tv Washington Journal CSPAN May 25, 2013 7:00am-10:01am EDT
7:00 am
energy publishing reporter emily yehle looks at how automatic budget cuts are impacting national parks. "washington journal" is next. ♪ good morning and welcome to "washington journal" on this saturday, may 25, 2013. it's the start of the memorial day weekend. monday is the federal holiday honoring men and women who have died serving in america's military. as we reflect on the meaning of memorial day, we'd like to hear from you, what would inspire you to serve in the military. ere are the numbers to call --
7:01 am
we also have a special line set up if you're active or retired military. that number is 202-585-3883. you can join us online. find us on social media, tweet us, join the conversation on facebook by looking for c-span to weigh in. research center has a report this weekend looking at the public perception of veterans and americans involvement in serving in the military. it says on memorial day there's public pride in veterans, but at a distance. as the nation prepares to celebrate memorial day, most americans have feelings of pride and the soldiers who fought in americas post-9/11 conflicts. but the public that will be observing the holiday is also one increasingly disconnected from the military and the war's it's fought since 2001 compared to those who lived in the wars of the 20th century.
7:02 am
about nine in 10 americans said in a 2011 survey said they felt proud of the soldiers who served in the post-9/11 era and 73% said they had thanked someone in the military for serving. but the appreciation comes against a backdrop of a widening gap. here's military participation. pew research center shows that total population in the armed thees world war ii, down in korean war, the vietnam war, then the gulf war. post-9/11 wars 2001 to present. we're asking you this morning what would inspire you to serve in the military. is there an event or a belief that you hold or a family connection that would inspire you to serve or has inspire you
7:03 am
to serve. or is the answer nothing, perhaps you've found other ways to serve. good morning, paul. caller: good morning, how you doing today? host: good, how are you? caller: good. i'd like to thank all the members of our armed services for serving their country, and i hope them and their families are well. at this point in time, i wasn't able to serve under military. i'm 62 years old now, but, as far as i'm concerned with this administration that we have now, i would be discouraged to go into any of the military, especially what happened in ben gauzey, for those people are left behind. whatever happened to the saying in the military that everybody comes home? apparently that got lost in this dministration.
7:04 am
host: so paul telling us that politics factors into his thoughts about serving in the military. matthew tweets us in and says -- pew research center shows that the public and veterans agree generally, americans don't understand much about military life. the percentage saying that the public understands the problems that those in the military face. post-9/11 veterans say 15%, only 15% say the general public understands the problems those in the military face. 84% say they don't understand them well, not well at all. looking at pre9/11 veterans, 22% says the public does understand well or fairly well, then 76 not
7:05 am
well. 27% say they do understand the problems those in the military face. 71% say they do not. we see pew elaborating on this, saying that majorities of americans surveyed in 2011 did not think the wars in iraq and afghanistan were worth fighting. but even the opposition to those wars and the gap between the military and the public did not undermine the level of appreciation the americans expressed for soldiers. well, president obama gave his weekly address today and we can take a listen to what he had to say in his reflections on memorial day in military service. >> and on monday we celebrate me memorial day. and the start of summer, time to spend with family and friends, barbecues on the beach, getting in a little fun and relaxation in before heading back to work. also a day we set aside some time on our own or with our families to honor all the men
7:06 am
and women who have given their lives in service to this country we love. they are heroes, each and every one. they gave america the most precious thing they had, last full measure of devotion. and because they did, we are who we are today, a free and prosperous nation, the greatest in the world. at a time when only about 1% of the american people bear the burden of our defense, the service and sackry face of our -- the service and sacrifice of our men and women aren't always readily apparent. that's because they're so skilled at what they do. it's also because those who serve tend to do so quietly. they don't seek the limelight, they don't serve for our admiration or even our gratitude. they risk our lives and many give their lives for something larger than themselves or any of us. the ideas of liberty and justice that make america a beacon of hope for the world. that's been true throughout our
7:07 am
history. from the earliest days when a tiny brand of revolutionaryries stood up to the 9/11 service members who continue to service today. host: we're asking you what would inspire you to serve in the military or what has inspired you. evin writes in on twitter -- we see another opinion from bill ho writes in and says -- let's hear from doc, abilene, texas, republicans, line. hi doc. caller: good morning. i was inspired to serve in the military because i got drafted. but i joined the air force, and i served for 33 years, and i can say that what this country misses is that we did have one thing in common is that no
7:08 am
matter whether you were rich or poor, that ping-pong ball didn't care. but it did show you a life and you saw things you may not have ever seen. i think the thing today is, i would like -- memorial day, i did lose friends in three different conflicts, but i would like to apologize to the troops that are serving today because folks, we just didn't do a good enough job for you, and our leaders aren't doing a good enough job for you. and for those who served in world war ii, we didn't live up to your standards. host: doc, why did you make a career out of it? caller: kind of like it was my calling. when you don't understand something you tend to. in today's society, you know, in the early 70's, you tended to
7:09 am
put it down. once i saw what it was all about, this country is hard. and part of it is serving. what i don't enjoy is what i'm seeing today. i see a government that doesn't care, i see a press that doesn't care. it makes me sad. i'm 62 years old, like the other caller. you'll have a whole generation, we've gone two generations now without the draft. i didn't like being drafted, but once i got there, this country's hard. host: ok. caller: it's very hard and to serve is an honor. host: let's go to queens, new york. caller: good morning, my name is craig and i want to wish the soldiers a good day today. but i'd like to say -- hello? host: yes, we're listening. caller: there's sort of a disconnect between serving now because of the prosperity of the country during world war ii,
7:10 am
they were just coming out of the depression, people were looking for sufficient to do. the threat was more obvious. now with the invention of drones and nuclear submarines and nuclear submarine captain is like the 10th most powerful country all by himself. so with less people you can do more. with one drone, nobody's risking their life anymore. so people don't feel as attached that they need to put body and limb out there for sacrifice when the modernization and maybe nization of war -- host: and one word i didn't catch, efeminization? caller: meaning a lighter footprint, you can do more with a lighter footprint. sort of a technical term, you can do more with less,
7:11 am
basically. host: james, independent caller and retired military, hello sir. caller: yes, this is james russell, how you doing? host: good thanks, sir, how are you? caller: i'm good. i'm retired, disabled and served three tours in the gulf war. i'd like to say the members that served in world war ii, they fought for a greater cause, a cause to protect the world. hese skirmishes like korea and gulf war, those are just petty little things that put men and women in harms' way just to make a political statement. and it's easy for all these people to say oh, yeah, we need to get involved with this and that. but they're not the ones on the ground getting shot at, getting killed, and i have to pay the
7:12 am
price every day now because i got hurt. and luckily i got my retirement, or my disability through so i'm not part of that crowd that's still waiting. nd i feel terrible for them. but i served because we needed people like me. if somebody don't stand up nobody will. my daddy brought me up to be proud of my country and we all have to give back. and that's pretty much why i served. host: thank you james. carl, pennsylvania, republican caller. carl, we're asking you this morning what would inspire you to serve in the military? caller: yeah, well, i did serve, and the reason i served, i go way back to world war ii, when my brother who's older than i
7:13 am
was, was drafted into the service, and he served, and he came back, and then later, the korean war happened pretty quickly and we were just getting ready, we were in college, so we all decided that we didn't want to be drafted, we wanted to be able to pick out our own career. so we enlisted. i can remember through all the things, and ending up in alaska for l places, doing work the government. but anyway, it was very, very interesting to do and i'm glad i did it. they gay me a college degree, and i couldn't say anything but nice words about the military today, yesterday and back in my own day. host: carl, thank you for your call. ere's what gary tweets in --
7:14 am
abby in anderson, south carolina, independent. hi abby, first woman caller this morning. what are your thoughts? caller: well, hello. i was just wanting to call and say thank you to all of our service people. i think that they go way above and beyond the call of duty, especially today. my father served in world war ii, marched across europe. my oldest brother served two tours in vietnam. i had a brother in the army in the red berhett, and another brother served in the first gulf war in the marines. and my heart just goes out to all of the troubles that have happened in this war, because it s just so much more intense, and i agree with, i think it was the first caller hen he said that we just are not doing
7:15 am
enough for our young men and women, you know. what did happen to everyone come home? host: abby, did you ever think about serving yourself? and what would inspire you to serve? caller: well, actually i did consider going into the air force when i graduated. i'm 49 years old now. but then i had a family. i got pregnant and i raised a wonderful son and daughter, and -- but i wish i could have. host: why? caller: because this is a wonderful country. and i believe that it deserves to be fought for and we should be thankful for everything that we have. host: here's what joseph writes in. s for first a.j., north carolina, retired.
7:16 am
hi there. caller: hi, good morning. i served in the navy, i did 20 years. and what inspired me to serve, i'm actually an immigrant and i, it was just something that i felt like i needed to do. and as soon as i was finished with high school, i actually wanted to join the marine corps, and my parents were like oh, no you would not. so i joined the nativey instead, did 20 years, served overseas, i recruited, and this country's an awesome country. and i don't understand people who, in an all volunteer to tary, want to be -- want equate it to working as a civilian. it's not the same thing. so you can't think of the monetary rewards, it's the other things. i got so much more out of it that i'm glad i did my 20 years
7:17 am
and if i were to do it today, i would probably not because i don't have any respect for the leadership of this country. i have no respect for a president who himself never served, but i have marines holding umbrellas over his head. i hate that. host: a.j., you served for many years through quite a few different white house administrations. so whoever was in power in the white house, or in congress, did that influence your feelings about serving while you were in the military? caller: you know, when you're wearing the uniform, you kind of ave an obligation to serve and respect whoever the american people vote for as the commander in chief. so, even though i served with bill clinton as president and with good morning bush as
7:18 am
president, you know you don't look at it as i'm not going to serve because once you have the uniform on, whoever is the president is who is your commander in chief. host: ok, jan writes in and says phyllis, arizona, independent caller. what would inspire you to serve in the military? caller: i'm medicare aid, so i couldn't serve and when i graduated, they didn't let -- they didn't suggest that girls serve. all three of my children have served. my oldest son was in the marines 20 years. he was inspired when he heard mccain came to his cool, in high school. my second son is in the air force, 27 years now. the air r was in force, two of my grandsons, won served, one is in now. and i just so appreciate what the military does, and i know i
7:19 am
taught my children that. but they came up on their own to o in the military. they sacrifice a lot being away from their families, and i thought everything we had we have in the military past and present. i'm so appreciate tive. host: robert, chicago, illinois, retired military. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to say that i echoed quite a few of the things that have already been said, but 20erved in the air force for plus years and i would not serve today either. i mean, i have two adult kids, i still call them kids, but they desired no, they desired not to even come close to serving in the service. it's because of not having any trust first of all in the way the government cares for their
7:20 am
soldiers. -- at france what happens look at for instance what happens with seal team six. who killed bin laden was so advertised, promoted so much, 22 of them killed at one time because they knew they were getting on that helicopter. now that is not -- i mean, you even had a very high ranking general that used to be part of special forces and said shut your mouth! i mean, this administration has no idea as to what it's doing with this military. it's playing a chess game with us. and it's so sad, it's really, really sad. host: we talked earlier about the percentage of americans who have served in the military. let's look at this graphic again as we hear from many veteran callers. you can see the percentage of the total population that served in world war ii going on through
7:21 am
the years, major wars and conflicts and you can see here 2001than 1% post-9/11 wars to present. james, fort worth, texas, republican and retired navy. caller: didn't retire, spent 10 years, vietnam war got me out in the middle of my service. we came home pretty bitter about that thing. my comment is i think we made a mistake. we fought against a draft because of the problems in the vietnam war. and the things that -- one of the reasons we fought against is because it wasn't fair. people with influence didn't have to send their children. today we call those people chicken hawks. i think we should probably reinstate the draft because the general public has absolutely no idea what it's like to serve in the military, and for us, for we veterans, especially for those of us who were wounded in combat, it's real offensive to hear people use the military as a political tool to attack the president or the other side.
