investigate itself. she will look of the relative power of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government. "road to the white house" next. "washington journal" is a next. host: the senate takes up debate on that bipartisan immigration reform bill, following a vote on the motion to proceed. proponents are hoping for 70 votes to put pressure on house of republicans to approve the bill. live coverage on c-span2. president obama will be a rallying support for the immigration legislation at 10:30 a.m. this morning. if the senate judiciary committee holds nomination hearings for minnesota at. -- minnesota turkey to head the atf. republicans are demanding more answers from the nominee before going forward with the vote.

that brings us to our question this morning -- on the nsa surveillance programs what should congress do in response to the leaks in intelligence? let me begin with "the new york times" this morning, with the headline --

he is quoted in "and new york times" this morning, saying --

the piece goes on to say -- what is your take this morning? congressionale seats -- a congressional response to the surveillance? william is up first. caller: good morning. i believe congress should investigate the my primary call was in regard to the politics of the situation and how i firmly believe that politicians are more for the party as opposed to the people of the country.

when bush was doing this the majority of republicans were for it and majority of democrats were against it. now the political winds have shifted. the opinions have shifted. i think it is rather a despicable that these politicians -- might greatest dream is for -- host: what you want congress to do? caller: it is disturbing because it is a fourth amendment violation. the fourth amendment clearly states that a person shall be secure in their home and property. if someone -- there is no due process in that.

host: rand paul is looking into class action suit. he wrote a piece in "the wall street journal," -- would you support a class-action lawsuit? caller: i think it is an interesting proposal.

andave all this data mining yet we do absolutely nothing to stop the bombers from boston who were all over the internet. thank you, have a great day. host: in this column for "the pahington post," rand ul's losing case -

james is the next. but do you think? is ar: i think this slippery slope. an intelligence community should be able to reveal the secrets of the united states government because they simply think so. this is ludicrous and crazy. if you really think about this doing all these leaks and things. you have 850,000 workers. should each one of these people be allowed to repeal? he also donated to rand paul. i would like to know if this -- he donated money to rand

paul. host: he donated money to ron paul's -- caller: it is the same thing. think about it. host: benjamin at tweet in this -- we are asking you what should be the congressional response. caller: i would like to respond to what james just said, is he involved with rand paul or l.ong paul -- or ron pau we have seen things like the governmente

can politicize it. thatnk this whole thing ran paul is trying to do and, inn if that lawsuit fails terms of a tentative way the american people the government had smaller. phipps too too big. -- is too big. if you remember the abolitionist government trying to turn the country around and still live in a very -- the government has every piece of information it thosew on each one of ablutions, it is hard to stand up and speak truth to power. you talk about the size of the federal government. a piece in "the

washington post close " -- washington post" -- he told his boss he had to seek treatment in hong kong for epilepsy, that is how he left to go to that country. reports this morning, people do not know where he is. -- washington post

some things you should know about booz allen -- that all in "the washington post closed " if you are interested. -- washington post" if you are interested.

gary in richmond, virginia, what you think about this? what should be the congressional response? caller: i think it should go ahead and investigate it. so much as the congressional

response there should be a larger citizen response. the thing about privacy is it is defined in this country by when a person has reasonable expectation. , "i you see things like assumed they were already doing this kind of thing," you realize that reasonable expectation is going to be judged by people's reaction to it. i do not think that people that signed up for facebook, horizon, horizonverizon, -- verizon, i do not think they understood -- is thisquestion of illegal? congress has a responsibility toside of their own job

protect the country and protect its citizens. in that regard i think they failed the citizens in protecting their privacy. about thetalked public and how they respond to this. "the new york times" this --ning what do you think? this is the same problem in congress -- it comes down to the public's misunderstanding of the ramifications of these kinds of projects. does nothe person that have anything to hide have to fear? kinds oflook at these

conversations in the aggregate there are certain that point that a point to match up that the average person who isn't doing anything story about. they might find themselves in a situation where they are falsely accused of something. just recently there was a case of fingerprinting that ended up matching a person that was in a completely different part of the world and they had to go back and completely analyze the way we do fingerprinting. at the pointooking across all of these different things from facebook to browse our history and trekking across the web there is going to be so many opportunities for false positives. you realize the construction of who is going to be a criminal is really going to come down to how the information itself is

collected and assimilated. it ends up being much more vulnerable for people -- the argument that you do not have anything to hide does not hold water. host: i am going to leave it there. --iece morning'srom this "good morning america," house speaker john boehner with george stephanopoulos called the traitor- the leaker "a ." it is a giant violation of the lot is what the speaker said this morning.

the reporter from the guardian who was given this information says there's more to come. charlie from hampton, new jersey, a democratic caller. caller: good morning.

i think the church commission and what they did back in the '70s, this whole situation is overblown. threat should have stopped with this meta-data gathering. how many did they really stop? it seems the most of the situations are stopped with normal police procedures. it is ridiculous. when they listened in on congressman harmon's phone calls and e-mail's, i cannot see how they are upset about this. they should be. i think the threat of terrorism, nobody says anything about the gun violence in this country. they are up in arms.

it is ridiculous. i do not want people listening in to my phone calls and e-mail. every american should be up in arms about this. host: the polls show the majority of americans find it acceptable. they deniedthing is for requests to court. these?there thousands of it is probably a routine matter of who is the arbitrator on this? said co capa's one line, not millions of americans. i can see them individually picking people.

say they arents looking for patterns. they're looking for fraud -- patterns and phone calls made in to of the states countries and people in other countries. they are not looking for voyeur mystically listening to e-mail and phone calls. caller: i understand @ but they do have the capability and that is the slippery slope. they can go back into their files and records and find out what was communicated on that. it is too much for what the threat really is. "washington times" editorial today --

and then open "the new york times" this morning --

what you think? caller: i cannot agree with that more. i think that a spot on. at his wish -- you do not think they know that they are tracking

this? they're communicating every way they have to. it is overblown and it seems like it is just a big money cow to give to contractors in this country. laura on twitter says -- we are getting your reaction to the idea of whether or not there should be congressional response to nsa surveillance will spend the next 20 minutes discussing this. the senate begins debate on that bipartisan immigration reform bill. there is a procedural vote, a motion to proceed, they need 60 votes. this is from the new york daily news this morning -- next to that as a picture

of marco rubio c-span2 will be covering the senate debate at 10:00 a.m. this morning. tune in then. the president will be a rallying support for the immigration bill at the white house. we will have live coverage of that at c-span. that is at 10:20 this morning. he is quick to be joined by a number of folks in support of the bill. joined by union

leaders, the chamber of others of the and white house. in other news, "the wall street journal" reports -- several stories about immigration, there is this on the front page of "the washington post" -- that is her twitter handle. here are the numbers --

in the bio part of her twitter page she said that she was a hair icon, pants suit aficionado, and then kept them guessing, ending by saying "tbd." springfield, oregon. what you make of the question? should there be congressional response to an as a surveillance? surveillance? caller: thinks so. crook but all these billions of wiretapping, they are going to know what stock you're buying. i think there is corruption there.

make tons ofg to money. host: lee in georgia, republican caller, how are you doing? caller: good. i was listening to a lot of these people talking about the surveillance. it has been going on for years. why, all of a sudden just because we have a democrat in the white house it is such a big -- he is neither white nor black. i vote for the best man anyway. person thathe best i think is capable for doing the

job. i voted for clinton because i thought he was capable of doing the job. if you do not have anything to hide you do not have to worry about anything. that is my opinion. from "the guardian" this morning -- from "via associated press" -- the atlanta journal constitution says --

a poll shows americans put a higher priority on investigating possible terrorist threats and not to intrude on personal privacy. we are asking of you this morning, should there be a congressional response? do you want to see changes to existing legislation, legislation that authorizes foreign surveillance? do you want to see changes to the patriot act? rich from fairfax, virginia, an independent scholar. caller: i would like to spread a couple of things to get a. j. edgar hoover had this information on everybody. informationve this

in "washington post," "the new york times," whatever. they could say they have this information on you and they will find a way to put it out to ruin you. that goes for the president to the most junior homeless person or child on the street. this information that they are collecting, everything starts out with good intentions. silent about everything lately. this is just ridiculous. host: dc, is made on "good morning america" this morning? caller: that is the first time we heard anything about it. whoever has it in their hands -- it is not exactly the seed of

revolution in the country. he took it upon himself. my last point is the whole idea of disinformation, whoever has to have power, they killed it that young guy down there in florida that was supposedly involved in this thing with the bombing. while thent shot him miami police officer ran out of the building. you did not hear anything about that. was able toar-old get the information. -- a 29-year old was able to get the information.

