the case is submitted. >> oral argument there in the case nlrbv noel canning, and we're joining again by mike doyle of mcclatchy in washington, what did the court decide? >> well, this is a very interesting decision. on a 9-0 vote, the court unanimously rebuked the obama administration and ruled that the three labor board appointees had been appointed illegally. so on its face it was a 9-0 defeat for the obama administration. but buried within that unanimity, there was another decision or another opinion authored by four of the conservative justices who had gone much further in striking down the ability of presidents to make recess appointments. so this was a defeat for the white house, but it was not as radical a defeat as it might have been. >> what does that mean for the white house in terms of current appointees and any future appointees the president may decide to choose or make in a recess?

>> well, in the months that followed these questioned appointments, the white house and the senate democrats that control the senate came to a deal where they made it much harder for republicans to fully buster. and so to some extent, the issue has been sidestepped. but this certainly does limit the future ability of presidents to unilaterally declare the senate in recess and make recess appointments. it will to some limited degree constrain the power of the president. >> mike doyle of mcclatchy, we appreciate your input. a reminder to c-span viewers that all of the cases we've covered over the past number of years are available at c-span.org. >> so that wraps up this supreme court oral argument. if you missed it, we'll air it again later today at 6:25 p.m. eastern. we continue our series tomorrow with mccheckmccutcheon verse se.

thursday we'll focus on warrantless mobile phone searches, and we'll finish friday with the sebelius v. hobby lobby case which deals with contraceptives coverage. here's what's coming up next, all of today's "washington journal" program. then a hearing looks at the possible existence of extraterrestrial life. and later, another congressional hearing, this one focusing on student athletes. >> here are some of the highlights for this weekend. friday on c-span in prime time we'll visit important sites in the history of the civil rights movement. saturday night at eight, highlights from this year's new york ideas forum including cancer biologist andrew hessel, and on sunday q&a with new york congressman charlie rangel at 8 p.m. eastern. friday night at eight on c-span2, "in depth" with rez sa

aslan. saturday on after words at 10, ben carson, and sunday night at 1 is p.m. eastern, lawrence goldstone on the competition between the wright brothers and glenn curtis to be the predominant name in manned flight. american history on c-span3 on friday at eight eastern, a look at hollywood's portrayal of slavely. saturday night at 8, the 200-year anniversary of the burning of washington, and sunday night at 8 p.m., former white house chiefs of staff discussion how presidents make decisions. find our television schedule one week in advance at c-span.org and let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. call us at 202-626 3400. join the c-span conversation; like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. >> now today's edition of "washington journal." we asked if police are becoming too militarized and got an

update on the pentagon program that transfers equipment to local law enforcement. this is about 45 minutes. >> host: president obama was asked about the militarization of police forces in this country yesterday at the news conference. here's what he had to say. >> i think one of the great things about the united states has been our ability to maintain a distinction between our military and domestic law enforcement. that helps preserve our civil liberties. that helps insure that the military is accountable to civilian direction. and that has to be preserved. after 9/11, i think understandably, a lot of folks saw local communities that were ill equipped for a potential catastrophic terrorist attack. and i think people in congress, people of goodwill decided we've got to make sure they get proper

equipment to deal with threats that historically wouldn't arise in local communities. and some of that's been useful. i mean, some law enforcement didn't have radios that they could operate effectively in the midst of a disaster. some communities needed to be prepared if, in fact, there was a chemical attack, and they didn't have hazmat suits. having said that, i think it's probably useful for us to review how the funding has gone, how local law enforcement has used grant dollars to make sure that what they're purchasing is stuff that they actually need. because, you know, there is a big difference between our military and our local law enforcement, and we don't want those lines blurred.

that would be contrary to our traditions. >> host: president obama at the white house yesterday answering a question from a reporter about whether or not police forces in this country are becoming too militarized. lawmakers have also been weighing in on this. senator rand paul, republican of kentucky, penned a piece for "time" magazine writing: not surprisingly, washington has incentivized the militarization of local police precincts by using federal dollars to help municipal governments build what are essentially small armies where police departments compete to acquire military gear that goes far beyond what most of americans think of as law enforcement. that was -- then the senator went on to say this is usually done in the name of fighting the war on drugs or terrorism. when you couple this militarization of law enforcement with an erosion of civil liberties and due process that allows the police to become judge and jury, national security letters, no-knock searches, broad general

warrants, precondition of forfeiture, we begin to have a very serious problem on our hands. .. daniel neuhauser. , "congress isece not ending the pentagon to police weapons program anytime soon." how and when did the police forces become militarized? guest: this is been going on since the 1990 costs. -- 1990's. it has been tied to the so-called war on drugs. the national defense authorization act. four point $3 billion worth of military equipment has been transferred to local police forces -- $4.3 billion worth of military equipment has been transferred to local police forces. host: what types of equipment are we talking about?

guest: all types. the bulk of it is non-weaponize to equipment. computers, all kinds of tools that makes it easier for the police to do high-tech kinds of jobs. be left out that there are also long guns, military style weapons, humvees >> host: given the situation in ferguson, what are lawmakers saying about what should be done? >> guest: it's interesting. more than ever before i think this program is being reevaluated. there's already a bill in the house that's going to be put forth next month to limit the kinds of military equipment that local police forces can acquire.

john conyers, the top democrat on the house judiciary committee and some of his colleagues wrote a letter to the committee chairman bob goodlatte asking he convened hearings on this topic as well as others related to ferguson and -- summit. >> host: you broke up their a little bit at the end. is this going to happen then when congress returns in september? will this make it to the floor? >> guest: the problem is the house has already passed their version of the ndaa. now the senate has said that they will take up some kind of legislation re-examining this program. but to me right now it's unclear whether the house would accept something like that. i talked to a spokesman for republicans on the house armed services committee where they had jurisdiction over this program, and he defended the program saying that actresses

money, protects taxpayers, protects law enforcement name and women as they do a dangerous job. he noted most of it tends to be soft, radios, uniforms, office supplies, things like that. so clearly there are some defenders of this program in congress in the house in particular. so maybe there will be some kind of a measure to limit the kinds of heavy military equipment that local police forces can acquire, but on the whole this program is not going anywhere. >> host: the president touched on this as well. put aside the pentagon program that you've written about. you have homeland security grants since september 11, 2001 attacks that have gone out to rural communities across the country, to urban areas where states say the federal government needs to give me some of this grant money to beef up my police force because of a potential terrorist situation.

how do those grants add to the situation? >> guest: certainly it adds to the local police force pocketbooks, and there's been an equal amount of discussion about how the war on terrorism affects local communities. i mean, there's some very, very small communities that have a disproportionate, yeah, some critics are saying disproportionately large munitions and vehicles for the potential threat that any kind of terrorism act faces. so i think we will probably see some talks about that, reevaluation as well. but you've got also high placed groups defending these law enforcement professionals, friends of the fraternal order of policemen. they have been critical of president obama's response.

the end of a has yet to weigh in there i'll be interested to see what kind of response they have here, whether it becomes a sort of issue of weapons of disarmament for them or whether it becomes, more the libertarian laying. >> host: what is the fraternal order of police saying? >> guest: basically the fraternal order of police president i believe said that basically obama has been too critical of the officer's actions in this thing that happened in ferguson with the unarmed teenager being shot. obama has been too critical of the officers in the response when he should, in fact, be sticking up for the. >> host: all right. daniel newshauser, staff correspondent with "national journal." thank you for your time. >> guest: thank you. >> host: let me get your take on this. is the police force in this country become to memorize? op in new york, democratic, what do you think?