7:22 am
host: all right, that's james. dwight, houston, texas, democrat, retired. hi dwight. caller: hi. i feel pretty much like the guy that just called. people that have no idea about what the draft really is. the draft is supposed to be something that levels the playing field where everybody you know gives and serves our country. but right now, we have more people like the ladies that called from south carolina and north carolina that have -- that transport those same ideas about our country, their feelings. they're willing to say they wouldn't serve under president obama, when really underneath it all, what they're saying is, we believe that bush or any other president, as long as they're
7:23 am
white, we're willing to serve. but reality is we're not following our constitution or the dreams of our forefathers. and that is that everybody is the same. it's ridiculous for those people to care, to put forth those ideas, even on the air. i don't know how to explain it any better than that. we need to have a conversation on racism in this country more so than anything else. host: thanks for your call, dwight. let's look at the u.s. census numbers. this is a snapshot of 2007. this is something they do every seven years so we'll see updated numbers next year. who are u.s. veterans. 21.8 million veterans in the united states. most of them male, however, 1.6 million female veterans. here's a breakdown by race and ethnicity. white alone, 17.5 million.
7:24 am
african-americans, 2.4 millions. also the numbers here for asias, 265,000. american indian or alaska native, 157,000. 1.2 ispanic or latino, million. this from the census bureau. we'll go onto our next caller, patricia in arkansas on the independent line. welcome, patricia. caller: hi. host: yes, go ahead. caller: the reason why i'm calling is because -- people who are ready for the military would better benefit. my dad has been a vietnam vet for a long time and it took him almost seven years to get any help. host: so patricia, what do you think that has meant for your family and what do you they it
7:25 am
makes you think about other members of the family joining the military? caller: well, my sister and her husband are in the military. but when my dad didn't get the benefits he need, i decided i won't let my children join the military because if they get hurt, it's going to take them forever to get the benefits they needed. host: ok. tony, district hites, maryland, retired military. hi, tony. caller: hey, good morning c-span. host: good morning. caller: i'm going to give you some real talk now. there's a lot of people that may serve. or there's people that serve for various reasons. the reason that i served at the time, because i was young, is because there was low unemployment in my city. and i think there is a good group of people that probably do that and then once you're in the service, then you begin to have
7:26 am
those values that veterans instilled in you to continue to serve. you begin to understand more i guess. now, i don't know about the guys that came in after 9/11, because 9/11 triggered a whole new different kind of people to come to serve their country because of maybe what happened. but that's the reason why i erve my country now. host: tony, you talked about what it's like to be young and make decisions. have your feelings really changed much over the years? caller: yes, ma'am, they have. i've gotten a political eye and i believe that 9/11 politicized, to me, after 9/11, the military then basically politicized. it's been used as a political ol to either benefit the democratic party or the republican party. now, i'm an independent thinker but i believe the republican
7:27 am
party has used 9/11 to make this country more devicive, and our military, and i think that's wrong. host: tony mentioned employment opportunities and how that contributed to his choice. let's look at what the census bureau tells us about where veterans live. we can see cities with the high in clarkville, tennessee. 24%, hampton, virginia, 20%. acksonville, florida, 22%, killeen, texas, nearly 29%. with states with more than one million veterans, california, texas, and florida. we also see some information from the census bureau about the incomes of veterans, their annual income is about $10,000 higher than that of the average american. you can see the income of veterans of about $35,000. the median income of nonveterans
7:28 am
$24,000. let's go to our next caller. jenny is in medical lake, washington state on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. host: sure. caller: i grew up in a military family, all the men in our family were military. most all navy or army. i would have joined myself back early, i'm 62, will be this year. but at that time when you were a divorced woman, if you had hildren, which i came from a very bad marriage, you were not allowed to give your parents or grandparents custody of your children if the natural father was still living. and i wasn't going to do that. so i forfeited. and it's something i've always regretted, you know, with hindsight. because what was a very bad marriage ended up being a very good grandpa.
7:29 am
so you just never know in life. but i agree so much with so many of the people this morning that have said their lack of respect and faith in the way our government is run right now. and personally i don't know how true it to be, just my own opinion. i don't believe that we should have a president that is not personally familiar with military. i've just always thought that way, probably always will. i know a lot of people like myself do. have a son what is medically -- i have a son who is medically ected to the military. just e lines and the -- the absolute heartship of trying
7:30 am
to get help right to the basics of food and shelter just amaze me. we just lost a very good elderly friend from world war ii this year. he was one of the original band of brothers. personally, individually blew up one of the bridges. loved his stories. but, he wasn't even a blip on the screen when he passed. i wish i knew how to salute properly, i think when we walk into our local grocery stores, our service stations or whatever, i'd love to salute all those young people in uniform. i think they just deserve our respect 300%. host: here's the front page of the "wall street journal" this weekend. a time to remember those who served, it shows tony garza on
7:31 am
the left and his brother visiting the grave of their father, a world war ii veteran. we're asking you this morning what would inspire you to serve in the military? hoto dude writes in -- another opinion on twitter, joy eric, new york, independent caller, go ahead. caller: good morning. the question, you're getting a lot of responders who are describing what did inspire them, a lot of people who did serve are calling in. and the question is really what would inspire. and simply enough for me, the thing that would inspire me would be that i would be wearing the uniform of the united states that actually represents some semblance of its founding
7:32 am
principals and its constitution. you know, that's coming from a blue-eyed white guy. so many of the people who do serve in our enlisted members are from black and brown and other core areas, and enlisting is about their only chance to get out of a bad hometown situation, especially with college costs becoming ridiculous. especially in relations and not only what kind of incomes, but if there is even one to be earned. they go and play bullet catcher so that halliburton can be first in line to get their line item off the black budget and then they come home maimed and there's hardly any support for them. so, i wonder what really inspires, outside of in recent years, the people who just ally were vengeful and patriotic after september 11. so i wonder what really leads someone to join, to enlist now
7:33 am
adays, to go in as an uncommissioned officer and how many of them, really that is their only choice, and they don't have a better option. so, but if we could actually have these people come home, and live in a constitutional republic that resembles what it was supposed to, i would join up if i thought that's what would be there for me coming home. host: all right, let's look at the census bureau. the education levels of veterans. veterans are more likely than the average american to have earned a high school diploma but ess likely to have completed a college degree. william, good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead, sir. caller: the reason why i asked to be enlisted during world war ii was because i had a relative infantry,ith the 54th
7:34 am
massachusetts. fifth went and became artillery massachusetts. my father was a buffalo soldier, a real one. and he served in the philippines and china. myself, i went into the pacific. the outfit i went to, the weapons were taken out and was the first american unit, not soldier, in new guinea and they took -- host: yes? caller: musical instruments and a band master. they helped stop the japanese , building into australia
7:35 am
an air field with no weapons. most of my brown stars and presidential citations are given to me when i didn't have a weapon in combat. i've been on nine different general d made macarthur says in combat landings. i made three. two without a weapon. i've been in heavy combat without a weapon. would i use, i believe it came out of a junkyard in australia. put it together and was
7:36 am
uccessful with it. now that is my experience with the military. host: thanks for sharing your story, william. some editorials today urge americans to think about the meaning of memorial day. colbert king writes on me merrill day we must do better. the observance of the establishment of the bureau of colored troops in the district of columbia occurred this week only a few days before memorial day. host: he ends his peace by saying give some thought to those in this country's history
7:37 am
who gave their last full measure of devotion. and here's another piece in the "washington post" from sally quinn who writes a spare moment to consider the meaning of memorial day. it's a day for memories, we remember those who fought and died in many wars and those who fought and survived. those who were willing to die for their country. and you can see above that an image from arlington national cemetery. well, on monday, c-span's "washington journal" will be talking about veterans and military issues. that will be the devotion of our show.
7:38 am
we'll also take your calls from viewers, we'll see some live images of the vietnam memorial, that's all monday morning, 7:00 eastern time on "washington journal." we're asking you this morning what would inspire you to serve in the military. our next caller is david. rather dennis, excuse me. maryland, retired military. hi dennis. caller: how you doing? host: good. caller: well listen, my biggest concern is i tell you, i served a long time in the military and i'm very disappointed in today's military. in fact my two children, i will not have forced them into the military, it was something they did not want to do. as one gentleman said earlier, i echo what we're saying. i think after 9/11 we politicized the military. i hate the way our members of congress and leadership uses our military by way of saying support the troops by way of
7:39 am
forcing folks who support wars. we should never go into unjust wars and i feel that's what we do to our young men and women today and it's very disappointing. the other thing when we talk bout the draft, sometimes we say that as well, we want people to volunteer, where sadly we're not touching america across the board, because it's truly, most of the time, young people in poor communities joining the military. we have our folks who have a life long desire to go to the mail -- go to the militaries and so forth. nd but the majority of enlisted are those who come from poor families and can't get a job otherwise. finally as someone mentioned earlier, when they come back from being wounded in war, it is hard -- war for them is lifetime commitment when they're wounded. i'll tell you right now the v.a. system is broken. keep this in mind, as we
7:40 am
continue to go to war, the health care is going to grow and we need to think about that. we need to use our men and women for just wars and oh by the way to defend the united states of america. then, our young men and women will fully and really join. host: well, dennis is a caller from maryland. president obama was in maryland at annapolis. naval academy graduation. you can see there one of the graduates. he called for moral courage and photographs in "the new york times." we also saw images on the front page of the "baltimore sun" the baltimore sun" showing this. carrying forth, he tells them to follow their moral compass throughout their military careers. looking at some other stories, the washington post has a front page image of the american flag hung from a stripped tree. this is in oklahoma where the flag has become a symbol of
7:41 am
hope, says the washington post. we see more about what's happening in oklahoma from this, in the baltimore sun. weary. for tornadoes, you can see one of the victims at the site of her home looking for some of her belongings. we see the front page of the seattle times long road ahead. looking at the skagit bridge collapse. a bigger repair will take time and cost millions. they have the story of a young man who talks about escaping his car as it filled with water. we see this story, national papers, the collapsed highway bridge had been listed as obsolete. the story comes to us from tribune newspapers. that is some of the history of the bridge that collapsed. a 58 -year-old bridge, listed as functionally obsolete in the national bridge inventory. front page of the arizona
7:42 am
republic, a judge says sheriff office racially profiled. a federal judge ruled that they engaged in racial profiling against latinos, it could bring significant changes to the agent sis controversial approach to immigration enforcement. some of the stories in the news this morning. we're asking you what would inspire you to serve in the military. let's go to david in peru, indiana, independent line. hi, dade. aller: hi, good morning. i'd like to first, with all respect, to salute my brothers and sisters in the armed forces and the coast guard. coast guard's very important. i served 14 years active duty and 12 years with the reserve, so again, it takes the active duty, the reserves and the guard to make up the armed forces. so, i salute all three.
