the service limits action bhagwati discusses sexual assault and programs designed to change behaviors and attitudes. "washington journal" is next. ♪ good morning. it is a foggy sunday on capitol hill. congress is back in session this week with immigration and the irs short to be hot topics. this morning on "washington " we want to focus on the backlog of complaints at the office of the current affairs. 6000 claims have been pending for more than 125 days. the department of veterans affairs is committed toetng

rid of that backlog by 2015. we want to hear your ideas for fixing the growing inventory of claims for disability compensation. if you are a veteran or a family member of a veteran we want to hear from you today. our lines are open. if you are a current or retired that tran -- retired veteran veteran202-585-3883. you can also catch up with us on your favorite social media sites. good sunday morning to you here on capitol hill. we want to start with this article in "the new york times," the headline --

it is talking about president obama's president of secretary affairs.

we are discussing this topic and we want to hear from your ideas and your experience with the current system. some facebook posts that have already come in on the subject --

you can write in at facebook.com/c-span. i want to show you the articles the new york times mentioned, calling for mr. shinseki's resignation. [video clip] 2009, 164,000 in

>> veterans in the last four years have joined us in unprecedented numbers. >> this the man or reject this administration knew that those wars are going to end. >> this is a leadership issue. more from "the new iece.times" p

we want to hear your thoughts on the current system and ideas you may have on fixing the system. we have a special line for veterans and members of the current families. harvey is waiting from fort polk louisiana. we want to get your experience with the current system. caller: the current system as it is right now is that there are not enough claims reps and

claims offices for veterans to come and seek help and get their claims filed. the delays and the time we have the wraps are overwhelmed with the veterans coming in. by the time they filed all the claims and the paperwork goes through you do not have enough people to do the work. if they would hire more people it would make the claims system easier and it would alleviate them. >> in a time of sequestration and cutting in government, do you think that is possible to do? do you think congress would be amenable to allowing the of the aid to hire more -- to allow the va to hire more folks? >caller: i think they do.

people are out of work that need jobs. that is something they should look at. take the money they are using for the space program and put that towards the d.a. to help the veterans -- va to help the veterans. what's the point of mars? issue inis a priority your mind? caller: it is all priority and politics. we should be able to solve this simply. they can release of this problem if they look deeply at areas

where they can use the money. have a great day. host: thank you for calling in this morning. harvey brings up the issue of funding and sequestration. here is an article from today's's "baltimore sun," --

getting your thoughts on this issue we will now go to kevin on our republican line.

good morning. caller: what makes the angry is we have veterans that of our country that are wounded. we do not have enough money for them for rehabilitation. we give them red tape. we just had a bombing in boston. these liberal democrat from cambridge will fall over themselves to bring in people that hate america. we will put them up in universities, we will college- educate them, we give them housing and food stamps and the heat america. -- and they hate america. our veterans are left holding the bag. it is a shame. war two-housing bill for returning gis.

we do not have any more housing for veterans being built. not doingif you are your job properly should be fired. replace everybody until you get that agency fuss -- until you get that agency functioning again. host: where do you think the call for sinn secchi -- for shinseki's retirement, do you think this is a partisan issue? caller: i think he should be given all the tools possible and personnel to fix it. you have corporations out there -- if corporations generally do not turn around in a year the guy at the top is gone.

we are tired of excuses. you have veterans waiting six months to go to a va appointment. massachusetts will bend over backwards for some foreign students, they will give him a free college, free food stamps, free housing, but yet you have a veteran here who needs help. sari, tough luck, such that up. tough luck, suck it up. host: james is retired from riverside, california, a retired army. they compensate me over

the $2,000 cash monthly. i told them what was going on. they are taking care of me. i am at 70% now. i have spent over four years and infantry. my comment was as far as the future of the next generation -- they should have their disability benefits when they are discharged. host: mr. shinseki seemed to indicate it is a problem of turning it from paper to computer. do you think it goes deeper than that? caller: yes. --n i went into the military

when i left the military [indiscernible] it hurts. i have been out for a while. [indiscernible] i should of had the choice of maybe taking today off. i had my benefits and not being so stressful. james from california this morning. i want to read a little bit from this piece from last week from

post," -- to the huffington

that is according to "the content host," we are getting your thoughts on the issue. "the huffington post," we are getting your thoughts on the issue. caller: go ahead the problem is the money. god created the people to live together. the problem today is the government's want their way

host: do you think the president needs to get more involved? are you seeing enough from the president on this issue? caller: yes, sir. we have not had a president that would stand up for press -- that would stand up for veterans since john f. kennedy. jimmy carter had a guy as to be head. -- as the va i believe mr. shinseki is also disabled. veteran from the vietnam era. that is the first line of defense for our country. we must respect the first line of defense other was the

russians will march in here and tell us what we need to do. harry from ohio this morning on our independent line. i want to play you a little bit from the cnn interview back in march, in which mr. shinseki announced he would have the backlog fixed by 2015. [video clip] >> no veteran should have to wait for claims. we are pushing hard. >> why do veterans get the sense that the va is an impenetrable bureaucracy? after five years it seems like that is enough time to streamline this process. there are 800 more veterans involved today than were enrolled four years ago in health care. 940,000 more veterans enrolled

for benefits than four years ago. they are coming to us and they are being involved. we produce a million claims each year and half of the last three years. ofn we talk about inventory 875,000 claims, of which 600,000 are backlogged, the amount before we put out the door indicates this is not a static number. there are going to be a few that are complex enough to go longer than we like. there is a lot more work been done. int: that was mr. shinseki an interview that in march. he announced he would have this backlog of 600,000 disability claim is fixed by 2015. martin fromo not to

los angeles, california on our democratic line. caller: this is a disappointment. the wife of the president is more concerned and does more for the veterans than the president. the president is just a disappointment. we can do more to our vets. we have to do more for our vets. the veterans administration and the health-care system are top notch. they are 100% committed to serving our veterans. the problem is the white house. you have at guy who has an attitude. he is going to punish america. on hostingore time dinners for foreign secretaries, having parties for his friends,

that have been visited -- than having visited the veterans in our hospital. host: a criticism of how president obama has handled this issue. here is a story from today's washington post talking about an upcoming address by the president on security issues. "the washington post," notes that -- a whit a preview of the speech that is

happening on thursday at the national defense university. i want to go back to our military families and veterans and veterans line. caller: good morning. welcome to the future of obamacare. this is what is going to look like. thank you. host: elizabeth calling in on our military families line.

talking about a generational component on how to fix the current system. the article notes --

we are getting your thoughts on this issue. we have a special line for veterans and family members of the veterans. john is on that line from louisville, tennessee. good morning to you. caller: i am a disabled veteran of the vietnam war. d.a.e no problem with the and getting my retirement because i have a background of claims field the for the insurance industry. the problem we have is the -- peopleospitals

that put forward the information necessary to get the claims process. i handle my claim myself. i sent it to the ba and ipad quick results. -- to the va and i got a quick results. it take you?g did caller: maybe a couple of months. the 125 days we are talking about here, one or two months? caller: i understand the cost of time of processing. you cannot process the claim without the information necessary to do it. the doctors, hospitals, and thise involved in adoing may be really slow. some of them may not be

responsive. most veterans sent their claim anin. to the doctors, hospitals, and people that have to serve that. that is the reason you have a backlog. d b a processor cannot do the claims without the information. -- the va processor cannot do the claims without information. most veterans think the va is going to give us this information on its own. host: 4 you it is a two way street that needs to be sped up on both sides? caller: yes. thank you for accepting my

call. host: we are taking your thoughts on morning. john was talking about his experience, saying it was just a couple of months to process his claims. here is an article from last week --

host: we are taking your thoughts this morning. i want to go now to murray from granville, georgia, on our independent line. >caller: good morning. you know, this is just so much. we just spent days talking about this. claim 20 years a ago. three months later, it was approved.

if you have a valid claim, there is not a problem. i'm going to tell you something , give me, in a nation give me, give me. i want something for nothing. you go to the atlanta va, i guarantee you, you look around, and you are going to see a lot of people, dishonorably discharged veterans that are looking for something for nothing. peopleu see 90% of those in wheelchairs with no legs, it is due to obesity and diabetes. i did not come for more. it came from bad habits. come from war. deserving veterans and their families who need cannot get it because of the moochers. do you think the veterans fa mot dividual claims

rather than closer to find out more about the specific claims, murray? caller: absolutely. when they do that, that is why takes 125 days. because that is what they are doing now. that is why so many of those claims are rejected because there is no substance to them. , youomebody told somebody know, go file a claim. you can get something for nothing. go file a claim, get some money. no, go to work. get an education. host: that is murray from georgia. let's go back to our military line to get their thoughts on the subject. greg is from california this morning, retired military. greg, your thoughts on the subjects murray brought up on the last call. caller: people say that they have a hard time filing claims. yeah, that is true. i have fact remains that

been trying to do this process for 35 years, and they denied that my unit was even a functioning unit, and i had to google and go on many websites to bring up pictures of my shift and send it to the va. somebody looking at my claim on the 30th of this month. yes, it has taken a long time. i am combat wounded. i do think that there are some people out there that are having a hard time, but the thing that remains is the new people that are coming in -- it is going to be so jammed up. twoon just got back from doors in iraq and one in afghanistan, and he is way more messed up than i am. i don't know how to focus all this in. host: do you think the president needs to get more involved in this issue gecko --

