suburb the furthest reaches of burr america poor districts, rich districts every child deserves a shot at the world-class education. that's a promise to make as a nation. that's what makes our nation great is the fundamental belief that no matter who you are and where you come from or what you look like you can make it in this country if you work hard. you have access to the tools to achieve. if we keep working at this is a promise we can make real for this generation and generations to come. so, with that, i think all the superintendents are ready to sign this pledge for our kids. everybody get your tablets out. are you ready? all right, go at it. i see some people lagging behind. [laughter]

all right, time. did everybody get it? okay if you are still figuring it out -- i won't tell. but let me just close by saying this. we are so inundated i think with news of mayhem and mishap and war and disease. i think sometimes we forget how much good work is being done day in and day out by a lot of good people who just care about their kids, care about their communities. in your districts i know there are extraordinary teachers and principals who are putting everything they have got into making sure our kids are getting a great education and we have parents who are stepping up in volunteering and helping to make those schools work. so as you disburse one message i

want you to deliver to all of them from the white house from the president of the united states is even if you are not getting a lot of attention, even if you are not making a lot of headlines what you were doing every single day is making the biggest possible difference in the lives of this country and i couldn't be prouder of you. all right? thank you everybody. [applause] >> please remain seated until the president has departed. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> president obama will on bail and executive order on immigration tomorrow night. the measure could provide work permits for up to 5 million people. we will have live coverage of the president's speech at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. congress is trying to wrap up work in the lame-duck session. senator ron johnson joins us to discuss some of the measures they are working on. from "washington journal," this is 45 minutes. posted we want to welcome back to our table senator ron johnson

on the foreign relations committee as well as government affairs. let me begin with yesterday's vote on keystone xl you along with other republican colleagues all voted yes to build this pipeline. you failed by one vote. in the 114 congress how many many votes does it get? >> guest: is hard to say but we obviously hope we have 54 votes and we will need another six or seven. yesterday i think we have 14 votes to join. some of those individuals will no longer be in the senate but we will have strong bipartisan support for the keystone xl pipeline. >> host: what do you think them? do have enough votes to override a presidential veto? guess i don't think we have enough to override but hopefully president obama wishes -- was that bush is the american people. this is an issue the american people support. their energy prices will be

lower in us is good for economic growth. it's a huge economic advantage we have in the global economy. we are the world's largest market and have relatively cheap hour. what makes us uncompetitive fist am competitive tax system and regulatory burden so let's not drive up the cost of power by denying yourself access to these resources. >> host: what happens to have that this will have an impact on people, on americans energy costs? >> guest: when you increase the supply of any product they will continue to put downward pressure on prices. it's the law of supply and demand. it's hard to say exactly what effect will have. we know it will be a beneficial effect from the standpoint of keeping energy prices reasonably priced and at a competitive advantage for americans. >> host: how much does it add to the supply when there is already does tar sand oil coming into the country and has been for decades as 150 miles of pipeline that exists?

really how much is this adding? >> guest: went we play the numbers game the bottom line is regardless whether we build the pipeline or someone else builds a pipeline oil is going to be his. fossil fuels will continue to be his. i would -- the concern about the environment amid talk about the state department. this is the least environmentally impactful way of transporting this oil. it is the most them are mentally friendly way to transport the oil. we are also going to utilize the oil in a more friendly way in america than if they get shipped over from china. if you're concerned about the environment the keystone xl pipeline is a good deal for the environment. >> host: as you know americans do overwhelmingly want the keystone xl pipeline. according to "usa today" yesterday by 60 to 25% they say congress and the president should approve the keystone xl pipeline. they also overwhelmingly approved of the president's deal with china on climate change.

so should republicans work with the president on that? >> guest: well i don't think people understand how china does nothing. they make a commitment 27 -- 20 some years in the future to do something at the same time what president obama is committed to is a significant cost on the economy. candidate obama because of his cap cap-and-trade proposals would you couldn't pass and congress candidate obama said electricity rates would skyrocket. and i don't deny that we have a changing climate but what can we actually do about it and how much do we want to spend? how much harm do we want to cause to not only our economy but americans pocketbooks? how much do we really want? electricity rates will skyrocket because of these qualities. i think we need to look at exactly what president obama's policies will do. i don't think many americans

would support electricity rates skywriting. >> host: according to gallup poll that was done in june of 2013 after the edward snowden leaks were made americans disapproved of the government government surveillance program and they want it reined in. how did you vote yesterday on doing that? >> guest: i voted against this bill because this bill didn't go to committee and didn't go through proper debate in committee. this was a lame-duck session and these are some pretty serious issues. i'm a strong civil libertarian and i want to make sure that american's policies are protected we don't have a government abusing its power but we face significant threats in this nation and around the world. isis is a threat to america. that threat is growing. our best line of defense against the growing threat is a robust intelligence gathering capability so what we need to debate these issues and a robust fashion. we need to make sure we

understand all the threats. we know how these types of measures would hamstring our national security efforts to keep america safe. just rushing this bill through a lame-duck session is not the way to go on this. it never should have been arrested before the senate. we have plenty of time until june of next year to debate this to make sure we strike that very delicate balance between security and civil liberties. that's not an easy balance point to strike. >> host: on the policy though who do you agree with, senator mitch mcconnell your leader said yesterday it ties the hands of our intelligence at a time when we shouldn't be doing that and you have your colleague senator rand paul on the other side saying this bill does not go far enough to protect american civil liberties. >> guest: at this point in time in our history that balancing point shifts. i guess i'm more with the balancing point to keep america safe. having imposed, to give the

community as many tools as they need to keep america safe. again these are difficult issues and far more thoughtful debate then we would give it in the lame-duck. >> host: does that come from your position on foreign relations and homeland security that you lean more towards intelligence agencies hands right now? >> guest: we need to control them appropriate way but let's face it these programs have robust and continuous oversight. this is one thing in particular if you look at the far right in the far left their concerns for civil liberties. from both sides of the political spectrum they will be watching to make sure there is no abuse. that would be the first thing i would point out where pristine americans use because of this narrow target program by the n nsa? if we saw one case of widespread abuse by would be far more concerned and on this

libertarian site but right now i don't think it's the case. i think people in the nsa are trying to keep america safe and they have an enormously difficult job. i want to support efforts. >> host: this is a little bit of a lightning round. let me put another issue on the table for our viewers in its immigration reform. here's the headline in "the new york times" this morning. an immigration fight republicans explore alternatives to a shutdown. one option floated in the house by appropriations chairman hal rodgers calls for passing his committees billed by the december 11 deadline and then rescinding funds for mr. obama's executive action. another option proposed by representative tom pryce republican of georgia calls for passing most of the broad spending bills but taking out money for programs specifically related to obama's planned immigration action and fighting the present with a short-term stand-alone measure for those particular funds. do either one of those sound appealing to you?