7:43 am
the young man who called in, with all respect and love to says, understand what he but a -- second of all, there's no races in combat. an old veteran said you know when you're out in the combat field, you don't care what color the individual is next to you. you're in it together, and the only way to get out is together. and the group that i had when we were doing convoys that was with me was an all african-american and all the branches know that sometimes we know a little disagreement and a scuffle, we call that a soldiers quarrel. we were mixing up and training, all those guys they know i'm
7:44 am
talking about, those guys bailed out of the tent and said ergeant marshall's in a fight. but it was all good and all the guys and women know what happens en y'all stand in front of mustard and all the black and blues, and then anyway -- caller: david, before we let you go, we see on the front page of the "new york times," the taliban has attacked the afghan capitol. you can see children fleeing where blast in kabul, they stuck a compound. stories like this, attacks like this, do you think they influence the decisions of young men and women to serve? >> yes. i do. when we see innocent parties such as children being attacked, they're innocent. so i think it causes people, men and women of all ages.
7:45 am
our armed forces total is made up of men and women, uncles, aunts, and we had grandparents many my group. i mean, we had all ages serving active duty, guard, reserve. force.make up this this war is not just singled out -- with respect to vietnam vets. average draft age was 19, and i can't say for sure because in respect to vietnam vets, my uncle was over there, but i'm not part of that era. but from my understanding in high school, the average age of vietnam was 23, but i think our young people, when they say this, they're ready to go serve. so i support -- host: ok david, we'll leave it there and get one last caller in. ut first a tweet who writes --
7:46 am
ken, last caller, florida, retired military. go ahead. caller: well, thank you so very much. i'm a byproduct of the draft, so i didn't have any alternative. i'm in my late 60's now, and am a retired senior enlisted. now, i think this is an example of one of the greatest countries in the world. now it sounds like i'm trying to be local and that's a lot of rhetoric, but i'm a black man. i came from the same era that one of the previous callers said, but i had a choice. i could be part of the statistics of the young black kids that are now incarcerated, that are now suffering penalties for bad choices. but i make the right choice. and i heard a president, president kennedy said, and i heard that when i was enlisted.
7:47 am
said, think not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country. that stook with me. and if we can take a lesson from our society, young people that are listening today, and see how we evolve from the pinnacles of despairity and degradation and hostility and meanness and cruelness and to a nation that can, a man can rise up from the treets of florida and become a respected and resourceful participant in this thing we call democracy. now does that sound like something that was ordered from a text? but the way i feel in my heart. what a god, and what a nation we serve young people! and don't forget that. and i've seen two continents and
7:48 am
15 countries. i was one of the armies top trouble shooters for communications. went everywhere, seen everything. there's nowhere i would rather be than this nation! and have a wonderful memorial day! and god bless the leaders and the participants of one of the greatest nations on the face of the earth. host: thank you for your call, ken. couple of facebook comments to end things.
7:49 am
host: thanks for all of your calls and input for this segment. coming up next, we'll turn our attention to the keystone x.l. pipeline. cindy schild is our guest. later on, president obama called for stronger laws to protect journalists this week. even as his administration faces criticism for probing journalists records. we'll talk about laws to protect journalists with curt womener. on news makers this week, senator berny sanders, is our guest. he talks about the back log of veterans benefit claims at the v.a. and the efforts to bring the department into the digital age. >> what's important to understand is that for whatever reason, and i don't want to cast apersians, the v.a. was maybe one of the very few major institutions in american society that did not go from paper to digital. they didn't do that.
7:50 am
until they became secretary. so the first question we have to ask is why? every corporation obviously made the transition. so he comes into office and what ends up happening is there is a huge influx of new claims. now, what many people don't understand is that yes, the back ablely long. pt we are all embarrassed that they're waiting to get their benefits processed. unacceptable. end of discussion. what many people don't know is two things. number one, the v.a. has finally done what should have been done years ago and i think they deserve credit for finally saying look, we're going to move the paper. and he announced a very ambitious goal. i'm a politician, and let me tell you something. politicians don't get up here and say at a certain point i'm going to accomplish this. at the end of 2015, he said, all claims are going to be processed
7:51 am
within 125 days with 98% accuracy. so he didn't beat around the bush, he was out there. now, is he going to do that? my job among many others is to make sure he does do that. second point i would make that many people don't know, we can beat up on the v.a., fair enough, and we should. but we're also processing far more claims now than they ever have before. so we are monitoring them very closely. we have legislation that is going to have them on a quarterly basis saying look, this is where we projected we would be. this is where we are. so, there will not be any surprises. and if they are not moving as fast as they should be, we will find out why and we will provide the resources to make them achieve that goal. >> "washington journal" continues. host: cindy schild is our guest, where she is the manager of downstream and industry
7:52 am
operations. thank you for being here. guest: thanks for having me. host: want to talk to you about the keystone pipeline x.l. here's the headline in the hill. tell us about the house vote and what itment. guest: it's congress entering the picture, or reentering the picture. this has been a project that's been proposed nearly five years ago. it has to go through a process to get approval. ultimately that comes from the state department and the president. they've been taking a look at the environmental part of this equation for the past, again, five years. they have to make a decision if it's in the nation's best interest to build this pipeline. we believe it is, the vast majority of americans believe it is. congress believes it is. and it's our policy makers trying to encourage an approval of this vital project. host: the hill explains a little more about this particular vote, the bill that was passed would
7:53 am
improve the northern lake of the oil answer pipeline by an act of law and take that decision out of president obama's hands. the vote was 241-175. do you think congress should have a say over this or the obama administration? >> it should be about the project, it shouldn't be about politics at all. we had a process in place for years that would approve any project that crosses, or review any project that crosses the boundary between canada and the united states. the state department has authority to approve this project, and it just hasn't been done. and again, they haven't found any issues of significant concern in each of the four environmental assessments that they have done. so i think what's happening now is others are entering the equation to try to show what the people want and that vast majority of the labor community in a time where we really need these jobs in our economy.
7:54 am
>> the washington post has this story this morning. the most interesting aspect of this week's house vote in favor of constructing the keystone x.l. pipeline was not that it passed, which was widely expected, but it got 20 fewer votes than a similar proposal one year ago. why cindy schild? guest: that's just about politics of this legislation, or the bill itself. some of the players have changed, and a lot of the folks who didn't support this or vote in this particular bill, still are voicing support for construction of the project. when you look across the board, it still enjoys vast bipartisan support. host: let's take a listen to a democratic congressman, he spoke on wednesday on the house floor. he's significant because he's the ranking member on the transportation and infrastructure committee. let's take a listen. >> mr. chairman, last congress i voted for every piece of pro
7:55 am
keystone pipeline legislation that was brought before this body. every piece of pro keystone pipeline legislation. but you know, something's happened along the way between then and now. and that something is called a hijacking of this bill by the right wing. i support the keystone pipeline project. i believe it will be an important element in our domestic energy infrastructure. last congress i was pleased to support and vote for keystone legislation that was considered and passed by the house, including hr 193. however, i am opposed to the pending measure primarily due to section three of the bill. the bill we are considering today is vastly different from hr 1938. that was reasonable. hr 3 is absolutely not. instead of taking the straight forward aapproach that hr 1938 did, which set a specific deadline for the president to
7:56 am
grantor deny a permit for the keystone pipeline, the pending measure completely eliminates the requirement for a permit. it waives a permit, and it deems a permit application by a foreign company. by a foreign company for a major undertaking in the united states to be approved. as i said, i want to see this pipeline built. but it will not be built under this proposal. waiving permits, deeming permit applications approved for a foreign company? we don't even do that for our domestic companies. host: cindy schild, he talks about this bill being hijacked by the right wing. does this hurt your goal? guest: the goal, congress shouldn't be involved at all. again, i think the point, this
7:57 am
project needs to be approved. there hasn't been reason to not approve the project. there aren't anymore excuses. each time each environmental assessment, there have been four. so in order to issue a permit, one of those things to look at is the environment, so it's not that that hasn't been done. this project could have been mailed twice already in the time that it's taken to review this. in any other situation, every other pipeline that crosses internation borders has taken 18 to 24 months. this has become a symbol, now risen to a level, a political level. and it's really not about the benefits that the project itself will bring to consumers, which is additional supplies, to them bringing our state of the art refineries in the gulf. host: president obama, the white house, said the president would veto the bill if it were to pass the senate, this bill would move forward on approval of the keystone x.l. pipeline running through the united states. we see here in the national
7:58 am
journal that the house has passed this now for the seventh time but the senate is unlikely to do the so. there's an image of the top republican on the energy committee of alaska. does this create animosity or divisions that don't make the pipeline project as appealing to democrats, or the white house if the house keeps pushing this through with the same results and the white house is saying it's a no goo. you're using the wrong process to get a result? guest: i think you're seeing frustration, and energy efforts behind to get this moving forward. to create jobs and get the project completed. in full, 20,000 jobs, from manufacturing and construction of this pipeline, and that's just for the pipeline itself, not the jobs that are associated with bringing oil into the u.s. so it really has become more about politics and i'm sure people are frustrated and some
7:59 am
people are energized, in order to do whatever they can to see this approved. host: you would like to join the conversation and talk with cindy schild of the american petroleum institute, here are the numbers marie's up first in reston, virginia, independent line. hi marie. caller: good morning. yes, i believe that the pipeline short-term fix for a few people to have a job for a very limited amount of time and planet earth is very fragile, the united states, we do not need to take the chance of having that awfully dirty crude oil from canada coming down to our country, and perhaps having an accident here. and i also understand that once
8:00 am
the oil hits the gulf of mexico, it goes on the open market. it's not going to make gas cheaper for our people. i think natural gas is so much cleaner. petroleum is passe we need to prepare our children for the future. obama willing to bite -- is going to buy all of us big- time. host: let's get a response. guest: thanksmarie. i appreciate -- thanks, marie. i appreciate your concern. there are a lot of myths out there. we need all forms of energy.
8:01 am
this isrecast predicts going to be part of the equation. nothing is going to change overnight. we should be supporting natural gas. you cannot replace the one directly for the other. we should be looking at ways to bring in oil from canada into the united states. win situation for both of our countries. when you think about some countries that have the best management standards, the best environmental standards, the best fuel standards, it is our two countries. if the pipeline itself is an efficient way to transport oil as well. you also mentioned exports. this is something that has been coming up back-and-forth for the past few years. if you look at this pipeline, it is a pipeline that will run
8:02 am
about 1,700 miles from the alberta region in canada to our state of the arch refineries in the gulf of mexico. you think -- state of the art refineries in gulf -- the gulf of mexico. lms suggests building --ineries and refineries building refineries down the middle of our country is a security risk and a win-win for china. why not build refineries on- site? guest: that is a valid question that has come up. it is a complicated and complex process. upgraded and refined
8:03 am
material. products are coming down to the u.s. sometimes it is refined in the u.s. and going to places where investments have been made. millions of dollars have been invested to refine this oil. it is similar to the oil we have been refining from venezuela, from mexico, where we have been getting imports from in the gulf region. yearse been five years -- to build the pipeline. to build the refinery is not going to be easy. there are some smaller refineries being built in the north dakota area to help with our own domestic production. that is another thing that is missing from this discussion. 25% of the capacity of this pipeline will be picking up domestic production from our upper plains state.
8:04 am
this is not about canada's oil. is about our own oil as well. host: let's go to brady. schild.thank you, miss i want to thank the veterans and people currently serving. i agree. unfortunately, the obama has madeation politics out of everything, including the keystone pipeline. saw an article in a local where peopleer day how many people were wishing we have president
8:05 am
bush back in right now. this is cold politics. our country is suffering because of it. -- : guest: thanks for your call. it has been a political base -- political debate. congress should not have to be involved at all. congress. folks in you are looking at the labor community coming out in droves. warren buffett supports this pipeline. that theam before caller just mentioned, military security, national security, that is where the administration and the president have to decide next. this has been on the environment. at a time when we are looking at remembering and thanking those
8:06 am
who served for us, it is also in fact to consider our nation's interests and economic security and energy security and national security. if you are talking about being able to make fuel in this country as the value to domestically produced oil american energy security is certainly something when you are looking at the department of defense being the largest consumer of jet fuel. host: cindy schild is with the american petroleum institute. how much of the pipe is manufactured in the united states? majority is. the company in canada will be about to give you have some specifics.
