Transcripts For CSPAN Washington Journal 20150531 : comparem

whether to oppose or the support the patriot act. if you support it, (202) 748-8000. if you oppose it like senator rand paul, (202) 748-8001. you can also join in on the conversation by sending us a tweet at @cspanwj or on facebook, facebook.com/cspan. this is from "the hill" newspaper -- rand paul has the page react in the palm of his hand. the senate will hold a rare sunday evening vote. the late hour and the lack of a clean pass forward means that any senator hasn't do amount of leverage -- due amount of leverage, that is where rand paul comes into play. overnight, the passing of the vice president's oldest son. both biden -- beau biden. he was 46 years old. this message from the vice president's office. the entire family is sad beyond words, we know that beau's spirit will live on in all of us. beau biden, 46 years old. after a battle with brain cancer passing away in the washington, d.c. area. also from "the boston globe" and injury for secretary of state john kerry. he was helicoptered to a swiss hospital outside geneva today. he suffered a likely leg injury, but did not lose consciousness according to the state department. paramedics and a physician from the scene with the motorcade at the time. the secretary of state was transported to geneva's main hospital. it remains unclear how long he will stay. it is a very busy sunday morning. let us start with the senate today coming up later today with daniel palmetto. what to expect? guest: at 3:50 9 p.m., the white house said they will begin the process of winding down this program, venice able to -- the nsa data collection program. the government will no longer be sweeping up telephone records on millions of americans from telephone companies that they cann hold on a search by search bases once they decide that someone needs to be surveilled. that will be happening on the executive branch side. at 4:00 p.m., the senate comes in. they will have several different options. really, none of those options it sounds like, will be able to pass today. they could essentially and the boat data collection -- bulk data collection, give me the executive more power. it is not clear that will have enough votes. other option would be a one or two week extension to give them more time to debate this. rand paul, the republican from kentucky, who is also a presidential candidate, says that he will block all of these efforts, or at least to expedite the efforts, and that makes a almost impossible to have a deal by midnight. host: let's follow up on the fact that if you are telephone company and say, yes, we will collect the data. some companies may say we will not do that, and use it as a marketing tool to get more customers. guest: absolutely. no company has said that right now. we're talking the major telecommunications companies. you could have a new company or existing company do that. we have seen internet companies do that, and even apple or other mobile devices say that. that is a real attraction for people. not just terrorists, but a lot of americans do not want the government looking at their communications and information. host: we talked about how one senator can really come up the work -- for those were not familiar with the minutia of senate parliamentarian procedure, what power does senator rand paul have today? guest: essentially the majority leader, mitch mcconnell, will need unanimous consent from all 100 senators to expedite the debate. if they want to speed up the process tonight, he will need the unanimous consent of all 100 members. senator rand paul said yesterday that he would stop that effort. there will not be unanimous consent. he will block anything no matter what they do. essentially, there is no way they can get a process from the starting line to the finish line without his consent. host: what happens after midnight? guest: there will probably be a lot of fingerprinting -- finger-pointing. they might have to go back to the drawing board. it depends. the white house may have to come up with some plan. the nsa may come up with a plan. the house will have to reevaluate what they have to do. the president, himself on friday raised the issue that if there is a terrorist attack, heaven for bid we don't have this. while rand paul may be on his own in the senate, a lot of americans identify with the course he is pursuing. quite frankly, this is the first time since the edward snowden leaks about the scope of power that the nsa has taken on, the secretive nature of some of these surveillance programs that we have had a debate. obvious leaders of the 2016 element to him. if this is time to take his ted cruz stand, like he did on obamacare. we will see how this plays politically. i think he has nothing to lose, and perhaps everything to gain. host: the first president to digital -- presidential debate will be today on c-span 2 according to one journalist. guest: that's right. he will be attacked by republicans, and democrats will attack him as well, but i think a lot of them identify with his efforts to shut this down. host: we will walk through this hour, exactly what to expect in the senate today, and also what it means when the patriot act does expire. if you support the patriot act (202) 748-8000. if you oppose it, (202) 748-8001 . as always, we will take your tweets, @cspanwj. [video clip] president obama: i thought this would be a good opportunity before we break for the weekend to remind everyone that on sunday at midnight, and whole bunch of authorities that we use in order to prevent terrorist attacks in this country expire. fortunately, the house of representatives was able to put forward a piece of legislation the usa freedom act, that received overwhelming bipartisan support. what it does is not only continue authorities that currently exist and are not controversial, for example the capacity of the fbi or other law-enforcement agencies to use what is called a roving wiretap. if we know there is an individual where there is probable cause that they may be engaged in a terrorist attack, but they are switching cell phones weekend move from cell phone to cell phone. not a controversial provision. those authorities would be continued. what the usa freedom act also does is it reforms the bulk data collection program that has been a significant concern, and i promised we could reform over 1.5 years ago. we now have democrats and republicans in both the house and senate who think this is the right way to go. we have our law enforcement and national security teams, and civil liberties proponents and africans, who say this is the right way to go. the only thing standing in the way is a handful of senators who are resisting these reforms despite law enforcement and the ic saying, let's go ahead and get this done. we only have a few days. the authorities expire on sunday at midnight. i do not want us to be in a situation where for a certain amount of time, those authorities go away, and suddenly we are dark. heaven for bid, we have a problem where we could have prevented a terrorist attack or apprehended someone who is engaged in dangerous activity but we do not do so, simply because of inaction in the senate. i have indicated to leader mcconnell and other senators, i expect them to take action, and take action swiftly. that is what the american people deserve. this is not an issue in which we have to choose between security and civil liberties. this is an issue which we in fact have struck the right balance and shaved a piece of legislation that everybody can support. let's go ahead and get it done. host: the president's comments on friday. in response to that is from senator rand paul. "i do not do this to obstruct, i do it to build something better, more effective, more lasting and more convincing -- cognizant of who we are." is the deadline is not met, what happens? in terms of the patriot act and gathering information on potential terrorist, who may be using cell phones or other sources of information. guest: that is a great question. one of the problems, from the public point of view, it is not a lot of transparency as to what the government does. they can obtain information. one of things that people data collection -- bulk data collection does is who we call and when we call them. they can kind of connect the dots. that bulk access to information will end at midnight. senator marco rubio that if we had had those powers before 9/11, it could have stopped the 9/11 terrorist attacks. we will never know if that was true. it is hard to put that much response of the on this program which is really supposed to comment other national security initiatives. there are a lot of people, and a lot of senate republicans, who believe that having these programs is essential to having a robust national security program. host: certainly no shortage of comments on our twitter page. you can join in on the conversation at @cspanwj. this is ed who says that the freedom act -- patriot act took freedoms away from the people without asking if we supported it, big brother needs to back off. first, some background on what is the usa patriot act, of course, put in place after september 11. let's get your phone calls. chris, san antonio, texas. you support the renewal of the pager asked, why? caller: because it is protection of our freedom. we need to protect our freedom and follow the presidents leave. it is not about civil right, it is about god's rights. guest: it is interesting. this is not a typical democrat-republican issue. especially on the usa freedom act, which i think both sides feel is a compromise. a lot of americans don't want the government sweeping up records on the phone calls, but it allows the government to obtain information from the telephone companies. the big bright is whether the phone companies will retain the information. that sort of thing is not in the usa freedom act, which has been a sticking point. there is a lot of overlap between democrats and republicans on this, because i think they feel that if there is another terrorist attack, they will all be to blame. host: richard rogers says this, the government does not listen to phone conversations without it warrant, what is obtained with the patriot act are phone numbers. guest: that is right. if i call you, it will say that my number called you and the time. host: let's go to mobile alabama. you oppose the renewal of the patriot act, why is that? caller: because there is so much confusion about the full situation. it is not doing away with the patriot act. it is doing away with several aspects of the patriot act. what thate government is doing -- people need to understand this. every phone call that we are making in america, including phone calls that we are making to c-span. if you mentioned words like "terrorism" or it "terrorist," that trigger something. in other words, we are not talking about the patriarchs, we are talking about the bull collection of every phone call that is made in america. the government is actually collecting -- if you call your mother, your sister, or your son in college and he might mention "we had some protests for terrorism." that is triggering something. host: we will get a response. guest: i don't think that essentially true. i think the caller is getting some of these programs mixed up. with the page react, it is just the records of phone calls, who called who and for how long. there have been many conspiracy theories. several years ago, it would have been a conspiracy theory that the government was collecting data on all americans. that ended up to be true. host: another comment from another viewer who says that senator rand paul is a man on the margin, exercising leadership, and making a difference. this is from senator bernie sanders. history on the page react -- patriot act. in my view, that is a is out of control and operating in an unconstitutional manner. guest: rand paul's father never really had the numbers to get into the mainstream, but he was on the debate stage and change the debate. with senator rand paul, you have a younger figure, little more charismatic, but he has the same kind of like to find personality on the campaign trail, that he gets a lot of people, especially young people excited. i think a lot of his opponents on the 2016 platform are stumped by how to counter his message. host: this tweet probably typifies how many people feel. it says, i am conflicted, we need the page react, but it can be easily abused. guest: exactly. i think no one knew before edward snowden's disclosures about these, and now wonder, how far has the government gone? host: if you're just tuning in or listening in on c-span radio, we're talking about the senate debate. it will get underway at 4:00 eastern time. joining us at the table is debuted a little -- damien political from "wall street journal or." good morning. caller: top of the morning. i support it with two provisions. one, a poison pill is incorporated. if someone violates intentionally, they go to jail. if a public official does something unconstitutional, they lose their office. i would be happy to send my phone number to the nsa any day or night. i want to thank you for bringing up the subject because we -- i think my government bothers me right now. thank you. guest: obviously, september 11 is one of the most tragic events in american history. now that we are 14 years removed, i think a lot of people are second-guessing some of the responses. the fact is that there has not been attack on the country anywhere near that scale since then. i think a lot of americans appreciate even though they may be aggravated by some of the security measures. i think a lot of americans will put up with more aggravation, in order for more protection. the question is where is that line? went has the government gone too far? we have had these lone wolf types of attacks, the boston marathon bombing, the shooting at fort hood. it is unclear if the page react would stop them or wouldn't stop them but the government is trying to make a difference. host: i want to get your reaction to "the chicago sun-times," a photo of dennis has to -- hastert. now he is facing federal charges tied to his own sexual -- allegedly show misconduct, allegedly with a teenage boy. the accidental rise and shocking fall -- from "chicago tribune." guest: and unbelievable story tragic story. we obviously don't have all the details. if true, it seems that the former speaker lived with these secrets and ghosts for a long time during his tenure as speaker of house. we will have to see how the court process plays out. and unbelievable story. host: there is a related story from "the washington post," looking at the about of money that he made as a lobbyist, and in many cases, switching sides on issues just to make more money. guest: speaker of house is a big thing to have on your business card. he was not a very public speaker, but carried an enormous amount of influence. he commanded huge bills for being former speaker of the house. it is not surprising how much he amassed. host: what does that tell you about the state of washington? guest: you know, money talks. i think a lot of americans are uncomfortable with washington and the campaign finance system because of the amount of money poured into it. when you see someone like speaker hastert, who was a very powerful figure, but not very public, a lot of people will question how the program works. host: another piece from "the washington post"." ron is joining us from virginia. good morning. caller: the caller who says they are for our freedom, isn't that what the military is for? we have the best intelligence agencies in the world. i thought they were doing a fine job before the patriot act. guest: even intelligence agencies say they did not do a fine job stopping the 9/11 terrorist attack. this is needle in the haystack kind of attacks. they feel that they need all the powers under the constitution to stop these attacks. that is what the patriot act was supposed to do, but the question is has it been interpreted in a way -- and we saw an appeals court ruled that it has not -- and that some of these powers have gone too far. host: let's go back to the lone wolf provision. what security with that provide? guest: the white house said a few days ago that they have never use the provision, but they insist that they needed. it would allow them to track lone wolves, people who do not have a direct connection to al qaeda or the islamic state. in other words, they are not part of the embryo group, but have taken some steps, that make