issue? caller: i don't know if it takes more involvement, or if it takes determination. it takes people that really think that they have an issue to hang in there and keep doing it. yes, it has taken me a long time, but there are certain ands that were clandestine that have issues. all of us together, if we put our heads together, i am sure you can figure something out. it is like when i came home from overseas -- i bought 72 rifles and 17 handguns thinking the government is out to get me. i have since sold everything i have got. i do not have a gun in my house. it is like the tea party program and all this other crap,

it is all a bunch of bs. the: we will stick on subject of the veterans affairs issues for right now. here's a story about about the department of defense from the hill's blog breathing room. -- host: this from yesterday in the hill --

host: but as we noted in one of those earlier stories, that the veterans affairs department is exempt from some of those sequestration cuts. so we're getting your thoughts on the backlog at the veterans affairs for benefit filings. chris is up next from long island, new york, on our regret line. go ahead. caller: good morning. i want to say, my father was a veteran, i am not a veteran, but i helped him with quite a bit. he really did not have a problem. the people at the va are very friendly toward veterans. the deal will that work there, i mean, genuine. they are genuine people there. i think the only problem is that when you are asking a question about what we can do for the veterans, you have to ask somebody who is really a

veteran because other people take other problems when you ask about veteran, forget what happened up there. i cannot tell you how to fix that. veteran can tell tell you what his needs are more than any ordinary person who never had any military family or anybody that's all i kind of problem. -- anytime he needs help, these guys fight so hard for help. it is unbelievable. i commend these people in the va, the way they handle problems. thank you. long island,from no new york. here is jimmy olsen on our facebook page with a comment on the subject -- go to any vfw hall and listen to them talk about how they cannot stand the koran administration. obama is this mind among that. -- among vets. we are taking tweets, your facebook messages on this subject.

i want to go now to our independent line. tom is waiting from texas. good morning, tom. caller: good morning. i want to say, why don't they take the young men from the service academies to search on the backlog during their summer breaks? summer training. host: put them into some of these positions to try to fill that backlog? caller: yes. use a search, so to speak. host: are you saying to do that because money is tough to come by these days in the federal government, rather than moving more money to these programs? why do you say to use these folks? caller: they are intelligence, they are disciplined, and they are motivated. and they may come up with some ideas on how to handle some of the stuff. host: all right, tom from a grove, texas on the independent line. one other tweet on this subject -- video continually -- the va

continually gets a bad rap. i've had nothing but pleasant experience a sense for tiring. hard-working people doing a tough job. that is from photo dude on twitter. also want to note this week on "newsmakers," congressman chris van hollen, the top democrat on the house budget committee, topped with c-span. he talked about congress' tackling thein debt as well as how the it ministration in congress are targeting to the irs' of conservative groups. i want to play you a clip right now. [video clip] conduct was clearly unacceptable. and we need to get to the bottom of it. thatso need to recognize after the citizens united case, you had about a dozen -- a doubling of application from groups for 501c4 tax settings.

those are from republican leaning and democrat leaning groups try to get this exempt tax status. without disclosing their donors. that is why the irs is having a tough time. they have got to go through all these applications, decide whether the main person of and organization is social welfare or whether the main purpose is political and hiring donors. clearly they went about it in the wrong way, but we need to apply the law uniformly. in my view, if you require disclosure of donors for people are dissipating and political activity, you would actually eliminate the incentive a lot of these groups have to try to get this particular kind of status. host: and you can see the entire interview with commerce and then all in sunday at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on c-span. it is also available online at www.c-span.org.

thati risk roger mercy congress -- that irs under mercy leading a lot of -- irs controversy leading a lot of posts today. it was the reason why the washington post gave president obama the worst week in washington award. a weekly award on who had the worst week. he notes -- host: we will be looking at the irs issue and the benghazi issue and how it is playing into the president of the second term agenda and our next 45 minutes on the "washington journal to go but we still have a few minutes left on this subject of the va backlog and getting your ideas and thoughts on how to fix the system. military member from tallahassee, florida.

bud, thank you for calling in. your experts with the current system. caller: yes. . understand the claim process they validate a claim, and it takes a long time to do that. but once a claim is approved and validated, what is it take -- in my case, i've had a validated claim since september 2011. it took them a year to validated. they started sending me conversation a year after i up live. so i received -- a year after i apply. from september 2011 to september 2012, they were supposed to give me the back claim. it has been almost two years. that is a validated claim. again, pending claim, i understand. why do i think the backlog exists? people work at home. i do not know what percent of

the va our employees working at home, but they need to have a system where they can monitor the production of people that work at home. some people do a good job, some people -- you know, i do not think they are doing their job. that is my point. is validate -- host: as a retired member of the military, we had a twitter question they might be a will to speak to this subject. an individual rights and on twitter -- ask some of these military families why they choose the military life knowing their treatment. i want to ask you, do you think that the issues that are coming up with the veterans affairs department, the benefits issues, is going to affect the recruitment of members of the military in the future? do think it is affecting people's choice and whether they decide to go into the system now or not? not think it will affect the recruitment, but it might affect the career choices.

once you are on active duty and you decide to go career or not go career, then that might be a factor. host: so when they decide to make it the long-term job. caller: yes, yes, that is correct. most young people are patriotic and willing to go. see what they can contribute. so they're not going to change. but the ones that are actually trying to decide, go career or not or get out, that might be a factor. tallahassee,m florida, thank you for the call. we will go to great also in florida from jacksonville on our independent line. good morning, greg. caller: good morning. 34 watching c-span. enjoy the show. thank you for taking my call. i have a couple of issues. one, what is really agitating me is the first caller who was a veteran from georgia. who indicated that he got a

claim for his benefits but then when he goes into the atlanta va, he sees a lot of other guys an airplane for their benefit then he called them moochers. tohink that is insulting the community, even with him being a veteran. really insulting. he got his, now he is talking about other people try to get theirs for that is the first thing. the second thing is when it comes to the va having some problems, expanded what would be new service-connected issues with the veterans, particularly coming out of vietnam, when it came to agent orange. that has opened up a whole can of new issues for the va to look at 20 comes to claims. of course, you had a guy who was calling out of tennessee who said that he did have the appropriate stock mutation, the evidence, etc., to get a claim documented. the va people who are doing the claim are under a terminus amount of pressure. a tremendous amount of pledge -- of pressure trying to get these

claims out with some shortage and no sleep will who are reviewing those claims, getting and waiting for the documentation to substantiate those claims, as a number of your callers were talking about here so they are under a tremendous amount of rusher to get the job done and do it right where there is no misrepresentation of the facts from combat injuries. the most active rating thing to me and c-span watchers are these congressional people who never served in the military, under combat conditions or otherwise, who continued to berate the president, who prorate the va -- huber rate the berate the va and the u.s., but they never put on the uniform when it was time for them to serve their country, whether in peace time or at wartime. so give the va a chance to do the job it has been trying to do. the secretary is just overwhelmed with all of these new issues that they have to

look at. of course, the most important thing now is to get these younger kids -- these kids who have done 2, 3, four towards over in iraq and afghanistan, to get them situated first and see if we can move forward. >> a grade -- host: greg, thank you. this story in the new york times, criticism of veterans affairs over backlog and claims -- if you have a policy issue you would like to see on a future "washington journal," sent it to orat journal@c-span.org tweet us at @cspanwj. bendery on how the white house lance to get track. -- thethe cato interest cato institute. first, a look at what is coming up on the sunday shows with c- span radio.

>> on today's sunday talk shows, talk it -- targets include viruses targeting conservative groups, the associated press, immigration reform, and the debt ceiling. c-span radio re-airs the five programs beginning at noon eastern with nbc's "meet the press." today's guest includes dan pfeiffer. he is making the rounds on all of the shows today. mitch mcconnell also on the show, including ways and means committee chairman david kamp and donald rumsfeld. at 1:00, you can hear abc's this week with dan pfeiffer, foreign relations chair bob and anddeath -- bob menendez rob portman. chris wallace talks with dan pfeiffer and budget committee .hairman congressman paul ryan cnn's state of the union follows at 3:00. rand paul senator and dan pfeiffer. at 4:00, "face the nation" from

cbs. another discussion with dan pfeiffer and also senate majority whip john cornyn. and gary pruitt. the talk shows are brought to you as a public service networks and c-span. again, it re-airs at noon eastern with nbc's "meet the press." news sunday. 3:00 eastern, cnn of the "state of the union." and a 4:00, "face the nation" from cbs. listen to all of them on c-span radio. nationwide on xm satellite radio channel 119. you can download our free app for your smart phone or listen online at c-span radio.org. anlucretia garfield was educated woman and as a believer in women's rights, she expressed frustration with the traditional roles of mother and wife. during james garfield front

porch campaign for president, she reluctantly played the role of hostess for her husband. but when she was -- when he was assassinated, she returns to ohio and ensured his legacy by making their home into an early version of a presidential library. we will look at the life of first lady lucretia garfield and that of mary author mcelroy -- mary arthur mcelroy. join the conversation about the lives of first lady's live monday night at 9:00 eastern on c-span, c-span3, c-span radio and c-span.org. "washington journal" continues. all accounts, last week's news cycle was a rough one for the obama administration. we are joined now by huffington tot reporter jen bendery discuss the president's second term agenda. let's are with the irs targeting of the conservative groups at the start of a new week. where does the white house, in

terms of conveying this story? guest: well, i think we are only just getting started. makeng lawmakers statements. they want to have hearings. we have already had one hearing this week with the irs acting commissioner, and it was pretty brutal. there were members of congress from both parties asking any questions they had about the issue. next week, he is testifying again. the acting commissioner of the irs. you can expect more hearings, you can expect a lot of talk about it from republicans, you can expect some downplaying by democrats, but in the end, people are knowledge and that the irs made a mistake. they should not be thing going out just one second of groups, only tea party groups for extra scrutiny. if anything, irs should be conceded that should be singling out conservative and liberal groups because these are groups put into a category where your work is for the betterment of the public, and not a political

agenda. host: a few headlines on this story and the president's position right now in terms of the press corps. here's one from "the baltimore sun." obamas katrina moment. host: we also already showed you the story from today -- worst week in washington. is what president obama got cilizza.s talk about where president obama is versus the thing. the story. -- from the benghazi story. guest: it is kind of funny that we are talking about two and one. this week has been really focused on three scandals all happening at once. view that benghazi, the irs, and now this justice department. ing phone records.