>> caller: thank you for c-span. good morning. >> host: good morning. >> caller: it may be the case here in new york city, it may be the case all over the country that police forces are becoming more and more militarized, but here in new york we need a heavily armed police force. i believe they are called hercules police here in the city. they are more aggressive and can respond to more aggressive situations. as far as what happened in ferguson, i don't know the population. as far as small towns are concerned, obviously they don't need what we have here in the city. i did hear one report a few months back where homeland security, they used the funds

for obtaining upgraded firetrucks. obviously, i don't agree with that sort of spending. >> host: virginia, republican caller. what are your thoughts? >> caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. >> host: good morning. >> caller: good morning. i think, yeah, it doesn't make sense to me when they talk about all these militarized equipment getting from the pentagon and they using it in the situation in ferguson. that's not a terrorist situation going on. that is a racial disparity that has been going on in this country. you know, a lot of times i hear a lot of folks, and it is a black thing. you won't understand until your black young man in this country. the racial divide is so deep-rooted. until we really get the point where the baby boomers die out, because the younger generation of white folks are really

tolerant of black people and we all grew up together. but this racial divide is still deep-rooted and people don't want to -- i like what the president said yesterday. he talked all about the history of this country. people still look at black people as equal. and they're beating us up on the street. i've been beaten up more than six times. sometimes you have nothing to do about it. the cops just treat you how they want to treat you, talk to you like your trash. every way -- i'm scared of the police. >> host: let me bounce this off of you. this is brad stevens column today in "the wall street journal." ferguson in fallujah. he says bill bratton has no doubt -- go to the

. paragraph.

do you athat? do you agree with that, that this is an issue of having the perception of order? >> caller: well, let me to you. i mean, i mean, all that is good indian the, what they wrote about. but i'm telling you poverty, this is opportunity for everybody but it's not. it's a limited. i think the youth in this country, i me, i'm grateful that i'm educated and have agree. i know a lot of youth, i me, that are targeted by the so-called law enforcement. once they get a record, the system is organized. what they do, they tried to arrest young youth and once they get a conviction they cannot vote. they cannot get a good job. i see black folks come on tv talking about these folks.

how can they vote? >> host: we will move on to staten island, new york, democratic caller. what do you think, are the police forces in this country to militarized? >> caller: yes. i believe they are. i believe the reason is because people just don't know their history. even just a little over 100 years ago. new york city alone had so many riots. these were not african-americans. they did not invent leading. i have -- looting. i have two books, the nukes to draft riots by bernstein, and the epic of new york city, a narrative history by edward robb ellis. when the people were in poverty these were the irish and the germans, who ever the other immigrants were here. they rioted for four or five

days. they robbed, looted, stole everything. even went into orphanage and stole the sheets and pillowcases and mattresses. >> host: saint louis, missouri, independent color to t you our next. go ahead. >> caller: am i on? >> host: you are. >> caller: thank you c-span. i'm calling from st. louis and i want to talk to how the police are using too much force. i was outside filming and the cop told me if i didn't stop they would send me a subpoena. >> host: jayme, independent color. good morning. >> caller: i was wanted to call because as relates to this question, go to talk about this today on my radio show. i'm glad that c-span is talking about it. they give me something to go for. i do believe that what we see right now going on in missouri is basically experiencing with the equipment and toys that these police force has as a result of the surplus coming from these recent wars we've

been. there out there, changing tactics on what they're going to do every day for obviously they're not trained properly to do with this situation. which i can't understand in 2014 they should be prepared for this. to the detriment of the black committee i think that the police are willing to use extra paramilitary and gestapo tactics but in this case expand out to try to do crowd control. when even any simpleminded on his person, i don't care if you're biased, political animal, has to be truthful. if the due process is done, these people won't have a reason to protest. and so if they just simply allow the community to see that they're actually trying to serve justice and search for the truth, as opposed to coming out there in a confrontational mode, dressed in full work year. when you going somewhere looking for a war, you might get it. it's not going to go away until these police or national guard actually kill the next person out there protesting the that's

what's going to really set this all. i think they need to go ahead and tell down the police military tactics. because again it don't happen nowhere but in the black community. they're just trying to experiment with these new toys they got from afghanistan and iraq. >> host: let me ask you about the brad stevens column today in "the wall street journal" would use quoting the top cop in new york about the broken window method, that you need to have order in the community because without it, bad guys respond to these environments by acting badly. good people stay off the streets, bolt the doors, move out. goes on to say -- their doors, e out. there is disorder in ferguson.

what do you think? caller: >> host: what do you think? >> caller: i think that that is just a diversion a way to ignore talking about what this problem here is all about. instead of getting caught up in talking about crime and black on black crime and black community needs to fix the windows or whatever, or whatever they're doing, let's address that you're likely to get killed if you're an unarmed black man by law enforcement that is really were taught to believe is to serve and protect us. they take a confrontational attitude toward the black community. i don't understand all the statistics and all this other stuff. it doesn't have anything to do with the core of the matter. we have a young, innocent black man who was killed. it's apparent to the black people what's going on because we've seen it all before. they are going to try to make it

seem like he deserved to die. that's not working. that's blowing up in her face right now. >> host: we're asking you to weigh in on whether the police forces in this country are becoming to militarized. president obama was asked about it yesterday in his news conference in washington. he broke away from his vacation in martha's vineyard for today's. back in washington with national city council meeting he weighed in on the situation in iraq and also in ferguson, calling for calm. on the question of whether not police force are becoming to militarized, aclu put out this statement. people have needlessly died during raids. homes have been ravaged. our neighborhoods are not war zones and police officers should not be treating us like wartime enems. that's acog.

the "washington times" also waiting on this. restoring the peace. their editorial today in the paper -- three years ago, the department on aucation led an assault mobile home.

>> host: we are asking all of you about police forces in the country, to militarized? republicans (202) 585-3881. democrats (202) 585-3880 and independent, all others, (202) 628-0205. also a fourth lengths in his eye this morning for law enforcement. we want to hear from you as well. let me go to linda next. march mississippi. >> caller: thanks to c-span. yes, i think that the police has become to militarized. especially in ferguson. it's supposed to be community policing but it's supposed to be protecting and serve.

but they have these military assets and they want to use them on who ever and however they think that they showed. but they need training. if you're going to give them those high-powered ammunitions and those guns and those machines, they need to be retrained to you just can't give to anyone and put it on a community. whether peaceful or not. those people in ferguson are protesting the brutal killing of someone's child. 17 year old child. six shots. one in the head and one in the face. six shots. that is unnecessary. for anyone. >> host: linda. nick, independent color. what are your thoughts of? >> caller: first of all these

liberal democrats going on about it being white racism, shoot, man, what is it? 60% of the whites voted for obama twice and 90% of the blacks out and so and then what? all this else just bring it down to culture and bringing down education and everything else. just running into poverty by doing that. it shows that the liberal democrats -- ignorant. let's go back to obama's first term. he was trying to form youth groups that were similar to the brownshirts of fascist italy and nazi germany. this militarization of locally i think it can be a good thing because we got all these goons emerging out of the epa and the irs and all these other federal bureaucracies and the district of corruption which was once known as the district of columbia.

so if we have to come i to say and hope we never have to, but sooner or later they will get more and more aggressive against the populist in the heartland so we can take military equipment and use it against the federal government's. >> host: on your point, tom condon was a congressman from arkansas and is running against democratic mark pryor for that senate seat this november. he put out this statement.

>> host: that is coming from tom cochran who is running for senate in arkansas. a key race for democrats who hold the senate in november and for republicans to potentially take it. we told you that president obama held a news conference yesterday started out talking about iraq and saying that the airstrikes that have been going on there help the iraqi and kurdish forces with their biggest victory yet against isis. is the president yesterday. >> michael is commendable and, to make sure we've got a viable partner and that's why we have so consistently emphasized the need for a government formation process that is inclusive, that is credible, that is legitimate, and that can appeal to sunnis as well as she is encouraged. we've made significant progress on that front, but we are not there yet. i told my national security team

today and i was a publicly that we want to continue to communicate to politicians of all stripes in iraq, don't think that because we have engaged in airstrikes to protect our people that now is the time to let the foot off the gas and return to the same kind of dysfunction that has so weakened the country generally. >> host: president obama addressing the situation in iraq. the headline in the "washington times," obama hails and victor, pledges no iraq mission creep. they right -- -- air victory.

al >> host: also in the paper, in the "washington times" is a headline that the u.s. expands campaign against the islamic state. experts say hundreds of airstrikes per day are needed. the "washington times" quoting two former generals who have executed some of the pentagon successful military operations say that the u.s. military will need to conduct hundreds of airstrikes per day to gain leverage over the islamic state. then also this morning on iraq, here's the "usa today." how far should the u.s. go in iraq? here's the latest poll. says that the poll u.s. bears responsibility to do

something. it goes onto say that americans who see responsibility to act are worried about a responding -- expanding commitment. that theore concerned u.s. will go too far in getting involved. concernthat the greater is that the u.s. will not go far enough. >> host: by the way, most americans, 54-31%, approve of the airstrikes that president is conducting. that is a bit vote and support for nato airstrikes in kosovo in 99 and just as strikes against iraq and afghanistan in 98. so that from "usa today." "the wall street journal" calls the airstrikes and the recapturing of the mosul dam a small victory in iraq. airstrikes are helping the kurds but more u.s. forces will be needed. that's the opinion of "the wall street journal" editorial board

this one. in the financial times, their editorial board says that cameron is shifting policy on iraq. cameronir critical of david shifting his policy. the weakness of his overall security strategy cannot be ignored. >> host >> host: that's the financial times. donald, scranton, pennsylvania, republican conduct back to all of you. are our police forces become to militarized? >> caller: i don't think so. i think they should act as crowd

