday. this is to john mccain. it stays intelligence community does assess with varying degrees of confidence that the syrian regime has on a small chemical weapons on their own people. jeremy from the hill says their staff writer writes on defense issues, mr. herb, how does the white house treat this information that came yesterday? guest: well, they have reacted with caution on the next steps on whether or not to red line has been crossed. and white house officials said they still did not have enough evidence to corroborate the chemical weapons had been used. they did not stay red line had been crossed. they said the evidence was still being collected before determining next steps they were going to take. host: is there any sense on how long this process of determining evidence will take from the white house? >> no. today didn't give me a timeline. they said they obviously want to do it as quickly as possible d talked about the assad regime allowing the united nations and but said they had other sources on the ground if they were not going to cooperate with the u.n. host: also adding to other statement on what should happen next, can you give us other news? >> it prompted a lot of people saying we do need to take some action. senator feinstein, the chairman of the intelligence committee said a red line had been crossed in her view and so something needed to be done. senator mccain has long been on track to say he makes it clear something should be done. not putting boots on the ground but they want the establishment of a no fly zone and a safe area for the rebels to operate in syria and also to start providing them with arms which is something the obama administration so far has not done. host: on the house side senator boehner saying -- and a point you can expand on. said it was time for the president to have an open conversation with congress and the american people on this issue. >> he didn't go so far as to say the president needed to do something like create a no fly zone but warned if the president didn't do anything that it was going to embolden assad, because the red line had been crossed and we didn't act on it. it would just encourage him to use chemical weapons again. so i think there's a sense in congress that when obama sets the line and it gets crossed, which intelligence assessment says it has, so now we have to do something to respond. >> and the response from secretary kerry? he briefed the senate yesterday and will be briefing the house today. there have was two instances where chemical weapons are said to have been used. kerry talked about ate. the first person who mentioned the new assessment was chuck hagel. he was overseas and said he had confidence chemical weapons had been used. so it will be interesting to see how the two of them respond to this. host: because term red line was how does that complicate we proceed? did say do not ross this red line and so if assad did cross the "red line" then things will be complicated in terms of figuring out the next step. one thing we have to figure out if we are going to try to do mething is to deter chemical weapons use which is a difficult thing to do. >> jeremy herb, what are you covering in relation to this -- what happened on the house side as far as the briefing is concerned? >> yes. the briefing is classified for all house members so i'll be outside waiting for them to come out afterwards and seeing what they will say and what their sense is. it will be interesting to see if it's changed in the last 24 hours. if secretary kerry is saying anything more and if there's a greater sense that it's clear that we know chemical weapons were used. >> jeremy herb, thank you for your time this morning. >> thank you. cheryl: again, with that information in find thermation white house what you heard from mr. herb, your thoughts on the next step when it comes to this information. what should the u.s. do when it comes to chemical weapons used in syria? again, you can join us on the phone on one of three lines. . host: and you can send us tweets at twitter.com/cspanwj. also on our facebook page. we first hear from blue field, west virginia on our democrats line. good morning. caller: good morning. here we go again. mboldening foreign sources and dianne feinstein all claiming that there's an absolute evidence of chemical attack. believe me, if there had been a chemical attack, there would be plenty of evidence around. there would be bodies, chemical saddles, etc. this is garbage, just like before the iraq war. they are worried about the budgets for the military. lindsay graham and john mccain are sales minute for the military, and if we fall for this again, we're a bunch of morons. so everybody call lindsay graham and john mccain and tell them we are not falling for it. >> lansing michigan, depemcrats line. caller: good morning. i'm calling in regard with this perspective that they are saying they are using gas and kesmicals there, why is the united nations not stepping in on it? and you know, taking the lead against these foreign governments and politicians that are doing the different things. they made the united nations and world courts. i just can't understand why the united states administration and executive branches want to take the lead on it. host: well, there's been no formal action yet. this was just information received from the white house. caller: well, i understand that. but they keep wanting to put the their two cents in instead of getting the united nations involved with all these foreign countries. they have got to start sitting back and letting the united nations and the other government agencies conform with it. host: there's a section on what the united has as options. when it comes to diplomatic pressure since the united states is already pressing syria to let the united nations observe whether they are using chemical weapons. there's also -- host: you heard senator graham and mccain talk about that. again, chemical weapons being used in syria. information from the white house yesterday. getting your thoughts on that this morning. starksville, mississippi, independents line. caller: like previous caller said. it's not yet again! chemical weapons were used in syria but they were used in aleppo by the terrorists supported by the united states and europe. this is the terrorist we put al qaeda, they are losing in damascus against the syrian army and this is a way to step in and save them. the united nations is being bullied by the united states and the west to do something to save their pet terrorists. no. we shut down boston over a bombing. the syrian government is fighting terrorists here. and their army is doing all it can to stop their country from looking like iraq or libya. so please, call your congressmen. this is not true. thank you. host: from twitter it says i do not want to get into a syrian civil war. here's marie from the independents line. caller: it seems like we always have to have a reason to go into these other countries and right now, we can't afford another war. it's not even possible. so for them to entertain any of these ideas is ridiculous. and i agree with that first caller. he was right on. and the biggest thing we can do right now is try to -- try diplomacy, whatever we need to do but no more engage bheant war. it's just getting ridiculous. host: to clarify according to our guest, he mentioned it but saying the obama administration said it was not planning to act said allegation yet and foote investigation was needed to determine whether chemical weapons were used and according to the source, senators from both parties said they believed syria had defied the u.s. and quickly called for the united states to take action. that's our topic this morning as we give that information to you. get your reaction to it. not only from what was released yesterday but what the white house should be doing in this situation. the number is on your screen if you want to give us a call and give us your thoughts on it this morning. other stories. there's analysis from the actual syrian gas side of the story. this is ernesto from "the washington post." the headline says u.s. -- evidence of -- writing even if syrian was used in an attack, finding proof is hopeless unless conducted immediately. >> kay is a senior fellow from the patomic institute. paul on our independent line good morning. caller: i just want to say one of the biggest problems facing the country is the fact that there's no real constitution checks and balances on foreign policy. it seems each individual administration at the time decides what it wants to do and how. basically we should be minding our own business because this w.m.d. situation was put before us before. we need take care of our business at home and let those people take care of themselves. host: why should you say we shouldn't take care of those in syria? ller: we were taught self -- in school, were we forgetting about that? host: our independent line. caller: i think we should leave these people to fight it out and deal with the last one standing. host: again, a sample of comments this morning on our topic about chemical weapons used in syria. continuing to call in on the line. this story of foreign affairs from "the washington post," three days of clashes kill 115 in iraq. etween gunmen and mogul before security forces brought the situation under control, that's in "the washington post" this morning. also "the new york times" has a similar story tying events happening in syria. it quotes a leading sunni cleric in iraq who wields enormous influence urging several members of the iraqi security forces to abandoned their posts and join the opposition as their brothers did in syria. linking it to the growing unrest here in iraq the declaration is one of the sure signs that the sectarian ttles are regarded by sunnis -- you're on. caller: yes. i am a believer in the lord apologies discuss christ from delaware. the united states needs to take care of its own people and stay out of other people's problems. the news is misleading this country, and they need to stop it. i am proof. i was in vietnam and the news tried everybody over there. they need to stop it. host: sandy from silver spring, maryland. caller: i would like to say i agree with all the callers and