vegas this weekend and later, a discussion on the law of the sea treaty with the former chairman of the national security task force on law of the city. "washington journal" is next. host: good morning. welcome to the "washington journal" for june 16. we are looking for responses to president obama's announcement from yesterday. i've you want to weigh in on the announcement that was made yesterday, here is how you can do so this morning. us a call at 202-737-00024 republicans. 202-737-001 for democrats --

0001 for democrats. if you want to reach up to us on social media, you can do so on tour this morning. you can send us an e-mail as well. here are is how some of the papers outside washington, d.c., have played it. in california, the headlines -- it go to the "boston globe" -- here is a bit of what he had to say. we will take your calls shortly after that on this decision. [video clip] >> in the next few months, in a

bid to do not present a safety issue will be able to apply for work permits. this is not amnesty. this is not immunity. this is not a path to citizenship. this is not a permanent fix. this is a temporary stopgap measure that lets us get a degree of relief and hope to talented, driven, patriotic young people. it is the right thing to do. host: again, some of the highlights from the decision that was made yesterday. in the paper this morning, cassette and illegal immigrants qualified in the game before the age 16, under 30 years old, have been in the u.s. for least five years, are in school, graduated from high school, and a ged, or were honorably discharged from the armed forces, and have not been convicted of a felony, significant misdemeanor or multiple misdemeanors and do not pose a threat to national

security or public safety. joining us now on the phone to explain a little bit more about this decision is fawn johnson. she is the course on the covers immigration issues at "the national journal." how do the mechanics work out? what is involved? guest: it is a really huge program the administration will have to put together really quickly. they said it will be up and running in about six days. the administration has never done anything like this before. they need to put together a brand-new deferral program, and they claimed that the people who come forward -- this requires the undocumented youth who qualified to come forward and identify themselves, and the administration will decide on the case by case basis whether they can get this deferral. it will require a lot of individuals who might not necessarily trust the administration to come forward and say, "hears all of my

credentials. here's the reason why you should not deport maine." they will be given a two-year the for all -- deferral. host: specifically, does this fall under dhs, or is there a specific agency wouldn't it that'll take up the bulk of the work? >> the bulk of the work will be taken up by the part of the dhs that has very little to do with enforcement. their job is to grant visas. they spend a lot of time dealing with requests for anything involving just a short-term visa all the way to citizenship, so there are a few cases that will be handled by the department of homeland security enforcement

wing, and those kids will have to be offered some sort of -- i guess you could call it an appeal for whatever steps they are in in the final removal proceedings, but they also will qualify for this. host: does it affect anybody currently in process of becoming a u.s. citizen? guest: not all. -- not at all. if you are a citizen already, then you are here legally, which means if you do not need a deferral. host: you wrote this morning, looking at the decision -- there's a line saying there is another political twist, a jab aimed directly at states that

want to take immigration enforcement into their own hands. can you expand on that? out, we areit turns all waiting for the supreme court to rule on arizona's immigration enforcement law that among other things, requires local police officers to request papers for immigration status, even if they get pulled over for, like, a routine truck stop in a traffic stop. the law has been pulled to the question by -- the law has been questioned by the federal government. i was at the oral argument for this particular law, and my thought, just looking at how the justices reacted from the

government's arguments was that they were going to keep at least some of the arizona law intact, saying there's nothing wrong with it, so i was list -- interested in listening to the administration officials as they describe this policy in saying, "no, we are the ones who decide how this works. states have absolutely no business in this, and nothing that the states do on any of their loss will affect this policy." on a practical level, what that probably means it is it will be a little more difficult. it is a difficult question for the particular officer, probably not something they would be qualified to do. even if the supreme court were to hold up that part of the law.

host: some legislators were saying this was an overreach of the president's authority and power. guest: it is interesting that the people i saw that from our real hard-core immigration -- i call them hawks. people like lamar smith, the house judiciary committee chairman. he is a republican, who has been repeatedly criticizing the obama administration for just these things. a republican from ios said the same thing. this is not unique to the administration. they are using prosecutorial discretion. the federal government decides to prosecute and it will not under immigration law, using the discretion to create deferrals for people who they say -- and i think they are right about this -- pose no threat to the united states. i did not hear those comments coming from mitt romney, and that was the thing that

interested me. or from marco rubio. i did not hear those guys saying this was an overreach of presidential authority. i think that signifies that have to put -- push pretty hard. host: fawn johnson, thank you very much. again, to your phone calls, we set aside the lines. a line for illegal immigrants as well if you want to call in. 202-628-0184. joseph ramirez weighing in on the decision, saying --

also another opinion this morning. charles, independent line, your of first. good morning. charles, are you there? one more time for charles, unless i'm not hearing him. ok, let's try detroit, michigan. patricia, republican line. caller: hello? host: you are on. go ahead. caller: hello? host: good morning. go ahead. caller: hello? host: let's try line 7. independent line. ozzie, go ahead. we will see where we are as far as the phone system is concerned. this is the statement by arizona

governor bruce. she headlines that obama's back door amnesty plan. dopresidential candidate presumptive nominee mitt romney traveling yesterday, and one of the subs, particularly one of our c-span cameras was there to talk about political issues, then he did weigh in on the decision that was made by the president yesterday.

we will take that, and right now if it is ready. [video clip] >> i believe the status of young people who come here through no fault of their own is an important matter to be considered and should be solved on a long-term basis so they know what their future will be in this country. i think the action the president took today makes it more difficult to reach that long- term solution because an executive order is a short-term matter that can be reversed by subsequent presidents. i would like to see legislation that deals with this issue, and i happen to agree with marco rubio. he said that this is an important matter that we have to find a long-term solution, but that the president's decision makes it more difficult. if i were president, we would have a long-term solution that provides certainty and clarity for people who come into the country through no fault of their own by virtue of their parents. host: mitt romney talking about

the president's decision. thomas hill, north carolina. hello? caller: hello? host: hello, go ahead. north carolina, are you there? caller: i am just concerned about -- host: go ahead. let's put him on hold, and we will try willis on our democrats line in a minute. here is an e-mail from washington this morning.

again, e-mail is a way you can reach out to us this morning. this is off of facebook. no person identified, but here is the comment -- i'm sorry, off of twitter, i should say. again, reaction this morning on the president's decision to allow certain illegal immigrants to remain in our country, based on a certain set of qualifications they have to meet. the opinion pages talk about it. this is the "new york times."

that is the "new york times." here's the "wall street journal." their last editorial this morning. they say --

again, you heard mitt romney refer to that as well. let's try phones. north carolina on our republican line. samuel, go ahead. you are on, samuel. good morning. samuel, go ahead. caller: hello? can you hear me? i cannot hear you, but i will go ahead and talk. please give me the time to say something here. i am calling about the immigration law -- you hear me. ok, good. i cannot hear you, but go ahead. first of all, allow me some time. i am definitely against this, but i would like to give us some options why. the first two years, mr. obama had 60 votes in the senate and had a super majority in the

house, he could have done this any time in the first two years, but he did not do it. what he did do was drilled that health care bill down our throat for 15 months. he came in on prices because of active bill clinton, the housing crisis started under bill clinton, and it was awful coincidental that it busted about seven weeks before the election. ok, then, when he got to be president -- the health care law -- the point i need to make -- 13 days after that health care bill was signed, you had the memorable west virginia mine cave in. this is not a coincidence. 15 days later on april 20, the one and only oil rig that has ever blew up in the gulf blew up down there, and it was not even

an american company. host: let's go to another call. and tap, california. independent line. -- antioch, california. caller: i have a daughter who has been dating a fine young man for a couple of years now. he was brought here as a child from mexico. his undocumented. he has families that live in arizona. my daughter is afraid to visit with him over there. so this is good news. on the other hand, i am concerned because it reminds me of what the obama administration said they would do with marijuana as far as california goes, and suddenly, that policy changed. i have some trepidation about it, but overall, it is good news. host: south carolina, barry, democrats line. caller: good morning, pedro.

i think this is a very good thing president obama has done. it is a long time coming. we are a nation of immigrants, and people must not forget that. it seems like he is bringing in folks that are well meaning to this country. i must add that it is something of political genius. as republicans get ready for more to come. thank you. host: victor, republican line, hello? silver spring, maryland. caller: there would go. there is a slight delay. there's about a five-second delay before i hear the pssh to let me know i'm on the air. what obama did yesterday -- he is desperate for votes, and this will eventually lead to illegal aliens voting, and i am so proud that arizona is going to

ignore the edict from the dictator in chief and go ahead and continue to arrest illegal aliens. maryland is a haven for illegal aliens. our crime rate is very high. i have just had it with -- i have just had it. host: again, the phone line is available to you. we are having a little bit of difficulty. a couple of tweeds to read to you, though -- a couple of tweets to read to you, though. john in north carolina also weighing in this morning. here is what he had to add.

texas, gregg, and then the line, go ahead. caller: i have a niece and nephew that are married into my family, and they are legally married here in texas, and yet, they cannot get a visa. they were brought here as children. we have been trying for a number of years to get them legally here, and my niece went back to mexico because that is what they told her to do, and when she tried to come back across, they told she could not come back across. so we had to bring her back illegally. but i'm wondering how this would -- with the president said would impact these two people. host: california, dianne, democrats line, go ahead. caller: good morning. glad to talk to you this morning.

hope that you are doing well. host: can you hear me? caller: yes, i can. host: i just wanted to make sure. we were having a situation before. caller: good morning. this is forward thinking. this is one of the best issues and executive orders that a president can have. he correctly clarify in these "new york times -- in the "new york times," it is young people going to school who will enhance employment here and are able to add an enhanced to the american public and the american society. talking about the judiciary committee, all judicial

appointments were stopped last week until after the election. that is not forward thinking. it is not assisting anyone in the united states. nor is it helping our congress to move forward. they are not doing anything. that is why the president has to go out and above. he does have that authority. in reference to what mitt romney was saying, that is baloney and hyperbole. host: i want to give you a call for our newsmakers program. tom cries -- price, republican policy committee chairman, set down with reporters at our network yesterday to talk about a variety of issues. one of the things they did talk about was the president's announcement.

