that might bring them grief but they are 14 now. when will you to do some to the idea that not everything is perfect? all those factors swirled together to create the perfect dumpster fire of mass censorship. >> science fiction author corey doctorour will be our author on in-depth discussing his book walk away. his of the book will include down and out in the magic kingdom, little brother and 14 other novels. interact with corey doctorow by phone or facebook. the in-depth fiction edition with science fiction author corey doctorow from noon to 3:00 pm eastern on booktv on hart senate office building 0. >> part of alaska weekend, we are talking about hunting

regulations across the country. people who feed their families against those who see certain types of hunting as inhumane. that talks about the department of interior proposal to undo obama era rules restricting controversial hunting methods on federal lands in alaska. what is the history of this fight? what happened in 2015 and what is happening now? >> the nbc summary captured the long entangled history. in may the national park administration proposed rescinding obama administration rules that had been imposed that restricted or prohibited

certain hunting practices and preserve land managed by the national park service in alaska, practices include using baits to kill black and brown bears, killing black bears indents, using dogs to kill black bears, and a few other provisions. that was banned by the obama administration. in may the trump administer asian proposed reinstating those tactics, open the comment period which will expire monday, they have extended post-september. as of this morning there are 77,000 public comments so it is clearly excited a lot of public interest. >> host: we wants to hear from viewers. in eastern central part of the country at 202-748-8000, mountain pacific, 748-8001. alaska residents, 202-748-8002.

we want to know what it is like where you live, not just in alaska as well. we spoke with jim adams with the national park conservation association and here is what he had to say about hunting restrictions. >> the state of alaska has been engaged in an escalating effort to restore bear populations, these extreme sport hunting methods are the most extreme version of it. the problem is the state is aiming to turn 20 million acres of the national parkland into a glorified game park. >> host: what are these hunting methods? >> guest: there are four or five tactics targeted that were prohibited under the obama administration, the use of beta for black and brown bears, the use of artificial lights to kill animals, motorboats to kill some caribou and other provisions.

the national park association has truly rallied against us. 77,000 public comments had been aired, many of those, tens of thousands are in response to a petition drive. the department of fish and game for alaska maintains among other things very few additional bears, tactics that is relatively small. >> who uses these tactics and why? >> guest: parties used by native people of alaska who is considered subsistence hunting. why it is effective and if you can use bait to draw the bear into your gunsight in an effective way, the deferment of fish and game has relatively

few cases to that effect. >> host: why is that? how long are these tactics used? >> guest: they are saying not often. how often is hard to tell. the deportment of fish and game urges viewers to look at the website, shows the number of hunting licenses and bear tags. as i recall on the order of 5200 bear tags, licensed to kill a bear, of those, how many would be affected by these tactics i don't know. >> host: i want to show our viewers this map of alaska. when you look at this map, the colored areas indicate federal government bureau of indian affairs land management, debarment of the fence, fish and wildlife services, national

park service. responsibility for these preserves is a shared one between alaska and the federal government. >> the map shows a point often made by alaska residents that 61% give or take of alaska's land is administered by the federal government, 24 billion acres, a huge percentage and that breeds resentment among state officials and residentss the people of washington dc are trying to run the state. there are conflicting laws that govern the management of fish and wildlife. there is a very important law called the land conservation act passed in 1980 that set aside tens of billions of acres for refuges and parks but also directed authority for fish and wildlife to the state. one of the legal battles so far

is potential conflict between the state authority and federal response ability. >> host: i am curious from viewers outside of alaska what it is like where you live? it is not just alaska. the federal government owns land across the country. >> guest: one argument by the congressional delegation who are among the big opponents of the obama era rule and supporters of the trump ever to rescind it is this goes beyond alaska. if you allow the federal government based in washington dc to restrict state authority, they will be coming for your state in california, nevada or anywhere else. we 19 restricting hunting in those states as well. >> guest: yes. those under attend in some respect which is we allow the argument goes, to restrict

hunting, then more restrictive on mining or grazing or public use in general. there is a specific and general fight, specific fight is over hunting regulations. the general fight is over who controls public lands, the states or the federal government. >> host: we have a call from wyoming. tracy in wyoming, i am going to begin with you this morning. tell us that morning to you. what are your thoughts as we discuss hunting restrictions in alaska and around the country? if i can get to tracy here. >> caller: this is equal rights, states rights issue. all states are supposed to be equal entered into the union with the same rights, the states maintain the rights of the wildlife population in the water and the reason the federal government is trying to control this is water moves and animals move off of federal lands under state lands and those regulations come those