-- if the guy gets out of hand and start smashing and destroying people's property, then they have to keep them under control. that's my thought. >> host: okay, dollar. anthony, louisiana, democratic color. what do you think? >> caller: good morning. i just want to comment, i think police forces across america are getting to militarized. i mean, i hear a lot of people say that we need this. i don't think so. when you're black you get stopped for a seatbelt, your car gets searched. i saw mr. bundy, they had police everywhere, people pointing guns at them. is come if it would've been a bunch of black people pointing guns at place like that it would have been a bloodbath. >> host: independent color.

good morning? >> caller: i don't think there to memorize because they always talk about assault weapons but you can roll up to some result, they can have a 30 ought six, a windbag which will fire to a car block and you're going to roll up with a 38 veterans the other thing these protesters also said there peaceful. if i'm in a demonstration and all of a sudden people begin to the rocks and bottles, i'm going to lead. i think what president should say is look, and believe me, that cop is killed. i want a guy to get the death penalty. just let anybody else. after you another thing. it's like a plane crash, my girlfriend won't fly. thousands of plans by every year but it is wrong and it does happen but the thing is the president should come on and tell them that if anybody begins to become unruly in a crowd, they are going to feel the full weight of the trend government, the national guard just like we did in the '60s. >> host: mike, oklahoma city, republican. >> caller: how are you doing today, c-span? there's one word everybody keeps forgetting about.

it's called disrespect. the younger generation, both white and black, have no respect whatsoever for any law, any law enforcement people that's out there. those people are out there trying to let these people marched. you take that highway patrol, that captain, and what he said during that church meeting was so unreal. but yet those people go out there, they have the mob mentality. it just takes one or two to start walking towards the store, breaking into it and anybody else says what the hell, let's go ahead and do it anyway. that's just what it falls down to. this younger generation just doesn't understand that there are laws in this country. there's consequences for breaking the law. they don't see it that way. they say like when you're black or white, it's not old view whatsoever. >> host: on the national guard, front page of "usa today," seeking a path to peace in ferguson. the national guard did not bring

order or piece -- did not bring peace. however necessary, sending in is typically an admission of failure that becomes as much of a part of the community's stigma as the violence it's designed to stop. >> host: also, inside "the new york times" on the national guard. the governor of missouri emphasized that the national guard role would be specific.

>> host: also this is from the "washington post" this morning. this assignment requested by the governor fits squarely within the traditional mission of the national guard. the domestic environment that

the guard anderson ferguson has changed. >> host: rich, kingsport tennessee, independent color. what are your thoughts about this treachery thanks for taking my call post my cube at. >> caller: there is no need for local forces to have armed carriers and armored vehicles. and bringing in too much force destined to be provocative in a situation like this, although businesses and citizens do need to be protected. if i could make one other comment, a collar, i heard all kinds of calls the last few days and a lot of blatantly stereotypical statements from both sides. i often hear about the black

community. i don't hear about the red, yellow, brown, white communities. i did hear a wonderful comment from someone who said if there are 67% american africans who make up the populace, and if they perceive a need for black police officers, and that's a cause of division, then they should elect a black mayor, a city council or a board of mayor and aldermen, police chief and so forth who will appoint more minority officers. if that's what it takes to get racial justice. and use the power of the vote and put people in office who will achieve those ends. >> host: array, litchfield new hampshire republican caller. >> caller: thanks for taking my call. [inaudible] it seems like they're going a

little overboard in some of the equipment that they are getting. a couple of years ago, and a small town in southwestern new hampshire, and ended up getting a bearcat armored vehicle. it was a close vote and it made the local news here in new hampshire about it. there was -- barely got through. a couple years later you hear that they are not using it. they have driven at like 12 miles total and that's just for training. they can't get rid of it. they don't need it. they don't want it anymore. but they can't get rid of it. they got the grant money to get it and for some reason now they're stuck with that. >> host: all right. we'll keep taking your phone calls. we got time for a handful more on whether or not police forces in this country are becoming to militarized to the "washington post" front page as we told you president obama has asked his attorney general eric holder

commander ferguson, missouri, tomorrow to lead the investigation into what happened. and inside the "washington post" this morning they write -- saidd by the administration's escalating response. having the attorney general visit the site is extra rare. three >> host: so three autopsies done on that. we will get to a couple more of your phone calls but first i also want to let you know what else is in the news. president obama he is weighing

immigration action. this is from "the wall street journal" this morning. is expected to announce executive actions after labor day to refine deportation priorities and potentially expand a program that gives safe harbor and work programs to qualifying illegal immigrants. that in "the wall street journal" this morning. by the way "the new york times" editorial board weighing in against the lawsuit against texas governor rick perry saying, is governor perry's bad judgment really a crime? "the new york times" editorial board saying, no. there is a primary tay in alas. there is a primary debate in alaska. all eyes will be on the republican who will be taking on democratic senator mark begich in november. the outlook is murky in the

alaska primary. brt party candidates running in that race as well. yesterday we learned of the passing of senator james jeffords. he was 80. cinder walk away from the gop during his final term. he switched from republican to independent and that switched the power of the senate to the democrats. i had to be true to what i thought was right. that was one month before bolting to the gop. of course, we have covered senator jeffords, we covered him throughout his career. here is him announcing that he will would change his party affiliation from republican to independent. >> in order to best represent my state of vermont, my own conscious and principles i have stood for my whole life, i will leave the republican party and

become an independent. >> host: that was the former senator, jim jeffords, digester date at the age of 80. back in 2001 when he announced his switch from republican to independent. that put the hands, the control of the senate in the hands of democrats. we are getting your thoughts on whether or not the police forces are becoming to militarized in this country. a few minutes left. we also want to show you this from the federal page, a picture yesterday of holding castor, the new hud secretary is joined by his wife yesterday who was sworn in by vice president biden, ceremonial swearing yesterday. at the white house today, the next hud secretary. it says he will officially be sworn in, was officially sworn in in july 28. so this is a ceremonial swearing yesterday at the white house with the vice president.

we'll go to owl in moose lake minnesota, democratic caller. good morning to you. >> caller: good morning and thanks for taking my call. your question police departments coming to militarized, i would just use this as a prime example to if you look very carefully at the facts, you can see the store owners in that town have had their stores looted, robbed. the store owner was roughed up by the men who was shot eventually. and no one talks about that. police departments could not handle the massive mobs of people even when the store owners called repeatedly to different law enforcement agencies. they get no help to protect their stores, yet that's what they pay their taxes for. and the homeowners in that area that are not going along with these riots and mobs are scared to come out of their own homes.

so it's very clear, the local law enforcement cannot handle those numbers of individuals that are acting against the law and breaking the law. these are not protesters. these are individuals committing criminal acts in the local on force but can't handle it but if you look at detroit, michigan, you can see the same thing happening there. and we need to have law enforcement that is capable of stopping this type of out of control violence and robbery. it's not what the news media strike to portray it as. as people quietly protesting. they are not doing that. they are stealing, robbing and hurting people. >> host: you don't believe the news reports that the overwhelming amount of people that are there are protesting peacefully? it tonight there's a small minority is what the news reports have said. >> caller: you call that a small minority -- hello? >> host: i'm saying that's what news reports out of ferguson are saying. >> caller: if you -- i have

family members that live just inside of that city area there, and they have said stories completely different. we are not talking smal numbers. the people that are doing the looting and the robbing our hundreds of individual but if you only have 12 to 15 local police officers, how can they possibly stop those numbers of individuals. it's not possible. you need have a different type of law enforcement to control -- >> host: got your point. independent caller, maryland. go ahead. >> caller: good morning. i think the whole situation has been taken out of context. if he was put in proper context -- [inaudible] looking at the practice of the police department of white police officers shooting unarmed black kids. this is become a practice. that practice needs to end. you don't have black police officers shooting unarmed white people are white kids.