here is what he had to say. [video clip] >> i think it is interesting that the present, we ought to believe ought to be enforcing all the laws of the land, things he can take other -- take some and a foursome and pick up this and decide he will not enforce them. that is what i think the american people find troubling. one of the reasons people have lost faith in this administration is because it feels it does not have to deal with the laws that were passed by congress and enforce them, when that is the primary role of the executive branch. >> do you think there is a political motivation? >> i will let others draw the conclusion, but i know many to believe. host: the decision not the only thing that was talked about with the republican from georgia, republican policy committee chairman. you can see all of that sunday 10:00 and 6:00 p.m. on c-span. north carolina, you are up. michael, republican line. caller: i just want to say this

is clearly an attempt by the administration to buy votes this last minute. this is obviously an appeal to the hispanic community, much in the way that they did with the gay community. you know, as other callers have brought up, plenty of time, the majority of both houses in the beginning of this time to get this push through, and it never came up, and i would say to you the democtic party has always been championed as the party of, you know, the people that are so open-minded and free thinking, and they of the party that wants to show healthcare down our throat and tell us what carter drive or light bulbs to use and we cannot have coke or drink a soda or popcorn now, and by the way -- just one more thing -- i'm just curious why when bush was in office, everybody was so worried about the patriot acts

and the wars and all this. where are all the protest now? can some of our democrat callers call in and say why these are not an issue any more? host: the senate majority leader weighing in on the decision yesterday, saying -- the strike ky. charles, independent line. hi there. -- let's try kentucky. caller: i appreciate c-span. it gives us a voice know where else we could get.

as far as dream had -- i was in the military the 27 years and went to many foreign countries. do you think one of them i could have just said, "i'm going to stay right here and my children will become their citizens"? i did not think so. and it costs us jobs. host: the gallup poll on issues of immigration. this is from june 16. americans more positive on issues of immigration. these findings reflect june 7, 2010, a gallup poll just before the administration put immigration back into the headlines by their announcement.

louisiana, a independent line, good morning. caller: good morning. i love what has happened. i wholeheartedly support it. i have worked with various latin americans, russians, and iris, who are so-called illegals. most of these -- the majority of them -- are extraordinary people. hard-working, good attitude, glad to be your. many of them are looking forward to signing up for the military and to end support it with great patriotism. they pay taxes. most of them i have met are family people here they are typically good solid roman catholics or evangelical christians. i think it is wonderful. i think what we are seeing is a cold, secular nation that is turning its back on the immigrants and the immigration policies that have made this country strong and great. host: st. petersburg, florida, good morning, mary, republican line. caller: good morning. i just wanted to make the point

about this nation of immigrants. can you hear me? ok. the nation was built by immigrants who came into our country with no expectation at all of social security benefits or free medical care or anything like that. you know, i just wanted to make that point. another thing is i of the folks who are here are working and productive and joining the military and all that, there is nothing holding them back, that i know of, preventing them from being citizens. in florida here, we are having problems because governor scott wants to make sure that voting rolls are for full so our legal to vote. i did not see why democrats, republicans, independents -- everybody should want to make sure that people who are voting

are legal voters. those are my points. host: with the supreme court decision on health care and immigration coming down, two supreme court justices were quoted talking about decisions and pending arguments, not specifically saying what is going to happen. the politico has with feder ginsberg this morning. the story goes on to say that the 21 remaining decisions she said what many of the most controversial cases that the court reviewed this term. "it is likely that the sharp disagreement rate will go up

next week in the week after," she said. that is the comments of ruth feder this board. here is justice antonin scalia. -- that is the comments of rooms -- that w as teh comments of ruth bader ginsburg. here is justice antonin scalia.

tennessee, thanks for holding on. talking about the president's decision concerning certain illegal immigrants yesterday. this is surely, independent line -- this is shirley. caller: i am concerned he is not paying attention to the u.s. citizens and not taking care of our health care. instead focusing on those who are not even supposed to be here. thank you. host: democrats line. good morning. caller: i am married to a hispanic man who is legal, dealing with illegal immigrants, families will have brought their children here illegally and once they graduate from college and go home, when you separate the

children from the family they grew up here with in kentucky, it is the hardest thing to watch your children suffer. not only my children, being american citizens, but their families and friends that get sent back because they are not citizens. last night, when this came across, the excitement that my children and their friends and cousins on facebook was overwhelming. i am still overwhelmed emotionally from the president's decision. as an american economy being african-american, explaining to your children and slavery and all and thus becoming legal immigrants, as african-americans being brought here against our will, why is it so hard for hispanics, the ones that uphold the law, to become legal? some of them have. some of them have to stay 10 years before they can come back. some came here at the age of 15

and up 25 and had to go home last year -- it has been the hardest decision he ever made to become legal, and he got punished for it. it is a hard life when you do not have anything else there. host: that was ky. off of twitter -- louisiana, republican line. hello. caller: i have worked with hundreds of illegal and legal, and i do not think that it is fair that if you want to get on food stamps, talking about drug testing or stuff like that, i think that these guys applying for these work permits should be drug tested, and if you notice, in a lot of communities that are dominant mexican communities, it is rampant with drugs and with alcohol and with prostitution. here in baton rouge, they just

take over whole trailer parks. i know a lot of guys, and they are really good guys, but they are all over 30. the younger kids that are under 30 years old, every single night, they get off of work -- i mean, they are just buying cases and cases of alcohol and prostitutes. host: what does that mean for the president's decision yesterday? caller: he is pretty much picking the wrong age group, and i think there should be stipulations on certain aspects besides that you have to have been brought year younger. i think that you should be drug tested. i think you should have to go through programs to adjust your to american society. it is different here in america than it is in mexico. host: you may have seen it on our network or others. you may have read about it. there was an exchange yesterday when "the daily collar"'s reporter intended to ask a

question about the policy change. here's the exchange. [video clip] >> excuse me, sir. it is not time for questions, sir. not while i'm speaking. the answer to your question, sir, and next time, i prefer you let me finish my statement before you ask that question -- is this is the right thing to do for the american people. i did not ask for an argument. i am answering your question. it is the right thing to do for the american people. host: next up, independent line, missouri. caller: good morning. i am in the military. i have been deployed three times. still on current active army. these immigrants, especially the hispanic ones, the ones from africa, they're the best i have ever served with. they are motivated. i am not trying to stereotype, but i think a lot of you have to

embrace the contribution that a lot of immigrants are giving to your security here. maybe get away from all the flag-waving kind of hatred. yes syllogist hearing the comments that the jet man from louisiana made earlier -- i am just kind of hearing the comments that the gentleman from louisiana made earlier. host:

host: austin, texas. caller: mr. obama made a great decision. he targeted the right people for voting, and as a 20-year veteran [inaudible] is the peopled of in washington that are taken the money, walking away with it. i am not afraid of these young kids coming to school, getting educated. [inaudible] i support this decision, and i think we need to get over it. republicans will get over it. have a nice day. host: the safety of cell phone use in the "washington post" this morning.

she writes that the federal communication commission is seeking to study whether nt can -- whether it needs better guidelines to protect people from cellphone radiation. olympia, washington, thanks for holding on. caller: i am a professor and a nurse. i just had to tell you this story. i am so happy that the dream act -- that they are doing this.

i did a study in 2003 that says the a little culture in everything we do, and then ice came in and identify where the hispanics were living. the governor signed a bill, and i thought we were going to give them services, but instead, they took those little kids, the kids that i read with every day, the kids that my kids play with, and they literally took them, but you know what my community did? they actually called the chief of police, and i called him, and

they told the other guy to go out and to get the little kids, and i felt bad because all this time i felt bad. i'm a professor. this is what i want to challenge everybody, to answer this question -- and this is what i teach in my classes. i asked everybody to raise their hand. who chose their birthplace? who chose their birth parents? who chose their birth language? and they are calling themselves christians? and they are trying to deport our little kids that we all play with? host: a story about drone strikes.

it says that in somalia, the u.s. military has worked to counter the terrorist threat posed by al qaeda and al qaeda- associated elements. in a limited number of cases, the u.s. military has taken direct action against members of al qaeda, including those who are members of al shabab in case in efforts to carry out

terrorist attacks against the united states and against our interests. pennsylvania, tom, republican line. caller: good morning. a couple of brief points. we have people all over the middle east trying to get rid of the dictators, and we have a president in our country -- has he submitted his immigration requirements, specific policy like this, that he just declared as a dictator -- has he submitted it to congress and allow congress to vote on the specific aspects of this policy? that is my one point. two, why do they defend the max baucus health care? this was not the bill they argued all summer long and baidu broke through. nancy pelosi's bill was voted

down. president obama argued against the mandate all through the campaign debates with hillary clinton. clinton was for the mandate. obama was against it. he got elected on the premise that there would be no mandate -- host: ok, albany, new york, last call. caller: good morning. we are the biggest country in the world. we need to deport them. i think five years is not long enough for people who are under 16. i think it needs to be something like two centuries for colonizing another country. i do not understand how you can let people come colonize your country.

you know, they are getting benefits. i know all of them are not criminals. [inaudible] i don't care how good they are. host: that is the last call will take on the topic. coming up, we will look at the discussion of super pac's and their role in the 2012 campaign. craig holman will be along for the discussion. later on, we will hear from adam stryker. we will talk about how the conservatives are using social media, especially in this campaign season. those discussions when we come back. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> the story behind cassette in the star spangled banner quarter mean -- the invasion and burning of washington, d.c. mark the bicentennial of the start of the war of 1812. historians, office, and your calls on this little-known war. live today at 11:00 a.m. eastern. also, more from our series on key political figures who ran for president and lost but chaste political history. this week, three-time democratic candidate for president william jennings bryan. american history tv this week and on c-span3. >> kenya, indonesia, hawaii, kansas, chicago, washington -- this weekend, followed david maraniss walking in a

president's footsteps. sunday, starting at 6:00 p.m. eastern. a video record of his troubles. the live at 7:30, he takes your calls and questions. also this week and, conservative commentator joan -- jonah goldberg blames liberals for the ongoing dispute in politics. >> in some words, it is the best working definition of a fascist in american life. >> that is on sunday night at 9:00. this weekend on c-span2. >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us now, craig holman. according to your bio, you were

involved in campaign finance reform legislation. >> actually, all my life. i have been working on campaign finance laws really all my life. >> talk about the genesis of where we are, particularly for the time that mccain-fine gold was passed and became law. >> we have come complete circle. we set up a series of legislative efforts that established a series of fairly reasonable campaign finance regime. we had contribution limits to candidates. contribution limits to outside committees, and we have literally full disclosure in 2004, 2006. we knew where all the money was coming from here with reasonable limits. we even had a public financing system operating.