the united states do not need to go to syria. host: why so? caller: because we don't need no more war. we have had enough. we have enough to deal with over here now. we just don't need it. host: here's senator john mccain yesterday. this took place after the senators received an intelligence briefing on syria and talked about how the president used the word "red line was crossed". >> the president of the united states said if basheer assad used chemical weapons that it would be a game changer, that it would cross the red line. i think it's pretty obvious that red line has been crossed. now i hope the president will consider what we have been recommending which is to provide a safe area for the opposition to operate. to establish a no-fly zone and provide weapons to the people in the resistance who we trust. everything that the non-interventionists said would happen in syria if we intervened, has happened. the jihadists are on the descenden as is. the russians continue to be assisting ba shear assad and the iranians are all in. it requires the united states' help and assistance. it does not mean boots on the ground. host: lydia joins us from texas on the republican line. caller: good morning. i also -- i disagree with john mccain. i believe that we have been in this country often and have tried to help and we have always gotten a really bad wrap. it's time for the french and germans and our allies if they want to do something, they should. we don't need to be there. we went into iraq. what we thought was a good thing, and we got a terrible wrap. the people never did appreciate this. so i believe we need to stay out of this country. let them either resolve their issues themselves or have the allies go in and help them. thank you. host: so "usa today" from jay carneys' spokesman from the white house. it prints a little bit of a quote. they say it's important we do whatever we have to, to monitor and investigate credible allegations given enormous consequences and given the president's clear statement that chemical weapons are unacceptable. democrats line? caller: yes, thank you for letting me speak. i would like to ask john mccain why he thinks we should go into syria when we have a border problem right here. why not invade mexico? everything he said is true ability syria except for the russian influence and if we went over there he could have all that defense money coming to his state that is a border state. what is wrong with his head? host: so what to do about syria. you agree with what he said? caller: absolutely not. host: bill badly quoting a cnn survey -- the quote says 67% of americans oppose the u.s. and other countries using ground troops to try to establish zones inside of syria. no fly zones also spoken of as a possible means to deal with this situation. . bronx new york on our independent line? caller: yes. i just wanted to say i feel we are not dealing with assad or just the opposition and other people. we are dealing with a cultural philosophy. that's what we are really fighting. and until the cultural philosophy changes there's no help for them. and this is something they have to work out for themselves. it is a cultural philosophy of dominance and intolerance. it depends on who is in power today. but whoever is in power would be doing the same thing to everybody else. everybody else in the society. so for their until their cultural philosophy changes, i think we will be wasting our time. i think we should stay out of syria and let them work out their civil war the way america worked out its civil war until they learn the proper way of living with each other. thank you. host: joseph asks what threat is syria to the american national security interest? now american republican line. caller: yes, i want to say i hope we do not get involved in syria, and one of the things i am concerned about is whether or not the intelligence is credible. because we were told with saddam hussein that he had wucks and look what happened there -- he had weapons of mas destruction, and look what happened there. i hope they focus on the veterans that kill themselves every year 8,000 have killed themselves in the last year. we need to put our resources to help our veterans coming home from these wars. host: if there's definitive chemical about weapons used in syria, does that change what we should do? caller: i don't think so. how many more commitments and involvements do we really want to get into? because when i look at the middle east, it's very complex. behind the scenes diplomacy working with the different countries will probably be the best course of action. and i am sorry to see all the suffering happening over there. don't get me wrong. but it is not that simple. when you comt miliry action, you could open a can of worms that is much bigger than what we anticipate, and that's what i am wary about. i think what we have done in the last couple of decades shows that this is a repeated pattern. and i hope that people will proceed with caution. thank you. host: that's sarah from edgewater, maryland. our next caller is from mike, new hampshire, independent line. caller: thank you for taking my phone call. we spent over 10 years fighting in this area. we should just stay out of it. it's not our business. we need to take care of ourselves right now. that's all i can say. thank you. host: from romney, west virginia, don is on our republican line. caller: good morning. listening to your callers this morning, everybody speaking about look but don't touch when it comes to syria and chemical weapons. all we got to do is look at recent history. the terrorists want to come to this country and do serious harm to us. the scenario is they come up through our southern borders and start exploding them over our heavily populated areas. we have mas casualties, so it's a very serious situation and i hope the obama administration is on top of this. and that we don't have a nightmare end up on our own streets like in boston. host: wanted to point you to our news makers program that airs sunday at 6:00 a.m. representative adam smith ranking member of the armed services committee is our guest and among the things he talked about was information coming out of syria. here's what he had to say. [video] what do we do about it? the president said it's a red line but i think we should be cautious. i don't think we should commit military. i also think being able to secure the chemical weapons in syria is extraordinarily difficult if possible at all so we are going to have serious conversations with our partners in the region because what has not been said by the administration at any point beyond the red line is what that means. what will they do. what is the best response and personally i urge caution. we do not need another war. host: more of that conversation takes place on our news makers program with representative adam smith. the ranking member of the armed services committee. here on 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. this coming sunday. in other domestic news, this is from "the new york times," senators talk about the long-term health care rollout. the chairman of the appropriation committee on health care said he was extremely upset with mr. obama's decision taking money from -- host: also senator max chairman of the finance committee said last week that the administration deserved "a failling grade for its efforts to explain the efforts. i can just see a huge train wreck but after hearing the white house on thursday he said he was encouraged and praised young people getting signed up for health coverage. continuing with what we are talking about when it comes to information from the white house about the use of chemical weapons in syria. again, your chance to call us on one of our lines. host: in ohio. up next, analytically on our independent line. hi. caller: how are you? i'm a little bit nervous. first-time caller. i am totally against this war they are thinking about in syria. if congress decides to vote on it the first thing we should do is institute the draft and then take all the family and friends of all the senators and representist who voted on it to put them on the front lines and raise their taxes 90% and then i'm sure we wouldn't end up in syria. host: we hear from texas saying whether it's one tax dollar or drop of american blood, i'm against helping anybody in syria. joseph from new york republican line, hi. caller: how's it going? host: you're on, sir. caller: i got to say as an american citizen to be honest with you, you can't put a dollar value on life. whether it's ours or syrians or whatever it is, death tolls have to stop and if it takes a little u.s. involvement to do so then it takes that. host: what constitutes a little u.s. involvement? caller: i say a little but reality is whatever it takes to make it stop other than occupying another country, it has to stop. host: even if that means boots on the ground, as ty call it? caller: we've done it for less things. host: pat on our democrats line. caller: i wanted to call and say i seldom agree with republicans but senator mccain hit it on the head. we need to stop this massacre. innocent people being pummeled and it's barack obama's chance to send a message around the world that we will not falter. they have crossed the line and it's time to send a message loud and clear. host: almost all the callers are saying it's not our concern and to stay out of it altogether. caller: i disagree. the sanctity of life. we need to stop this massacre. and especially with north korea. they are watching, too. is america going to keep bluffing? it's time to step up. host: is it more than about the u.s. posture in the world as far as our ability to handle these situations and our ability to do so? caller: not so much. it's just that we said they crossed the line. it's time to do something about it. host: they are taking a look at air traffic control and trying to alleviate delays in flight and bring in money to help alleviate that. the it passed in the senate and the house is taking it up today. if approved that will be aimed at easying travel delays. many lawmakers already left washington for a weeklong recess. host: in georgia, this is craig. our independent line. caller: yes, sir. appreciate you letting me put a