animals and that water. the reason they start to regulate on federal lands, state rights is trying to control individuals on their private land and they should not have any rights to anything that was reserved by the states when they entered into the union. they should be able to control those resources and not pick and choose which states want to usurp their laws. >> guest: the caller is right, this is a states rights issue and that is why people outside alaska would do well to pay attention to this. the caller is right that there are common areas in state authorities over managing fish and wildlife. alaska is a unique place. i look forward to hearing the other guests this weekend on c-span to explain the details of how the alaska national interest land confirmation act and other laws are uniquely

tailored for alaska's position. in the course of that were tens of millions of acres of federal land to carve up and allocate administrative responsibilities so to some degree, a degree i am not cognizant of, alaska is a unique state. this is a states rights issue for good or for ill. >> host: what has the relationship been like between the federal government and alaska and the shared responsibility? >> guest: a blend of dependence and resentment. of policy and largesse to some degree, there is commensurate resentment so for instance, last year in the tax bill, congressman young, senator sullivan succeeded in getting a

provision that would band-aid bureau of land management and interior department to open up oil and gas on the arctic national wildlife refuge. that is something that has been opposed in washington dc for years and years and thought by the state so for years there has been resentment by state officials that efforts to develop the state resources have been stymied by federal officials was anytime you have more than half of your state owed by the federal government you have a complicated relationship that speaks to the significance of the alaska delegation because of the role the government plays. >> host: how is it changed under the trump administration? >> guest: he will sign bills congress passes under the obama administration, and the president would have vetoed

provisions through that. donald trump was not particularly aware of the details but it was something important to senator murkowski and others and he signed part of the tax bill that was a centerpiece of his legislative agenda. right now alaska has a friend in the white house and in these hunting regulations under the interior secretary who made a policy of banning hunting opportunities that lay the groundwork for this proposal. >> host: what is the interior secretary doing another state on hunting? >> expanding get. twice last year the secretary was an outdoorsman and hunter himself and very proud of that fact, that identity. he signed secretary orders to expand or pursue hunting opportunities. the fish and wildlife refuge rules that expand the number of

refuges where the occur. he established two new advisory committees, one involving international wildlife conservation committee or counsel and so what is happening in alaska is part and parcel of a larger picture. ..the administration would liko expand hunting opportunities. we want to hear from our guests about changing hunting research across the country, nancy is in north carolina. good morning. caller: good morning. sir, it is nice to speak with you. yesterday when i was watching the news it brought up the fact that the epa has removed the protections on endangered species act -- the endangered species act. which sent me into tears. that would also include bald

eagles, the california condor, bighorn sheep in colorado. and hunters not be able to go hide in yosemite, yellowstone and just go wild on hunting any species they prefer state-by-state? i'm very upset about this, very upset. >> guest: the caller admission being upset reflects there is widespread high impact on these rules. second, nobody is proposing to hunting in national park service, national parks. that's not under consideration. the caller exit point needs to be corrected lubin. fish and wildlife service and noaa fisheries on thursday did provoke some pretty significant regular changes to the endangered species act. the esa would remain in effect. they have et cetera controversy, more than the hunting

regulations. the trump administration maintains through the fish and wildlife service that the esa needs to be updated. it was passed in 1973. the regulations have been oututf date for years. they are streamlining changing how critical habitat is designated whether costs are taken into consideration so on. like the hunting regulations the open to public comment and will get a lot of high profile commentary. >> host: and member of who was still in congress and is in congress in 1973 win the endangered endangered species act was enacted as don young from alaska. c-span satfr down with him and s what he had to say about the ac act. >> more so because we are small in number of people and with such a massive federal lands and the special interest groups that try to establish species i don't think that are endangered. i happen to be the last congressman that's ever voted

for the endangered species act. people don't remember when it was proposed, by the way it passed overwhelmingly. it was tigers and lions and exotic species. we didn't expect snails and bugs and grasses and grouse and always other things. the act itself has been misused by i b caught the environmental group that tries to stop any type of man development. i disrespect them for that because that was not the intent of the act. i've always said shown when species that's been reclaimed by endangered species act and they save the go. that's not true. the ego was reclaimed primarily because of stop using ddt. this is a big argument i've had. it will serve a purpose if it is called as the raw was -- law was written. it makes me very upset. i know the intent of the law. >> guest: congressman young former chair of the house resources committee as he called