we have gone complete circle now because of the recent supreme court decision called citizens united vs. fcc, where they took a small challenge to the mccain-feingold law and turned it into a sweeping challenge of a century of what we have had. they will that corporations shall be treated as persons under the first amendment of the constitution and therefore can make unlimited expenditures for and against federal, state, judicial candidates. as a result, literally, we have had the emergence of what is areed superpac's, which political action committees that duke independent expenditures, and because they are doing independent expenditures, -- we had a $5,000 contribution limit originally set up. that has fallen to the wayside.

now they can accept unlimited contributions from either wealthy individuals or corporations or labor unions and spend all that money freely. and they are so closely tied to the candidates that they literally have rendered the contribution limits to candidates null and void. each presidential candidate, for instance, talks about having "my own superpac." that means that even though you are limited to $2,500, how much you can give directly to mitt romney or obama, you have no limit whatsoever as to how much money you can give to their superpac's that then spend freely on their behalf. >> there is a story this morning about mitch mcconnell, talking about the current law of the land when it comes to superpac spending and where we are and efforts to change that, modify that, either through

congressional act or otherwise. i want to get your reaction to it. >[video clip] >> what this bill calls for its government-compelled exposure of contributions to all goods, which is far more dangerous than opponents are willing to admit. i disclosures forced upon some but not all, it is not an act of good government. it is an act of good government. -- it is not an act of good government. this is nothing less than an effort by the government itself to expose its critics to harassment and intimidation. either by government authorities or through third- party allies, and that should concern every one of us. >> -- host: he uses the phrase disclosure as a political weapon. caller: -- guest: he is advocating total secrecy of money in politics.

the one pillar we have is that americans have a right to know where the money's coming from that is paying for all those campaign ads that are saturating the airwaves. that was under mccain-feingold. mitch mcconnell is preaching not only getting rid of the limits of how much money can be thrown and politics, but let's keep it all secret as well. so that voters do not have a clue where the money is coming from. there is a reason why mitch mcconnell is advocating that, and with the citizens united decision, this has unleashed a tsunami of corporate money flowing into elections. most of that corporate money we saw in the 2010 elections went about 3-1 favoring republican candidates, and it is much more effective if the corporations are not associated with that money. if americans do not know where this money is coming from, it makes it much more useful for

candidates like mitch mcconnell. mitch mcconnell is advocating getting rid of disclosure. let's have secret slush funds financing our candidates and paying for our government. host: there are superpac's on both sides representing various points of view. guest: there are, but at this point, the money is going about four one favoring republicans over democrats. there are superpac's on both sides, but disproportionately, it is going to support the republican candidates more than democratic candidates. host: abc had a story about the possibility about the supreme court possibly revisiting citizens united. guest: this is an amazing story in itself because the supreme court in the citizens united decision came out with that controversial ruling that corporations shall be treated as people under the first amendment. i know that the supreme court justices -- there is a 5-4 vote.

first of all, they were stunned by the dissent of the four justices that really rail against that decision as undermining democracy, and they were stunned by the huge public outcry -- back last decade with it. literally, 80% of americans say corporations are not people. that is an absurd decision. what really is challenging those five justices is even a state supreme court in montana has decided to say they cannot go with the decision. it just does not make sense. the montana supreme court has upheld exactly what citizens united has struck down. so this is an interesting challenge. host: with the justices review the whole thing, or could they just change portions? what could happen? >> they do any number of options, and we are about to find out soon. they could some rarely reversed the montana supreme court.

they have that authority. without engaging in any discussion. with leave everything as it is. corporations are people and can spend freely in politics at all levels. or they could accept the case and re-hear it and perhaps reevaluate the rationale of the citizens united decision. they can do anything they want. host: what would change in the meantime? guest: if one justice recognizes that perhaps the way out of the norm of american values and perhaps reconsiders, that would change the entire decision theory that has happened before. during the new deal era. the huge public reaction against that eventually actually fairly shortly with about two years, prompted one of the justices to reverse decisions. suddenly, the supreme court that was tracking down all the new

deal legislation changed their mind and started of holding of the new deal legislation. it is not unprecedented. host: craig holman, our guest until 8:30 to talk about spending. you can ask questions on one of three lines this morning. we will take comments of twitter as well. new jersey, bob, democrats line. good morning. caller: good morning. for the last 50 years, the democrats -- i mean, unions have been taking union dues and supporting candidates. isn't that like a big super pak -- superpac? and suddenly, it is a level playing field? i think it is more of a level playing field now because look at what unions have been doing for the last 50 years. we could not ever match their

campaign finances. thank you. guest: there is a significant difference between what labor unions have been doing and superpac's. those dues will usually be about $50 or $30, and that is the type of money that has been used by labor unions in politics. compare that to superpac's. literally, we have 50 people who have financed 63% of all the money that is flowing into superpac's. there are 31 billionaires' that are financing mitt romney's superpac. these are people who have no limits on the amount of money that they throw into the political process. no limits whatsoever. there is a second big difference as well, and that is with labor unions, any individual member of the union can opt out and say, "you cannot use my money for your political purposes." when it comes to corporations,

for instance, spending now under the citizens united decision -- shareholders and members of the corporation do not have that option. we have some very significant differences. caller: i do not know where to start with this guy. [inaudible] said that romney's is out raising money with obama by four to one theory they say obama is going to raise $1 billion. now romney is going to raise $4 billion? i don't think so. guest: well, we are about to see what is going to happen. at this point, every candidate has a superpac.

there's about 600, which means that there are more superpac's than there are members of congress and presidential candidates. the obama superpac so far has been able to raise about $9 million. mitt romney's has raised about $50 million. obama is a prolific fund raiser, and i'm not going to be little that. we saw him raise more than $700 million in the 2008 presidential election, but -- host: $2 million this week from hollywood and entertainment types. guest: that is right. i suspect he will raise up to about a billion dollars to support his presidential campaign, but what we are going to see -- i want to explain -- fara's source of money so is not coming from the billionaires and not coming from the corporations. it is coming from mostly

bumblers -- bundlers. he has about 250 that is how he is getting most of his money at this point. supportings' are mitt romney at this point. obama will raise and spend about $1 billion, but we will see and $8 billion raced in 2012 at the federal level -- congressional candidates and presidential candidates combined. the outside money is going to be record-breaking. literally, after the citizens united decision in 2010 we saw a 427% increase in outside

spending. that it was when -- that was when corporations were just dipping their toes in the political waters -- can we do this? can we spend that much money. when they get their toes, that was a 427 course -- 427% increase. >> the super pacs spent -- host: super pacs spending goes into television ads? guest: yes. about 80% will be television and-. -- negatove. host: we will seek to the wall right now, back-to-back.

[video clip] ann romney raised five boys and overcame breast cancer, but what is said about her. >> restore our future is the -- is responsible for the content of this message. >> mitt romney shut this down. they promised us they would retain our retirement program and our health care package. those were the first to do all things to disappear. this is booming. mitt romney and bain capital turned it into a junk yard. they do not live in this neighborhood. they do not live in this part of the world. >> produce u.s. is responsible for this advertising. host: we have seen these of the

time. what is the difference now? guest: we will see more of it. we have never seen this amount of money flowing into the elections. in the last presidential election in 2008, a total of $5.2 billion was spent. we will see at least $8 billion spent in 2012. that means those type of eds will be repeated over and over and over as we get closer to the 2012 election. these are the type of ad designs not only to defect election -- to affect elections, but the ones i would discourage the candidate -- from coming out and voting. this will not only make us sick of context, but it is going to depress turnout.

host: are we better educated about these? guest: you just saw these, and they are not very educational. host: at least been able to watch them with discretion. guest: when we do not know who is paying for the advertisements, we do not know the interest behind them, what kind of judgment can we make the two that you just saw, are they true? are they accurate? who finance them and why were they saying those things? this is not an educational experience. host: spokane, washington. michael, independent line. caller: i was going to see if i could talk with craig holman, but the first thing i would like to say it is be respectful of

our president. address him as mr. obama or president obama. i am a teacher, and we were talking about things and the subject came up about how the company here tosco -- tosco could vote like a person when they are not a person. if you could explain to me what part of the first amendment says a corporation is a person? guest: how does one explain this? the five justices of the supreme court declared that corporations shall be treated as persons under the first amendment. the other four led by justice stevens roundly condemned them for coming out with that

opinion, saying of course corporations are not persons. these are entities allowed to be created so that corporations can amass wealth for economic purposes. this has nothing to do with you and i and the right to vote and participate in elections. he even in the montana supreme court that is challenging the citizens united decision, the dissenting justice, now this is the dissenting justice said of course, corporations are not people. we all know that. he decided to descend because he said the supreme court spoke otherwise. i cannot explain the five justices ruling that corporations shall be treated as persons. there is something else i want to emphasize. when you read the decision that

was written by justice kennedy in citizens united he keeps referring to corporations as this and the u.s. -- as this ambiguous whole unit. it is no such thing. when they allow corporations to spend freely what they have done it is allowed the ceo to dip into the corporate till, take other people's money and spend it freely and without limits. this is not a whole corporate entity. we, in the united states, since we have never allowed corporate spending before, we have never set up a system of corporate governance that would regulate the ceo did in into the corporate till. there is no mandate to shareholders participate in the decision or even know about the decision. if we are going to live in this

wild west of citizens united, the least we can do is set up a system of corporate governance where shareholders participate. host: 1 twitter viewer says it democrats donate to super pacs -- corporations, too. you make it sound one-sided. guest: i do not mean to make it sound one sided. democrats, obama, included, -- obama included, is appealing to big money, no matter where they can get it from. this system is damaging elections on all sides of the aisle. nobody is coming clean on this one. even obama has set a pace to protect. host: another your twitter

