>> i don't know if this is the place or another place. >> you can't just drop it off. >> is there a place anywhere to do that. say that again please? we've already done that. i was wondering if there was a way to make sure that this actually got before some staff member's face? >> [ inaudible ]. >> okay. well, we tried. thank you very much anyway. >> no problem. >> bye. yeah. there you go. so they said that there is no way to physically drop it off. they said the only way to do it is to mail it. we did mail it but we would like to have had a way of hand delivering it. we understand, these are different times.

1953 you could walk right up, there was a guard there. i had a tiny little letter, the guy grabbed it. here it's a lot more formalized, a lot more issues related to potential, you know, safety concerns of the white house. we're not surprised, we're not even upset. the important thing is that we symbolically did this to replicate what was done in 1953 and hopefully with very different results this time and the packet has been sent by mail. we know that it was received and now the question is how it gets petition petitioned. we can take questions now, right? >> yes. >> spare your mother's life, what would it mean to you to have this symbolic exoneration by the president? >> it's very similar to things that have been done in the past. for example, the recognition that the internment of the japanese-americans was a terrible, terrible blot on our history. this was a time when an innocent

woman, they had all this secret material that indicated that she never had a code name. they knew that the chief witness had totally changed his testimony from the grand jury. this will be just an acknowledgment that an injustice was done and that's important in and of itself. it's also -- >> and how would we feel about it? well, this is our mother we're talking about, you know? she was taken away from us when i was 3 and my brother was 7. she was killed when i was 6 and he was 10. there could be nothing -- i mean, since we can't bring her back to life, there could be nothing more satisfying to us than to have the government acknowledge that this shouldn't have happened, that this was a wrong so on a personal level, that's very important. >> a cautionary tale. we have gone through cycles in our history of targeting people,

over punishing, framing up people. we're in danger of that happening again and recognizing that in the past we've done things that we shouldn't have done might be a cautionary tale. we certainly hope so. when i said earlier that we were doing this for our country, not just our family, i meant it. i really did mean it. >> and i want to emphasize that, that we're not asking for any compensation. we're asking essentially for a nullification of the guilty verdict against our mother because the system of justice was perverted. and this is something that should resonate with president obama who made a statement himself recently about there being times in our history when we have taken actions against people who were considered threats and we -- we've come to regret that. this is one of those actions and this gives president obama an

opportunity to follow up his words with a concrete action. >> [ inaudible ]. >> well, the most significant thing was the recent release of the grand jury testimony of the chief prosecution witness. at the trial david green accused our mother of having participated in espionage meetings, having typed up material. the prosecution made a big point about her typing, that she struck the keys blow upon blow against her mother -- against her country. all along the grand jury's testimony that was only released two summers ago he says he never spoke to our mother about this at all. she had no involvement whatsoever and just that alone should indicate that the government knew the case against her virtually didn't exist. >> and that is why we began the process, first with an op ed piece in "the new york times", then with statements on cbs's

"60 minutes" and then with the petition campaign and have gathered tens of thousands of signatures and the reason we're doing it now is because obama leaves office next month and this is the time when presidents issue statements. and i want to make sure that we don't replicate an error. we're not asking for a pardon. this is not something that goes to the justice department. ethel rosenberg was not guilty and therefore she doesn't need a pardon. what we're asking for is a presidential statement that in effect nullifies the guilty verdict and states that her execution was wrong untilful. -- wrongful. >> [ inaudible ]. >> given one of the principle architects was cohen who president-elect trump has said was his mentor, the chances of

trump doing anything that would cost -- would put his mentor in a bad light strikes me as nil and, therefore, this is the time to do it. if we don't get obama to do it, we are virtually certain that trump will not. that's another reason for doing it. >> on "60 minutes" the chief prosecution lawyer said it was roy cohn who physically came to him and said, your wife has just told us something new, ethel rosenberg typed stuff up. david green admitted he had no memory of her having typed it up. he says he doesn't even know if any typing occurred. he committed perjury to support his wife and that roy cohn was the architect of that perjured testimony. this is very significant in a

kind of macab way that roy cohn would end up being with the president-elect. >> the ghost of ethel will haunt donald trump in the white house. >> we never did because we didn't have that evidence. the grant jury testimony was sealed until the summer of 2015 and it was that grand jury testimony that got us to put together the op ed piece that landed in "the new york times." so we have not made any similar requests and in fact this request was sent initially to ms. valerie jarrett because she supposedly deals with presidential proclamations. we sent her a letter a couple of months ago. >> in september. >> in september as a place holder to try and get the process moving, but guess what, there was an election going on. my guess is they were kind of busy. >> [ inaudible ]. >> as far as i know, we've had no -- we've had responses from the administration about, well,

maybe you should send it to the justice department, that kind of thing, but we've had no specific response. i know that there was a story, i heard, on the news in which someone at the white house and the response was we are considering these matters. but -- >> very generic. these matters. >> yeah. so we don't know. but, again, the time for these things is usually january. so we are working to get to the point where there will be some statement made. >> [ inaudible ]. >> a little bit more complicated because our father was framed for stealing. we wanted a clean request. the evidence about our mother is so clear that it's really virtually no argument about it.