then, a vocalof and somewhat he would itself say possibly i can take her stiffen of alaska rights and issues. has been a longtime critic of the way the esa has been implemented and its effect onhe private property in particular. i think there have been defenders of the court at would say there been a number of species that have been restored, recovered the right others b a proposal to delist, take off the curtains were brought as an example. i believe the condor has been recovered. the congressman makes a great point which is he said it wasn't thein esa, the removal of the dt from ecosystem that caused the eco-recovery. a cause-and-effect regulations, legislation is posted of the moves is complicated. buts the congressman is in a fastening position because as he says he is the last many of his kind who was there, in d.c. for

the debate. >> host: let's go to one and norfolk connecticut. your question or comment period. >> caller: i have a couple comments. number one, gandhi once said the way society is first judged by how they treat their animals who are lesser than us. and i was in montana and i never seen such cowardice from hunters. i'm going what is all this? they are flying around airplanes spotting elk. they are treating bears, using atvs with dogs to tree bears or mountain lions. or spotting a guard to follow big elk with radios and they come and shoot them. i mean, why don't they go up and be men like the service? if you t want to shoot somethin, why don't they become navy

seals or real men? not ambush people. look at trump -- >> host: michael doyle, about a hunting has changed. >> guest: the caller makes anou interesting point concerning the ethical consideration that play into hunting. if you look at the comments there parks services rose finals on regulations.gov, a dominant theme is that the proposed practices, the use of bait, the use of dogs are immoral or unethical or unfair. if you talk to certain members of congressman, don beyer from virginia and others you hear this, as though much like the caller articulated, which is that hunting is one thing but hunting using certain practices is off the rails, and the gandhi observation is one we'll hear more of during the course of this debate. >> host: talking with the public comments for the hunting restriction and alaska? >> guest: that's right.

what's not going to be about a 100 day comment period to give the members of the public a chance to weigh in and cast their vote, a nonbinding vote but just to weigh in and give their impression to the park service of whether it's ans good thing or a bad thing to change the hunting rules. >> host: remind our viewers who might've missed it at the top what rules are we talking about? >> guest: these are rules, this is a reversal of an obama administration plan, the obama administration impose limits on certainis hunting texas on national parks and preserve lands and alaska. not parks but preserves, tactics include the use of bait, dogs, the use of light indians, motorboats and a few other provisions. >> host: the reversal would be rolling back those restrictions and allowing those methods? >> guest: that'sho right, and as we've been discussing there are

some big dispute over how much of an impact that would really have. >> host: while i bus was in alaska we spoke with bruce dale with alaska department of fish this is what he had to say about the comment period, what they're hearing the public. >> national park service, ngos that support the national park service are enormous machines in terms of gathering public input and promoting input from certain groups and interest groups. and compared to the small number of people who live in alaska, especially the small number of rural users that are reliant on these, the numbers of comments and the types of comments are only useful to a point. >> host: so michael doyle, their hit from people outside of alaska? >> guest: by the scads, and the alaska official is absolutely right. the ngos like the national

parks and conservation association and the humane society of expert masters at sending a public comment and flooding the channels with commentary. if you look at regulations.gov and review the 77,000 comments, a vast majorityat of them are identical and are opposed to the change in the rules. that, just as an observation, from the perspective of the federal officials who will be weighing these comments, simply count the number of identical word, worded petition type form letters does not provide a lot of useful information or data. >> host: do these then carry any weight? >> guest: they carry some weight, but as we saw with the vastly come for the vast public comment. with regard to the administrations desire to scale back certains national monument,

i believe 2 million plus were opposed. the shrinking went ahead regardless. i'm not in a position to give advice but ifsi i were, to peope coming on any public rule, it is to provide substantive data-driven, statistically valid and useful evidence as opposed to simply opining on the basis of emotion. >> host: we will go to steve is in charlotte, north carolina. >> caller: thank you for taking my call. i have comment again. i'm sure you've heard this, these cantons where i saw sarah palin shooting walls and the helicopter. i hope those rules can be changed to not allow those. and the other thing is, is there a lot of national forest in alaska that is usually open to