that in "the washington post" this morning. "the washington post" this morning, along with many of the papers, has stories about the outsourcing of our intelligence. a shakier vetting. the ford bill passed the senate yesterday. here is the headline in "the washington times" --

the total about the nominee being held up by republicans a "washington times," -- if you're interested year covering the nomination on our web site. -- we are covering the nomination. go to our web site for more details. a state department memo reveals a possible cover-up.

this is happening when the former secretary of state was heading up the state department. the denver post, you probably heard this headline, --

in the new jersey senate race, to replace the late senator -- "the wall street journal this morning reporting on syria -- "the new york times reporting -- what you think? i was watching the

"democracy goodman's people can get a firsthand information on what is going on with this. over the major corporations i was looking at the had somebody connected with the government explaining what was going on, explaining how this young man is, explaining why he did what he did. if you are connected with the government you can go with the script already. the only people who do not know what our commitment is doing is the american people because of the corporate media will not expose it. they are too intimidated. the american people are so distracted by such entertainment that is going on in this nation.

unbelievable how misinformed the american people are. we're supposed the nation of laws. we have a constitution, the bill of rights. the senate are supposed to abide by them. we vote them into office and should demand they obey the law of the land and they are not above the law, no matter who they are. others might be interested in a column --

was any follow-up in the mainstream media -- recovered james stanford's story in "washington journal." in thisre interested facility, go to our web site, going to the video library, type in "james stanford."

are upin virginia, you next. caller: i was calling to let you know that i have totally lost afterin our government the targeting of the conservative people. not much has been said about the targeting of businesses. businesses donated to a last republican party. -- last republican election. some of them had to pay millions of dollars in legal fees and yet nothing was found out by any of them that had done anything wrong except they had given it -- they were given to the republican party. there's something very wrong in our government. as far as all of this targeting

and secret e-mail's, you cannot follow any trails in the white house anymore because they do not put much on paper. it seems like much has changed down the line. no one seems to be accountable. the president just sweeps in office under the white house rug. i am sure it is getting pretty dam bumpy right now. i am fed up with them. i've one thing to say about spying on people. i thought it was a federal law to prevent people from going into anyone's mailbox. our must have changed mailboxes now are our e-mail, our ipads. with we will be talking the director of the government secrecy product at the american federation of science. we will be talking about the

loss of around this surveillance program if you are interested stay with us here on c-span. that is going to be coming up at 8:30 a.m. eastern time. this from cnn -- we will go to get in las vegas, an independent caller, go ahead. to addressld like the 56% of people who say it is ok for the government to take these actions. do they know what they are saying okay to? host: let me show you the question, this is the question they surveyed.

shh caller: the problem is is it possible to rid the world of terrorism? the fourth amendment does not provide for possibilities? you are supposed to put forward concrete reasonable cost. people were supposed to be secure in their effects. to go facebooke i am going to communicate with other people. i am not going on there so the nsa can see what i think.

this to attract people to say, this is what they think, this is how they behave. i was a security manager in the army. i approved the security clearances. there is a significant difference in the mind set when you have a guy in a military uniform sitting at the desk next to a civilian contractor sitting at the desk. two anniversaries to mention for you -- the 50th anniversary of the equal pay act. 's"t and this in "usa today money section --

"the new york times" op-ed section -- today's marking the 50th anniversary of president kennedy's 1963 civil rights speech.

city, aklahoma democratic caller. your response? the patriot act has been reauthorize as recently as 2011. all of these people that are up in arms about this had supported it initially after 9/11. differente singing a tune if there was a terrorist attack. the maryland editorial this morning, they are saying a more robust separation is to happen between the intelligence community and the lawmakers and judges charged with overseeing it. what you think? caller: obviously this is a

violation of the fourth amendment. decidedtry as a whole that we were willing to compromise some of our privacy in order to be more safe. i honestly do not agree with that. this is the situation we are in today. with all of these people complaining about it most of them supported it. host: we're going to return to this topic in 45 minutes but talk with the director of the government secrecy projects. coming up next, a look at immigration as the senate phipps off the debate this week. off thee senate kicks debate this week. ♪

>> one of the interesting aspects of this building's history is the fact that exists at all. the reason this building is still here is due to our governor at the time. started to come to a close he was very concerned -- he knew what had happened when the troops cantor. he crafted a peaceful surrender of the city. he agreed to leave the city and have the confederate troops leave the city peacefully. if the union troops would also take charge of the city peacefully and specifically the

would spare the state capital with the museum and library. we do have three representations' of george washington here at the state capitol, one outside and one inside. this is actually a copy of the original statue within the state house that burned. that's that she was made by an italian sculptor -- he represented george washington in a way he felt we matched his reputation as a military leader and political leader he looked like a roman general and that was not entirely a popular decision of the people of north carolina. probably the thing that shocked people the most are his legs and feet are completely bare. a lot of people thought that was a little disrespectful to show it president with his legs and toes showing. >> saturday at noon eastern on

tv."an2's "book >> "washington journal" continues. to welcome back the congressional budget office director from 2003 to 2005. the senate kicks off debate today for immigration. they need 50. do you think they will get to 60? democrats won 70 to put pressure on republicans to take up their legislation. guest: it has bipartisan support in the maine. we need to address this somehow. i at least think the notion of getting to 70 at pressuring the house in any way is overrated. we have seen the speaker of the

house say he would like to see movement on this issue and he intends the house to pass the legislation the house is not an interested in what the senate does but they have their own way to do things. of talkere is a lot about amendments that are going to be offered to strengthen border security. some are calling them poison pills. if you see there are enough votes to include some tighter border security provisions and democrats walk away -- thatst: the bill cannot of the judiciary committee meets some improvement. there are those like susan collins who look at this bill and say it is not tough enough. we need to do better in particular in protecting the southern border. arethe bill does is say we currently the to the department of homeland security to come up with a plan. many folks believe they should

simply put the plan into the bill. there is a place for improving the legislation and not every amendment should be viewed as a poison pill. host: what you think about the overall prospects of the immigration reform? senator rubio says they do not have the votes for final passage. they do not have the 60 votes needed. there are amendments needed to strengthen the bill, whether it is a -- whether it is porous security issue or the back taxes. once that has happened is a different -- i took my run at it, i could get in, still vote for the bill. it is not perfect but i will pass it. getting to 60 is not as daunting

as one might think. this is our best chance mmi and repeated in my memory to pass the immigration bill. the big difference past 2013 is that conservatives on this issue to a great extent. you're seeing young conservative republicans, including those that would have presidential aspirations, paul ryan, rand paul, embrace this issue. conservatives have to be the one to solve this problem. that changes the dynamics considerably. -- on the floor yesterday saying what he has been saying all along, "i am not going to be fooled again. it was amnesty in 1986." changedhat is what has on the conservative side of the aisle.

conservatives have to get in there and fix it and fix it right so we do not get fooled again. the difference is not just border security. of reale combination security issues, employer verification systems, better ofnomic policy -- a lot immigration is driven by immigration. based system instead of relying on political asylum. that is a big change in the way we think about immigration in the united states. that will help us overall. always what you do with the undocumented and what you say in the way of the requirements to earn legalization? that is a legitimate place of this agreement but the spanish are quite high here. not everyone who is here will become legal. those with family read with felonies and misdemeanors simply

cannot qualify. cannot qualify. he won't get fooled again notion is really about what the you do to make this work in the future and have legitimate penalties? host: you have been on the record saying there is an economic benefit to immigration reform. how youind our viewers see this as an economic benefit? the native-born population people let me have a birth rate that is too low to sustain the population. our work force for the future will be driven by our immigration decisions. immigration reform is that opportunity. it is the opportunity to say we want to complete -- we want to compete globally.

