Transcripts For CSPAN Washington Journal 20150516

202 7488001 for republicans. For independents, 202 7458002. The boston bomber sentenced to death, was at the right decision . Massachusetts residents, you can make your thoughts known on 202 7488003. If you want to post your thoughts on social media pages on twitter, it is journal cspan. Org. On facebook, facebook. Com cspan. Once again, the front pages of the boston globe and the Boston Herald. Those are the headlines you can see. Not only headlines, editorials coming down as well. Boston globe has this editorial Dzhokhar Tsarnaev sentenced delays the closure boston deserves. It says in part, its only right that condemned killer be allowed to exhaust every legal option, but the prospect of seeing his face in the news for decades is only likely to continue traumatizing survivors and the families of victims. Even worse, since most of the rest of the world considers the Death Penalty barbaric he wall street journal also weighing in death for tsar naev. Again, i Death Penalty coming down for the Boston Marathon bomber. Dzhokhar tsarnaev. We want to get your thoughts this morning on the decision made by this jury and the use of the Death Penalty. You can call on one of four lines this morning. That decision, made by the u. S. Attorney yesterday. A press conference was held after with the announcement of the decision. Heres more from the press conference yesterday specifically why they wanted to apply the Death Penalty. [video clip] ms. Ortiz we came to the decision of using the Death Penalty not lightly. There was a long, careful process in which there was tremendous amount of input from Different Levels of my office and the department of justice. When the attorney general approved it, based on the nature of the crimes in this case, and the degree of the harm, we then continued on that path. Host massachusetts residents 202 7488003. Specifically if you want to give , not only a perspective on the decision, but being from the state where that to place, that is the number to call. 202 7488000 for democrats. 202 7488001 for republicans. For independents, 202 7458002. We will start this morning with mike in raleigh, North Carolina on the boston bombing decision. What did you think of the decision . Caller good morning. I figure was a fair decision. I would like to add something to that. I really believe that people who come in to our country to do what these two gentlemen did whether any terrorist from isis or whatever, when your ideals send you over here to do this, the appeals process on these people should be gone. Bottom line. There should be no appeal. It should just be flatout life in prison, this, no appeal, you forfeit all your rights. It is wrong. We have to put our foot down to stop this ended the in the but and show other countries we have something for you. It is just common sense. The appeal process is going to waste tons of american money american time. The life sentence process, we feed these criminals forever. To me, dying in prison, or whatever what about all the people who suffer the misery of boston. I dont understand. Killing is wrong. These people that do things like this in all countries, when it comes upon doing things like that, there is no rights or guarantees, nothing. They are just bad for the planet. If you have poison in the planet, it is bad. Host we will hear from silver spring, maryland next, edward is on the line, talking about the decision made in the Boston Marathon bombing case. Caller the first thing that i thought of this morning when i saw the decision somehow i missed the news yesterday i read to headlines in Death Penalty cases. One was in egypt and the other was in north korea, i believe. I just think the United States and revenge has made a decision that goes with countries that i would not want to be taulked in the same breath with. Another story that i read about earlier in the week was an export in in a prison in colorado that said that is way worse than death. I think the decision to put him to death is going to make him a martyr, and two it will give them a platform for years and years to be a human rights martyr because he will ultimately probably be put to death. Host the previous caller talked about concerns of the cost of life in prison, the cost of that. Caller keeping him on death row . Host yes. Caller that is another issue. In north korea egypt the death cases will go on for 10 years. Here, it will be a legal battle and it should be, because as part of what makes us, i guess blatantly not human rights violators, if we give people the chance to appeal which are sure in north korea or egypt, you do not have the same luxury. At the same time, it will be cumbersome to taxpayers. It will go on and on. And it will waste a lot of money and time for people. Host augusta, georgia, robert is next. Caller good morning. According to Rodney Stewart i would say, do onto others as they do unto you. Host so you support the Death Penalty . Caller yes. Yes. Two strikes, youre out. You only live twice. Diamonds are forever. Smooth operator. Host kevin from mount vernon, new york. Democrats line. Caller hi, this is kevin. I just want to let the people know that wasting the taxpayers money on appeals and unnecessary criminal Court Procedures is something that the United States does not need. People come over here and abuse are criminal Justice System and take full advantage of the rights that only our citizens should be allowed to have. Simple as that. The Death Penalty, see you later. Host boston globe and other massachusetts area newspapers have coverage of the decision yesterday. Here is the boston globe headline sentenced to death. Other papers as well taking the decision yesterday. Here is the Boston Herald justice. We have invited massachusetts residents to call, 202 7488003. Deborah is from new haven, connecticut. What are your thoughts on yesterdays decision . Caller good morning. I just have a problem with the Death Penalty. I believe in the law. If that state supports the Death Penalty, then so be it. The problem i have with the Death Penalty bristly is that it does not have a very good track record in this country because a lot of innocent people have been put to death. If the system were perfect, i would be more inclined to support it. I do think however that this young man this whole thing started out, he was very young. Very much influenced by his brother. By the time the whole thing is over with, i believe that his whole mindset is going to change. People say, he will be martyred, given what he wants, by do not think that will be the case by the time this whole process is over. He was a very young man. He was age, mature, his mindset will change. He is going to be exposed to a lot of Different Things by the time this is all over. His whole attitude will change. You might think you might even say, and i will say this because you never know how people change. You never do what gods purposes for a person. I would not be a bit surprised by the end of all this, he has changed, reborn, and becomes a spokesman for being against what his mother started him out as. Host boston globe has a sidebar looking at the steps that will happen now after yesterdays decision. The question, when is the formal sentencing . It will be done at a later day, but the jurys decision is legally binding. The victims will have an opportunity to confront him. If you choose this, he could address the court himself. Because he was sentenced to death, he will be probably take into terre haute indiana where the bureau of prisons holds inmates on death row. The appeals process could probably take more than a decade, and he will probably focus on several of the judges decisions, including the refusal to relocate the tribal. On twitter, david says, my thoughts are with the jury who have assumed the burden of this necessary decision. This is added by another viewer who says, the Death Penalty equals his suffering. And parkstorm says that he will be in an out of the news for years. He should have been put in super max solitary for life. Our next caller, hello. Caller i am against the Death Penalty. The kennedy family, they were against the Death Penalty, when their brother and father was killed. I would make an exception on say, the immensity of the crime. Say, a war criminal. Ive by a lot of dvds from cspan. I have one here right now, made in 2008, and it was made by vincent, the most famous prosecutor in this country, he tried the child manson child arles manson family, and the title is george bush for murder. He said that when he walked out of the white house, he would hand him a summons for murder. I know that is a hard thing to do, he would have to get a lot of state attorneys on board, and no one has the nerve to do it, but there were thousands of our soldiers killed, and close to a million iraqis, based on a lie. A lot of americans know it. Host our next caller from massachusetts, mike. Go ahead. Good morning. Caller i believe that liberty and freedom for all. Proceed with due process. I believe he was given a fair trial. Host do you support the decision for the Death Penalty or not . Caller i supported. Host why is that . Caller like i said, liberty and freedom for all. But with due process from the constitution. Host mount sinai, new york. John, democrats line. Good morning. Caller i do not support the Death Penalty because as we know, death comes as a mercy. Life, for so many, including people in prisons, is very hard. This is a young man, if he were to spend life in jail, it would be a hardship. That being said, i want to reflect with one woman was just saying Joseph Stalin said that the death of one is a tragedy the death of thousands is a statistic. What george bush did in carpet bombing, had nothing to do with 9 11. That is a war crime. That is mass murder. That is terrorism. That is the definition of terrorism. Host in the boston case, why not the Death Penalty specifically because people died . Caller again, i say, death comes as a mercy. Life is a hardship. I think more of the same punishment in this man is guilty would be life in jail. Host why that over the Death Penalty . Caller like i say, death comes quickly. That is it for him. He does not have to suffer in jail for 70 years. That is why i am against the Death Penalty. Host greg from china tennessee, independent line. You are up next talking about the Boston Marathon bombing case and the result of it. What you think of the decision . Caller quite frankly, there are a lot of people out here that have a great idea about cameras and that kind of stuff and highdefinition. Im completely convinced that it was a total made up fairytale. People should go to youtube and look at up. It was a staged event. That is how i feel. Host also in the news this morning, this came down in the Early Morning hours. The former egyptian president has been given the Death Penalty. The countrys religious authorities will have to give their opinion before the sentence can be carried out. He was deposed by the military in july 2013 following mass street protests against his rule. That story from the bbc news this morning. Here is again the boston globe headline. Dzhokhar tsarnaev getting the Death Penalty for six of the 17 counts that he was charged with. We are as you not only about the decision, but the use of the Death Penalty in this case. For massachusetts residents 202 7488003. Day from new york, democrats line. Go ahead, youre next. Caller thank you, cspan. I greatly appreciate the opportunity to be gone these topics. I think that people need to reflect on ourselves and the acts of our own government. What our government does on her behalf with a badge on its chest, per se, is far worse than what these gentlemen did. These gentlemen were rogue actors basically clowns, and do deserve to pay for their crimes, but i do believe the art leaders should be held accountable for their shortcomings and crimes. Shock and all, george bush created evidence against an innocent nation that complied with 12 years of sanctions. It did everything to cooperate do with the u. N. Had asked to rectify whatever problems we had with iraq, and yet we light ourselves into an invasion and war, and killed probably over one million people, not to mention what we did to our own soldiers. It was all based on a lie and george bush is getting a library built for himself. Our own leaders that bankers robbed the banks and they get away with it. If i rob a bank, i go to jail. Host in the boston case, did the punishment fit the crime . Caller absolutely, but as john said, the prior caller, i think to be in prison for life is a far worse penalty that to be put out of your misery. Host why is that . Caller because you have to think about what you did for the rest of your life, and youre sitting in what is basically a cage. You are put in prison for the rest of your days, and you die an old man, as basically a caged animal. Host chris is from peabody massachusetts. Caller good morning. Thanks for taking my call. Im satisfied with the Death Penalty. I think it is a good thing that he will be put to death. I dont understand how people think life in prison would be much better. He will go to prison for life, he will acclimate to that life. He will accept the fact that ok, i will be an old man, and have a long life in prison. Now, he will be sitting on death row, looking at the calendar, looking at the clock, and he will be killed for what he has done, and that is what he deserves. Host people have highlighted the fact that this was done in boston, and question if that was the fair way to go about it. What do you think of that . Caller they spent a long time looking for the jury members. I do not see any problem with that. Host a german publication took their opinion pages as well, one of the columnist talking about the decision yesterday. That is the publication dorsch well deuctchwell. As some folks have, or this morning, 202 7488000 for democrats. 202 7488001 for republicans. Independents, 202 7458002. Massachusetts residents, 202 7488003. Jonathan, independent line. Caller hello. I would just like to say, i know criminals are responsible for their actions. We are responsible for how we react to that. Either killing is wrong, or it is not wrong. If it is wrong, then isnt it just as wrong for us to kill people . I think how we react to crime says a lot about us. If we are willing to publicly sanctioned killings, i think that lessons us. I would also just like to take a moment to think cspan and thank the moderators for listening and giving the public a platform to state their opinions. I think that is very important. Host city made her comments, what you think about the life sentence . Some people say there are problems with the license, and not only with the cost but even some boston papers said there is no real sense of closure is someone sits in prison for life. Caller i understand that those are all issues. They are certainly inconvenient and distressing, but ultimately i think that true justice is sometimes difficult and sometimes expensive. Ultimately, it is worth the price, i think. As difficult as it is for the familyies of victims to deal with that, it will be difficult for them to matter what. Really all we can do is support them. And hope that they understand that we are committed to justice. Host the u. S. Attorney general Loretta Lynch putting out a statement on the decision yesterday saying that, we know all too well that no verdict can heal the souls of those who lost loved ones, nor the minds and bodies of those who suffered lifechanging injuries, but ultimately the penalty is a fitting punishment for this horrific crime and we hope that the completion of this prosecution will bring some measure of closure to the victims. Richard, youre next. Caller good morning. Thank you for cspan. I am most concerned that we are spending a lot of time intellectualizing over whether the Death Penalty or the life in prison is more fitting, in terms of justice, and so on. I am more concerned that there are approximately one million muslims in this world who are radical enough to use whatever the verdict might have been to basically useless as a justification for further acts of terror. For the next year, while the appeals process is going, he will essentially be a hostage entity. God knows how many criminal acts might occur on the hands of isis and their followers that we do not know what is really going to end up with this. Host duane from jackson michigan. Go ahead. Caller i would like to thank cspan for taking my call. It is a great channel. Years and years ago, the democrats and republicans argued over whether men who are at war with us, which these young men are, have access to our judges and judicial system. I briefly think they should not and should go but for military tribunals and have an attorney like any man or woman who has charges during the service. I think we are way too much money to allow them to have a platform. We are nearly bankrupt. 