hunting, as far as i can tell? tragic great question. i'm not of the 224 million acres and alaska owned by the federal government, i don't know the percentage of that that is forest service land. easily enough discovered and would be illuminating to know but i don't know the breakout. >> host: michael, illinois, greta, give me a moment to make my point because i want to talk about ownership of thatt land. i live in illinois. i was born and raised here. my state has historically sent more federal dollars to the government, more dollars to the federal government than these parasite states up with, including alaska. because i am paying for this, i don't care if i live in alaska. i should be heard in my opinion should carry more weight than

these people that are sitting there that have contributed nothing to this. every water project out west was funded by eastern money. my state and new york and a few others. so i'm tired of hearing this, want those animals protected. i want people to be taught to be humane. they can help. i know jeff to control the population, but you do it like a human being, not some kind of immediate. and i'm tired of these congressman who i'm actually subsidizing their payroll because their people get more money from the federal government and that comes out of my pocket. go to the koch brothers and whatever they are living, ask them because you might live next door to one of their properties, ask them, tell them that you should have control over it. it's a specious argument and this needs to be put on track. it's majority rules and eastern

money funded it, , and we should bear heard. >> guest: that's one site of the debate and it's a lively debate and i would love to have congressman young sit down with the caller. the perspective ofes congressman young and may alaska is that we know best, it's our state can we have unique characteristics of terrain,es geography, distance from the federal government. and congressman young is famous for his very strongly articulated excoriation about the right of alaskans to decide for themselves what's what. so there's more than two sides to anyto debate but two of the site in this case are, one, as the caller says, the rest of the united states, the lower 48, to a degree subsidy states like alaska. but then on the other hand, there's a perspective of the state of alaska itself or other western states that want to

administer its public lands and public wealth as it sees fit trick you tina, cascade maryland. >> caller: hello. i have been, my family has handed for generations. i believe in hunting. i am very much concerned about thed environment. i heard someone talking about that. i heard someone say about grouse. we have no grouse left in maryland. no quail. they are disappearing from maryland and p.a. i'm in my late '40s and i watched this in a my generation. the lands are being cleared. we keep buying plastics and putting out chemicals, killing things that need to feed these

animals. and i do believe it's up to the states. my children want to go hunting. there's no land left. pennsylvania deer has died at. there is elk but you can't get a license for elk hunting. >> guest: well, i mean, the sort of heartfelt feeling about the degradation to the environment is exactly what led to the o passage of the endanged species act of 1973. to some degree it lay behind the obama administration's decision to oppose the hunting rules that the park service land in 2015. and similar rules on fish and wildlife service land in alaska in 2016. this is a debate we've talked earlier with a calleder about, endangered species act relation changes proposed by the fish and wildlife service this week. the callers deeply felt concern about ecological degradation would be at the heart of that

debate which is going to unfold over the coming months. >> host: let's go to pat in huntington west virginia.nt you are on the air. >> caller: thank you, greta, interview one. my take on this is i know why people hunt. there's a real rush when you get out there and you're running around. i've heard hundreds talk about it. i don't hunt myself but i'm a libertarian on a don't want to take anybody's guns or take anybody's rights. but if you want to big trophy hunt, if you want to big-game hunt to get a boer said on your wall or something like that, i agree with hunting for food. what is going to go out and hunt big game, kill elephants, kill bear, moose, stuff like that, i think that we should also be allowed to hunt the humans that are hunting. in other words, if you really want to get a rush, they should

be out there hunting each other as well trod what we will leave it there, pat and going to brian who is in maryland. , good: morning. actual conversation. i appreciate it. i am a hunter. i live in maryland. i find it private land and federal land. it seems to me that there is great cooperation with the focus being on management of the wildlife. we have taken up most of the top two predators in maryland and for example, the white tailed deer are almost to the nuisance stage. they eat my crops in my yard and my neighbors yard. i think the emphasis should be on properly managing the herds and not necessarily on the techniques involved. i found here at least in maryland, i usually the virginia but the cooperation between the state, federal and private land has been pretty good. why don't we focus the discussion on economic

relationship between that? >> guest: a great point. one of the elements at play in the debate over the alaska hunting regulation is whether they amount, whether the allowing of certain techniques amounted to a way to manage the predator prey population. as i understand the argument, it's that by allowing more liberal use of tactics and killing predators such as bears, that is a way of boosting the prey population, moose and caribou. and i believe some t people content that that is intended to serve hunting population or to go after moose and caribou. the state of alaska i believe denies that these tactics are part of a predator control operation. i would be interesting to see this debate as it proceeds because as the caller indicates there's a complex relationship