have used political status as a foundation for who comes to the united states. we need to change that and the trolley decide to compete internationally. no other country does what we do. i think it is at the core of this. it is a great opportunity. we have looked at the numbers. if you do a very robust immigration reform you can raise gdp growth by million percentage points over the next 10 years. you can raise income per capita over the next 10 years. you can help very pressing budget problems. explain that last part. guest: if you grow too rapidly bad things happen. happen.- good things any policy to fund as a good idea. host: from twitter --

there is a legitimate and no workersn about show up, that as competition for jobs. there are two things to remember about the reality of the global marketplace. number one, it is global. we are already competing with the workers in indonesia. we are competing with the workers in brazil, competing with the workers in russia. the fact remove them across an ocean or cross the street or state does not change that competition. we're not going to see which is go down because it can see the competition, it is out there already. and everyone is competing in the u.s. they are competing in a level playing field. we have work force regulations and that is a better form of competition than one that is a ton of rigid than the one that is done and the ground or overseas. is done on thet

ground or overseas. host: explain what you think about their numbers and how it differs from what research you did. there are two big differences and a million geeky pursuits. number one, a real clear look at it before and after. what happens if you change our immigration policies and thus change the growth in labor force and get gdp growth? the heritage foundation does not look at a change in the law. included in their numbers are the cost of schooling for children born here. those are u.s. citizens that have nothing to do with changes in immigration law. as a result i think you get a mixture of defects. the second big difference is what you have described in immigration. at the heart of the heritage foundation they are concerned

about it yet much of the social safety net, the social security and medicare will be too expensive in the future. that has nothing to do with immigration. if we had a baby boom the same concerns with the rise. it is about entitlement reform. host: -- he says he has dropped out now and will not support anything that gang has come up with because he is not satisfied that taxpayers would have to foot the bill for immigration illegally in their of legislation. this is from "the hill" --

guest: we have already established that emergency support will be given to anyone who walks in. that is not an issue in this debate. unfair issue with affordable care act. there are serious concerns about whether this nation can afford it. i would endorse the concerns. the real problem in the house is not with the republicans, it is on the democratic side. a big piece of the democratic caucus believes that everybody here, legally or otherwise, should get everything they should ever think of. that is not going to fly. it is not a realistic approach. many think is unfair. the democrats are going to have to move towards a realistic view of what eligibility would be.

yes, they started with an approach that said we're not just checking the box and everybody gets everything, we will have to figure out what we can afford and on what timetable. remember, if you are here illegally, under the senate bill if you have to pass the background check. employedhave to stay at a high level at 25% of the poverty line for 10 years. in the process you will in fact during the right to become law fleet of president and citizen but you will not get it automatically. that is how the senate began discussions. >> the senate this week taking of immigration reform legislation. a motion to proceed today in the senate. eakin to take your

phone calls and questions. jim says, are their estimates of how many might be hired to process these 12 million illegals? are, and ie probably do not know what that is. i think the important thing is to recognize that in all of the discussions about the house and senate the notion is the bill will contain the financing for that. yes, it will take some additional employment by the government to handle the processing and run employment verification, and do some things that are under appreciated to keep track of entering and exit on work visas. that is a big source of that undocumented right now as we know it's that this house some of the 9/11 terror risk got into the united states. there is more machinery to make this work.

and ohio. -- in ohio. all, there isof not 11 million, it is like 30 million. they could not even count them when they had the sense is because they hit in the house. they are not going to pay any taxes. they have five or 10 kids that will draw up income credit off of us. $1,500 taxes over 10 years is a joke. what theion dollars is heritage foundation has come up with. they are going to pay three and will be a deficit of six trillion dollars on taxpayers. but these arean, important considerations.

is how many undocumented are here? most estimates center around 11 million. most estimates are that the illegal immigration population has diminished because of the conditions in the u.s.. on the cost, the heritage issue, i stressed that there are costs. no one should believe this will be free. it is not. there are benefits as well. six trillion dollars over 50 years, even taken at face value is to send out of every federal dollar of spending. is have to decide if it worth it. what are the benefits that the pair were -- that compare with it. the third is you have to come down somewhere. two things get said simultaneously that cannot be both true. either they will compete with workers or they will cost

federal workers but they cannot do both. neither is literally true. host: we all know democrats want non-citizens to vote for them in 2016. this has nothing to do with compassion of any sorts. last time i checked all politicians want everyone to vote for them. debates much about this again, there is probably a grain of truth in there somewhere, but i think it is overstated. effort to continue our reach from conservatives and hispanic families. it is based on the notion that there is a lot of commonality is. hispanics are not a one issue boat. they care about a lot more than just immigration. take a what about what happened

in the house thursday? immigration was highlighted thursday when house republicans voted to halt the obama administration's policy preferring the deportation of young adults brought illegally to the country as young children. this was an ominous sign for reform efforts, efforts to normalize the status of dreamers have been among the most popular parts of changes to immigration law. what impact does that have on your outreach effort? guest: it is important to recognize this as part of the broad discontent with the administration's over use of power. they have done things unilaterally that should be done through legislation. you see people unhappy about it. this is not something that is unique to this issue or to the house of representatives. the second is we are discussing immigration reform. who wants to change the status of dreamers or anything else? put a hold on things the of

ministration is doing unilaterally. host: bill in arizona. democratic calller. you are on the air. have,: the question i they have been telling us for years there was a 12-20 million illegals and less numbers on the list. am retired on a fixed income. my taxes went up 30-40%. i do not know how they expect us to retire. how they expect us to keep up with real estate taxes. guest: again, lots of effort to

cut the votes that have been illegally. obviously no signs there. do the best you can. i think the issue the calller raised is worth thinking about is the impact on local governments. a lot of debate about the federal government and its budget cost. much of that is deferred. the up-front costs are borne by the states and localities and intog sure we figure that the calculation is important. >> can we learn anything from immigration laws in europe, and particularly germany? >> i think the answer to that is yes. europeans are among those who have been most aggressive and opening borders to labor flows and thinking about immigration. germany stands out as an advanced industrial country that has maintained high levels of productivity and economic

growth in very bad circumstances. that is in part due to the willingness to do the kinds of things we are contemplating in the united states right now. >> what is the economic benefit? >> benefit number one is just numbers. more people can make more stuff. as you grow more rapidly, you get the opportunity to put into every new factory, every new machine and facility the latest technology. that is the bonus that comes from rapper -- from rapid growth. the second is getting the workers you need. getting the skill mix. we see this as the center of debate. what can we do with high-tech visas in the united states? as a result we see jobs in the united states absent. >> those countries, are they attracting these high-skilled workers because of our policies? >> they may not be going to germany or europe, but they're

not staying in the united states, and we need to fix that. think we are passing up a tremendous opportunity where bypassing this immigration reform with mexico. i know there is more to it, but especially with mexico we should not do because mexico is run by cartels and criminals, and it would be very easy for us to put pressure on them and reduce their grasp and reach, especially the united states. ,f we would clamp down on them and you can only do that at the border. that is where you really got them. we just let the border go and let everyone come in here and the ones that are ready in here, they will get everything, the benefits that

the americans had. take out to responses. host: two responses. guest: this is why it is such a hard thing. it covers everything. it is a fair point. the question is, what priorities to put on different issues. that is why the debate gets so tinkled. it is why the passage inevitably involves a vast coalition of the disgruntled. you improve things in many dimensions. we will hear that again and again in this debate. >> when that debate begins in the senate. one thing to watch for according to the wall street journal is the amendment of john corning. it would require biometrics systems to monitor who is

exiting from the u.s.. it also would call for complete operational control before illegal immigrants can receive green cards. a tougher benchmark than in the current bill that requires the border security plan to be substantially deployed. democrats will start to build from the bill. votes did not count the until the votes are counted. missionary -- mr. sherry is entitled to his opinion. according to mms is so whether you like the particulars or not. this is of the sense that we need to strengthen the border and security considerations in the bill. there is a lot of support for that. i think this is particularly important. people think of the illegal immigration problem as the southern border, and it is not. people coming to the u.s. illegally to study, work, visit and then staying past.

ohio. ron in independent. for c-span.nk you i am a navy vet. my father was a bet and grandfather was a mess and we vet an. was a the alamo.calome if you think my friends have not lost their jobs, i have seen it. i watched my friends lose their jobs. for your thank you service. my father was also in the navy. on the labor front, i think there are two real concerns that arise right away.

one is, will push down wages? most of the evidence is that is simply not the case. and will there be enough jobs? i think it is important to remember that any bill will take a long time to influence. we do not do immigration reform very often. we want to think of this as how to we want to set policies for a long time and not judge them by the current circumstances, which are bad. we have well over 10 percent comprehensive unemployment. coming out of the economic recession and a very slow and painful fashion, but i do not think that is the right way to measure immigration reform. jobs inalways created the united states. ofhave gone from a nation 13: c -- colonies to 300 million people into the miracle of our economy. and we can do it again. host: a tweet in -- the employerk on

sanctions part, the difficulty is you have to give the employer and a chance to comply with the law. right now there are too many employers that are trying to do the right thing but because of the absence of verification system and temper-proof identification, they could not. it is not there to enforce something that is unenforceable. fixing that is a big step. >caller: i believe this is really just about economics for corporations. the wages are going down. the same people who opened the floodgates for illegals are the ones that higher. we need to do something about it. most americans are out today working three-four times harder. why?