washington journal live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up friday morning, congressional medal health caucus co-chair representative kim murphy will discuss mental health legislation and the state of mental health care funding and appropriations committee member congressman matt cartwright talks about the democrat's political agenda under president-elect trump. be sure to watch the washington journal live at 7:00 a.m. eastern friday. join the discussion. we're joined by the washington examiner reporter. this bill authorizes $619 billion in programs and

policies. what are some of the key issues authorized by the bill? >> here it is pay raise for the troops, the compromise bill that's going to be on the floor at 2.1% and the president's request for fiscal 2017 was 1.6%. there's also a major shuffle of the requisition shop. there's one on innovation and risk taking and the other on business and not taking risks which was a big priority for senator john mccain in the bill. >> the bill has been in a conference committee since july. the house and senate over how to fund the wars in afghanistan, military spending in iraq. the headline on your washington examiner piece, $3.2 billion boost in the overall authorization. how did they resolve the differences in particular on that issue on funding for iraq and afghanistan? >> so when you look at the

funding, the house increased their funding in the overseas contingency operations account but they used a lot for base priorities. so looking at it they essentially split the difference but that takes into account the president's about 5 billion supplemental request. so they took about the midway point between the house and senate bills and then when you take into account the president's request that gives them about 3.2 billion more than what the president asked for, which could be a contributing factor to democrats not supporting the bill. >> one of the key issues for armed services committee chair mack thorn berry has been the acquisition process for the military, how the military buys things. what did they decide on in this bill? >> so there's a major reshuffling of how the acquisition department is going to be organized and really the focus on innovation. the conference report says that negotiators really believe that

acquisition and innovation, that the culture of the two different aspects are totally different. to separate that out will help buy things quicker, get new technology quicker and get things out to the war fighter faster, hopefully with fewer cost overruns. >> this is an authorization bill so a chance to lay out policy priorities. what about the issues like the drafting -- potential drafting of women and discrimination in hiring practices at the pentagon and the military. >> both things are left out of the final compromise bill. the bill will not require women to sign up for the selective service. capitol hill aide tells me that part of the reason that republicans were willing to leave the russell amendment out of the final bill is now with trump's election, they see new avenues early next year to be able to come back at some of these religious liberty issues. >> this is an authorization bill.

authorization of more spending on military projects and programs coming at a time where the house and senate are figuring out the continuing resolution. i wanted to ask you about how the two tie in, in particular with this tweet of yours commenting about joe wilson and mike turner asking for a pent gone spending bill not a cr. explain that to us. >> so the funding level in the cr is different obviously since it's the last fiscal year's funding level. it's different from what is going to be included in the ndaa. so these two lawmakers essentially wrote a letter to speaker paul ryan saying that because the ndaa was expected to pass overwhelmingly, the vast majority of congress clearly agreed on the funding level so why can't we just fund the pent gone at this level instead of doing a cr which is going to secretary carter sent a letter this week to the hill saying the detrimental impacts that the cr is going to have on a lot of their programs and prevent any new starts.

it could put them behind some key issues like the f 35 and other procurement priorities. >> now that this final measure is coming to the house floor, the white house had initially issued veto threats against the senate and house. what have they said about this? >> they haven't spoken definitively about this. it's unclear if they'll find it. one of the biggest issues is going to be this funding, the facts that there is an additional 3.2 billion for defense that is not matched in nondefense spending. >> the days are dwindling down. the house will get to their final passage on friday. what about the senate? what's the timetable for action there? >> expected to take it up sometime next week. they'll be considering the cr before they leave. they're all trying to get out of town. >> defense reporter for the washington examiner. read more at washington

examiner.com. she's on twitter. thank you for your update. >> thank you. next, senator ben sass of nebraska on u.s. engagement in the world and foreign policy priorities. he took part in a day long forum on foreign policy and national security hosted by the foreign policy initiative. this is 45 minutes. good morning again. i'd kindly ask you to make your way to your seats. the appropriate title, man know can, exceptionalism and the retreat of the west. a