it look like they are ready to commit an attack and i do it on their own. host: from twitter more like a dragnet then a targeted program. you can share your thoughts on twitter, @cspanwj. joe is next, you oppose, why? caller: damien, you mentioned a couple of things i want to talk about. you mentioned the boston marathon bombers. you also mention things that are illegal under the constitution. rand paul said it, and i agree this amounts to a general search warrant, which is illegal. here is the thing. i'm trying to figure out what major threats, or what might be considered minor threats. let's go back to the boston marathon bombers. isn't it likely that they use a cell phone prior to that? and let's go to an event in texas. we know there is a known threat when she has one of these contests. there was nobody from the federal government there. there were local police only. there was no one from nsa, the fbi. it seems like there is something strange going on. when we have known there is a threat, and no one is responding from the federal government, how can we expect them to go on the phone records? i am not seeing it. steve, by the way, i'm looking forward to the 2000 and like seeing -- 2015 election on there. host: and we have more nonsense coming up. lindsey graham, rick perry. of course, martin o'malley yesterday. no shortage. guest: i think something the white house has been tying itself up in knots -- saying look at me, if you can tell me these powers should be ecstatic, i will listen. the white house and nsa has been very careful to not provide too much information. they do not want the terrorists -- this is what they say -- they do not want the terrorists to know. it makes a lot of americans like joe skeptical that the government is really doing what they say they are doing. host: lindsey graham, the latest republican injury. we will have live coverage from his hometown in south carolina. that will take place at 10:30 eastern tomorrow on c-span. a tweet, the maid of data -- metadata is for after the fact. guest: that's right. they have to ask the federal intelligence surveillance court to approve the access on specific information. they have the records in the database to ensure that the records are not destroyed, but then they have to get court approval access to the information. i think the most recently -- most recent they released, they do not just get the records that they are looking for, but also the people who they are calling as well. there is a spider web affect. host: good morning. you support the patriot act why? caller: i do not support it as it is. i would like to make some comments here about us, the american people. the underwear bomber was brought down by passengers on the plane. the shoe bomber was taken down by passengers on the plane. the person who went crazy with brought down by the patriot act. who brought the information about clinton and blumenthal? a hacker figure that out. even snowden was not even known on the inside that they were being hacked. this is a great span that we do not know anything about. they know all the information about the -- about us, and we know nothing about them. we cannot audit the fbi or see it -- nsa. even the boston bomber was found by an upstairs person, looking down at the boat. it was not the cia or anybody else. it was the american people. guest: a lot of times with these e attacks, in retrospect, you can see intelligence misses. they should have found someone been listening on a phone call arrested someone -- the leader of the islamic state was held in a prison in iraq about 10 years ago. in retrospect, it is easy to say that there have been mistakes. what this caller may be overlooking is that it is really hard what these intelligence agencies have to do. they have to sort through all the chatter all the threats both domestic and foreign, to find potential threats. the boston bombing, in bridges by, you can see the radicalization of the older brother. that's a thing, we see a lot of people at some age become more extreme. host: a graduate of boston college, earned his master's from the wrist in missouri. here is an example of what we could hear later today from senator majority leader, mitch mcconnell. [video clip] senator mcconnell: one more opportunity to act responsibly to not allow this program to expire. this is a high threat time, and we know what is going on overseas. we know what has been tried here at home. my colleagues, do we really want the law to expire? we have one week to discuss it. we will have one day to do it. we better be ready. to prevent the country from being in danger by the total expiration of the program that we are all familiar with. host: of course that one day that the senate majority leader is talking about is today. guest: send a rand paul has been taking the stand, preventing this from speeding along, but this is also been a fund-raising bonanza for him. it will be really interesting to see how successful the fund-raising effort is. if you bring senator medicine out of money, i think it will send a signal to the other republicans running for 2016 that they need to reevaluate their support of some of these powers. if he does not bring in much money, it could marginalize him. host: nick has this, the loss of liberty is worse than the threat of terror. dodd is joining us, a burly from salinas, california. caller: i have a number of reasons as to why i am opposed to the metadata collection of the patriot act. it assumes that everyone is a person of interest, which is unconstitutional in my mind. they are already suspecting you of a crime, that is why they are collecting the data. number two, even if you're not listening to a phone conversation, if you have a list of the numbers of people who you are calling, that is intensely personal information. that information can be damaging to your reputation, ruin careers . number three, with the information, if a partisan person in the government, like what the irs was doing to conservative groups, targeting them you can damage people's lives and careers with this information. if you really believe that this metadata is kind of a lockbox that no one can access, then e explain to me why some low-level person like snowden could access these records. i think it's disastrous to give the government this much power over our personal lives. host: a quick question, do you trust your government jet will -- government? caller: i trust my government to do its basic function. i do not trust my government to run my life, tell me what to do, or to take all of my personal information and stick it in their pocket and say, it is safe here. guest: i think the points you raised are points shared by a lot of americans. one of the counter arguments that we have heard from senator mcconnell, and other republicans who support these powers, is that the grocery store card on your keychain allows the grocery card to collect way more information about what you are buying. if you are sick, pregnant, if you don't eat or drink dairy. they collect way more information than the government based on your phone calls. that is a counterargument. but we only know about this program because of former nsa contractor, edward snowden. host: alexis, wilmington, north carolina. the morning. caller: good morning. i would like to say that when the page you first came out, i was opposed to it. i did not want the intrusion in my life like the last caller just said. as many of the callers -- they did not understand that you did not actually here the conversations -- hear the conversations. now that i understand that they are clearly -- especially with isis, there is so much that we do not know. as much as we would like to see transparency, we have adversaries that are lethal. guest: she raises a point about the islamic state. they might be doing some terrible things in the middle east, but they are not a bunch of dummies. they are likely not using their phones in a way to do easy tickets for the government. one of the things we have heard from supporters of the program and members of the intelligence committee is that the islamic state, al qaeda, and others have adjusted their behavior to avoid some of these programs that were exposed by edward snowden. it is unclear how this exact program, section 215 of the patriotic, interacts with the islamic state and terrorist groups, but the white house says that they must have some of these powers to prevent attacks. host: "cq weekly" puts it this way -- patriot games, a shift of laws, congress goes to a brink. jen wants to respond to your earlier point. guest: that is an awkward dynamic on the hill. senator ted cruz got a tremendous amount of money and support when he was opposing the implementation of the affordable care act, which obviously led to the government shutdown. he was not doing it in quite the manner that senator rand paul is doing with the direct connection between the 2016 platform and the stand he will take later today on the hill. there will always be a connection between fund-raising and grandstanding. i guess it depends on what you see it as grandstanding or trying to protect the constitution. senator rand paul is making this part of his 2016 pitch. host: johnny said, i would trust the government if it trust me. some comments from frank church but first randy from ohio. caller: good morning and thank you for my call. i oppose, and i will tell you why. they have been sneaking in doing things behind their back anyway, regardless if we approve or not. i will give you an example. start looking up. if it is supposed to be cloudy look at the sky being painted by these big jets up there. i got into looking at that. i found out that they filed for a patent in cloud seeding back in november 1966. they said they had been doing this for 20 years before they even filed for this patent. google "weather modification companies," and look all the companies in north america. it is unreal, the things going on behind our backs. i will tell you something else. if people start analyzing these new 9/11 or videos, i think they would have a different opinion as to who did what at that time. guest: all i can really say to the caller is there will always be conspiracy theories about what is going on. some will be outlandish, and others will be very hard to believe. i think what editor and -- edward snowden did -- he affirmed for a lot of americans that there are things that push the envelope that we never thought would happen. a lot of americans think that these things are necessary to protect the country from an attack, but others think it is going to far. host: another viewer saying they're not holding of the law for political purposes, they are holding it up because it is a terrible law. tom from st. louis. good morning. caller: as a combat veteran, i would just like to say that this need for american staff transparency -- we are in a hostile world. you cannot have transparency and afford the american public the protection that they demand. something has to give. it would be like requiring our police department to notify a drug group that we are coming to raid you next thursday at 5:00. no one in their right mind would think that is a good idea. the patriotic serves a purpose, you cannot always have transparency. you cannot afford our enemies are constitutional rights. guest: im from st. louis, i listened extra carefully. i think what other people feel with this book made a data -- bulk metadata program is does the government relating to be collecting the information? host: john riccitiello at my earlier question, do you trust your government? he says, come on, there's nothing left patriotic than an american can do to trust the government. next up is tim. caller: hello. i know your time is precious. first of all, the plan for a new american century, which build out the patriot act before it was enacted, when bush and cheney were running back in the day. i incurred your younger listeners to read that. it talks about how the government needed a pearl harbor type of event to a strike the rights from people. to your other caller who said something -- i can't remember -- but, if you give up your freedom for security, you will have neither. i would just encourage your your guest, with his left-wing attitude if security is so important, why do we have a border so poursousous? guest: one thing i will say is when it passed the patriarch some parts go on forever, but sections like section 250 expire. i think they did that because they knew these issues had to be a revisit. they knew these provisions were controversial, and a future congress would have to evaluate it. this is the kind of debate that they wanted the country to have when they passed the bill in 2001. quite frankly, this is the debate we are having now. host: robert with this tweet, it seemed that the majority of callers today are against the act. guest: i look for a lot of frustration in majority leader and his colleagues. i will look for senator rand paul to maybe have his big moment. and possibly, to create a 2016 debate like we have not had yet, the fourth some of his counterparts on the 2016 platform. marco rubio, i expect to play a role. jeb bush will probably have to weigh in and offer a counter narrative. i think it will be about the room on the capital, but also about something much bigger. about what direction the country wants us to go in 14 years after 9/11. how much are they comfortable with and who should be the one to lead that? shouldn't be someone like senator rand paul, who is not your most conventional washington politician, or should it be someone who has more experience like jeb bush or marco rubio. host: jeb bush will make an event today on cbs cost "face the nation," with a final program of bob schieffer. "face the nation" is one of the five programs that we carry sunday afternoons. you can check it out on xm channel 120. sitting at the table is damien paletta, talking about the senate, which will resume today at about 4:00 eastern time. mike is joining us from nonstory link -- mount sterling kentucky. caller: you were saying earlier that if we would have had the patriot act before the 9/11 events happened, we could have prevented it. they had -- for what all we know now -- they had osama bin laden in their crosshairs several times, and they did not pull the trigger on him. i just want you to speak to how much the law has changed on how we pursue these terrorists -- how they go about taking them out. how the laws have changed so that we can pursue to kill them firsthand. guest: a really good question. like i mentioned earlier, the leader of the islamic state we had in prison in iraq. obviously, he is no longer in prison. he is one of the most influential and powerful geopolitical figures in the world. as we saw with bin laden, you make a good point. they could have taken him out potentially before the september 11 attacks. obviously, president obama did authorize a program that took him out in 2011. i think there is more. they leaned forward a little more in terms of aggressiveness, as we saw with the drone attacks that were detailed a few weeks ago. sometimes some of these attacks can actually lead to tragic consequences. that is the trade-off that this a administration has been willing to make. you have to be more aggressive with some of these drone attacks and counter terrorism programs and except the consequences. host: back to the mechanics of what to expect today. the house has already passed its version of the usa freedom act. what are the options for the senate majority leader when he tries to get a vote on this later this evening? guest: he will try to get another vote on the usa freedom act that passed the house. he only got 57 votes before. he needs 60 to pass this along. there might be three members who have disappointed -- decided to support, but even if he gets the three vote, senator rand paul may drag this on so that they don't get a vote until monday or tuesday. there may be a one or two day lapse and the program's steering senator mitch mcconnell can also try for a one week extension to have more time to debate, or a two week, or a one-month program. the house has not voted on this. they would have to come back to vote, which they will not duo tonight. host: that is what happened before the memorial day recess. guest: exactly. it is virtually impossible, unless senator paul has a change of heart, which he said yesterday that he won't to get things past in the senate today. it is almost more impossible for deposit in the house, because they are not here. host: i want to