few words on this. this country has been involved in too many wars. over the years. i think we're all war wary. mr. time israel, tanyahu, lobbyists say jump, our elected officials ask how high? host: we're focusing specifically on syria. your thoughts? caller: stay out of it. we have far too many problems as it is at home. host: that was craig from georgia. in the papers you probably saw it on c-span yesterday and still available via our c-span library, the dedication of the president bush library. speaking about president george w. bush's time in office, a picture with he and his father former president george h.w. bush. with mr. bush's recollection and thoughts about heroes and 9/11. here's a little bit from that yesterday. [video] ultimately it depends on the character of its citizens. i saw it in the first responders who charged up the save into the flames to people's lives from burning towers. i saw it from a virginia tech professor who barricaded a classroom with his body until his students had time to flee. saw it in the service members who laid down their lives to keep our country safe and to make other nations free. franklin roosevelt once described the library as an act of faith. i dedicate this library in an unshakeable faith in the future of our country. that the future of this country is as brave and noble. and whatever challenge comes before us, i will always believe our nation's best days lie ahead. god bless. [applause] host: again, that event taking place yesterday. you can watch it on our c-span video library. that's c-span.org and just go to the video library section. on our republican line, rich, good morning. caller: good morning. i think we should stay out of there also but i also feel as though we're as responsible for all that's going on in the middle east. especially with the gas. i'm not mistaken, we gave hussein and -- gave them gas when they were fighting -- i'm having a brain block right here. iran. i do believe it's a game going on between us and/or was a game going between us and russia. i think it's still going on. nd as far as not finding weapons -- the gas weapons in iraq, that's not to say they weren't there. and that wasn't the only reason we went there. people remember we had a no fly zone there that they continuously broke and had our planes trying to enforce it and if i'm also not mistaken they use do soed gas on the kurds up in the north. you never hear that. you always hear that they didn't find the gas weapons. who is to say they didn't use them or some of those weapons that are now in syria weren't from sflk because there was a lot of things going on back and forth with them when we were at war with them. and i feel like we are partly responsible for what's going on there. that's just the way i feel. i know we're kind of war wary here. i agree with that. but i do feel we are responsible. host: that's rich from new jersey. "new york times" has a story looking at gun control weapons in the senate. the headline says senators are working quietly seeking a new path on gun control and talking in recent days talking about how they could persuade more pport their bill to expand background checks for gun buyers and -- host: michael. up next. chevy chase, maryland. democrats line. caller: hi. i wanted to comment on the whole syria issue. i understand when people say we are war wary and we have been involved in so many of these conflicts in the past. and i agree that we should definitely use every power possible from a diplomatic standpoint. i am a little bit concerned about the fact that lately it defy the rs who human rights of people, as long as they have nuclear or chemical weapons or if it's going to be too difficult for us to become involved sort of get a pass, and i think that's a little bit dangerous. i don't think we should move to war quickly, but i do think we can't -- the caller said at any cost, stay out of this. but it's a different world than it was in a different -- than it was in the past. host: our last caller on this, independent line. ali. you're on. caller: i think that we should stay out of it. because i think a lot of times we don't really know what's going on in these foreign countries and we get told in these cliche statements like the leader is starving his people or they use certain weapons and we have a vested interest in fighting. we don't really get told the complete story. so it's no reason for this country to be trying to waste lives and waste our people's ves over here and waste u.s. lives because of rumors basically. host: coming up, discussions about homeland security and immigration in light of the boston bombing. two guests, congressman jason republican later from virginia, bobby scott. >> in this documentary, free alan shimp asks what government spending will have on future generations. alan is the first-prize winner in this student cam competition. because i'm sweet on candy and candy is sweet on you. >> mr. president, thank you for seeing me. i'm here to tell you that 25% of americans have no representation and heavily taxed. i remember four years ago speaker of the house john boehner complained -- >> we're broke. we're broke. america's broke. all year long our friends have been on this massive spending spree that our nation can't afford. >> in fact, we're more than oke, $16 trillion in debt, a debt that will be paid by my generation. if i remember my school house rock, it's our founding principle. >> i don't know how worthy all these projects are but i do have to ask the question, are they more important than our kids and grandkids who have to pay the debt? >> there are others who dismiss the debt is even our problem. >> that means over the last 34 years there's more dollars than it's taken away from us in taxes, in other words it's a net $15 trillion of dollars that the public hold. >> so he's saying that the government debt is my asset. in fact there's other people who think we should go further into debt. >> central irony is caused by too much spending, too much lending and it can only be resolved with more confidence and more lenting and more spending. >> and yet i hear larry somers and austin goolsbee and i hear paul krugman and joe stiglass, all of my colleagues talking about how we need to stim threat economy with more government spending. government redistributes sources from the people who produce them to the people who didn't produce them. >> anyone? anyone? >> this is like november 1. you wake up and your stomach hurts from having too much halloween candy. is the result to gorge on more candy? >> i could have had candy apples and gum and spent money on all sorts of things. >> your company created a $16 trillion debt for my generation. i understand you're building an infrastructure for the future. some spending is necessary and good. >> this money is spent and injects demand into the economy and it's jobs created. it creates jobs faster than almost any other initiative you could name. >> ♪ you are my candy, girl and you got me wanting you ♪ >> we've got do something. >> ♪ honey aw sugar, sugar ♪ >> when we first met angel adams, she was living in a hotel room with 15 of her children rangeing from 11 years to 15 months and she was angry at the system. >> somebody needs to pay for all my children. >> that's where food stamp benefits come in. they help you eat right when money's tight. >> more than 10% of their discretionary income left after shelter and food on college loans. >> i tell you this college is a failure. girl ♪ re my candy, >> after you invest in infrastructure. contractors and manufacturing but they will have that income and put it back into the economy and affect our tour ifplg and education sector. >> roads? where we're going, we don't need roads. >> i can talk about what the ecovery act did. they basically saved the state of nevada. from going into bankruptcy. >> mr. president, i can't ask more from our government than that. however, i can conserve less from them. some spending is just wasteful. >> the cowbell hall of fame. >> the defense contractors thinking rich off their failure and incompetence. and they want to build a bridge with $223 million of your tax dollars. >> thanks but no thanks on that bridge to nowhere. >> because when the american people no longer belief that this is a place where only their willingness to work hard and to act with honor and integrity and engine newty determines their success in life then we will have a bunch of people sitting on a couch waiting for their next government check. >> yes, it takes the bull by the horns and starts spending i had an vesting in things that make sense. >> the administration has pledged $3.5 in stimulus money also known as tax dollars, and that's just so far. now california says lit need more. tens of billions from federal axpayers to finish it. > it's not in mississippi from this year's commissioning. >> i want one. i want one. i want one. >> the mesh worm. that .t.-led team designed a robot that moves like an earthworm. >> it's all hopeless. you might as well buy greek bonds and go down together. >> mr. president you realize if i had $16 trillion of these little pieces of cavendy, i could cover the entire area of washington, d.c. ,000 times over. the youth of this country are being taxed without representation. now, while i sit around watching c-span all day, most kids are not that well inform sod you can't give us the vote. you can either spend more responsibly or you can eliminate the debt. the youth of this country demand it. thank you for your time. have a lollipop and great day. ♪ lollipop, lollipop oh, lolly lollipop ♪ >> to see more winning videos, go to student cam.