because the wages are going so far down that you have no other choice. all you could do is work to make ends meet. people that come over here, i did not care how you cut it, if you bring a person over here that is used to making $50 per month and then offer them 2000 per month and a job or you 2000,ve paid somebody 3000 a month, what is the company going to do? he will go with the person where he could make 1000. that is basically all i wanted to say. corporate interest is real. they have talked extensively about the need for temporary skills and worker program and to make this more responsive to economic conditions.

so i think those would be sensible steps. we do have minimum-wage laws. we do have a lot of labor force protections. everyone who comes to the united states will comply with that. there is a third piece that i think is real and legitimate. we've seen the medium income call. we of seen a prolonged stress on wage growth. that has nothing to do with immigration. we of other problems to solve as well. first of all, i do agree with the last calller. driving down wages. what iretty obvious wanted to call about is when the law enforcement stopped because of the reform bill, how many illegal alien criminals will not come forward or remained under registered? be reallyit will not

reinforced. thank you. common concern is the law will somehow be meaningless because it will not be enforced. i think that is a sad commentary on how people view this issue. we should pass laws and enforce it. i think it is important to pass laws that are enforceable. we have some that are not on the books right now. if you go past the concern that it will not be enforced properly, there are strong provisions for those that have committed crimes in the u.s. and abroad. they will not qualify for any sort of legal status and be subject to deportation. enforcing that is an important part of the law. host: some other noteworthy pieces. parker's peace talk about -- has beenout what t called poison pills.

rand paul has trust but verify amendment. he wants congress to come up with a plan for border security, rather than homeland security department do it. then you have the earned income tax credit barring illegal immigrants from asking for their earned income tax credit from the irs. back taxes that the utah senator will require immigrants to pay -- to prove they have paid back taxes and are staying current as they proceed towards legal taxes -- legal status. then you have done and them that that could also come up. same-sex partners. offerk leahy was going to this during markup before the senate judiciary committee. he did not, but it could come up during the debate this week. our rubio has said he does not think he can support the current legislation that he helped to draft unless fortress security provisions are strengthened. to that end tom coburn will

consider offering an amendment in which congress will take over the responsibility for drafting security plan, which the department would then carry out. several of the bills of their shows several signs of support. guest: simple issue, right? ourselvesh reminding that we're a nation of immigrants and people and people have tax issues, benefit issues. they have done issues, social issues. all of that gets wrapped into the immigration debate. i do not think it is a key -- fair to accuse anyone of trying to offer a poison pill. there are places in this debate for improvements of the bill. i think that very strongly whether it is making sure taxes get paid or benefits are appropriate.

all of the issues of the day that will show up in the immigration legislation. i am not a big fan of the poison pill lababel. >> the weekly standard said gang of one. immigration reform, are rubio is the indispensable man. if he fails, it fails. he has done a superb job for leadership. -- guest: he has done a superb job for leadership. i think it is a reflection not just of his skills but what i mentioned earlier, the fact that conservatives have come around to the point of view that this is their issue, that it is about economic growth and conservatives a pro-growth and making our nation secure in getting it fixed right.

and fundamentally do not trust the administration to get this right. theirs what is driving participation. that is why i think we have a very good chance of getting this bill this year. st: do you agree if he bails, hit fails? guest: i think it fails because the substance does not meet the test of the vote, and we need a good bill, not just any bill. foreign trade with mexico doubled recently. explain. guest: we pass the north american free trade agreement back in the 1990's that liberalized trading agreements with mexico. it has benefited the united states. mexico is a big trading partner. it has benefited mexico as well. i remind myself of how that

debate evolves. a big part of the goal was to make sure we had a democratic secure government and trade has always been a tool of doing that. in mexico next. to get this is my very first time calling to c-span. big fan of c-span. -- caller: my very first time calling to c-span. reflex --oltz-eakin to mention e-verifys as a way for employers to verify people who come to work for them. that is one tool that an employer has to be able to verify the background of the people they employ.

and also, i want to talk about or inand the problem hatch has created by backing thatfrom having a quota varies on the number of people that are able to enter this country through that program. that is going to really hurt people with high-tech backgrounds. host: it is specific to high- tech companies. is a real option for some employers in some states right now. what the bill does is build a better system that is nationally available and gives the employer a fighting chance to stay on the right side of the law. right now they do not have a fair shot at that. that is exactly right. it is an important system. it would be rolled out to large employer years and then smaller

employers. i think that is an integral part to make sure we get this right. in the end i am an economist. if it were up to me, i would not have six quotas written in the law. i would have the number of emigrants respond to economic conditions in the united states. right now we have a lot of people unemployed. when we have a boom, he would get a bigger flow. so the quotas are always hard because they are set in advance trying to anticipate the conditions and are being done by folks that are not really in touch with this. that will be a hard debate all the way through. there was a piece written that they do not have to look for an american worker first, they can instead have a foreign h1b1 visa first.

i think this reflects standard inferent the i t industry. this is a debate that is coming up. it has not arisen yet. right away when you get to employer verification, things like the worker bee says, how you do this, often it comes down to verifying identities. there will be some who claim we are on the way to a big brother- like national i.d. system. it does not have to be in the bill, but i expect this debate to emerge before we're done. on the line for democrats. if we have 11 million people here illegally, they have

helped the social security system. they have been paying taxes. a lot of them are paying taxes. we are hypocrites. we are more than willing to let the young people serve in our military where most of our people here would never volunteered to serve in the military. also, he made a few statements. one on executive orders. his boy george bush far exceeded and the executive order that barack obama has used and we do not have complaints about that. that called in about the alamo, that is all about slavery. peopleabout keeping under suppression. thank you. guest: an important part of thinking clearly on the cost of immigration reform is distinction of the things we're already paying for verses new cost. i think this is one of the

faults in the heritage foundation study that there are folks here illegally better already imposing costs on the system, and they're providing benefits as well. they are often paying taxes and providing products into the stores, so we will not get an immediate big pompoms from legalizing them. they are already contributing to the economy. host: you talk about fees they will have to pay. it will cover the cost of what? guest: the secure fence, the additional personnel on the border, costs associated with apparatus of the new security system. things like that. is to have agencies involved. tweets in --x

of goal.at is 100% a good immigration reform will keep that of the center. caller: thank you for taking my call in question. i wanted to ask what he thought of a significant rise in the minimum wage in conjunction with the immigration reform, and by the way, i think a national id card is a terrible idea -- idea. thank you. of a: am not a fan significant rise in minimum wage. asked what this does to employment and send a, is off to fight for a while. at the one thing we do know pretty clearly from our experience is that it hurts young workers, especially teenagers, summer jobs and those just out of school. this is the wrong time to hurt

young workers in america who have been badly damaged by the recession. i find it very hard to support raising the minimum wage at this point in time. it is also not a very good tool for fighting poverty. i would like to keep that out of this debate. issues host: gh let me ask you about the economy. the unemployment rate has remained unchanged, 7.6%. we can go through the list of areas that have seen an increase. professional services business. retailers, etc.. then there is this, money and investing section. s&p rates fell look on u.s. credit rating to stable from negative monday citing economic resilience and economic credibility of the u.s. s&pt: i am stunned by the

decision. there is nothing that has been done to the budget outlook in the united states that would merit such a change. if we have done something substantial in the long-term , it, farm belt, name it could understand changing it, but none of that is happening. i am worried openly about the complacency some are showing in the state of the economy. is a rising fame. this is an economy that employs fewer people today that before the recession. medium income has declined. we have an enormous amount of distance to go yet before anyone should declare victory on the economy. host: what are you watching for in the senate debate?