get your reaction to this interview with senator frank church from august 1975. he was head of the senate committee looking at the collection of information. there was an event this past week in washington that included members of the committee. we cover that event on our website, c-span.org. here is what senator church told nbc in august 1975. [video clip] senator church: we need to develop a capacity to know what potential enemies are doing. the united states government has perfected technological capability to monitor messages they go through the air. these messages are between ships at sea. they can be between units, military units and the sealed. -- in the field. we have a very sophisticated capability of intercepting messages, wherever they be in the airway. that is necessary and important to the united aids as we look abroad at the enemies or potential enemy. at the same time that capability at any time can be turned around on the american people. no american would have any privacy left, such as the capability to monitor everything telegrams conversations, it doesn't matter. there would be no place to hide if this government ever became a tierney. if a dictator ever took charge in this country, the technological capacity that the intelligence community has given the government can enable it to impose total tyranny. there would be no way to fight back because the most careful efforts to combine together in resistance of the government, no part -- no matter how privately it is done, is in the reach of the government to know, such as the capability of this technology. why is this investigation important? i do not want to see this country ever go across the bridge. i know the capacity that is there to make tierney potable -- tyranny potable in america. we must see to it that all operate under the law and with proper supervision so that we do not ever cross over that event. host: senator frank church in august of 1975. guest: he can make those comments in may 2 dozen 15. he could make those comment on the senate floor and they would resonate to the debate. what is interesting to that is that it shows the debate we are having today is not a new debate. it is a debate that this country has had continuously and in its history. especially with the church commission, they were examining some of the abuses of the central intelligence committee. a lot of reforms were made because of the work that he did. there is a lot more congressional oversight. i think the debate that they are having today, in which senator paul will try to bring up, did we go too far with the patriot act? he feels like we did. some callers feeling we did as well. what does the new regime look like. what does the new surveillance world look like, and what apparatuses do we need to protect us from others. host:rino rino -- republicans in name only -- what the patriarch not because it has stopped terrorist attacks, but because it inches the government closer to absolute powers. harold from west virginia, good morning. caller: can you hear me? host: we sure can. caller: i was calling to say that i'm a democrat first and foremost, and i oppose it. i also agree with what i just saw from senator church. if the government is reaching into everything in our lives and i have nothing to hide, but i don't want them to know who my doctor is, where my father as he is, and all the -- pharmacy is and all of this. guest: she raises a point ot that a lot of americans share they don't have anything to hide, but they still have a concern. i think senator paul has struck a chord with a lot of american saying that he will end this program. host: from twitter, it reminds me how much i liked frank church. thank you to nbc for the video. from rand paul, i believe we must fight terrorism and i believe we must stand strong against our enemies, but we do not need to give up who we are to delete them -- defeat them. on sunday, i will force the expiration of the nsa illegal spy program. jerry is joining us from wisconsin. good morning to you. caller: good morning. good morning? host: go ahead. caller: i wanted to make a point here -- information. before the buildings came down wasn't there an fbi agent in minneapolis? host: that is a different topic. we will move on to joe in wisconsin. good morning. are you with us? we are getting some feedback on that. guest: with wisconsin, it will be interesting to see what, scott walker, who is running for president, or expected to run for the republican nomination, how he will weigh in. so far, it has been a washington debate. you have senator marco rubio senator rand paul obviously both running for 2016. scott walker, he has not been directly involved in this debate. this will give him an area to explain some of his national security strategies, and identify one way or the other with an approach that he would take if he were president. we will be watching him very closely. host: this headline from "the des moines register" -- walker ahead by seven point. ben carson, jeb bush, and huckabee follow in what is a tight republican pack. marco rubio is expected to rise. we would hear from him today in the senate. guest: it will be interesting with governor bush's ties. some people think they need to turn the page on him. scott walker will be there waiting for their endorsements. host: edward is joining us from liverpool, texas. good morning. caller: i just wanted to comment that people worry about people listening in on their conversations. this type of technology does not work in that fashion. it works in a fashion that i called you, so they know that i called you. if i'm talking about blowing stuff up -- it is not taking care of everything all conversation, but looking forward certain words. people are getting worked up but when it comes to transparency, no one looks to the churches. the churches are not transparent at all. people never know what they are doing with their money. they say, we are making hospital, but when they go take their money overseas, that is what you have to worry about. guest: the surveillance programs are so confusing, i think a lot of americans mix them up. the caller is right. the specific program we are talking about is the bulk metadata collection. there is an aspect of this program, section 215, the expires tonight, and that is the roving wiretap law, and that of action give the government the power to listen in on phone calls. this is specific terrorist among others who they are given court approval to monitor. they can monitor phone calls, but not in the bulk form. host: live coverage on a companion network, c-span 2. herb is joining us from north carolina. caller: i have been listening to your conversations. i will put it to you plane. you cannot stop what is common. the patriot act -- i don't care what you do. you can pass it, thrown away. the fact of the matter is that the border has been wide open for a long time. he let the entity in here because you stop the surveillance on the ground. you cannot stop what is coming. you couldn't stop september 11, and you know about it. guest: there are over 300 million people in this country. there is a lot of debate about the southern border of this country. it is very hard to prevent terrorist attacks, especially from load was like the shooting we saw in fort hood. the boston bomb he was not a lone wolf, but lone wolves, plural. the question is what power should they have to try to prevent attacks, and we do these of up against our constitution. caller: i have a question. i was calling about executive order 12 333 the president reagan put into effect when he was president. why do we even need the patriot act when the government is spying on our phone calls all the time? you mentioned earlier innot is supposed to be spying a terrorist, but it comes up with a lot of civilian calls. guest: by sweeping up the records of millions of americans, allows them to identify those they suspect of terrorism or violating some other law, to collect their telephone records for several years. they have information from 2012 as someone that they now identify as a potential terrorist. they will know that person was calling in 2013, 2014. they have this huge database of telephone calls, that it is controversial, the federal appeals court argued it was not even legal. they think by getting congressional provable, it gives them more leeway to conduct such surveillance. as you can tell, the majority of congress seems to feel like this program should end. the question is how do you replace it? do you just have it end and start from scratch or do you have something implemented within the next hundred 80 days so that they have some sort of mechanism to access information but maybe that does not go back as this currently does. host: the comments from reviewer -- our viewer, saying that i don't know about you, but i will never trust the government that will lie to start a war of choice. our last call her now. caller: in 1972, i was on the program, and senator church was speaking. we were approved i richard bake makes it, not reagan to collect every bit of information that appeared on the face of the earth. bar none. a cane back -- i came back from that program and was assigned a radar operation. we set up one across the entire gulf coast where you could not comment over 25 feet off the seat, we knew. the part about you could not a car and 11, that is full. there was a police officer shot at the eastern airlines, where they killed police officer and flew to cuba. nobody walked down the tarmac and got down on leg with a gun because there was a member of the air force standing in every gate. guest: those were interesting times in the early 70's. and the reason that the church commission was so valuable at the time, and continues to shape the way we do intelligence right now is because there was not very much transparency in all in terms of what some of these intelligence agencies, specifically the cia at the time was doing. now that there is a bit more transparency some of it because of edward snowden, we are this debate about whether the agencies need to be redirected and how they collect information and how that impacts the constitution. host: we have spent the last hour walking through the senate debate today. for those who have just today let's do a recap. guest: the senate will do a debate today on this program about whether to pass a law that the house passed that would end the old telephone collection for the national security agency and replace it with the ability for the government to obtain on a case-by-case basis telephone records from telephone companies. who you call, how long the conversation was. they would be able to collect that information on a case-by-case basis. senator rand paul has said he wants the nsa's telephone program to add, and he believes the only way to do that is to have the full program start0 over by expiry at midnight tonight. we will see on the house will -- bill that already passed, and then they will also tried to vote on extensions. the version you going to want to keep your eye on the most is senator paul. you're also would watch majority leader mitch mcconnell, and a majority of democrats to see how they maneuver. a lot of excitement in the senate today. give a comfortable seat. host: how frustrated you think lawmakers are that they have to come back on a sunday? guest: frustrated, but they signed up for this. host: thank you for joining us. first, an update on secretary of state john kerry. he has broken his leg. he was helicoptered to a swiss hospital today after a bike crash outside of geneva where he is been holding nuclear talks with the foreign minister. guest: i remember a few years ago when i spoke to him when senator scott brown was a republican from massachusetts and i talked to than senator kerry about senator brown command he had said how they bonded over this bike ride. my understanding is that senator kerry likes to bike so much that he will bike at high speeds. switzerland does not have flat bike paths, so he might have been biking in the mountains and a few be very dangerous a. host: returning to boston, he was injured this morning in a biking accident. and we reserve word -- received word late yesterday on the passing of both biden, th-- beau biden, the son of the vice president. this statement from the vice president saying that the entire biden family is said and beyond words. we know that his spirit will live on all of this more than his professional compliments he measured himself as a husband, father, son and brother and his absolute honor made him a role water for our family -- model for our family. success when his child turns out better than he did. he was the finest man any of us have ever known. we will take a short break, and that we will turn our attention to the issue of smart power. and then later, immigration. alfonso aguilar will be joining us, as washington journal contains the last day of may. -- continues on this last day of may. ♪ >> this week on to q&a, our guest is to time. prize winner david mccullough. he's shared stories about his new book among the wright brothers. >> they geneva and graduate from high school, but that is because there father always said if they had an interesting project there were working on, to stay home and do that. you do not have to go to school. he knew how bright they were. wilbur was a genius. orville was very bright, very venture capital, clever mechanically, but he did not have the reach of mind that wilbur had. they loved music. they loved books. nathaniel hawthorne was orville's favorite. catherine loved sir walter scott. one of her birthdays, the brothers gave her a bust of sir walter scott. you have these people living in this little house, in ohio with no indoor plumbing no running water, and they are giving a bust of the great english literary giants to their sister for a birthday present. there's a lot of hope in that. but i think what i would like to get to know even more about was the sense of purpose that they had. it sounds like a bad time but high purpose. >> washington journal continues. host: we want to welcome back former congressman tom perriello . what is the quadrennial diplomacy and development review? guest: basically what happened a few years ago with secretary clinton, who had served on the armed services committee, has seen that our structures took a timeout every four years and said wait a second are we doing things this way to see if we have just done in this way or is it is best? as a chance every four years for our agencies just a look at the lives and say how do we need to be operating differently, what trends do we see going forward? secretary clinton initiated th at on secretary of state id. this was more analytical and rigorous. this is a chance that secretary kerry decided to repeat, and along with a great team of people decided to look at those questions. what we see changing around the world, what is changing about our work force? physical threats to our personnel have changed we have seen tremendous opportunities for the growth of the global middle class, with their own work horse. more millennial's are coming in that means not see the same 30 year are their career. this is a chance to make sure that we are not just doing a good job and crisis management and being reactive that happen around the world, but being proactive about how america should be leading in a very dynamic world. host: part of the reality is this headline from washington post, why this review is pressing in subpart is because of budget constraints. guest: it is an interesting take on the report, it got one part very direct way and one part i see differently. there is a huge emphasis on partnership in this report. how we can work that are with the private sector with state leaders, six civil society because we know that government alone is not the only tool that we have in the toolbox. we have unbelievable social entrepreneurs and others out there that are affecting change around them. part of what the article is pointing at it is that there are tremendous constraints on how much money are state department has to spend right now. we are not exerting influence and advancing the things that we care about in a vacuum. there are other countries out there that are putting large amounts of money on the table often with very different or very few strings attached. when we work with countries we believe in promoting democracy and accountability and fighting corruption. in some ways you saw that play out this week with different ways countries reacted to the fee for