18 trillion in debt now. I know in michigan, if you look at the road, you would believe that we are bankrupt. I think that the Death Penalty i used to before it, but as i get older, i maybe not. I believe the bible says that vengeance is the lords. I think he would have been more miserable for 55 or 60 years in these maximumsecurity places. Anyway, i thank you very much for your program. Host off of twitter, a couple more comments. This is one viewer who says that the death sentence is most appropriate here. Another adding, it is inappropriate for the state to react to a crime with a motion response. A story about a republican lawmaker on former detainees from guantanamo bay. Also a story taking a look at isis fighters, talking about ground being gained there. And several in several papers, including the New York Times this morning. Boston globe story on the boston bomber decision yesterday. That is a topic of morning. The numbers will be on this great. Next up, germane from maryland. Go ahead. Caller how are you doing . Im not for the Death Penalty. I think what the callers dont realize is that those who are for the Death Penalty it is the easy way out. If you really think about it. Over in this country, you know, maybe i could understand the callers if it was back in the time when you were stoning you know where would be more suffering. I think the Death Penalty is the easy way off. You get injected with this needle. I dont see how that compares to being in prison, confined, not having freedom or seeing family, eat the meals that you want to eat. I dont see how people are thinking on the Death Penalty. Host some of our viewers this morning have said that if he sits for life in prison, he could end up becoming a martyr or perceived as that. What do you think about possibly happening . Caller i could see that happening as well. You know. I just never i just think it is the easy way out. I dont really see how that would be. I think it is more hurtful for them to think about what they did versus thinking about what you did, dying, and then everything is all done, over with, versus, you could stay in theire and it could be hurtful every day waking up knowing that you are in this place for what you did. Host that was germane from maryland. The New York Times adding that this is the first time a federal jury has sentenced a terrorist to death in the post 9 11 era. Kristi from the walkie wisconsin. Democrats line. You are next. What do you think about yesterdays decision . Caller normally, im against the Death Penalty. Most of these jihadists that believe in what they do, kill themselves and the process. This man obviously, was going to continue doing what he wanted to do. He confessed to what he did. The Death Penalty should not have appeals to it in this case. This is what he wanted. Then, have what you wanted. Host roundup montana, that is where bob is. Bob joins us now. Caller hello and good morning. You know, everyone is talking about the Death Penalty. I walked up and down main street of roundup, montana, and right in the middle of the business district, we have a hanging tree. On the hanging tree, there is a rope and a noose. Come on up to round up and check it out. It is right there in town. You know, i think that justice should go along with nature. When people have they will go out and kill, and they deserve to be killed. Now, what some people are saying, they want to put him in prison for life and i understand they want as much pain given to the people for what they have spread across the country, but a quick and final decision is by far the best way to have the person out of the minds of the public i think very possibly one appeal might be appropriate. On the hanging tree, four people were hanged. It just happened that two of them happened to be just cowboys driving by, helping out these guys they needed help with the cattle, and all four of them got hanged. There should be one appeal but it should not take up to 20 years. Issue be quick and final. Besides that, people who end up going into prison, they have license to spread their hatred of months is an is the end of coming out. You know, i would like them to have more pain, and i understand how they have spread that across our country, but the right way to do it is to finalize the process. They get one appeal. It should be done within a year. I am ok with some hanging them, as far as im concerned. Host the papers talk about the Death Penalty cases, it could stretch on for decades. Even if it wasnt a life sentence in prison, it could almost be that way in prison. Caller well, yeah. Host neither is up next from massachusetts. Independent line. Good morning. Nina, are you there . We will go on to any anne from rhode island. Democrats line. Caller im not a democrat i am a progressive independent, born in boston, educated in boston. I have thought about this seriously since yesterday afternoon. I feel that no matter how any of us feel about the Death Penalty or life imprisonment without parole, probably even solitary it is not a question of that. I really feel strongly that the jury did the best that they could do, given the evidence and the law. They made a decision that i feel was probably not easy, but definitely that they had no choice. But the come through with a Death Penalty case yesterday. I do give them a lot of credit because they followed what they had to follow, and the evidence was overwhelming. The case for Death Penalty was fairy definitive. I really think that that is an important thing to think about. And also, i have been listening to the people who have said that in these situations, with internal terrorism etc. , that one appeal at most would be much more appropriate. Host the Washington Post this morning in their right up of the story from yesterday this is adam goldman, he gets reaction. It was after the verdict that someone wounded in the attack said that there was nothing happy about having to take someones life, but she said that it was a just conclusion, and right now we could take a breath of air. Some people that at life imprisonment, others adding other thoughts. In the moments we have left, you can do the same. 202 7488000 for democrats. 202 7488001 for republicans. For independents, 202 7458002. For massachusetts residents, 202 7488003. Patrick from shrewsbury, pennsylvania. Independent line. Good morning, youre next. Caller yes. Back in the day, when you do the crime, you got put to death. Back in the day if you kill someone. I think it should be the same way. Take a bow, take them to the town square, hang them high, and show other criminals the same way. It is justice in this country. Show criminals you do something wrong, you will will die. If you do it that way, less crime. Start executing guys right off the bat. Host what happens if you sits in prison and the appeals process takes decades. It could be decades before you see a sentence carried out, if it is carried out at all . Caller he should not sit in prison. He murdered people, he should be killed right away. No sitting in jail, in prison, letting tax dollars paying to keep them in there. That is less money the you have to pay to keep a guy in prison if he just hang him. Execute him. That is less money we are paying. Host from the boston globe the columnist offers some commentary, take a look at the courtroom. You can read that column in the boston globe this morning. For the next few minutes, we will get your thoughts on the decision yesterday, was at the right decision . The lines will be on the screen. Nancy, youre next from maine republican line. Caller thanks a lot. I got to thinking you were just reading about the gitmo president ial release. We never had a trial for the gitmo people. All we talk about is how we are going to release them, and close gitmo, and all that. Well i do not understand is why did we release these people from get who are terrorists, and part of the 9 11 attack on our country, and we just released five of them out and air back into isis, whatever. Then, we have this one kid Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who was following along with his brother, who his brother was really, i think, the one who might have been responsible for this. A lot more than he was. He gets blamed for everything, the whole thing, and his brother is dead, so they cannot do anything about him. They putting all the blame onto this younger brother, who was bullied by his older brother. His older brother was a boxer. I believe that his older brother , he was the one with the gun. This guy here was not even armed. I think they are giving him too much of a harsh sentence for someone who really was not an instigator. He was probably just following on a longer whatever his brother told him to do. The point im trying to make is why do we release these really bad terrorists back into society, who will join isis, yet we put this guy to death . That is what i do not understand. Host from twitter he will do years of jail time, and still face the Death Penalty, i am good with that. Also from twitter i find it somewhat disturbing that some against Death Penalty want to torture someone in prison confinement. Judy in austin, texas. Good morning. Caller thank you. I just find it bizarre that there was a previous caller that equated what the u. S. Invasion with iraq with this death sentence. For one thing, there were 11 countries six countries and 11 intelligence agencies that stated, not just the United States that Saddam Hussein had wmds. I actually interviewed a cuban expatriate who came to miami and said that saddam was in fact experimenting and developing all kinds of poison gas in cuba, with the british. Host that aside the boston decision, what are your thoughts on that . Caller killedl him. The United States has become over christianized, to the point, pacifiers, pacified. Somehow it is like the United States have does divorce themselves from reality. The reality is that, and the jury decided the kids attitude he was insuolent during the entire trial. He did not cry. He sat there and was snarky. He was absolutely snarky during the entire trial. Host that is judy from austin, texas. Jenny from ohio. Youre next. Caller good morning to you. I do not believe in the Death Penalty. Im sorry. I do not believe in it. I do not think you should kill people. I think when they do these horrible crimes, put them in a room and let them stay there for the rest of their lives to ride. Host the New York Times talks about an aide to osama bin laden, receiving a sentence for an attack that took place in the late 90s, saying it was one of bin ladens most trusted aides. One more call on this topic. This will be a win from ohio independent line. Caller good morning. First let me say, what these guys did was horrific. It is inexcusable. Im not try to justify his back. However, i do have a problem with the Death Penalty. Most of the inconsistency in which the Death Penalty is reached. It is quite interesting that those who are so in favor of the Death Penalty are also the people who are so quick to go to war, and also the people who are against abortion. I have a little misunderstanding conflict as to how the people arrived to when the Death Penalty should be administered and who gives us the right. Let me ask a question. Many middle Eastern Countries give death for simple acts like stealing. Is that ok . If you steal, you get the Death Penalty . I need as to be a little more consistent and our thoughts as to who should be put to death, and who should not. A lot of wars have started because people have been missing for some political reason. A lot of people have been killed. Should people be held accountable when we make such decisions . We just need to be more consistent in our approach to this Death Penalty issue. Host that is owing from ohio. He will be the last caller on this topic. Coming up, we will discuss the patriot act. Portions of the patriot act are set to expire and early june. There is debate in congress over what to do about it. Some say, keep the act as is. Others say, make changes to it. We will debate this topic with two guests with experience in the federal government on this topic. Later, we will be joined with a be harder. She will talk about the obamas administrations decision to allow drilling on the alaskan coast. We will talk about why they decide to do that and what the end result will be. On the topic of the patriarchs we want to point you to our Newsmakers Program tomorrow with senator mike leigh. He is one of the people leading the effort to make changes to the acts. [video clip] sen. Lee i cannot tell you that we have 60 votes right now. In fact, i cannot count the 60 right now. I think if we brought it to the floor, had an open and mimic process, we could quickly get to the point where we have 60 votes on something. Im not sure what it would look like at the end of the day, it might have some modifications. I think some variation of it could pass by 60 votes. Few things are certain at the outset. If it passes the house, we need to give you a shot in the senate. Reporter you say variation what could that entail to get the 60 votes . Sen. Lee i like the bill as is. I could support it as is, i do support it as is. I prefer to pass it as it is now. There are people who might want to see a different transition period, for example. Instead of a sixmonth transition period into the new system that is not reliable collection, perhaps they would want to extend that out farther. Again, you would probably have to ask those who have concerns with the bill, concerns i do not share. Reporter rand paul is one of the people has concerns i would like to repeal it altogether. If you get to 59 votes and he has not committed, do you think you can get him to give his boat . Vote . Sen. Lee i will try with rand. We agree on a lot of things. I will continue to lobby him every time i have a chance. The big reason why he, and so many others, are concerned about reauthorizing the page react, i think by far the biggest