these collided this week. you have republicans trying to have this triad of scandals. i think of benghazi, that it is pretty clear at this point they have been doing hearings on this for months. they have had hearings, testimony, they have solicited documents. in the end, there is not a whole lot of they are there. as tragic as it was, it was horrible. but it was not really a scandal, a cover-up, that the republicans have been trying to say. i think that issue is going to start peering out a little bit. they don't have anything to hold onto in terms of republican attacking obama. on the irs on the other hand, i do not know if i'll call of a full-blown scandal because both rds and the president are already cracking down thing this was wrong, obama has already fired -- well, two people have been asked to resign.

obama has already announced who he is going to put into replace the -- as the new leader at the irs. i think that the consensus is that there is going to be more hearings and more discussion on what happened, but i do not think that it is going to hurt obama as badly as some may say. those hearings and discussions that are going to happen, what does this do to the president's blanket immigration, gun control, talk about moving forward from here for the president. guest: there is some irony in the fact that republicans are hitting him on one side over this triad, benghazi, and the irs, and the justice department soliciting reporters' phone records. you have republicans hitting the president on these issues. you have this happening on one hand. you have this image of republicans cracking down on the president and being tough, which people like in the public who are republicans. on the other hand, that allows

replicants to quietly continue working with obama behind the scenes on immigration reform and could actually help immigration reform move forward because you've got both happening at once. you have the attacks coming am a which make republican happy, and anita progress on the issues particularlyties, republicans, need to move. they need this issue more than democrats. from a policy standpoint, we need to do something on it. so there is some advantage to these being so-called scandals at the same time where actual work is being done on an issue that is huge. host: if you want to talk about these issues with jen bendery, the "huffington post" reporter d.c., give us a call, democrats (202) 585-3880, republicans (202) 585-3881 and independent, (202) 585-3882. while folks are ringing income alumni bounces column by william kristol in the new issue of the

"weekly standard." the headline is -- the real scandal. he writes -- host: i wanted to your take. guest: to me, it is important to look at where people are outside of the beltway on these issues. they are selling

on this already. the american view -- american public is just not that issue -- interested in talking about benghazi in the higher rest. within the beltway, it makes for a great narrative, you've got these three scandals happening at once. it is a huge optical for obama. that has been played over and over this week. but there is polling already showing that the american public just is not that interested in this issue. it does show many americans want more investigation, or more discussion on what happened with the irs, what happened with benghazi, but there is not this level of craze that you feel in washington that does not translate outside of the beltway. is -- what does matter to be but outside of the beltway is jobs. jobs and the economy. that is what people care about, in fact, if you look at cutting through the noise of what is happening with these candles, there is improvement in the economy.

there is another gallup poll approvals obama's rating just one up at the end of this week. he is back to 51%. the same old shows that economic confidence is that a five-year high right now. so i think there are some things being missed that actually matter to more people than these issues that are dominating the news cycle in washington right now. host: we will have bill kristol on our show tomorrow at 7:45. he will be discussing that column and some of these issues. jen bendery, you bring up some of the polling out there, america's attention to the irs, benghazi study. here is the gallup poll from this past week. it notes that -- host: the poll report notes

that despite extensive news coverage of these stories in recent days, the level of attention being paid to each is below the average of 60% of americans who have been closely following more than 200 news stories gallup has measured over the past several decades. guest: exactly. in your day-to-day life, when you wake up, and you go to work, if you have a job, come home, eat, see your family if you have one, watch tv, go to bed -- it is a lifestyle that many people in this country lead. it is not like during the day you were just sitting there gnawingon your arm -- on your arm wondering what is going to happen with the irs. they have not produced anything that suggests anything except a tragic mistake -- attack that left some people dead and benghazi and maybe a call for better security in the embassy. i just don't think that they most according to people in this

country if any of these three issues. it is jobs, it is how the mynomy is doing, and student is graduated from college get a job when i graduate? it is supposed be a celebratory occasion when you get your college degree, but how much of that suck when you get your college degree and then you don't have a job? there aren't great prospects right now compared to 10 years ago. host: let's bring in some folks who are calling in and might have some thoughts on this. let's go to our democratic line. larry is waiting from newport news, virginia. larry, you were on with the "huffington post" jen bendery. caller: hello? host: larry, go ahead. larry, are you there you g? caller: yes, i am here. i just wanted to say that i think the lady is totally right. people are not interested in this. we want to see -- you know,

this witchhunt after obama, just one scandal after another, if nobody -- nobody is interested in that. we want to get the minimum wage raised up, we want to get the full congress, republicans and democrats, back to the job of creating jobs and pushing the economy and getting them to work together. getting them to work together. thisnk the only thing is is good because the republicans in congress and lot of problems in 2014. we want to get the people into government who are willing to work together and get this economy where it is supposed to be. host: it is always nice when someone says i am right on something. i do agree that some people just do not want to spend their days wondering what is in to the irs.

the irs should not have singled out only tea party groups for extra scrutiny in their tax forms. maybe this is a broader problem we have with our time -- with our campaign finance system, groups can now apply to be a certain category of a group that is tax-exempt when we have never had this category before. at the end of the day most people know that the real issues that matter are the ones that affect everybody. those are everyday americans that need a job, the need to feed their kids. this is all stuff we do every day. host: let us go to antonia from florida on our republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. do you know what i find? the ignorance of the journalists and the role of journalists is breathtaking. people want think

to move beyond this story? caller: they don't know about the story. teh media is covering for the administration. the real tyranny of the irs -- i have been in taxes for 35 years. i have never seeen anything like this. -- seen anything like this. personala and i have experience in the irs. they screw up by hitting 500 organizations? host: there have been some talk turnede press corps has

ont he white hou -- on the white house. caller guest: i do not think the media has turned on the white house. you learned that the justice department has subpoenaed phone records for a -- with theo months justice department it sounds like -- it does not sound like working with the peak. they went around them and worked with the former -- with the phone company. it is such a broad block of subpoenas and phone records. there are so many names connected to these phone calls

and sources that reporters may need to be protected from their ability to speak. there is a broad move by the justice department. this is upsetting people regardless of party. this is something that is worrisome because it is so broad. this idea that the media is turning on the white house, i do not see it that way. the media as outraged as something that appears to be a pretty sweeping violation of first amendment protection. i do not think what people really know what the reasoning is by the justice department. to me it seems like the questions are out there. you have to get more information before you can do it. it does not seem like the

justice department worked with the ap. they went around them to get the record themselves. line fromis on our georgia. caller: i think we are misnaming all three of the incidencts. torture, that is a scandal. these people are not scandals. i think people want them to be elevated to scandal level so they can keep this conservative .ase a think we need to think about

how we name things. these people are dangerous. they are angry. many of them are armed. thank you. caller: the termamy brings up "scandal." from "thequote washington post." guest: i think that is fair to say. this is the first time we have seen something fallen to the category of something that even resembles a scandal for the obama administration. drivenere republican

investigations that produce nothing. they were clearly politically driven and there was nothing to show for it in the end. there should be discussion about it, there should be investigations. of all ofe subpoena these records was such an overreach. that is what deserves the most attention right now and mecham's closest to scandal of the three issues being lumped into what is called a "scandal." theou just boil it down to fax the benghazi probe has not produced anything. that war is more discussion and investigation. is this really a scandal? host: there is concern over the

a. p. record story. conservative republicans are not out raged over the doj rating on a peak. on the ap. why are they outraged? 70 republicans just one year ago were cracking down on obama for not doing more on -- republicans one year ago were cracking down on obama for not doing more. there have been things that relate to national security. the justice department subpoenas all kinds of phone records. some of the most critical people in this administration are so muted right now. it is kind of amusing. you have senator john corning.

it is amazing. i asked him myself, "what do you think about the justice department subpoena in all of this iscords that " someone who loves to go after the administration and his response was, "we need to respond with caution, we need to find out more information." you never hear that out of john corning when it comes to the obama administration. many republicans want the organization -- one demonstration to be cracking down on leaders. -next from new york, new york on our independence by. caller: i am going to inject some facts.

started off byon saying the irs was making mistakes. here is a fact, the person in charge already admitted that they targeted conservative groups. that is not a mistake. fact no. 2, benghazi does not matter. do you think the white house can move past this and talk about issues like immigration? there was a big push earlier this year on gun control. do you think the obama administration to continue with a second term agenda while all of this is going on? caller: not as long as the republicans have a little spine, which the usually lack. we have four dead americans in

benghazi. the president of the united states came out monday and said the first time he heard about this was friday, that was a lie. wasother thing he said it he called the terrorism the day after benghazi. which isal question, impossible for the left to be logical, the logical question, "how come if you called hillarym, how come the father of the dead marine at his funeral that we are going to do everything we

can to hunt down the video maker." show a bit of luck president obama said about what he knew about the irs inspector general report. [video clip] certainly did not know anything before the ig report had been leaked through the press. typically the reports are not supposed be widely distributed or shared. processed.sed to be what i am absolutely certain of is that the actions that were described in that ig report are unacceptable. in addition to making sure we have a new acting director there, we also have to make sure we give up -- we hold

accountable to anybody who is involved in this. we are quoin to identify any structural or management issues to prevent anything like this have from happening again. host: who is the president turned to at a time where he has got to respond to a lot of different incidents between the irs, a. p. phone records, benghazi. who is in his inner circle that is helping him through this tough week? guest: he has his senior advisers on the council. his strategy seems to be let us take the issues one at a time. i think he was smart -- maybe this was a decision by his advisers -- he cannot quickly in response to the irs situation. he condemned it and said he did not know about it.