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: our guest representative jason chaffetz from the utah homeland security committee welcome. guest: thank you. host: we're going to talk about the boston marathon and that but first syria and information coming from the white house what does this mean going forward? guest: very serious situation and in a vol tile place of the world but when you step over the red line and start using chemical weapons, that's a scary proposition given their close proximity and we have something senator kerry and others will lead this. i can't talk about what goes on in there, but the administration is taking it very seriously, as they should, and it's a very scary situation. host: how much should be done as far as looking at the evidence and going forward before we make decisions? guest: i think what we're going to hear is what degree of certainty and evidence do they have? you don't want to make mistakes with these types of things. senator mccain is saying we should have taken action in there years ago. this will really push the envelope. again, it's proximity to such a volatile part of the world and creates concern that many will want to take proactive measures if that evidence is really there. host: should that include ground force? guest: i don't know. that's where you want to have the best electronic and ground intelligence and also military with capability in place to take out a threat if there is truly a clear and present danger to the united states. host: two stories want to get your reaction to. the "daily news" says the f.b.i. knew on monday that the bombers were going to attack. also in "the washington post" the f.b.i. losing track of a man. in the ricin case. guest: we're rooting on the men and women in the f.b.i. and what they are doing in a very swift manner. the way they took these suspects down, everybody, it gives you a surge of pride both with local law enforcement and federal officials. i think there are a lot of homeland security looking at how these individuals immigrated and what sort of signals did the russians give us? evidently according to the intelligence the russians contacted the c.i.a. and state department giving us heads up that they had concerns. was any of this information stove piped? there's a news report out this morning that maybe this information wasn't shared with local terror experts. that will be a deep concern moving forward. there are also a lot of us who aren't convinced this is just an isolated case. one of the things that concerned me is right rat the very beginning the official it's said this is an isolated case. i think the starting point should be, let's make sure it's not a bigger, broader thing. i would say let's make sure this wasn't two kids that went awry and thought let's do this. i would worry that they were radicalized and others may have been radicalized as well. both the f.b.i. and other officials should figure out if this is bigger and broader than just these two individuals. host: questions for our guest should be directed on the phone. mocrats -- independents -- and republicans and if you're if you want to email us or contact us through social media. guest: i'm on a judiciary on oversight and government reform but also on homeland security so there's -- i think we will be involved in lots of different places here. we're different in the united states of america. we're open and transparent and we talk about these things. i'm proud of that fact. think that's the role of government to make sure if there were mistakes we don't make those again. so of course we're going to look into this from many different angles not just in regards to these two punks and their family but also to the bigger, broader question of terror, because it is out there. we do have to defend against it. we're going to have to stop being as politically correct as we have been in the past and get very serious about dealing with those who want to terror ize america. cheryl: there will be information-sharing and who said what to whom? >> yes. now, we've got to give the authorities in real-time an opportunity to do their job. we are still days out from when the terror happened but i would expect in the coming months, days, we will take a closer look and how can we communicate better? eep people's privacy in place? host: now in the house but before in the senate, how does one impact the other? >> we have to fix immigration. it's not working for anybody. i've taken a strong stance against certain parts of immigration but always advocated that we have to fix legal immigration. i don't care how far and wide the defense is but if you don't fix immigration, you don't fix it. boston situation creates issues we have to look at closely. how do we deal with the silence? we -- asylum. we bring in tens of thousands of people under asylum. how do we go through the adjudication process of whether they should or shouldn't be granted asylum? that's part of the immigration discussion. host: our guest joining us to talk about homeland security and immigration-related matters. the republican from utah. jason chaffetz. our first caller from our democrat's line. how are you doing? caller: go ahead. going to if they are be finding out how they got their guns because one police officer was killed and another was badly wounded and they had a shootout with police officers and so what's going to be done to find out where the guns came from, how they purchased them and what's going to be done with that? because they got guns you've got -- they can go to gun shows and things, so what's going to be done about that? thank you. host: i think it's a legitimate question. guest: how did they get the information they had in order to do the bomb making? did somebody give them these weapons and bombs? i think this is all legitimate questions. how did they get their weapons and bombs? how did they get trained? who informed them? that's right at the heart of what we need to understand and absolutely, i think that's a very legitimate question. host: john from maryland. republican line. hi. caller: how are you doing, guys? i think it's unbelievable how there's a coincidence of what's going on in washington as far as immigration and gun control and then showing it having the boston marathon bombings having involving illegal guns around immigrants and it tells me what they are trying to do with with regard to newtown and over places is not going to help. and i really think the end result has to do with compensation and guns. doesn't have to happen right now but nobody thought that this loss of liberty would happen in five years but what upset me was when i heard they were questioning the younger brother for 16 hours or whatever time it was the f.b.i. wasn't done with it and all of a sudden a federal judge shows up with someone from the justice department and public defender and the president said we want to bring the full weight of justice down and make sure that this never happens again. i am so sick of hearing after every incident we want to make sure it doesn't happen again and then they shut down the interrogation for no good reason and i want to know who ordered that judge to go there. host: peter king has the same question why is the justice department granting him the right to silence and arraign him after just 16 hours of interrogation? guest: peter king knows a thing or two about this. i think it's a very legitimate question. i'm sure in the house judiciary committee this is something we will be looking at deeply and they seem very avengs to see. the judge coming in there so swift lyrics i understand it's an unprecedented case. host: but it goes to process. guest: and how do we deal with these. one of the frustrations in general republicans have had about president obama is we don't have an enemy combatant policy in this country. remember, when the president first took office, he was justed a mesht that we should be closing down guantanamo bay. i've tpwhrn a couple of times. it's a difficult situation but also a very necessary place to have. if you were to have the democrats and others trying to explain how guantanamo bay fits into their protection policy, i don't think they could explain it to you. i couldn't. i think it's a necessary part of what we have to deal with in this country. host: but you say -- guest: it's a process. i'm not ready to be judge and jury days after this attack but there has to be a policy in place so when we do have things like, unfortunately they happen overseas and domestically, how are we supposed to deal with that? a the president has not had policy, and i think that's wrong. host: from north carolina, hello? caller: hello. i'm calling to find out what the thinking is about following the money. and that is where does all the money come from that supported these two men? and their multiple housing situations. the ammunition, the guns, the materials for the bombs. the financing that goes to take them to and from russia and etc. no one isno one is following thy that i can tell. could you please comment on that? confidenceve every that these officials are actually diving into that money trail. hear, supposedly -- i am living in press reports like you are -- but supposedly this family was living on welfare. wherey are in a situation they were getting all this welfare, how do you afford to to russia? that is a pretty expensive trip. you are right, not only the personal finances of what is happening with respect to terror, but what is the bigger money trail? how were they able to purchase these types of things? if they are not -- i would be been givent i haven't beehave every assurance that that money trail is being followed. am following up on the same question. where did they get the money to be able to do this? they seek asylum in this country, and when you are granted it, that means you are running away from the country because you are afraid you will be killed. you are not allowed to travel to the country you are from unless you get a visa from the russian government. it is very expensive to do that. they seem to be going back and forth all the time. how are they able to do this? follow the money trail. guest: not only that, but how did they in pieces and documents? there were questions of whether their names were misspelled, algorithm that were said to track this. they are still piping so that homeland security. questions, iased totally agree with you, but i do think we will need months to let this play out, let law enforcement folks do with a need to do without the pressure of having to prepare testimony for the congress. they have to do their job in real time to make sure there are none other people out there in this same situation. aboutwe had discussions information after september 11. here we are now. why has more not been done? we just do not know. i do not want to jump to conclusions too quickly. we have had some conflicting