host: can you provide a context? guest: stephen colbert is a comedian, and to mock the citizens united decision, he set up his own super pac, something called a better tomorrow, tomorrow. he has raised more than $1 million in his super pac. because of doing that on his show he has been very effective at making fun of those five justices in the citizens united decision as well as pointing of the collapse of our finance -- campaign finance system. he showed how he can get his super pac totally coordinated with the candidates that he wants to support. he has just pointed out the failure that we are now living in. host: our guest craig holman is

with public citizen. we're talking about super pacs spending in 2012. what kind information to you put about super pacs and your website? -- put on your website? guest: we will publish information about who the super pacs chart, how much money they will pull in, the bundling money obama will be relying on, as will mitt romney, and we are in the process of starting a web page called white house for sale to document all of the money spent in this election. host: democrat line. tommy. caller: now for something completely different, my question for this man has to deal with the constitution, and just bear with me and i will try to make my question plane. in section 1 of article 3, i am

reading from the constitution, the judicial power of the united states should be vested in one supreme court and in such inferior courts, that congress may from time-to-time ordain and establish. the justice in supreme and interior courts shall hold their offices during good behavior. where i am going here it is during their senate conference or in the hearings, judge roberts was asked by senator arlen specter do you believe in settled law in the supreme court in its rulings and judge roberts said yes. well, in this decision roberts has not only done away with that

in election laws, but reversed it. he said he was going to be an umpire, calling balls and strikes. host: thank you. guest: i agree with him. when justice roberts and justice sam alito, by the way, were confirmed to the supreme court, they decided to become the most activist judges we have seen in decades. and literally, the supreme court before roberts court upheld almost every aspect of the mccainfeingold law in 2002. literally, three years later when roberts and sam alito were appointed, they started reversing the precedent that was firmly established by the rehnquist court, which was not

liberal or radical. it was a conservative court in itself, but in the mcconnell verses ftc decision, they said congress knows better about this than we do, so we will defer to congress and uphold the mccainfeingold law. three years later, roberts gets in there and they start striking down not only what congress had done, but even with the supreme court had done before them. host: hall of president obama and mitt romney handled this topic -- how have president obama and mitt romney handled this topic? guest: everyone because the state of the union address where president obama literally scolded -- remembers the state of the union address where president obama literally scolded the supreme court, and

at the same time he has been outspoken against the decision and has suggested perhaps we have to go to a constitutional amendment. i really had hoped for more action out of the president when it comes to trying to deal with some of these issues. he has supported the disclosed act to get disclosure for the money in politics, but there are other things he could do. the federal election commission, for one thing, and his dysfunctional, and this in forces campaign finance laws. this agency has dismantled the disclosure requirement. five of the six members of the federal election commission have had terms expire. president obama could step in there and fire them and replace them with people that believe in the campaign finance law. he has not done so so far. mitt romney on the other hand as firmly in the camp of citizens united. he has declared that corporations are people and

should be treated as such. host: naples, florida. republican line. good morning. you are going to have to turn down your television. go ahead. caller: go ahead and talk about the issue? i am sorry. i am talking about the corporations. your guest said they are not people. well, they are just as much people as the individuals in the unions. they are people because they are stockholders. the point that i want to make is your guest, while he tries to mask himself as a person that does not like these acts, he is obviously very concerned about the fact that this now balances the equation. i want you to it least admit

what his leanings are. he is trying to keep corporations out of the equation because they provide individual stockholders the opportunity to speak. host: we will let the guest response. guest: if we allow citizens united to stand, and that means unlimited corporate and union spending in elections supposing and opposing candidates, which i do not agree with -- i think we ought to reverse citizens united -- but if we are going to live in this type of wild west the very least we can do is set up a reasonable system of corporate governance in which shareholders do it in fact participate in political decisions by the ceo's. as we currently are, the current system has no such safeguards. it is not likely be unions where individual members of labor

unions can opt out of allowing their money to be used for political purposes. no such safeguards for corporations. literally shareholders need not be informed as to what the ceo is spending money on when it comes to politics and elections. i do agree that we have to leave first citizens united. we should not allow corporations and union -- we do have to reverse citizens united. we should not allow corporations and unions to donate. host: if changes were made, it would not be in this cycle? it would be in the upcoming presidential run? guest: that is right. there would be no radical change in the 2012 election. it is well set. secret slush money will finance most of the candidates. host: a viewer asks --

guest: that might be a reason president obama has not stepped into the fray, but to tell the truth it is a fight worth taking in my opinion. he has to give these nominees approved by the senate, and that means mitch mcconnell, and he may or may not succeed in doing that, however the federal election commission is so dysfunctional and so responsible for the lack of disclosure of money in the context that i really urge the president to take on this fight. -- politics, that i really urge the president to take on this fight, offer nominees, take on mitch mcconnell, and let the public know what is going on. host: gordon, independent mind. alabama. -- independent line. alabama.

caller: i believe in freedom. if you have $1 or $1 million, that is your money. let the market work. if it is a good idea, it will work. it is a bad idea, it will not work. everyone should be able to give all of their money to whatever they want to. saying the disclosure -- i believe in equal justice under the law. i do not care if you're a millionaire or a poor person. why, if you have $15, nobody needs to know who you are, but if you go to $1 million, how come everyone has to know where you are? how was that legal? what -- how can a person be based on their income disclosed or not disclosed? it is either one way or the

other, in my opinion. guest: you have two questions. the first this should individuals not be allowed to spend all of their own money on the elections. i am not challenging that concept. i am challenging individuals spending other people's money on elections. each of us can drain our bank accounts and spend it independently of any elections if we so choose, but that is not what is going on here. when we allow a ceo of the corporation to dip into a corporate till and spend it how the ceo wants to without asking everyone else, that is not legitimate. that is not justifiable. now, when it comes to disclosure, you know, you do not want to have disclosure of such small amounts of money that it would just call up the system. what we want to have it is disclosure of the size of money

that could actually influence candidates or perhaps corrupt, bribe or tainted the system. he want disclosure of large money in politics. if we had disclosure of every $5.10 dollar contribution, that does not mean anything. you would have to have millions of records to go through. disclosure starts at a certain high level. right now it is at two hundred dollars and above. host: cleveland, ohio. democrats line. caller: good morning, mr. holman. what i wanted to say about citizens united his is it almost puts us on an auction block for the world market. sheldon adelson has given $20

million, $30 million to the republicans already? first he gave it to newt gingrich, and now he is giving it to mitt romney sheldon adelson gets most of his business -- business -- money from a business in kenya. they could buy in our politics. they will put their money behind summon the will make things favorable for china. guest: sheldon adelson has two casinos, one in las vegas and one in china. by the way, here spend $66 million in elections supporting republican candidates and he as pledged to spend $100 million as we go into the general election. where this money is coming from, it is obviously coming from

casinos, and one is a foreign source. a couple of days ago senator john mccain said this means that foreign money is coming into our elections at this point. something to worry about. host: dallas, texas. haole, republican line. caller: mr. holman, i notice you are a lobbyist. i know we have unions that give in to candidates. lobbyists give in. lobbyists also support foreign countries. i do not understand why citizens united is such a big inch -- issue when lobbyists on the white house, unions on the white house, and lobbyists also represent corporations. are you afraid? citizens united is going to get rid of lobbyists? is that what the problem is? guest: i am a lobbyist, a

lobbyist for public citizen, and quite frankly i lobbied for lobbyist reform. my objective has been to rain in lobbyist. i am not the least bit worried about citizens united rendering lobbyists less relevant. i'm working on legislation to prohibit lobbyists from fund- raising and participating in the financial aspects of campaigns. i would like to see lobbyists taken out of the process as well as corporations and labor unions. i want to emphasize this. we need to have a reasonable system of limits on money in politics and full disclosure, and the whole purpose of that kind of campaign finance regime is to lessen the potential it corrupting influence of those who have interests pending before government. that as corporations.

that is lobbyists. that is labor unions. we ought to remove them as much as possible from financing elections. host: tennessee. nick, republican line. caller: a half-truth is as much as a full life. you mentioned nothing about the ford foundation, etc. $100 billion runs liberals in the country. the liberals have the mainstream media overall, including c-span working for them. that is worth tens and tens of millions of dollars, and you say we need the government to establish reform. that is what we need another bunch of bureaucratic bozos and

bimbos bamboozling everything. your solution it is big government, which needs -- leads to tyranny indeed end. if anyone reads david horowitz's book about this i did not know why they would be bothered to watch the show. host: you have a specific question for the best? guest: how was the solution of creating bigger government going to solve this thing? we know they did bride and bought all of the time. gee, i am not as pessimistic about the role of government -- guest: i am not as pessimistic about the role of government as you sound to be. the real problem is having special interest money paying for our candidates. literally, when you have special interests buying the white house and buying congress that is where the specter of corruption are rises. i think the ultimate solution

besides reversing citizens united is to remove all the special-interest money and have public financing of elections in which candidates agree not to except private special-interest money in exchange for having campaigns paid for by public funds that comes with no strings attached. host: are things too far out of the carriage house, or however the analogy goes, for that to happen? guest: it is pending. we have the fair elections act that has congressional sponsors but it is not likely to move until we see real scandals, and by the way, that is what we're calling d.c. in the 2012 elections. the secret -- going d.c. in the 2012 elections. the secretive slush funds will inevitably have scandals in 2012

and i hope these scandals and the mere fact that we are all going to be saturated with television ads as the election comes around will cause americans to get angry that we have lost any kind of reasonable system of campaign finance regulation. hopefully, following the 2012 elections we will see some reform. host: a few more minutes with our guest. charleston, south carolina. sam, democrats line. caller: i was just calling to say the passing of citizens united shows republicans are the party of greed and corporations. you only see these huge donors on one side. i was going to guess what obama is going to do about health care because i have the word on my scrotum. host: twitter --

guest: isn't -- no one is trying to shut down this street speech. when we come up reformers, are trying to regulate is money, not speech. we are trying to place reasonable limits on money in politics and at the very least have full disclosure of was financing our campaigns and who is trying to buy the white house. there is no effort to restrict free speech. host: louisville, ky. republican line. caller: thank you for c-span. if the supreme court congress broke new loans -- wrote new laws.