>> guest: this is where we can effectively utilize policy. i think the american people support it. i don't think the american people support a president obama's action here. there is nobody threatening any kind of government shutdown. i think what we should do is there a thoughtful process endorsed the preparation process and prioritize spending. we can narrowly focus at the fund effort on just those specific actions. we need to talk about a couple million dollars of funding and simply grant administration spending money any funds to do what you need to do. maybe he is issuing some sort of legitimizing documents green cards or whatever. we could prevent him from taking those actions. the vast majority of the federal government open. >> host: do you do that by december or in the next congress? >> guest: we will see whether or not the senate democrats went

along with that type of thing. they may block that and try to threaten to shut the government in which case we would pass the short-term cr to get us into new congress where we have control of the process in the senate then we can focus on that. in any event this is not going to be an overreaction. i think it will be an appropriate reaction from my standpoint as the incoming chairman of the committee on homeland security and governmental affairs regardless of what president obama does my primary focus on the homeland security portion of that community is to finally pass a border security and enforcement build something that only secures the border which i think most americans believe is the first step in the full immigration reform process. the american people don't believe that they have no reason -- reason to believe we will secure the border so we have to do that first and then we'll have the public support to take further measures in terms of finally solving this immigration issue. >> host: this border security

immigration has to go through your committee as well as judiciary i assume? >> guest: i want to coordinate the actions with the relevant house committees, the relevant senate committees, get the chairman of those committees working together and if we can develop one unified bill that will cut down, both of those bills out of committee would go to the florida senate and the house and it could be amended. if we can come up with a pretty unified border security enforcement bill out of his committees it will streamline that process. i'm a business guy and i try to do things is officially as possible. >> host: ron johnson our guest republican of wisconsin in the incoming chairman for the 114th congress homeland security and governmental affairs panel committee. let's go to phyllis. hi villas. >> caller: good morning everyone. i just wanted to comment. i've been listening for several

weeks now on this keystone pipeline and senator ron says the american people are for it. however listening to the people calling in they don't seem to be for it so i would like to understand why he believes that the american people are for it. i'm a registered voter myself and i'm totally against it. also number two as far as immigration that's going on i understand that maybe we should just take all the undocumented persons that are here and just take them back since they are illegal here, regardless of who they may be and not support them back to their country. they want to come back then they should come back through means that are legal. as far as isis or isil, isis is concerned and the beheadings that have been going on we have to understand as well the

culture which i heard yesterday is evil culture that the gentleman was talking about yesterday, that these people, that part of the world has been in effect for millennia. they have been chopping heads off as far as david and goliath. >> host: phyllis so do you disagree with the strategy to try to destroy integrate them? >> caller: well, we can't destroy integrate them because they have been here a long time. their culture has been here for longer than american culture. we ourselves have a lot of evil in our own system and society. even present day as we look to try to support other people we have to make sure that our own children can walk and live in this country. >> host: i have to leave it there. >> guest: she covered a lot of ground. as in terms of the keystone xl

pipeline 60% supported it in 40 opposed. in terms of immigration one of the components i would like to add to the border security bill would be a strong and functioning guestworker program. i am in manufacturing so i try to go to root cause analysis. why is it difficult to secure the border because we have a lot of people coming here illegal. if we could lemonade or reduce incentives for illegal immigration and make the challenge of it a lot easier. what is the number one reason people come here? they are coming in to look for work. if we have a functioning guestworker program and i would love to have the states involved. they can set the quotas and prevailing wages and incentives for employers. if we have a functioning guestworker program it will dramatically reduce the number of people coming in illegally and it'll be easier to secure the border. >> host: what about companies

background checks and clearance? >> guest: you need an e-verify system so they can do -- due diligence and make sure people are qualified to work and be held harmless. illegal immigrants right now are on visa overstays. we can track a package from ups around the corner. we should be able to monitor people who come here and thesis and make sure they are not overstaying their bases. >> host: let's go to texas, client a republican. hi. >> caller: hi, how are you today. it's a pleasure to be on the show. my comments on a couple of things is one, i voted republican with the promise that you guys would go in and start doing things. but what do you do? the first thing you do is go in and try to pass the keystone pipeline which benefits the rich oil companies which i assume are

part of your backers. when you have the immigration bill you have on the floor floor. there's one on the floor running around somewhere. nobody wants to vote on it. also there's a pill for infrastructure that would put millions, hundreds of thousands of people to work working on our highways improving our infrastructure as it is. you know, it's mind-boggling that the first thing you do is go for the throat, go in and try to help the oil companies. >> host: okay clint got your point. >> guest: in terms of the senate the democrats control the floor of the house passes on the point i want to make is on a marginal basis having a supply of oil keeps energy prices low. that benefits everybody. if you do a slight analysis and a business you find strengths

and weaknesses and stresses. strength in the american economy is the biggest customer. we have relatively cheap power. to manufacture things you need cheap power and expensive power. what you don't want to do is artificially drive up the cost of power. that benefits every american because it keeps america a more competitive economy in relation to the rest of the world. it benefits every american. >> host: darrell from bloomfield indiana, independent caller. >> caller: hello. >> host: . >> host: hello daryl you are on the air were senator ron johnson. >> caller: okay, i haven't two questions for senator johnson. one, does he think that it's okay for a foreign company to take americans under eminent domain? number two, does he think that