twoin days you have resignations at the irs, obama has already appointed somebody else to run the agency. he and his advisers are just a downplayed -- just trying to remove the skin of from the category. -- remove the scandal from the canned the -- from the category. are fire walls between the justice department activities and the white house. there are things going on at the irs -- they are more dependent. -- more independent. .ou have been hearing a lot host: republican line, good morning. i'm sorry, i am a little

shaken up. most of americans outside the beltway does not care or about anything that is going on with can.overnment in regards to their selection on obama care -- that is not correct. i have the 16-year old daughter. she is very involved through her school. they talk multiple times of the issues that are going on. it's disconcerting to the use, -- to the youth, concern to the people in my area, concerning to

middle age people in my area. we do not talk about it. people told us, "why don't you can get people out here and find out our opinion?" -- wee from that pull you thatoming to -- more from poll we are turning to -- guest: i think that it is worth pointing out to the caller in general that these issues have been and are currently worthy of discussion. this is washington, we talk

about issues. when you get down into some of the week of what is truly going on -- some of the weeds of what is truly going on, you have to figure out who edited talking points and who wrote e-mail's to. there is nothing that comes from these countless hearings. i am still kind of surprised there is no discussion of the security at the embassy that they. why are talking about what happened with the security? prevent thiso to again instead of harping on talking points. with the ira's situation i agree. -- with the irs situation i agree. be targeting one set

of the political spectrum for what ever reason. it does not mean to pick one side. that is obviously worth discussion. on the justice department, i think that is the one that warrants the most discussion. we still do not know why the justice department felt like it to do that. host: we are talking with the huffington post congressional and white house reporter. she also worked at gallery watched covering the texas legislature back in 2002 to 2006. we have a caller on our democratic line from new haven, conn. good morning. caller: i was wondering if she could give me a little comment on -- as far as benghazi goes, i am wondering if anyone has

commented on the fact that this is a.c. i a outpost. of what things are not going to be repealed. we are not going to know because it was a cia outpost, not just a regular military outpost. situation, in 2004 -- i never heard this outrage. i was told the white ring group's cost average. isn't that a double standard? on the first question about cia, there are plenty of things we do not know about that happened in benghazi. has gotten to the point where many of the same facts have been chewed on a more and more. they're truly has not been anything found, regardless of

party. there has been no cover-up that republicans have been seeking. to his first point i think there are plenty of things we do not know. the second point, i have heard what this caller is talking about. there have been cases where the irs has singled out progressive groups. naacp was one. there was not so much outrage from the republicans won the irs singled out more liberal groups. there is a lot of the outbreak of the flip side. to be fair it should not be happening. if you are quite simple out groups for being our to a plea more politically driven than the trend -- and the driving of the betterment of society, there should be scrutiny on both ends. they are tax-exempt when they do good things for people and not

just for political reasons. i do not think anyone would disagree that the irs -- the way it runs its operation has some problems. they need to change within the agency itself. steve from go to florence, colorado on our republican line. caller: good morning. spend 20 or 30 minutes talking. with benghazi, why do we not find out the real reason stevens was there in the first place, toling arms to al qaeda topple the libyan governor. trying to get those weapons back to syria.

why are we dealing with a cat in the first place? -- with al qaeda in the first place? this a. p. thing, isn't it strange that all of a sudden they are going after the ap because of leaks? stevens was in libya because he was the ambassador to libya. he hangs out at consul in libya. irs 45worked for the years. i should have asked about this. people agree there needs to be does have some broader

issues about campaign finance reform. the citizens united case broadens the scope of who could qualify for tax-exempt status because you have so many groups now that are qualifying for -- as groups for the betterment of society. we have new kinds of groups that we did not have before. there are so many changes happening to the system that i think we have falling -- we have fallen behind. i think democrats are going to be tying this to citizens united. republicansbout how are strategizing moving forward? post,"oday's "washington --

talk about the danger of overreaching. guest: that is a concern that has come for many people on the part of republicans. you have money -- you have so many things going on. i think we did set decided last week during the hearing with eric holder, when they brought him to talk about the justice record subpoena and court records. it was hours of asking questions about anything. it wasn't necessarily about the apa anymore. people try to drum up attention on other issues that they are not happy about. eric holder was getting visibly agitated, fielding questions on all kinds of issues. it got very tense when darryl

darrell issa -- they had an exchange and eric holder her called him shameful. republicans know they need to be a little careful with. -- a little careful. speaker boehner has cautioned not to go down that road. got to have something to hold onto legitimately. if you try to talk and drum up without any substance to it it can really burn you in the end. mary fromus go to

chilton conn. i am a registered democrat. i am outraged at what is going on with the seven ministration. -- with this administration. believe --d ever they are trying to say that nothing matters. what do you think people are thinking? do you think people have their head and the sand like you do? we want to know what is going on in this country and it is not good. we will allow jennifer to get her thoughts on it. guest: there are people frustrated with the administration in both parties. i am not exactly sure what this caller was upset about.

with wherenot happy things are going right now. congress really does not focus on the things that do matter to people. when there is so much focus on these issues i am not sure that they are handled in the right way. they get so politicized. why isn't this coming back to jobs? let us have other discussions on the irs and other issues. that should be the only thing that stays in the spotlight when there are things that are not moving forward as a result of all of these issues that have come up recently. host: harry is next on our republican my from pittsburgh, pennsylvania. forer: i have been watching the last four years.

[indiscernible] .ost: talk about the issues caller: there are people who are afraid to come out about benghazi. the irs, holder, gunrunning, everything you can name that happened in germany is happening now. host: alex is up next from news jersey on our independent line. i have four things to say. i'm a businessman. if we just stop changing the -- [indiscernible]

we need to take care of long- term deficit. -- oesn't seem i still do not understand why that happened. this is not happening. [indiscernible] do you want to jump in? i guess i would just say comes backnghazi it

to we haven't seen anything after so many hearings. there's so much frustration on this issue. there have been e-mail's provided by the white house, talking points provide it. there has been so much discussion on capitol hill on this issue. if you do not live here, believe me, there has been a lot of discussion on benghazi. there has really not been anything to come out of it except that it was a tragic situation. there have been more calls to focus on embassies' security. beyond that, i do not see what else there is to hold on to this issue. from here is an article the "new york post" talking about how last week's events may impact the 2014 races.

your thoughts on how long we will be seeing these issues? guest: i think we will be seeing these issues for a while. this is obama's second term, and here we are right at the start of it, we have three things being lumped together -- in gauzy, the ap situation, and the irs -- benghazi, the ap situation, and the irs. these are absolutely sucking up the media's attention right now, and people are mindful of elections in this town. people already are planning in the 2014 elections, which seems crazy because it is may of 2013, but so many things in this town revolve around getting reelected, but i do think these issues will be around for quite awhile. never mind the gun issue which we did not talk about -- that is going to come back absolutely. meanwhile, behind the scenes, you have immigration reform, a substantive issue people are trying to get done that might benefit from the public focus on these issues.

privately, maybe people could work together while this stuff is happening. thanks forendery, joining us this morning. up next, julien sanchez will join us to discuss the impact of the government on privacy and later, from the service women's action network, anu bhagwati will join us to discuss the military's handling of sexual assault cases. we'll be right back. >>ow do you feel about describing our science in 30

seconds? >> i'm going to make the attempt. imagine if you had a yardstick, you cut it in 10 equal pieces, role in nine, you go from this big to that big, do that again, you go to the size my fingernail. you do that process 10 times, you go to the size of the atom. suppose you did that 35 times -- what is left in our divorce? we have no instruments to measure that. people like me have been working on a piece of mathematics called string theory or superstring theory to answer that question. we think there are elements there. i tried. my wife is often asked by people who find out i'm a theoretical physicist, what does your husband actually do? her answer is she makes up stuff for a living. that is actually right, but the way i prefer to tell my story is the following the jig most people know what novelists do. and novelist takes words and sentences and makes characters and tell stories, but i do the same thing except we use mathematics to make up our

characters and tell our stories. if we are really good at what we do, our stories correspond to something that happens in nature. that tip you saw a few moments ago was my intent to boil down to a very 30-second sound byte mode describing what it is that in people in my community do to try to understand the world. >> more with national medal of science recipient s. james gates jr. on c-span's "q&a." host: following the justice department's seizure of associated press phone records and the use of surveillance cameras in the wake of the boston bombing, we now look at the intersection of surveillance and privacy with cato institute research fellow julian sanchez. we are still learning details about this case, but take us through the legal issues that are involved here. why was the justice department able to get the phone records of the ap? >> details are a bit slim.