the demand should be on congress to limit corporations just like the individual by congress passing wall -- law. that is where the president to put his emphasis. it was the democrats who said election law was wonderful. republicans said, that was theirs. one law, one party. there is no compromise. guest: the leaders of the mccain-fine gold watch, one was a republican, and mccain. that law was bipartisan.

i want to make sure that is clear. certainly congress needs to act. they did act with along -- with the law. congress is no longer allowed to restrict corporate or union spending in elections. congress has no authority to pass a wall -- law to place limits on corporate reunion spending. what congress is trying to do is pass a constitutional amendment. there are 16 proposals in the current congress to reverse the citizens united decision through a constitutional amendment to clarify to the supreme court what the first amendment means. not only is there a great deal of momentum, there are about 100 members of congress backing this type of amendment.

five state legislatures have passed resolutions asking congress to submit a constitutional amendment to the states. about 280 local governments, city councils and county governments, have passed resolutions asking congress to submit a constitutional amendment to the states. congress is trying to deal with the citizens united decision. if the supreme court is not reversed itself as it considers the montana case, we will have to go that route of amending the constitution. i do not take this lightly. i love the first amendment. we just have to clarify to the supreme court with the first amendment really means. host: when we find out if the supreme court will take it? guest: they decided friday. we will not know until they announce it. host: citizen.org is the website

if you want to find out more. we are going to take a look at conservatives and how they are using online activism. our guest is adam stryker from americans for prosperity. later we will learn about hearings this week on the law of the sea treaty. john norton moore will be along for that discussion. we will be right back. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> one of the quotes -- [no audio]

>> of this year, he made an impact. he is a senior director on the white house security staff. >> i started on the mindset of what it is like. what can i share with them that i wish i had known all along the way or that they will remember when they read of the " washington week"? if you leave a few encouraging messages, it is a big thing to encourage young people to pursue

public service. >> more on sunday at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span. >> "washington journal" continues. host: our guest is adam stryker from americans for prosperity. he serves as the state director. thank you for joining us this morning. you are there because of an event taking place called right on line. tell the audience what that is about. guest: the americans for prosperity foundation five years ago launched the conference to reach out to the best activists utilizing social media and the internet infrastructure to amplify our conservative message. this is the second time we have held a conference in las vegas. we started the conference because remotest -- we noticed

the right was behind the left in using this tremendous resource. we start of training people on how to use facebook and twitter to get our message out to conservatives that agreed with us. we started the conference to capitalize on the media. we decided to bring it back to las vegas because the beautiful property has always been a good host to us. last night, we kicked off the conference was sarah palin from alaska. we have over 700 on-line activists better able to get our message amplified to the people. at 9:00 thisg morning. we will kickoff with michelle malkin on breakout sessions

on how to get the message out to the people. we will wrap up with a dinner this evening. we are looking forward to wrapping up our conference today and learning about how to get our message out to the people. that is what we're doing in las vegas. host: you mentioned michelle malkin. are there good examples of best practices? guest: there is a reason we started the conference yesterday with sarah palin. sheeting utilized -- she utilized facebook and twitter and was able to outreach to conservative bloggers. we did a tribute to andrew breitbart last night who passed away too soon. we did a tribute to him and had a movie debut of highlighting his life and career as a pioneer

of online social media. michelle malkin is a standard bearer. a handful of other radio hosts use social media to get their message out as well. it is a dynamic group of people we have at the conference in las vegas. we're looking forward to having a great conference today and wrapping up with a fine dinner. host: adam stryker is our guest. he is the nevada state director of americans for prosperity foundation. if you would like to ask questions about how they are using social media, here is your chance to do so. we can field the questions to him off of twitter. you can send e-mail to c- span.org.

governor sarah palin was talking about new media at the conference. here is what she had to say. >> it goes beyond organizing. it is more fundamental than that. it has become a forum for activism and information. you still a vital role. you do what meehamany in the old media cannot or will not do. that is to tell the truth. the old media still seeks to deceive this exceptional nation. do not retreat. reload with inspiration. god bless you, americans for prosperity. .bless the united states of america. -- god bless the united states of america. host: adam stryker is our guest. your thoughts on new media? guest: she gave a rousing speech

last night to kick off the event. she talked about her utilization of new media in her 2008 campaign and how we are changing the world of on-line journalism and media is evolving because of people like matt drudge and sarah palin using new social media. we will learn about all of those today at the right online conference. host: what are your concerns about the editorial content and how people at what they put out? is that a concern for you? guest: the utilization of social media allows individuals to police themselves. when others amplify a message or utilize twitter or facebook, i think the police themselves.

someone slinging mud or casting aspersions does not get their message amplified as much as someone telling the truth and using the media to get a true message out there. that is what this conference is about, putting together the most effective users of social media better able to take the message, amplified, and get it to the people by being true and backing up their stories with other avenues of truth and facts behind it. we initially started the conference with about 1000 people five years ago. we grew to 2500 last year. this year, we looked at the best option moving forward. last year, we taught people how to use facebook. we looked at that and said we need to start moving forward and looking at the next steps for online activism and social media.

we found the 700 best users of activism on social media and brought those best users to las vegas. they have an echo chamber of about 5 million people. we have voted down to focus on what will make us the most effective users. we have narrowed it down to the top 700 activists. host: you are our first call for a adam stryker from americans for prosperity. he heads up the conference going on in las vegas. hartford, conn., go ahead. caller: i would like to comment on the conservatives bombarding the country. i assume they're all just one big pac. it seems they are against

disclosure. republicans are responsible for disclosing. it is constitutional. hold on for a second. all you have to do is pass 0.1%. it is perfectly constitutional. you have to pay tax on any money you give to your children. if i could hold on the second. host: i think you may think we're on our last second. let's finish with this. john is on the republican line. caller: i have a question. i want to know how you plan to end of the democratic party and how democrats are in your program. one more thing. host: tell me about the people you invite.

would they define themselves as conservatives, libertarians'? how wide of a tent do you have? guest: our organization is non- profit and non-partisan. anyone is welcome to attend. we have sold out already. you can follow us online. we're live streaming. everything from the event last night to the lunch and dinner this evening. we welcome all who want to report of the conversation. you can follow us on twitter and join the conversation asking questions of our panel and media. we welcome any republican or democrat to join us. host: we have someone on twitter that asked about ron paul and the online power he used to spread the message of liberty, as the viewers said. talk about his influence on social media and if he got his message out.

guest: he has done a tremendous job of organizing individuals across nevada. our republican party is a strong supporter of ron paul. he lost all types of mediums to get people together. the he used all types of mediums to get people together. he alleged facebook and twitter, blogs. -- he used facebook and twitter and blogs. come be part of the conversation. let's talk about how we get our country back on track limiting government, using fiscal responsibility, and lower regulatory environment. that is what we're talking about today. host: ahead, caller on the independent line. caller: on the top 2%, it has gone up to that of 75%.

i think he should be called americans for plutocracy. that is where you are trying to do. destroy the middle class and have the 1% or 2% takeover completely economy and politics , the media, fox is, cnn is more middle-of-the-road. msnbc is to the left. guest: americans for prosperity is non-profit and non-partisan. our sister organization reaches out to individuals across the country to educate them about limited government and fiscal responsibility. yesterday we had over 75 activists going door to door talking about those policies in the 110 heat of las vegas because they are so passionate about the future of our country. it is the middle class, people from across the country that

want to talk to other members of the community to make a difference and returned our state -- in return our state -- nevada has one of the highest unemployment levels. these individuals are so patriotic they went out in the heat to reach out to other citizens to let them know why they're here in nevada. host: new york, don, democrats wind. caller: i want to ask your guest the question regarding prosperity. the one aspect of prosperity articulated often is that people want their children to do better than they are. they want the future to be better than four predecessors. this view of prosperity is observed -- is absurd. is it not absurd to realize

shelter and sustenance belongs to a dream and obstruction? i do not think any other creature would have such a courageous misfortunes befall him. everyone is born with what they need. owing to the condition of being removed from what is natural, they dominate the resources. they must continually communicate that others are less them or not up to the merits and must fall into the stream hoping you will get shelter and food. host: what is the question? caller: what is prosperity exactly? guest: the three pillars of americans for prosperity are low taxes, small government, and a lower regulatory environment. those things become a wash on

every eight citizens but are not following c-span and ms ncb. it is about the opportunity to become homeowners, have a better job and make more money. that is what we're advocating for. opportunity is what has made america great. host: how much of the conversation centered around mitt romney's candidacy? guest: that is not a name that has come up frequently around her. we're talking about limited government and returning our country and state to a brand of conservative capitalism that allows entrepreneurs to invest in the committee, get the infirmary down, create jobs -- get the unemployment rate down, create jobs.

we are talking about policies, not individuals. host: does he reflect those policies? guest: mitt romney has created jobs. he has been an individual that has been in the private sector and create jobs. absolutely reflects a portion of those principles. host: did you invite him to speak? guest: to my knowledge, we did not. host: john is on the republican line from massachusetts. caller: i am from massachusetts. i would like to mention we took over the delegate count in massachusetts with ron paul supporters from mitt romney. i do not know what you think about that. i kind of do not think your group is is a conservative

active group like town hall. my opinion is you are a neoconservative group and there is not a lot of difference between the two candidate if we the running now support ing media and military cartels we have now. the real issue we should be discussing is what will happen with the financial system with what is going on in greece and things of that nature. we all want america to be better and a more stable economic place. i think you are ridiculous. ron paul brings out 10,000 people on campuses in california. michelle malkin and these people are shills.

guest: if you were there last night or watching online, 700 patriots were standing on their feet and cheering on governor sarah palin. those same individuals will be going to break out sessions learning of facebook, twitter, polling, blogging learning how to get our message out. our message is fiscal conservatism. the caller brings a big point with what is going on in your. those are scary times. that is what we're talking about in las vegas at the right online conference, how to get the message out that is a scary issue. if we continue to grow government at the rate it has grown in the last four years, we're talking about the private sector dwarfed by the public sector. we're absolutely talking about those values and want to get the message out to those not coming

to the conference. the 700 individuals have the capacity to reach those people through mediums they use on a daily basis. we will discuss those same issues of conservative values and getting our fiscal house back in order, bringing the national debt back to sustainable levels, and returning our country to prosperity. that is what we're talking about. host: richard is on the independent line for adam stryker. caller: a little background on me. i was a veteran, an old guy in barstow, california, right next to victorville where harry reid wants to put in a high-speed train to get the folks in the las vegas area to drop their money in las vegas. i am a ron paul supporter.