testimony from secretary napolitano. that needs to be cleared up. i am giving him a little leeway here given that we are so close to the proximity of what happened. the public is raising the right questions, i hope we are in congress. host: how long before actual hearings take place? guest: we are not in session next week, so in may we will start to get to it. aske are opportunities totestiy officials questions. we had fbi director muller there, we had secretary napolitano there, counter- terrorism people there. we got information appear that is the way a representative government works. satisfied with what you're hearing? guest: when a disaster happens like this and you still have people in the hospital, funeral going on, it is not a partisan thing. we are all cheering them on. i am as right wing and conservative as you can be, but clearly i am routing on get napolitano and her staff. these are a group of professionals, but of course we are going to hold their feet to the fire. make sure that they are making wise decisions, that we are solving the problems. askright now we are just making sure they are doing their job. host: silver spring, maryland. republican line. caller: i am very much in agreement with what has been said, but what bothers me is, if they were here for asylum, wasn't there something along the way that said something is wrong here? with immigration, no amnesty. they made maryland such a soft place, it is amazing that we all speak english. other i do not mind if people speak other languages in our country. i do think english should be the official language of the united states of america. but you are right, when somebody comes here on asylum, and then they suddenly apply and get a be said to go back overseas, that is contradictory to the concept of asylum. we have to make sure we are precise in what they applied for, what they said the threat was, where did they go? we do not know the answers to those questions yet, but you are spy upon. i hear you loud and clear. mark from georgia. independent line. caller: good morning. little horse this morning. talking about those boston bombings -- i saw these little girls on television, one of them was a dancer that lost her litts morning. foot, one, i cannot remember, she was 38 years old, but they have to take her light off. -- leg off. the government needs to be responsible and help those people with their medical bills. some of them might be poor and need help. to lay this at the foot of our government. they are not doing their job. immigration, illegal immigrants are taking jobs away from american citizens. i have heard that argument over and over. i think several industries in went downhill. they come over here and work for $7 an hour. a meat-packing plant used to pay $18 an hour. saw that same i interview with anderson cooper, did a great job interviewing this woman. she lost her legs just below the knee. she was already up on crutches, learning to deal with the one letter that she has now. her husband was by her side. it was very inspirational. her attitude was so good. she was a dancer for a living, she loved to do the one, i cannt remember, she waltz and all these other dances, and already, one week out of the tragedy, with a positive attitude saying, i am going to do this again and i hope they have a follow-up story. it wasomnghat touched our hearts. if i know something about the people of boston, mass., of course they're going to rally behind anyone having a difficult situation. everybody, i hope, will be embraced by the community, and i am sure that will be the case. host: the house will begin work on immigration. one of the papers this morning says -- could you comment on both of those? guest: the chairman is a representative of virginia, a good man, has some experience here. i am not an attorney but i am on judiciary. he made a commitment that we would have an open and transparent process, that we would go through regular order, which in the world of congress means we have the opportunity to offer up amendments, we will vote on those amendments. i agree, we should be tackling this one issue at a time. comprehensive disobey and massive, so complicated, given its history, it has collapsed before. that would be a shame. we have to fix illegal immigration. the best approach is to build some bridges, build some trust, get some common ground, go one bill at a time. that is the smarter way to go. democrats and republicans probably agree on 70% of this, so let's go solve this and that the situation better, but there are issues that we legitimately disagree on. host: chief among them is what? guest: do you grant citizenship to those people here illegally? i believe in a touchback provision. we have a high moral obligation to america. number two, we have a higher moral obligation to those who are not willing to break the law, the people who are trying legally andh this lawfully. they have been waiting patiently. some people have been waiting two decades in order to go through this process. those people should be given higher priority. we have to deal with families, business needs, on the ag side and high-tech side. if there was a simple solution, it would have happened a long time ago, but that is why i advocate one bill that time. oft: other instances accusing congress of dragging out the process. guest: supposedly weaver supposed to get fun of reform, we get to the final steps, and then it breaks down. i think this is the way to build bridges. i was proud of the fact that i sponsored and passed a bill that dealt with high skilled immigrants, the family-based visas. people of of 435 that voted against it. so there is a bipartisan way to approach this. it would have helped hundreds of thousands of people. very bipartisan in this approach but unfortunately, the senate never took it up. host: border security is still a big issue. guest: i have to go through a analysis and details. the so-called triggers on border security will be a big thing. if you do not solve the problem with visa over stays. there are a lot of people who came here and never left. analysis and details.y-exit schedule in this country. and theyy local deli can tell me what kind of sand which i always order. homeland security can not tell us who is coming in and out. we need entry-exit, when the border security in place. we have to have the interior enforcement in place. what are the so-called triggers? this is a discussion that has no answers, at this point. host: our guest is jason chaffetz. let's go to the phone calls, cherie, democrat's line. caller: i find it interesting how much discussion and resources have been spent on the boston case and how little about the explosion in west, texas. allowedporations are to skirt regulations and break the law, we are condoning corporate terrorism. do you? what happened in texas, all those people that were killed -- boy, you watch and explosion on television -- i cannot imagine having been there. a lot still needs to play out. i am sure texas officials will be looking to what happened and what did not happen there. we want people to be held accountable. i do not know the specific details as to what the company did or did not do. it is not necessarily a federal issue. maybe more of a local issue. of course, companies should be held accountable. i am sure there will be a series of lawsuits and examinations. boston, obviously, has gone more media attention, but that does not mean that people in texas and other places are not totally forgotten. i think if you went to texas that is much more of a focal point. will you better -- complainingbo spending in the future about border security? guest: what bothers me about the u.s. government is we do not make tough choices. look, weshould say, have to prioritize things around here in this country. one of the thing to that bothers me, we are about to turn the corner of giving $100 billion in aid to afghanistan. we have been a very generous nation, but that is not counting the fighting, this is just physically to buy things for them and help them build within afghanistan. should we be spending that much money, or cheroot be making the tough choice and say, we need to make sure we have enough ice officers on the streets. we have to make tough choices. that is what we do not do. i have been very critical of the department of the defense saying, folks, you are not immune from this. you have to learn to become more effective and efficient as well. i had a hearing yesterday that dealt with ammunition that would be purchased by the department of homeland security. have 240 million rounds of ammunition in storage. average, 3400, on rounds per person, in storage, for each person that carries a gun. that seems a bit excessive. i am a lifetime member of the nra, i carry a glock at home at times, i have a rifle, shotgun, i love hunting. but i am still critical of homeland security and how they're doing their training and use their ammunition. of course we are born to hold people accountable. host: joe is from texas. republican line. caller: in 1986, when ronald reagan legalized all of these immigrants, there have been problems with the border. democrats, republicans, had it has that been done. i live in texas, i hung around the border. it is still not done. if you beat your wife, you can stay, just cannot do it a third time. i am having a hard time. i do not trust that we are going to get our borders secure because they have found on it before. worries,have the same that the federal government does not have the political will to do what is necessary to lock down that border and enforce visas. i was down there the first week of april near the border in arizona. the men and women, customs and border patrol, are doing what they can, but they are still being overrun. secretary napolitano seems to be the only person in the western hemisphere that seemed to think that border is secure. it is not. we have to be candid about that. visa side andthe the physical border itself. we do not have the detention policy that makes sense. we are dealing with this influx of otm's -- other than mexicans. i went down there to a detention facility near florence, arizona, just north of the border,we do n policy that makes sense. we are dealing with this influx of i.c.e. facility. caller:1500 inmates in there. 