reason, has to do with both Data Collection. That is what we are ending here. I think we will be better off as a result if we pass this bill. Washington journal continues. Host for the next hour, a discussion on the page react which is set to undergo some changes possibly. Here to join us are too guest this morning. Neema guliani is with the aclu also formally in the chief of staff office. Also joined by Steven Bradbury, an attorney and former head of the justice Departments Office of legal counsel. On june 1, potentially there could be changes to the page react. Could you summarize what might happen, depending on the actions of congress. Guest before i get to congress i dig it is important to understand the parts of the lot that we are talking about. Section 215 of the patriot act it is part of the law that allows intelligence agencies to it virtually anything about anyone at any time. What we now know is that provision has been used to conduct nationwide surveillance on every american. The government has collected call records, who you call, when you spoke to them, how long you spoke to them for everything on american. Congress is now debating what to do with this law. Just last week, we had a federal Court Decision saying that the call Record Program was illegal. Congress now has a choice. They can ignore the calls from the public to discontinue those laws, or, they can ignore that and rubberstamp them for another few years. Host has anything under section 215 has the government been found to do anything illegal with the Data Collection . Guest part of the problem is we do not know everything that has happen under 215. We do know that they have collected vast records. Those activities, a court ruled last week, are illegal. Host mr. Bradberry, your thoughts on section 215 and changes that might possibly come to it. Guest i think its important to recognize that there is a difference between section 215 and other provisions of the patriot act that will expire on june 1 and the telephone Metadata Program. Granted, the Metadata Program is controversial, but 215 is a basic tool that was enacted after 9 11 that allows the government to get Business Records that are relevant to a counterterrorism investigation. It is a basic tool that is similar to investigation tools that grand jurys have. It is important for that provision and authority to be renewed, regardless of the debate over the Metadata Program. The two are not necessarily synonymous. The Metadata Program has been a big debate and controversial. I would disagree with the characterization of the program. It is not surveillance of all americans. It is simply getting is this records that show the details of which telephone number has called which telephone number at what time and for what duration. Host metadata. Guest yes. The Supreme Court has been clear and the past that those are not records that get into the private communications of individual and reveal individuals and reveal contents. The point of the program is simply to create a database to find connections between Foreign Terrorists and agents who may be plotting attacks on the u. S. , inside the United States. It does not tell us anything about the communications or the content. It simply provides a lead for investigators at the fbi to followup on as part of a counterterrorism investigation. It is true that it is an Extraordinary Program in terms of the breadth of the record. Perhaps it would be appropriate for the president and congress to come together on legislation that would address and authorize that program, with certain limitations. I think it is unfortunate that to be that program has become synonymous with renewal of the page react. Our basic tools that the page react provides that could expire. Host many republicans want to see changes as far as how this Section Works and how the phone program works. Give us a sense of what might those changes look like if they are to act. Guest we know pretty well what the changes would look like. Support in opposition to burn oil to renewal of the patient act would primarily change the section 215. There are two other provisions that expire, which it would be authorized. Reauthorize. With respect to 215, it would require the government to have eight specific selector, like a particular phone number or the name of the individual, that would have to be used to get these Business Records. In essence, the government would need to know in advance, the specific individual, or phone number, that they want to investigate, to get any batch of is this records for use in a counterterrorism investigation. That is this guys limitation on the authority of government to conduct an investigation. It will unique limitation in counterterrorism. We do not have such a limitation went grand jurys do such investigations into ordinary crimes or when regulatory agencies do subpoenas. Perhaps the most important option of government counterterrorism, we have this severe limitation that we are talking about. Host not only the proposed changes by congress, do they satisfy you, or did they go as far in Going Forward . Guest the reality is that they do not go far enough. The changes would still leave a lot of space for the government to collect information at people who have no connection to terrorism. He is right, it would stop the nationwide collection program, as we know it, but they could still get the records a potentially thousands of people who share an ip address, thousands of people from a financial institution. It is just not far enough. I want to go back to something that was mentioned earlier. This notion that it is only metadata it is not that revealing about peoples lives. That argument, from the government, has been rejected from the Second Circuit last week and it does not ring true. If you call a suicide hotline it says something about you. If you called priest or bad light every saturday, or next girlfriend in the middle of the night, it is revealing the most intimate details of your life. Host the numbers are on your screen, if you want to talk about the page react. We have divided the lines in the sense that you support the use of the page react, or if you oppose it. If you support it, 202 7488001. If you oppose it, 202 7488000 the Court Decision it played a lot into current thinking. Did it do the governments work at least republicans saying it is what the court said as well . Guest it could make basic reauthorization of the patriot act easier because those that oppose the use of section 215 for the extraordinary Metadata Program might say i will authorize 215 and let the courts deal with it because here is a court that says it does not fit within 215. I do not think that is the right way to go. I think it is important for congress to clearly reauthorize these provisions, and then i think it would be understandable to have a separate debate on the bigger program. It certainly creates a difficult situation. It is unclear now under the Second Circuit decision what is going to happen if congress does reauthorize 215 and is not specifically address that program. The courts will be grappling with that issue. We can go into the details and the courts opinion and it wont surprise you to know i think the court got it wrong. Host what about in the opinion of ms. Guliani that it is opaque and reveal something about people . Guest the federal judges assigned to say on the pfizer court have approved this program at fisa court have approved this Program Every 90 days. A key part of that is the limitations around the government use of this database. It is struck we limited. It is cap segregated. The government can only it is extremely limited. It is cap segregated. The government can only use it when they have a phone number. It is a tool to connect the dots , find patterns, and identify new terror suspects. It is strictly limited. They cannot did take your number, find out who you are calling. The argument against it about u. S. Privacy of u. S. Citizenship are arguments about how it might be abused theoretically, but there has not been evidence of any such abuses. So i grant you that any use of a large database, and a collection of materials on lots of people and Business Records could be abused by the government and that is always an issue we need to be diligent about. This program is under probably the most extraordinary restrictions from all three branches. Host and ms. Guliani, about the oversight aspect. Guest you hear the arguments that the government is collecting information but there are tight controls on when they search through it, and i do not find that comforting. If the police came and said give me your financial records and your phone bill and i will hold onto it but not look at it until i have cause, i do not think we would find that comforting. The notion that the courts provide oversight is inaccurate. We have seen secret intelligence courts deny a very small number of requests from the government and it is a system where the government presents their argument, says heres what i want to do, and there is no one on the other side to provide a counter for the privacy is an Civil Liberties argument. That is a reason why we have the Second Circuit, differently than the foreign courts. They said this is not permissible under 215. The second point that is important to bring up is this program that operated for years operated under a cloak of secrecy. The public did not know about it and members of congress are on the record saying they did not know about it. The notion that there is sufficient oversight is not reflected in the evidence and the facts on the table. Host two guests, Neema Singh Guliani with the aclu, Steven Bradbury. I should also add that Neema Singh Guliani served in the department of homeland security. Tom, sarasota florida. You oppose it. Go ahead with your question or comment. Caller i oppose it because it is kind of creepy and it is against the constitution. We are snooping on other countries like germany and brazil. What we need to do is snoop on north korea and castro from cuba. I agree with that. It is just wrong, period. Thank you very much. Bye. Host creepy is how he described it. Is there a problem with the perception problem . Guest there is a problem and it has engendered a debate and it is a healthy debate. It is important to understand we are trying to protect the country against attack. The president of the United States, president obama, agreed with president bush that this program, being able to check the numbers to see if theres is a connection between a terrorist overseas and someone within the u. S. Working with that organization is a critical tool needed to help protect the country. President obama said this was an Effective Program. If we had had this program in place before 9 11, there is a good chance he would have found two of the hijackers when they were in san diego. This program would have shown the connection. It would not have shown what they were talking about, but created the connection, connect the dots. So, i agree with the caller that it would be nice if we did not have to have such a tool, and i think, frankly, the National Security agency would prefer not to have to collect these calling records, but the point is this is the only way to have this particular capability and under the usa freedom act were not going to be able to have a tool like this, so were giving up a potentially very important tool that will no longer have. Host ms. Guliani . Guest i have to disagree. Two independent review boards have worked on the program and concluded that the program has never stopped an act of terrorism, and never made a substantial impact on any terrorism investigation. What that means is for years we have been infringing on the privacy of americans, spent millions of dollars, and we simply do not have a National Security benefits to show from it. I think that speaks to a really important point which is that this provision of the patriot act is used to spy on americans. It is targeted at domestic communication and domestic collections. Given the evidence has shown the program has not been effective it is time for us to have a large debate, role that the authorities, get rid of the abuse, and take up more meaningful surveillance reform to address the other problems that come, over the last few years that we know about. Host from waldorf, maryland, lee. You are next. You support the patriot act. Caller i hate to borrow a scene from three days of the condor, but you go ahead and asked the American People when their children are laying in the streets, bloody and dead, whether they want information if they want to know who did this to them. Do not ask them now, ask then, when there in the streets bloody and dead. I know this can go sideways, but you know something, we need that information. When the time comes, were going to want it. The scariest words in the world are not i am from the government and im here to help you. The scariest words in the world are i am from the aclu and i am here to help you. We need to do what is right for this country, and if necessary torture our enemies and get what we need. Do not ask them now. Ask them then. Thank you. Host ms. Guliani. Guest this touches on an important point. I understand that people have concerns about National Security. There have been concerning developments internationally. It is possible for us to protect our National Security and respect our laws. The evidence does not support that these are effective. There are other evidence the government can take that are within the bounds of the law that respect the constitution that can be used to prevent attacks and sufficiently protect National Security, so the notion that, you know, we cannot have privacy and protect our National Security, i think, is incorrect. Host if you say other avenues, one of the chief evidence the government could take . Guest the government has ability to go to a court, show probable cause, get a warrant. There are other provisions of the law like grand jury subpoenas and others if they have cause to show an individual is connected with terrorism or kernel wrongdoing. All we are saying criminal wrongdoing. All we are saying is they should use those other lawful avenues. Collecting everyones information just does not work and it has a huge impact on Civil Liberties. Host mr. Bradbury, what about those other avenues . Guest i agree with neema that we should protect the constitution. The Fourth Amendment is a reasonableness standard. I think it is important to understand that here, what we are doing, we have strict oversight with independent judges liketendered judges on the fisa court that review the program and they are not a rubber stamp. I have come down hard on the nsa when there have been serious compliance issues. The court has been tough, and some of the opinions of the court that the administration has declassified and released make that very clear. I think it is important to understand the constitution does not require a warrant with probable cause in circumstances when youre conducting an investigation and you do not yet know who the suspect is that might be carrying out a plot against the government. This is a program to develop those leads, and by definition, youre not going to have that probable cause, and that is true for the beginning steps of any kind of criminal investigation regulatory review or investigation. To think that youre going to have to have a warrant supported by probable cause means you cannot