8:07 am
8:08 am
this person from the petroleum institute, she is naturally going to say it is not harming the pristine lands where the of there.ng obtained i am against it for that reason. schild, respond to that criticism and tell us about the tar sands. canadathe operations in that extract the resources -- there are two ways. of the resources that is being extracted is being done via the mining. the other 80% is being done in situ. it is similar to traditional oil drilling, or drilling for oil where you just stroll when --
8:09 am
drilled a hole. hole.ll a the land that is being disrupted is minimal. there is an expectation of my response. but it is less than 3% of the minable area of being used. karen bass automatic reclamation requirements. has has hascanada has automatic reclamation requirements. removed, theys are required to reclaim the land. i saw a square. i saw a mine that was reclaimed. they have buffalo parks and other different types of activities. they are irresponsibly managing this land. from thesee
8:10 am
environmental group, 350.org quoting some industry leaders. the question they are getting to is whether the tar sands would be developed if not for the keystone pipeline. is the pipeline necessary to bring to market what is in the ground? the environmental group writes that there is an idea in american policy circles that the tar sands would be expanded in the same way whether the keystone pipeline would be expanded or not. it is not shared by experts who observe the industry on a daily basis. it has to do with the pace and being able to get the supply to market. in the most recent analysis from the state department, they said oil sands will be developed and it has nothing to do with this pipeline.
8:11 am
canadian oil will be making its way to our refineries with or without this pipeline. there are several railcars being added every day. hopefully he. he -- the added every day. this project hasn't come a symbol because it is receiving attention. he is in our nation's kansas. third huge host: -- host: the pipeline will have the capacity to move 35,000 barrels of oil every day. the u.s. consumes 791 million gallons of oil and freezes 294 million gallons of oil every day according to the energy information demonstration. while the pipeline's impact could be significant, the state department found that the oil would be transported in different ways.
8:12 am
we are getting more questions and comments on twitter, a variety of opinions. putting the environment at risk is foolish, to have oil, we do not own and still on our bread basket. tweets withe your spa -- @cspan @sc wj. this project was similar in size and purpose as keystone xl. it traverses several states within our country and it terminates at u.s. refineries. the state department approved it. obama signed off on it. hillary clinton bad about it as
8:13 am
being in show already project. if you go to the state department's website you can read all about this. what is different today with the keystone as opposed to the alberta clippers' that was endorsed and touted by this -- clipperklemperer -- that was endorsed and touted by this administration? caller: -- a great example. this is called keystone xl because there is keystone. it is time. you looked at the trajectory and you looked at the analysis and it has been determined to be state of the art. the benefits, when you look beyond the environmental
8:14 am
assessment, which has concluded time and time again that it has minimal impact on the environment, the oil sands are being developed. if you have concerns about the environment, where you think it will be managed better? here or in countries that are looking out for their interests and their future income both china and? they are making significant or inments -- here countries that are looking out for their interests and to their future? susan casey joined us and you can find an interview on our website. hour video library has links to all of our shows and guests. let's go to brian, an independent color -- caller.
8:15 am
you on thealked to northern broadcasting show. this was an executive order issued by president george w. bush. -- issued it,it nobody complained about it. i do not understand. the state department said they had a decision. the president said they would finish it up by the end of june. 38 votes they had in the house. it is all politics. guest: it certainly is. this is an issue you have talked to cindy about before. why does this issue interests you,? billingst affects
8:16 am
economically a lot. i follow it as part of our radio station affiliates in the northeastern part of the state. they have a lot of overflow. guest: we were talking this week in billings. there is support from montana and everyone along the route. education has been increased. as far as the executive order right now there is a process under the national environmental procedures act. after environmental review, next comes the part of the national interest. that is with the executive order comes. we were supposed to see a permit last year. we were supposed to see a permit the year before.
8:17 am
politics getting involved is unfortunate. it should just be about the project and the merits of the project. they stand on their own. this is in our nation's best interest. 50.org say the keystone jobs thatill create will be filled by local communities living along the route. and us about your jobs answer the question on twitter. be specific about what long-term jobs america would acquire. state i can tell you the department numbers. 42,000 jobs associated with this pipeline. you can look it up and read it. everyone is talking about
8:18 am
different job numbers. -- permanent jobs mentioned it is a pipeline. it is about the commissions action of this pipeline. if you talk to the labor community, labor leaders are taking issue with the fact that they are talking permanent jobs from an opposition standpoint. the san francisco bridge is built on temporary jobs. look at our infrastructure. it is the nature of their work. when you look at the state department analysis and the direct and indirect jobs associated, it is 42,000 for the life of the project. there are other benefits that go beyond. dee'sponse to dee question, the oil sands themselves and development of the oil sands with keystone excel has been committed to
8:19 am
increasing jobs by over 100,000 jobs by 2035. that could mean because throughout the u.s. there are different businesses that are working to provide equipment and things like tires and south carolina coast for some of the equipment and the trucks up there. because of that, this project is the to give it to another 100,000 jobs or more. oillf a million jobs for sands development exclusive of this pipeline. there are a lot of economic benefits associated with the development of oil sands for americans. barb is our next caller in bob is our next call in florida on the democratic line. theyr: why wouldn't
8:20 am
consider sending the pipeline across their clothes. i understand it would require additional spending for transportation. land that polluting would cause so many miles in the state? question.nks for your it is being done. keystone xl is not the only project on the table. the state department has found this oil is going to make its way to market. gulf coast.n whether it happens by going to the west or east coast of canada, there is another --ject, number gateway, number day we. karen bass as a natural gas line
8:21 am
-- there is another project, state way.orthern host: we are talking about the keystone pipeline. the house passed a bill to go ahead with the project. the white house said it would veto this particular legislation because it overrides the white house decision making process on the keystone pipeline. cindy schild with api. a couple of questions about disaster preparedness and cleanup potential. what kind of disaster preparation is in place? doesn't go beyond paper towels and dish soap? another your ask what happens if there is a spill?
8:22 am
emergencyre are prevention plans required throughout the route. 57nscanada has agreed to action standards or conditions they are going to monitor -- 57 action standards or conditions they are going to monitor. cleanup goes beyond dish soap. household issues go beyond dish soap. technology advances all the time. they have different monetary techniques. there is corrosion protection so that the pipe is not corroding. things that run through the pipeline to check for damages. it is closely monitored and regulated by the department of transportation. host: cape cod, republican.
8:23 am
caller: i agree that the pipeline should be built from a job standpoint. it is sad with the lady indicated. this has become a political football when it is a state department issued. that notwithstanding, i would like to know the american petroleum institute position. back in the 1930's, the petroleum industry lobbied for and got congress to declare as a narcotics. if you were to smoke a garbage bag full of hemp, could not get high. there is no product that is petroleum based that could be produced by growing this stupid weed, you cannot get high on. i would like to know what the
8:24 am
position would be an with they lobby against that bill. there is a bill in congress produced by a congressman in kentucky. create moreemp will jobs. the pipeline creates more jobs. it produces cheaper products in cheaper gasoline. guest: thank you for your question. then expert working in petroleum industry, we produce plenty of products. almost anything you touch comes from petroleum. does.ot sure that hemp our focus will be on positions that will impact our nation's petroleum industry as a whole. we will be looking at things that can benefit consumers from the production, transportation, .efining levels
8:25 am
host: the caller is talking about making other things out of petroleum. is that a threat to? threat?at a caller: no. we do not believe one should be .xcluded or penalized host: can you use m&a domain to cross the pipeline -- can you use imminent domain on the pipeline? guest: it applies to any company that is willing to access their right of way for the pipeline since they have not been able to negotiate successfully.
8:26 am
caller: i would like to ask a question and make a comment. theou know what happens to vacuum created by the extraction of all of this oil? doesn't get replaced by water in the earth or remain a fact end? i would like to make the statement after you answer my question -- does it get replaced by water in the earth or remain a vacuum? it would vary depending if you are talking about the mining operations versus directs drilling, the in situ operation.
8:27 am
caller: i would like to make a comment if i may. .4 million barrels a day or water is replacing that vacuum in the could that affect the equilibrium of the planet? we are talking about the rotation of the earth on its axis. you mentioned to the larger picture. this is my comment about the larger picture. i am a truck driver. haul a low in my truck. with shock absorbers in inicles, why is oil use shock absorbers?
8:28 am
8:29 am
go on with our next question and we will go to cindy. we have the highest gas prices in the united states. retrofitting are or doing whatever because of the poor management system. why are we not building refineries in north dakota to ?rocess the oil guest: two key questions. minnesota is experiencing the highest gas prices. it has been a concern raised by your congressman here. it has to do with a few saints. few-- it has to do with a things. one is the cost that goes into every single gallon at the pump.
8:30 am
the second thing to consider is state taxes. around 40 cents a gallon. crude has gone from 25 cents since april. that makes a difference. refiners have to switch by law to process crude into a different formulation of your fuel for summer bland. that takes place around the spring. there are a few factors that could be in place right now that can lead to temporarily higher prices. bringing those additional supplies in from the north dakota region, from canada, is certainly one way that can help consumers. i cannot forecast prices for you. i can use economic logic which dictates that more supply is good for consumers. when you look at the flexibility, which is another benefit of bringing this
8:31 am
canadian oil, bringing more domestic oil down to our refineries in the gulf, you are looking at our ability to not increase what we are going to provide and to make sure other haveries in sure that we fuel that our consumers need in a reliable way. , that passedity away -- we are exploring this. we manufacture 90% of the fuel we need here at home. building additional infrastructure like the keystone pipeline is one way to help control destruction or flows.
8:32 am
host: coming up next, journalists from the ap and fox news had their records subpoenaed raising concerns about the laws protecting reporters. we'll talk about proposed shield law. and later on, summer means trips to national parks. we'll talk with reporter from environment and energy publishing about how budget cuts are affecting national parks. we'll be right back.
8:33 am
>> i'm a member of the supreme court bar. that's a select group of attorneys permitted by law to practice before the justices filing briefs and presenting oral argument. these include the briefs in all the cases i have filed in more than ten years of practice. in that time i've argued 18 cases on a wide range of important federal law questions. i teach supreme court litigation at stanford law school in california as well as harvard law school in massachusetts. i've been called, quote, the nation's premier supreme court advocate. >> people in the legal business just can't like that. >> i don't know. and i don't really care. >> when did you do that?
8:34 am
>> i did that in my office tat law firm. and, look, i think that people who do a lot of serious things in this town take themselves way too seriously. i don't think i walk on water. i really enjoy what i do. i feel it's a privilege and i don't mind making light of what it is that i and other people who have this job do. i think that we're lawyers. we represent people. we're not the greatest thing since sliced bread. and if we can't have fun, what's the point?
8:35 am
host: thank you for being here this morning. talking about protections of journalists. here's the recent headline. this from this morning in the baltimore sun. review for us what has been happening in terms of journalists' records and how the white house has been involved. guest: thanks. it's really been an evolution over the past few years and there's a lot of press coverage of these current disputes about with fox news and the associated press.