between hunting some species and the rise in others, and that is one of the elements at play in this hunting debate in alaska. >> host: alamo texas john. >> caller: i'd like to give an example of how woeful control is necessary, particularly in duckhunting. i lived in colorado and did a lot of duckhunting and lived on a flyweight in the mountains where h the mallards coming through with gather and eat grain out of the field that was readily available that area. they would be there, hundreds of thousands of mallards for perhaps three weeks to a month. and i would hunt these docs and it was obvious that they should not be gathered in such large groups and i talk to the local forest rangers, , or ranges that were in charge of the local date

refugees there, and they said that they could do nothing about this because all of the rules relating to these ducks were federal rules and only so many ducks could be taken by the hunters, at any one day or any one time, which was, well, in any event, the result was that over 10,000 ducks in less than a week died of avian cholera, from thepl simple fact they were just too many of them. and the hunters who wanted to hunt them couldn't do it because of the federal laws. and i had never seen a federal agent there in that part of colorado, and i have hunted there for probably ten years. >> host: what are you hearing? >> guest: several points. one is consistent with the callers observation from the

trust administration and the proposal, contends that decisions on fish and while at management are best handled by the state. the state has me access to the data, has immediate feedback, is closer. it is literally on the ground, and that is where these hunting rules should be set. that's part of a larger issue as well. under the trump administration and certainly enter your secretary zinke there's a big move to pushio out to the states precisions, as another example, secretary zinke has it as a priority reorganizing the inter-department, has talked about moving the bureau of land management headquarters out to the west, possibly to colorado. that's predicated on the three it's best to make decisions on land and resources closer rather than farther away. >> host: we will go to michigan, david, you're on the air. [inaudible]

>> host: david, we cannot hear you. apologies. prats you can call back in. difficulty hearing you. let's go on to ellen who is in colorado. good morning. >> caller: good morning. well, in the last five years i have witnessed a significant increase in tourism in estes park which is the gateway to rocky mountain national park. five short years ago our tourism was slightly excess of 1 million tories per year. today it is in excess of 5 million tourists per year. we have tripled the amount of deaths of wildlife in both parts and rocky mountain national park due to animals being, and other species, birds, everything else being hit by vehicles, by

tourists who simply don't observe any of the laws that exist in the state and just simply don't care. but in addition to that, to think that there is absolutely no hunting allowed in rocky mountain national park, you are insane. i personally witnessed people in the middle of the summer tourism season hunting animals and rocky top national park. but i've also witnessed it right in downtown estes park. i've seen tourists and locals hunting s in downtown estes par. i have called the 911, which is a joke. they don't respond. i i called 911 when i saw -- >> host: so who's responsibility come in your view, is it to follow up on

hunting in restricted areas? , , well, apparently it is nobody's obligation. ask the police department. ask thesk forest rangers. ask anybody up here that is supposed to be in any way, shape, or form responsible for it. >> host: michael doyle? >> guest: my wife who's a geologist and i will be in estes park this summer. i'm tempted to ask the caller for a good restaurant, but beyond that the caller makes a really interesting point. one of the claims by opponents of loosening of the hunting rules is that wildlife observation wildlife tourism is much more ofch an economic benet to a state and local entity that hunting itself. the argument is that i keep animals like it will will draw people, maybe in a few of the caller, too many people, but it

would draw tourism dollars, those who want to see life animals and not shoot them dead. >> host: carol in laurel maryland you are next. >> caller: hello? >> host: you on the air. >> caller: i live in maryland. you cannot have groused and quail and hunting animals like that when you overdeveloped all the farms. that's where they get their food. after people harvest crops and stuff, they go in a pickup the seeds and things that are left. >> host: i will take yourle point of overdevelopment. remember to turn down the tv so do we don't get the feedback 50 development, suburban sprawl,, urban develop at all of these are significant, all of these have the potential to significantly impact species, endangered species or not. the double plays a role in hunting. i would say for thein endangered species act debate and the rules