clean water is more valuable than clean water and number three does he think it's okay to break our treaties with the indian tribes in that area and i will take his answers on the air. >> host: okay, darrell. >> guest: okay, where do i start. i can read my writing now. >> host: foreign companies. >> guest: i have a real concern especially in the decision about the expansion of eminent domain. that's a real problem. i encouraged foreign investment in america. that is what we want. we want to make america an attractive place for investment job expansion. the second one was? >> host: the second one was clean water versus oil. >> guest: is not an either/or choice. i'm for clean water and also for using god-given natural resource

for energy. in the third we have an obligation to native americans to abide by those treaties and we have a lot of tribes in wisconsin. we are trying to do everything we can to have good relations with native americans. >> host: new london wisconsin, gene independent caller. hi gene. >> caller: yes, hi. >> host: go ahead. >> caller: i would like to know they would be responsible for the cleanup if the pipe would lay? would it be the or you're the oil company in please be -- don't talk around the subject matter in other words. >> guest: my wife was born in new london wisconsin so you might know her, jane köhler. certainly the company will be held fully responsible. there may be initial activity to rush resources whether it's fema or state and local officials but

in the end it's the companies that pay dearly. bp paid $20 billion for what happened in the gulf and the pipeline spills. those companies end up paying full price and then some because they get sued. the companies have every incentive to maintain a safe of pipelines as possible. in the end they will end up paying for it. >> host: okay cory you are next lexington kentucky republican. >> caller: yes sir i have three quick questions for you, the first being how could you possibly leave the board for the nsa who is completely, completely overstepping their power and getting rid of pretty much the fourth amendment by illegally searching and seizing peoples information. the one thing that i could see there being a loophole for that is we make people sign privacy

agreements before they can use just about anything in this country. what kind of loopholes a lot of our policies that we had originally sold in our country. if you could answer that in two why are we spending so much money on oil and other countries when i have friends who are engineers in the state and in this country that worked in the oil mines and we have plenty of our own. in two, i mean three, if we are going to continue with this pipeline idea and something does happen are we going to continue to use the same exact chemical that we used were the 1989 exxon spill that we also used in the bp spill which was disapproved by the fda yet still continues to be used even though we know it doesn't dissolve the oil. it syncs the heavier matter of the oil to the bottom kind of

like slowing down atlantic current and it still left the film on top of the water leaving the workers. >> i'm no engineer expert in terms of the spill. in terms of the nsa prosecutors have far greater subpoena power towards these records and let the nsa has. it has been ruled constitutional by cords so this is really being blown out of proportion in terms of what the nsa is doing. it's very limited and we have a great deal of monitoring oversight. again we have people on the right and far left monitoring and making sure we are not abusing american civil liberties. again we face some very significant threats in this nation. we need intelligence gathering capabilities. let's not hamstring people and keeping them safe. >> host: we will move onto bronx new york. democratic call, joe. >> caller: good morning greta,

how are you doing today? good morning senator johnson. >> guest: how about just one question? it's hard to keep track. >> caller: let's talk about immigration. number one immigration especially hearing the republicans talk about the border, most of the time you have heard people say the border has been secured. that is not the problem. what i am saying to you today is i'm asking you this question. why do you think the republicans don't want to see immigration? sometimes you have on this station some republicans that are on this, if the immigration past the democrats will have what you call all these people who are democrats.

>> host: okay we take your point. senator? >> guest: first of all i know it's a big controversial issue but you delve into it there's a difference in positions. we are talking about a timing issue. republicans believe we have to secure the border first before we can really address the remaining issue. we are a nation of immigrants. we have a lot of immigrants in wisconsin working. they are incredibly hard-working people invaluable members of our community. we will be welcoming those people but we have to do it in a legal way and we have to secure the border first not just to solve the illegal immigration problem but an imperative for public health and safety. we have drug-resistant strains of tuberculosis and ebola. from a national security standpoint so to me it's a timing. it's democrats that are holding border security hostage for guaranteed citizenship. i've yet to have an immigrant in

wisconsin asked me for citizenship. what they're asking is younger kids with tears streaming down her eyes, don't deport my mom and dad. we are not going to do that if they are criminals are working. we are not going to be doing that but we have to secure the border first. >> host: is that what the president is proposing to do? >> guest: by not securing the border and by doing it by accident -- executive fiat a problem with that as he created an incentive for illegal immigration so we have young people streaming to the border creating a humanitarian crisis. let's eliminate or reduce the incentives for immigration. we talk about citizenship before you secure the board so you have a functioning legal immigration system you get more so let's reduce the incentive for illegal immigration. let's have a guestworker system and secure the border first and

i think we will easily be able to come together in terms of what need to do. >> host: i want to show our viewers sent you this headline about you. why senator ron johnson is federal workers knew worst nightmare. they write in this piece, they point to things that you have said, federal employees are overpaid. even after our -- their basic pay rates. .. s mind at ease. inave seen a high quality our federal workforce. i come from a business background. in business you have to benchmark your competitive attributes against competitors. i do not think anyone wants to

underpay public-sector or federal workers, the we also cannot afford to overpay them. there have been studies on both sides of the issues. let's get the truth, the fact and the figures. federal workers should not be immune to modification of their pay packages. in my private sector, or company, because of runaway health-care costs, we are modifying our health care plan every year. i do not think federal workers have anything to fear from me at all. we have priorities to address -- securing the border, reduce the regulatory burden. i would be happy if we could get through those top priorities, we will look at this, and it will primarily be a fact-finding, information-gathering, so we can get political demagoguery out of the way and we will address it in a forthright and her. host: what agencies are your top priority as chairman? guest: this committee is