either the police department has to stop -- or they need to make sure they are thoroughly trained or make sure they don't have weapons because they are incompetent. because everybody comes to you address me in the fashion you go on and talk about black on black crime. totally out of context, totally a different subject but you're not talking about unarmed him of the practice of unarmed white police officers shooting unarmed black kids. another thing what to talk the is the militarization of the police. on one hand they're talking about disarming the american citizens. on the other and they want to militarized the police. the police are taking roles of mercenaries instead of peace officers. what i see going on is, in fresno, those people down there -- [inaudible] you're not covering that at all

but you're not supposed to. your job is to inform the american people. the last thing i want to say is that we -- i put these things together. i look at a boston bombing. i look at the trayvon martin thing and i look at, this one right here, the similarities is the police did the same thing up in boston when they shut down a small part of that town that had on military gear and force people out of their homes without a word and check everybody, looking for a 19 year-old kid when they shot up the boat of that 19 year old unarmed kid and the mainstream media said it was again shootout when only the police was armed and a 19 year-old unarmed kid hiding in a boat they fight like a million shots at them or something like that. the other similar devices with trayvon martin. they said he beat him up so they give him the right to kill him. just like you're trying to say

now like they're trying to say this young black kid became a. i look at the similarities and they see this as government or the secret government orchestrating this because they protected -- projected a raise right to help them try to take this to another -- [inaudible] collapse of the income. they want chaos. >> host: all right, tony. a couple quick more headlines for you this morning. hillary clinton and her husband of former president bill clinton will be attending tom harkin's annual steak fry in iowa. the former president and mrs. clinton -- this is on september 14. also front page of the financial times this morning. the caption here of julian assange has confirmed he will

soon leave at what was embassy in london what has been holed up for more than two years seeking refuge from prosecution, and admitted his confinement has affected his health. said that a picture in the financial times this morning of him. >> life events coming up today across the c-span network to tell you about. right now on our companion network c-span we are live at the heritage foundation for if you look at the relationship between philanthropy and defense research and programs. that got under way at noon eastern. again that is on c-span. later we'll have more from heritage with a multitude of discussion on the future of northeast asia. the korean ambassador to the united states is among the speakers life at two eastern also on c-span. >> here are some highlights for this weekend.

>> find our television schedule one week in advance at c-span.org and let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. calls at 202-626-3400 or e-mail us at comments at c-span.org.

join the c-span conversation, like us on facebook, follow was on twitter. >> c-span to provide live coverage of the is extended or proceedings and key public policy events ended weekend booktv, now for 15 years the only television network devoted to nonfiction books and authors. c-span2 created by the cable tv industry about you as a public service by your local, cable or satellite provider. watch us in hd, lik like us on facebook and follow was on twitter. >> hosttwitter. >> and now a discussion on president obama's policy. this is under 40 minutes. >> host: and we're back with dan berman, white house editor for politico join us to talk about president obama's white house foreign and domestic. let's begin with ferguson. the headline on politico's

website, obama shuns emotional rescue. what do you make of what the president had to say yesterday? >> caller: it was very interesting. president obama has spoken out more and more about the issue of race, but his experiences. remember less your trayvon martin he said look, if i had a son it would look like trayvon martin. yesterday he didn't go in that direction. he spoke more generally about the more peace, the need for people to protest, about the need for the media to be able to cover the events. he also spoke, said very candidly look, there's some people who commit crimes and should be arrested. it's not a zero-sum game. but he didn't go into that national direction. that was very striking because he has done that before. he spoke about my brother's keeper initiative that he spearheaded that is very near and usually. he presented more like an

administration program and not something that he really put a lot of time and effort into. but he had people from my brother's keeper to the white house a couple of times and previously he said look, this is something i would've benefited from. obviously, being raised without a father, and so that was striking. he told it's from my brother's keeper, he asked when i was young, i made mistakes, i smoked pot, that sort of thing. he wasn't saying anything like that. >> host: let's listen to what the president had to say. >> i have to be very careful about not prejudging these events before investigations are completed. because although these are issues of local jurisdiction, the doj works for me and then when they're conducting investigations i've got to make sure i don't look like i'm putting my thumb on the scales

one way or the other. so it's hard for me to address a specific case beyond making sure that it's conducted in a way that is transparent, where there's accountability, where people can trust the process, hoping that as a consequence of fair and just process, you end up with a fair and just outcome. >> host: are people looking for more from the president? african-american community. >> guest: yes. this is something that we have seen more and more in response that innocent people we've spoken to a political say well, wait a second, what is the emotional response? why is it people like rand paul have kind of a more emotional response? have spoken more about the issue of race in america. here as the clip just showed it was a very technical response.

the president vicente eric holder tomorrow to missouri. holder told people yesterday that the justice department has interviewed about 200 people in and around ferguson and they're getting some results. people are more likely to tell the justice department what happened, or their version of events, then they told local police. but again this is a very technical response in what the administration is doing. the president said he is not going to prejudge local issues. he's not at the moment waiting into the larger issue of race relations in america. which again is striking, he's the first african-american president and yet spoken on this before and there's an amount of the population looking for them to say what he thinks and lead this discussion. >> host: there's a headline from obama's in the eric holder to ferguson. one of the paper states as civil rights are satisfied with the

president, that he's taking this step, sending the attorney general. >> guest: absolutely. this is something, again, he's got the justice department involved and has been beset some of the way the local police in missouri have handled the case from day one. so this is something that the justice department can do. they can look at the case of civil rights as well. so in terms of a tactical response, this is a fully something the white house can do and do something that people say, all right, the president is going in the right direction on the. >> host: what is congress saying about the situation in ferguson? they are not too. they're out in their paychecks working, fundraising for the upcoming november elections. >> guest: the people represented missouri have been out there. they're obviously urging calm. they want to make sure that the situation doesn't explode or get worse. but in general there hasn't been too much of a response.

again, part of that is everyone is out in a district. their fundraising, focused more on their reelection than they are on these issues. you could also ask the question, what do they fully have, what do members have the benefit? there are some members on the other side are going to say, you know, kind of the rhetoric we're used to a special from the left. they will call for calm and say we need to have this discussion. there's been a couple of people talking about bills to limit the militarization of police and, obviously, this is something people spoke about earlier. but in general there hasn't been giant human cry from congress but again, they are not too. they are not all in one place for us to go and get votes from -- quotes from. >> host: here is senator blunt's statement that he put up yesterday after talking to the president on the phone saying -- blunt talk to the

president yesterday. at >> host: what about the optics? should president obama go to ferguson, missouri? is the white house considering that treachery he didn't answer that directly. there's really going to be political benefit for him to go there. you know, what exactly is he going to do in ferguson, missouri, that he can do from

washington, or from martha's vineyard in terms of speaking out on the issue? again this is what he is thinking eric holder their for the parallel investigation in terms of speaking to the community. a week from now if this is still going on and there's still this kind of problem or if people just really want to hear from him directly, you can see the president going out there. but right now it's in the local law enforcement hands. it's in the hands of the state police pickets enhance of the justice department. president obama isn't going to go out there and raise up his hand and salt all the issues. >> host: we'll go to phone calls. frank in tennessee, republican. you're up first for dan berman of political. go ahead. >> caller: the right to petition. it is the republic roadways -- two people have the right to petition continuously and shut down traffic?

number two, what about the people who have been shot? who are the? have any of the people who have shot them been arrested? and lastly, have policeman in ferguson ever killed an individual in the line of duty? if you very much. >> host: our guest, dan berman, is the white house editor for politico, so not here to answer those types of questions but you here the sentiment behind those questions. people are wondering, what happened in ferguson? what are all the details? how does that reverberate in washington and affect policy? >> guest: it reverberates here and we've seen especially last week the arrest, brief arrest of two dc-based reported. we saw it last night and a brief arrest of a photographer. the president and others, jay nixon, the governor of missouri, have spoken out about the first amendment and the press is right to cover these events.

there has been concern and criticism over the right of people to protest. again, the first amendment protects the right to protest, the right to free speech. and there's been criticism that that has simply been cut off. in terms of obviously anything worse, in terms of criminal activity, looting, that sort of thing, obviously it is the police responsibly to stop that, limit that however it can. >> host: political has this headline. how the media discovered in ferguson.