dynamic and -- fifa dynamic. the to be protecting workers and holding people accountable, but the washington post is saying why we are looking to embrace this partnership is because there are so many other actors out there influencing things. the rise of the rest as we see it. that has opportunities and challenges. the secretary of state asks you to serve, you take that seriously, and we have seen him be tireless and relentless in the pursuit of diplomacy. that is something i believe it. i've worked in conflict zones and post-conflict situations before i was in politics, and i genuinely believe and you hear it from military leaders over and over, is that what was the end development -- is that diplomacy and development helps us to resolve things. it is a great project, i was honored to be asked. i have met somebody in my times overseas of our foreign service personnel, and are locally employed staff. other big that people from other countries who sign up to work for our government to advance our viewpoints at great risk to themselves at some times. whether it is rules imposed on the outside, from within, or reality setting this. we have this tremendous set of people working for state and u.s. ideas what to make the world a better place. it was an intellectual exercise to look at what this new world of diffuse networks of power looks like, and how we can unleash creativity we have. host: the secretary of state has broken his leg, he is flying back to boston, he has canceled his formation to her -- four nation tour. does this impact how he goes about his job? guest: home was certainly not. i've never seen anyone so tireless in his pursuit of peace and advancing america's interest. i'm sure he is still being handed briefing papers. he is tremendously dedicated to this country and has been and you see that in the way that he bikes as well as he pursues other things, that he is incredibly dedicated. that is an inspiration to all of us that work at the state department. host: the quadrennial diplomacy and development review is our topic. or line for democrats is (202) 748-8000. our line for republicans is (202) 748-8001. and our line for independence is (202) 748-80012. guest: congress is providing a constructive partnership of trying to drive greater accountability. it is not just that you need to ensure accountability, it is that in some of these areas you cannot manage the zero risk. it is about getting the most effective, overall results. some of that is about trying to have better metrics. a lot of the work that is very important is how we use data and diagnostics better. we have to make sure that we are tracking and not just following our gut but learning as we go from the experiences around the world. how different countries are responding post arab spring. if we want this vision of inclusive economic growth, a growing global middle class with the purchasing power to buy american product and promote stability, then we need to be running the metrics that show what are the actual country -- constraints. we can actually do really useful analysis and then hold ourselves accountable to that. you also need to make sure your training people in the ability to the accountability, but bringing in expertise as you need to. we have so many challenges. we know about the importance of including women and girls issues and anything that we do in diplomacy and development. we know that the issue of corruption is not just affecting the human democracy question but the violent extremism, and economic growth and understanding the complexity of any given relationship within the country. host: our guest served one term in the house if you are sedatives -- in the house of representatives. he is also the former ceo of the center for american progress action. are you interested in another bid for congress? guest: not particularly. i believe in service, i've done that in the private sector and now i get to look at these questions of foreign policy. they are always spectrum of how you could make a difference in the world and that is what is exciting right now for people of whatever age. in many ways there has never been more of an opportunity for individuals to serve. i think one of the things we what in the report is to make sure that the state department and u.s. ideas one of those places that the best and brightest might think about what they deserve and that has always been true of the foreign services, and that has helped us prevent wars in the past and helped us find allies. it is a tremendous idea particularly in such a partisan age that we have a million group of people were more beyond partisanship. -- that we have an elite group of people who are beyond partisanship. not feeling always like they are going to be held accountable for the worst dollars spent for the worst decision may instead of the overall effect of their work. it creates the kind of space that we will continue to find the best and brightest joining and staying. there are lots of trouble going on in the world, but this is a cool opportunity to get to work with people who wake up every day trying to think about those questions, how to use diplomacy and development to make a better world for host:. host: let's bring in our viewers. caller: tom, from michigan. i just have two or three points to make. the first with the about foreign aid itself. this country is in collapse. i believe we are too worried about war aid for the when the money should be spent here. secondly we track any of the money that we send? nobody can ever tracy, never followi it. we should give food, shelter and medicine. guest: a couple of things. i think we are doing a much better job of tracking it with the foreign aid dahshboard. the goal is to help other countries do this for themselves. we've seen an unprecedented number of countries being moved from donor recipients do not see meeting age to being donors themselves. we are working to get more nations to this stage where they are contributing to the collective security. that is art of one of the great gifts that the greatest generation give us after world war ii was that they said am the we will not be stronger by giving everyone down, we will be stronger by helping others rise up. that vision was not born out of idealism, but a dark place of two world wars. it is about getting them direct aid. you saw that with ebola and other places. for all of the crisis headlines that occurred, we do not see his crash on to our shores on a big way. we have seen country after country remove the ebola cases and the usa working with the state department and the military deserves a believable for that. that goes to your first question is that there are very selfish reasons why we do for need as well. in addition to caring a great deal, we want to make sure we are tracking and looking at and preventing pandemics overseas because we want them addressed at the root cause. we do it because we believe development is good in and of itself, but there are also benefits for us. we do have to give at this issue -- get at this issue. there are no shortage of the samples of me supporting this at home and i completely agree with you with the needs to mess with -- domestically. it is being door both and the size and the style by what we see as china engaging with the countries around the world. as we think about others countries perceive us, we need governance to affect the ability to address the global health crisis. we also have to engage with the world and how other countries are engaging the world. we see not just a cut again half of the amount of people living in extreme poverty, which is progress, and something to be proud of, but some that affects america's influence around the world. host: dan from the independent line. caller: i would just like to bring up, if your guest knows about this act that was reversed. the monday act, which prevented the government to use propaganda inside american soil, on the radio, television. after world war ii, we did not want to look like russia and use propaganda on around people, on our own soil. so they came up with a neck in 19 -- -- an act in 1947 who said that they can use propaganda but they have to do it off the shores of the united states. host: are you familiar with this? guest: i've am not an expert on it, but it has certainly made but the spirit of it was tonight is text care dollars and the state department to do any sort of what propaganda to our own people during the cold war. a couple of things that have changed how we interpret that, one, and most important, we do not want that to be an excuse for the state department and the usa to not be accountable to our own people. you want to make sure that we are being held accountable i and there are billions of dollars eating spent upon diplomacy is about that. we want that engagement with the american people. now that we're are doing with partnerships, working directly with our partnerships in civil society, we want that information to be exchanged and not have the act be an excuse not to have that accountability. the second issue that has complicated and, as i understand it, and i'm not in the legal bureau, is this issue of what it means for communications to be initiated in one place or another. in the era of twitter and facebook, there was a clear distinction about what it meant for communication to be sent from one place. most of that has been obviated by technology. we do not want to be doing anything that breaks the spirit of that law, because there was a point behind it, but we do not want it to be an excuse to not have accountability and exchange of ideas. that is my understanding. host: the report calls for one area of concern that the flow breakdown in the area governance. acu and doing what it should be doing? -- in the lead doing what it should be doing? does it have the backbone to do what it needs to do? guest: there are tremendous things that the international systems are doing. the world food program, and many things that are helping refugees every day. the u.s. command my mind should be very proud of the fact that they have been a leader in accomplishing some amazing through that. i do nothing that there is any question that the systems that were created, coming out of that 1945 moment, the gifts of the greatest generation to security and global development do not reflect the world as we see them today. there are certain issues, whether it is imf reform, or the security council structure that have been donated for a long time. -- debated for a long time. it is crucial in making sure that we have a system that reflects a much more dynamic world. the power used to be focused and hierarchies. it was concentrated in a limited number of states. now we see it not just spread across a greater number of states, but beyond states. what we talk about in the room is our need to engage with mayors and governors. we are talking about states being major drivers of change not just congress. congress has around the world are quite stagnated and limited in their effectiveness but in many cases technology has changed. there is also a deeper debate going on here. i think it's particularly among the masses who are under the age of 30, that they are not completely sold on the idea of a system of international transparency for governing transactions and security. that is a much deeper threat. a sunday -- it is an idea talk about. my twitter feed was blowing up this week about the fever ifa election. as we think about these things, corruption which is opposed by every population around the world, is something where we actually draw a big line. here is the place where you have the business sector and are human rights sector both pushing heavily to say that if we are going to meet the standard, everyone is going to have to. it is something that every people around the world are excited to see. host: the report is called the qddr which stands for the quadrennial diplomacy and development review. caller: good morning. like about this is negative, but it is not early. -- dirty. the man is talking about foreign aid. 1/10 of 1% of our budget. i do not believe that. maybe for some countries, but what about all of the other agencies from the federal government all the way down to our organizations that also contribute aid to these countries? is any of that counted? you mentioned it would need to increase the middle-class and means for an countries, what about bringing it back to the united states? we have given these foreign countries most of our production , and we have still given them more stuff, more help, and we're not getting anything. the only thing that is gaining in this country now is the wall street and the multibillionaire's. guest: do i pray i know it is early california. we appreciate you engaging on this. on the you -- issue of international engagement i agree with you if you count everything we spent it is bigger than half of 1%. but foreign aid as it is discussed here is a very small part of the budget. or those around the country who feel like we spend too much around the world within military figure is big and i think virtually that is important that we are engaged around the world with all three of those, diplomacy, development, and defense. but the aid component in itself is actually extremely part small part of the budget. on the issue of the american middle class, i agree with you on both the personal and political level on the need to be focused more here at home. what we do see overseas is that increasingly our domestic prosperity tracks with the size of the global middle class. where else -- we have lost a huge amount of the jobs that we saw in the 1990's. what we see in terms of what helps us is the purchasing power of the global middle class. it is one of the best indicators for our success here at home. where we are pursuing policies overseas that will help the middle class will have positive impact here. but there are things domestically that you and i would agree to do to strengthen the middle class. host: our next caller. caller: good morning. i was curious if you could flesh out smart power a little bit more. guest: smart power came out of the leftqddr -- last qddr, and everyone knows that we have a large capacity to go and take out those who threaten the united states. smart power says that we prevent those things from blowing up in the first place. building a 60 country coalition to address isil. symbolic and important complications -- contributions. what people love about the united states, they love -- you'll have to see the success of the fast and furious franchise, there is so much about america that is beyond our government, and we want to be thinking about how those issues engage. what are department of justice this week did as an example of following the law, but also of a formal smart power of trying to forget be both advancing and seemed to be advancing a rise to the top form of globalization rather to a race to the bottom. what we have seen traditionally, if you look at the history of american foreign policy, we have been traditionally in the lead. we are supposed to be having civilians leaving the effort. texture gates saying we need to get back to that. but for a variety of reasons, including where we put the resources and constraints we put on civilians ability to operate overseas, it is hard to do that. that is one of the difficult things we take on in the report. that we need to have a conversation about tolerating a little b more risk along our personnel. we cannot do the job that we signed up to do behind higher and higher walls. we engage with the granularity of action that helps us to understand the countries better, and that presents opportunities that is of great interest to the american people. smart power is about trying to make sure that the civilian side of our foreign policy structure is forward deployed, forward advance, recruiting the best and the brightest. host: that is our topic as we talk about the state department and foreign aid. tom perriello is a special representative at the state department. if you go to the websited devex.com you will see five questions to ask about the qddr. caller: i would like to know how many countries did we give money to that gave money to hillary's charity? don't say that you don't know. if you're keeping up with money you will tell us. selling our country out by allowing this money to come right back to her, and is america's money. guest: i honestly do not know the answer to the first question. one of the things we are looking at in the qddr more generally's how we manage