homeland security and governmental affairs. host: right. guest: on homeland security it is border security, cyber security. i would like to see an authorization for she mining reporting requirements to congress. i want to see secretary johnson succeed because if he succeeds, america stays safe that i want to do everything we can to protect our grid. that is a big focus of mine. on the governmental affairs standpoint, one of the disadvantages we have is a regulatory burden in this country that is onerous. we need to reach out to the other side and that is the way i'm going to approach this. let's frame this as an agreement. i am not going to ask democratic senators to violate principles, but there have to be regulations in their states that are causing real harm, preventing businesses have been able to create jobs

and expand businesses. let's work together to reduce the regulatory burden. the: also, what about secret service agency -- it falls on homeland security, with the breaches at the white house, what do you want to do? guest: we have to get stronger. my preference would be to bring in someone from outside the agency. when we started to look at these reports, we found out the current inspector general was not -- did not have integrity, let's put it that way. the reports were not accurate. he has moved on to we have a good inspector general. i have a great deal of faith in secretary jeh johnson. we have a cultural problem there. that is my standpoint. this is where a new perspective, a fresh set of eyes, i think, will be very helpful. we have to restore the credibility of the secret service. we had to make sure there are procedures in place to keep the president of the united states safe and other officials can

perform the duties. to go outsideme of agencies and bring home a fresh perspective. host: after the resignation of julia pearson, a house judicial committee will hear from the -- acting director, joseph clancy, and we will have coverage. he is expected to tell the committee at 10:00 a.m. eastern time on c-span3 that the secret service has fallen short of its high standards. guest: it has. it is just obvious. again, we need to bring in a strong director, someone from the outside and that the cultural problems clicking the agency. host: diane >> >> caller: good morning senator. so if they send themselves from their own laws to go

against obamacare or in relation to that even though it was written into law that congress and the administration have to participate is somehow magically they were exempted from the mandate. hal is a lawsuit going? >> what you're talking about the loss of personal management under the white house and members of congress literally changed the lot in their moving. they filed suit to uphold the law lot. also the case was dismissed by a of a technicality i think we do have the shot in the second case to overturn that dismissal so we could try the case in court that basically quoted james madison in how important my

case really was. that is the definition of tyranny. and they get drawn from that standpoint. >> caller: good morning. you have a republican that called to invest in america is an infrastructure. so you correctly identify the resources to be supported with the taxpayers

but when you try to recover the money from the supported companies that then the company could claimv5,z bankruptcy or shut down. there is nothing to go after. but it is said mechanism for the republicans to get the votes. but unless this country or congress would hundred% investment to the infrastructure it will crumble.

>> guest: republicans struck a support investment in the structure. given to look at lower priorities which is natural defense and the american of proposals right now as they have then supportive of bet to read pretreat and from that repatriation from the infrastructure spending the 3.$5 trillion per year budget but the shortfall from the highway trust fund is 10 billion. sova though whole point is

to go through that awful appropriation process in within to do that under democrat senator harry reid it is time to start going through the budgeting process. and if we do that the infrastructure spending will be high on everybody's list. >> host: we have louisiana on the republican line. >> caller: i have a comment and question. kerry reed stands up with his people behind him the first thing he says it is for nothing but the middle-class.

hiring 340,000 people that is the middle class. they just want people to stay home to get goodies for the government to vote for the next time. had you heard of the solar plant in nevada? that huge one? d you know what i'm talking about? that was 1.2 billion dollar now they have not had enough sun to make it economically feasible for them to do this stuff they want to. so now they're asking for a $500 million grant to pay off the loan. so the democrats keep talking about this bill is good will pay for that

$500 million? >> i agree. and then that's sector but we all share the same goal. will one every america to have the opportunity. but are we taking this responsibility? with humility to reach out to the other side to find the areas of agreement. that is how i do business just like a bomb with net immigration spending time on the front end to dig up everything that we agreed on to have a level of trust.

that is my approach for the homeland security. and to reduce that regulatory burden to drive up the cost of power and have it provides all of us. >> that you enter the 2016 election cycle is one in lowe's foldable republicans on the map but in the eyes of many he is running in the state that is democratic in seven straight presidential elections. >> i am a number one target but hopefully what will happen is i travel all over

the state all the time. but here is the facts. it is not pretty. to the fiscal situation in. simply serves them in the united states senate. not afraid to tell the truth. not afraid to be the messenger even when it is not fun to look at. i'm not doing this do to get reelected the election will take care of itself. i will focus on the next couple of years to find the common ground to reduce the regulatory burden. where businesses compete for labor i will not change i am very focused and very direct in my mission and wisconsin needs the affirmation that they can need over the first

use steps. >> bet to win reelection what is the position right now? >> i have not done a lot of fund raising the first four years there has been higher priorities we had to survive a recall that the 2012 election then walker has been reelected to i have fully supportive of governor walker in the state races. working doing events to support the amendment -- the efforts. it is not a fun part i do not like it but if you want to get the message out. with the onslaught of those nasty ads.

from half a million dollars spent on the targeted ad campaign. but see how by pretty nasty looking pictures how that drives down my approval rating in the market. and good people are reluctant. i travel around the country in the embassy into the ads. and i am hoping more americans to and that negative advertising our campaign ads out to look at the substance of who people are in on the basis to get my old life back then i unloved and i'm this but i will appreciate the value somebody is telling the truth.

simic did you use your own personal wealth? >> and i will not be doing that the second time runt the test to -- around because i should not have to my record my goals should stand on their own merits. the people want to see me reelected they will support that i don't think raising money will be an issue. we saw how much was raised in the last election cycle. that is not necessary. i made mine and -- by $9 billion investment into this country i don't think i should do it again. >> host: we will try to get a couple more phone calls. the independent line. >> caller: good morning. senator johnson the thoughts regarding the keystone pipeline the biggest is talk

about approval ratings 60% approve of this but the problem i have of was listening earlier to the caller from shreveport. but they say there is 30,000 jobs created and we all know the little research will show that is probably not true. most of the jobs will be a temporary. i knew they threw three questions at a time but that question was amended domain. -- amid domain and people will not discuss this. but i believe it is improperly used in the with like to hear you address that has a concern.