>> host: kelly in chicago, democratic color. >> caller: good morning. how you doing? i wish you all would have sniffed up behind other presents like you will sniff out behind this president. when president obama made a statement about trayvon martin, it -- that man almost got impeached. he is damned if you do and damned if you don't. you know, and then i heard this guy say rand paul made a stronger speech. rand paul could have said trayvon martin was his child, and they wouldn't have said anything. but my main topic is, the people down in ferguson have watched over time how you people just sit up here and nitpick at this president and whatever he do. you know, what's the difference

between ferguson and nevada? when that guy, bundy, was stealing and still stealing his cattle, millions of dollars, for grass. malicious. came up there with the guns on their shoulders, point their guns at the police. the police didn't go back and get an armored tank's and riot gear. harry reid didn't call out the national guard. so black people are tired of this. they are tired of being stereotyped. bundy should be in jail right now, and everyon every one of te malicious up there should be looking for him and putting him in jail. .. the white house will agree with you on the first point. they know the president is going to be criticized no matter what he does. if he goes on vacation, people will say, why is he going on vacation when there are problems in the world? when he's on vacation, he has coming occasions.

he is not like you are i were he can leave his phone behind and just be with this family quietly. the white house sees this all the time. they would agree, look, can the president is going to be criticized. people are going to nitpick at his responses. it is part of what they are used to. they would say that. >> on the bundy situation, what the feeling you're expressing is something that has come up more and more as what happens in ferguson goes on. the obvious comparison of the way bundy was treated, you know, the way that militias came up there and the way the federal government backed down as opposed to what is happening here, they're not entirely equal situations, but it's that question of the federal response, the armed response or lack thereof what we're seeing here. >> host: jim, spartanburg, south carolina, republican. hi, jim. >> caller: morning.

how are you? >> host: morning. >> caller: i think the people with the onety incident -- bundy incident, i don't think they rioted and looted and burned businesses down. it's a big difference. and is secondly, president obama speaks about my brother's keeper. what about my son's keeper or my daughter's keeper? i'm a good parent. that's the hallmark of being a good brother's keeper, and i wish he would preach that. and question for your guest. in a way over the last six and a half years, didn't the obama administration sort of provide a lot of these tanks and kind of paramilitary weapons to police departments and so forth through different laws or different mechanisms of dispursing it -- disbursing it? >> guest: that's program dates back to the 1990s, before the obama administration. politico has written about it as well. >> guest: absolutely. now that we've seen the response of ferguson that we have, the president mentioning it, we have eric holder talking and kind of questioning out loud whether

this program has gone too far, whether it's gone overboard. yesterday the president mentioned, look, part of the reason, you know, that this program, you know, has gone on and kind of picked up steam after 9/11 is because there was legitimate concern in communities about how to respond to a terrorist activity. so, you know, the idea of having this type of equipment, having this type of training was something that was valuable. now, you know, whether it's needed now, this is something that congress when they come back in september, you know, there will be discussion about this, about whether, you know, this program needs to continue, whether it needs to continue at the level it's at. it'll be interesting to see what members of congress say, it'll also be interesting to see what the reaction is from police around the country. you know, police chiefs will say, look, we need this type of equipment. you'll obviously see the various threats that police see, and they want to be able to respond.

they don't want to put officers in arm harm's way because they're undermanned. >> host: winchester, virginia, richard a democrat there. hi, richard. >> caller: good morning. >> host: morning. >> caller: good morning. i can't figure how the president could have said anything else than what he said. he's concerned, he's worried about it, he's sending eric holder. and my concern is if one person gets shot, it is going to be a bloodbath. and it is just going to be unforgivable. >> host: okay. >> caller: thank you. >> host: all right, richard. well, richard and the previous caller, the president is criticized if he does, criticized if he doesn't. >> guest: absolutely. and, again, the white house is very used to this, and they've started discounting some of the criticism knowing that they're going to be attacked from either side. in ferguson the police have made a point in saying they are not

firing live ammunition at protesters. there's, obviously, been tear gas, there's been a use of rubber bullets, but in terms of gunshots, it's been coming from the crowd, obviously. there's been other activity coming from the crowd. but again, this is one problem that the white house has, is president obama isn't a local police chief. and, you know, the president can only say so much, he can only do so much in terms of the technical response. again, this is the justice department job, he's put them in charge. he sent eric holder down there. again, criticism or the kind of what people are saying is missing from obama's reaction yesterday was just that personal connection, and again, it was striking because he has made that perm connection previously -- personal connection priestly. >> host: we're talking with dan

berman about foreign policy and domestic challenges for this president. dan berman, the president breaking away from his vacation on martha's vineyard yesterday, coming back to washington for two days. do we know why? >> guest: this is something the white house has been really secretive about the whole time. they announced before he went to martha's vineyard a week ago saturday that he would be coming back for two days of -- >> host: before ferguson, before -- >> guest: before iraq. and they've been very, you know, just kind of blank on why the president was back here. you know, the president, you know, obviously has, you know, phone service, has communication. you know, eric holder was briefing the president on ferguson last week through administration officials up there in martha's vineyard. so he came back here, he's leaving again this afternoon back for another week in martha's vineyard. but the white house hasn't said here's the big reason why the president came back.

>> host: jeff, greenfield, tennessee. independent caller. hi, jeff. >> caller: hi, how you doing? >> host: morning. >> caller: my question is, is there a possibility, you know, i'm going to go all the way back to the o.j. simpson verdict, and it -- the evidence there was overwhelming of guilt, and yet he was acquitted. is there a possibility anywhere in the solar system here that there's reverse discrimination on -- you know, i mean, they use every excuse in the black community to loot and commit crimes against businesses in their own communities. this makes no sense at all. it makes absolutely zero sense. >> host: okay. all right, jeff. george in middle grove, new york, republican caller. george, good morning. >> caller: yes, good morning. no, in regards to president obama and what he's doing, he's done too little, too late in

regards to the ferguson issue. jesse jackson and al sharpton keep sticking their noses in where they shouldn't be, they keep stirring the pot. if anybody's going to be arrested, they ought to be arrested and thrown in jail. >> host: george, what do you think the president should do? >> caller: militarize the police officers more. and start using force against these blacks. because it's a lot of nonsense, it's got to stop. otherwise you're going to have chaos just like in iraq. >> host: we'll go to calvin in georgia, democratic caller. calvin, good morning. >> caller: yes. [inaudible] talking about these certain things here, but -- [inaudible] stole from the federal government over a billion dollars. y'all continue to show this fella's picture of him taking a couple of cigars. this dude stole a billion

dollars from the federal government. back to his ranch, laid out with his militia at the police. now, i don't understand this. why was there nothing else done -- [inaudible] stole from the federal government and y'all can downplay this story about this boy, put it on tv? i don't understand. explain it to me. >> host: all right. dan berman, what do you think? that's the second call so far with you, but that call, the sentiment earlier today, comparing the two situations. >> guest: absolutely. and, again, the situations, you know, i wouldn't say are exactly equal. but this is a question that continues to come up, is, you know, the treatment of, you know, cliveen bundy, a rancher in nevada, versus what is happening in ferguson. again, with cliven bundy, what happened originally was you had the federal government, bureau of land management, go in and try to collect this debt, and

then he, you know, basically holed up, and there was a standoff. here you had an incident with local police, and, you know, it was the local police, the it was the county and eventually the state that had been handling it. it only came, you know, kind of later that the justice department came in and said, all right, we're going to have this parallel investigation, we're going to conduct our own autopsy, we're going to, you know, look at it again, this incident through the lens of civil rights as opposed to just a criminal investigation. >> host: let's talk about foreign policy challenges as well. the president yesterday using that news conference to talk about airstrikes in iraq saying that with u.s. help, with these airstrikes, kurdish and iraqi forces were able to score their biggest victory yet, that is recapturing that iraqi dam in mosul. what does the president say and what is the next move in iraq? do we hear from him what that

is? >> guest: well, from the president's point of view, the next move is still to insure that iraq has a stable government that is able to, you know, control its own territory and take on isil without u.s. military assistance. obviously, it's in the u.s. interest to, you know, try and limit isil's activities, you know, the control of the dam was a very large concern, and the u.s. acted in that regard. it's very interesting to see what has happened on iraq. there was a lot of talk when he first announced the u.s. military activity a week ago thursday, and then as it's gone on, you know, people have been talking about ferguson, the conversation has moved on. you could argue the u.s. military activity's been remarkably successful, but that's been off the map at the moment. so the u.s. focus again and president obama every time he talks about iraq talks about the

iraqi government and the need for the iraqi people to take charge of this situation. >> host: when lawmakers return in september, there have been, there has been some talk that the president will need to go to congress to get authority for continued airstrikes in iraq and/or expanding the military operation there. >> guest: there's been talk about that. so far the white house, they haven't done that. you know, depending on which member of congress, kind of the more hawkish will say, you know, the president doesn't need extra congressional approval to act there. it really is now going to depend, well, if -- and the president has repeatedly said we're not going to send ground troops back, we're not going to reinvade, you know, we're not going to see anything, you know, on the level of what we saw, you know, in the last decade. if it got to that, well, maybe

there's going to be, you know, going back to congress. at the moment the white house isn't planning to go back there, and there are always going to be members of congress who no matter what the president, no matter what the foreign policy issue, you know, we need to be consulted, we need to approve this. usually consultation works, keeping the key members of the armed service committees, intelligence committees in the loop does that. again, with members of congress out, kind of much harder to do that. you know, it's hard to do the classified briefings where you close doors of the senate and senior defense and intelligence officials say what's going on. >> host: by the way, in syria the headline this morning of the washington post and in other papers, syrian chemical weapons destroyed. the stockpile transferred to a u.s. ship has disposed of 620 tons. we took a look at the ship and the technology that is being used to destroy the chemical weapons here on the "washington