900 of them were non-mexicans. this is an international phenomenon. we were hearing about romanians, chinese nationals, and others. conduit where people are coming, from the southern border, and then taking advantage of the situation. a very complicated situation, but until we have some assurances that we can secure the conduit where people border and get serious about sun -- visa enforcement, it will be hard to pass an immigration bill that grants amnesty. host: jason from georgia. independent line. caller: yes, how are you doing? my problem with the whole situation right now -- i am disgusted with our federal system. the thing that bothers me the yes, how are you doing? my problem with the whole situation right now -- i am disgusted with our federal system. the thing that bothers me the sun -- i did not know -- host: ok, we will leave it there. money, 23pay a lot of cents out of every dollar in the 23ted states of america, cents is spent by the federal government. we need an engaged public and hold people up talk -- accountable. that is way too much money, we have to cut back on spending. we have to make a priority of the things that are the most important. that is what we are fighting for. is justral government's not living up to the stand right now of holding people accountable. it is about fiscal discipline, limited government, and a strong national defense. host: one more question about immigration, talking about a peaceful process. any time line as to how long before this comes together? i appreciate his approach. it is hard to say that this is get to the finish line but the judiciary and house of representatives is committed to doing immigration reform, one at the time in regular order, which takes more 23 cents is spent time, but you usy have a better product. then we will pass along to the senate, were all good bills go to die. guest it serves on the judiciary oversight and government reform committee. heade point, you were the campaign manager for the michael dukakis campaign. guest: my dad's first wife was keyed to caucus. we could not be more polar opposites politically. i knew that when i said my brochure over there and they looked at it, they would say, i disagree with everything, so i thought, good shape. we head campaign manager for are good. michael dukakis has been a huge cheerleader pushing me on saying, we need good people on both sides of the aisle. i love him for that. a great man. host: we will continue our about homeland immigration. we will take a number -- look at home ownership in the united states. we will be right back. >> this weekend, before saturday night's white house correspondents dinner, we will show selected dinners from the past three administrations. then live coverage of this year's dinner startingmichael wa red carpet arrivals. sunday, thursday dedication of the george bush presidential library and museum. >> i dedicate this library with unshakable faith in the future of our country. it is the daughter of a lifetime to lead a country as brave and as noble as the united states. whatever challenges come before us, i will always believe, our nation's best days lie ahead. god bless. >> sunday morning at 10:30. donovan kimble on leading a clue -- platoon of marines in iraq. reconsidering the insanity trial of mary tod lincoln. >> i went into the kiosk. i said i am here to report. a guard came up and said, i knew one of your campaign managers in ohio. i got down in there, the guard said, here, you have some hate mail. they gave me the mail. you go through the most embarrassing part of the strip down, and then i got into the intake, walked into prison, down into the courtyard. told the man that was supposed to take me around to get away. i was there not knowing where to go, where i am staying, in my pajama pants. another prisoner said, where is your escort that disposed take you around? i said, i do not know. he took me in the back of the laundry room, i walked back in and a man is sitting there and said, are you the congressman? i said, i used to be. he said you were republican? i said, well, republicans put me in here, you know. he said, i was the mayor of east cleveland. let me give you some clothes. host: our next guest is bobby scott of virginia, ranking member on the committee of homeland security and investigations. before we start talking about issues related to the boston bombings, your thoughts on syria? what this means for the united states, going forward? it is disturbing, information has not been confirmed that they used chemical weapons, but if they crossed theave line. there is no question the president will take action. host: a series of briefings taking place this weekend. do you plan to be part of them? guest: yes, we have briefings from time to time, many of them classified. in a situation where we cannot say what is going on. you do not want the situation getting out of hand but we do not want to have ground troops. the president has already indicated that a line would be crossed if chemical weapons were used. zones, would that be comfortable to you? guest: without getting into details, you cannot cross the line without consequences . how theestions about fbi has performed since the bombings? i think it goes without saying, they capture the suspect in short order. he needs to go to trial but there is clear evidence they have the right guy. they have done good work. the saw on the last panel, department of justice had granted the right to remain silent to the suspect. they did that granting the right to remain silent. he has that right as a u.s. citizen. it is hard to imagine anybody who has lived in the united states for some amount of time that does not know, having watched television all of it, that you have the right to remain silent. haveurse they know they the right to remain silent. as a process, when you read the miranda rights, it creates a situation. there is an investigation for which you are the target. i cannot imagine anyone that does not know today that you have the right to remain silent. the information on various data bases, one that be a question for your committee and others, going forward? who has information and how it is shared? we will go through that. one of the problems, looking at things retrospectively, a lot of things are easy to find. there is a well-known puzzle, and you cannot" see him at first, but then when somebody pointed out, of course, he is there. with all the information you have seen, it is difficult. we have to go back and see what is reasonable to conclude and what is not. but with all of the millions of sometimesformation, it is just not possible to ascertain. we do not know yet whether there was a failure or not, but we are not going to stop until we find out. to ask ouru want guest a question, the numbers are not on your screen -- the numbers are on your screen. .epublicans, 202-585-3881 democrats, 202-585-3880. independents, 202-585-3882. new york, republican line. kelly, good morning. caller: something that continues to impact our national security policy is 9/11. showedas a report that that fire destroyed the building's. however, the building was in free fall acceleration for a least 100 feet, which means there was no resistance for about eight stories. how is that possible without the use of pre planted explosives? tot: what does this mean the baughman boston's -- boston bombings? caller: they are connected. guest: the conspiracy that 9/11 , i do notment-created believe that. host: next phone call. caller: good morning. my question was originally for the past guest, but i can ask this one. republicans only look at the terrorist accounts and nothing before. all of a sudden now that obama is president, all the fiscal conservatives, what happened to all the money that was spent in iraq? many to track where it goes. what have they done? guest: i am not sure i understand the question but if you look in each situation individually, you can assess what it means to democrats and republicans. we have a homeland security challenges, we need to address them seriously. one of the problem we have had is the affect of the budget cuts. amountnot have the same of security that you had before the budget cuts. we are learning with the air traffic controller situation, when you cut the budget, there are consequences. we believe the tax code has nothing to do with the budget, and the budget had nothing to do with government services. you can raise and cut taxes. you do not have to pay for it. ondoes not have any affect your ability to get the job done. i think we are seeing it through the sequester, when you cut the budget, things happen. we do not have the resources in homeland security that we have had. there have been suggestions that we obviously cannot do with less money. you make these choices all along. the fbi has resource challenges. in the judiciary committee we have been getting the fbi to let individual identity cases. there are a whole round of people, groups of people involved in organized retail theft, where they go into stores, clean out a shelf, and else later on. we do not have the resources necessary to do the legwork to put these cases together. there are a lot of cases that are not brought out. it is a question of resources. when you start talking about homeland security, there are obviously thing we can and cannot do. we need to do the best we can with a budget that is available. people need to recognize when you cut the budget you eliminate things that can be done. oklahoma,from independent line. caller: thank you for c-span. i wanted to bring up the fact that there are -- i saw an article in "time" and i saw an four nationals, women flying to the united states to have babies. it said the chinese were paying up to $30,000 to have a baby here, so they have a united states citizen. another program, there was an egyptian that made sure his children were born in the united states. i am wondering how many potential boston bombers we have out there in the middle east or elsewhere that are u.s. citizens being raised somewhere else. that is my question, thank you. i don't have those numbers, but we have a practice and policy in the united states, if you are born in the united states you are a citizen. there are some who want to change