>> host: rebuild the but there because we are short on time. >> my concern about a minute domain the local government could say we want this house because then we get more taxes as opposed to the purpose is we all need this highway anyone to go straight to order the pipeline them so there are certain things that are a common good that the public does need to impose for the necessary infrastructure but i have a problem for economic purposes having nothing to do the of the public need. >> thank you for talking to our viewers this morning. thank you.

a fiction, nonfiction and poetry and young people's presentation should be getting started shortly on c-span2 and and tell ben more from today's "washington journal" [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> guest: we are deeply disappointed this was an opportunity to make the first round of reform since

9/11 since the disclosures of the birds know dan. and we are upset the government is acting in a secret fashion making secret lot to do to surveillance on americans phone records to gather that information and we believe the government had an opportunity to correct the wrong. >> what would this legislation do? >> usa freedom act brings since section 215 of the patriot act to allow the government to have a more targeted approach on intelligence matters. investigate terrorism most

of that collection engages in right now on every u.s. citizen right now it would also allow the opinions of the secret foreign intelligence surveillance court to be released when they make the decision that we could understand how they interpret the law. it will also greatly expand the role of the adversarial relationship in other words, , an individual in the court for the opposing viewpoints know where else in the judicial system to rehab that non adversarial position to create the ability to argue on behalf of the american people to protect the fourth and first

amendment rights. >> host: what about technology companies and the information they are required to give to the government? >> guest: it will not force technology companies to give the information to the government. the with a narrowed surveillance capacity the government could seek information related to terrorism investigation and when told is this information sometimes it is for political purposes. >> host: and they let the american people though of what they have disclosed. >> yes. under the legislation they had more flexibility to disclose when a customer information has been sought. >> host: summer arguing this is the wrong time to try to reform our

intelligence agencies showing you what the leaders of the republican party had to say. >> it would hinder the ability of the intelligence community and the list to query a of a database between potential terrorist to be hostage by telephone companies and make a harder for the records to be gathered for this term under the bill but would face no statutory requirement to hold relevant data. there is no legitimate debate to be had over the strike in our democracy and we should have that debate but the opponents of the collection program have not provided any examples of the nsa intentionally set -- spying of innocent civilians.

in fact, congress has put in place detailed procedures for national security. >> guest: that is insincere criticism nothing in this legislation would stop the foreign intelligence from being gathered. the government admits it has these powers and nothing in the usa freedom act would stop the government from of finding out about isis. this log that it is offering goes too far. we're talking about domestic records of america in citizens and it has nothing to do with isis.

>> host: what about what senator mcconnell said where is the evidence there has been abuse? >> the fact that we live in a country with a fourth amendment is very important for people to understand. we were founded in response to the issuance of general warrants to allow british soldiers looking for contraband but the founding documents of this country argue they should not lift that private information without probable cause it goes straight to american values and what we stand for.

if they can collect information that details activities of who we are friends worth, we're not moving in a free society. the journalist ability, this is a bad idea to continue these programs and even the authors of the page redact themselves, with sensenbrenner and senator pat leahy said this legislation is not what congress intended with the patriot act. it is difficult to understand that a rational basis with the arguments that senator mcconnell is making. >> host: section 215 was passed when and why the u.s.

a freedom act now? >> 40 days after an 11 the was a patriot act was passed and congress did not have a chance to read it to. a secret to build was inserted 3:00 a.m. that the house members never got a chance to see the bill did not go to the markup process so we are left with their lot that is over broad and it was passed in a panic to the events of 9/11 the over one year ago edwards never been said he felt compelled to release documents but then this legislation in came as a result of this note and disclosure and i don't think we would not have this conversation if

edwards noted had not done we had done. most permanent there are three provisions that come up for expiration in june of next year said this will be revisited. >> host: independent scholar. >> caller: good morning. thanks for allowing me this opportunity. i am pretty outspoken. 58 years old. i have been watching bitterly since 1972. i was just a teenager than. but even in montana i have been arguing this. >> host: what is your question? >> caller: hold up with me

a little bit. >> host: we don't have a lot of time. >> caller: my question is why can people cannot read the constitution and understand the simplicity of it to get rid of that corporate socialism that has been here since the late '30's? >> guest: i do think there is a lack of education in our country and people don't know there rights or are afraid to stand up for those rights like aclu because the first amendment or the fourth amendment of these that allow for individual liberty to allow freedom from government excess, they are abandoned in the

surveillance stay we have created in the aftermath of 9/11. people need to understand there rights are averaged about the collection about them. >> caller: all these people took the oath to the constitution and our government. what needs to be done is everyone in washington that participates should go under the rico act because it is against the constitution this is a mob type of deal. >> the republican leadership really pushed a lot of senators from this legislation if this was held one week ago i think it would have passed but in the

last minute people like senator rant paul and others decided to vote against consideration of this legislation and it was surprising and shocking. >> host: he says it does not go far enough. he said we need real and as a reform that urge your representative to object to the extension. >> i don't buy that argument it was real reform though lot to make the secret lies a core more transparent and though lot to and both collection of the americans highly personal information that the data who they call or through the mail when or what websites they search this was the opportunity to make real change.

it was not perfect but i don't think congress ever comes up with perfect answers but it would be a major positive for step to push the legislation forward to end surveillance today. >> if you remember timothy mcveigh of homegrown terrorists who attacked our own citizens. i don't know of this would have stopped or prevented it but i figured there are always people because of the way i see these court cases come out our they're not already doing what they wanted to do anyway?