knowledge better, especially with how we manage e-mail in the department. we have gone from where foreign policy is proven by a relatively little amount of information in the world, to this situation of information saturation. it's a different world and we have to be doing diplomacy in different ways as well as ling ourselves accountable in different ways. we have an enormous backlog of requests, where secretaries as the inspector general for ideas to adjust to that and address that issue. this is something that goes more broadly into how we understand what is going on as a country. this is not a matter going on in the market and have a total conversations because we have pages and pages of lines of information about that country. our ability where our resources are increasingly constrained and the volume we are trained to address is massively growing we have to make sure we investing in the technology and other things that will make us more accountable, and more effective. host: a lot of tweets on foreign aid. how much do we give in foreign aid, and what percent of that is the budget? guest: less than half of 1%. most americans think it is 25% of the budget, and most say we should spend about 5%. many of them think we should increase foreign aid. i understand the idea about the concern of spending money, but i think when we understand what a relatively's ball amount of the budgeted instrument, and the other thing we do not do a good enough job of is explaining that this makes a difference. one of the things that frustrates many americans is to say we do all this for people around the world is and they still hate us. but the fact is the impact we have made on the lives of girls and women, on that again have people in extreme poverty, moving countries into be donor status, public health and pandemics committees have massiv e effects. and many do not sing their successes because they are not the type that will be content until the last case is solved. that i think we need to talk about how much we spent, how that looks around the world with what people are getting back as a return on that dollar. host: who leads in terms of foreign aid? guest: u.s. defense department does help, but we are very core of professional development experts inside and outside of government. there was an effort to focus on local capacity being able to the soft other countries, and there is a lot of great ownership stuff where there have been farmers in america that have gone over and made partnerships in other countries engineers that have gone over to greet potable water. it helps to address public health issues, so there are certainly returns on his investment. host: if you were to list the top five nations in foreign aid? guest: the eu as a whole china has become extremely active around the world, both through its public dollars and is private dollars, because they are fairly blurred. india starting to be more involved, being fr more engaged. host: another caller, massachusetts. caller: i have a couple of questions. when you say it is a quarter percent, is that what it amounts to? a quarter of 1% of the federal budget? guest: less than half a percent but i will try to get an exact number. caller: half of a percent. when you say that it sounds small. but when you have -- what is the budget? host: about $3 trillion. caller: that is the budget that is paid for, or that is the budget that is projected for the year? guest: that is the budget. we have a year-to-year deficit and a growing that in -- debt. and the debt is about $18 trillion. caller: when you have a trillion dollar budget, it becomes a lot of money. i understand that for the good work, you are the mouthpiece of this agency, but it is a federal agency that tends to be inefficient, and sometimes corrupt. and that is bad. but it is usually inefficient. do you know how much money actually gets to the job you're trying to do when you're going into a foreign country? how much gets spent on bureaucracy and the process of keeping the agency running? guest: it is a great question. you want to make sure that it is efficiently and not correctly. i think asking to meet that standard is absolutely correct. i think what we are trying to do is make sure that those programs are as effective and transparent as possible, which is why it has been pushed toward greater metrics. they've been asking the same questions because they represent people like you, and i'd been in that chair. you want to every penny is being spent well. you know that marty can be done on this -- more can be done on this. sometimes the rules themselves can actually increase the inefficient things we are trying to fight. there is some what paperwork to try to track everything, we have talked to some partners who feel like their overhead budgets go up because they are trying to meet all of these standards. we want to make sure that you get that right. frankly, and i will be a little bit in politics on this, one of the biggest cross runs on this is that we tend to have very strong provisions in this development work. most of this c money going directly back to americans. it is for-profit development companies, it is american personnel, not-for-profit companies, the need to buy american-made cars and products in these countries, which are more expensive than alternatives. we can see both sides of that. this is a chance to say, if these are u.s. taxpayer dollars they should be going to support u.s. jobs, on the other hand that often means that the work is more expensive than he can depart -- a counterpart that might be able to buy locally, and someone who might want to teach a first division instead of just giving them a fish. that's teach them to fish instead of just giving them a fish. i think the kind of accountability and tough love we are hearing is to going make the program stronger. host: climate change is in the first paragraph, why? caller: we are seeing the impacts of it, how do we prepare communities for the resilience ty of dealing with that? it needs to be in people's minds for whether they are working on economic issues in the country refugee flows and how that might affect violent extreme in some dynamics and in any given area. this is going to be part of our thinking. you see defense be ahead of the civilian side in integrating this more fully into how they do strategic planning, and a factor that they consider. that is going to be something that we need to make sure people have in their, mind. i think we outline four's strategic areas. we do relatively well at reacting once the crisis hits, it is harder to get the full mechanisms of government on all sides of pennsylvania avenue engaged on the prevention side. the inclusive economic growth because we see this long-term as a driver of stability and prosperity for back home. the issue of accountable democratic governance where we have seen some backsliding in the pockets of the world in the last few years, and we want to elevate a little. host: a special representative at the state department and on the qddr review. a quick update. secretary of state john kerry has broken his leg in a biking accident. he is in route to boston. he was in switzerland dealing with negotiations with iran. he has canceled his four nation trip, as it expected to be united states later in the day. we will turn our attention to the issue of immigration. alfonso aguilar will be on to talk about immigration. back in a moment. ♪ >> monday night on the communicators. public knowledge president and ceo jean can homeland and former fcc commissioner helfrich got rock on the merger between time warner and cable. >> very few consumers have more than one wire into the home. hardly anyone has totwo broadband providers. the question is, where do you get more competition? it is coming over that very same wire, so it is the cable company controlling two parts of your service. a lot of companies want to make new services and packages of services to the cable company has an incentive to favor its own product. so i think law enforcement is going to have to make sure there is no unfair benefit to cable through this consolidation. >> lots of americans particularly young americans under the age of 30 have got the wire. they do not have a cable subscription, they do not have a telephone wire such action is there early wireless -- telephone wire to subscription. they are purely wireless. you have new companies coming online to compete with wireless broadband offerings. the idea that there is any sort of market power or monopoly power in this industry right now is very difficult to understand. >> monday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on the communicators on c-span two. washington journal continues. host: we want to welcome alfonso aguilar with american principles in action. he is the former chief of the office of u.s. citizenship. thank you for being with us. guest: pleasure to be with you. host: a big issue in this campaign, and yet the republicans have yet to solidify any clarity when it comes to immigration. what do you expect to happen as this unfolds? guest: i am an optimist. i think that they understand the american people want congress to do oil -- deal with the toughest issues that face the nation. they should do it because it is important because we address this issue we have a dysfunctional immigration system. we cannot continue with 11 million people living in the shadows, with a border that is far from secure. we need to face this issue. on the other point, it is political. it would be very difficult for a republican nominee to get enough latino voter support to win the white house if the congressional republicans do not do anything on immigration. host: let me share with you a poll that came out a couple of months ago. as you look at the breakdown of how democrats and republicans view the issue of immigration, 70% of those self identified republicans say they oppose any path to citizenship. guest: the problem with this issue is that it has been oversimplified by democrats, saying that the issue is about it have to citizenship and that is not true. a majority of republicans who do not oppose a path to legal status, bringing people out of the shadows, the important thing is to give them a legal status. but this is not necessarily a special path to citizenship. that is what we're talking about. the majority of republicans are not saying let's close the door to shoot is in ship. -- citizenship. if you want to be a citizen, you will have to be following the path established by current law, which means you would have to be at the at the back of the line, not cutting in line. the question is not that that's a citizenship, but not a special path. democrats are proposing some sort of entitlement. there are lots of waiting up to the country for many years, when they are legally as immigrants, they could be citizens. when you look at the polling for the majority of latino voters, the most important thing is for people to come out of the shadows, not a path to citizenship. i think that is what republicans are proposing. if they were to propose a bill that would provide a legalization program, short of citizenship, i think the majority of latino voters, of the immigrant community would respond very favorably to that proposal. host: if you're one of those individuals we have a special number to call, (202) 748-80013. president bush did propose something similar, and help because republicans in congress did not want that. guest: both parties are to blame here. both parties have played political football with this. during that process and that debate in 2007 even sooner -- senator obama proposed amendments to the immigration bill that was being discussed. i think there are good actors in both parties. politics is the art of the possible. we be to create a consensus the only way will solve this issue is not only unilateral action what we need is to build consensus. among republicans and democrats with a plan that covers all of the issues of immigration problem. that is what my organization has proposed in the past weeks. a framework to move forward in this congress to deal with this issue so we can move forward. host: senator marco rubio did together that framework, and then essentially walked away from it. i want to share with you what he said in an interview. why he changed his views. >> the problems are that the roads are not there in the house. that impacted the way others floated as well. leaders stand for the idea that you need to do something, but joseph to deal with the reality of the political process and people will vote on what they hear from the constituents. at this stage, after two illegal executive orders, after a migratory border crisis the context in which were having this debate is much different. if we want to move forward on immigration, and the first thing we're going to have to do is prove to the american people that future illegal immigration is under control. host:? your response -- your response? guest: i agree with him. i was part of the bush -push to get this bill support. i'm supporting this because we have to start a debate and at that time that was the only bill that could get out of the democratic senate. i do not think marco rubio has changed his views on immigration. what he has changed and modified, which is necessary, is his strategy on how to push the issue forward. he is absolutely right. in this congress, the only thing we're going to move this issue forward is dealing with the issue of voter security, of enforcement of the law domestically and then the issue of undocumented immigrants and creating a program to facilitate the flow of the migrant workers that we need. it can be done in one comprehensive package, it has to be done through piecemeal approach by passing sequentially several bills. it can be done by this congress it does not mean the republicans would oppose any form of legalization. but i go back to what i said earlier. i think the issue has been oversimplified, and at the marco rubio has with some context into the debate. host: one of the first headlines saying that republicans lurch right on immigration. here we are in 2015 and still nothing. guest: it is frustrating to me that they did not do anything in the house in the last congress or any there are some candidates like scott walker, like senator santorum who have come out already with positions on immigration that sound restrictionist were not very supportive of the concept of immigration that helps economic growth. you have kids like marco rubio about late governor bush, like governor perry, even ted cruz who believe in immigration as something essential for growth in our country. the problem we have is that this issue of immigration has been oversimplified. democrats are good, republicans are bad. that is absolutely not true. what we need is common sense approach , and there are good actors in both parties. what we need to do is no consensus. we proposed a plan to secure the border, ensure that we enforce the law domestically that we can then move forward with legalizing documented immigrants, not provide a special path to citizenship, nor closing the door and create a program that obama and the democrats oppose. even when we talk about a comprehensive immigration reform, what is comprehensive? in a of reform that does not contain a marketplace program that would manage the flows of the it is not comprehensive so i would argue that that generally do not support the conference of -- approach. host: you can share your tweet at c-spanwj. why can't congress proposed an immigration bill? duh? danny joining us from arizona on the republican line. good morning. caller: first, i would like to talk about the border. i understand there is a huge amount government new regarding -- a huge amount of revenue regarding illegal drugs and acts. i realize there is a lot of revenue generated to help support a lot of our systems from prosecution although we have two corrections, but we have a huge amount of people who have been busted, law enforcement and legal people you name it, who have been busted and they were given -- the charges were dismissed. we have a judge who was not prosecuted and he is sitting on the bench. it is a shame that they are not enforcing the laws along the border like they should be. seems that money and revenue is the key concern here because some time ago we put in a request for a permit for a social function and we talked to some people that worked in homeland security and they told us that the corruption along the border is 99%. that was about five