that policy, but if you just look back, many people are here, been here for generations. if you go back generation after generation, somebody may have come in without documentation. , unless youat do grant citizenship by birth, i think you have many more competitions than you to her. host: does her issue become part of the debate going forward? guest: i don't think there is significant support in congress to change the rule that if you are born in the you are a united states citizen. you can have people living here for three generations, and if you can trackback to your grandfather, if you cannot show that your grandfather was illegally, are you a citizen or not? born in, if you are the united states united states and you can produce a significant birth certificate saying that you are born in the united states, then you are a citizen. what about citizens not born in our country? guest: it is presently in the senate, he worked on in the house. the chairman suggested there will be a process where the house can determine what it is going to do accompanying immigration reform. a lot of it depends on what happens in the senate, but there will be limitations on who can come in, and there will be significant control of the border. that is a budget issue. one of the areas is -- countries that do not have many people coming in, a lottery system, can have people come in through the diversity visas. some of the versions of immigration reform delete this, to i think what that does people coming from all of the world rather than just a few countries. >> election years are more difficult than nonelection years, but it is far more important that we do it right at this time, that the american people expect the commerce to get it right then that we live by any particular timetable. i will be cautious sending arbitrary limits on when this has to get done. .ost: discussions and process in progress, but no limits set. guest: i don't think you can take an issue with anything he said. you have a deliberate process where you go through and consider different options with regular process. the regular process is tried and true. consider legislation, consider amendments, you have earrings. that is a good process. -- you have hearings. that is a good process. host: some criticize it stalling? guest: you can use regular process installing, you can use regular process to get it done. when you skip around, any times the result is not as good as if you had gone through irregular process, given everyone an opportunity to present amendments -- had gone through a regular process, given everyone an opportunity to present amendments. i think there is a system in the united states that we need to do something. the present system does not work, and we need to do something. many of the people who are here are not going anywhere. there is some question about the legal status, but certainly nobody is going to round up 11 million or 12 million people. you cannot round up that many people without ensnaring a lot of people that you did not mean to round up, and you are not going to do it. do?hat are you going to the labor organizations have come to the conclusion that as long as they are here in the shadows, people in america are competing for jobs against people who are way underpaid, often not paid at all. it is kind of hard to compete against that. as long as you have the people here, the wages will be undercut. so we need to do something. hasink the chairman indicated that there will be a process that we can move the bill forward. politically, there is a lot of support from the republican side that has not been there before. look at the results of the last election. many have concluded that unless they do better with hispanics, the viability of the republicans in the national party at the presidential level will be in doubt. some states that are not in play today may become reliably democratic. couple of just a decades ago was reliably republican. but because of the hispanic vote, now it is reliably democratic. texas could fall the same way, and if you put that additional state in the democratic column, it becomes very difficult for a republican to win, and i think they recognize that and they have to do something. that the gang of eight has been working on the issue, how much will they influence the process? guest: when you start off with a bipartisan bill, you have a tremendous advantage. i think working on a bipartisan basis will mean a lot to the viability of the legislation. one of the things -- again, the diversity visas have not been in some of the versions that have come out, and i think that is a problem. host: joe from washington, republican line. the morning. scott, i see you are a member of the judiciary committee. guest: yes. caller: you also know any suspect suspected of committed a crime can waive his right to be silent. second of all, terrorists don't have no rights. the only rights they have is to be dead, sir, bottom line. thet: well, apparently suspect is speaking, so he is apparently waived his right to be silent. but you cannot declare a person not to have rights until the end of the trial. in the middle of all of this, i think people ought to take note of the fact that the poisonous letters that were sent to a suspect was arrested. did he have any rights? well, sure he has rights. but what has happened, we found out, is that he has been released as a suspect because subsequent evidence has shown it was not him. we don't know -- we assume we have the right person when we arrest somebody, but we do not always know. if you start arresting people and declaring that because of the nature of the crime they have no rights, we will have quite a mess. if you look at the death penalty, half the people in illinois that had the death penalty imposed on them walked out of death row rather than being carried out of death row because they are subsequently found that the death penalty should not have been applied or they have been factually innocent. if you start shortcutting, you will have a situation where more innocent people will be convicted of crimes they did not do, and the real culprits will be wandering around committing additional crimes. host: from twitter, "does an american jury need a conviction to convict the boston bomber? your right to remain silent -- the sanction on violating the miranda warnings is that you cannot use the evidence. if you are not going to use the evidence, then there is some question as to whether or not there is any sanction at all. host: richmond, virginia, democrats line. caller: i have two questions. it seems to me that we are not concentrating enough on homegrown terrorist groups. it seems that we only deal with people from the outside, and the second one is, how come -- i don't know what you call those -- when i was a kid, i used to call them mission guns -- but the one with all those rounds, how come they are not classified as weapons of mass destruction? because that is what they are. , in terms of military assault weapons, there was an attempt in the united states senate to renew the assault weapons ban. it failed miserably. i think it only got about 40 votes and needed 60 to proceed. we passed an assault weapons ban in 1990 four. it was in effect for 10 years, expired, and was not renewed. and thereas been -- is strong support for an assault weapons ban in congress. unfortunately, it does not appear to be host to a majority. in terms of homegrown terrorists, three people were killed in boston. but the six were killed in newtown, connecticut. that the explosion in texas was just an industrial accident. i don't know if the investigation has been complete, but if that were ultimately determined to be an intentional act, more people died there than in boston. so you cannot go around declaring some terrorists and some not terrorists just based on how mad you are about the crime. people who commit crimes are entitled to be tried, entitled to their rights, and the justice system will proceed. some of the members of congress have suggested they ought to be treated as enemy combatants. that opens up all kinds of opportunities for problems. i believe all of the terrorists who have been tried in civilian court, criminal court, have been convicted. many of the people tried as enemy combatants have either been found not guilty or, on appeals, there are so many problems with the case they should have been given more rights they were given and you cannot get a final conviction. if we go through the normal process in the boston marathon case, we ought to be able to get a conviction that can stand up. if you start short-circuiting, going to enemy combatants and not giving people their rights tom a declaring them to be terrorists and short-circuiting the system, you will have a guaranteed appeal with a lot of opportunity to overthrow the convictions. let's go through the regular process. it has worked for centuries. in this case, there appears to be lengthy of evidence to bring the case, to bring this individual to justice. next up, donald, kentucky on independent line. caller: thank you for having me. i have done a lot of researching and i found out every time a terrorist attack there is some kind of field tests of the same thing going on -- like sandy hook, to what happened in london. i was wondering could you explain it. , i am not aware of the coincidences you are talking about. i don't think the government had anything to do with the shooting in sandy hook or the boston marathon situation. host: texas. peggy is on the republican line for our guest. caller: good morning. i had a quick statement. i just wanted to say that i do believe in this immigration bill. i have listened to a lot of things on c-span, and it doesn't please everyone and nothing ever does. i was wanting to know if you could maybe comment on that. thank you. guest: there are certain elements that seem to be good support for it, and one is for the 11 million or 12 million people here without documentation, there ought to be a reasonable path to citizenship. get them out of the shadows. the fact is, they are not going anywhere. if you have no path to citizenship, you have not dealt with the situation. the other is you have to limit the people coming in. i think -- if you have a bill that covers