8:36 am
but this is an issue that has been troubling the industry and the public in 2004, 2005, when judy miller and matt cooper were threatened with jail and judy miller of course did spend time in jail to protect the confidential source. what we're seeing now is efforts by law enforcement to go around a subpoena to the journalist herself and send the subpoena to the telephone company or to the internet service provider. and as you can imagine from looking at your own phone records, the amount of information that the government can find out about you by pouring through your phone records, through your e-mail, the web sites you visited. it's pretty extraordinary. and that's a way that confidential sources now are being tracked down by the government, which is why we believe there's a need for legal protection. >> take us through the two case that is have garnered attention recently. first, fox news, since that is being elaborated on just this morning in the newspapers.
8:37 am
what's happened? what's the legal concern? >> the case with fox news involves a reporter named james rosen who was talking to a source at the department of state about north korea. my understanding is that the tracking of mr. rosen as he undertook these interviews and these efforts to speak with the source included getting access to all of the e-mail -- his personal e-mail account, his -- tapping the phones for fox news, getting not content information but who was called and who called in for an extended period of time and tracking mr. rosen's movements around the state department through his visitor's badge, which i think also took a lot of people by surprise. >> recent story from the news bureau shows that the f.b.i. obtained a warrant to read personal e-mails from two days back in 2010 after arguing there was probably cause he
8:38 am
violated espionage laws. >> we're just finding out -- the fact that the government decided to state that a journalist could be a coconspirator in violating the act is really extraordinary and is a bridge that hasn't been crossed up to now. and it is very concerning to journalists and members of congress of >> president obama and other members of his staff have said that reporters should not be prosecuted so even though in the complaint document it does use that terminology for the fox news reporter the white house is saying they shouldn't be prosecuted. what's the difference between looking at the records and actually going forward? >> it's a great question. the problem with being named in a search warrant as a possible coconspirator is it expands the amount of documents that a
8:39 am
court is going to approve the government getting access to. even if you're not k45r7b8gd -- and frankly clearly no journalist should be charged for violating the espionage act. but even if you're not charged, if you're named in a subpoena or a document request as a possible coconspirator, the court is going to approve a very broad array of documents from you even if you're not ultimately prosecuted. >> tell us about the associated press case. why were their phone records looked at? why is that a concern? >> there was a case involving a possible al qaeda coconspirator in yemen, there was the foiled bomb plot that you may have read about, about a year ago. there was concern that this had been leaked to the associated press. the ap actually acted as a good citizen in this regard and went to the c.i.a. for confirmation. the c.i.a. asked them to hold
8:40 am
the story for a number of days. the associated press did that and complied with the government's request. the government then said it was ok to publish and in fact there's been a lot of discussion on that case by the government since then and it's surprising now to find out that the associated press after having done the right thing, going to the c.i.a., making sure there wasn't a national security issue, agreeing to hold the story, is now sort of being rewarded by that by having a really broad search warrant executed against it. and the concern that the industry really has about the way the associated press subpoena was handled is just the breadth of, it's one thing to say here's one reporter who may have leaked documents who may have gotten leaked documents. let's look at that reporter. i wouldn't agree with that but at least it would be just the one reporter. in going for 20 phone lines over the course of two months you end up having a hundred
8:41 am
different associated press reporters almost all who had nothing at all to do with this story under surveillance by the government. and that is problematic. host: kurt is our guest. at the firm covington and berlyig and also cochairs the media internet and technology practice. what are the laws right now for journalists? what is the code of conduct? what can a journalist do and not do? guest: we have two system obvious law in the u.s. we have a state system that's administered by state governments and state courts and then there's the federal system. on the state side the law is pretty settled. 49 states and the district of columbia all have either shield laws or case law protecting a journalist's ability to protect the confidential source. the state side is very settled and the law is that a
8:42 am
journalist can protect a confidential source. the government can have access to that information only after exhausting other avenues to try to find it showing that it's very highly relevant to the case and in some cases showing that the need for that information overtakes the need for confidentiality. on the federal side, the case is much less clear. courts have no uniformed guidance, there's no federal statute that sets out the standards for determining when a court can ask a journalist to give up a confidential source, give up reporters' notes, other documents so you have a patchwork quilt. in some places courts have held based on the first amendment that reporters have a qualified privilege to withhold confidential source information unless the government overcomes that. in other cases, as we have seen here in washington, d.c. with judith miller going to prison to protect a confidential
8:43 am
source, you have very little protection. and it's a little bit disconcerting for journalists, because if the subpoena comes from the state court, you have protection. if the subpoena comeses from the federal court right across the street you might have no protection. so what we've asked congress to consider is a law that would sort of set uniform rules of the road in determining sheeze issues in connection with federal law. host: and that is loosely termed a shield act? guest: which is a little bit of a misnomer. it doesn't really shield the press. it simply sets the rules the prosecutors, defense attorneys, civil litigants would have to use to acquire information from journalists. host: if you'd like to join the conversation and talk about a potential shield law to protect journalists, here are the numbers at the bottom of your screen.
8:44 am
john from new jersey. go ahead. caller: i'm a career war veteran. i'm 77 years old. i've been through presidents since roosevelt. it's always been my experience that bankers and politicians are like running into a bear in the woods and begging them please don't eat me. when you lie down with dogs, you're going to come wup floridas and i think this is what the pr -- come up with flees. and i think this is what the government has done. so i'll be listening to your comment on line. host: do you think journalists have been too cozy with politicians, bankers and such? caller: yes. i think that they have. i think that in all my life i've always looked at reporters
8:45 am
as people who investigate things, who go into things. but here in the latter part of my life, i've found that reporters, they do lie down with dogs and they should come up with fleas. because when you play with a snake, it's not when you -- it's not if you are going to get bit it's when and right now they're getting bit. guest: i think you raise a lot of important points. first, let me thank you for your service in the korean war, especially on this memorial day weekend. the source relationships are very complicated things with journalists. as you know, you on the one hand are an adversary to whom ever you're reporting on because it's your duty as a journalist to report the truth and you are trying to bring information out of that source so that you can say as much about what is going on to your
8:46 am
audience as possible. at the same time, obviously you're creating a relationship with the source. so i do agree with you, it's a complicated relationship. but most important i absolutely agree with you that the snake is currently biting and it's biting journalists now and that's one reason why we're asking congress to consider this
8:48 am
host: president obama says he supports a media shield law. he talked about this in his policy speech on thursday at the national defense university. let's hear an excerpt. >> the justice department's investigation of national security leaks offers a recent example of the challenges involved in striking the right balance between our security and our open society. as commander in chief i believe we must keep information secret that protects our operations and people in the field. to do so we must enforce consequences to those who break
8:49 am
the law and breach their commitment to protect classified information. but a free press is also essential for our democracy. that's who we are. and i'm troubled by the possibility that leak investigations may chill the investigative journalism that holds government accountable. journalists should not be at legal risk for doing their jobs. our focus must be on those who break the law. that's why i've called on congress to pass a media shield law to guard against government overreach and i've raised these issues with the attorney general who shares my concern. so he has agreed to review existing department of justice guidelines governing investigations that involve reporters. and he'll convene a group of media organizations to hear their concerns as part of that review. and i've directed the attorney general to report back to me by july 12. host: what will this do? guest: i thought it was very helpful that the president
8:50 am
stated publicly at such an important public forum that he supports it. i wasn't surprised because he's been a supporter of the free throw of information act. he was a cosponsor before he became president. as president his administration worked closely with interested parties to figure out the right tests that could move forward in the senate and in fact his administration in 2009 supported the free flow of information act as it was passed by the senate judiciary committee then. so this was to me a reaffirm mation. it wasn't new. it was a very welcomed one of his support for these principles. go ahead. caller: my question was to the lawyer. if the journalists were being monitored by the government at all. and he kind of went into that. but does he -- i want to know
8:51 am
if you think does the government plays a big part in what goes out on the news and in the newspapers. the journalists can only put out what the government -- guidelines that the government -- doinching the government has guidelines on journalists? guest: thank you for the question. i think it's a rellly important question to think about how independent journalist ks be if they're in a situation where they're really being monitored by the government. and it's a atlanta question. it's a very int -- it's a legitimate question. it's an interesting time because there's so many different sources of information that the government has no problem getting it's viewpoint out in the press and the government has its own website, its own ability to call for speeches, to talk on
8:52 am
the floor of the senate or the house. there are many different ways in which government officials can get their views out to the public, which is why it's important to be able to allow journalists as a councht weight to that government story line to be able to be truly independent and undertake their profession without the fear that government is putting them under surveillance. you did ask about guidelines which i think is a very important question. the government does have internal guidelines about when it can seek information from reporters within the department of justice, which are part of the u.s. attorney's manual which we believe are very helpful. the problem with the internal guidelines the government has is that they are just guidelines. they're not binding laws. they don't require the government to prove their case to an independent federal judge before getting access to ra reporter's information or confidential sources. so that's one reason why we
8:53 am
think it's important for congress to look at taking principles that are really consistent with the government's internal guidelines but simply putting an independent federal judge in the position of making some of these decisions rather than the justice department or prosecutor or a civil liltganlt or a criminal defendant who might be seeking information from the journalist. host: we're talking about a potential shield law to protect journalists. the shield law that is making its way through congress right now is the free flow of information act. you used that term a moment ago and that is what president obama is urging congress to pass. what kind of support is it receiving on the hill? guest: so far it's remarkable that we've received bipartisan support. the house bill which is introduced mid last week was introduced by representative poe of texas, republican, and cosponsored by john conyers, a
8:54 am
michigan democrat on the senate side a companion bill was introduced by chuck schumer of new york and cosponsored by lindsey zpwralm, a republican of florida. and this is consistent with what we've seen in the past what we've looked at efforts to pass the free throw information act, it really is a bipartisan measure whether you're a democrat or republican we found that members really do see the need both for the press to have an independent role not encumbered by government and for the press to be able to report on government abuses and to talk to whistle blowers and others within the government who have issues that need to be aired. host: miami beach, florida. republican caller. dan. caller: thanks so much for c-span. womener, i was back in the army in the height of vietnam. i was in georgia most of the time. but i relate in a way to the
8:55 am
previous caller who was in the korean war. i was a real going-ho kid. but years later i did a complete 180 degree change. and i see a real similarity with the -- in the pentagon papers. i feel strongly that daniel elseberg was a hero. i'm so glad he did what he did. it took so much courage. and i see that completely different now these days when there are people out there -- who knows how many -- who want to kill us. so frankly i feel divided with the whole thing. i wish i could take a stand one way or another. if you have any comment on that. guest: well first, thank you for your service. and particularly in the vietnam war era which i know was a difficult time. you raised really i think the most important point now, which
8:56 am
is we are in a time of heightened national security concerns. there were one set of tests really before september 11 in a lot of areas of law and we're now in a post september 11 period. and you can see in the course of the media dealing with the government during the period directly after september 11th there was maybe sort of fewer protections for the press and there were many more national security concerns for everyone. we're still taking our shoes off at the airport. so we're in a situation now where we're more than ten years past september 11th. we are in a state of war in many places. we do have a much more diverse enemy. it's a much more difficult time in terms of national security. and i think people within the journalism field recognize that.
8:57 am
and understand that government is under much more stress trying to deal with these difficult issues. at the same time, i think it's increasingly important that journalists reporters and others are able to report on how the government is dealing with these national security threats and that's increasingly what we see in these leak prosecutions, are reporters who are on government beats who are working for the "washington post," the "new york times," fox news, the associated press who are reporting on niret issues really to help ordinary folks like you and me get a better grip on what's going on within our government. and for that reason we think it's important to protect those conversations and to allow reporters really to be an independent counterweight to government of so that we're not simply taking whatever government tells us as the gospel truth. we are in fact gaining the benefit of an independent source of information from the news industry.