it sounds like in this case, what they used was probably a grand jury subpoena. one reason why it was relatively easy is a 1979 supreme court maryland,d smith v. in which it was held that the fourth amendment essentially does not apply to records held by third party cases. dial digitsh the some places when making a phone call, and they held that a warrant was not necessary to get that and a mere six minutes is enough. there's a variety of other isls -- that a mere subpoena enough. and there's a variety of other tools the government can use to get phone records or the itemized phone bill of when a call happens, between whom, and for how long. host: is anybody questioning the legality of the seizure of gut: there is a question about

if it was a violation of the internal justice department regulations. there's a series of steps that are supposed to be taken when phone records are seized. as we look back through american history, we see abuse of surveillance of journalists among others by hoover and the fbi for many decades. we understand that practices like this can -- tend to chill the ability of the press to get anonymous sources from anyone in government who might want to talk about embarrassing facts. they will be deterred if it becomes a regular and routine for the government to obtain records like this so that no one has any kind of confidence that they can speak to reporters anonymously. certainly an administration that has prosecuted more people under the espionage act than all previous administrations combined. there is what a lot of people would call a war on a whistle

blowers. we are hearing from reporters saying they are having more trouble getting callbacks from sources. there is a question of if they followed all the steps they're appropriately. the attorney general had recused himself, although it looks like there was not any sort of formal memo recusing himself. he did not file anything with the cord indicating he had transferred that authority, but even beyond that, subpoenas of the press are supposed to be very narrow. they are supposed to whenever possible approach the press in advance and negotiate to receive those records. like theyse, it looks got a fairly long period of time -- not necessarily two entire .onth, but several weeks in an enormousg amount of stuff. host: julian sanchez writes

about technology, privacy, civil liberty issues for the cato institute. in your opinion as members of congress look at this, what questions should they demand answers from the justice department going forward. an ongoing is investigation. we saw on wednesday that attorney holder had not recused himself, did not want to talk about an ongoing investigation, it may be a while before we can get any particular answers about this case. certainly what we shall want to know is in any other records were obtained -- not just phone records, but federal regulations governing this really specifically talk about subpoenas for telephone toll records. we should ask -- well, they went very broadly with phone records. could they try to get other kinds of records? internet records? web browsing? journalists today do a lot of their interactions through internet communications, not just making phone calls.

maybe more importantly, we ought to be looking back, precisely because this federal regulations are so narrow. the fbi's internal manual obtained through the information act request explicitly says, when they say subpoenas, they really are just talking about subpoenas, not national security letters or various other paper react -- patriot act authorities. we know from past audits by the inspector general that there have been cases where very large swaths of time of record's about reporters were obtained, and in some cases, uploaded into databases where no one was told about it for three years. we should want to know if this is as, sort of, bizarre and unprecedented a case as most people seem to believe or if in fact this is more common than we have been led to believe and we simply have not heard about it. host: julian sanchez works at the cato institute. we will be taking your calls and comments on the subject of privacy and surveillance.

phone lines are open now. we will show you the numbers on screen. while we do that, explain what it cato guest: institute is is it -- what the kid institute is. guest: it is a nonpartisan public policy think tank. i cover a range of issues focusing on public policy, privacy, and issues. host: talk about the questions congress needs to act. talk about what the president has already done since this story broke, yet he is supporting a reporter shield law. why is it significant? guest: it is not clear if the one he is proposing is as detailed and what actually happened to the seizure of ap records in this particular case. again, it is not a bad idea to asify in federal statutes opposed to your internal regulations that there is an

obligation to take special care because of the first amendment interests implicated when pressed messages are seized. i think it would be a better move, however, as justice o sotomayor suggested, to examine more broadly the area that third party records, records that can be quite detailed and reveal a lot about who we are communicate what by phone or online, websites we are reading, really should be so easily available. the line between press and ordinary people these days is a lot fuzzier than it used to be. it used to be a reporter was someone who works for the ap or some other news organization. a reporter now can be someone with a blog that they write on part time or even someone who treats about information part- about-- someone who tweets information. a better move would be to look at the status of everyone's records.

legislation has been introduced that more broadly does that. to say at least some kind of corridor or something issued by a judge, not a prosecutor or government agency acting on their own sort of cognizance, should be necessary to get detailed phone records. host: for anybody, not just reporters? guest: that's right. host: i want to show you a clip of eric holder talking about this issue and the balance that needs to be struck with citizens' rights are protected compared to law enforcement doing their job. [video clip] >> absolutely. i think we have become more and more an information society. we still have and should have expectations of privacy, however it is that we communicate. at the same time, i want to make sure that law enforcement in the way that it did 40, 50 years ago has the ability to acquire information, and how we strike

that balance, i think, is really important and is one of our most important conversations i think we can have in the 21st century and one that i think this administration would like to engage with congress on so that we come up with a set of rules that are probably not perfect, but will meet somewhere in the middle so that we can maintain privacy while at the same time maintaining that ability that law enforcement has to have. that was eric holder at a judiciary committee hearing on wednesday. we are talking with julian institute the cato about private versus surveillance issues. i want to bring in daniel with a thought on this issue. i have two, comments. first of all, i want to know if the guest thinks that we actually have a right to privacy.

second, i want to ask the guest what he thought about the last guest pretending to be a journalist, when she was obviously a democratic party operative. on the privacyus issues. guest: i did not actually see the last guest. i know a lot of people are journalists and have strong opinions on the right or left. they are not necessarily mutually exclusive. i cannot speak to this particular test. as it concerns the right to privacy, privacy is sort of a nebulous concept. what is crucial for this particular kind of case is what is unambiguously laid out in the constitution is a right to be papers,n our houses, and effects against unreasonable seizures and searches. if you look back to the riding of the founding era about the controversy over general warrants, this was in a way one of the key reasons, one of the

key spark that set off the american revolution, and the idea that we should enjoy a certain sanctity in our homes but also in our ridings -- writings and that a government that was able without restriction to obtain access without restriction to obtain that, and the case that most incensed the columnists from the british experience involving essentially king's messengers ransacking the homes of dissidents and publishers, the they sawf a pamphlet, that privacy in the sense, a freedom from unreasonable search was crucially linked to the ability to have an effective check on government abuse and government power, so that is, certainly, i think, a right that is clearly in the constitution that we should recognize was

correctly identified as absolutely essential to a functioning democracy. host: let's go to sarah now on our democratic line from georgia. good morning. caller: yes, i have a statement, and that is that i think we are not -- we should put things in priority. the things that we are discussing right now are important and should be discussed, but they should not be put in front of an cause congress to put aside the bills that have to do with the protection of this country of guns and our children being hurt in the schools, passing a jobs bill so that we can get back to work, and, 3, getting an immigration law going so that we , andet people registered they can become citizens. these things. yes, benghazi is important.

how many people did we lose there? how many people did we lose in our schools? 20 young people -- host: we are talking about privacy issues and surveillance. there have been some bills that are moving or have been put forward since the ap story broke. specifically the cyber intelligence sharing and protection act. can you explain that? actually predates all of this. it seems to be for the moment debt again. at the past the house by a substantial margin, but it seems to be quiet in the senate right now. the idea thecispa -- the idea enablecispa is to greater information sharing for essentially the purpose of improving cyber security by having an advanced warning system as cyber attacks are federal privacy laws create

limits of some kind on the way -- not necessarily the victims of a cyber attack. the victims can always share their loss to the government, but what they would like to be able to do is have at&t and comcast, the carrier's, internet service providers share the information they are seeing to provide a bird's-eye view on this situation so as someone is ramping up to attack, the government has an advanced warning attack, knows what kind of malware is being used, what kind of patterns of attack we are seeing. i don't think anyone object in principle to that. the problem is because they did not want to write it naturally to talk about the particular kinds of information they will , things thatare may be obsolete in five to 10 years, it created a very broad immunity from liability, meaning not just federal, state privacy

laws had a lion, but even private contracts. "we promise not to share various kinds of information with anyone including the government," that that would also essentially be nullified. there was not really a specification of exactly what the information was, the cyber threat indicators or who it could be shared with. it is a reasonable fear. it created the set up of enormous quantities of information and unknown types to be funneled to some government kind of datahat base would sort of inevitably be tempting to begin repurchasing for uses in cyber security. i think this is something that can be -- we talk about the balance between privacy and security, and sometimes we act ase it is a 0 sum game,

though more security necessarily means less privacy. this is the kind of information with the kind of information they need for ciba security is mostly not sensitive or private information, and there has just been an unwillingness to get into the weeds a little bit and craft this so they can share the information they need without opening the door and saying that potentially you can share people's e-mail content. that is a cyber security threat indicator. on our independent line from missouri. caller: i know my protections against we the people, so my question is what kind of protections to i have against a private sector think tank like this gentleman is involved in? host: what do you mean by protections? guest: i don't do any wiretaps. i do not have any particular ability to read your e-mails. your e-mail,i have you could sue me under the

computer private use act. host: i if you want to read more about cato's work, it is cato.org and you can follow them @catoinstitute. we are talking to julian sanchez, who writes for the cato institute. we have jack from london on the line. thanks for calling overseas. caller: i wanted to say a few things. institute andcato its support for principles of freedom, but there is an issue in america. all the taxes you have paid up to now are illegal. it is probably as constitutional as your federal reserve, which is also not an agency of the government but is a private bank owned by families about the

world. this is a long issue -- host: let's return to surveillance and privacy issues. your thoughts on that for julian sanchez, our expert talking about that today. caller: things are unfortunately getting worse. apparently google can spy on all peoples e-mails or the content, which is supposed to be private, and i do not think it will be better in the future. cato institutee is actually supporting and advocating principles of freedom and free market, but i do not think the situation will be better in future where privacy is concerned. turning intoca is a police state, which is not a good thing. host: julian sanchez, the caller brings up google. here is a story from "the hill" newspaper talking about privacy risks from google class, which