guest: i am looking for the amendment that generally approve the bill to pass. that as border security issues. i am looking for extreme issues, one second be dealt with this to fall by the wayside. >guest: one thing to watch is who was on different amendments. if you have the gang of eight, they have recognized efficiency of the work product and are trying to improve it. >> our coverage begins at 10:00 this morning. thank you for your time. appreciate it. host: we will return now to our earlier discussion about nsa surveillance programs was even aftergood. steven spant, a news update from c- radio. the immigration

reform debate from house speaker john boehner in remarks earlier on good morning america. the leading republican says he thinks there is a good chance that legislation overhauling america's immigration system can be signed into law by the end of the year. his remarks coming just hours before the senate has the first book on the bill that would -- citizenship for those living here illegally. saying again, i think no question, by the end of the year we could have a bill. no question. breaking news from the associated press. police report this hour a large explosion has hit near the u.s. embassy. no immediate reports of casualties. we will keep you updated on that story. three chinese astronauts blasted

off into space today to visit their own precursor to a planned space station. they are on a 15 day mission to dock with the space station. the fifth-manned space mission and will be the longest. the guardian newspaper rights that's the domestic space program has come a long way since the founder of the tyrant -- communist china lamented that the country could not even launch a potato into space. it is still far from catching up with the u.s. and russia. while beijing claims the program is for peaceful purposes, the pentagon report highlighted the increasing space capabilities and that it was pursuing activities aimed at preventing adversaries from using space- based assets during a crisis. fears of an arms race mounted after china blew up one of its weather satellites with a ground-based missiles in january 2007. those are some of the latest

headlines on c-span radio. >> the name of this place still resonates with the shuddering in the hearts of the american people. more than any other name connected to the civil war except lincoln, gettysburg reverberates. the retain the knowledge that what happened here was the crux of the terrible national trial, and even americans who were not sure -- who were not sure precisely what transpired, knew presides wasglory probably hear. >> the 150th anniversary of the battle of gettysburg live all day sunday, june 30 on american history tv on c-span3. we're back with steven aftergood, with the federation

of american scientists here to help us with the conversation about the nsa surveillance program. let's begin with how did he obtain this court documents from the foreign intelligence court. how was he able to get ahold of this information? it is a mystery. clearly he had a top-secret intelligence clearance. but that does not account for the broad and deep range of access to information he apparently had. possibly part of the explanation is if he was working as a systems administrator of have gotten access to all kinds of compartments that would not necessarily have been part of his job, but would have been able to access any way. it is one of the many outstanding questions about this

story, how was it even possible? to track try government conspiracy for your job. it is -- is it easy or difficult? >> i am on the outside of government, outside of the crop is the classification system trying to shift the boundaries of public knowledge bit by bit. it is extremely difficult. the system is set up to discourage any kind of disclosure at all. certainly any of the arrest -- unauthorized disclosure. there are serious barriers in .lace all kinds of barriers in place to prevent this kind of thing from happening. in this case they all failed. why you think that is ? guest: it is not clear. maybe it lacks personal security. maybe the bedding of this

individual was not as rigorous as it ought to have been. computer security procedures were inaccurate. maybe he is simply a very skilled and determined person who was able to prevent the circumstances that were in place. from a security policy point of view people will want to probe very deeply into that to understand what happened and what are the lessons to be learned. >> from what you know, how often is a government contractor allow this kind of access versus an of the nsa? mean, neither government employees nor contractors ordinarily would have access to surveillance orders of the foreign intelligence surveillance court.

this level of access is extraordinary for anyone. the general principle is to get access for classified information you need security clearance. you need someone low oil to the united states and not for verbal to coercion. haved that you need to need to know. and of the words, you need to be identified as someone who needs a particular item of the information to do a job. if you do not have it need to know, you cannot get it. even if you are cleared for that level of classified information. in your opinion, is he a hero or a traitor? guest: i do not subscribe to the framework, and i do not think it is very useful.

the action has substantially enriched public discourse on surveillance policy. and we know all lot of important things today that we did not know a week ago. column.is in the plus in the minus column, certainly we violated the non-disclosure agreement. that is an ethical problem. and if government intelligence -- government intelligence officials are to be believed, he also compromised significant intelligence gathering programs, risk could put people at in the future. are those the actions of the hero or villain or someone in between? if he is prosecuted and some in congress say he should

be, what laws are in play? the espionage statute. prohibit thes that the national defense information to an unauthorized person. provisionlso another that specifically prohibits the disclosure of this -- communication intelligence, which might fit into this scenario. these are felony statutes. this could yet -- lead to a prison sentence. >> talking about walter pincus this morning in the column in the washington post. he writes that when he was a staff director for one of the

committees and he and the fieldtee went out in the overseas, found out what the nsa was doing, listening in on the canersations and said you testify and tell us everything we are doing. they balked at the time but then relented. he went on to say legal history. 1979, the supreme court upheld a decision by the maryland court of appeals that said there is no constitutionally protected reason will expectation -- expectation of privacy. alreadye company creates a phone log, the number called and time cent. in other words, what is new? >> isam and an admirer of walter pincus. is a bit of a

contrary and peace that he is published today. there is a difference between no if thereon of privacy is a difference between saying that sweep of all records of all americans and store them in a record database. one thing does not necessarily follow another. of government data base is different than a company database. the government has capabilities that the telephone company does not have. so there is a distinct issue. it also leaves out other issues of the history. 40 years ago there were extensive public hearings on the conduct of domestic surveillance. missing similar

hearings and a recent years. engagementspublic and public disclosure that characterize the era when walter pincus was in congress is not what we're seeing today. >> he writes about wired magazine in a story in march 2012 and wrote extensively about the utah facility being built to store pretty much every google search, every piece of data coming in and out of this country. he asked, was there any follow- up in the mainstream media to ban disclosure or anything close to the concerns of what was on capitol hill this past week? no. guest: what is the difference between the past stories in the stores of the past week? the difference is the latest stories include government documents. this is not someone's allegation, opinion, impression of what is going on. these are actual government

documents saying you hand over every day, all of your call records of all of your customers. speculation, and it changes the character of the story and helps explain the reaction to it. how should congress respond? of alli would say first congress should respond. what we have seen up until now is a press statement to say we knew about this, we think it is fine, there is not any problem, go away. i do not think that is adequate for a satisfactory response. , nownk there needs to be that the log jam has been broken and things that were secret a week ago is now public knowledge, there needs to be some real follow-up, clarification of what are the rules of the road, what exactly

is happening, what protections are in place? threats is this program geared to deal with. how well has it been working? what violations have occurred? what violations of policy are known to have taken place. i have my own preference that tends toward the privacy perspective, but i do not think that is the important issue. the important is to is the public be engaged in the public consent be obtained for the program. right now the entire program is conducted outside of public awareness or consent. i think that is a problem. twitter -- there is something

seemingly unusual indefinitely and explained about the level of access here. it could just be sloppy this at a local facility. surprisede were about the extensive access that theley manning had through defense department classified network. happening. things >> you talk about engaging the public on this. that this has brought it to the forefront. house people, the white website for petitions. i want to show the petitions for dealing with this. pardon edward snowden, 44,000

signatures. president obama, if you believe in an essay surveillance, we challenge you to live public debate with edward snowden. what do you make of this? guest: not very much. uphink people get caught personalizing political issues. i think this case, this story, individual will become a proxy in many people's mind for other objections, whether they are partisan or personal or political to administration policy. rightot think that is the point of pressure from my point of view. i want to see the institutions of government functioning properly and comfortably. that means either congressional newings or some kind of

commission that it is set up to a report on publicly. it needs to include significant declassification not of operations, which are likely to be sensitive, but of legal criteria and standards. what is the government's interpretation of the law governing surveillance? that is something that is properly public but not yet available. host: john in colorado. police i am a retired officer. this may have helped bring -- host: what does this have to do with the conversation? thatr: despite the fact independent scientists found -- host: we're talking about the nsa surveillance program.

adam in ohio. trade centerorld program was in a free-fall for 100 feet. so why is that an essay calling --r a new talk a concerted effort to about this topic. let's stick to what we're talking about here, the nsa surveillance program. hinckley in minnesota. caller: i have been reading a book about lincoln. he said in a statement, america will never be destroyed from the outside. if we falter and lose our freedoms, it is because we have destroyed ourselves. not give outid information to any country. he wanted to let the public know

this is happening. have a good day. thank you. i think judging from mr. snowden's statement he was acting from conscience and was not allowed to profit. he seemed to demonstrate subjectivity. he did not throw out the entire data bases. is to his that credit, as is to the fact that he stepped up to say i am the one who did it. that is very unusual and i think commendable. i think it stops short of the kind of responsibility taking that would be appropriate. if he believed it was the right thing to do, i think he ought to turn himself into authorities and that submit to the discipline of democracy, so to speak. he has not done that up until

now. can judge, it looks like it was a public spirited act and motivated by genuine concerns. was it the right thing to do? it is difficult to answer. clearly it comes with a cost, not only to him personally, but more importantly, the intelligence programs that were exposed. --t: dennis lane tweets in well, you know, congress says they are watching the nsa and the courts has been put in place to supervise operations. but it is hard to know exactly how seriously to take that. the senate intelligence committee last year held only one public hearing all year

long. they have not held a hearing with public witnesses for several years. they have basically shifted away from the public domain towards the intelligence community. they are providing less and less feedback and information and insight to the interested public. i think that ought to change. i think we need more public hearings. we need more open hearings. we need more outside witnesses. we need more public investigations. the chair of the senate intelligence committee said that a report that was completed record of ciahe interrogation programs is the most important thing that the intelligence committee has ever done. it is completely secret. the most important thing the intelligence committee has ever produced is totally unavailable to the public. that makes no sense, and i think

it needs to be fixed. su : "the baltimore sun" article says weak oversight is the problem. guest: you know, it is a serious point. i know it looks different from the outside. the congressional committees are concerned about their own relationships with the intelligence agencies, the degree of cooperation they try to obtain. they are at a disadvantage in cannot get the information they want. in other words, they feel

towards the intelligence agency the way people like us feel towards them. even if that is true, that is not a satisfactory explanation. there have been efforts to increase disclosure and public reporting on domestic surveillance. i think of some of those efforts have been successful last year, snowden might haveard made a different choice. this thing i am trying to expose, it is clear people are getting better informed about this and do not need to do this. the silence from congress created a vacuum that may well have contributed to the decision to link these documents. host: this headline -- the u.s. government in china

will have to be negotiations over what happened with edward are he but reports remains in hong kong. host: our next calller. all, there isof more information supposed to be coming out. i do not know how much or how they are going to allow it to come out, but it cannot be stopped of course. we do not know what is coming out. haveous whistle-blowers said over and over since this broke that they are warning us ast this is not good for us a nation, and they are warning us. so be careful who you are getting your information from into you are believing here. that is universally true.