8:58 am
host: dave in florida, independent caller. caller: i want to make a comment basically speaking about fox and a.p. in the same sentences like comparing not apples and oranges but like apples and a bowling ball. i'm sure fox is eating up the attention. but they have about as much in common with the a.p. -- i just can't speak enough about it as compared to news stories, fox has been walking a real fine line on talking points and most of the time they're real inflammatory talking points. and it is just a matter of time before something like this peans just because fox decides to call the show news doesn't necessarily mean it's correct. host: thanks for your call. guest: you've raised a very important point, which is who
8:59 am
should be covered. is there a place where if you're just in the opinion business you might not have the same protections as journalists such as the associated press which is constantly involved in news gathering and fact gathering. and really, we find that to be a very difficult line to walk. fox news clearly has opinions but it also does engage in news gathering in the same way that the associated press does by talking to sources. and if you look at some of the reporting around the rosen issue that you mentioned, clearly mr. rosen had a relationship with the source who was now being prosecuted, unfortunately, for espionage act violations and was trying to get information from the source, which is what all reporters do. so regardless, we think of whether you're on the left or the right or if you also have opinions the way the "new york times" or the "washington post"
9:00 am
9:01 am
guest: we are now at an early stage in a lot of these other disputes. some important points in the piece. one of the great things about the news industry, we have a overvariety of opinions the entire spectrum from one side to the other. we do not speak with one voice, which is one thing that makes it very interesting. host: john, democrat in
9:02 am
virginia. president, what he did yesterday actually, he was making a damage control of what happened, because i believe the defense.our they protect the public. they are the ones who tells us exactly how the government is operating. realistically, i do want to say two things that the caller said earlier -- i have no support for fox news, but i also believe that when the government go after a reporter and put chips on his jacket, that is a violation. that is a violation of the reporter, and they violate his right, without knowing anything. this would lead to another issue about no one would be safe anymore. they would use terrorism to go after the reporters. i will say this -- this whole thing started from yemen. if the government wants to find reporter, we need a
9:03 am
new cia director. we need somebody to do the job right. it is amazing to me that this great nation that the government can go after an report people, their private e- mails and private home calls. there is nobody safe anymore. it is an embarrassment for this country that the media is our defense and now we cannot even protect the media. this is ridiculous. john, thank you for your call. guest: i would have to say i agree completely with you that the reason that we ought to consider these legal measures is not to protect the press am about to protect the public. and to protect the press hospital in bringing this information out for the benefit -- press's role in bringing this information out for the benefit of the public. this is an international embarrassment. you're as much for protection for confidential sources than the united states, even though we have the first amendment, which is the strongest row-three expression law in the world --
9:04 am
strongest pro-free expression law in the world. you also mentioned during the current administration, and we need a new cia director? i do not know the answer to any of those questions. one thing that is pretty clear, we have been at this, attempting to get congress to move forward on the free flow of information act for almost in years, and we started off with the bush administration, and we are now in the obama administration. even though the people in power have changed, at the department of justice, the cia, in the white house, the issues really have remained relatively constant. the issue really is, will the press be able to protect her sources in an effort to get information out to the american people? which is really a bipartisan issue, no matter who is in office.
9:05 am
we think that these disputes really shine a light on the need for the act. we hope it is enough to move it over the finish line. counsel forymer is the newspaper association of america. we are talking about a proposed shield law. the free flow of information act. it is being sponsored by bipartisan members of congress. it would protect analyst from fines and jail time when they refused to name confidential sources unless federal officials to make their case in court. despite the bipartisan support that you've mentioned, this has not passed congress. said thato, it is the gop is divided over the shield law. why hasn't it been passed so far, and where of the detractors? guest: i'm glad you raised that. it has been a long road. at the beginning, it took along time for journalists themselves to admit that we needed help because we like to think that the first amendment, which is an extraordinarily strong constitutional protection for
9:06 am
speech, ought to be enough and we shouldn't need to have to ask congress to supplement that. then post-9/11 with the leak investigations, it became clear that the first amendment alone was not enough to protect reporters. took a long time -- it took a long time for the media industry itself to form a coalition. or was a case in 1972 called the branzburg case in which the supreme court said there was not a constitutional reporter's privilege, although there is a balancing test that worked for many years. what you saw since 1972 until now are more than 100 efforts to pass a law like this one, most of them fell on the wayside because the industry cannot decide if it was the right thing to do because some reporters said, you should not ask congress for anything. we are reporting on congress. the first amendment should be enough. it is really only in the past 10 years or so that we have seen this recognition that there needs to the shield law.
9:07 am
frankly, the timing has been bad on our part. we passed the house by overwhelming measures twice. we passed the house in 2009 most recently on a voice vote. in 2009, we got as far as getting the bill on the senate judiciary committee. it was set to go to the floor of congress am the floor of the congress, the floor of the senate, before the midterm elections came in. it was not really an opportunity to get it to the floor. i think we had terrific support. i think the president would sign the bill if we can get it to his desk. it is a matter of working it through the political process. host: wanda in trenton, florida, a republican. caller: good morning. through,u get your law however, this administration does an end run around the constitution constantly, so your law is not going to do a bit of good. he is just going to write an executive order and go ahead with whatever the heck he wants to do.
9:08 am
host: what would be the workaround for an administration, for a federal agency, what would their ability to get around a lot, how would they convince a judge judge that they needed a journalist's records? guest: we collect the shield law, but it really really does not create an absolute shield. it basically sets a number of procedures that a court would have to go through in approving a subpoena. under the law, especially the house bill, it would be very similar to the state laws that have been in place in some cases since 1900. before going to the journalist for evidence, you would have to exhaust other avenues of other pop -- other possible information. in the case of the leak, you would look first to the people who work for the government, try to figure out if you can find out from them if they have leaked information before going to the reporter, and then you would have to go to an independent federal judge and say, this is extremely important
9:09 am
to us, it goes to the heart of this matter, it is highly withant, we've complied our own internal guidelines, and this is why we need the information. it would set up a procedure really -- it may result, as wanda pointed out, the reporter having to give up the source, but if it did, it would be at the end of the process that involves checks and balances which provide some first amendment protection to the press. host: virginia in cincinnati, ohio, and independent. caller: thank you for receiving my call. i would like to point out the fact that the gentleman that talked -- the second to last hit the nail on the head. i agree with every word he said. i would like people to look , a senator,st 1975 frank church, appeared on "meet the press," and he revealed
9:10 am
with startling information and close with a dire warning to everyone but our citizens. he said the american intelligence gathering capability at any time could be turned around on the american people, and no american would have any privacy left. alsomin franklin mentioned this. such is the capability to monitor everything. we're talking 30 55 years ago that mr. church said this. 35 years ago that mr. church said this. there would be no place for citizens to hide who wanted to speak out against what they were arguing with the government. host: let's get a response. guest: thank you, virginia. we are at a point in our history, both because of the size of the government, the size of the surveillance state, and the ability to see digital fingerprints that we leave
9:11 am
everywhere, we are at an inflection point in terms of our privacy, in terms of the ability of the government to , butille not just the press ordinary citizens. it is something that i think you are exactly right -- it is important for us to always keep tabs on it. interchurch is a great example -- senator church is a great example of how the government itself has checks and balances. he as a member of congress could sound the alarm in that way, which i think is helpful, and i think you see that today with members of congress. with our system of checks and balances, it really requires that. host: in addition to serving as counsel of the newspaper association of america, he also sits on the board of directions of the media long resource center and is the chair the first amendment advisory committee of the media institute. he is part of covington and burlington's security practice.
9:12 am
he is their u.s. chair. that is the firm that he is at. let's go to brian in florida, democrats line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i just want to play devil's ivocate for a second and know we are having a fascinating discussion about protections for the media, but i want to talk a little bit about what protections are for the consumer, the person digesting the information put out there. the meeting was straight by this -- you know the media -- let me illustrate like this. you know the media has the responsibility to get information right. been a struggle. we saw that during the boston bombings when they got several -- got it wrong several times. there are consequences for political leaders as a result of leaks. if that information is found out
9:13 am
to be untrue and intentionally put out as untrue information, what do you think should be the response, what do you think should happen to that thetleblower and journalist that put out that information, because unfortunately for the consumer, who interprets it to be true, who digests it as true, we may act on it by calling our local leaders to act on that issue. you think it is fair in that circumstance to bring these whistleblowers to justice and maybe even the journalists who do not backcheck the information as well? guest: brian, you raise a good point. this is probably the most difficult time i can remember in terms of figuring out exactly what the facts are. youe was a point at which would read newspapers, watch network news, and journalists would have time to digest the weigh one thing against the other before publishing, and
9:14 am
you wake up in the morning and see what their work was. we are now in a situation where two things are happening -- one, there is a 24-hour news cycle where reporters are expected to ,ake decisions very quickly and the boston circumstance was one of those. you have internet sources, reddit, their attempt to figure out who the boston bombers were by sifting through autographs, and it pushes additional pressure on to the park -- on the process. this is all happening in real- time. there is is much less chance to reflect on weighing the source is coming out with exactly the correct response. i do think it is a much more difficult time in terms of the news cycle, but also in terms of the plethora of information out there. even though most of the newsgathering is being done ,till by television stations television networks, newspapers, ofs magazines, the amount
9:15 am
talking about the data that is being provided in the amount of opinion that is out through internet sources, through blogs and other sources, is just enormous. i do think it is a difficult time for the american public to figure out exactly what the right responses should be. i think that is one reason why i am so troubled by what you see now, the chilling effect settling in after the associated press case, after the fox news ofe -- if an avenue discussion, avenue of information for sources is cut off because they do not feel they can speak to the media, i think it makes a situation that brian describes even more difficult for us. tweetone tweak -- guest: he is absolutely right. no right is absolute.
9:16 am
even the first amendment is not absolute, as we know. of free flow of information act, does not contain any absolute protections. many members of my coalition would love to have absolute protection, but we are in the realm of the possible here. ist we have settled on trusting our federal judiciary who deal with questions of right and wrong and truth in the search for truth every day of the week. they are trusted to be independent and impartial in figuring out when you balance the interests, should the interest of the press give way to the government were to the litigant who assert -- seeking the information, or should the press received protection? host: la grange, texas, mike, an independent. caller: i would just like to ask if your group supported the patriot act or the whistleblower act.