is in development. can you talk about that? guest: i think this is a little bit strange. google glass is essentially a way of stapling a smartphone to your head. on the one hand, in terms of the actual technological capacity, it is not really greater than the phone that is already in your pocket. it is a device with a camera connected, so certainly you could infringe on people's privacy by taking photographs in a situation where they might not want you to. it may indeed make a difference in that it is something that is actually on your head. the fact that the camera there is always sort of pointed, aligned with your eyes may mean that it is more easy to just kind of constantly be recording, catch more potentially -- not necessarily totally private or intimate, but moments that people do not expect to be broadcast to the world, in a

small party setting, for example. and deal with the consequences of that. but that is mostly going to be the sort of thing we will have to resolve not through a legal approach, but through norms, which we need to develop through rules and understanding in the same way we have with cameras, about when it is polite to take someone's photograph. nowill probably need norms about it to take off your glass when you walk into a party or a bar. that will probably be awkward for the first few years, and i imagine we would need to settle it out as it becomes more common. bipartisanress' privacy caucus is on this issue according to that story, sending a letter to google asking for more information about the development. some of the members who signed -- letter to google

that's all members of congress' bipartisan privacy caucus. want to go up to boston, massachusetts. jerry is waiting. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. i want to come back to the ap story, which, as i understand it, the government had a mole that was close to the bomb maker that,en, and ap disclosed which kind it awarded our ability to capture and thwart possible additional bomb attacks. let's assume for the sake of discussion that this guy was building a nuclear thing that he could bring into the united states. what is the responsibility of the press to kind of withhold that information -- as i

understand it, the government asked the ap not to disclose it, yet, it was disclosed, which thwarted our ability to get at this bomb maker. bomb, it was a nuclear just for the sake of discussion and it was going to be brought into the united states. where is the balance of interest where we want to get at, one, the person in the government that disclosed this to the press, and how aggressive we want the government to be in trying to find out who that person was, which might have prevented or thwarted a possible nuclear attack on the u.s.? --st: a couple of things one, am happy to discuss hypothetical, but we should step back and recognize that bumping this up to a nuclear threat brings in a whole bunch of other considerations that are not necessarily realistic. have a nuclear device and realistically be able

to transport it into the u.s. is not quite science-fiction level but far from anything realistic that we have actually seen in the world. second, it is not actually certain at this point that the source of the story was from within the united states government. the saudis were involved in this, new about this, may have been talking about it. i have no idea what the source for the particular information you are concerned about it. -- about is. it is not clear that this thwarted our ability to do counter-terrorism. maybe we will presumably discover that as we move forward, but we have seen i think quite a lot of cases in which people have been indicted for sharing information that supposedly was national security. one case like this, eventually, the case against him had to be dropped or reduced to effectively a misdemeanor of inappropriately using government computers because he had shared

embarrassing and permission about waste within the nsa, not dangerous information -- dangerous -- he had shared embarrassing information about waste within the nsa, not dangerous information. the move forward only when they had been convinced that their dialogue with the intelligence community that there was no national security threat. the white house, the administration was planning to essentially announce this plot within a few days and, i guess, wanted a few more days so they could be the one to announce it, but it remains, certainly, a serious question as to if there was a real national security threat in this case. if we were talking about a nuclear device, i cannot imagine a journalistic organization that would not hold on to that and think about it very seriously. the wiretap probe was one that the "new york times" sat on for

nearly a year at the request of the bush administration. host: a lot of discussion coming off the boston bombing about the use of surveillance cameras in the aftermath. as we look at lessons learned, do you think that surveillance cameras could have helped prevent what happened there? >> probably not, no. we are seeing a lot of calls from more suit -- for more surveillance cameras as a result. surveillance cameras can be useful in solving crimes after the fact. they may even help to deter -- but not necessarily prevent -- ordinary crimes, although the literature on that is very mixed. if you look at the research coming out of the u.k., you do not really see a significant effect on crime reduction. you have seen studies in the u.s. where you see in some cities and some neighborhoods that have cameras, you see an effect on ordinary crime. in other areas, you see no real effect at all, but there is a difference between deterring ordinary crime and catching criminals and preventing

attacks. we have really not seen any evidence that surveillance cameras are good at that. terrorism is just incredibly where -- rare. it is always makes headlines, attacks every year of it that we have been looking at since 9/11 never materialized. the form terrorism takes is the variable. there is an understandable fantasy and wishful thinking that somehow if we get the right algorithms and the right camera it will detect some kind of shape the behavior pattern and we can stop it as it happens. it is not always going to look like a guy dropping a trash can -- dropping a backpack in a trash can. we cannot send out the swat at the time someone does that.

we are not going to be able to prevent all terrorist attacks. in the case of boston it was not a public citywide network that was so useful in identifying perpetrators, it was the camera outside of a department store. only ifon more cameras, you -- only eight you operated by government, installed since 9/11. we may be able to get a lot of the after the fact benefits. so many private businesses are already installing their own. there is an added civil liberties benefit there. those cameras are not on the network. you can get the evidence you

need to solve a crime that you have not created a citywide surveillance system. that can be used to track someone over months or years. host: you described on the cato institute website, the idea of a little brother per se is having little brothera as opposed to having a big brother watching. >> recently there was a case where they released a photograph of a child pornographer on the internet and they got calls in. that can be problematic. it you see something, say something on the subway system. never tell you how many of those were something. it seems like you would get a lot of false reports that way. by distributing the surveillance tower you are using to apprehend

people in cases like this, you tend to avoid a lot of concerns people have about centralizing power, about creating a set of eyes that looks one way. they are watching us, we are not able to watch back. a little brother model says people will help with the kind of surveillance technology be carrying around with us in a case we recognize as important. host: darrell is leading from detroit, michigan on our democratic line. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. i think we will reach 1984. that for not realize every surveillance operation that comes to sunlight there are probably 15 or 20 that do not.

right now we have the utah nsa billing in progress. of computer monitors alone. know what protections the american citizen has against domestic surveillance on them by a the nsa computer in utah. guest: he highlights an important point. especially as technology changes the problem of not being able to change -- to gauge the scope of surveillance -- some of that is a function of national security powers. related surveillance powers are covert design.

it is a catch-22. there was a recent supreme court case that was an attempt to challenge the large scale wiretapping by the nsa. journalists and activists who had regular communication with sources or clients overseas said abilityaffecting their to communicate with their sources and they believe it violates the fourth amendment. yousupreme court said cannot prove you have been wiretapped yet. the problem is under the law they do not have to tell anyone they have been wiretapped. there may be good reasons for that but it does create a situation where affectively that

type of surveillance is effectively immunized from competition a challenge. contextthe criminal that is not, in national security but an ordinary law enforcement, technological change has opened up a gap between what is happening and what we are aware of happening. every year the u.s. report put out -- every year the u.s. puts out a report on wiretaps. what kind of crimes are investigating? cost?ch does it how many convictions connecticut -- convictions come out of it? surveillance of phone transactions and records, surveillance of location using

cell phones, which has apparently become a huge problem. the major phone carriers have been answering to congress, have been getting 1.3 million request of various kinds from government every year. and the part of the problem is unlike little brother we did not have any sense of how often this is happening, how many people are affected, what happens to that data. host: let us go to tracy on our independent line. good morning. i wanted to ask to the gentleman if he wanted to speak to the surveillance of financial transactions by banks.

guest: this is not something i am as familiar with. -- iinly this is an area know that when you compare it with national security letters -- host: these were the author writes letters -- these were the cauterized letters back in the patriot act? guest: it used to be you could get a limited set of records about someone you had evidence was part of a foreign terrorist group. remove that restriction so it was no longer just, you can get the record to someone. froms you can get records anyone with relevance to the

investigation. they're not totally frivolous or useless as to something you are trying to do. was 6000 in 2010. that does not count request for basic subscriber intermission. -- subscriber information. not counting those, only accounting records for more detailed financial communications data, we are talking about thousands if not tens of thousands of americans every year. can be paidrmation using national security matters. there are also the suspicious activity reports that banks are required to file. the numbers there are even more substantial. there is a huge information -- a

huge invasion of financial crisis that is not even required the government to proactively look at everything. they're just getting the data from the banks themselves. host: thomas on our republican line. caller: the question is regarding the ap. when they subpoenaed these records from ap -- the question i have is this, if it was such a secret this was happening and that is the reason they are going for these subpoenas, why didn't they subpoena first? since it was a small group they should have known about this incident. why didn't they subpoena the phone records of the people who were giving information through the white house and check the numbers that way? why send a big net out there for all of the people who potentially use those phones and personal e-mail records? that is the disgraceful part of this.

it should have been done with the people they knew how the information. -- they knew had the information. guest: the government is claiming they did that first. they did hundreds of interviews with the government. at on records for people who work at the government. apparently they didn't sign anything. that does raise the question, if they did not have records from these people showing their contact with the p -- with the ap, it was not clear what they were confined in the a. p. phone record. inwhat you're going to find

the ap phone record. they're on records were not showing activity that allows them to their right down to a small number of suspects. i am not sure what they thought there were going to find in the a. p. records. it certainly remains to be seen whether indeed they are going to have gotten anything useful out of these records they have subpoenaed. it would be a shame. it is clear from what reporters are saying already that this action has had a serious chilling effect on reporters and their ability to talk to sources. it is not clear yet that this is going to help them resolve the case. it would be ashamed if they had done this for no real benefit. host: andy is up next from columbia, south carolina on our independent line. caller: i enjoyed the show as always.

i really do not understand what the whole who plot is about this whole associated press thing. we have the right to privacy. wethe time of the technology live and sometimes that is not possible. the justice department is trying to keep us safe the best we can. the fbi, the cia, we have to trust that their intentions are honorable. herecome the republicans, is one of the reasons why i am not going to vote for them, they are just not credible. there was a lot worse transgressions done in the bush administration and nobody has been cast like this. all of theseticians walking ard talking about impeachment.