we all need to be skeptical, educated readers and listeners. that does not mean the most alarmist perspective is necessarily the most authentic or true. the way i understand it is people approached this issue from different perspectives. there is the strong side of the perspective, which says there is no justification for the government to be collecting all call records on all telephone users. there's just no justification for it. probably unconstitutional and violates the fourth amendment and we do not want it. if it is not being abused right now, it could be in the future and unacceptable,. . you can put a lot of people's opinions into that. on the other side there is what you might call a strong security

perspective. that says if there are serious threats to not just individualized but security of the nation. proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. this surveillance system that has been put in place is one of the most effective tools we have. it has already proven its in and countering proliferation networks. and we have done the best we can to limit the potential for abuse. we have installed oversight mechanisms and other branches of government, and we need to protect security. from that starting point it leads you to the status quo. my own perspective is somewhere in between there. i would say what i am concerned about most or all is strong oversight.

what that means is there is confidence there is robust supervision of the intelligence programs, including public accountability, public reporting, declassification of the legal standards that are in see, and then it let us where public opinion of false. to get this right, we need a lot more information and accountability that we have had up until now. host: following up on the more information to come. glenn greenwald who first reported this information is quoted out of hong kong same we will have a lot more significant revelations that have not yet been heard over the next several weeks and months. there are dozens of stories generated by the documents he provided and we intend to pursue every last one of them. a question --

guest: essentially for ever. since early in the cold war. spy satellites, the aircraft, those are built by contractors. in most cases they are very effective and efficient. without them. take a democratic calller. -- host: democratic calller you are next. caller: would like to make the point that when daniel elsbernd committed the same type of crime he was basically brushed off by the courts.

also, that the russians gave information about the bombers that were ignored. that was dead on truth. talk about secrets. the machine that the u.s. navy top secretwas still after all these years. i would like to make the point that secrecy and incompetence ego together. guest: thanks for the point. i think that is true. one of the basic problems with secrecy is that it inhibits error correction and inhibits the discovery of problems in programs and makes it harder to

correct them. if you are something great and doing it very well and it occasionally happens, secrecy can help to shield and protect it. if you're doing something stupid, reckless or illegal, it can help to protect that. somehow, we need to find a way to protect the good secrets that we want kept and to expose the bad come a a legal, corrupt incompetent secrets so they can be fixed. at's winter comment -- twitter comment -- is a u.s. nsa government industry.

signalssion ofelligence, the collection a lunch on intercepts, vacations or other forms of electronic transmission and also computer security. for coderesponsible making and code breaking which for military and national security medications. they have a workforce that is civilian and military and also increasingly contractor based. in some areas in the very best the world at what they do. they also have a history of problematic episodes, many of

which became public in the scandal investigations of the 1970s. just as we need an intelligence community but we also need a short leash to keep it on. that has proven to be a challenge. host: an associated press story -- the finder and keeper of secrets. host: they are known for

keeping their families in the dark about what they do, including the hunt for osama bin laden. host: mike, pittsburgh, pennsylvania. i have been listening to this. ago i watchedhs a program on c-span for facial recognition. putting cameras and tvs now and they can be turned on at will. what is to say this is not next? guest: technology is advancing rapidly, and there is a kind of comparative that says if it can be done, it should be done. i think this is where public policy has to step forward, play

thele in constraining application of new technology. there are some things that can do great things that were not possible in the past. prove someonen convicted of a crime was actually innocent. locate lostto children or to identify, you a deceased person. there are all kinds of possibilities and improvements for securities that are possible. we need a way to factor in rhyme is a consideration, constitutional values, and public opinion. when it comes to intelligence policy, those kinds of considerations have been missing for the process. host: senator rand paul writes a piece in the wall street

journal -- host: what do you make of this proposal? there are some assumptions built into that description. activities that the that are disclosed are contrary to law, which they may not be, or that they are -- that there is data mining of american information, which i don't think we know to be the case. they said, yes, we are collecting -- doing broad collection telephone call records in order to get access

. --edications communications. does the collection of the call alone constitute a violation of privacy? many people will say yes and others will say no, others will say it may, but it is worth doing in order to prevent acts of terrorism or proliferation of weapons of mass description -- destruction. don on twitter says -- host: what sort of legislation might work? you know, the biggest surprise to me out of the last week of stories other than the fact these documents were leaked

was the fact that there is broad systematic selection of call records. not just of individuals who might have sung -- some relation to a terrorism case but of everyone, local calls. your child'sling preschool or your veterinarian or whatever, the government wants that. and that is a complete surprise to me. it is hard to understand the basis for it. i think that needs to be justified more clearly. if there is not a compelling argument that most people accept, then that ought to be precluded. rand paul also said he is looking into a class action lawsuit to overturn the decision of the foreign

intelligence surveillance court. what do you make of that effort? guest: i think it is part of the initial response. it is a way of saying we are upset, we don't like the fact we did not know about this. there needs to be a response. specifics ofix -- the lawsuit, i don't find very, you know, that is not my solution. that think the fact senator paul is standing up and saying this and others are endorsing that effort is significant and ought to be viewed appropriately by congressional leaders and executive branch officials so that they understand that people want more information. they want more accountability and greater clarity than we have been given up to now. an article for the

washington post -- host: we are talking with steven aftergood. fas.org, if you want more information. he also writes a blog on their website. caller.an collar -- caller: i have a comment i wanted to make. all government employees, including the president, the secretary of the state, the attorney general, all have the confidentiality that they agreed

to. [indiscernible] there were issues going on legally that he knew our rights were being infringed upon and were for being broken. nothing more than a whistleblower. what was deemed illegal by the award himtion should the protection of the united states. secrets were given out, putting our troops and harms way. he let everyone know the administration had been not forthcoming or truthful about the spying on of the american people. host: is he a whistleblower and what does that mean legally?

guest: the term whistleblower is a charged one and implies a value judgment, that this is someone who has stood up to authority to reveal information that was suppressed and that provides evidence of wrongdoing. busy qualifying -- does he qualify? some will say yes and others know.

that is supposed to be provided to congress or to the inspector general. .t may be an effective defense say this guy was standing up for the public interest. that may be significant in some larger sense. he did what he did and i think it is likely to have positive and negative consequences. top: take a look at who has secret credentials by our government. 135,000 withut top-secret clearance that are unknown.

confidintial unknown.t arhat are 000 with top secret and 2.7 confidential secret. guest: until they were disclosed in a report, the prevailing i the numbersas holding security clearance or half of that. therely it turns out were 4.8 million, very large. it is uprising.