i think it is time to realize the biggest oxymoron is a political politician. there's nothing professional to me about politics. it is the sort of thing we should go back and send those guys running the government back to their homes after 12 years or so and let new people come in. i am a libertarian. i will turn off my phone. let me know about what you think about harry reid and his $6 billion train he wants to put into victorville. host: caller, talk about your use of social media. caller: i am so old, i just listen to it. i have made up my mind i will never vote for the guy in there now. he has had four years. that is enough. i am a ron paul supporter.

i wish he could takeover, but he cannot. is too late. host: adam stryker, talk about how you feel social media influences people in their decision making process, especially as they go to the polls this november. guest: first of all, thank you for your service to our country. the victorville train, if approved, is going to be the largest investment in infrastructure and rail cumulatively in the history of our country. it is 100 miles outside of los angeles. it is a perfect example of capital cronyism and wasteful government spending to get a high-speed train from victorville to downtown las vegas. we do need to invest in infrastructure and transportation, but the train to victorville is not it. it is something we talk about a

lot in las vegas. we appreciate and people -- when people spend cash in vegas. we will welcome just about anybody to come to las vegas and spend cash. nevadans are hurting with 12% unemployment. we need to get people jobs, reinvest in our community, and pass a regulatory structure people are willing to reinvest in. the online media has been very active in following the different developments along the trains. we had a couple proposals two years ago. bloggers have followed it keeping track of how much money is spent. social media has played an important role in highlighting that spending, the different proposals, and what will be best for the future of las vegas. influenceal media's

on the conference itself? guest: it has played a tremendous role. there are individuals sitting in hot tubs on youtube. we tried to come up to a -- with a music video. i am not that good a singer and cannot play the guitar. we tried to come up with something to have some fun. they were too good and have too much money to spend a music video production. host: katherine is on the democrats' line. go ahead, please. caller: your group is funded by the koch brothers. are they there and paying for everything? guest: americans for prosperity is funded by hundreds of individuals from across the country that enjoyed funding conservative principles.

our 501c3 and 4 have donations from across the country. the majority come from low dollar donors. we appreciate the support of americans believe in what we're trying to accomplish. we ask people to knock on doors, make phone calls, and reach out to other conservatives and invest time and capital that will return the country to prosperity. host: i want to get to thoughts on a story in washington. it was the president's announcement yesterday of the change in immigration policy. i wanted to see about the appropriateness of what he did. >> excuse me, sir, it is not time for questions, not while i

am speaking. the answer to your question -- next time i prefer you let me finish my statements -- is this is the right thing to do for the american people. i did not ask for an argument. i am answering your question. it is the right thing to do for the american people. host: what did you think about that exchange? guest: we were out talking to citizens of las vegas. i did not get to see that. immigration is always going to be a hot button issue. how we move forward with the immigration debate will shape the future of our country. the latino population in las vegas is over 30%. we want to continue reaching out to this demographic. we hosted a dinner and honor the top 500 most recent immigrants to our country. immigration is always good --

going to be a hot button issue and will shape the future of the country. i did not get a chance to see that yesterday. with the event last night was sarah palin, i have not been able to catch up on that. what do you think about the white house events and being an online publication? guest: demonstrates the power that a social media brings -- that social media has a right now. with all sorts of iphones and what ever else they are using to communicate, there are ways to get that information. it is tremendous. the growth and spectrum -- the influence they have on the debate and the people discussing the future of the country. c-span3 republican line. tennessee. up next. -- host: republican line. tennessee. up next. caller: i was wondering if

americans for prosperity is aware of the law of the sea treaty coming up. toomey, that is an attack on sovereignty. i have not seen anything on in the of the news that addresses this issue. it is being considered right now. they want to ratify the sea treaty. i think it is a major issue and i have not seen anything anywhere on the news about this. can you respond? unfortunately, i am not very aware of the wall of the sea treaty. we have a lot of deserts' out here. i will definitely look into it

and be happy to let you know what i think. host: roger, independent line. caller: can you hear me? host: democrats' line. caller: he did not answer the question about whether the koch brothers were online. -- were involved. how many companies have come up in the last few years that are non-profit? you have never addressed that. i watch c-span all the time. it seems like there are a lot of nonprofit corporations or whatever they call themselves. are the koch brothers involved? are they giving you money? also about romney.

it seems like he would know who is going to be speaking at your conference. guest: sharon, you are from my home town. the koch brothers had never given me any money. they invest their resources. their tremendous patriots. i am happy to read about their efforts. with american for prosperity foundation conference, i do not know. i know we have governor sarah palin. and a handful of other tremendous conservatives speaking about what we are trying to accomplish. that is to educate other citizens about the value of online media, getting our message out. and amplifying what we are

accomplishing with americans for prosperity foundation's education efforts. host: burr, pennsylvania. republican line. caller: thank god for c-span. thank you for being on so early. my question to you is what is going on in the senate right now as far as they're trying to take the first amendment? it seems to me they're just trying to shut us up. a perfect example the people who have been picked out of line, their names are put out. a guy in texas has only -- almost lost his business. what can we do to help in this situation? guest: the availability of

facebook and twitter and others to get our message out is exactly what we are learning about today at our conference. the first amendment rights -- i want to talk about conservative values and getting that message out to the people. that is what our conferences about. we will continue to do that with the americans for prosperity foundation. host: ellis what you read on social media. guest: i have the daily caller on line. i have a roll call politics on my eyes on. a great catch. hotair.com. those are the majority of web sites by checking in on. i am excited to see and hear what they have to say.

following on twitter, a handful of national conservatives. host: do you read "having post -- huffington post?" guest: have a great app. it is fun to use. they have a lot of good news on there. not just politics. usa -- "usa today" and "have an opposed." host: kentucky. michelle, democrats' line. caller: good morning. hello. here is what i am worried about. is there a fire wall between what you collect for money and what mitt romney does? how do you keep that fire wall between the two -- the money that you raise? as we as regular americans, how can we feel assured that you are a private 501c3 and you are

doing your own thing and mitt romney has nothing to do with it? it was the same with obama. could you address that? guest: 501c3 -- we do not advocate for the election and defeated candidates. there is a clear delineation between what restores our future, political action committee is able to raise and americans for prosperity. we do not courtney with any superpac. we advocate for policy issues. what does that look like? it looks like we are against the bailout that was passed. we are against the dramatic increase in obamacare and the future growth of the public sector versus the private sector. that is really a non-issue as far as i'm concerned about fire wall between us. 501c3 and 501c4 gets into the

nitty gritty of the irs code. at 530 in the morning, i went to sleep. host: in nevada, what is the top priority for you? >> getting people back to work in the state of nevada is the number 1 -- guest: in people back to work in the state of nevada and returning our housing market. individuals have lost so much. they are under water. putting people back to work, expanding our economy, bringing new businesses here. as gambling expands, our economy in las vegas has to expand with it. with the use of online gaming and internet poker. the gaming world is dramatically expanding. diversifying our resources, utilizing the land we have here in nevada, taking advantage of the resources that are

presented to us. those are the biggest issues. we will be facing those issues in the next year. host: 5 more minutes. new jersey. patricia. independent line. caller: hello. thank you. i just wanted to ask this gentleman -- the best time he talked to sarah palin, ask her what she did before she came into politics. that is the one thing. she came on the world stage full of deceit and deception. that is exactly what your organization is about. she made this big speech about barack obama being a community organizer. she started talking about her being in error. -- being a mayor.

she was a sports reporter. i do not think there is much of anything truthful or factual about your organization. as a matter of fact, i would like to ask people to check anywhere you want about brainwashing, which is exactly what fox news does. guest: thank you for your call this morning. log on to our website and learn that we are not about the stifel tactics. we talk about the issues of the day. then we provide information about those issues. sarah palin is a tremendous patriot. she gave a fantastic speech last night. we were happy to have her here.

i cannot ask for that because she has taken off. what ought to our website -- log on to our website. we have policy issues that back up what we advocate for. we take the issues into the committee. in nevada, the primary election was tuesday and we had an 18% voter turnout. it is disheartening to do this on a daily basis and have only 80% of our community -- 18% getting engaged. i will reach out to the community by going door-to-door in calling for our phone systems and talking to individuals on radio, tv, online. and reaching out to them to discuss our issues as we see them. we are more than happy to provide information on our website. he is not made up. log onto our website at

americansforprosperity.org. host: are you streaming the conference? guest: rightonline.com. all the sessions today are going to be streaming live. a handful of the breakout sessions. we have over five different tracks throughout the day. and not all of them will be there but a mathe major sessions will be there. learn the issues. follow us on twitter. #ro12. host: who is on the run down as far as the major session this morning? guest: we have guy benson. we have the 41st president of

the u.s. congressman joe heck. erik erikson. lars larsen. a whole host of dynamic patriots. we are so excited to have them here. host: stand to lose california. -- los angeles, california. caller: it is hard to believe what you say because when people ask about the kich brothers -- brothers, they have started this organization. you cannot say they have not given money personally. awhen you bring up the drudge report, fox news, those are the most of rage as programs to watch and to get your information from. there was a study done that the

people who watch fox news have less intelligence than the people who do not watch news at all. guest: i enjoy fox news. i enjoy msnbc. and chris matthews. and fox news, cnn. you have to watch a variety of news channels. c-span with pedro. i am thinking also many people are watching this morning and learning about the issues. so, you have to be educated. that is what americans for prosperity does. we educate citizens. activists. individuals. in order to get the most dynamic amount of resources, you have to watch everything. msnbc, c-span, cnn, fox. i encourage every individual to go out and onto rightonline.com. use our hash tag so people can

talk about it. becoming a part of the conversation and having this conversation -- i appreciate it. host: one more call. paul, your the last call. caller: thank you so much. i want to thank you for your hard work. my question is this -- i then, thank you. with the laws and legislation in process now to be able to take the internet offline for least four months, for a changeover in what is going on, if they take it off for four months, obama is trying very desperately to clear the internet of these programs and keep this activism off line. have you heard of this?

it is legislation that has been passed. probably -- again, what would you be doing if that happened? thank you for your work. guest: paul, i appreciate the call. i am not familiar with exactly what you are talking about. two years ago, the fcc try to pass legislation called the net neutrality law that would limit the amount of bandwidth that certain individuals were able to use on the internet. we launched an online campaign to alert individuals of that fact. the internet has allowed individuals to amplify their message through social media, learning about sex. -- about facts. the internet and regulating the

internet will be just a travesty. i would look into that. i will make sure we are on the front lines leading that free market. host: stryker with the americans for prosperity. thank you for getting up early. guest: was fun. host: learn about the law of sea treaty, subject of two hearings on capitol hill with supporters and opponents including donald rumsfeld. john norton moore will be up next with that discussion. we will be right back.