those two basis, you have the workings of getting legislation passed. host: offering legal status? guest: legal status is part of the path to citizenship. if they have been here and have obeyed the law, there ought to be some reasonable path to citizenship. and you set that up -- obviously the path to citizenship would include legal status during that period of time. they will debate whether the path ought to be 13 years or eight years or five years. will that be part of the regular process that the chairman will come to those conclusions? generally speaking, there should be a past two citizenship, but there should be reasonable control over who gets in, who doesn't get in. there ought to be some rational basis for determining who gets in, who doesn't get in so that some countries are not overly favored over others. what about border security? guest: if you want more border guards, you have to pay for it. if you cut the budget, you will have less security. one of the things that can be extremely helpful, when they get here, if you have some verification for some appointment so that people cannot work, it will be less likely that they can try to get in. people have many opportunities that are available to them. many end up working for very low wages or not paid at all for their work. the employer knowing that they cannot complain to everybody because of their status. if we crack down on employers and have less of an incentive for people to come in, i think that will take care of a lot of the problem. host: next up is sag harbor, new york for democrats line. may, good morning. caller: good morning. i heard a question on c-span the other morning, and i want to know if the representative can explain for us, why did it take so long to apprehend those brothers when it was known who they were and where they lived and where they went to school? i have one more question for you from my sister. she wanted to know about ndaa, a law that supposedly barack obama signed about being able to hold american citizens indefinitely. thank you. aret: i think most people surprised that the brothers were caught or identified as quickly as they were. a lot of police work went into it, a lot of surveillance. once you look at the tapes, obviously you have good evidence, what can you imagine how many hours of tape they must have gone through to try to isolate, and how many people must have been involved in looking at hours of tape. my sense is so far we don't know. there was a severely -- there was a fairly successful investigation. ndaa is a problem. when you just declare people before the evidences resented that they are guilty, you get in a situation -- when you just declare people before the evidence is resented that they are guilty, you get in a situation where you have problems. we are having the same questions being raised about the killing of american citizens, with the drones from overseas. if they are connected to al qaeda. what evidence is there to make that -- to ascertain whether or not they are in fact associated with al qaeda? how do you know you have the right person? what is the burden, the level of proof? is it moral certainty that you have the right guy, beyond a reasonable doubt? is it more likely than not, can a preponderance of the evidence -- another standard, the conclusion is not clearly erroneous. well, if the decision to put somebody on the list is not clearly erroneous, you can kill them? this is some of the questions we are asking about killing american citizens, much less holding them indefinitely without a trial. so that was a very controversial issue when it passed about two years ago. our guest is representative bobby scott. from florida, independent line, tom, good morning. caller: agree with a lot with bobby scott is saying and i thank you for his remarks. it brings up an issue of accountability in our government. it seems under this current administration, there has been a huge gap in accountability for things that have taken place, starting with and including fast benghazi.s, there has not been anybody arrested, anybody held accountable, even though there has been proof that certain people should be held accountable. . just -- it worries me i don't trust the government to make these people accountable. one other thing i want to say, i am formerly from the detroit, michigan, area. dearborn has become basically a new middle east, if you will. i wonder how closely those people are being watched. i know that most of those people came on the condition that they were fleeing in fear of their life, refugee status. are those people being monitored? many of theook at incidents that have happened in the united states, who is keeping and i on -- who is keeping their eye on newtown, connecticut, on the oklahoma bombing? they need to keep an eye on everybody that is doing something that is suspicious. just targeting a group because of their ethnicity does not target crime. furious.oned fast and the evidence on fast and furious is that it started during the bush administration. the attorney general during the bush administration was aware of it, had been briefed. it continued into the obama administration. the people on the ground misrepresented what was going on .o the justice department when attorney general holder finally found out what was going on, he shot it down. that is what happened in fast and furious. --benghazi, i don't think the same people that cut the budget for security, hundds of millions of dollars in the years before benghazi, were the first ones to complain about the lack of security. when you cut the budget, you have adverse impact on your ability to provide security. aboutthis tweet asks homes that were searched in the boston area without a warrant. he asked if it was ok with you, and was it a toss out of the you haveights? guest: an emergency situation exception to most of the warrant requirements, and whether or not there is a public safety, immediate imminent public safety concern or not, whether or not there was time to get a warrant, the search was going on and no one knew what the bombers -- where they were or how they -- what they had up their sleeves next. so searches without warrants in those circumstances can be used. the risk, of course, is that the court later decides if you had time to get a warrant, you cannot use any of the information, so you may lose your case searching without a warrant. but i think as i understand most of the so-called house to house search was a knock on door and ask and consent, if there was any search going on at all. i am not sure if there were any search is going on over the objection of the homeowners. i think most of the people were delighted to see the police come around. from florida, harold, republican line. caller: i wanted to ask, because you are a congressman and perhaps you may know a little more and can tell us more about, when they read miranda, would it have been possible to delay longer and get more national security information? my second question is a little more detailed about chechnya. i want to know why you think or why others think we should be allowing people in from chechnya. the history of that place and what the russians have done there is just unbelievable. to simply think if they let chechnya go their country would fall apart, they literally bombed the stone into the stone age, bomb to the rubble into the stone age, and then bombed again. there is nobody there who is a normal person now. it just unbelievable how we can let people in that area into our country is just crazy. there is certain areas of the world where the people have been treated so poorly, you cannot expect normal reactions from them. guest: in terms of which countries people ought to be able to come in, i think we are going to review what happened, how they got in. that process is going on now. in terms of delaying miranda , the fact that someone has been read miranda rights does not inform them of anything they did not know already. he knew he had the right to remain silent. i cannot imagine that he did not know. the miranda warning just adds a formality to it. they are apparently getting information now. the public reports, i was hearing on the radio, they are reporting what their next plans were. they could only have gotten that from the suspect. i am not sure how much more you could have gotten in delaying a miranda warning. people put so much stock in the fact that if you have your miranda warnings, all of a sudden you know something you did not know before. if you watch any television, you know you have the right to remain silent. you don't have to remain for a miranda warning -- to wait for a miranda warning for that to take place. what it does do is make sure that you are following the regular process so when you get a conviction it will not be overturned. host: ast: on c-span3 this morning, hearing on extremism in chechnya. we will carry that live starting at numeral 10:30 on c-span3. there is information about that. newer, new jersey -- sorry, new york. democrats line. caller: you guys make it hard every time someone talks and wants to ask another question. you are on the judicial committee, and you use the word letting illegal

Related Keywords

Vietnam ,Republic Of ,Nevada ,United States ,Delaware ,China ,California ,Syria ,Aleppo ,Lab ,Russia ,Washington ,District Of Columbia ,Richmond ,Virginia ,Connecticut ,West Virginia ,Mexico ,Arizona ,Egypt ,Greece ,New York ,New Hampshire ,North Carolina ,Germany ,Damascus ,Dimashq ,Texas ,Iran ,Afghanistan ,Kentucky ,Florida ,Boston ,Massachusetts ,Illinois ,East Cleveland ,Ohio ,Georgia ,Edgewater ,Maryland ,London ,City Of ,United Kingdom ,Mississippi ,Oklahoma ,Iraq ,New Jersey ,Israel ,North Korea ,School House ,Capitol Hill ,France ,Utah ,Romania ,Sandy Hook ,Americans ,Mexicans ,America ,Chinese ,Russian ,Greek ,Germans ,Syrians ,Iranians ,Egyptian ,Romanians ,French ,Iraqi ,Syrian ,Russians ,American ,Adam Smith ,Lindsay Graham ,Jay Carney ,Ronald Reagan ,Michael Dukakis ,Dianne Feinstein ,George Bush ,Mary Tod Lincoln ,Peter King ,Angel Adams ,Chuck Hagel ,Barack Obama ,Anderson Cooper ,George W Bush ,Al Qaeda ,Basheer Assad ,John Boehner ,Jason Chaffetz ,Bobby Scott ,Donovan Kimble ,Paul Krugman ,John Mccain ,Larry Somers ,Franklin Roosevelt ,