that govern protection of vulnerable species, development issues are crucial because energy companies and realtors, construction firms and others want to streamline the regulations that require them to protect habitat. >> host: let's go to grand rapids, michigan. michael is there and you on the air, very interesting points on returning to the state issues. the problem is, two things. one, the loss of the passenger of his gin. when things are allowed to be directed by the state. and -- passenger pigeon. everything goes back to the states control, then the states can destroy whatever animal population they want. they do allow the contractor,, the developers to come in and destroy the land, if you will. so this idea that republicans

continue -- this goes back before the civil war, states' rights, you could have slavery. state rights will, in fact, destroy this country. >> host: i'm going to take that point. mr. doyle? >> guest: the caller underscores the fact that this conflict between state authority of federal authority, between state prerogatives and federal responsibilities is decades, even several centuries old. it's baked into our federalist system with our state government and there are federal governments and within the states that are federal lands. this is not a debate that is going to ever and, frankly. it's just part of our constitutional structure. >> host: here's a a piece in te "washington post." caribou with aec picture of caribou moving to the arctic national wildlife refuge in jun. june 2017. the inter-department has been directed to contact 21 and gas

lease sales by december 2024, covering each coming 400,000 acres in the refuge coastal plain, a move decried by environmentalist. the headline is that inter-department has commissioned an expediter expedd primary to review of the impact of leasing part of an war for a lancaster leader according to the document released under the freedom of information act. >> guest: that's right. as we discussed earlier the tax cut bill passed last year by congressman and signed by president donald trump includes a provision involving command dating leasing on anwr. it's on the coastal plain. anwr is a 19 million acres leasing, covers less than 1 million acres. so proponents of the doubt and sayy it's just a small part of the footprint. that story underscored when they like to make an observation on, which is the role of the freedom of information act in uncovering not wrongdoing but simply behind

the scenes doing. in this case the expedited environmental study or permitting process that is being pursued evidently was not fully known to the public until i believe it was an advocacy group filed a foia request, obtained the documents and were able to reveal that the timing. so this is a pitch for the foia which is been out -- and valuable. >> host: steven cohen north carolina. go ahead. >> caller: good morning. the commercial fishing industry in north carolina has controlled the the legislature for years. i became an avid surf fishermen and pure fishman back in the '70s and i have watched since then the spot fishing, the bluefish, the trout, the flounder, every coastal fish

sponsor decimated. people do not understand that for every pound of shrimp the comes out of the water, five to nine pounds of juvenile fish are killed i've watched last year there was not a single spot down the coast. back in the '70s and '80s you could fill up a bucket and our. it's not changing but still control by the legislature and they are killing the species of fish on the coast. .. people in the government speak of as regulatory capture. regulateda industry, for instance, the fish in

>> the industry is able to shape the regulations and would tend to lose a number of them but i don't know that what happened in north carolina is not at all uncommon for the regulated industries have sufficient and some might say undue influence over the way regulations are shaped. >> as far as you are interested in continuing to follow the story in alaska sk about hunting restrictions or any other environmental interior department issues e, you can follow michaeldoyle if you go to e-news.net, also on twitter , and michael doyle 10, you can follow his reporting there. thank you for the conversation. >> this morning's washington journal program was dedicated to learning about opioid abuse in urban areas and you can watch that tonight on c-span2. we talked to thebaltimore doctor heading the response to the opioid epidemic . >> there is no question we are at the state of emergency at a public health crisis here in baltimore.

we just got these numbers that there's 761 people in our city who died from overdose and the major contributor is fentanyl. a number of people dying from fentanyl in our city grown from 12 in 2013 to nearly 600 last year which is a 5000 percent increase. now, this is terrible. this isterrifying because these are our community members, our family members are dying . >> washington journal talked with the head of marilyn's opioid command center , police commissioner and congressman elijah cummings. callers told us their story. what's the story at eight eastern here on c-span2. retiring supreme court justice anthony kennedy

discusses his legacy and the court at the ninth circuit judicial conference in anaheim california and you can watch that tonight on c-span. supreme court nominee brett cavanaugh continues to meet with senators on capitol hill . follow the confirmation process on c-span. leading to the hearings on the vote, watch live on c-span, anytime on cspan.org or risk listen with the free c-span radio app. the house natural resources committee examined puerto rico's electrical system and reported management failures of the soul energy utility. representatives from the us and puerto rico answer questions about the electrical grid recovery after last year's hurricanes . >>. [inaudible]