9:17 am
whistleblowers used to have protection, but under the bush administration, they passed the whistleblower act each took away all the protections -- which took away all the protections. if reporters would report the facts and tell the american people the truth about what we are doing in congress, what the ,aws are really for, instead of let's give them the blue sky law which gives us the authority to pump it full of pollution, instead of telling the truth about the fact, that is where we should go. as when a reporter should do. -- that is what a reporter should do. none of those things were done during the patriot act or the whistleblower protection. host: becky for your call. -- thank you for your call. guest: we are here to talk
9:18 am
about one lot today, but my coalition and particularly the newspaper association is involved in. different types -- involved in a myriad of laws on the hill. the patriot act, the whistleblower act, other acts that are being looked at today, all with the notion of making sure that the american public can continue to come to the press, that whistleblowers should be protected, and that we should be able to report as openly and as freely as , regardless of any of those federal laws. you raise an important point that this really is not a one loss situation we've got. if we pass the free flow of information act, i would not be able to go on an extended vacation and not worry about the next act trip is always something happening in congress that the press needs to be vigilant for. for whistleblowers,
9:19 am
protection for national security issues, but it is a great point. host: robert in maryland, a democrat. caller: i agree with just about everything i have heard. tohink we need a shield act protect newspaper reporters and reporters generally speaking, but when you have a news who'szation like fox news sole purpose is to embarrass whose sole-- purpose is to embarrass democratic government, how do who is with -- responsible news organization, and how do we determine that? their sole purpose is to make this man, obama, look bad. if you had a news organization that was trying to do this to a republican president, i mean, excuse the whole matter so people do not know what to expect or believe. guest: robert, you raise a
9:20 am
great point. i think that the answer is regardless of viewpoint, the integrity of the newsgathering process ought to be protected. organizations on the right or left might spin the news in a different way. i think what we need to do as a auntry is relied on marketplace of ideas to battle it out -- rely on a marketplace of ideas to battle it out and figure out what is right. this environment is not dissimilar to where it was 100 years ago. we have had objective journalism for the newspaper industry, through television networks, through television stations, through cable stations for a long time. that has been a tradition in the press, but it is a relatively recent tradition. if you go back to the early 1900s, some of the scandal sheets that were being published that we talk about in supreme
9:21 am
court cases today as being subject to full first amendment protection were pretty partisan and were really spinning things on the right were spinning things on the left. i think it is important to protect everyone under the first amendment so that, robert, you can make the decision when you're looking at options or looking at cnn or msnbc, looking at any one of the thousand blogs, how you come out on these issues. i think the marketplace of ideas is the only protection we have. host: "the washington post" wade in -- weighed in has a piecek times" on the chilling effect of processing -- the press has seen. on twitter -- guest: it is funny she should say that because i think that is
9:22 am
increasingly what we are coming to. as you might remember, perhaps not, but i were member during the watergate era, there were all sorts of things like, put a flower pot on the balcony to let me know if it is time for us meet for an interview, you meet somebody in the lower level of the parking garage to get their information and there was saying,le in "wired" perhaps reporters ought to start acting like drug dealers by disposable cellular phones. make sure you do not make any disposable -- make any calls on your disposable phone. buy a laptop only for an anonymous gmail account. a device reporters are string to take to heart, but toit depressing to be able have this role that is so essential to democracy that you have to act like a drug dealer? i do think, jane, you are right,
9:23 am
i think there will be a lot fewer digital conversations and traditional, old- fashioned conversations, but at the same time, if what has happened with the ap, fox news makes people nervous about talking to the press at all, we will not even to have those old- fashioned conversations. kurt zimmerimmer -- joined us this morning. if you so much. as americans embark on the summer season of travel, officials at the national park service are warning with the budget cuts known as sequestration are meaning for parks. reporter emily yalie -- yehle joins us to explain. ♪ >> what has happened in the senate for three consecutive
9:24 am
years we do not even consider a budget resolution. i served on the budget committee for eight years. throughout budget history since 1974, there have been years in which a budget resolution has not passed, but three consecutive years, and this is the fourth, they finally passed something in the senate, but the house and senate have not reconciled their differences. this was supposed to be done by april 15. statutorily, congress is required to pass a budget and complete that process by april 15. here we are. wonder that everything has gotten so distorted and out , with sequestration, the automatic cuts. debt piling up, $16.8 trillion in national debt, we are in uncharted territory without question. >> former republican senator olympia snow and dick cheney -- exceed the current state of congressional gridlock sunday
9:25 am
night at 9:00 on "afterwards." this weekend on c-span 2's book tv. >> after president grover cleveland loses his bid for reelection in 1888, his wife elsa staff, i wanted to take good care of of all the furniture and ornaments in the house and not let any of them get lost or broken. i want to find everything just as it is now when we come back again for years from today. to the whitern house, winning the election of 1892. the lice that the life of frances cleveland as we continue our series on first ladies, i've monday eight -- monday night at 9:00 eastern on c-span and c-span.org. "> " washington journal continues. yehle is a reporter for environment anal issues.
9:26 am
whate we dig into sequestration cuts are meaning for national parks, give us a sense of who runs the national park service. is thejohn jarvis director. it is all under the department of interior. there are more than 400 parks across the country, and each of them are pretty individual. they each have their own budget. they each decide how to spend that budget. they have to follow certain rules and all of that, but they are all under the national parks service, but there is a lot of individuality. host: what do national parks have in common, and what are some surprising differences? guest: there are going to be rules. this is about conserving some of the great eye logical and -- biological and geographical features of this country for generations to enjoy. but they also have a lot of different features. ,ou got geysers, mountains
9:27 am
forests, redwoods, everglades in florida, but they all have to follow certain rules to make sure that those are preserved. if you go camping in these parts, you are probably going to have to, for example in maryland, they will not allow you to take firewood from outside the state in their. you might -- in there. you might be able to have a fire, and in others, you might not. the similarity is that they are all trying to preserve the area for future generations. -- how is the national park service different from the forest service? two different agencies, sometimes mix up. guest: the forest service has a different mission. while the parks service is to conserve geological features, the forest service is more, ok, we need to use this for different reasons, like, for example, agriculture, but also for enjoyment as low.
9:28 am
it is more about managing the land and keeping it so that we can use it. while the park service is more of a conservation angle, we will not touch it, we will keep it as is. host: from the national park service website, we see some statistics. over 84 million acres of land, over 4.5 million acres of oceans, lakes, and reservoirs, and then there is 43,000 miles of shoreline. he also see some numbers of employees and volunteers. 28,000 employees. many volunteers, over 2 million hourseers, with volunteer over 97 million hours. what are the employees of the park service do, and what to volunteers do? guest: there is full-time employees, which i think is actually around 16,000. as of the people that work in ,he park year in, year out during winter, during summer.
9:29 am
then they have seasonal workers who are hired for these busy month which we are in right now. memorial day kicks it off. , 10 thousandusands workers they hire, run this time. of course, sequestration is affecting that. then there are bob -- the volunteers. for seasonal workers, a lot of them, some of them are law enforcement rangers. a lot of them are educational rangers, which they beat up during the busy season. our volunteers, there are even some volunteer firefighters wildfires. even though they are not getting paid, they are there as well. host: emily rehle and i are looking at the impact of sequestration budget cuts on the national park service. if you like to call and, these are the numbers -- you can tell us about how you
9:30 am
plan to use your local national parks this summer and whether or not you're getting a sense that sequestration, these budget cuts, are going to impact services. what do we know so far about sequestration's impact? guest: it is leaking out. it started with john jarvis saying, they will lead -- leave 900 positions vacant. that is 900 permanent positions vacant. hire 1000 fewer seasonal workers. because of not having those seasonal workers and for full- time workers they will have to bring on fewer volunteers, because there are not people to coordinate them, helping them to --k, but we have also had we are learning about specific parks. it is different for every part. some parks have private partners who can fill in some of the cap -- gap. others do not so they have to cut more deeply. glacier national park, for example, is opening campgrounds
9:31 am
later. that is also happening all across the u.s. some campgrounds are closed altogether in some parks. trails are being closed. since they cannot hire seasonal workers to clean the restrooms or pick up the trash, sometimes they're closing restrooms altogether. rehle has been reporting for e+e about the evolution of sequestration and how it is impacting the parks. she has one recent story -- what did director jarvis warned sequestration would mean, and what questions is he having to answer to numbers of congress? guest: he said things like, we will have to close off areas of the park. we will have to close campgrounds. is it yours are going to feel this impact. you are going to get in trouble. he didn't say that, but that was the underlying meaning. your constituents are going to be angry.
9:32 am
answeris starting to questions from republicans mostly about whether they need to cut so deeply, whether they need to make those cuts that are so obvious to the public. say, one, in the months of to sequestration, the park service was still acquiring view is, if you already are scraping by, why are you going to add more land to have to take care of? other thing is they think the administration could move funds around better, could not make cuts like those in campgrounds or restaurants good -- restrooms. particularly darrell issa said he was exaggerating -- they were exaggerating it. she said the budget for the park service has not gone down on the whole over the past few years and was actually more than the cut under sequestration a
9:33 am
few years ago. jarvis responded that almost funds go to fire management and do not have to do with the rest. host: let's go to the phones and hear from mark in washington state, democrats line. what part of the state do you live in? caller: i live right next to olympic national park, and it costs two dollars just to go $20 just to go visit. already, the national parks and the national forest have been priced out of availability. host: meaning it is too expensive for you to go there yet? caller: only dollars for me to go a day -- $20 for me to go a day -- they have cut the staff to below minimum level. if you look at the forest service, it went from 100 people down to three on the entire peninsula.
9:34 am
one of the most beautiful areas in the whole country. host: thanks for the call. guest: you brought up couple of issues. the user fee, the $20, that is an interesting point because those user fees have to be andt in very specific ways i'm not going to pretend to know exactly how they are divvied up, but it doesn't go to the park itself. it goes to a bigger account that goes to different capital improvement projects, i believe. -- for example, if john jarvis had the flex ability to use the fees to fill in sequestration, they would have to cut 150 -- $150 million under sequestration, and user fees made $160 million last year. he could in theory plug up that whole. -- that hole. lawmakers have been pressuring the service to increase fees.
9:35 am
i think that is an expensive part on a whole -- on the whole as far as the rest of the country is concerned. that is something they are looking into in order to not have as many congressional appropriations. the other thing is the cut. what they would tell you is, they seem to be spending the money on bathrooms, and yet they are laying off staff or were not hiring as many staff, leaving positions vacant, and that is sort of a budgetary issue where sequestration is all accounts, five percent-eight percent, all the same, and capital improvements and maintenance is in one account, and salaries is in another. you are going to see the effects on salaries because that affects people. host: ohio, dave, a republican. caller: my question is, i've heard rumors that the united nations is involved in financing and operating many of our national parks.
9:36 am
can you explain what involvement the u.n. has? host: where did you get the information? caller: different sources. i do not know if it is accurate or not. guest: i do not think that is accurate. host: as the park service has looked at alternative ways to fund parks, you reported that tight budgets are spurring a push for more private funding. the private funding equation fit into this, and how our private donations treated right now? guest: it is a consultative process. private donations --, located process. -- complicated process. a lot of people are willing to donate. a lot of parks have friends of the parks groups. yellowstone could not plow its roads because of sequestration. local businesses given $200,000
9:37 am
a month a plow the roads, and they were able to open. there are restrictions on how you can use the money. it is complicated. i think it mostly has to be on a specific educational program or plowing the roads of a one-time thing. as congress starts to cut from budgets, not give the park service what it has gotten in the past, park service officials are looking towards, how can they better leverage that funding? they will run into issues thereto. a try to do this 10 years ago, -- they tried to do this 10 years ago, we do not want coca cola in our national parks. they are trying to use those funds in the best way to serve the people. host: let's hear from joseph and new york on our independent line. caller: good morning, how are
9:38 am
you, emily? guest: good. caller: more of a statement than a question for emily. host: we are ready. caller: given that the budget cuts are affecting our economy as a whole, our parks have been virtually untouched throughout the years. as far as people going to our national parks, i love our national parks personally. they are treasures. wield a lot parks of power. ,eople will drive by a park and ok, the national park, we see it every day, we live by their, and however, i remember not too long ago, people at the national parks actually kick down our military, which was mind-boggling for me. i had no idea our national parks could do such a thing. i wanted to make that comment.