years ago and we do know that often times they catch people getting past to using border patrol the sheriff's department and they are also involved in traffic of illegal and loads of stuff came across the border. nothing is being done about this. what is being done about the corruption of our border? host: thank you for the call, danny. guest: that is a very good point. it is very difficult to do anything and i agree with the wind there is a perception that the border is not been secured. if you look at the texas sector of the border, particularly the rio grande valley sector, most often undocumented immigrants are coming illegally through that sector. last year, we had over 450,000 illegal entries, apprehensions, detentions through the southern border and over 330 thousand of those came through the rio grande valley. we do not have operational control over the rio grande valley sector. what has the administration done? nothing. so, how can you have a serious debate when you are not doing enough to secure the border? as border security improved? absolutely. i am willing to accept that. i remember in 2000, we had up to 1.1 million apprehensions along the southern border and has gone down to 400 or the thousand. if we take operational control of the rio grande valley sector, i can guarantee that number will decrease dramatically. i will not say that this is an either or proposition because republicans have been boxed in. you either support obama's amnesty or mitt romney's self deportation. what i am proposing is that we secure the border in an effective way in the best way to do it that i know of is not by coming up with theoretical measures but by actually doing something concrete and i think extending double layer fencing can keep parts of the border where illegal entry is possible and would dramatically reduce the number of illegal entries. now, once we do that, we can look at drinking people out of the shadows and again, creating a market race guestworker program goes to the root of the immigration program and sadly most democrats oppose. are they really for reform? i doubt it. host: this is a piece i want to director attention to from "time " magazine. the title of the essay "the other border" and photographs by alex altman. undocumented immigrants are dying in large numbers as they try to avoid road checkpoints in texas counties north of the u.s. -mexico border. here are additional photographs including the remains of bodies of some of those who were found along the border and one more for the graft, courtesy of "time" magazine. let's go to jimmy from georgia. our line for illegal immigrants. good morning. caller: good morning. the purpose of my call and there are so many areas i can go, but i mainly want to speak to his this former government official who worked in immigration business. how do you get to the number of 11 million illegal immigrants in the country? first of all but -- one of the big champions of illegal immigration in this country is from uni bc on tv. about two years ago, he was using the figure of 20 million to 30 million and then at some point, mr. q taras came out with a number, 11 million or 10 million. we have no idea how many they are. and i wonder why don't we have some sort of a census -- a special senses for people who are in the country -- knowingly in the country illegally. we get them to come out and participate in the senses, register with the government -- when we get that number from becoming a how many they are then we start thinking about how we either help them to become legal or help them to return to the countries they came from and be on a list where later on, they can be considered by our various councils? host: i will stop so we have time for response. thank you, jimmy. guest: i agree. when i mention 11 million, luis gutierrez to not come up with that number. that is managed by law enforcement and different resorts organizations. i don't think anybody is saying that pressure is a number. it can be less and it can be more, we just don't know. i agree with you, however, the idea of the senses is just not realistic. how can you poll the population of undocumented immigrants if they don't know what will happen with them? you really think they're going to come forward to a government agency to do a poll if they don't know what is going to happen/ if they don't know they're going to be detained and removed from the country? it just does not work that way. look, i am not happy we have so undocumented immigrants and the country but the reality is they are not coming here looking for handouts or to have children here are some people say. they are coming here because they want to work. they want to improve their condition, their living standard for themselves and their relatives. the majority of them, believe it or not, do not want to stay here permanently. he would like to go back and you know, we need them because there are jobs that americans don't want to do for which we don't have americans outworking eight to do them. we need to have a mechanism to allow those people to come here legally, work, return to their home country so they don't stay here permanently and then be able to reenter and incorporate the constitution and immigration they some principles of the market, conservative principles. if american businesses can prove that they cannot hire american workers, let them in. however, there is also this idea we heard it from some candidates, particularly governor walker following this position that senator sessions of alabama has, that immigrants are taking jobs away from americans or depressing wages. that is an absolute fallacy. they are taking these jobs that nobody is going after and by taking those jobs, they help create jobs upstream in the labor market. better paying jobs. for those who say that immigration hurts the middle class to the country immigration helps create good paying jobs for americans, so beware of those who tell you that he cannot allow more even legal, immigrants to come in because that will hurt the middle class. more people in the economy means an expanded consumer base, more economic activity, immigrant economist like to say they have a complementary role with american workers. they complement the skills of american workers creating better paying jobs for americans. so that is the root of the problem. right now, we are discussing to alternatives that are not realistic. on one hand, the security border to enforce the law or promote self duplication and on the other, provide a path of citizenship to undocumented immigrants. i put forward that those two alternatives will not resolve the problem. we need a common sense approach and i thinks conservative congress can actually passed a series of bills that begins putting our dysfunctional immigration system in the order. host: our topic immigration in the 26 campaign and this is from paying who says the country is divided between immigration and the deportation of 11 million. here is a summary of what the american principles in action is calling for in essence and what alfonso aguilar say we need to secure the border, enforce immigration law to work ways to fully implement the entry and exit registry. also ensure employers could hire foreign workers if needed and provide a path legal status for undocumented immigrants. that is the key -- legal status. as good to stephen from hastings, florida, democrat line. good morning. caller: good morning and to our particular call. i have been tried for a long time but this is my first time. i think i have a very simple solution. social security, medicare and immigration. if you think about this it is very simple. the greatest is debt and make get everything they could. the baby boomers are aging out of the workspace. we have millions of people here that if they were only to come out of the shadows, were given some sort of ability to work -- they are consuming. the american revolution started because there was taxation without representation. these people pay tax and every time they eat, every time they buy food, every time they go to a restaurant, the only difference is they are not being represented, so how could -- republicans think that you can be taxing people but whatever way that you do, anyway being taxed and not being represented -- i mean, someone can say that they should deport themselves to their own country of origin and saying that yes, we want to return. you are never going to get that and that life is -- that is why you don't want to give them citizenship. host: thank you. guest: that is a nice talking point but it does not work. i am always talking to latino communities around the country and what they are looking for is to come out of the shadows. immigration reform is the last big immigration reform of about 3 million people were given amnesty. that was amnesty. in a how many of those actually became citizens? 40%. look -- i am not saying that people who come out of the shadows and are legalized cannot become citizens. understand this well because there is a lot of confusion, confusion that actually, hillary clinton is helping to create. what i am saying is, let's legalize them, let's give a path to legal status, but if that they want to become citizens, they would have to follow the current process established by law. do you disagree with that? i mean, i am not saying, no, you cannot become a citizen. i am just saying you can follow the rules because there are many people waiting outside of the country to enter here as immigrants and become citizens, so this is very important and this is, i think the achilles tendon of the democratic argument. they really think that latinos are so dumb that they are going to buy this argument that republicans are just against a path of citizenship or undocumented immigrants -- they are against a special path. let me agree with him in saying that we do have a population issue. it is not that the u.s. is overpopulated but that birth rates are going down and that is why jobs are not being filled by americans. in senator sessions which is now sounding like a big labor liberal, when they say that more immigrants means depressed wages, apparently, he has not a or reviewed our history. when we had the baby-boom, when we had birth rates high in the country, and jobs creation skyrocketed. good paying jobs at high rages. you know when wages start coming down and this income inequality that we see started expanding? when birth rates went down. this idea that less people is good, that people are pollution the malthusian ideas that inspires a lot of restrictionist groups like the senate for immigration studies and apparently now senator sessions can do sounds like a liberal now, i think is wrong. i believe in reagan's view of america, of an expanding economy that is open and free that can receive people from any corner of the world and incorporate them into our economy and takes the end. that is when he talked about in his farewell speech to the nation when he talked about that on the hill as the city filled with people, open with commerce that thrived and received anyone from any corner of the world that came here to work. why are we against that? let me tell you -- president obama and senator sessions agreed that we should not allow more foreign workers to come in, believe it or not. host: to our listeners on c-span radio who are on channel xm 120, we are talking about -- we are talking with alfonso aguilar looking at the 2016 immigration issue. he also served as the chief of the u.s. office of citizenship during the bush administration. fried is joining us from huntsville, alabama. good morning. caller: good morning, steve, so give me about five extra seconds because that waiting a while. i want to talk about sovereignty and loyalty. if a nation loses its sovereignty, it is no longer a nation. these people broke the number one law of our land our sovereignty. they came across our borders whether they came or if they stayed -- overstayed a visa, if you are not legally here in america, you need to go where you came from or leave the country. i agree with republicans on this. what i want to say about loyalty is, the way i hear a lot of these hispanic americans who are supposed to be americans clamoring and campaigning for the people from those other countries, i question their loyalty. if your loyalties are somewhere else, i don't care if it is south of our border or jerusalem or wherever -- that israeli to live. thank you. host: thank you, fred. guest: my friend, i think you go the wrong route when you question the loyalty of u.s. citizens of hispanic origin. during the iraq war, and i served eight years in the bush administration -- we had 40,000 permanent residents, immigrants the majority of hispanic origin serving in the armed forces, many in iraq. did you know -- probably don't -- that the first agile tea in iraq was a permanent residents of guatemala? you know, this is a reality. they are not even citizens and they are actually wanting to put themselves in harms way to defend the rights that we cherish. look -- i agree that they broke the law. but our constitution is based on the idea that the penalties of these people are not extreme. if they have broken the law, and by the way that is not a crime under federal law, the penalty should be proportional. let's have them pay a good sign, i have defined so they understand that they broke the law and let them come forward. but the idea that the only way to fix up this is by deporting them is actually ridiculous. first of all, there is no way that we can deport 11 million undocumented immigrants. let me tell you something -- the republicans -- again, what you are saying about republicans is a generalization that is not group. steve king and senator sessions do not talk or represent the majority of republicans in congress. i think they want to lead and i am hopeful that perhaps even in this congress we may be able to get something done. i agree however that if republicans remain silent because when i meet in congress with senators and members of congress, i realize they want to do something. if they don't come forward and do something and introduced legislation, then they will be a perception out there that republicans do not want to do something. that is our he put together this plan to encourage members to do something, even conservative arguments to deal with the issue. and pass legislation. look -- if democrats want to oppose this, let them. they would have to explain latino -- to latino voters that they oppose the bill that would secure the border, enforce the law and legalize undocumented immigrants. host: will you endorse somebody and du support jeb bush? -- or do you support jeb bush? guest: certainly, governor bush understands this issue better than other candidates. i've -- he has a written a book on this issue and i think what he articulates in his book in "immigration wars" which is a great read is consistent with the plan articulated. i think we have a better chance of getting immigration reform, if it is not done in this congress, with jeb bush in the white house then with hillary clinton. but then again marco rubio also has articulated a plan that is consistent with what we have proposed, governor perry certainly understands the importance of securing the border and creating a good program to resolve the issue and also senator rand paul has said that the gop needs to deal with immigration. i am hopeful that the narrative on immigration in this cycle is going to be much more positive than four years ago and the candidates will avoid this up deportation movement of mitt romney. there are exceptions. i do know how popular go with his candidacy and the top one is governor walker has really flip-flopped on the issue and his last statement saying that immigration is not -- and even legal immigration could lead to wages on workers and that takes me think he does not understand the issue very well. host: let's go to john joining us from florida. republican line. good morning with alfonso aguilar, you are next. caller: good morning. add a comment about c-span before i get my question. i am in my middle 70's and i put eight years in the military protecting this country and our borders against illegal people coming in here and fighting the wars that we had. we are so sick of you c-span putting these illegal aliens a phone number on their for our cable and dish satellite pain the wages and they have no business, they broke into our country, they are taking all the jobs like this guy don't agree on and he says a line that gets old. we are so sick