-- surprising. when you have tens of millions of secrets being generated every millions ofed people with security clearances. if we were able to discipline ourselves to generate fewer secrets, we can also get by with fewer cleared persons. the washington times says this is no way to run a government, having people with access to embarrassing photographs. host: the new york times editorial this morning -- they are calling for congress hearings. bob, you're our last phone call, democratic caller. caller: good morning.

theyld like to say that have no business giving classified information out to people who don't have the clearance. 1984.eminds me a lot of i could remember reading that in the early 1960's. it is knocking on the front door and every door. our security needs to be increased. the question is, how to recover those that have the need to know basis? giving information of people that are violating secrets and so forth need to be watched careful and maybe some of those that are doing the watching need to be watched. host: steven aftergood.

guest: if there is a sovereign remedy to all these problems, reducing secrecy is part of that. ,f we can increase disclosure produce fewer secrets, reduce the scope of the classification system, all of these problems become a lot more manageable and there'll be greater public accountability. that is the direction we need to move in. host: steven aftergood. the website is fas.org. thank you for talking to our viewers. you heard a possible commission looking into this surveillance program. that is one way washington investigates itself and that is our topic coming up next. all the different ways that washington investigates itself. first, a news update from c-span radio. caller: as mentioned --

>> as mentioned a few minutes ago, documents will be released. reaction is making headway's overseas. a hong kong paper has the headline -- world wanted man breaks cover in hong kong. the paper is talking about edward snowden. he had been staying in a hong kong hotel but he checked out and he may be in hiding. the formerports white house chief of staff announced he is forming and explore toric and pain to run for illinois governor. in a video announcement -- exploratory campaign. thes borrowing administration message of we cannot wait. he would be challenging the

incumbent illinois governor in the democratic primary. his approval rating at 25%, making him the least popular governor in the country. hillary clinton has joined twitter, described herself as a pants suit aficionado and a hair icon. the former first lady sent out her first tweet. she thanked the creators of the popular online parodies called its from hillary and said will take it from here. those are the latest headlines on c-span radio. during the years of william mckinley's political career, the house served as their residence. they had living quarters on the third floor of the house which

originally was a ballroom but was turned into living quarters with a bedroom and a sitting room. and alsoaining area off of that room and office that william used to conduct business. we are in his office right outside the ballroom which later becomes the living quarters while they are in canton. this is the setup they had everywhere they went during his political years. when he conducted business, doors stayed open to the living quarters. ida could hear what was going on. she was a silent political helpmate to him. she would never take part in meetings or express her political opinions. this type of setup they had while they were in columbus while he was governor -- there was no governor's mansion then. our conversation is now

available on our website, c- span.org/first ladies. continues. journal" host: we are back with connie cass. how does washington investigate itself? guest: there are several different ways built into the system. all through branches of government have some oversight but focuses on the executive branch because it is so huge and does so much. andhave judicial oversight also the executive branch doing . lot talk about the role of the inspector general. guest: the system we have now

is a post-watergate system. there are 73 ig's throughout the government. there are more than 14,000 people working in these offices. a lot of the things they do, the public is not notice that often because they are routine reviews, audits, looking for have armedy criminal investigators and may also look for crying, -- crime, bribery, fraud. we only hear about it once in a while. oversight of the cabinet departments, compromise about 14,000 auditors, other staff criminal other investigators. guest: they decide what to investigate and they operate hotlines. it is an employee or a

citizen who is unaware of fraud and abuse, you can go online or call their hotline and report something and they will investigate. host: how have their resources and used in the past and have they historically said they have enough resources? is this a constant battle? guest: a constant battle. there have been complaints middle have enough resources. most are affected by the sequester, so they have even less to work with. >host: we are talking with conne cass. there is the special counsel and special prosecutors. investigatoryct committees and also blue-ribbon commissions. we will dig into each of these. if you have a question or a comment for her, republicans (202) 585-3881.

democrats (202) 585-3880. we can read some of your comments also. they mostly do routine reviews that don't interest the public much they also investigate things like -- guest: the irs case has been expanded to their conference as well. we have heard about that recently. there are some we never hear about because they're classified. the biggest story of the day is the nsa looking at phone

records, internet access. for the cia.g and thoseclassified two intelligence committees and congress. are those people doing a good job? how do we dutch that because we can see their work. -- how do we judge that? go to websites and look for the inspector general office and see what reports they have done. host: you write in the piece of the budget for 2011 was $2 billion. who chooses them? guest: there are two ways. some, the president chooses and have to be confirmed by the senate. ig's thatencies have

are appointed by the head of the agency. tot: you say there is a con having the president picked by the inspector general. why is that? guest: there is always questions of political favoritism. they could say these are not people who are suppose to be chosen by their political affiliation. they're supposed to be chosen by their backgrounds as investigators. if the president wants to fire one of these people, they have to go -- they have to notify congress and say why. they do have some legal protections. host: who looks into whether or not an ig has fallen short on an investigation? guest: there is a council on ethics. if you have a complaint from a can go there and they will look at that. of theort to the head

agency or department and to congress. congress, especially, if they feel they are not doing a good job. host: a twitter comment -- i think there are seven right now. is where there is they don't have a presidential he appointed person and that raises question about their independence and authority. host: another way washington investigate itself is a special, prosecutors. explain how they work. guest: those only come up in cases where there is suspected criminal activity.

they are appointed by the attorney general. you are talking about and -- a criminal investigation and used at a time when there is perceived conflict within the justice department. it could be the attorney general is being investigated. something represents a conflict of interest. that is when you will bring in a special counsel. host: who are these people that serve on special counsels? guest: the attorney general can go either way. the most recent was a u.s. attorney that was chosen. once the mayor chosen, it if it is someone from inside the department, the work is churned out independently. there is still oversight by the attorney general over the budget and parameters of the investigation. host: do they get money from the

federal government? guest: yes. they have a staff and resources. host: what about kenneth starr? guest: he was independent counsel. less oversight and that was created after watergate. the prosecutore, councilhe independent was created. you write that congress passed the special counsel rule took its place. by thets were embittered investigation run by kenneth

starr -- host: first phone call comes from new jersey, independent. caller: good morning. as i am hearing these things, it causes me to think that the federal government has become so and hasated in power such overwhelming responsibilities and duties that go into every aspect of our domestic and foreign existence. is it possible for the government to actually function competently?

i think we need to ask that question because i think a lot of the distressed that people now have in government is not -- has gone beyond corruption or incompetence, but actual -- guest: that is a pretty big question. i guess some of those questions sometimes are best answered by a special commission. you would have to break that down maybe into subject areas. if you want to look at whether the government is doing a good job at something, then the best way to do that maybe a commission to look at how things can be done better. how unusual is it for the attorney general to investigate the attorney general, referring to the seizure of fun records

and the president asking the attorney general to look into what happened there? i think that is pretty unusual but they have done things like that before. officeld have the ig looking at something like this. a special prosecutor would not be brought in unless they're looking at something believed to be criminal activity. host: another way congress investigate itself -- they haven't oversight role. -- they have an oversight role. host: who chooses them? the congress decides what interests them. host: do they have a special

budget for this? do they have to go to the administration committee and say we need more money for this type of investigation? guest: most investigations are done through standing committees. i think the senate says about one fourth of the hearings are investigation type hearings, looking at the function of the executive branch as opposed to looking at legislation. they do create special committees. maybe the most famous is the senate watergate committee. they have their own budget and their own staff and become big operations within themselves. host: kentucky, independent caller. caller: hello. thank you for having me.

i would like to say that this investigation should be done by an independent because when do you have the fox investigating the henhouse? that is terrorism. whether they want to say it or not, that is a form of terrorism. it high time and past time the know about everything that is reasonably to let out to be known to the public to do the right thing. that is what we are after, the right thing, not what the system wants. do the right thing. connie cass. guest: i don't know if you is thinking about phone and internet records. there are so much more the people want to know.

big interest in making these things public. they have been classified and that is limiting lawmakers talking publicly about what they do. that is a problem that will have to be dealt with. host: investigations are happening looking into benghazi and libya. some have called for a special committee to be set up with all different committees coming together with some outside independent investigation. how do those work? guest: those are set up by congress. they happen when they feel it is appropriate. an issue that really interests the public and they feel they're lacking the full story for whatever reason reason, congress will either buy raw -- law or resolution set up these committees. name some high-profile

special select committees from the past. select committees like a watergate, iran-contra. is church committee interesting because they were looking at the cia and the fbi spying on americans. the set of that we have now, dealing with the nsa and its issues with wiretapping and fun records. that was a select committee that tried to deal with the issue of abuse of power and spying on americans. stills later, we are struggling with that question and maybe we'll end up another special committee to look at that again. a twitter comments -- the independent counsel

law which expired -- i don't think there is a move to bring back the independent counsel law at this point because you end up with people on both parties who are nervous about giving that much power to one person. the kenneth starr investigation was very important. you ended up with republicans and democrats complaining about each other. a commission -- they have ,elped americans ease calamity blue-ribbon commissions. host: explain how they work.

sometimes the president creates this, sometimes it is congress. you need congress to have subpoena power for these commissions. people who're led by are not considered to be partisan and you're looking for people that have the stature to put out a report that will be accepted in and bring closure. the big ones have been the 9/11 commission, the commission on the kennedy assassination. host: chris in alabama says -- host: catherine in alabama, democratic caller. caller: there has always been an oversight committee that would investigate each division of the government. much of theing --

discussion we have had this morning talks about secrecy and other things that have gone on. this has increased and the government had to do this since 9/11 much of this has increased as far as investigating each division, overseeing what is going on? that is already in place. --ld be a new committee would a new committee be appointed doing the same thing, replacing what we already have? guest: i am not sure what will happen with new committees. since 9/11, it has changed so many things. it has also increased secrecy quite a bit because so many investigations in terrorism. there are valid reasons for secrecy but there are also reasons for the public to want to know what is going on. host: chris in alabama tweets