conduct the basic initial steps of an investigation. That is not what the constitution requires. I think what we are talking about is whether congress should go further than the constitutional protections and put these strict limitations by statute that would prevent us from using the basic tools in carrying out an investigation. That is a serious proposition and Congress Need to think long and hard before doing that. Guest you know, the notion that the Program Operating right now is legal is just inaccurate. The second Court Circuit has said the government does not have the authority to collect records on every single american. Even if we look at the plane section of text of section 215, it is relevant to the investigation relevant does not mean the record of every person in america. It would eviscerate the law and the constitutional protections we enjoy. The notion that constitutional protections that not protect us from fishing or innocent people is just inaccurate and not reflective of the law and the protections that we accept expect. Host is it significant that the court declared it is illegal but did not demand stopping the program . Guest what the court said a thing of the expiration is coming up and they will let Congress Take steps and give the lower court the opportunity to consider whether an injunction is appropriate. I think it was a clear signal from the court that Congress Needs to do something, but the law expire, put in place other reforms to address collection that is inappropriate in other areas collection of email information, financial records. I do not read the courts decision as anything but a complete criticism of the program and a clear signal that they feel the government overstepped their authority. Host limited a call. Mr. Bradbury, i will go next to you. Texas. Ron. Good morning. Caller good morning. This is just, you know, another way of getting attention. The thing is this law needs to be totally done away with. It needs to be completely extinguished. You know, our principles, back in the beginning, where for freedom. I served 15 years in the United States army and ics going downhill and i see us going downhill, and going downhill fast. Host mr. Bradbury question mark guest bradbury . Guest we all support freedom and we need to realize National Defense is one essential function of our Central Government and it is critical to protecting the exercise of all of our freedoms so, what were talking about is ensuring that we can have an adequate National Defense in an age where you have groups like isis that are using social networks to generate followers to carry out attacks against the United States and we need to be able, very quickly and in a flexible way, and effectively, identify those connections. If i could, pedro, just one response on a point neema made, i think the Second Circuit failed to recognize adequately in its decision that it is not every single americans calling records that have to be relevant to an investigation. In this case, it is a database relevant to the investigation. It is a tool that is necessary to find connections. If you do not have the database with all of the calling records you do not know which dots you are missing when you are trying to connect the dots to the terrorist number that you know about. Unfortunate, the Second Circuit judges do not have access, by definition, to the classified information that the fisa judges see in approving the program. Yet three judges on the Second Circuit that disagreed, but more than 20 judges with what tenure assigned to the fisa that have upheld the program. I recognize it is an external night program. There is a real debate. We can welcome the debate and congress should address it, but i do not think it is as clean and easy as the Second Circuit made it sound and i did not think that is the last word on the legality of the program. Host ms. Guliani . Guest the idea that 215 was intended to allow the government to engage in this kind of surveillance is not what the authors said. One of the authors said i never intended the government to engage in this type of collection. We have seen some disturbing things in the disclosures. There was a slide from the nsa and at the top it said collect it all. That is not consistent with our constitution. You cannot have general warrants that gets everything. The government should only be able to get information if they have cause to believe someone has done something wrong or is connected to terrorism. We have gone so far from the primary notion, principle, that underlies our country, and i think the public is right to be concerned about that. We need to ring back these authorities because this invasion of privacy, this disregard intelligence agencies have had for the law, the operation under the cloak of secrecy hiding information from the public and members of congress, it has just gone to far. Host he just heard from Neema Singh Guliani with the aclu and formally of the department of homeland security. Also joining us, Steven Bradbury an attorney, here in washington, d. C. The german mentioned he would the gentleman like mentioned he would like to see it extinct. Do you see a day and age where it would be extinguished . Guest i think it is important to reexamine the needs of these authorities. These were enacted in the days after 9 11. I think we can all hope for a day when we do not need to exercise these authorities because there is not danger of an imminent attack, but unfortunately, if you look around the world today, and you understand the way groups like isis are now operating in this world of social network communication, is a different Business Model, if you will, from how al qaeda was operating. Al qaeda would work patiently to build cells to carry out attacks. Isis is different. They are sending out Mass Communications through social networks to tens of thousands of potential jihadi recruits. If one out of 1000 takes up the invitation and carries out an attack, they have succeeded. It is a different Business Model , and i think it points out that unfortunately, the risks to National Security that the country faces, i really not less today than they were in the summer before 9 11. If congress looks at it, they will reauthorize these authorities as necessary to keep the country safe, at least to the extent that we can and they will not take these tools off the table. Again, we could all hope for a day when they are not necessary but i think they can be carried out consistent with the constitution in a reasonable way with oversight from the course. We are one of the only countries in the world that have independent judges doing oversight over national intelligence, foreign intelligence operations and surveillance. It is extraordinary, and it is a tribute to our constitutional principles and our for the moment. I think those are compatible. Host same question to you. Guest i not only think the day will come when the patriot act will be repealed, but the time to do that is now. The provisions in the patriot act were never meant to be permanent. They were meant to be subject to robust debate by congress and now we know they have been abused. We consult your the National Security argument we need the provisions to protect our country, and it is not consistent with the evidence. To date, it has not stopped a national an act of terrorism not made is essential impact on any investigation. It is important. It means we are engaging in these bulk collection programs where we have huge databases information about innocent americans, and we are not seen the National Security benefit. Frankly, these are authorities that are not targeted at people abroad. They are targeted at american citizens. That is something we should be concerned about. What Congress Needs to do is look at the law that has been used in a way that no one ever thought it could be used, repeal it, let it expire, and then move on to having a larger debate in our country about what the authorities of the intelligence agencies should be. What is very clear right now is that the current law on the books and set to expire on june 1, the time has come to let it go into the night. Host corey. Pennsylvania. Supporter of the patriot act, go ahead. Caller the thing is i supported because i do not love my country blown up. Ive seen other countries blown up on tv. I have a nephew in the military. He is been in the military for almost five years. He is in the marine corps. I want to keep my country safe. You know, if it means giving up Something Like, sort of, a little freedom, basically, phone calls, i am for it. That is the reason i am calling because, yeah, it is invasion of privacy, but you have to look at it this way is a safety net at the same time. It is a safety not that seeking at the connects the dots like the other gentleman said. I do not want a terrorist having another bombing like they had in boston or new york. I have seen friends die over this. I support it. I completely support it. Host ms. Guliani, your response, and especially to bradburys point that because of the changing technology, maybe we need to keep some of the provisions in place to gather data. Guest first, the media say that i understand people are concerned. I understand people are fearful. I understand that nobody wants to live in a country that is not secure. I do not want to live in a country that is not secure. The reality is these programs have ballooned out of control and they have not been effective. When we looking 9 11 cents on the intelligence failures of our past, it is not that the government lacked information, we lack the ability to connect information together. The programs that have been proposed to collect information irrelevant information about innocent people, they do not fall in the intelligence cap. There are legal, authorized ways the government can get information. If is concern about a terror cell overseas and the government has recently believe someone is communicating with that sell, they can get that information. What is not necessary is to collect information of everyone in the country or the financial records of every shot thousands of people at a time because frankie, that does not records of thousands of people at a time, because frankly, that is not do the job. Host mr. Bradbury . Guest i think it is important to recognize for this program it is not collection or surveillance of the content of the communication at all. Nobodys phone calls are being listened to. They are not being transcribed. It has a thing to do with what anyone is saying and any communication. It is sickly what phone number has called what phone number it is simply what phone number has called what phone number when, so you can connect the dots. It is not the information that would require a wiretap or probable cause or a search warrant. The thing i would like to say if i could pedro, i think it is a false argument to suggest that you have to prove that this particular program stopped a specific terrorist attack or was the Silver Bullet that prevented the attack from happening at the last minute, or the one critical piece of information. That is simply not the way counterterrorism investigations work. Like any counterterrorism investigation, it is a fabric of information that you collect from different sources, put it together and one lead me lead to another may lead to another. This is a tool to identify connections you do not know about before so you can follow up on the lead and investigate further. It is more an input at the beginning stages of the investigation than at the end stages. We also have to realize that the counterterrorism investigations are trying to prevent future attacks from happening. This is not an investigation looking back at a crime that has occurred and putting together that evidence. So, by definition, you do not know exactly what dot you are looking for, and what youre trying to find is the dot you did not know about yesterday. Host michigan is where brian is on our opposed line. Go ahead. Caller gentlemen, and the lady, too, this patriot act is nothing more than a power grab by the government. It was an attempt to stop terrorism and it has developed into Something Else and i truly believe what Benjamin Franklin had to say about the subject those that would trade freedom for security would have neither. Host mr. Bradbury, your response to that . Guest i agree with Benjamin Franklin and i think what is important to remember a point that i started out with today we do have basic critical fundamental principles under the constitution and the Fourth Amendment that protect our freedom, but those printable to our flexible ones those principles are flexible ones and they allow the government to take steps that are reasonable and necessary to prevent the country from attacks. They do not put the kinds of restrictions that were talking about that congress is looking at. Those are not required by the constitution. What were talking about is a policy debate by congress which, again, i think is a healthy one, about whether congress should go further than the constitutional objections should require and impose extra layers of restrictions that prevent us from developing these types of tools that involve the acquisition of data, metadata, in a database that is useful to connect these dots. It is done under very tight restrictions with court oversight. And the question is can we should we do that . Congress has the authority to authorize it. The Second Circuit did not say otherwise. The Second Circuit said it was not, in the courts view, authorized under this particular statute. It is a healthy debate whether we should. I happen to disagree with the Second Circuit about the current law, but this is not a violation of the constitution. I do not believe that is a strong argument at all. It is a question about whether we, as a country, want to go further than the constitutional limitations and impose additional limitations on our own National Security defenses. Host ms. Guliani . Guest i agree with the caller. I think the time has come for us to look at the evidence and look at what has happened. We have a court that said the government operated a program for years that was the legal that members of commerce the not know about. We had two independent boards that said the mass surveillance programs were ineffective and we have a constitution the notion of the constitution would allow us to collect everything, i respectfully disagree. That is not what the Fourth Amendment means. The Court Decisions have been clear on this point. This is not just connecting the dots. This is intimate, personal information about everyones lives. If you know i have called the suicide hotline, that tells you a lot about my life had life. If you know i speak to my mother every day 4 00 p. M. , that tells you something about my life. I agree that i am glad we are having the debate, but the idea that we cannot put reasonable limitations of the government can do without sacrificing National Security is not even reflective of what the Intelligence Community has decided. Whether we agree or disagree with the reforms, the Intelligence Community has had putting in place reasonable reforms such as those proposed in the legislation will not hamper intelligence capabilities, when not impair the ability of the government to do its job. Given what we know about the programs, given the statements of the Intelligence Community the notion that we cannot repeal these laws or modify them without