of these people. i've got grandkids and kids that can't get the job. all you got to do is look at the freeways and interstates, and that is all they have working there except for a couple of americans. host: let me just, don euro there, and -- the reason we did that is because they are part of the conversation and often you can learn from their perspective just like we are learning from your perspective and that is what this program is all about. that is why we include all voices and all points of view on this program but these, go ahead, john. host: -- caller: this hiding in the shadows -- this is a bunch of garbage, too because they are everywhere in this country. they don't arrest them, they do all the crimes, they do anything and obama won't arrest none of them. i have seen this and i rode with the sheriff in my community. this guy says they don't come over here for the benefits. if they don't come for the benefit, how come we tell them to -- why not tell them to stay out of our schools and stop going to all the food stamp card? host: we will get a response. guest: wow. the problem with what he is saying and it is a difficult with a small group of restrictions in the company -- and the country. when he is saying is not what the majority of the conservative days believes. the perception is out there that the majority of conservatives think like this gentleman but he actually represents a small minority. the problem is they are very parklike the ones calling the show. they have the support of people like laura ingram, shall now can, and coulter, and they say all the things that are actually not true, for example, he says they have access to welfare. an undocumented immigrant does not have access to welfare. it does not have access to federal benefits, so i do not know what he is talking about. ironically by doing jobs americans don't want, they are creating good paying jobs for his nephew or his grandchild or whoever he was talking about. look -- pick a restaurant for example. if you don't have people -- will we are here in washington, d.c., if you visit any restaurant in washington, d.c. in the kitchens, who are doing the hard jobs? the cleaning jobs? they are immigrants and most are undocumented immigrants. are they doing them because those restaurants are paying them below the minimum wage or the wage? that is not true. if they cannot find american workers. look at the fields, in alabama in the state you are calling from. i don't see, and i have been in your state and i have had with agriculture business, where are those americans lining up to take those jobs to work in the fields? it does not happen and that is why we need this work was but we needed legally. so i think -- the question here is, are republicans going to remain the majority and support immigration reform -- are they going to remain silent on it forces voices like steve king, and coulter and ann coulter is coming out tomorrow with the book "adios, america," arguing that illegal immigrants cannot be assimilated into america. this is what they said about the irish and italian 100 years ago that they can't assimilate, that they throw garbage in the street. coulter is not something you are born with. it is something you learn and can be a learned. the great thing about america is that based on the role of law people can change their habits. you know, mexico it is very difficult to create a business and that is why a lot of people depend of government. and they come here, they became entrepreneurial. why do you think 20% of businesses today in america are created by hispanic entrepreneurs? perhaps many immigrants. i would argue that as -- is the republican party going to it a small minority of hateful language and even racist language control this debate? i think it is time for us to reclaim this issue and go back to the mission of america as a country based on the role of law and the country teeming with people that can open economy and thriving economy. host: what about american principle and action quest -- who funds american principle in action? guest: we have a number of funders in different sectors on education, on monetary policy which is essential for our economy to grow and and this income inequality that we have and certainly on immigration. our donors -- we don't like to give their names out -- in this highly political environment sometimes when you give out the names of people, there are not people who -- there are people who target them sadly. they are good americans committed to the rule of law and that believed that america is going down the wrong path and that we need to go back to the principles of founding of small government, of family values and free trade. host: that's good to david joining us from denison, texas, our line for republicans. caller: good morning. for some like to say that i am a conservative in favor of rate increases of illegal immigration. i certainly appreciate what that has done for our country in the past. i understand also that you look at our population growth versus europe and other parts of the world with their populations going down and ours is ultimately going up probably because of immigration. that being said, and i also agree with your guest on most everything he is saying, however, i would -- and this has nothing to do with what i called about initially but i would like to defend that last caller a bit and saying that you overstate when you say that he represents such a small sliver. i would not agree with necessarily how we expressed all of what he said but having worked in the hotel industry and management for 20 years and having kids of my own who can't get jobs -- when i grew up i am 63, when i grew up my first jobs were at neighborhood lawn jobs. there was no way can get a long job in this country anymore. i had three boys and try to put all three in that business and there was no way to compete with the folks that were doing it. ultimately i have hired those cruise myself now. there is no way to compete. in construction industry, hotel industry, i understand when you are saying about having a hard time finding people to do the jobs and that is because there are so many people there to do those that way and if they tighten up the ways that they allow people into those where they require better checks, then believe me, americans will do any job. i sent my sons and help them go up to the oilfields in north dakota where they are paying very high wages up there. i helped bankroll them up there for one month, it is really hard to stay up there because there is no place to be. the company they hired on ultimately replace them with illegal immigrant labor that they brought up from the company in arizona and a phased the knot and i had to bring them home. this is an issue, real issue. i am not saying that -- well, let me get to what i really called about, please, if i could because i had a question for you . they keep talking about conference of immigration reform and it seems to me that every time any thing is called conference of tone out there it is already doomed. host: thank you, david. we will get a response. guest: i agree with you. the first point you make is very valid. right now, if we care about working americans like your kids, we should not be for keeping the system as it is. because we have 11 million or more illegal in the country there are irresponsible employers who hire undocumented immigrants because they can pay them less. now, because they are illegal in the country, they have a competitive advantage over american workers. so, let's ensure -- and that is part of the plan -- that we mandate that. the main reason they are coming here is to work. if we have an electronic verification system that ensures that employers know that the person that is applying for a job is legally authorized to work in the country that will definitely prevent them from hiring undocumented immigrants. let's do that. let's take a way that incentive. a lot of people who crossed the border know they cannot get a job because this system is in place and is called e-verify. if take out then those illegal immigrants competing unfairly, then i think there will be an equal playing field where your children will be able to -- if they want to do landscaping -- they will be able to do that work. let me tell you going back to population numbers, the average age of a white american is 41 in the country. you know it you find a lot of need for landscapers and at that age, it is very difficult to do that type of work. the same thing with agriculture and that is why immigration is so important. i think we have to put it objectively and that, what you are saying, arguing at the beginning is a reason for bringing people out of the shadows. we cannot support them all, so that is why we should impose a heavy fine and let them come forward. host: quick follow up -- based on every thing you have been saying, is it safe to assume that immigration reform will not happen until after the presidential election? guest: i am an optimist and i believe republicans understand that if they don't do anything, whoever the candidate is, he or she may be handicapped, so i believe it is possible, very difficult, but still possible that something could be done. even if next year and the election year. again, very difficult and we will have to go against the current. very difficult but i would not say impossible. host: we will conclude on that note. alfonso aguilar with the american principles in action serving as the latino partnership director. thank you for guest: being with us. we appreciate it. thank you so much for having me. host: we will turn our phone lines open on some -- on some of the top stories. this headline from "the hill" " the patriot act state is now in senator rand paul's hands and it is a rare sunday session that will take place on c-span2." he could move to reconsider a failed both that would limit the debate on taking up the house pass overhaul of the patriot surveillance power act. the nsa -- and that story online at the hill.com. our phone lines are open at 202-748-8000 four democrats and two 02-748-8001 four republicans. live coverage of the senate on c-span2 and secretary john kerry coming up in a moment. first, an overview of what to expect when the senate gavels in this afternoon. >> the senate will begin a debate at 4:00 today on this program which is part of the usa patriot act that expires tonight at midnight. they will debate whether to pass a law or pass a bill that the house passed a few weeks ago that would and the bulk of television -- telephone collection and replace it with the ability for the government to obtain on a case-by-case basis telephone records from telephone companies. who you call, how long the conversation, how long you talk to that person. they would be able to collect that information on a case-by-case basis. senator rand paul and republicans from kentucky says he wants the nsa telephone program to end that he believes the only way to do that is to have the whole program expire tonight at midnight and then we will start over and construct a new program, though he plans to block any initiative that the senate tries to pass today that would extend or reform in any way this program. now, we will probably see a vote on the house bill -- the senate will vote on hospital that already passed and that will not pass, and then they will also try to put on temporary extensions, one week, to be maybe two months, one-month extensions. senator paul is expected to block all of those. if this is a football game the person you wanted to keep your eye on is senator paul and also watch the senator geordie leader mitch mcconnell and also a number of democrats to see how they maneuver. we will watch senator marco rubio because he is ready for 2016. there is a lot of excitement in the senate today, so get a comfortable seat. >> "washington journal" continues. host: that recap of "the wall street journal" and a life you of the u.s. capitol on this sunday morning, may 31. the last day of the month. the patriot act expires at midnight. from cq weekly, this article "patriot gains in a ship for surveillance" and again, senate have going in at 4:00 eastern time. the first series of votes expected about 6:00 eastern time and we will have it live here. some calling it a month -- the first of the presidential 2016 debates. speaking of politics, another entry into the democratic race mark o'malley officially a candidate. this is a story from inside "the washington post." a piece by dan balls, what challenges o'malley hillary clinton? pointing out that o'malley is running against the most formidable front-runner in recent times. hillary clinton towers over the field of candidates for her party's nomination and is able to amass resources, talent here's more from governor o'malley with his official announcement. o'malley: goldman sachs is one of the biggest repeat investment banks in america. recently, the ceo of goldman sachs let his employees know that he would be just fine with either bush or clinton. i bet he would. [laughter] well, i have got news for the bullies of wall street -- the presidency is not a crown to be passed back and forth by you between two royal families. it is a sacred trust to be learned from the american people and exercise on behalf of of the people of these united states. [applause] the only way we are going to rebuild the american dream is it we retake control of our own american government. [applause] the poet laureate of the american dream, bruce springsteen. [laughter] he once asked is a dream alive if it don't come through -- a lie if it don't come true or is it something worse? whether the american dream becomes a lie or becomes an ongoing truth that our children can enjoy, that our children can live, that our children can build upon is really up to you and to me. it is up to all of us. it is not about wall street. it is not about the big things, it is not even about big money trying to buy our elections. it is about us. host: former maryland governor and before the baltimore mayor martin o'malley officially a candidate and announced yesterday. we were live in baltimore and this from joe battlefield of the herald who says a new poll showing that a stunning 53% of voters do not trust hillary clinton and more than half of independence do not like her. that has got to make democrats nervous, so martin o'malley does have an opening, especially if hillary clinton continues to evade voter questions and hide behind private fundraisers and phony roundtables. that story is online at boston herald.com. our phone lines are open and some of the top stories on this sunday. susan on the independent line from florida. caller: good morning. two are for taking my call. the patriot act -- i don't see what the big deal is. i think it should be passed. the thing that i wonder sometimes is nobody seems to question the credit card company and the credit rating bureau. who set them up? [laughter] i have a bigger concern with that ruining my reputation then nsa. also on immigration, i am an immigrant myself from world war ii. i am getting old here. it was a very difficult situation. there was no mercy. if my parents would not have been able to get a sponsor, we would have been slated to go to argentina. very difficult situation and we were not welcome and we came from a world war there that we did not start. at least i know i didn't. education, i think we should make mandatory high school education for everyone across the board and minor children, the parents are supposed to be responsible. i think they should be called up on it and be held responsible to make sure that their children go to school. host: susan, thank you for the call. this story from bloomberg politics, a new poll in iowa invented by bloomberg and the des moines register showing that the wisconsin governor scott walker has expanded his early lead in iowa. former governor jeb bush continues to face headwinds and senator marco rubio of florida shows an upside potential in a state that will host the first balloting next year. the new bloomberg politics des moines register poll showing governor walker is backed by 17% of those who say they will precipitate -- participate in the caucuses and ben carson, as well as jeb bush and former arkansas mike huckabee at about 9%. all details available online at bloomberg politics.com. next is gregory from pennsylvania on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning, steve. host: how are you today? caller: i am fine, thank you. if i may, i would like to say that the people that