journal" as part of our spotlight on magazines series, so if you're interested in that, go to c-span.org. you can find it there on our web site. laura westfield, wisconsin, independent caller. laura. >> caller: hello. peace be with you. i would just like to make a comment. in the world there is multicolors, trees, flowers, etc. in reference, though, to humans there's no color. man bleeds red, all men. we need to stop the racial stigmas. we need to come together and stop falling apart. >> host: okay, laura. the president yesterday talked about having a discussion about race in this country, that progress has been made but not enough. >> guest: absolutely. and, again, maybe the president decided that this was not the time to really delve into that more. you know, he has done that before, he did it again with

trayvon martin specifically. he's spoken about the feeling of being followed around suspiciously in a store as a black man, you know, kind of with that suspicion of, you know, is he there, you know, to steal something or cause harm. maybe it's too soon for the president to really get into this. obviously, tensions in ferguson are very raw. when he spoke out about trayvon martin, it had been a while after the not guilty verdict in florida. >> host: bill, marietta, georgia, democratic caller. hi, bill. >> caller: good morning, everyone. >> host: morning. >> caller: i think this is really a joke. how is it that a truckload of black guys drive up to a police barricade with their hands up, and there happens to be one guy in the back of the truck with a molotov cocktail? you know, the state police guys have been complaining about molotov cocktails, and all of a sudden they get one just driven

right up to 'em, you know? these guys are just, they're just police plants, it's all a farce, and you're dealing with a bunch of dummies running around with shorts and t-shirts and no jobs. >> host: all right. robert, silver spring, maryland. republican caller. morning, robert. >> caller: good morning. i've got a couple questions. politico, is that -- do you guys lean left or more right? >> guest: no, we, you know, go down the middle. we get criticized from the left as being called a right-wing publication, we get criticized from the right as being called a left-wing politician which, to us, means we're doing a very good job. there's no value for us to be seen as right or left, we want to be seen as a, you know, kind of go-to publication here in washington. and if you go biased either way, you lose part of your audience, and you lose your credibility.

so we think we go right down the middle. >> host: go ahead, robert. >> caller: what about harry reid? you've done an in-depth article on harry reid like how he always holds up bills and how his, like, shady dealings in nevada and his crony capitalism, have you done that yet? >> guest: absolutely. we cover harry reid, the senate majority leader, you know, the top perp here. and -- top person here x. in terms of holding up bills. this has been a major issue. we're talking about the house passes lots of bills, many of them you could argue are message bills, but reid has really helped the white house in terms of holding things up. the filibuster rule means that it's very difficult to get a consensus, especially in an election year. you know, reid has prevented the senate and senate democrats from facing some tough votes, some divisive votes. so reid is, obviously, a big

deal at the moment. we have a story today, you know, reid has spent so much time talking about the koch brothers, making them, you know, kind of the villain and saying, look, they're funding a conservative party, they're spending millions of dollars on television ads, and, you know, what we reported today was that reid and the koch brothers are both already gearing up for reid's potential re-election campaign in 2016. and you're going to see a lot of the issues that you mentioned come up. there's the way he's running the senate, and that'sal come up in other -- that's also come up in other senate races. the republicans will say, look, if you reelect mark begich, you're only helping harry reid and barack obama. and republicans and conservatives have talked about how reid lives in the ritz karltop here -- ritz carlton here when he's in d.c. and will reemphasize his nevada roots and growing up poor. so, absolutely, i mean, reid is

this fascinating figure, and he continues to be. >> host: wanda, alexandria, louisiana. democratic caller. morning, washington -- wanda, you're on the air. >> caller: yes. i would just like to know that we have some issues in america. blacks are not treated, not really treated like people. and i would like to know is murder wrong, and should the murderer be taken into custody? immediately? would this happen to any other nationality in america besides black that the perpetrator of a crime is not apprehended immediately? i would just like to know why is it that when something happens to the black commitment, that there's -- community, that there's no response, little response? and this is why we're having all of these issues of the demonstrations and stuff that's going on, the riots that's going on. it's unfair that blacks have to

sit and wait for justice to come to them, and it seems like it's forever coming and never really coming. >> host: so, wanda, are you happy then or satisfied that the president is sending attorney general eric holder to do a parallel investigation? >> caller: i'm satisfied about that. but my point is why should it even have to come to that? is murder really murder in america? >> host: okay. well, dan berman is the white house editor for politico, not in the position to answer that this morning. move on to teo in pennsylvania, independent caller. hi there. >> caller: hi. i'm sorry to say that mr. berman had made one mistake. he called the bundy affair a standoff. that was not a standoff. it was a pointed, loaded gun at federal officers by a group of people in the course of their duty and, therefore, this is a federal crime and a felony.

here is the time to bring in all your troops and try to do something so it is not like waco, that it is a specific kind of federal crime that everyone knew about. and in this case all they had to do was arrest him, and there would have been no protest. no one sees that. all they keep doing is firing on people, and the most interesting thing is if you throw a rock as a protester and hit a policeman, you can arrest them, but you can shoot a guy six times in the chest, and nobody arrests him. that's the disgrace, and that is what nobody wants to deal with. thank you. >> host: okay. all right. dan berman, i mean, what about the investigation? i mean, what role can the attorney general play here? you heard it in those two phone calls about this issue of justice. >> guest: well, the justice department, obviously, has, you know, far more resources, you know, backup than the local law enforcement.

they're also coming in, you know, without any, you know, their officer was not involved. they, you know, are coming in with the mission of talking with as many people as possible, of getting to the bottom of this. obviously, you know, they have that, they have that mission, they could also look at it through a different lens again, you know, whether in violation of civil rights. you know, again, that's what the justice department can bring, and eric holder has told people that it's already getting results inerms of people on the ground saying more to justice department investigators than they were to local police. and, you know, this goes to the larger issue, and some callers have brought it up, of trust in local police, trust in local officers, you know, people in this case may distrust the justice department more. >> host: the fbi sending 40

agents into ferguson to do interviews and investigate the situation there. on twitter rick says: what does it take to see a copy of the police report, a court order and a foia request? in louisiana, robert. go ahead, robert. >> guest: you know that bundy thing? when the militia came out with all those guns and put them on those federal officials, i wonder what would have happened if all those black people would arm themselves and come out there just like they did over there in nevada with those militias with all the guns pointing at the officers out there? i wonder just what would happen if we just call for black people just to arm yourself. go on, arm yourself. don't loot, arm yourself. that's what we need to do. >> host: robert, we've heard this comparison by quite a few callers this morning. where did you first hear this comparison? >> caller: i mean, it was on nationwide news when the militia had those train --

>> host: robert, i'm going to leave it there because you've got to turn that tv down, listen through your phone. paul in boston, ip dependent caller. >> caller: yes, good morning. regarding the con terrorration in the ferguson -- confrontation in ferguson, i don't know whether it's been considered it may be more important to know rather than the age, age, national origin or race of the individual, the fact that he was apparently 6-4, 292 pounds. >> host: so, paul, you think, what? that he posed a threat? >> caller: well, if an officer's outweighed by an individual by 100 pounds and there is a confrontation, then you don't know what happened. i think that's the size of the individuals involved is important. >> host: okay. all right, paul. well, dan berman, let's talk about what the president does next here. heads back to martha's vineyard. how long is he there for?

what is happening next as far as executive orders possibly from this administration? >> guest: well, the president is going back to martha's vineyard for the week. what's happening next in terms of the presidency is we're really looking now ahead towards immigration and what the white house is going to do there. the president has said, you know, for most of the summer that, look, congress isn't going to act, there's not going to be comprehensive immigration reform this year. that was kind of the view, actually, going into the year. and, you know, he's said, look, i'm going to take whatever action i can. the white house has been meeting with a lot of groups, stakeholders, business groups, you know, to look at what exactly the president can do. obviously, there are limits to what he can do without congressional action, but the white house has both questioned what it can do legally and what it can do politically. if the president takes, you know, the most, the widest action that he can, there is

going to be a backlash, there's going to be a, you know, a problem perhaps for democratic senate candidates in tough races. the president doesn't want to do too much to hurt them because he doesn't want to lose the senate, so there are these two calculations that the white house is making. we thought that this would come in august. it's now already, you know, bleeding possibly into september. there's some democrats who say, well, why don't we now wait until after election day, that way you won't have the same political backlash that hurts democratic candidates. so the white house is, you know, doing a lot of meetings and trying to put together a plan, but they're not quite there yet. >> host: dan berman, white house editor with politico, thank you for your time. >> guest: thank you. >> some live programming to tell you about. join us later today for more from the the heritage foundation. it's a multipanel discussion on the future of northeast asia. the korean ambassador to the united states is among the speakers, that'll be live at two eastern on c-span.