what is the big deal here? --st: the big deal is that thomas jefferson davis said it you have to choose between a government without newspapers or a newspaper without government he would have chosen no government but newspapers. a fundamentalthat part of our democratic system is the ability of the press to check government abuses. it is not a formal branch of government but because it before the state, an independent part of a functioning democracy. if you break that function by making it difficult for the press to cop -- the press to talk to government sources or any source that means anonymity to speak, you have removed an essential feature as essential

as oversight by the courts that makes our system function. our constitution is not based on trustct that we need to their intentions. the bill of rights is a long document explaining the ways we are not going to trust the government in their intentions but rather limit their power because even if the intentions are good it is too easy to forrmine the prerequisites a functioning democratic system. host: he is a research fellow at the cato institute. you can check out his work at cato.org. up next we will be talking with the executive director of the women's action network. first we will take a look at what is coming up on the sunday

shows with c-span radio. >> wanted a's sunday talk shows topics will include the irs, the department of justice investigating thsopress, immigrd the debt ceiling. c-span radio re-eyres the five programs with an dc's "meet the press." today's guest includes dan pfeiffer who is making a round of of the shows this morning. senateminority -- majority leader mitchell, and former defense secretary donna rumsfeld. at 2:00 p.m. it is fox news sunday with chris wallace who talks with standby for and budget committee chair congressman paul ryan.

theour o'clock it is face nation with cbs, bob schieffer talks with dan pfeiffer. also on the program is gary pruitt. the talk shows are brought to you as a public service but the networks and c-span. ashbery heirs began at noon -- the re-airs begin at noon. listen to them all on c-span in the washington area. you can download a free smart phone at or go online to c-span radio.org. >> how you feel about discussing

your signs in 30 seconds? >> imagine you have a yardstick. if you cut it into 10 identical pieces and threw away nine. ane that thing, cut it into 10 identical pieces. if you do this 10 times to get the size of an atom. suppose you do that 35 times, what is left of our you divorce? we have no instruments to measure that. our divorce.ft of we have no instruments to measure that. i tried. my wife is often asked by people when they find out that i am a theoretical physicist, "what does your husband actually do? " she says i make up stuff for a living. the way i prefer to thomas' story -- a novelist takes words and sentences and makes characters and tell stories. the theoretical physicists do the same thing except we use

numbers to tell our stories. if we are good at what we do our stores correspond with something that happens at nature. that was my attempt to boil down a very 32nd sound byte mode, -- a very 30-second sound byte mode what i do. >> more with s. james gates jr. tonight at 8:00. " host:hington journal -- we are joined by a anu bhagwati. can you talk about your personal reaction to the pentagon report from your experience as a marine

officer. did the numbers surprise you? guest: when i served assad is regularly in my own unit. commandernately somaw negligence regularly. it was difficult to get these reports through the chain of command. oftentimes in my experience field grade officers would sweep the state -- would sweep these things under the rug. that continues to be the case. you have young troops, 20 years old, who are not indicating the two are navigating the chain of command. it is not like a civilian world where you can go anywhere you want. and at the end of the day you can quit your job and you do not have to live with your perpetrator. you do not have to work for your perpetrator. it is very different in the military.

these were not official reports, they were gathered through an anonymous generalization survey which is done every two years by the department of defense. the vast majority of these 26,000 did not feel safe enough to officially report because they felt there would be intimidated, retaliated against, and punished. that is certainly true in my own experience and continues to be true today. >> you talk about the number of official reports is less than what was estimated in the survey. the number of reported sexual assault in the u.s. military pastor was 3374. linean see the trend rising since 2004. what we are showing our viewers -- and talk about the back history here. how long has the military recognized sexual assault as a real problem in the ranks?

guest: there have been some enormous this candles -- enormous scandals. this problem has read this problem has existed for decades within the ranks. the only reason we are paying attention to it today is because we have seen so many women served in a frock and iraqnistan -- served in and afghanistan. iraq and0 have died in afghanistan. tens of thousands have come back with wombs of wars. when the nation sees women are earning superstars and bronze stars on the battlefield they want to support them. that is one of the great things about this country. -- theional attention spotlight in the last couple of years -- it is long overdue. we get calls on our health line.

research 50 states. we even get calls overseas from an and women who have been harassed and assaulted. some of these folks have been insulted way back in times during the vietnam era, during world war two era. it is devastating to realize that. there has been a huge amount of silence and collective suffering among the veteran population when it comes to sexual violence. oftentimes there is a great sense of relief. host: we should know that the survey found both went -- both men and women can be the perpetrators and victims of sexual assault. guest: over half of sexual assault in the military are commited against men. it is a shocking fact for most americans to realize. sexual violence is not exclusive to women.

tois a great reminder for us try to fix this problem. it is not a women's issue. it is a military issue. rate is about power and control. -- rate is about power and control. we are a policy advocacy organization that and it is not only in policy reform with the military and of the a. but we also offer a national health line. -- and db 8 but we also offer a national help line. we have become a national voice for reform when it comes to improving the climate in the military, in making sure that women who want to serve can serve. host: we will put the numbers on the screen, the phone lines are open.

she is the executive director and co-founder of the servicewoman's action network and a former captain and company commander. she served as a marine officer from 1999 to 2004 and was the second woman to complete the marine corps martial arts program instructor training school, earning a black belt in close combat techniques. she is here to answer your questions. we will start with ray from river falls, wisconsin on our independent line. morning, thank you for your service. us a littleuld tell bit about what is going on in the military with regard to sexual assault, how rampant it is, what is the response to it. are some of our female members responding by taking members into their own hands and taking

care of these perpetrators? what has actually been going on and what is being done to this point? host: as you answer that question we will put up some stats from that sexual assault in the military 2012 survey that gives us the numbers of the report so you can talk about some of the reaction. guest: the military has been active in responding to this crisis. not in a way we find particularly affected. effective.arly the focus on training. we get a lot of mandatory training. we call it that by our point where you are flooded by extremely boring mandatory trainings, oftentimes i am listed leaders or officers -- oftentimes by unlisted leaders -- to find aho are

meaning in it themselves. not consistent with meaningful training. you see a lot of the complaining in the content of the messaging coming from military leaders. that has to change. we cannot train our way out of this crisis. part of the problem is that criminal justice has to be reformed within the military. the uniform code of monetary justice is a separate set of laws that applied to the military. it is about 250 years old. back then during the time of george washington our military looked very different than it does today. they what we need is for system to be as professionalized as possible. it needs to be under the purview of partial -- of impartial attorneys and judges.

at the end of the day attorneys and judges are in charge of it. the military is commanding officers to determine whether a case goes to trial, who was selected as an attorney -- as the jury and judge. they can overturn a conviction, which we have seen recently in a couple of high-profile cases. there is no reason for a to be -- tofficer have the power of a judge and jury or to have the power of attorney. commanding officers are busy enough as it is. with all sorts of other real national security issues out there, why put this on their desks as well? our commonsome of law allied nations have professionalized their system. the christian -- the committee

on justice system is in the hands of attorneys and judges. it is a better system. it works better for the accused and that for the pac-10. i would like to point out it works better for the accused because today's military justice system -- it is the commanding officer who is responsible for the chain of command of the accused. no party is served well. -- accused host: i should note that in this segment for the next half hour we will also have a special line for active military to: at 585-3883.l in at 202- a question on twitter --

guest: we work very closely with both sides of the aisle. there are strong democratic and some republican support for many practical solutions. legislation that was introduced by senator get a brand -- center to a brand. it would put cases like rape and assault in the hands of impartial attorneys and judges. she has been a hero to many of us. writes in -- can you talk about these recent news reports that have been giving the military another

black eye on the issue? >> it is outrageous. every time you hear of one of these cases you want to shake your head and cried shame. there are approximately 20,000 service members in charge of these types of positions. unfortunately it is not a unique case. i wish it was just in case of bad apples here and there. we're high-profile cases talking about a career officer, lieutenant-colonel. it is awful but it is not the unusual. officers are not infallible by their nature. rank does not give you more courage. rank does not endow with moral leadership. oftentimes the military incentivizes promotions with different tours of leadership.

that is a whole different type of leadership. i have seen field rank officers who did amazing things on the battlefield. they were heroes in iraq and afghanistan but they did not know at all how to handle discrimination and this vote in their own unit. they were in over their heads. host: as to the report, president obama met with some of the top military advisers he has to talk about sexual assault in the military. i want to play you a little bit of him after that meeting. [video clip] askhat i have done is secretary defense haggle to continue to get at this. accountability. that means at every level and

that includes an accountability not only for forcing the lot -- for enforcing the law but putting our best people on this challenge. i am not sure we have incentivized our top people to understand that this is as core to our mission as anything else. we have to reward them to not andk of this as a sideline incentivize ambitious folks believe the ranks to make sure it did understand this is important. that is a part of accountability. that was president obama with his secretary of defense and general dempsey. here's a quote from the associated press story last week on this issue --

talk about losing the confidence. guest: i think he is facing a retention crisis. we have always faced a retention crisis when it comes to women in the service. it is not only because of sexual assault but also because of legalized sex discrimination. many women go into the military and all of the branches -- wanted to deploy multiple times to iraq and afghanistan. they are not encouraged to stay and not encouraged to be challenged. there are two hundred 38,000 jobs that are still off-limits to a mitt due to legalized sex discrimination. that are still off limits to women do to legalized sex discrimination. women are not allowed to compete

for many of those assignments. it causes a culture of harassment. in ando not want to stay institution that encourages that kind of harassment and discrimination. they need to link these issues. it is not just harassment and assault. he also suggested that the reason we are facing a sexual assault crisis is because of all the strain on the troops over the last 11 years of war. that is just wrong. sexual assault has been endemic within the military for decades. phenomenalto some local reporting. that has shown the spotlight on this issue. oft is slowing of the case the lieutenant colonel general.