>> guest: a good point. i don't think these programs has been effective if you don't believe me believe me -- believe the director of national intelligence or the attorney general and the president who says this does not interfere with legitimate the intelligence investigations. we have the intelligence community on our side and the president on our side and the overwhelming bipartisan vote in the house of representatives earlier this year the overwhelming republican and democratic support passing the legislation. no one in the house then voted for this thought it would undermine legitimate activities. >> host: if you people do believe that. and writing in "the wall

street journal" yesterday nsa informant only isis' could of the bill ends the collection of what is called a telephone men said they said the date time duration content or the identity of a caller or the call it would substitute the process that would require at this stage to check on cell phone numbers recently associate with terrorist activity to obtain a warrant from the foreign intelligence surveillance court and then that information remains in their hands rather in the hands of the nsa. >> i debated michael hayden but my question is what is it about the fourth amendment he does not understand? the government is only supposed to get that

information when they have probable cause are could argue there is an urgent necessity for this information. these procedures are not cumbersome. but he is trying to protect his own record because he helped to create these laws. so the government has been on a binge of passing national security laws without adequate checks and balances for the american people the american people have had enough. they will rise again next june to say congress needs to act. >> host: former director of the caa 2006 through 2009 and national security agencies through 2005. and serving 2007 through

2009 and former district judge. >> i would like to say first of all, you are 100 percent right but the constitution and the fourth amendment everything is correct but the terrorism threat is very real. even though it has not stopped terrorism yet, i believe that problem is we should not be allowed any of this information to go anywhere but toward terrorism activities. there should be no law enforcement opportunities for the collected data, not even for murder because it

is only supposed to be for terrorism law abiding americans there are none because we all commit three felonies said they with although laws. they could pick anybody they want to go in with law-enforcement. so they can pick and choose. >> guest: the caller makes an excellent point*. the information collected allegedly for terrorist investigations we know are used in criminal prosecutions. that was not the intent of the author of the patriot act. there needs to be a lot erected to stop the sharing of information to create a back door around the fourth amendment. but to the callers earlier point yes if you hang

everyone you get the guilty but they don't collect information on everyone to find a criminal but we have a system that makes prosecutors go to the court or police officers go to the court to get the authorization to investigate to do surveillance on individuals. what the national security laws do right now is turn that value on its head to say you must give us all your information and then we will sift through it to decide which of you is guilty. that is not the american way and does not comport with our founding principles. >> host: the washington legislative director we go to david -- the republican caller new mexico. >> caller: it to be over

one year to test because of the fisa court. i am part of the intelligence community. it takes one year to get things through the fis a court there was extremely difficult. what this lady says baffles me. if she is so concerned about these things that i think we follow that asked about the irs going after the conservative groups.

>> host: okay. what you believe? we lost him. >> caller: first of all, we were involved to criticize the irs to go after conservative groups. that is not accurate. because something is difficult to achieve it may be a reflection how the agency's though about achieve that. of the fisa court has turned down very few. and infinite number of law-enforcement and intelligence agencies. but the question i have lied to i have a secret court in america? why do we know the opinions of that court? why doesn't the supreme court review the opinions of that court? this is just not the american way. a understand their our

intelligence secrets that cannot be shared, but there is a lot that protects intelligence information if we prosecute terrorism cases but then without giving up way even secret. i just think this whole. >> bet to the beast had this headline. >> on behalf of the board of directors i welcome you to the 65th annual national book awards. that's right. 65 years. [applause] have been doing this for a few years and this is the largest crowd i have had the

opportunity to address from this stage. thanks for being here. we're getting to that part of the evening that we approach a lot of us are excited about as we learn about the winners who among the finalists are selected. there is a lot of discussion and debate. i found there is a company that built a complex algorithms that says they can predict the winner of the national book awards. but he reminded me how all the winners are selected. every year we fly the judge's into your. they have worked on this for months. they come to new york and asked to go to lunch to make reservations at four

different restaurants one for each category this happened earlier today you cannot get up from lunch unless you have decided on a winner. we have done it this way 65 years ailey's pick a winner and we did it today. they did hear them say once a couple years ago we were concerned because during the drinks just before the dinner someone overheard the nonfiction judges arguing they did figure out i heard everything went fine today. but before we announce the winners, the evening is special because of long as

we have some extraordinary writers for our want to recognize those in the room and of a bike to read a few of the names and ask you to hold your applause and tell i am done we have 13 pulitzer prize winners in the room tonight. geraldine brooks, michael cunningham, novis click click, horowitz, adam johnson, tom reeves, david train wreck, an airline robinson, stc ship, art spiegelman, jonathan weiner edward wilson, the winners of the national book critics circle award jess walter newbery winners of course, steve, rebecca and jacqueline in the orange

prizewinner calvin and finally six winners of national book awards judy judy, edward, ursula and lili please join me to recognize these great writers. [applause] so now i have to think of few people. first half to think amazon is now part of my venture agreement. [laughter] seriously we do have to think of financial supporters including barnes & noble, the amazon random house, of macmillan,

macmillan, google, harpercol lins perseus and the charitable trust. please give them making and -- a hand to make it possible to do this today. >> also to the miami book fair in this tremendous what they do for us they have offered to fly all finalist it down to miami after the event to participate and be featured at the miami book fair this weekend thank you. now i have to thank the wonderful after party committee. a few years ago when they

said we should have the after party some people thought he was crazy and the first year we said we would do what the was oversubscribed it was so popular i had to say the ring is true, we have an after party but i can tell you where it is because it is oversubscribed if you want to go you have to see if you can get a ticket to have made a lot of progress and sorted out the logistics to know is here it is upstairs there is room for everybody and thinking to the after party committee. please give them a hand.