harming National Security just does not seem accurate. Host this is tony, cape coral, florida, supporter of the patriot act. Caller good morning, pedro. Good morning, maam, good morning, sir. I am a democrat. I think we need to have this program. It is better to have been not need then need and not have. If you had a person that the program could prevent harm from, you would go. 90 of these folks are not using regular cell phones. They are using burner phones. This allows the agency to use the register where the phone was bought, use a Kaleidoscope Program to find these people. It gives more animation in the gun, for lack of a better term. If you are a regular citizen and youve nothing to hide, you play by the rules you live your life who really cares if they know what youre talking about or who you are talking to . It is irrelevant. Im a private person but i understand the needs for Law Enforcement agencies that solve these kind of crimes and do these kinds of things and i support them 100 . Let them put the patriot act back the way it was. Revisited. If we do not need it five years or 10 years down the road, so be it. Thanks, pedro. Host ms. Guliani. Guest i am happy to hear from my home state of florida, and i hear this a lot, i have nothing to hide, but first we should be concerned when the law says when it goes beyond what the law says. This is egregious conduct that has been proved the legal by a federal court and that is something we should be concerned about, especially when numbers of congress a that information was withheld from me and i did not know it and this went beyond what i thought i was authorizing. That is an important point. The second thing is even if an individual does not have a problem with their information being given to the government, that should be a decision that every citizen makes. It may not bother you that the government knows who you have called, but it could the other bother other people and we have seen the surveillance has been used for dad. In the 1960s forbade. In the 1960s and the 1970s, surveillance was used on civil rights leaders. We have seen how the information can be used and abused. That is the infrastructure that should layer over our intelligence activities to make sure the government is not getting information it should not be getting and theres nothing ability for that to be a boost abuse. Host mr. Bradbury, you talked about the layers, what about the potential for abuse that she talked about . Guest we always have to be able to protect against abuse and i understand that in the areas of foreign intelligence and National Security there have been abuses in the past. That is why we had the layers of laws that we have at the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the resurgence that apply. The patriot act are provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. That is why we have independent federal judges sitting in courts and approving orders of surveillance. Before 1978, it was just the president and the attorney general who could approve this unilaterally with no Court Involvement and no oversight from congress. Now we have committees in congress overseeing this. I have to remind the caller and the whole audience that the program does not involve listening into anyones phone calls. Even if you think ive nothing to hide, so it does not matter what im talking about, they do not know what you are talking about and it is illegal under the order that approves them them to target neema or anyone else to try to figure out who they are calling what their medical records are, whether they are calling a suicide hotline or whatnot. It is focused on untold numbers associated with terrorist organizations and seeing which of the numbers have contacted the number to put together the pattern and identify a potential new suspect you did not know about. The caller is right about phones, temporary phones. It is often the case to try to avoid this kind of instigation this investigation that investigation that terror suspects will change phones frequently visit program that helps the government keep up with that and if i knew phone number and identify new phone numbers that might be the same suspect that has a different number. It might not be the Silver Bullet, but it can be an important input in his investigations in the question is do we want to throw it away get rid of it . Host john. Camden maine, who opposes the patriot act. Caller good morning, pedro. Mr. Bradbury, i would like to remind you that ive not think we would have this discussion at this link and breadth if it were not for Edward Snowden, a whistleblower. Ive read his book and i encourage anyone who supports the metadata without oversight to look at what brought this discussion on full bloom. It was certainly an eyeopener for me. I support the patriot act, but i think the metadata portion of it should be kept on a very shortly. It is huge. I believe it is connected as well with this huge facility in utah, is it i am not sure of the state, but millions of the dedicated to the oversight of of feet dedicated to the oversight and collection of this data. Organizations were directed to put a cap on communication went. That was done in secret. Whether it was legal or illegal the children brought forward voluntarily by the government. It should not taken a whistleblower. Ms. Guliani, because you represent the aclu i know this is offtopic, but i the problem with your organization here in so many times organization. So may times you have gone rogue , with a Big Organization with deep pockets, going after little government for putting a Christmas Tree out front. Going back to the subject, i think it was Edward Snowden that did this country a Great Service by bringing this to light. I support the patriot act, but the metadata is scary. Host sorry about that, john. Mr. Bradbury . Guest i welcome the debate we are having over this issue. Certainly the disclosures from Edward Snowden did talk to debate over this program at the caller has a good point product the debate over this program and the caller has a good point that there should be more of a National Debate over this type of tool and the need for this. I think the need the fact that there was not more of a debate and disclosure earlier really puts the government and Intelligence Community at a very serious disadvantage in responding to the public controversy and debate. As we have seen, it is very easy to, i think, exaggerate the privacy invocations of this program because of the broad nature of the calling records involved and it does necessarily have to improve a very large set of if not copy has upset comprehensive set of the phone numbers that individuals have called. I think once that basic fact is out, and country understands it, i think we can have reasonable debate about whether this is a reasonable tool that we need to have what is the extent, if any, on privacy interests . At it is a very small incursion on privacy interest. Even though it is a large database, it is still just which phone number has called which phone number. Host ms. Guliani . Guest i think the caller brought up an important point, we would not have this debate if not for Edward Snowden, and we should not have it which is not have taken Edward Snowden, and i agree that i am happy that were having this debate. We need reforms that require the intelligence agencies to, number one, release data about the people been impacted, the number of search queries they are running, not just under section 215 of the patriot act, but, frankly, under other authorities we are concerned about, and we disclosures. We have talked a lot about secret intelligence courts and that they are supposed to provide oversight into structure, but when we look at the courts they deny very small number of government request. They do not often get help to hear arguments from privacy and Civil Liberties experts to assess the governments arguments balanced against the countervailing arguments, and it is time for the public to see those opinions so we can really understand what is even happening. Up to this point, everything has happened under a cloak of secrecy, and that has allowed the programs to balloon in ways no one has anticipated them including members of congress that drafted the laws or justify them. Host a couple of more minutes to talk to our guest. Josh, rockford illinois. Supporter of the program. Caller good morning, and thank you for cspan. Maam, im one of those people who feel if i am doing nothing wrong, i really do not care what people are listening to, monitoring, whatever. What bothers me is there are a high number of people who spend their last moments of their life knowing they are about to crash into a building, a government building, or into a field. What bothers me is after that happened firemen and Police Officers ran into buildings to save people and died as those buildings came down. What bothers me is that while we are having this debate there are many people sitting around trying to think of how they can kill us. Whatever tools our government needs to save our lives so that we do not have to go through Something Like that again what bothers me is that anyone would have even a thought to try to restrict any of that. Give them every tool they want. If you are not doing anything wrong, what you have to worry about . Absolutely nothing. Whether they are monitoring my phone calls, i think they should be listening to phone calls. Give them whatever tools they need so that we do not have to go through Something Like that again. Host ms. Guliani . Guest i understand that people are concerned about National Security and a lot of the things you mentioned, they bother me, too but the programs that we are talking about, the programs that we are considering they have not work. When we look at the intelligence failures of the past, it was not more information that was the problem. It was not being able to connect the dots and focus on the information that we had. It is possible for us to do the things you mentioned, protect our country, secure citizens it is possible for us to do all of that within the bounds of the law. One of the things that bothers me is this notion that the government is not following the law, and that we have courts that step in years after the fact and say look, you are not following the law but we only have that information because of a whistleblower because this information was kept from citizens and the verse of congress. When we look at the intelligence agencies, i think there are two things for you to think about not just the National Security aspect and how to keep ourselves safe and secure, but how do we ensure intelligence agencies operate within the bounds of the law and how do we respect the law as we are going about try to secure our country . Host mr. Bradbury . Guest i completely agree with neema that we should conduct investigations within the bounds of the law. And we all agree in this country we should have laws that authorize reasonable and appropriate programs to protect the country within the bounds set by the constitution. I think the debate again, is whether congress should go further and impose additional restrictions by statute that would limit our ability to do certain things that the constitution would not permit. I think what we saw in 9 11 was that some of those laws creating the procedures and restrictions for foreign Intelligence Surveillance had gone too far before 9 11, and given im not blaming congress. Im not blaming anyone. Technology had changed. Those limitations were too constraining, and the president felt the need to take extraordinary action in the immediate wake of 9 11, when we all expected the next attack to come any day, to put in place certain programs such as this one that were deemed to be necessary to protect against further attacks to it and if i potential to identify potential, further attackers. What we need is a balance. If, again, by statute, Congress Goes too far and puts rejections in place that sounds advisable today given, perhaps a relaxed attitude about the threats that may face the country, and then it is determined that those are too restrictive in the wake of another attack, a National Emergency, i do not think that is a healthy situation because then you are putting the president of the United States of the United States and the executive branch in the position to try to exercise constitutional authorities. By the way, the president is the only elected National Officer who has given the authority who is given the authority and duty under the constitution to take action to protect the country from attack. Congress cannot legislate in the face of a National Emergency quick enough to take action. The founders of the constitution recognize that the president needs to be able to have that flexibility to respond within the restrictions set by the constitution and the unfortunate thing is if we put these couple kate resurgence in place by statute that prevent the use , kid complicated restrictions in place by statute, you are preventing with the president is authorized to do because a determination is made that a particular restriction is putting undue limits on the ability of the country to protect itself within what the constitution would allow. We want a rule of law situation where the statutes Congress Passes are consistent with the reasonable requirements and the constitutional limits for protecting the country. Host let me get in a call. Jack. Philadelphia, on our opposed line. Jack, good morning. Caller good morning, pedro. I started my 45year career with the United States government as a marine corps, twotour bottom the a nonveteran. We operated in labs that were illegal. Our government has shown it has no constraints whatsoever. It will do whatever it wants to do. The most troubling part of the last 20 years of my career was the mindset that developed and is so entrenched now as in us versus them attitude, and the then the them are the American People. The cia looks at the military as our enemy. We are guarding country borders yet we do not have one marine on any of our borders. So come before mr. Bradbury, he for you want to put everyone of us under a microscope, maybe just maybe, you should think about the basic National Security of this country, and that is guarding our borders. Guest well, actually, i think the National Security agencys fundamental mission is to guard the country against foreign attack and foreign threats. So, they are outward looking and focused on those potential threats from outside of the country. They are not interested in investigating the private goingson of particular individuals in United States unless there is a connection to a potential threat from a foreign power. That is their mission. In fact, i think unfortunately as part of all of this debate, is kind of a maligning assumption about the motivations of the National Security agency. In my expense working with them as a lawyer in the just experience working with them as a lawyer in the justice department, i think it is hard to find a more dedicated, patriotic set of Public Servants that are looking out for Civil Liberties because on the wall of the nsa, in all of their offices they have a big poster what is a u. S. Person . It is a citizen or a lawful resident. Any information they collect that touches on the activities or communications of a u. S. Person are put under very strict limitations. They cannot use that information, disclose that information