>> this is about a fundamental attempt by the president of the united states to misused and abused the constitution, obstruct ups this -- justice and to undermine the very elect or a process. >> it has been 40 years -- [unintelligible] \ this was not something done to have fun. it was a strategic plan aimed at giving the week is nominee -- getting the week is nominee.

>> watch more from the reporters who broke the watergate story online at the c-span video library. >> "washington journal" continues. host: our guest here to talk about law of sea treaty is john norton moore, currently at the university of virginia law s and he was the former chairman of the national security council. john norton moore, welcome. guest: good morning. nice to be here. host: there were two hearings this week looking specifically at -- [unintelligible] guest: during the 1970's, the u.s. had a series of problems with people fishing off the u.s. and foreign fleets. we have serious problems in terms of navigational freedom

for our security issues. atwill begin to look development of ocean resources of deep sea minerals. we had those legal issues. the result is the u.s. was one of the nations in the world that actually lead a series of negotiations that culminated in the law of the sea treaty. we had set up a task force, some 18 government agencies, and an advisory group of 100 sector groups in the u.s., oil and gas -- an es, fisheries absolutely unprecedented way to engage in a multilateral negotiation. we won every single one of our navigational interests. in addition to that and our security interests, we also

extended our areas of research jurisdiction. an area larger than the actual physical size of the u.s. itself. the massive extension -- a 200 nautical mile economic zone. an accident in continental shelf that lets us control the oil and gas in that area. there are many, many different issues. this was one of the most stunning successes in the history of the u.s.. c-span3 never formally signed on? -- host: the u.s. did not sign on? [video clip] part -- guest: 11 of the treaty had serious problems. when ronald reagan came in, he said after a thorough review, everything in the treaty is fine except the deep seabed mining and we need a revision of that. as the former u.s. ambassador

and deputy special represent ative, i wrote him a letter saying that we must revise these provisions on party 11. they work subsequently revised. they met every single one of his conditions, though it took until 1994 to get that full renegotiation imperium we got it. we now have a treaty that in every one of these respects, including the addition of protecting u.s. access to strategic minerals in the deep ocean floor, that is extremely important to the u.s.. host: we formally part of the treaty? guest: we have not yet given -- received consent from the senate. this issue has gone through the senate foreign relations committee and been approved in 2004. it was approved again in 2007. i am very pleased that the senate foreign relations

committee is taking it up again. sadly, it was never submitted to a vote in 2004 and 2007. i am very hopeful this time it will be. the u.s. is long overdue in adhering to this convention. and hearing the other day, the comments of the coast guard had a wonderful statement about this. it was -- is as though the u.s. has won the lottery and has a wonderful lottery ticket. opponents are forbidding from cashing in. host: our guest isn to talk about -- our guest is john norton moore and he is talking about law of sea treaty. the numbers are on your screen if you would like to call. send us a tweet @cspanwj or an email at journal@c-span.org.

if i sign on to the treaty, it dictates what i do 200 nautical miles from the shore of my country. is that oversimplifying? guest: it has extended u.s. research jurisdiction. we used to think at the time of the german population, that it would -- truman population, it would go 50 miles. we received an extension of that to 200 nautical miles. even beyond that, in something called the extended continental shelf. the u.s. got the largest area of sea floor jurisdiction in the shelf of any nation in the world. absolutely astounding extension that will give us the ability to develop oil and gas, hundreds of miles into the arctic ocean. we need to get on with this. we need a legal certainty. all our firms that work in the area are asking for the u.s. to move forward on the law of the sea treaty.

how many issues does one know in which the environmentalists and oil and gas firms are on the same side? host: 1 voice at the hearing was not for the seabed in the mining. it was donald rumsfeld appearing before the committee. we have a little bit of what he had to say as far as his testimony to the senate. i wanted to listen to his argument and then get your response. [video clip] >> this is a new idea of enormous consequence. it establishes a way of looking at industry investment, challenge, riz, and good fortune that argues in favor of disturbing a significant portion of the minerals to developing countries. i suppose it is also conceivable that it could become a precedent for the resources of outer space. the principle that advanced countries 0 royalties to less-

developed countries is a novel principle. it has no clear limits. i know of no other treaty that follows the pattern. host: argument is we go out there but we have to redistribute profits because of the paying of these royalties. guest: donald rumsfeld is caught in a time warp. at the time, he is talking -- at the time he is talking about when he worked for ronald reagan to go to our allies to try to get them not to move forward with the treaty until we're able to renegotiate part 11, he is right. i took that view as the one who had actually directed the process of u.s. instructions " for the negotiations. what he is completely forgetting is the time warp of some 30 years.

all of the reagan conditions were met. there was a full renegotiation of this. for example, all the countries that he went to and persuaded not to sign have now all signed. all of our allies. all of the nato parties. with the exception of turkey. in addition to that, i thought it was rather remarkable that the secretary did not mention the fact that his tenure as secretary of defense under george w. bush was one in which his defense department recommended that we move forward with the treaty as a matter of priority in this. in addition to that, he did not mention that the other person on the trip are on the world for ronald reagan has basically supported the law of the sea treaty moving forward. in relation to the particular clip that you showed, there is a

second part of this time warp that is very troubling. that is the notion that somehow what was going on in all of the sea is a socialist international experiment of some form. this comes from the fact that early on, there were a lot of developing countries, a hard left perception of there ought to be in international's asian of the ocean, etc. the reality of the negotiation was 180 degrees opposite of that. the reality of the negotiation was the greatest expansion of national jurisdiction into the ocean in the history of the world. if you look at it, just looking at areas of research jurisdiction, it was the greatest expansion of national jurisdiction. the international area that you are talking about is a very narrow single issue of deep

seabed mining in which american firms had to have property rights. we were talking about a mining site the size of the state of rhode island. the it would cost $4 billion to develop. we are not going to do that without stable property rights. host: here is your first call. independent line. good morning. caller: >> good morning. i am glad you took my call. how does the landlocked deal work? how do they get -- do they get paid or something like that? we are the ones that control it? democracy changes all the time. guest: good morning.

the land blood groups are a small number of states compared to -- lancelot groups are a small number of states compared to coast. other than small revenue sharing, the u.s. would have a veto over where the funds go. they have sought to have a series of treatiest that give them access to the royal ocean. the u.s. does not have any landlocked contiguous neighbor so we are not affected by that. to some extent, they got some things from the treaty. the core beneficiaries were country such as the u.s. that had a massive extension of their

resource jurisdiction over fisheries and oil and gas into the world's oceans. host: ohio. democrats' line. caller: good morning. i just want to extend the conversation a little bit to military and the respect for these laws, . china has indicated they will not respect this. the coming exercise between korea, japan, and the u.s. will show how china does not respect these things. we have party had several instances of warships and aircrafts in neutral airspace. they're not going to just 10 by. guest: i am glad you brought that up because this is one of the core reasons why we need the law of sea treaty. we won in the international of

negotiation all those fundamental principles. with china making claims over u.s. resources vessels that are engaged in scientific research or military research -- issues are not governed by the coastal states. certain kinds of claims over our military, going for free agate -- navigation, those are counter to the treaty. it is in our interest to move forward with the law of sea treaty because then we have the strength in those things and we can say, look, you are violating the treaty. the chinese say, why should we take you seriously?

you are not a party to the treaty. it is extremely important that we move forward again. these rules cannot for the u.s. is a struggle for a law that continues. we need to engage. we need to pick up a lottery ticket and cash in. host: lot of the supporters at a hearing -- he told the committee how it would make sense militarily. [video clip] >> some say that joining the convention results in a loss of sovereignty for the u.s. i believe the opposite to be true. some would say that joining the convention will open u.s. navy operations to the jurisdiction of international courts. we know this is not true. the 2007 proposed senate

declarations and understandings express our right to extend military activity. many other nations have extended their military actions from the treaty. some say that joining the convention will require the surrender of our sovereignty over our warships and other vessels. i can assure you that we will not let this happen. the convention does not require it. if anything, if further protect our sovereignty in this regard well before we would have to resort to any use of force. host: could you provide some context? guest: yes. the admiral is actually correct. very well stated. some of the opponents are arguing that we are losing sovereignty in this treaty. it is 180 degrees opposite. it is the largest expansion of sovereign rights in jurisdiction in the history of

the u.s. there is not a single ounce of sovereignty of the u.s. lost in this treaty. it is astounding that we can have people arguing that we are losing sovereignty as a way of preventing us from extending u.s. sovereignty in the world's ocean. he is also right that our military activities are exempt. i know these things because i was a negotiator of many of those provisions. i can assure you that i worked very closely with the chairman of the joint chiefs and the u.s. navy and we won every single one of the security issues that they were interested in. that is precisely why we are getting such a strong support today for those provisions. of negotiated something that had not been done in previous treaties such as the panama canal treaty. an exemption for military activities on third-party

disputes. the admiral and all of the 24 stars represented at the hearing this week were absolutely correct in their strong support. the military has been the strongest series of supporters for this convention throughout the discussions. host: 4 a. republican line during -- florida. republican line. caller: in my lifetime, the un has done nothing to support our sovereignty. look at the wars we have been in that were unforced. we never won. our youngives of hour people. you are talking about the call lessons of the military to hierarchy.