9:39 am
if you had something to say about that, that would be great. with: i am not familiar them picking up the military at the parks. all i know about the military in the parks is that they do offer -- itl discounted rates might actually be free for those who serve in the military. host: our caller talked about tight fiscal times in the budget picture overall. how has the park service. in the past few decades -- service fared in the past few decades? guest: it depends on who you ask. republicans will say they have continued to expand, rather than the conservative and how we are acquiring parks. agreek everyone would that we have a lot of beautiful parks in this country, that they are very successful, and that congress is pretty willing, in
9:40 am
the past, it is in pretty willing to fund them. their budget is i believe 1/10 of 1% of the entire federal budget. we are talking about small potatoes. .hey fly under the radar usually they get the funds they needed because everybody has a constituent who loves local national parks. right now, they are facing difficult times. they are more in the spotlight, simply because this is a time when there are pushes to cut budgets. that newally need visitor center, or do you really need another campground? it is difficult. host: let's hear from a north and wake forest, telly. north carolinian in wake forest, kelly. caller: i'm worried about sequestration and security. it becomes a dangerous place if you do not have safety for your campers and hikers.
9:41 am
with the donations of funds and the rules and how they take money in and corporate sponsors and things like that, is there a rule that says you cannot during fires and things like that to help without allowing a one-time donation that must be anonymous or must not be linked to a corporate interest or something like that, where it is a one-time donation and it yields no power over the park? is that allowed? host: before we get an answer on that, would you make a donation? what is that? caller: absolutely. and it is important preserve our .ountry and make sure of safety i want to hike in our parks. i do not want to be worried about a predator or someone else. i want to make sure that safety is key in that political process.
9:42 am
and is maintained, whether they are cutting funds were not. guest: first of all, you can donate directly to the park service. sometimes there are donation boxes. they prefer you do not because they have more flexibility if you donate to some of their friend organizations. these are not organizations that usually -- we are not cannot corporate sponsorships -- we're talking mostly about arcs donations, nonprofit groups that were usually started by local, and in some cases, there are business interests. i do not know about the donation, if there is a fire and you want to donate, you want to donate to that cause, how that works. i cannot help you there. but i would say most parks have a friend organization that you can call and ask whether they do have certain accounts for where the money goes. they very well might. i do want to emphasize that these are usually nonprofits that are people like you who want to make sure that the park continues, not only for
9:43 am
enjoyment, but also for the economic boon. host: we see today this headline -- caller wasast talking about safety in parks, tell us about what the park police do, and then how is the furlough and in? -- ending? guest: that's a good question. i don't know. this was one of the big controversies as far as sequestration and the national parks. they are not furloughing anybody aside the park police, and the reason they are saying that is because the park police have a different budget. they are only salaries. we do not have capital improvements. park police are in washington, d.c., san francisco, and new york. , make sure it is safe, our big national monument. what they said they had to do was furlough every police
9:44 am
officer. i think they're about 760 of them. one day every two weeks. only peopleot within the police service went kind of crazy, but also outside, because in the end that means less feet on the ground. they got some pushback from republicans about that as well. i guess the pressure has gotten to them. they've had furloughs for about a month now. they think they are going to end them on june 1. how they found the money, i'm not sure. i say they're cutting overtime, travel -- they say they were cutting overtime, travel. somehow, they found the money miraculously. host: you are not the only reporter asking questions about how this money was reallocated. why is this a challenging? why are members of congress asking so many questions? d tohas sequestration lea these unknowns? guest: one reason is the budget
9:45 am
to stop located. they can tell us, ok, there are these accounts and we must do this. every few months, new flexibilities come about. that means it is kind of like a moving target. when they first said sequestration, it was almost important -- impossible to write a story. , that also time happens in congress and the agencies. their accountants are looking through to see if they can follow legal framework. that makes it complicated and controversial when they have to cut things that we notice. says "the washington post" --
9:46 am
guest: yes, again, we really have no idea. they say that security is not going to be curbed for that. how is it not if they are going to have furloughs? host: ralph, a republican, new york. caller: hello. and i haveng in, been listening to the show, and it sounds good. the thing i am concerned with, sequestration, in other words, they were able to find money at the parks. it sounds like -- in which the president would be more -- i wish the president would be more engaged -- i think he should've taken the republicans up on the take some ofally
9:47 am
where you think it would leave our country less formal and give it to state parks -- vulnerable and give it to state parks and the new medicare thing. that is where all the money is going. i would like some response. i think he should be more engaged instead of blaming congress over time. i think democrats and republicans are blaming each other. have prettyhey much, both sides, have pretty much given up on stopping sequestration by september 30. if they do not come to an agreement by the end of this year, sequestration continued for 10 more years. of course, it will get more hurtful and painful for programs. that democrats should agree to spending cuts so that you can actually cut
9:48 am
specific parts of the budget where you will not be hurt as much, instead of allowing this across the board. democrats will counter that they want revenue, they want to raise taxes with tax loopholes and get some money there. as we have watched, they cannot seem to come to an agreement. goes live usa today look at the u.s. parks system this past week and gave some details about the newest national monument -- it talks about where the most recent additions to the national park system are. california has a new national park and a volcanic field. in maryland, that harriet tubman and old -- underground railroad. virginia, chesapeake bay which was a refuge for slaves escape in the south during the civil war --
9:49 am
how are these designations determined? guest: a lot of times, it is done, and no one is going to actually push against it. a lot of times, when you designate this, it means that there is going to be certain protections given to it. a lot of people are for that. in certain cases, you will get once theback because designations are made, there are rules that have to be followed. people do not believe our money should be spent on that. monument by monument.
9:50 am
host: on twitter -- guest: this is already a problem. basically, i think the park spends at least $1 million or more than that a year rescuing and forbackpackers, the most part, it is people who overestimated their skill. i know i have been guilty of that. they are right. fewer volunteers, fewer seasonal workers, it means fewer people to rescue when things go awry. your people to educate you -- fewer people to educate you on how to handle yourself in the wilderness. this is something that has been repeated. basically this season, make sure that you know what you are doing. becausebefore you go there will not be as many people to help you out.
9:51 am
host: massachusetts, peter, an independent. caller: i can look at this from an economic point of view. it doesn't make sense to me to lay off people when we have 8-uably anywhere from 10,000,000 people out of work. million people of work. people who do not have money and maybe want to go to a park as it is one of the few things they can afford, i will have reduced options. from that point of view alone, it is not make sense. that does not make sense. -- does not make sense. i think it should be a longer- term discussion. what is this sequestration, a immediately doing it, and why isn't there a longer view of the whole thing, not just at the park service, where else could we maybe take money from? it doesn't make sense. i think it will hurt the economy more than help it. that is a quick point i wanted
9:52 am
to throw out there. guest: yes, a couple things. actually, i think we much everyone is in agreement that some of these cuts are going to hurt the economies of towns that are around parks. some towns on parks for their busy season. the actual only people, the seasonal workers, many of whom are repeat workers, not only will some of them not be hired, so that is a direct hit to jobs, but also if you are a tourist, fewer people at hotels, fewer people eating, fewer people come into your towns during these five months, which is when a lot of towns rely on tourists. i do not think anybody is arguing that this is the best way to go about it. the thing about sequestration is both sides of the aisle say that we shouldn't do this. but that is kind of where the agreement ends. they came up with this as sort of a way to force themselves to come up with a longer-term solution, and they failed.
9:53 am
this was the backup. then it went into effect. everybody is on the same page. ,equestration is not helping and in some cases, it is hurting local economies. the problem is, where do we go from there? for morethe quest information about what these budget cuts mean for parks and what they will mean down the line, congressman ed markey, democrat of massachusetts, had a report reduced. this is from the committee on natural resources, the democrat side of it what is congressman markey learning about what sequestration means for the parts, and is he getting any pushback? markey is the top democrat on the natural resources committee. he put this out to sort of say to republicans, he is pushing back to republicans when they say, the administration is
9:54 am
exaggerating the effect. what he did, he had is that code speak with -- had his staff speak to park superintendents and ask them, how are these cuts affecting you specifically? this resulted in this report released last week that has pretty good details on each of these parts. it also shows how all parks are affected drastically differently. i have not heard of pushback from the report yet. i assume the pushback will be the same thing -- one, stop acquiring parks, you should plan youthis better, and two, should ask congress for maybe shuffling around the 40 -- authority. you can only take so much from the maintenance and capital improvement fund and shifted to salaries. that shift it to salaries. -- shift it to salaries.
9:55 am
caller: thank you for taking my call. i love calling into you guys, c- span. hear me out. i have a couple of comments and a couple of questions. i am antart by saying economic consultant and i do a lot of work with the government. i have been in the business for 12 years. i would say first of all that the government should reflect our private america. when we talk about furloughs, sequestration, we need to think about, in the private sector, when companies are growing too fast and have hired too many people, they cut back. it should be nothing different in the government. i think that when we talk about park services, when you look at their footprint, there are a lot of redundancies. when you look at the components and how they overlap -- we need to think about solutions to optimize those resources.
9:56 am
we need to think about areas we can cut redundancy, duplication, and where we can use facilities much more economically and do things like hotels. when we talk about seasonal workers, that is a good example. they do not need to have permanent places to sit in an office. we need to think about how we can involve the private sector in partnerships, let them run concessions, and if they are going to get the traffic from people coming into the public parks, have them pay a certain fee in order to have concessions to rent for the park service because they are getting that business and traffic. also, when we talked about hotels in those areas that service the park areas, let's make sure that seasonal workers that work in those hotels are american citizens and not people coming in here getting paid half marriot and other
9:57 am
hotels because they are seasonal workers. host: we will take all that and send it over to emily. guest: a couple things. i agree with you as far as the entire government and duplication. ,hat is something that actually there has been a lot of hearings held on that. they do not get media attention. there are a lot of lawmakers trying to look at where to cut down duplication. it is really difficult because obviously politics. each agency has several committees that have jurisdiction over them. also, each agency wants to keep its budget. if it says there's good location and it tells congress congress takes away its money. the gao came up with a report that says with all the duplication and overlap in the government, they have come out with three reports, and they have about 300 recommendations. not many have been implemented. as far as the park service is concerned. they are not a business.
9:58 am
recently, they are going to be paying out money. you cannot get that money back from charging people. you could, but i do not think that would be very popular in this country. they are always going to need some funds. they will not be able to run it like a business. also, although hotel and is a good idea across the government, seasonal workers, most of them are in the field and do not have offices. it is a little different at the park service. although there are some opportunities, i'm sure. hoteling.ain guest: instead of having your own office, you can have different employees go there. it is kind of like telecommuting, instead of doing it at your home, you have a consolidated office for more workers than there are workstations. "ost: in the "washington post --
9:59 am
the goal of this was to cut the budget, to save money, but he is raising concerns that that will mean more trash thrown about. guest: i do not know, i have not seen the studies on this. i would probably agree with him. it annoys me when i'm walking down the street and i cannot find a trash can to throw out my stuff. what i gather their argument is that people who go to national parks actually will pack up. of course, this does happen already for backpackers and stuff. they do have to pack all their stuff away. it seems to work. i guess their hope is that for ,ll the people who go to parks and it doesn't have to be in the wilderness, sometimes it is monuments, that they will pack
10:00 am
out. there isd backfire if trash thrown about, and then you have to hire somebody to pick it up among which would be more expensive than ending trash cans. we will and with oneh one tweak. one of our followers showing that -- i am planning to view the needy or from joshua t -- joshua tree national park around eight second week in august. emily, thank you. that is all for "washington journal" this morning. we will see you again tomorrow at 7:00 eastern time. our guest include the white house correspondent alexis simendinger, robert levinson from bloomberg government will look at classified and intelligence spending, and we cll look at christopher
133 Views
IN COLLECTIONS
CSPAN Television Archive Television Archive News Search ServiceUploaded by TV Archive on