in any report unless it is absolutely necessary to understanding the foreign intelligence connection. So, they actually spent most of the time obsessively focused on protecting the private interest of u. S. Persons and that is really part of the fabric of that organization. So, i think it is unfortunate to assume that they are snooping around into the private affairs of u. S. Citizens for no reason at all. Host ms. Guliani . Guest you know, i think the caller raises a really important issue and that is the fact that these programs, regardless of what has been stated, are targeted at americans. A our domestic collection programs. They collect records about phone calls between a u. S. Person and another u. S. Person. That is very concerning if what we are talking about a National Security agency that is not designed to serve that purpose. I want to go back to something that steve raised earlier and that is this question of the president and the intelligence agencies, and needing to ensure that they have Proper Authority to essentially protect the country. I think it is important to note that the president and the intelligence agencies are on the record. They have said we could put these reforms in place and we can put his reforms in place without cover mighty National Security these reforms in place without compromising National Security. Regardless of what you think of the reforms i happen to think they do not go far enough but the president has said we could have this debate, cut resurgence in place, and the so in a way that leaves the intelligence agencies free to operate and protect our country. It is important to note that. Host let me get your thoughts on it june 1 comes, and there is no result . What happens question what happened . Guest there is no motivation like a deadline for congress. I hope they let them expire and then we can have the debate and we can talk about how far the authority should go. My hope is we put the law to rest and begin the conversation that has not happened up host to this host point. Up to this point. Host mr. Bradbury . Guest i expect they will reauthorize again. These programs are so important. The president said last year it was an Effective Program and necessary. The president has had the authority to shut it down at any time between then and now and it is still operating. I think that tells you the Intelligence Community really does think it is important to keep it going if it can. I think it may be because the president is looking at the need to reauthorize these basic tools that the administration is talking about supporting the current legislation but i think the debate is good. The disclosures that have been made have been extraordinary about the Legal Authority and the court opinions. There is a lot out there for congress to chew on and they need to take a hard look at whether we want to take this important tool and taken off the table or keep it in place. Host even bradbury steven neema as well host Steven Bradbury as well as Neema Singh Guliani, think for the conversation. Guest thank you. Guest thank you, page of. Host the Associated Press has reported that u. S. Commandos have principate in a rare raid. Host that is from the Associated Press this morning. Coming up, we will change topics, look at Environmental Issues with the wall street journal amy harder who will discuss the Obama Administrations decision to allow shell to drill off the alaskan coast this summer. In case you missed it, president obama pay tribute thats paid tribute as part obama paid tribute as part of the National Peace officers memorial day. Here is some of what he had to say. [video clip] president obama your jobs are inherently dangerous. The reminders are two common. Just a few days ago, two Police Officers were killed in the line of duty in mississippi. Only before that, an officer was killed in the line of duty in queens. A month before that, two of his fellow officers in the nypd were killed as well. We cannot a race every darkness the race every darkness or danger from the duty that you have chosen. We can offer you the support you need to be safe. We can make the communities you care about and protect safer as well. We can make sure you have the resources you need to do your job. We can do everything we have to do to combat the poverty that plagues too many communities in which you have to serve. We can work harder as a nation to heal the rifts that still exist in some places between Law Enforcement and the people you risk your lives to protect. We go into all of you who wear the badge with honor and we all went to your fellow officers who gave their last full measure of devotion we always to your fellow officers who gave their last full measure of devotion owe it to your fellow officers who gave their last full measure of devotion. Most important, we can say we thank you and we had with for the work you do every single day and we can thank the families who bear the burden alongside you. On behalf of the American People , i offer the families friends and fellow officers of those we have lost my prayers and my deepest thanks. Clarks washington journal continues washington journal continues. Host joining me now is amy harder of the wall street journal, talking about the decision to drill. What a special when it comes to this oil . Guest there is no current oil except on one manmade island. There is really been no drilling here for decades, almost. It is a remote cold, frigid part of the arctic ocean obviously. There is a small window that companies can even drill here. It is a remote area and it has people concerned about the safety. Guest as far as the area, what is the potential for oil and gas . Guest the interior Department Says there are about 22 billion gallons of oil in their and about 92 trillion cubic feet of gas. By comparison, we produce about 9 billion gallons of oil a day. There is a decent amount, but that said, the arctic has taken a backseat in the last 6, 7 years come because of the onshore gas boom in texas and north dakota, which has gotten peoples Administration Attention including administration. Host in light of that, the imagination of the decision. What did they decide . Guest they decided they gave shell approval to drill here. This was a lease approved during the Bush Administration. This is a lot of people say this is a huge green light from the Obama Administration, but really it is an extension of a policy the Bush Administration put in. It is conditional approval for them to drill exploratory wells not actually produce the oil and the gas. If they want to do that, they have to get another permit and there is a lengthy review process that the government says could be at least 15 years before we see any oil from this area. Host shell gets the authority to do this, the Obama Administration allows them to carry on what was going on in the Bush Administration, and what is the next up forward . Guest the Company Still need about seven permits from the government before it can go ahead. They are mostly technical somewhat minor compared to additional approval by the administration. They expect to get those in the next few weeks. They want to start drilling sometime between july and october. It is a very short window. They are very confident they will find oil and if they do they will do a couple more seasons of exploring the area and eventually apply for a permit to produce. The response from the Environmental Community has been incredibly critical because some of them think there should be no drilling because the Obama Administration has been so committed to Climate Change their they do not think it matches up with their commitment to reducing president obama addressed those concerns this week, he said, in one breath, that they approved because they met with federal standards and requirements, but said that we need to move off of fossil fuels eventually, but there will be a transition time. Host amy harder talking about new drilling in the arctic sea off of alaska, you may have questions about that and how it might impact environment of policy. Democrats, 2027488000. Republicans, 2027488001. Independence, 2027488002. We have president obama getting environment lists concerns, listen to what he had to say. President obama i know a Little Something about the risks of offshore drilling, given what happened in the gulf early in my presidency. Nobody is more mindful of the risks involved and the dangers. That is why, despite the fact that shall have put in an application for exploration in this region several years ago we delayed it for a lengthy time until they could provide us with the kinds of assurances we have not seen before, taking into account the short very the extraordinary challenges if there was a leak that far north. And that kind of environment. Which would be much more difficult to deal with than in the gulf. Based on those high standards shall had to go back to the drawing board revamp its approach and the experts have concluded that they have met those standards. Host could you expand on those comments . Guest shell had been pursuing Arctic Drilling since 2007 and the last time it drilled was in 2012 and has significant missteps. After they successfully drilled, but only a small portion they did not have the approval to go all the way down to where the oil is, i once they got done drilling, andy ship was moving back to seattle, they lost control of it and it was floating in the ocean and run aground. That had environmental people concerned. That is one reason that led to delays. Also in february demonstration set regulations that will not apply to show, but are based upon the agreement that the government and shall made following those missteps. Host interested that he defended himself as to what he did as far as the gulf crisis. Guest the oil spill in 2010 is still the largest u. S. Oil spill ever and that was something he had to deal with shortly after he became president. A month before the fourth he was built, before the oil spill he made an announcement of how he would open the Atlantic Coast to drawing and he had to receipt on that. Demonstration has have the administration has had active board on drilling policy and it has made environment lists frustrated. Host the ap had pictures of environmentalists trying to stop this. Host they are called kayak to thats kayaktavists. The mayor of seattle has gone in on it, protesting the fact that they should not be able to have the rig there. Seattle and Washington State is a liberal state, and a Renewable Green Energy minded state, the governor is one of the it is an interesting comparison to see how theyre reacting, despite that protest, i do not think that can stop shell. Host how does he get into alaska . Guest they have tugboats and a Fleet Equipment and rigs that move up to the arctic. That is something the company did not focus on as much in 2012, something that they have learned that is as important as the drilling is to get to and from. Host what is the congressional reaction to this decision . Senator murkowski, on the Energy Committee from alaska . Host muted, the main people that reacted was senator murkowski, who is not quite sure , does not want to pop out the champagne, not sure demonstration will let this happen the ministries and will let this happen. Senator markey out of massachusetts has been vocal against drilling including alaska and along the eastern seaboard. He was critical. With Arctic Drilling, it is a political issue and something that incites passion and if it is not in lawmakers backyard, they do not care as much. You see images of alaska pristine, home repairs, the Arctic National wildlife refuge. I think it should be noted that despite this conditional approval obama has taken several steps in the last few months to restrict oil and gas drilling in and around alaska. He cut off 13 million acres of National Wildlife refuge, and parts of the beaufort sea. Add late last year, he stop developing. He has taken whats that forward and one step back in alaska which has infuriated people like senator murkowski. There has been a mixed bag for alaska. Host you spoke with senator markey and this is what he said. Because of the increasing domestic production, it does not make sense to expand oil drilling into risky areas like the arctic ocean or off the east coast. I rang concerned that the shell has still not learned the lessons of their previous mistakes drilling offshore in the arctic. Guest one change they made was containment dome system, so they could be prepared in case of a spill. In mexico, you have rigs all over and you have a ring on hand when a spill happens to drill a relief well and stem the spent the spell. Where there are no other ranks the Company Needs to have two sidebyside in case of a spill. That is a significant cost. Something you do not need to do in the gulf. That is one thing they will have to do that was not required before. Host amy harder who covers energy from the desk for the wall street journal. From kansas, randy on a republican line, good morning. Caller ok, i am glad you are on the show. My question is, barrel prices showed between 45 and 60 a barrel, last time i saw that prices in the 1990s and gasoline was one dollar to five cents or less. 1. 25 or less and now it is high. With the barrel price that low and with increased productions coming up, why are gasoline prices high . Guest it is relative, they are higher than they were in the 1990s as our almost every single commodity you can see. They have dropped by about one dollar since last summer last year, so that is an important point that they are high historically speaking, but relatively, they are much lower something that has got people wondering why we need to be drilling for more oil when gas prices are relatively lower than they have been. The answer to that that shell says is that they know the demand will be increasing around the world for oil and they see a longterm reason for that. Any impact on domestic gasoline prices we could see from this shell drilling in the arctic there are so many other factors that go into domestic gasoline prices driven by a Global Market opec, drilling in north dakota and texas have been important to the Global Market and therefore domestic prices. There there is a couple to read connection between a couple degree connection between drilling and gasoline prices. Host independent line, portland, oregon. Caller i am concerned about the destabilization of the methane hydrates, there is estimated to be 1000 gigatons of methane in the arctic oceans and the deeper parts. Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas, estimated to be 1000 times more effective before it degrades than Carbon Dioxide. Very small amount of methane is much more powerful for the Global Warming than Carbon Dioxide. Reassure boba a scientist has been observing it and it is bubbling up. In the arctic come up underneath the frozen floor, there are gas bubbles, the hydrates are honeycombed with methane and there are pools of methane underneath the ice, and if that is broken, we could be looking at a rapid warming of the earth that would lead to our extension. What safeguards are in place to make sure that none of this activity in the arctic will disturb this . Guest Climate Change is a big concern, especially in the arctic with the alaska region generally has been ground zero for the impact of Climate Change. I think shell, the drilling here is a very Shallow Water compared to the bp oil spill, it was miles of the under the arson deep under the ocean. They are not an imminent concern in this situation. Methane hydrates are a big concern for the climate. Host shreveport louisiana, go ahead. Caller i talked about this before, Climate Change is a hoax. I think we should drill everywhere we can drill because we need Oil Production. All these Climate Change nuts are just running around talking about methane gas, that does not do anything to the atmosphere at all. We have about 100,000 wells and is still would not do anything. I know the oil and gas business because i used to work offshore. We need more oil and Gas Production and obama is doing nothing but blocking production and it is all by design. It is all a hoax and i do not believe in Climate Change that can tell me to do things and there is not Climate Change. And there never will be. It is destroying this country, bringing we need energy that does not replace oil and gas. Guest i think Climate Change is one of the Big Decisions why environmental people are opposed to drilling in the arctic, in addition to the specific concerns about an oil spill. One aspect factor going into the approval of drilling in the arctic is that the arctic ocean is not just the u. S. Ocean russia has portions of the arctic. It is a strategic decision to let u. S. Companies get approval from the u. S. Government to drill in the arctic. That is one unique factor that is evident here, when it is not in the gulf of mexico or in the light the coast, that is something the olympic coast. In addition to any concerns about meeting the goal to get off the field and switch to renewables host . Are some of these decisions influenced by the fact that we are producing so much oil and natural gas . Guest this demonstration nobody saw the boom six or seven years ago. The u. S. Is the largest producer of oil and natural gas in the world. That is something that has changed over the last 7, 8 years, and got them more familiar with the industry than they thought they would have to be. That is enabled administration to understand how the industry works and not allow quite as much drilling offshore than they would have, otherwise. We are becoming less dependent on foreign oil because of the onshore resources. It is happening largely on private lands. Host burlington, massachusetts go ahead. Caller the anti the treaties signed by dignitaries never to touch anything in the antarctic the polls what about the oil belt is spill valdez spill. Host what is your question . Caller it is a statement about the antarctic treaty, i believe it was 1987. Host thanks. Guest the exxon valdez spill is about the difficulties responding to a spill, some areas of the arctic and was one of the reasons why the environmentalist do not think it is a smart thing to do. The safeguards have gotten stricter since then peered that is something on the minds of the administration and the oil spill is an example of the dangers. Having that additional rick on hand is one way they can ensure a spill can be addressed quickly. Rig. Another concern is that it is a very remote area, the closest coast guard is 1000 miles away. That is something you cannot solve. That is a concern. In addition to the broader kind of change concern. Host justin, california, go ahead. Caller if i understand this shell oil is applying to the federal government for a lease to drill oil on public, federal land, is this correct . Guest correct they are ready have the lease. Already have the least. Caller can obama take an aggressive stance toward shell oil that this oil, being taken from our public land benefit the public somehow . 10 a tax this oil and put the money that shell profits from to benefit the poor people or the country from the oil they are taking from our land . Host let me add this tweet to the mix. How much is the usa receiving for oil leases . Guest i do not have that number, but it is a common concern about drilling on public lands and public waters that there needs to be returns for the u. S. Taxpayer. It is something administration has been looking at lately to create a high return for these leases. Shell spent about 2. 1 billion to buy this lease, money to the federal government several years ago. That has ari been paid. They covet that has already been paid. As far as a direct return to the taxpayer, is difficult to draw a Straight Line from one oil well to you at the gas pump, but i think oil as a global commodity it is hard to do that. The company likes to say that the investment for alaska and the oil to the u. S. Through the pipeline is one way they can help the u. S. Become less dependent on foreign oil. Host amy harder with us. Illinois, you are next. Caller i have a question concerning the price of gasoline as it relates to the oil expiration. Exploration. It sounds to me like the federal government is slowly trying to increase oil leases off the coasts of alaska, possibly the gulf of mexico, possibly east coast of the United States. At the same time, and i understand these are leases for the future. Oil exploration will happen for years, right now we have a glut in the oil market and the price of gasoline continues to go up. Is this all related . To the glut . And the fact that we are trying to expand our Oil Exploration off the coasts and how does that affect gas prices . Guest that is the main question people care about. I think gasoline prices hit rock bottom earlier this year at around two dollars in a lot of the country. That is higher than it might have been in the 1980s and 1990s, that is in part due to this global glut of oil. Also, there has been less growth in the asian economies then economies economists thought. There is such a Global Market that it is difficult to say exactly how drilling in the gulf of mexico and the arctic and elected coast will have at your price of the post at the pump. They are committed to spending tens of millions of dollars in the arctic despite the high gas prices because they know the demand will be there. That is another aspect of why gasoline prices have gone up in the last several weeks, in addition to Economic Growth in places like china and india. Host if i am an opec nation how am i looking at the United States and what is going on in our oil and gas markets . Guest 7 8, years ago, they could cut production and ray prices on a whim, and that balance has shifted, the u. S. Has become more of a producer. We have Companies Making their own decisions. North dakota and texas account for some 80 of all oil reduce in the u. S. , and that is having an impact. An opec power has diminished. Host do you see them cutting back on production in order to compensate for what is going on . Guest i do not think that is happening, i think they already would have, they did that once in the 1980s and lost their market share. It did not help them and hurt them and did not change the Global Market. That is something they are trying to rethink, how are they going to have this new relationship with the u. S. When we do import from the opec, and we still do isnt obey, but now we have a competitive relationship. Host marlin, texas, go ahead. Caller i was listening to your earlier comments about global Climate Change. In the 1970s, we came out with this terrible nuclear freeze. This was started by the socialist governments of the world including the soviet union. And then we had the Global Warming, with al gore as the big mouth behind that. The problem with that is, for the last 16 years we have been gradually cooling and a cannot prove global freezing or Global Warming, so now they say Climate Change. What is Climate Change . Pick your, though mysteriously for all of these is higher taxes. The cure. If we gave more taxes it with you are all these domestic it wouldnt you are all these foreign and domestic problems. Guest that is an argument a lot of conservatives have about the u. S. Governments response to Climate Change, some people think it is a way to bring in more taxes and a global agreement to the United Nations and that is a concern, in terms of the science, i am no scientist, i read what they say most scientist say the climate is getting warmer because of the burning of fossil fuels, there is a legitimate conversation about what kind of response that the u. S. Government should have. The u. S. Politics has gotten boiled down to, do you believe in Climate Change or not . It is a religion, not a science and the conversation has to stop being so lyrical. So political. Host the map of the areas in question, how many rigs thats how Many Companies . Guest tennant companys own leases 10 companies own leases. The lease they all have come before the Obama Administration, and they have not held any leases in the arctic. That is more representative of their position on Arctic Drilling, as opposed to green lighting a lease already in place because of the bush demonstration. Host ellen, indiana, you are on. Caller this is ridiculous, the pentagon military vehicles to natural gas, this is ridiculous. The pentagon is going against all the republicans. This is outrageous. The little girl dodging her head up and down, we know what she is coming from. The first four months of this year, has been the warmest in history. This little blonde that works for wall street journal bobbing her head up and down is a liar. 97 of scientist in this country and around the world agree with me. Guest as i said, i do agree with the scientists that say Climate Change is caused by fossil fuel burning, that is what i think. I think there should be a conversation about how the u. S. Government should go about Climate Change and i have seen a shift among certain republicans that instead of denying Climate Change and humans are a factor, and are starting to talk about what kind of response there should be. We have a host of different responses, some regulations there working on to address it. Republicans do not support those, naturally. Is a conversation to happen about how the government should go about addressing Climate Change. Host do any of them serves as heads of committees . Guest an off, a room the u. S. Congress is far away from being able to do anything about Climate Change. Demonstration cannot go alone. I do not know that congress can do anything to stop this. Any change in congress, any major shifts on the thinking as far as addressing Climate Change probably will not happen until after the president ial election. Host gary from california, republican line. Caller art they drilling art they drilling right now . With all the regulations. Guest there is drilling in print obey, that is onshore. That is separate from the arctic. Host most of the drilling that goes on short is private land or public land . Guest it is index. With the onshore fracking boom, that is happening largely on private lands for a mix of reason, republicans say it is because the demonstration has been clamping down on regular reasons on federal land. It happens to be where the oil and natural gas is. In pennsylvania, mostly private land, you have one of the largest gas deals in the entire world. North dakota is largely private. Alaska is a very has a lot of federal lands. Host is there a connection between Fracking Technology and what we are seeing as far as Oil Production in the United States and natural Gas Production . Guest hydraulic fracking has unlocked the oil and gas boom over the last seven years. It is accommodation of fracking b coleman nation of fracking, by would to inject large a mac amounts of chemicals deep underground to unlock the oil and gas. In addition, it is going horizontally, so you can access more of the oil and gas. Horizontal drilling and fracking unlock all the oil and gas. Host is a generally accepted not so much by the oil community, but resistance by the Environmental Committee . Guest the debate about fracking has appeared in my the debate about Climate Change. Also, communities in pennsylvania, texas, colorado, wyoming, elsewhere that are concerned about the potential Drinking Water impact of fracking. Host k ken is on our independent line, go ahead. Caller i would like to ask if the wall street journal has an editorial policy regarding Climate Change and if they do, if they believe it to be real as i do and most people do, do they offer a solution to the problem . Guest as a member of the new section, i do not have any say whatsoever over that editorial opinions of our newspaper. I do not see them until they come out in the paper. I will have to do for you to our editorial editor. Defer. Host is this where it stands for the Obama Administration or do you see further offshore drilling or new drilling being permitted . Host guest in january there released their fiveyear leasing plan which they have to do by law. It included one lisa off the Atlantic Coast that will not happen until 2022 at the earliest. That this is the draft plan the final plan is happening in a couple of years and they have the power to take that lease sale off the table, they cannot at anymore, but can take them off. It will be interesting to see if the final police plan is less expensive than the draft, a sign of president obamas commitment to his legacy, which i know he wants Climate Change to be a big item. Host amy harder for the wall street journal thanks for your time. For the rest of our program. Open lines for the rest of the program. We will start taking those calls after this break. Sunday night on cspans q a, veteran canadian astronaut produced many videos on his activities at the International Space station and shares personal aspects of life in space. The only time i felt fear was on the dark side of the earth looking at the one side of australia in the darkness and watching a shooting star come in between me and the europe. At first, i have the standard reaction of wishing upon a star. Then i had the sobering realization that it was a huge rock from the University Going from the universe going 20 miles a second that missed us and made it to the atmosphere, and it was big enough that if it at hit us, we would have been dead. Sunday night on q and a. The new congressional directorate is a handy guide to the 114th congress with color photos of every single senator and house number with bio and contact information. Also district maps, a foldout map of capitol hill and a look at congressional committees, the president s cabinet, federal agencies and state governors. Order your copy today, it is 30. 95 plus shipping and handling 13. 95 plus shipping and handling. Washington journal continues. Host i will give you the numbers one more time, democrats, 2027488000. 2027488001 republicans. 