-- host: on the irs targeting conservative groups, in the washington post this morning, josh writes -- host: mark in kentucky, republican caller. my comments on all of as with thesame other gentleman said by independent contractors.

jury duty,w you have you have different -- you took out different people. you don't have all the same people in their and you took out different people to judge. what is the right way to do it and the wrong way to do it. it is like a contractor. you have a contractor building a house. if he knows somebody that has rights permits, he he puts money in his pocket, ok, same as the lawyers. the same way as the lawyers and the courts. i think you should be jot -- done just like jury duty. guest: the closest thing we have to that right now is probably the blue ribbon type commissions, the special commissions that probably work best if they are appointed by a president and congress together.

choosing outside people, independent people to serve on this commission and come up with their findings. that doesn't happen that often, but when you have a issue of national concern, that is probably the best way to get independent voices that are no longer in government and are trusted to tell us we need to know. you wrote this story recently, how washington investigates itself. jim in michigan, independent scholar. -- caller. caller: i want to talk about the irs investigation and benghazi. about a week ago, i signed -- saw the former head of a division on c-span and he said the irs was just doing its job. they were applying for exemption and 52 of them, he

said, had identified themselves as political. that is a red flag for being looked at. 292, there were the igzations that bein identified. -- they asked them what they were and he could not identify them. [indiscernible] benghazi, the cia had an operation in benghazi. awould like to hear i comments because the cia is the

one that did the talking things to the ambassador that they were maybe not trying to cover up their operation in benghazi. i will take your answer off the phone. host: what was your question? guest: i want her to comment on the fact that there were 202 that were not identified. how can we say the tea party was being targeted? organizations out of 292 -- the ig could not tell us what they were. that was a big question in my mind. i think there was a big hole in this. host: i am sure you cover a lot of different areas. i don't know if you're following that specifically. that viewer watching our coverage of the hearing before the house oversight and

government reform committee. guest: i don't specialize in that particularly. i think the ig report was a report and that laid a lot of factual groundwork. want to get into congressional committee hearings, you're going because congress is so partisan, different viewpoints looking at the exact same numbers and exact same information and trying to decide what happened there. ribbonn a blue commissions, historically, have they been successful? you have a very successful ones and ones that you kick the can down the road and allow the president to express interest.

did you have investigations by blue ribbon style commissions of not just 9/11 but the shuttle challenger disaster, when i think is usually considered to be done very well. there have been some very significant, memorable ones. there are some that are not very memorable. host: a twitter comment -- deborah, maryland, democratic caller. am a lawyer and i don't know isn't a person in a that was anything other than what the inspector general said it was, which was administrative screwup of some kind that was exasperated by a lack of guidance from washington. the press, which is just getting to that point now, the example

being the story on page three of the washington post -- last week or the week before, they put on page one at somebody was saying the whole thing was directed from washington. i wish the press would -- the term investigative reporting implies investigation books -- before reporting and not acting like a stenographer. headline you remember was from the washington times. they got a hold of transcripts from the reform committee, interviews may had done with staffers in washington and the headline was -- ok, people in washington knew. the other was that this was initiated by an official in cincinnati. that is coming from the democrats. caller: my point is, i hope that you press to have the full transcript released.

host: definitely. -- they arething doing their own investigation of the irs. with the release all the information to the republic -- public that they have received? guest: we hope so. everyone wants to see the full transcript. it is not helpful to have partial quotes from that. host: is that something reporters ask for? guest: yes, we have been asking for that. host: what is in the answer so far? guest: so far, no. he said it would get released eventually if republicans did all of that should be public. host: the headline yesterday was that elijah cummings said he will release the transcript if the chairman does not.

deborah, what do you think? caller: i think the transcripts should be released and they will show what every lawyer has known for a long time that there is no scandal here. there was not incompetent, simply shortcomings. i think the press is falling on the storing. they repeat any sensationalist claim that comes along and they should not be doing that. there is no reason that you could not have interviewed those same cincinnati employees. why wait for the committee to do that? host: brad, chicago, independent. caller: i have a couple of comments. the irs admitted wrongdoing. that was one thing. this whole left wing mantra that was an oversight of some bad administration is ridiculous.

also, the depositions they are taking behind closed doors, you don't want this public until all depositions are taken because you don't want to influence other witnesses down the line. my question is, what does she think about the special counsel who does most of his work behind closed doors versus congressional which will do it out in the open? guest: well, i think there's always tension there because if you do think that the law was broken, for example, by some of these irs employees, a special counsel might be the right place to go. they are going to have a grand jury, it will be very secret until the investigation is over. sometimes it takes years. it slows down with the public learns. if you have congressional hearings, the public is hearing as it unfolds. as you said, they may want to hold back some interviews for a while, but eventually usually these hearings are designed to put things out there before the

public and let them know what is going on. there is pressure for both, and you see things the -- like iran- contra were you heard both. you had hearings and independent councils. it caused some problems. convictions were overturned because of testimony they were giving publicly under partial immunity on the hill. did you a question, want it kept quiet and do my social prosecutor and that might lead to a more thorough investigation and criminal convictions or do you want it done on the hill where it is done publicly reveal can see ?hat is going on it gets the public involved in a different way. host: four ways that connie

writes about how washington investigate itself. washington never stops investigating itself. special counsels, blue ribbon commissions and the role of congress itself. the last caller was asking why cannot we, the media, invest -- interview cincinnati employees, those that have testified publicly and in depositions before the house oversight reform committee? talk about reporters trying to do that. our attempts made to interview? guest: yes. i have not dealt with that story specifically myself, but that is common practice not just for ap but for other media. often people don't want to talk because they are under pressure and they might be worried about potential terminal charges even if they felt they did not do anything wrong. they worry about getting fired.

it is hard to come out and talk about it. finding people that will talk is not always as easy. if people are subpoenaed, it is their duty to talk. people do talk and we find things that -- out that way. host: two minutes left with connie cass. host: todd is next in california, independent. caller: hi, i was wondering -- he gotaudit, when involved with his audit, should it have turned to an investigation and put those oath and under of --

take and supervisors out of room and got to the truth of the matter under of -- oath? maybe this would not have gotten as far as it is right now. guest: the inspector general's do interview the employees one at a time, different people at different levels. the supervisors are not supposed to be involved and telling people what to say. -- theirard at times job is to be independent and interview employees and they are informed it is their job to tell the truth to the inspector general. no one has to follow up on their findings? guest: their report is sent to the head of the agency and to congress.

sometimes they have recommendations and sometimes they can arrest people. they lead to prosecutions. their recommendations are not always acted on. congress is to ensure the agency asked on her accommodations they feel they are correct. it is not a requirement within the agency. caller: we need news organizations that are going to be fair that are actually going to report the news. some of what is going on is not a scandal. it is not news until it has been

reported. to reportis our goal the truth that people want to know, to get it out there. it does not make a headline until a new server put on the front page. the previous caller talked about not just taking --ormation from one side what is the process? you get information from one do you go about adding the other side to your storing? -- story? you will always for facts they have. host: wisconsin, independent caller.

caller: i believe the reporter should be outside counsel for all these wrongdoings. and that will be independent in itself. .here were not be any question if it was actually outside of the government. they are the ones that should they are the ones that should be going to these government agencies and finding out what these questions are. independent and for the public. guest: there always be more

things to cover in the scope of these things. a way tol always be form these media. in as washington investigates itself on this front, what are you watching for as far as the special commissions, the special prosecutor, where do they go next? with: i think this story the nsa is very interesting and it is hard to know where they will go next. there's a possibility for hearings and possibly a commission outside of congress, but the problem will be in dealing with the secrecy and the classification. how much can we find out? thank you very much for

talking to our viewers. we appreciate it. that does it for today's "washington journal" and will be back tomorrow at 7:00 a.m. thanks for watching. enjoy the rest of your tuesday. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> both the house and senate are in today. house begin their week at noon eastern. at 5:00, they will start legislative work with debate on 5 land and water bills. the vote is set for 6:30 p.m. later this week, a focus on the defense authorization act, which

includes $550 billion in $86ding and an extra billion in overseas operations. legislation c-span2 on immigration. it puts caps on visas for correct -- highly skilled workers. this morning, president obama will make remarks on the immigration debate set for 10:20 a.m. eastern. we will have live coverage when that begins here on c-span. right now, though, a look at the status of immigration in congress from this morning's "washington journal". >> we want to welcome back to our table, douglass told begin, the congressional budget office director