because of the media. it is not because we have a new problem. ohio lara is waiting from on the independent line. good morning. am a 10-year army veteran. the sexual assault and harassment, i am a victim of both. i can tell you the harassment and tourism to put on female is worse than the physical. time --gle mom at the ultimately the debt forced out. -- ultimately i get forced out.

part of the investigation where eh cid came from detroit. they interviewed me multiple times. what the va does, and i'm appeals,he board of what they do is re-traumatize you. -- i haveght since ptsd. since 1991 the they do not look at that. they need to address those issues. the hiring increase is people having the guts to reported.

i like to know who is addressing the issue of the d.a.? -- of the va? they want to avoid you. or they ignore what the doctors say. i had four examiners. guest: thank you for sharing your experience. tens of thousands of women were able to come forward and work on this issue in more meaningful way. to address the va issue we have militaryith them on sexual trauma claims. many viewers will recognize the 1 million claims that are stuck in backlog.

the lesser-known story is that if you are a victim of sexual trauma in the military and you file a claim for compensation it is extortion lead in -- it is excruciatingly difficult. that information would prove how hard it is to get one of those military sexual charges claims past. if you have post-traumatic stress you are 21% most likely to get your post dramatics exclaim past. has an unequal policy. there's a higher burden of proof for sexual trawl before sexual assault victims than for veterans who suffered combat trauma. -- hire burden of proof for sexual assault victims and for veterans who suffered combat trauma.

she is the face of this issue. we are not going to give up on sexual trauma claims. they should not be considered secondary related to combat. host: 10 on twitter asks for more stats on breaking down the percentage of assault -- ken on twitter asks for more stats on breaking down the percentage of assault.

we are talking with anu bhagwati from the service women's action pour. we have an active duty caller from alexandria, virginia. good morning. have -- obviously the sexual assault issue has been taking up a lot of time. there are a couple of things i just wanted to touch on. had seven hours of sexual assault-related training in the last year. not one minute of it was devoted to how i can reduce the chance of being sexually assaulted. arestatistics you mentioned

late and said it did nice -- you mentioned are late and on saturday nights. people have familiarity with the facts. have serious rape allegations that would be considered sexual assault. a significant number of them are for -- i am a woman and i have gotten three of my male colleagues from work. there were two guys in the rim. i got in one bed with one of the other guys. he tried to make out with a. sex but that is a sexual assault allegation. seriously and he gets investigated. when we are putting of this week talking about the statistics --

talking about the statistics you have 19,000 rapes last year. management in- every other environment. we teach children not to touch the hot stove, we train all kinds of safety procedures, we should be addressing that. the senator didn't misspoke when she talked about 26,000 rapes. those were unwanted sexual contact that include sexual assault and rape. it is very dangerous to suggest that most of these cases are many of these cases were like the one the caller described. chief of staffe

victim blaming and suggesting that hookup culture is really underlying this crisis of sexual violence. we need to train our young women and men to engage in a corporate and legal sexual contact or intercourse based on consent. -be part of any young adult and .eenage training many of the cases we deal with do not fall into that category. we are talking about unwanted sexual contact and rape. that is criminal behavior and it is not being treated properly. i like to point up the military is the very different environment in the surreal

world -- is a very different environment than the civilian world. differentccess to legal remedies that are currently not available for the military victims. what of the biggest deterrents to replace rusted and discrimination is civil suit. ando harassment discrimination is a civil suit. civilians now at the end of the day they can do that. judges will hold their employers responsible for improving the workplace environment. that is something we really need to remember. a lot of folks like to compare

the civilian universities to the environment at the academy's or within the military is because it is the same age group. it is a completely different culture. in college more than 50% of your student body is female. we have under age drinking in that age group. at the end of the day if you are sexually assaulted, if you have legal recourse in the civilian world that he cannot have as a pfc or lance corporal in the military. you have civil rights acts. you do not have that in the military. givenderal courts have deference to the military time and time again for almost 65 years. from oceans waiting view, new jersey, and retired

military member. my question goes to -- are these incidences greater than the civilian population or different? the second thing i would like to say is i feel this is more of a problem, the failure of the office -- and responsibility. guest: there some as we did some evidence that indicates sexual assault is more pervasive in the military. some indicate it is the same and the civilian work place. .t is very hard a woman being consulted in the civilian world, often times they will look over the course of their lifetime. ands comparing apples oranges. i like to leave the numbers aside because it is hard to

compare them. i focus on culture and the acts being addressed. have less freedom of movement as a young jr. service member. you cannot go anywhere you want to. you are always under the scrutiny of the chain of command. you have less privacy, especially as a woman in the military were only 15% of the military is female. it is a very unsafe and confined institution. can speak to the question of perhaps the difference between training of a listed officers. guest: the problem does lie with the officer corps. as a former officer i can say that there is a lot of the the run up -- a lot of ego wrapped

up in the chain of command. you are responsible for everything in your unit but it does not mean that he should be the one determining the fate of criminal cases. commanding officers are not attorneys. they are not professional in that respect. we should be training for deploying and war fighting. that is where our expertise should lie, not in being attorneys where we have no legal training. a question from twitter asks about how many assault charges --

guest: i can say that the fbi has debunked of this false allegation conversation. 2% to 8% of rape and assault claims are false. we really need to leave our troops. i would encourage the caller to have faith in the men and women who are serving our nation. that some of the problems you're seeing from folks to come to you? the fear of not being believed? guest: i would say in every case there is the fear of not being believed. yourre usually blamed by chain of command, oftentimes by our family and friends.

there's a desire to consider the military perfect. we all want to believe wholeheartedly in the men and women who are serving our military. they are serial creditors. -- serial predators. they're using tactics to weaken the credibility of their victims. we're seeing that with some of the callers as well. they were wondering whether our survivors are credible. they are absolutely credible. as one of the earlier callers pointed out, when you come forward oftentimes you're the one who was punished. we are dealing with legal cases from callers to our headline to were dealing with diocese and mental health conditions. stresst posttraumatic from their rape or assault.

diagnosed asare mentally ill. their life changes even more so. they are suffering from the top so quinces -- from the consequences of not just rape and assault but economically. they are marked, they are stigmatized. -- the trailrail that our military officers experience is so deep. some survivors of sexual assault spoke out on thursday.

that is according to a cnn story. backed the phones from mesquite, texas on our independent line. a want to thank the military for their service. outuld also like to find whether or not the personnel that have engaged in this -- this behavior behavior will likely continue when they are out of the military.

will the outside be informed of this criminal behavior of her trader. that is a great question. what we know is that sexual predators in the vast majority of cases are serial predators. there and commit this crime dozens of times. the second thing we know is that the military in the past has not done a good job of preventing sexual predators from entering the military or making sure that they are discharged. right now we have legislators working to get the front end and that can problem fixed. ,hey are required, if convicted to register for their local state sex offender registries. sometimes in moving from one

state to the next sexual prayers' will fail to register with their state. failed to predators a register with their state. host: back to our military line have set up for this segment, calvin is up next from radcliff, ky. go ahead. i just wanted to mention that at the end of the training they have a via the -- sexual assault as an occupational hazard. this has to do with senior leadership. to be on the leadership to get the problem and make the decision. a lot of people are afraid.

we live in a time when the military is cutting down. if somebody is saying this is happening to me the military is -- there's a lot paperwork and process that they have to go through. some point we just need to get rid of this problem and move on to someone else. it is an integrity issue, a moral issue, a leadership issue. this is not only an issue for individuals in the military but also a leadership issue at large. guest: i would agree it is a leadership issue but leadership cannot entirely fix this problem. if there are military leaders, either senior enlisted or opposite leaders, who see sexual assault and their own units absolutely they must prosecute those cases.

among many ofre our senior enlisted officers to sometimes protect those that have been in the wild, took out for someone's family. that cannot be the case anymore. as long as we have commanding officers who are in charge of the legal system, they absolutely need to punish these sexual predators. the military has not fixed this problem in decades. host: how long you think it is going to take to fix this problem and are you confident it will be solved? guest: if we can be sure that the military justice improvement act gets passed this year -- host: that is the legislation sponsored by gillibrand?

guest: it would take cases and give it over to an impartial does and attorneys. we are going to essentially fixed the problem of a 250-year old legal system. years the federal court has sided with the military when it comes to individual service againstbringing claims the military. we do not want rate to be an occupational hazard. -- rape to be an occupational hazard. it has been used to describe sexual assault and other crimes and acts of a negligence that have no business in our vocabulary. one should not expect to be sexually assaulted when they joined the military. the courts are using this kind of language in a show of military difference.

we have to be sure that service members can have access to both seats. bhagwati is the director of the service women's attack network. tomorrow we will have william kristol. about the latest news coming out of washington the the irs hearings to attack in benghazi. we will also be joined deborah to talk about dropping the alcohol levels for .08 to .05. will be alan bjerga here to talk about the farm bills being put through

congress. we will see you here tomorrow at 8:00. on "washingtonhere journal." hos >> today "newsmakers" with chris and van hollen, at the top democrat on the budget committee. then the immigration and border security bill. then robert mahler testifies on the 2014 budget request. >> we want to welcome back congressman chris van hollen pureed thank you for being here.