come to this country come here for one reason and that is freedom. to call them a legal or aliens i think is insulting. what we ought to do is accommodate them and to change the term immigration to patriot and then subject them, like everybody thousand defense of this country, to a draft. in other words, use them positively instead of pointing a finger at them and intimidating them. this notion of bush and reagan at this stage of the game i think is so much a dribble. we have to move forward like marco rubio said and not dwell on history in the past. i thank you very much, steve. host: by the way, where is that in pennsylvania? caller: if you've got pennsylvania, you have got a rectangle. if you have a pencil, you draw and x in it and where the two lines meet is approximately where it is. host: i miss pronounce it. how do you pronounce it? caller: pak scientist. it is a name from an indian chief of the cherokee indians years and years ago. which we still respect. host: we learn something new every day, gregory. caller: here is another thing. the use of the word people -- i object to the use of the word illegal aliens, illegal whatever. we, the people, is the first couple of words in the constitution. once they get to this country they are a person and they are free. they are no different than what lincoln or washington or jefferson envisioned. we have to accommodate these people. how they do it is what we elect them for. how they don't do it is a reflection of their complete lack of incompetence which we need to address as opposed to intimidating these people. host: ok, we will move on gregory. thank you so much for the call. some other headlines on this sunday morning. l.a. times warriors lost at home of the national guard troops back at home but many are fighting you battles. that is what they are facing on the home front. this from "the chicago sun-times," the once mighty politician became house speaker because of another congressman sex and are now he faces federal charges tied to his own alleged sexual misconduct. on page of "the washington post," "in five months, police have fairly shot 385 individuals." we are joined next from north carolina, good morning. welcome to the program. caller: how are you doing today? i wanted to comment on the patriot act. i am a firm believer in we need to be able to gather evidence of terrorists and terrorist groups around the world and they are making communication and creating new ways to bomb and other places around the world. it is a tool that can be helpful. it is not that i am giving up liberty, i just inc. it is necessary. i also think it is a campaign strategy that rand paul is using to gather more votes that he probably will not get anyway. and that is what i was calling about. host: thank you very much for the call. senator rand paul saying i will force the expiration of the illegal nsa spy program and joining us live on the phone is joe marx it was following this story for politico. thank you very much for being with us. guest: glad to be with you. host: what is the latest question mark they will convene at 4:00 and then what? guest: they will convene at 4:00 and there will be efforts to be some efforts to get the usa freedom act passed through that body. the chances of it happening are not looking great, especially giving that senator rand paul 2016 presidential aspirant who is also said he wants to force the expiration of this -- these revisions of the patriot act at midnight tonight. long-term that does not mean it is a body of 100 members, one member can't run it forever but ultimately, it is looking as if it will be very difficult for those provisions to last beyond the night tonight and there will be some set of business later on. something in place to some manner of intelligence gathering. feeling that there will be a backup between the senate and house until they can reach a compromise. we heard from the president on friday saying that essentially this needed to be put in place or our national security is at risk. how die without warning from the president friday -- how dire was that warning from the president on friday? guest: they have said in the past that they have not been able to state a specific case in which this program stop the terrorist attack that was and think of this as an insurance program. you don't judge a program or what it has done in the past but what it has done in the future. president obama said and heaven for bid there is not an attack because we could not gather information. this cap will affect national security in some way. he was also joined by loretta lynch in that address and her concern is that book collection will also expire are wiretaps which is essentially the ability to have a single tap that would follow a person rather than a device which is very useful for just this department -- justice department investigations. that is something that most sides are very in favor of continuing but got caught up in the surveillance debate. host: this will be must watch tv on c-span2. we hope you watch it, especially as it progresses because it will get more interesting as lawmakers begin to come back to washington. i want to share with you, this is from "the washington post" story. how rand paul is using this for political purposes and in fact saying, get ready america for the against brawl for liberty of the century. that brawl in the u.s. senate, live on c-span2, we should point out. guest: absolutely. this -- since his beginning of politics has been deeply opposed to these programs. you can bet there will be quite a brawl. joe marx following this for politico. thank you for being with us. we will direct our attention for politico.com as the story and post throughout the course of the day. a few more minutes left before newsmakers at the top of the hour. mike from munro, ohio independent line. good morning. i would like to strongly disagree with the man from pennsylvania. we are a nation of laws. if you cross our border, it is illegal federally. what happens is corporate america has blind our representatives pockets whether the republicans or democrats. the problem being is, if you cross a mexico border, you are put in a prison for two years. ok? we are looking for the government to get us out of the mess. the only way we are going to get out of this mess we are in is to get these people out of office. the only way we will get out is if we get a third party and keep an eye on the people we elect. thank you. host: equally sure this is the right time for our retirement. cbs's bob schaffer will be stepping down today. his final broadcast, which you can also listen to on c-span radio, we reenter all of the sunday programs, this from cnnmoney, bob schiffer on the past present, and future of journalism. by the way, his interview today will include likely candidate jeb bush and he said he wanted to lead while he thought he could still do the job. i have too many people in washington who have been led to the ask -- the longest running host of the sunday program stepping down today at your years at face the nation. jeff is a nasa -- jeff is next from nebraska. good morning. good morning. i just went to bring up that talk about immigration real quick. they have promised and promised and promised that illegal aliens that were here and whoever that was here, the mexican community that he would ensure the very next years that when they had control of the house and senate that he would make sure that he would get things past -- past and he knew very well that he would not do that because they wanted to use that as a club for the last six years and they are going to use it again. the mexican people need to wise up and come on the side that is going to help them out. we've got to secure both orders not just the southern border but the northern border. i need -- i'm insecure with a fence and a lot more people than what we have down there. and implement the laws. we do not need to create any more laws. we've got everything we need. host: thank you for the call. news this morning that secretary of john kerry is in route back to boston after breaking his leg. the injury took place in switzerland. he was there to negotiate the iranian nuclear agreement and that deadline is the end of june. he was helicopter to a swiss hospital and the state department spokesperson saying his injuries are not in any way last name and he is expected to make a full recovery. he broke his femur and he was biking about 25 miles southeast of the swiss border come the transported to a geneva hospital and now in -- ending his poor nations oversea trip and back in boston today. you will hear more later today from the state department. isabella from massachusetts is next. good morning and welcome to the program. caller: thank you c-span for providing this bible forum. host: thank you for phoning in. caller: you are most welcome. i am against the u.s. patriot act and i was one of the people in the small group of people 10 years ago in 2004 when we had a town meeting and we passed a resolution that asked our elected representatives at the national level to stop the unconstitutional provision i am not a democrat and i congratulate rand paul for his fight against this. i don't think this is patriotic gore american and it should be stopped. i don't think it is necessary for national security and has not stopped terrorist attacks since it was enacted. i am very excited that the congress has finally woken up and i think -- i thank mr. edward snowden for waking the nation up to what is being done. thank you very much. host: thank you, isabella. this headline above the full from "the new york times" the piece points out that over the last few months, a longtime ally of hillary clinton has helped to organize private meetings around the country with union leaders clinton backers, democratic strategist. oppressing topic of who will step up to be the mega-donors in the 2016 presidential race ? we welcome norma from hastings england, to our for joining us. caller: hello, i would like to comment on two things. first of all, immigration. american people are suffering -- well, they believe they are suffering from the influx of people from latin america. well, yesterday on our news, it was about thousands more of immigrants coming from the middle east write-down from the likes of the coast from the areas that is facing europe write-down to africa. that continent is 10 times the size of the area that the people want to come to which is britain , portugal spain france, germany, and grace. grief is almost bankrupt, in fact, it is ready to go bankrupt. yet, thousands of people each day were picked up and i think some american ships bringing them up and bringing them off the boat onto the european soil. and a lot of those are going into greece. there isn't any way europe could put up with because you have water in between the two landmasses. the next point, you have not mentioned which has been front page on our news and on the television and that is the fact that the american fbi went into the system that controls the executive face and they arrested a load of them. they have arrested them at fifa. in has been all on the television and radio with what is happening with the world cup and the two countries that are going to come into it qutar and russia. my viewpoints don't go along with what they believe on bbc radio, but my point is to you and i would have said it on the bbc if they had allowed me, i don't think it has anything to do with the ballgame. i think it is between nations and i think it is between the nation of america and the nation of russia and the fact that russia might get the world cup -- i'm not saying whether it is right -- i don't think the american, not the people but those in power, don't rent russia to have the world cup. -- don't want russia to have the world cup. if they can find any justification of russia not having the world cup, they will find it. host: thank you for the call. glad to hear from you from england. the scented -- the senate will doubt win at 4:00 eastern time and the first series of votes are scheduled around 6:00 eastern time so we will preempt our full tv coverage on c-span2 to show you live coverage of the senate and well into the evening we are told. linda is joining us from columbia, maryland. good morning. caller: good morning. i'm calling regarding the usa patriot act. the guest you had on earlier kept referring to it as data collection. william penn he worked for the nsa already told everybody that they are recording 80% of our phone calls and eight now already have the capacity to record 100% of them. this is very misleading information. i don't know if he was misinformed or he was part of the system that once to deceive us, but i want to remind every one what john mattison said, the means of the sense against foreign danger have historically become the instruments of tyranny at home. host: thank you for the call. also wanted to point out the passing of beau biden, 46 years old and the son of vice president joe biden. he had been battling brain cancer and the former state attorney general in delaware and he passed away yesterday. he is the eldest son of the vice president and had been admitted to me to the national medical center and he is a veteran of the delaware national guard and has a wife and two children. in case you are interested, back in 2000 six, we conducted an interview with the vice president. it is available on her website and he talked about the death of his first wife, how beau biden at the age of three was a severely injured along with brother hunter biden and how he remarried and dealt with the loss of his wife and daughter. he talks about beau biden in that interview as well. you can check it out as part of the c-span video library at www.c-span.org. last caller's marty from michigan. quick comments. caller: yes, sir. how are you doing? host: find, thank you. caller: i wanted to say that a lot of the stuff i hear is a comparison when it comes to illegal immigration is it is brought back to the 19 80's, the 1970's. the population was not even close to what it is now at 320 million americans. it is absolutely -- we are in the country with 120 trillion of unfunded debt and for most of the democrats out there, that means not paid for. we could not last -- for the last eight years, we have been setting unemployment filers at 300,000 a week. that is about 1.2 million month. there are no jobs available in this country at all. i know. i just got a job and worked myself to sickness to try to ensure that i kept that job. this is absolutely crazy and on the patriot act, it is interesting that we want to monitor 320 million americans but we don't secure our borders. host: thank you very much for the call. a reminder that we will continue the conversation and the latest tomorrow on c-span's "washington journal" with the senate debate on the patriot act. neil lysacek he will be joining us and james thurber on pensions of ex-president's and we will talk about federal disaster relief but michael greenberger tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern time and 4:00 those on the west coast. "newsmakers" is next and i hope you enjoy the rest of your weekend. have a great week ahead and ui for being with us on this sunday morning. ♪

Related Keywords

Jerusalem , Israel General , Israel , Boston College , Massachusetts , United States , Alabama , China , Delaware , California , Fort Hood , Texas , Russia , Washington , District Of Columbia , Des Moines , Iowa , West Virginia , Mexico , Arizona , India , South Carolina , Ireland , Cuba , Spain , Switzerland , Chicago , Illinois , Greece , Baltimore , Maryland , New York , North Carolina , Germany , Missouri , Argentina , Iran , Kentucky , Florida , Boston , Virginia , Georgia , Wisconsin , San Antonio , Guatemala , Michigan , United Kingdom , Iraq , Nebraska , Geneva , Genè , Pennsylvania , Ohio , North Dakota , William Penn , Italy , Italian , Americans , America , Mexican , Britain , Iranian , Swiss , Israeli , Irish , American , Marco Rubio , Ben Carson , Scott Walker , Richard Rogers , Walter Scott , Joe Biden , Joe Marx , Michael Greenberger , Bob Schaffer , Bruce Springsteen , Loretta Lynch , Rick Perry , Steve King , Ann Coulter , John Kerry , James Thurber , John Mattison , Alex Altman , Laura Ingram , Al Qaeda , Alfonso Aguilar , Nathaniel Hawthorne , Bernie Sanders , David Mccullough , Alfonso Aguiar , Scott Brown , Jeb Bush , Luis Gutierrez , Bob Schiffer , Bob Schieffer , Edward Snowden , Lindsey Graham , Mitch Mcconnell , Hillary Clinton , Ted Cruz ,