[applause] i have to think the incredible dinner committee to transform this event and special thanks to them. thinking very much to the dinner committee he does an amazing job the finally to the book foundation who work so hard in my fellow board members that the national book foundation who have worked hard and of course, the executive director and now what we

have been waiting for of behalf of the foundation with a finalist now we're on into the awards ceremony. thank-you. ♪ by a strange coincidence that was also reading about that algorithm that predicts the winners of what is going on in the internet sold though winner is pornography [laughter] so now it is time for the presentation and i would like to take a moment before he and to say to each of the four finalists in each category does not win everybody knows it should have been you and everybody thinks that. [laughter] tavis told the awards would be presented in reverse alphabetical order by

ongoing road and ordering in the order of importance. first is young people's literature. [cheers and applause] sharon draper author of more than 30 award winning books for adolescents including copper sun that wanda coretta scott king award. and has served as the national teacher of the year and has been honored at the white house six times between the two of us we have been honored at the white house six times. [laughter] please welcome sharon draper ♪

>> i'd love it the feel of a book in my hand. and i got the pleasure of reading 294 of them over the summer. it was a glorious summer we had such a wonderful time. we shared, we talked, we argued, we agreed. the members of the young adult committee, i thank you. [applause]

during the process i learned so much about writing and reading. as a reader either and though my goodness these people are good. as the leader i cuddled with the stacks of books over the summer. one of the most glorious and most profitable experiences that i have never had. and our committee we liked each other we merged and had a wonderful lunch and when we made our decision it was unanimous. the finalists for young people's literature in the order that they gave them to me on this piece of paper.

[laughter] eliot schrader. [cheers and applause] for his books read into published by scholastic press. [applause] steve schott and ken. [applause] for his book pour -- published by roaring book press. [applause] john corry wally published by books for young readers. [applause]

debra while, revolution published by scholastic press. jacqueline woodsman. [cheers and applause] brown girl dreaming dreaming, published by nancy paulsen brooks and penguin random house. [applause] [laughter] this year the national book award for the young people's literature goes to i love

this. [laughter] brown girl dreaming. [cheers and applause] ♪ ♪ ♪ and. >>.

[cheers and applause] i was complaining yesterday about how heavy the metal is. but they wanted really had the. i am so grateful to be here. this is my third time to be a finalist and my first time to be a winner. [cheers and applause] the first and foremost, i want to sink the amazing committee who is amazing. and the other finalists, i love you and i love how much love there is in children's literature. and how much a deep respect we have for each other and we know the world would not be complete without all of our stories.

i want to thank my fabulous blended family also known as pang when random house -- penguin and also family and i did paid to stock the audience to help me get through the routine to tell this story in a really want to say it is so important we talk to our old people before they our ancestors to put those out into the world i'm so grateful for my mother to be part of the great migration to get us to new york city and i am grateful to my fabulous fabulous fabulous fabulous editor. and my amazing partner also an amazing position i'm

sorry honey i know you don't like when i say you are a doctor to give thank you for your love of books and for changing the world. [cheers and applause] ♪ . .

moving right along to poetry, st hear every day. to present is robert polito. in addition polito. in addition to being a marvelous poet he has written a reader's guide. i have i have tried and cannot get through it. he has edited and biography some of our toughest crime writers, which probably means he got to be the president of the poetry foundation with the help of organized crime. please refrain from talking during the movie, as you welcome robert polito. ♪

>> that was good, right westmark so, thank you all, and at the outset let me also think the national book foundation for all of their professionalism and focus. as t.s. eliot famously wrote , but there is no competition, only the fight to recover what has been lost and found and lost again and again. although our five distinguished poet finalists might not at this past 25 per site's historical moment enjoy the equanimity implicit in elliotts formulation, for the poetry judging panel it has been moved to our long list of ten superlative books and ultimately these five finalists.

crucial crucial that we find and hold on to a truth that might have been too literally lost in the heat and hard work of deliberation, namely that this was a superb year for american poetry. [applause] that's better. our discussions were, if were, if we do say so ourselves, consistently smart, often funny, deeply serious, candid, candid if gracious, steeped in poetry, , and emerged from the vast spectrum of american life, aesthetic and biographical, visit in the poems being read and arguing for by e-mail and telephone. it gives me pleasure to note

and thank my fellow panelists for their dedication, expertise, and months of selfless labor. a crack group of citizens to 12 katie peterson, rowan ricardo phillips. we individually and collectively rudy's stirring and skillful poetry collections we reluctantly left behind at every stage, including tonight. yet, as we arrived at our finalists, we saw that these books thought and dared large, even went about small moments, found daunting and intractable material,, none of our books sounded like our other books , as across their

singularity. and all of the finalists, as they look back to the great traditions ultimately moved along and advanced, as great writing always will, those traditions and anti- traditions into a surprising poetry future. the five finalists are louise quick. fannie how for second childhood. maureen and mclean fred mohs and claudia rankin.

as marianne moore said during her acceptance speech i am much aware of the luster said. this year's national book year's national book award goes to louise quick. ♪

♪ ♪ >> i i did not expect this. i am sorry. i am astonished. it takes time to cry. cry. i am not going to do that. my thanks to the judges for their mercy. my thanks to john galassi kept me sane. namely, though, i want

namely, though, i want to say this is a difficult evening,, difficult to lose. i have many times. i want to say my work would not exist without the work of the other finalists and my colleagues in poetry who have more time than i can say astonished me and moved me and filled me with the envy that in time becomes gratitude. thank you for your great and superb achievement, all of you. thanks. ♪ >> tremendous.

at makes me happy. i myself think of a poem whenever i stupidly try to get organized. moonless night. the part that says, such says, such a mistake in what clarity above all things. this this simple night, especially one like this now so close to ending. on on the other side, there could be anything. i am very happy. all right, you know you do not have to be happy for me, but i am. when i was offered this job some people said, you are only hosting the national book awards in order to promote your new novel which will publish in february.

and i said, how in the world will i managed to do that while introducing allen taylor who will be introducing the national book award for nonfiction? he won the hill of surprise or what at surprise or what we call the national book award want to be for his most recent book. that was one of last year's national book award finalists. they shanghaied him out of the committee. please welcome mr. allen taylor. ♪ >> thank you very much. harold actually recruited me last winter. when he did, he neglected to mention there would be over 500 submissions in the nonfiction category.