2027488002 independent. We talked about the action taking place in syria. U. S. Personnel conducted an operation in Eastern Syria to capture isis Senior Leader abu sayyaf and his wife. Abu sayyaf was killed when he engaged u. S. Forces. The operation also led to the freeing of a woman who was held as a slave. We intend to reunite her with her family and no u. S. Personnel were killed or injured during this operation. Part of the statement from the National Security council which you can find more about the story as it exist online. To open phones bill from montana, republican line. Caller i live in montana, i am a truck driver. I have lived in alaska and have family in alaska. I had a comment about the oil and gas leases. Recently obama tied up a bunch of land surrounding and were andwar, and it seems like obama is fine as long as he is making decisions as to how that land is developed, but he will not give the benefit of the doubt to allow alaska to manage their own land and local people know best had to manage the resources and land. Host new york, hello. You are on. Caller i was looking to piggyback onto the earlier environmental discussion. I am very confused on the definition of pristine area on earth. It seems that if the Scientific Research is true and we are over 400 parts per billion, which was designated as a no turning back point as far as permanent damage to the climate if that is true is there a such thing as pristine area on this earth . If we drill in there or not, are we not permanently damaging these ecosystems, whether we drill or not because of the atmospheric change of the planet in general . If that is true, the ad the idea of attacking corporations seems futile and point was and should be directed to consumers to cut down their views and denying corporations their money to drill. Host springfield, virginia independent line. Caller i am a member of the independent green party and have enjoyed the last segment. The green party ecojobs for the economy are winners. To green Party President ial candidates talk about the benefits of ecocapitalism. My house has 51 solar panels and Geothermal Heating and cooling it produces 10 times the energy it consumes at it makes money. I get a check for 1000 every three months and everybody could do this as a green party. Solar jobs wind jobs, rail jobs, we see solar energy is the cheapest to produce. That is the positive ecogreen Party Solution out there that was not discussed in the earlier segment. The whole industrial friendly communities, highspeed maglev rail nationwide. Maglamp. Thank you for all the good work you do cspan. Host john from utah. Hi. Caller i wanted to comment on the fracking that you were talking about last segment. When we talk about fracking, it is out there about the benefits and nobody is talking about the cost. It is not only destabilizing the earths crust, but it is polluting the water any parts per million coming out of toxic chemicals to our environment will kill this planet and it is worse than anything out there and it is wrong for alaska, to horizontally frack these not only destabilizing the crust but polluting our planet. Go to solar, wind, and with this destroying quit destroying our planet. Host the ntsb held a press conference about the amtrak crash, the fbi being called in to assist in the investigation specifically if the locomotive that derailed had its windshield broken. According to the ntsb. They held a press coverage yesterday, here is a little bit about that situation. She said she heard the engineer talking to a separate engineer. She recalled the other engineer had a report to the train dispatcher that he had either been hit by a rock, or shot at. The other engineer said he had a broken windshield and placed his train into emergency stop. She also believes that she heard the engineer Say Something about her engineer Say Something about his train being struck by something. This is her recollection and we are going to be conducting further investigation of this comment. Our investigation is not independently confirmed this information, but we have seen damage to the left hand lower portion of the amtrak windshield. That we have asked the fbi to come in and look at for us. We often rely on the fbi for their Technical Expertise in such areas. They will be there tonight looking at this particular damage to the amtrak locomotive. Windshield. Of course, when the engine went through the impact, the windshield was shattered, but there is a particular standards we want them to look at. We have secured the track image recorder from the septa train to see what we can learn. Host james from new york, go ahead. Caller host we will move on to richard in arkansas. Caller hello, sir. I would like to switch to National Security for a second. This operation jade held 15, jade is green, the helm of the ships control, this is to take control, it is frightening what they are doing behind the scenes. This is out of control. Host we did a segment on it earlier on our program go to our website and type in those words, you can see that segment and information that was put out. That is our cspan. Org website. Type the words into the box and you will get all those details. Marilyn, go ahead maryland, go ahead. Caller im calling regarding the drilling in the arctic. I do not think this is the time to be exploring more sources of carbon and Carbon Dioxide at a time and we have 400 parts per billion in the atmosphere. It is time to get carbon out of uses usage. Most scientists believe that Global Warming is happening and it is human caused. We are getting closer to a cliff where everything will go out of control and life on earth will be unrecognizable if we continue on this path. Host laura, from troy michigan. Go ahead. Caller the last few minutes of your previous wall street journal reporter, she mentioned some new method relatively new, horizontal drilling, if people pay attention, this is what caused the first iraq war. Kuwait was drilling horizontally into the iraqi oilfields. Our representative at that time asked the president president bush saddam asked if they would have any problem. Saddam was told that there was no problem. That is why they attacked kuwait. Because kuwait was drilling horizontally into the iraqi oilfields. Try it to that, the drilling was all vertical and not horizontal. Prior to that. This is where this whole problem started, i am in a family involved in oil and him quite familiar. And am quite familiar. It has host arizona, you are next. Caller i want to talk about the Death Penalty. This young man in massachusetts every human being, the minute they are born is given a death count. Let him die on his own. Host the wall street journal has a story, a couple stories in the paper, taking a look at 2016 and the cash that will be involved. They say, as jeff bush eyes the white house, the family cast machine gears up. Seth reinhardt writing that gibberish opening thanks to a Donor Network that stretches back to his fathers election to congress in 1966. If you go into the second page of the story, it has a breakdown of the potential top donors for Jeff Bush Jeb bushs campaign. Host looking at money for potential campaign for jeb bush. Go to the pages of the Washington Post taking a look at, not only money taken in from speeches by bill clinton, but money about marco rubio. Saying that, according to disclosure forms, bill clinton has delivered the degree speeches since january 2014, including engagements this month, has earned 500,000 on tuesday alone, collating 250,000 from univision. It takes a look at marco rubios filing form thomas saying it showed no change from liabilities from 2013 to 2014, three mortgages, including a home equity line of credit between the three he owes 450,000 and as much as wondering dollars. You can find that story on the Washington Post. New york, independent line. Caller i have been watching your show and a lot of it has to do with the patriot act and getting more laws in line to combat some of our problems. The reason the people do not trust these new laws is not necessarily the law itself, but the way they are administered. Every week, we see the police joking people to death, shooting people in the back, i live by the canadian border, we have more police force activity of the are that anyone can ever imagine. These laws, we have enough laws on the books. They have to enforce the laws they have in intelligent, fair fashion and quit trying to take away our rights. Thank you. Host on book tv this weekend and American History tv, learn about the literary and historical influences and features of Fort Lauderdale, florida. Go to our website for more information. Coming up today at 5 30 on booktv, all of Fort Lauderdale literary programming, including an interview with the author of you enduring symbols seminoles. This is cultural tourism. That is how i saw it when i collected material in the 1970s. When they set up their villages early the buses will stop. Here was a tourist attraction. Seminoles camping by the road. They were getting food, a weekly allotment of food and the rental of sewing machines. They sometimes got fabric because it behooved the tourist attraction people to supply them with fabric so they are sitting there sewing and making things for craft market. This is a little boys shirt. From the 1920s. This was an expendable time for patchwork, best experimental time this has not made it to today. The designs were bigger in the 1920s. Sometimes they were not used longer than that decade. Host tom from new york. Caller i wanted to comment on the administration as a whole. I believe obama is an abomination and what i mean by that is, certain things that have passed and certain things he is trying to do has not increased productivity, not increased peoples profits, it has gone the opposite way. I believe everybody should be covered by insurance, but you cannot do it during a major recession. It stifles everything. As far as green, green is good, but only a part of green that can supply energy. The massive solar farms they have built in the desert, statistics are coming in now they average 25 of what they predicted they would get. The most important thing is to have security. Security is having a solar farm attached to natural gas. So when the sun does not shine we still get the energy. These type of things are midline , obama, unfortunately, is the one side. Conservatives are to the other. We have to Work Together in order to increase productivity and illuminate eliminate poverty. Host belmont michigan, democrats line. You are on. Caller i am calling about asking if you guys could do some segments on trade policy and tariffs. Trade policies and tariffs, we do not talk about them enough. Host we have done quite a bit the last couple of weeks with legislators and other people. What is most important in the discussion . Caller our terrace that we collect, most Asian Countries charges 35 santarus. . 35 tariffs. They have stuff coming back and are getting 0 , disadvantage to our country and our workers. The amount of trade we are doing with japan, south korea, the south korean trade policy was a complete failure we sign a two or three years ago. I follow our country close and see very little talk about trade. A lot of talk about the new england patriots, which is a big deal, but our trade policies host where do you stand on topics like the trade Promotion Authority the president wants to get . The transfer Pacific Partnership the transPacific Partnership . Caller we are going to deal with a vietnam that pays . 35 or . 40 on the dollar in wages, i feel sorry for these people, but the American Workers i do not think we can compete. Host what type of manufacturing . Caller mass transit. We have to talk about trade and trade policies. Host we have talked a lot about that, 02 our washington journal website page and see the segments we have had on these topics on trade, these trade deals, we have talked with legislators and experts, it is all there. If you want to look at it later. Robert ron austan, texas. Go ahead. Robert austin, i will put you on hold. If you want to get ready we will get back to you. Host the house passed a military bill defending the pentagon and other defense activities. Immigrants upset host you can find out more information in the New York Times. Robert, go ahead. Caller sorry about that. I wanted to comment, i was listening before about the nsa and for what was going on with that situation, the woman who called and said you have nothing to worry about. Everything is fine. I have nothing to hide. Just go on the internet and watch how many times the police come into someones house had nothing to do with the problem and a dog bites their face. They are just sitting in the living room. Giving these people ability to come into your home and you have nothing to hide will still get your face bitten by a dog. If they are concerned with the abuse of this power the nsa has, if they find they should given life imprisonment. Some of these people are using it to follow their exwives or wise to see if they were cheating on them here if you find somebody doing a, give them life in prison. It is such viable information it should be treated that way, it if he gets abuse, put them in jail forever. Host michael in illinois independent line. You are on. Caller i have a comment about the raid by the delta force. We are going after one financial officer, why not go after the leader . These people are killing and raping children. Where is the American Government . We are supposed to stand for something morally around the world. 1. 5 trillion a year we are spending on military. These people are raping and killing children by the hundreds of thousands. Where are our morals . Where is our air power . There is something wrong with us when i cannot look my kids in the eye and say, we had something of a government. I am a veteran, ive sat in sad to let this destruction happen. Someone stand up and do something for these kids. Host mitt romney and venerable field, event or holyfield posted a match for charity last night. It took place in salt lake city. As for the victor, romney, since the eight, a good sport 68, a good sport. The match was to benefit charity vision, a nonprofit that works for vision in developing countries and eradicate blindness and raised 1 million. Romney gave up to the fivetime heavyweight champion after 2 rounds. There was plenty of hype and trash talk at it was on thursday night, the two had a way in and romney came in at 179 pounds, holyfield at 236. Howard from alabama. Independent line. Host i wanted to speak about Global Warming. And freetrade. Global warming i am 86 years old and i grew up in northern michigan, and my dad had lived through a cycle of war and he said and cold, and he said the cold would come back, i live in alabama and the year before last about half of it froze, and this past year or more of it froze, and i imagine next year it will get the rest of it because it is getting colder. Freetrade, it is a failure. We have been at it 20 years. We still have not accomplished anything, no jobs, the jobs we are getting a lowpaying jobs. I do not know who our government is trying to help. They say they want to make the world a better place to live they are making it for Something Else and not for americans. I am old enough to remember the bombing of pearl harbor and i think when harry truman dropped those bonds he probably saved my life, he killed thousands of people. We have a government who wants to go to war without killing anybody. Thank you for the time. Host that is the last call we will be taking. Tomorrows program, to report a story yesterday about the role of the House Select Committee on the investigation of benghazi an investigation of the consulate attacks including Hillary Clintons role in the attacks and her expected testimony. So westwood and Michael Mccaul of to talk about that. Talk about Mark Ginsberg on u. S. Policy, he served in morocco and a former mideast advisor to president carter. And then we will talk about the legislative play in the senate and house on trade legislation. He will talk about what is currently going on in these pending trade deals, authority the president has. That discussion takes place at 9 15 tomorrow. We will look at the papers as well. We will see you tomorrow. Take you for watching. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org]