i think that if you will look at -- most of these hierarchies are members of the council on foreign affairs. this is right down their rally. guest: thank you for raising the point of the relationship between the treaty and the un. very sadly, one of the misperceptions that has been put out there is that we are turning over the oceans to the u.n. there is nothing in this treaty. let me repeat that. absolutely nothing that is given to the un in this convention. it is the opposite. it is a massive expansion of coastal state jurisdiction into the oceans. the international authority that has created -- that has been created is a small agency that has 39 employees after 25 years that are devoted to the question

of trying to create a stable property rights for deep seabed mining. our industry is the best in the world. it needs to get out there. the value of those strategic minerals are over one trillion dollars. if we do not join this treaty, those sites will be lost. the chinese and others will come in and pick up those. it is astounding that we can have this kind of sensible arguments that are put out. i am reminded of the importance of getting the facts straight. in the neighbor that love the german shepherd and the neighbor next door loved the pet rabbit. one day, the german shepherd -- the rabbit was dead.

the owner washed it off lovingly and use a blow dryer to fluff it up. he stuck it in the hutch and waited. the neightbor just put up a cray the otherd neighbor asked what happened here the neighbor said, my rabbit died. we buried him. he is back in touch. -- in the hutch. it is extremely important. there is nothing given to the un industry. host: the authority they you are talking about reside at the un -- guest: it resides in jamaica. it is completely separate from the u.n. it is staffed by the individuals

from states' parties and they are the one that run it. it is not the u.n. when we become a state party, we will be the only permanent seat on the council of the authority with a variety of critical vetoes. if we do not join, we do not get the vetoes a and rules and regulations continue to be drafted without u.s. participation. host: rhode island. caller: good morning. i will have a quick question. there is $one trillion dollars worth of -- there is $one trillion worth of industry. what can we get out in loyalties? are we giving all royalties to these other countries? let us say we find a $50 million

section. are we taking that and is not coming to our country? and we gather maybe $15 million at the end? i am confused as to how it is shared amongst all of these people. guest: absolutely. that is a very good question. one of the arguments that is being used against the treaty is that in the extended continental shelf, beyond 200 nautical miles there would be an average loyalty that will be paid to study parties that is approximately 3.2% of the production of the well. for the first five years, it is 0%. over the life of 15 years, that would be about 3.2%. the problem that the critics seem not to have noticed is why

we agreed to a 3.2% in the area beyond 200 nautical miles. the reason is that the u.s. not only did not own this area, but we did not have very good prospect of owning the area. earlier, there had been a study in the u.s. by the strident commission, the most important policy commission on oceans in the history of the country up until last time. it basically said we should extend our resource jurisdiction approximately out 100 miles and in order to do that, they said we probably would have to pay substantial revenues to get the international community to agree to that. what we actually did in the negotiations is go to 200 nautical miles with 0% payment of anything. only areas beyond 200 nautical miles would we have a very small percentage of 3.2% as opposed to

the president nixon's proposal that we yield 50 -- two thirds of the entire revenue is through an international authority. we did that in order to get the area. we are one of the very few marchant states. we did not have the remote -- weezer -- we did not have the votes to do that in an international organization and get the support necessary for oil and gas to develop. the opponents argue -- after the u.s. obtains the louisiana territory, you really ought to basically get that money back from france or after we bought alaska, we ought to get that money back from russia. i negotiated debt deal and i am enormously proud that i have

added resource jurisdiction to the u.s. that is at least double the size of the state of california. i believe the best testament in the long run is it will be larger than the louisiana purchase. we got it for a little bit. our industry has made it very clear that they cannot go out and develop that area and drill oil and gas. until we signed the treaty and move forward and get international recognition. that is what we want. host: off of twitter -- guest: the only time the treaty was rejected by a president of the u.s. was not really rejection of the conclusion of the treaty. it was reagan saying we had to

revise the provisions in 1982 that do not lead deep seabed mining -- allow deep seabed mining. reagan was right. we got a full renegotiation of those provisions and every president since has supported this. every president. virtually every chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. overwhelmingly, the u.s. military. the industry of the u.s. there is not a single u.s. oceans industry group affected that is negative. it is astounding to me to see a campaign of a variety of information that just simply is not accurate, such as the notion rned it is all being to an u

over the to u.n. caller: i guess you could say i do not like the u.n. i think we are giving them too much power. i think that we are giving too much to the muchparts of the -- too much to the other parts of the world. i would like your opinion on what i said. guest: under those circumstances, you should be a strong supporter of the treaty. because what we have done -- a massive extension of u.s. research jurisdiction. after 200 nautical miles. the largest in the world. we have complete sovereignty in relation to how that is developed and how we would move forward in dealing with that. in addition to that, i think you should be aware that in the

international seabed authority, the small agency, it is designed to generate property rights. it you have to have that for american industry to be able to mine these areas that are the size of the state of rhode island. the u.s. was the only nation in the world given a permanent seat on the council the authority that has the ability to veto the most important sets of issues such as amendments, revenue- sharing. i think you ought to be very pleased with what we were able to do if you are a strong supporter of the u.s. sovereignty and sovereign rights. host: jim hines may reference on his announcement on immigration. guest: the enforcement of the

treaty is something that falls under u.s. restricted. but -- jurisdiction. in the event of major hostilities, the u.s. navy deals with that. it is important to note that the u.s. coast guard and a part of a homeland security work at presides -- are the strongest supporters of this treaty. this is something that is important. make no mistake, this is important for the national security of the u.s. and for our homeland security. every single one of the common minds starting with mr. yost in the law of the sea negotiations has strongly supported moving forward with the consent and the the military.h

they are saying their job is easier to pass the certainty -- and cash in the lottery ticket which we won. we want everything we wanted in the negotiation. some of my friends from other countries say a, what is going on? how is it that your country, there won everything, i are 161 countries in the european union. what is going on? why are you not moving forward? i am very hopeful that we will. strong leadership on both sides and the senate foreign relations committee, both chairmen and ranking member are moving this very actively. i hope this time, the u.s. will

end here. host: this person asks -- host: what would constitute a violation of the treaty? guest: quite a few violations. just to give you one important issue of concern for the u.s. navy, if the chinese interfere with a military survey activity in the economic zone, it is a clear violation of the treaty. to give you another on the environmental area, is another nation dumps in the u.s. economic zone, it would be a violation of the treaty. it is one of the good things we have informally.

-- environmentally. host: what are the consequences of violating the treaty? guest: a variety of different things depending on what the issue is. i think it is very important to keep in mind that enforcement and compliance is not solely a matter of military or coast guard. extremely important, it is a matter of acceptance of the international rules and what those mean. the core of the law of the sea treaty is 100 years struggle for legal rights in the world's oceans to get the right as to what the role of law is. the u.s. was able to get the rule of law and the oceans and a good rule of law that met all our interests and are in the interest of the community as a whole. those are things -- because of the rules, it is extremely

important to support them. because they are the rules, it has an impact on compliance. we are seeing country after country that earlier had different views actually changing their laws to be consistent with the law of the sea treaty. this is one of the most important reasons for the u.s. to move forward. if we fail to move forward, we are basically not reinforcing what we have barred one. host: new york. john, democrats' line. caller: the law of sea treaty -- how would this work where china taiwan have had problems for years or south korea and japan? the gap is so narrow that there are overlapping interests. how would this work with a lot of the sea treaty? thank you. guest: good question here is a

real question in terms of continuing issues around the world whether we talk about the china sea and the islands, over 100 disputed in the south china or, many others. the reality here is that the law of sea treaty does not deal with the disputed land territory. we are asking it to do something that is not -- that it is not designed to do. u.s. as a the span of -- ae dispute about the sovereignty of the sea. the law of sea treaty does not say whether canada or the u.s. would have sovereignty. it does, however, in indicating

a number of the implications for your see limits, without the kind of agreements we have on that of 200 mile economic zones and result boundaries, it would be more difficult. a lot of the sea treaty will not solve the problem of the islands. i will say that it has had a real useful impact among other ways. the ambassador of indonesia, who had been extremely active in the law of the sea negotiations, was the ambassador cruz and was leading talks amongst nations about how to resolve disputes in

the south china sea. the law of the seat leadership is moving all host: of this sort. bob, independent line -- host: bob, independent line. caller: how come this took so long? suppose this goes into effect and we have to go to india or china. what our navy's be allowed to go there? at what point would date hold military stands without having reaction from the countries that we are approaching? right now, just out of curiosity, what does china considered to be their boundary off of their territory?

when we expand all this, what do you think this will cost? yes, i think we should do this. guest: thank you for those very important and interesting questions. the first one really touches the most important issue in the law of the sea. whether or not -- navigational rights, u.s. security naval warships being able to go run the world's oceans. that was the number one security issue that i was negotiating. amongst other things, we want straights transit rights to have aircfrrafts fly over straits. prior to that, that was not clear. we got a better regime for

innocent passage in the territorial sea. that is within 12 nautical miles. we have complete freedom of navigation and maintained within and beyond the 200 mile economic zone. for the u.s., there are no issues worse in terms of expanding our navy when we adhere to the wall of the sea treaty. that will be an overall strategic decision made by the u.s. navy and the sector of the fence and the president. we already have the coast guard. it has the capability to be dealing with the enforcement in these areas. it i am not worried about that. let me, however, give you some of the reasons why not only should we move forward today and why it is critically important today, but why we should have

moved forward in the past and it has been very sad that this is not yet going to a vote to that i believe will be one and we will adhere to the convention if it goes to a vote in the u.s. senate. those include the navigational issues that you have talked about. in the long run, the greatest threat to the u.s. national security issues is other nations unilaterally claiming that they control u.s. navigations. we won those issues in the treaty. we need to go forward. the second is oil and gas companies need to be able to move forward with clear title as far as drilling on the outer continental shelf, particularly in the areas of the arctic that our jurisdiction may go well over 600 nautical miles in the arctic. in addition to that, other nations will seek to amend this treaty and if they do, the things that we negotiated for

and one will be lost unless we are a party. once we are a party, any amendments after that we do not accept may not be binding on the u.s. finally, we are about ready to lose the three remaining u.s. mine sites in the deep ocean floor. it is extremely important that we move forward. let our industry go out there, lockheed martin has written a letter to the chairman of the senate foreign relations committee at the oil companies. they want to go forward and develop. the absence of u.s. adherence is preventing that. host: john norton mooreo on the law of sea treaty. coming up