>> here's a look at what's ahead tonight. on c-span2 at eight, more booktv. our focus is on the past and future of money. we'll hear from author michael lewis on his book, "flash boys," among others. on c-span3, american history tv looks at the civil war battle of fort stevens, the only battle to take place in washington d.c. and on c-span at eight, a look back at this year's hearings on the general motors recalls. you'll hear testimony from gm ceo mary barra and gm compensation fund administrator kenneth feinberg. here's a preview. >> more than a decade ago gm embarked on a small car program. sitting here today, i cannot tell you why it took so long for a safety defect to be announced for this program, but i can tell you we will find out.

this is an extraordinary situation. it involves vehicles we no longer make, but it came to light on my watch, so i'm responsible for resolving it. when we have answers, we will be fully transparent with you, with our regulators and with our customers. while i cannot turn back the clock, as soon as i learned about the problem, we acted without hesitation. we told the world we had a problem that needed to be fixed. we did so because whatever mistakes were made in the past, we will not shirk from our responsibilities now or in the future. today's gm will do the right thing. that begins with my sincere apologies to everyone who has been affected by this recall. especially the families and friends who lost their lives or were injured. i am deeply sorry. >> here are some of the highlights for this weekend. friday on c-span in prime time we'll visit important sites in

the history of the civil rights movement. saturday night at eight, highlights from this year's new york ideas forum including cancer biologist andrew his el. and on -- he is l. and on sunday, q&a with charlie rangel at 8 p.m. eastern. friday night at eight on c-span2, in depth. saturday on "after words" at ten, retired neurosurgeon and columnist ben carson. and sunday night at 11 p.m. eastern, lawrence goldstone on the competition between the wright brothers and glenn curtis to be the pre dominant name in manned flight. american history tv on c-span3 on friday at eight eastern, a look at hollywood's portrayal of slavery. sargd night at eight, the 200th anniversary of the burning of washington. and sunday night at 8 p.m., former white house chiefs of staff discuss how presidents make decisions. find our television schedule one week in advance at c-span.org, and let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. call us at 202-626-3400 or

e-mail us at comments@c-span.org. join the c-span conversation. like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. >> and more from our series looking at lyndon job soften's -- johnson's great society now. today we focused on the public broadcasting act. we were joined by the head of the corporation for public broadcasting. this is just over 40 minutes. >> host: all this week on the "washington journal" we're taking a look at lyndon johnson's vision for a great society, unpacking that vision bill by bill. today we're taking a look at the public broadcasting act of 1967, and joining us this morning for that discussion is the president is and ceo of the corporation for public broadcasting, patricia destacy harrison. .. in the 1960's that president

johnson feels the need for the public broadcasting act? guest: as we look back at that you're a, so much was erupting. i think it was a very aspirational time. it is interesting to compare today in terms of media with what was going on then. so you had the era where americans are feeling perhaps the focus on education needs to be stronger in a competitive way. then you have the chairman of addressing the association of broadcasters and talking to them as commercial television is failing the country, not focused on education by providing basically what he termed that famous phrase, content that is creating a vast wasteland for americans. so there was this drumbeat. in the meantime, you have the

carnegie corporation and networking with educators and also working with educational television broadcasters who really want a system. they want interconnection. butr focused on education, it is very disorganized to a certain extent. so there is a drumbeat to do something about this. the commission had an interesting group of people, educators, but they also had lyndon johnson's soon-to-be secretary of health education and welfare pushing for public broadcasting system. even before the commission released the report recommending that the government create a nonprofit, nongovernmental corporation for public broadcasting that would receive and disburse friends, the president of the united states has public broadcasting really has a role in american life --

not only american life, but globally, and to raise the level of education. so we have almost a perfect aboutof people concerned the quality of content. not only in american life but the world. so we have almost a perfect storm, of people concerned about the quality of content. think about television, really exciting vehicle where people are worried that it is being misused. >> here is what president johnson had to say on the day he signed the public broadcasting act. it would give me water and stronger voice to education or radio and television by providing new funds for broadcast facilities. most importantly it builds a new institution. the corporation for public broadcasting, the broadcasting,

the corporation will assist stations and producers who broadcast good music and broadcast exciting place and reports on a fascinating range of human activity. it will try to prove what educate and also be exciting. it will get support from the government. and it is all of that. and we have astonishing letter that e.b. white, a wonderful lawyer wrote to actually the president but also the head of the carnegie commission, so excited about the prospect of public broadcasting and he said it zen, this will not resonate now, nobody knows -- in other words, it isn't just this

highbrow focus. is going to provide content to reform and educate and entertain at all levels so when you consume this content you are better off for it. that has been the mission of public broadcasting the first and foremost from the very beginning our job is to be the stewards. >> host: how much are we talking about? how do you disperse funding? >> guest: the funding issue is very interesting because unlike every single country throughout the world, public media funding in this country is uniquely american and entrepreneurialism and it is almost like what ronald reagan said, government should provide the spark and the private sector should do the work.

for 40 plus years, that has been i think the best example of public/private partnerships so the funding we receive from the federal government is very strictly allocated in terms of what they can do with it, approximately 90% of our funding goes to stations and film makers and the remainder of that, 70% goes to television and 25 to radio. the administration budget is capped at 5%. that is not flow whole story. it is very complicated structure. so the money goes to stations in the form of community service and they use that on a variety of levels but in order for them to get that grant they have to

rain a certain amount of nonfederal funds. what this means is they are constantly having to connect to their own community. almost a report card. the community responds or doesn't respond, with variations depending on stations in port royal areas or stations in larger urban communities, stations raised six times the amount of that a regional federal investment so our budget for an average station would be approximately 15% and raise 85% so it is an amazing system and recently i was part of the international public media broadcasters and they were astounded because they were funded by the government. and the average tax cost is 80,

$85. it is under $1.35. >> host: expense to the taxpayer. >> guest: yes. you can't even get a good lot safer that. for one dollar and $0.35 below that, you have what i think is a golden passport to comment commercial free for your children, lifelong learning from the youngest to the oldest. it is the virtuous circle, i think, of proven to the american public. >> host: we are talking to the president and ceo of public broadcasting, patricia de stacy harrison, you have been in that position since 2005. it created the corporation for

public broadcasting in 67 under president johnson's vision for the great society. this is the agency that disperses funds for pbs, of the republic broadcasting. we want to get your thoughts, comments and questions. 202-585-3881, democrats 3880 and independents 202-585-3882. democrats the 388 zero. you can send an e-mail, or other tweet. take a look at the appropriations history. this is from your web site in 1969 appropriated 5 million in that year. >> really didn't want to. was the controversy from the beginning. >> what was the debate like? is to we are as a people. the idea that government should not be in broadcasting business,

the connection between government and journalism. so the funding is much less than supporters of the act wanted. i do believe it is a complicated system. public media over the years, the reason it is vibrant and relevant today is because of that report cards that the federal government insisted on. so anyone who would placate, or to address the issue and address the concerns, we are funded at a specific level and the rest of the money comes from other sources, community, major funded foundation so it is this partnership we need to settle funding to strengthen the public media. >> the appropriated budget, what costs $445 million? >> guest: content, interconnection, technology, we

have -- we are not my rights. our value is the have always been committed to connecting with the american people in ways they are now accessing media so we are now -- is fairly important especially in an era when cable costs, so many families can't afford cable, it is commercial free, and also have a system where people are demanding more and more media where it is measured and evaluated especially in the education sphere. so unlike commercial television which certainly, children's programming, week in vessel lot of money into education research so we are teaching the young child how to read, how to get ready for school, math, science,

we measure it and evaluate it. how do you know the program is working as opposed to some other? we have educator's. is a constant focus not on the bottom line, not selling anything but to providing content that really does enhance the lives of each american at every single level wherever they come from, whatever their background we belong to the american people, that is where the funding goes. >> host: let's get viewers involved. meredith, new hampshire, republican caller. >> caller: very nice. you were perfectly correct that going to the moon and all it was an affirmative-action upward, we have a complete record from day to day of an everyday -- to the corporations and the library of

congress, there is a copy of everything on that radio show and every day, so just check your records and you will come up with the exact show to tell you what happened. it is perfect, thank you. >> host: you think it is a good thing, corporations for public broadcasting are a good thing? >> caller: certainly. we are still alive in the plutonium age. >> host: what do you think? >> guest: what is interesting is americans have an opinion about everything. in the case of public media republicans, democrats, independents support us wholeheartedly for the eleventh consecutive year pbs has been judged, polled, most of the organization, second only to the military, most -- the force of

news and information and also the most trustworthy and especially preschool teachers so when you are providing a safe place where children can learn what i like to do is look back to the 60s before the internet, before we had democratization of technology and understanding, you want your child to be able to learn without being sold something. they didn't contemplate the internets exactly but it makes even more sense now where your child can have access to all kinds of things that may not be positive and helpful but public media is that oasis for parents and children. >> host: republican caller from pennsylvania, go ahead. >> caller: i got a comment and a question. good morning, patricia de stacy harrison. avid listener, i am geared towards the radio aspect of it.