i was charmed to hear any young people's literature there were 294. i like to read as much as the next person. but once i blew past 450 books, harold also did not mention what an extraordinary category nonfiction is in its range. memoirs, histories, sociology, philosophy, science, and one work of graphic art. and superb books. i was not fully aware of just how excellent each of these works could be in all of these different categories. so it was not always easy to sort out how we would get

down to one book, but i, but i had the help of an extraordinary committee with a wide range a wide range of talents, and we worked hard on this. and so i i want to thank robert auckland. greta low lake. tom reese. lou simmons. and i also i also want to thank harold for his help with our committee. a wonderful job. now, the five finalists for nonfiction from the national

book award this year. first, roz chast. second, annan and go paul. and i should say i should say that roz chast was published by bloomsburg. third, john lahr for tennessee williams. published by ww norton and company. evan oz knows for age of

ambition. and edward o wilson for the meaning of human existence. published by live right. and this year's year's national book award for nonfiction goes to evan oz knows. ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ >> i have to tell you, i am a man of of hunches, and i did not have a hunch. my wife my wife said, maybe you should have a hunch for a second. i think some people here may know that i am from a family of the book. my parents are here, peter and susan. my father is the founder of public affairs.

if you go into the writing business you feel a a little bit like what george w. bush must feel like. i i have to tell you, it is a fabulous sensation to be appear tonight, and i cannot thank the judges enough. i am humbled by the honorees in this category and especially to roz chast whose work is beautiful and very meaningful to me. i i want to say a special thank you tonight. a fabulous publisher that signed on to this idea. thank you. for everything you have done for this book. and jennifer, my agent, we

started talking about a book when we were 19 years old as sophomores in college. i think we are off to a good start. at the new yorker, my professional home for the past six years i am in no mystery grateful. they have heard every syllable of these tales spoken or written in some form or another and gave me permission to try to write something meaningful. and to my wife, who i met in china. she came expecting to be there for one year and stayed 47. i can finally say, thank you for insisting every word of this book be read aloud to you instead of reading it on the page. it made it better. and finally to the people in

the pages of this book who allowed me into their lives in a way that is amazing. they live in a place where it is dangerous to be honest and faux marble. i have tried to do them justice. thank you. ♪ ♪ >> i did not think i would hear an author compare themselves to george w. bush on this podium this evening, i must say. it is a strange coincidence because i think we are all looking forward to the former presidents insightful book on china. speaking of which, china. t5 fiction. a former correspondent

covering crises in the balkans although, come on, who has not done that. the author of six books. you've you remember that. please welcome one of the sharpest of my imaginary girlfriends, sheldon brooke 's. ♪ >> well, as danielle was daniel was kind enough to.out earlier, fiction was fun. catastrophic epidemic child-abuse and dyer homeless poverty. it reminds me of a great writer russell banks who opened a copy of people

magazine to find this system review of his latest book, another bummer from banks. but while we bring you here, no bombers. these are books about the exhilaration of being a human being, about the amazing power of art to elevate our spirit, about the redeeming power of faith and the overwhelming, healing power of love. so go figure. i am not going to complain about how many books we have to read. i will say that one of my fellow judges, the remarkable book seller, had

to go to her local shop and get elbow pads because she was wearing out the skin of her elbows. a handyman to come in and see if i needed to underpin my fragile to see if i could i could sustain the number of books pressing. but it is a great privilege to read so many books and see the richness of the writing that is happening in this country in a single year. we were ridiculously struck by the quality of the short story collections as well as the absolute majesty of many of the novels that we read. the others. [applause]

the finalists for the national book award. marilynne robinson. and the winner of the

national book award for fiction is rita. ♪ ♪ >> zero, my lord. thank you. i no there is at least one marine in the audience anymore. just two of us. we can take them.

i did not think that i would be appear, so i did not write anything until this morning when my wife said, did you write anything, and i said no. i spent 13 months working with a truly exceptional group of marines, correspondence who traveled through the province, the violent struggle with al qaeda, the group now known as isis. i met marine drug drivers and specialists, police officers and so many civilians whose families have been caught in the crossfire.

i came back not knowing what to think. about so many things. what do you do when you are struggling to find the words to explain to the father of a fallen marine exactly what that marine meant to you? what do you do when one of your best marines calls you and says that it is too much what do you make of it when middle school students you are teaching ask you if you kill anyone and are strangely disappointed when you say no? they treat you as you must be psychologically damaged or when friends of yours who do indeed have posttraumatic stress find they cannot

express their feelings? i do not actually have the answers to those questions. but the book was the only way i knew how to start thinking them through, not just because there is a rigor involved in trying to turn fictional stories into emotional truth, but because when you write it up there is the possibility of people responding. unidentified friends who might read the work, even if across centuries, and join the conversation. for me, writing this book, i cannot think of i cannot think of a more important conversation to be having. too strange to be processed alone. and so i want to thank everyone who picked up the book,, read it, decided to

join the conversation. i want to thank the judges, the national book foundation i want to thank peter who first publish my work published my work and has been a tremendous advocate for veteran writers. who kicked my when it deserved some kicking. john freeman who published my first story. tom flay has been a mentor to me. the marines i served i served with and the community of veteran writers who are central to this book and all the non- veteran writers who are equally essential to the book pointing out the blind spots i did i did not know i

had. to my wife, jessica. to my agent and the rest of the crew, especially to the incredible editor, scott, scott moyer, one of my early supporters, to my family, my grandfather , grandparents, and all of you here tonight. thank you so much. ♪ ♪ >> it is an electrifying read. that is amazing. thank you for your service to this country, and you country, and you are welcome for the national book award.

congratulations to all of the winners and a hearty tip of the hat and soon the cocktail glass to all of the judges. to the finalists and anyone out there associated with any book this year that does not take, prize, it is take, prize, it is difficult not to think of yourselves in some way as losers but remember, outside of the literary world all of us are considered losers. i have had a tremendous time this evening. i am feeling so happy i would like to buy all of you a drink on the balcony. zelnick media can get it. i will get you next time. the official after party is upstairs. thank upstairs. thank you and good night, everybody. ♪ >> i i have been told that the winners should go over there.

the winners should go over there. ♪ >> and that concludes book tv's live coverage of the national book foundation's national book awards. on sunday they will air the awards in their entirety. the awards for fiction, fiction, nonfiction, poetry, and young people's literature. ..