i am at -- have read was there in philadelphia. my point is, i love science friday and listen to them all. the non-political shows are great. all the political shows you have i must say are far left wing. they cover almost every one covers three subject, global warming, racism, and homosexuality. >> host: let's get a response. >> guest: thank you for being an avid listener. npr right now is growing so much they have over 35 million listeners not even counting on line a week. your point that you are making has been made, sometimes continued to be made by another

people and for that reason pbc has an ombudsman when people call or they write or e-mail or have a complaint, said a buyer complaint, i won't go into different defuse but they feel that both sides, different sides haven't been represented, we collect those responses and i would advise you to e-mail us and we provide this to congress, provide a report to congress, the ombudsman is independence. we also funded an editorial integrity project and stations themselves have agreed to a code of professional editorial integrity. nothing is perfect. human being is doing our best but my point is this belongs to all of the american people, doesn't belong to one party, either on the left or the right

hand is your american public media and if you have concerns, let us know. >> host: how much pbs programming is the u.s.-supported when you add to the corporate sponsorship? >> guest: it is all the u.s.-supported. corporate sponsorship has a lot of strings attached. let me give you an example. libya, the famous cook on public politician, she is not allowed to have a bottle of olive oil. seamy be using it at home and everyone else where the label is shown to the public. there are so many strict guidelines about corporate sponsorship. >> host: they come from where? >> guest: from pbs and npr. caller called before, this

concern, appropriate concern we never violate the trust the american people have placed in us over the past decades and the reason we haven't is because people are very very serious about our integrity and about what we are putting forth either on air and online. >> host: the debate over the years, march of 2011 you saw that debate openly on the house floor and in congress, republicans saying calling the corporation for public broadcasting, nonessential government services. we will hear from colorado republican doug lambert. >> caller: it is not the quality of content of programming on npr or the degree to which americans support the arts, radio news and educational programs, the point is whether government programs

and services that can't be funded privately or are otherwise available in the private sector should receive taxpayer funding. apart from constitutional concerns come as a country we no longer have this luxury anymore. within the national debt over $13 trillion the government simply can't continue to fund nonessential services. >> host: why do taxpayers have to provide funding? >> guest: these are not nonessential services. the second thing is in terms of the deficit, we represent 1-100th of 1%. that isn't an argument. i do believe like the hon. gentleman has walked back to his strong opinion, the fact is we provide a service that could not be provided without the help of the federal government. is not 100% as i said before, this is a great partnership and

we have been very responsible about holding up our end and insuring funds do not just come from the backs of the taxpayer. >> host: what is your operating budget in total? >> guest: the debate does not raise money so this is our total funding for public media. public broadcasting. >> host: for pbs, npr, rules are separate. how much do you know on average percentagewhy is the beginning from taxpayers versus corporate sponsorships? >> guest: we provide out of this formula, 70% goes to television and 25 to radio. pbs is a membership organization. npr's a membership organization, so they raise funds. >> host: they charge dues? >> guest: they charge dues and some of our community service

plans to build the station free of money so they can pay dues, it is a circle of strength i would like to deal with that way. they are very different organizations in the sense they are stand-alone. even though pbc warns pbs in 68-69 and around 1970. they have their own cbos, their board of directors. >> host: democratic tolerance over springs, md.. >> caller: i am so thrilled with this whole program. i am 89 years old. if i didn't have public television, i don't know what i would do. i get up in the morning and i watch from 8:00 until sometimes 9:00 or 10:00 at night. your weekends with the book

television is fabulous. i just can't say enough about it. this is all i can ever watch. all the other programs are so terrible, and i wish i could give more money so that you could be helped a lot. more than you are now and the one last thing i would like to say is i didn't realize how much president johnson did the this country. i heard this this morning from you. i didn't know. he swore law and everything. i didn't have public television, i couldn't be learning. i feel like i am in school for practically the whole day because of public television. thank you thank you thank you. >> host: leading up to president johnson's signature on this act and after, what happens with

public broadcasting? >> guest: we began with a short period of time from 67 to 68-69, and we started disbursing funds to stations, we did invest in interconnection and we created the system. as i said with a couple of years later, pbs was created and then npr and the reason for that is the cpb does not create content. we don't own stations. that is another really good step back to ensure government doesn't get involved. there are so many really good, i think caveat to what we can do and what we can't do but if i could just say the last caller, the reason i love my job is i travel around the country and visit all these stations or i am

on a plane and they ask me what i do and sometimes it is so very moving because you have parents who did not speak english, their children are learning english because of our children's programs, people -- of a certain age really can't get out but they feel connected in a positive way to our world, whether it is through international according to on npr or downtown abbey which brought the country together in a remarkable way. 14 million people tuned into the season iv of downtown abbey and an initiative called american graduate which really brought attention to the fact that 1 million young people are failing to graduate high school, four years later, i can't claim total credit because there are a lot of good organizations that have been working alongside this space the three years later for the first time in american

history, a high school graduation rate is 80% and i want to credit america's public television and radio stations for telling the story of the teachers, the dropouts and the people working to help these good kids to graduate. >> host: let's go to our line for republicans, tom, go ahead. >> caller: it is a complete abomination that one penny of taxpayer money is going to fund pbs and npr and not just because pbs and npr are leftist super pacs invested with nothing but militant, virulent leftists, a penny of taxpayer money should go to them if it were controlled by members of the pro america community. >> host: what are you saying? it is controlled by anti americans? >> caller: it is controlled by hard-line leftists.

>> host: okay. what is your background? >> guest: i haven't talked to big bird lately but i think he is right down the middle. people have different opinions and i respect their opinion. there are libertarians who believe government should not fund a lot of things. all i can say is the proven value over decades has resulted in a positive for this country and not a negative. >> host: how does the board work? >> guest: the board of public broadcasting is appointed by the president of the united states, confirmed by the senate to a nine member board and no more than five members, and created public broadcasting act, and as a result, what if the board is from one party. they have a board, and

republicans and democrats, they have public media, a commitment to strengthen an advance. >> host: hi, rob. good morning. >> caller: you have a republican or two on the board does not stop the fact that it is the left-wing organization. you have people fired because they don't serve the leftwing liberal party line. i don't watch npr, funded by public money any more than i want rush limbaugh funded by public money. >> guest: that is an opinion that is out there but there is a big difference because what public media is focused on, let me go back to our mission and how we have kept to this, nowhere does it say political point of view.

it says it should be content that informs. i think we're doing that. that a jew case. we have measurement, that entertains and when i say entertains, in a way that goes beyond learning about kim kardashian and the housewives of various alien places. $1.35 that each taxpayer contributes, the best values that any american is getting out of taxpayer dollars others and welfare. >> host: public tv is attacked for having up political agenda. do producers check content to d politicize it? >> guest: there are a lot of checks and balances. cpb do not do that. we stay out of the content control business. pbs has a code of ethics, so does npr. these are not just show up with a point of view without a lot --

one of the big complaints, it takes a long time for things to get funded through cpb because by the time everybody looks at everything, that for filmmaker is ready for retirement but it is all good because it is responsible for money that comes from average americans. >> host: the conservative taken a publication for public broadcasting and the writer says the current rate of funding, the corporation for public broadcasting would take an $5 billion to $6 billion over the next decade. the figure is not huge in overall budget and spending, it is a small piece of the pie that can be cut but ppb, this one is simple. they run in the same way most of the television networks raise capital, and start to run advertising. in success of programming raising dollars in this capacity should not be difficult. on there website pbs has a page

dedicated to noting their successes and brags about their large audiences. not only does it score big in the children's market but they have huge hits during prime time as well. the private funding would be there. >> guest: that is a great argument. the reason it doesn't hold water, i know it doesn't, a couple years ago. to really do a deep dive into alternative funding for public media which we did. our executive vp did an amazing job and it didn't just come from within cpb and the bottom line is if public media did not receive federal funding it would soon become commercial media. rural stations would not be able to provide local content without commercials so right away you would have the commercialization. also in terms of raising money there is no way t