article on school prayer in the u.s., 50 years after the supreme court banned the practice. first, we will take your phone eets., e-mail, and tweake [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] host: welcome to "washington wednesday, june 19. work on an immigration bill continues in the senate. tea party patriots are gathering in washington for an audit the irs rally. in europe, president obama will give a speech later today at the brandenburg gate. yesterday the director of the national security agency told congress that programs have prevented more than 50 terrorist lot. it -- we would like to get your reaction to this story. here are the numbers to call --

host: you can also find us online -- host: the front page "the washington post." keith alexander, director of the nsa. the headline is that dozens of plots were derailed, according to officials. the u.s. government's sweeping surveillance program has directed more than 50 terrorist plots in the united states and abroad come including a plan to bomb the new york stock exchange.

host: we would like to get your reaction to this story today. but take a listen to the nsa chief general alexander talking about the present surveillance per -- prism surveillance program that looks at internet traffic. [video clip] >> in recent years, these programs, together with other intelligence, have protected the u.s. and our allies from terrorist threats across the globe to include helping prevent the potential terrorist events over 50 times since 9/11. we will actually bring forward to the committee tomorrow documents that the inter-agency has agreed on that, in a classified setting, gives every one of those cases for your review.

host: general alexander, head of the nsa, talking before a house panel yesterday. "usa today" reports that more than 10 of the plots targeted the u.s. homeland, according to alexander's comments before the house intelligence committee. host: he also referred to two disrupted plots disclosed last week as having been thwarted by the surveillance operations,

including 2009 plan to bomb the new york subway system. what are your thoughts on this story? leaks have put security at risk, according to officials. at the newlyk more revealed information about these that theots, this says head of the nsa says that more than 90% of the information on the foiled plot came from a program targeting the communications of foreigners, the prism program.

host: let's hear more from nsa direct or general alexander before the house intelligence committee. representative michele bachmann, republican of minnesota, ask them about the impact of the leaks we solved by edward snowden. [video clip] opinion, how your damaging is this to national security of the american people, that the trust was violated? was irreversible and significant damage to this nation. m has this helped america's enemies? >> i believe it has, and i believe it will hurt us and our allies. see an image in hong kong where nsa leaker edward snowden was last to to be. you can see it says save snowden, save the freedom, this photograph in "the washington post" is a banner outside a hotel in hong kong. seen the decoder why are looking at what america thinks

of edward snowden. it says he his -- he is actually seen as a hero to many young americans. a majority of americans do believe you should be criminally prosecuted for leaking classified information over the government surveillance program. you might be surprised of the unlikely event of cohort to suggest the information he revealed is in the public interest where did we the people who identify themselves as the party is believed the release of this information is in the public interest by a 56-39% margin. segment oftical liberals, 57-37% say the same thing. here are the numbers to call -- host: do -- to go on and look at , 60%outh perception, 18-29

-34% say american citizens are well served by the knowledge edward snowden provided. we are getting reaction to the and a -- nsa chief's comments. ohio on the democrats line. hi, mark. -- are: libby caller: libby, i just think this is much ado about nothing. all of these politicians getting involved with this surveillance , all of thesew politicians would have to backtrack the first time something happens in this country, you know, comparable to 9/11, less than 9/11, more than 9/11 or wherever you want to go with that. that is what gets me back. all of these people that call, afraid the government is after them, going to take everything away from them, they just don't

trust anything the government is doing. i just think it is ridiculous. i know the government has to be watched a little bit. but you can go living your life thinking the government is watching you through your tv should -- through your tv screen. so, they hear a few phone conversations. biggio. -- big deal. you have had hundreds of people saying this -- unless you have something to hide, what are you afraid of? youother side says, well, just can't let them do anything because they will take it to the next step. but the thing is, they are still protecting us, and i think that is the most important thing. host: jerome, silver spring, maryland. independent caller. caller: i would just like to speak -- you hear about how it is supposed to be in the best interest of america, and this, and the other thing. what we are asking for is transparency. if it is something that will help you so much, why didn't you explain to us when they talk

about section 215, that this is what is going to happen, we will have the database but we cannot access it for this, that, or the other. why do they have to hide from us? host: what about the president 's defense that congress knew about it and there is a court, although a secret court that worked behind closed doors? does it justify it anymore? caller: it does make a difference that somebody does know about it. we are their constituents, and everybody needs to hear about what we are doing. you would think the american people would know at least what is going on. like a speed trap. if you really wanted to keep people from speeding, what you would do is make yourself visible. let us know you are doing this, and it would keep people from actually doing it. if you let us know they were recording the information, it will be much more difficult for these people to actually communicate with each other to make these plots because they

would be afraid to do it. they would have to go back to writing letters and pigeons and doing whatever. they knew they were being watched, don't you think it would deter them from sharing that information? host: let's look more at the details. the headline in "the washington times" -- host: kerry and arlington, virginia. republican caller. caller: how are you? i'm doing ok. i think we are all a little bit areuided on what -- we looking for. my opinion, a professional opinion, the lesson isn't what

snowden stole but the fact that someone like him was able to and he was under judged by the people who employed him. i think that is what we need to look at, is who is handling our sensitive data? there's always the fallback comments, or if there is something you shouldn't be doing, then just don't do it. host: you say you have a professional opinion. what field do you work in? caller: it is not what i work in, but i trained as crime information analyst and profiler and i work at a pd. i had the responsibility of gathering the data to build the department, the first of its kind. i worked off of data that was in the department and put it together and help my officers identify hotspots. alexander said, according to "the washington despite what he

said otherwise, he would not have access to the nsa's vast databases. host: well, we see more details about the foiled attacks from " the washington post." they looked at one of the cases in particular. this story says back in november of 2008, the pakistani student living in england began to e- mail a yahoo account that was ultimately traced back to his own country.

host: information from "the washington post." what do you make of this question mark tom, philadelphia, democrats like. caller: thanks for c-span. in my opinion, the hearings that yesterday were an exercise in an attempt to simply cover up the leaks, to recover from the fact that we are all being listened to. we are not afraid to be listened to, because we are all not terrorists. as far as the administration is concerned, if they are trying to prove that attempts at terrorism were covered up -- i was a fireman for years, and i cannot tell you how many fighters i prevented by being a fireman. listening to everyone's concerns, i really

feel that the fourth amendment was abridged and violated. host: do you have outstanding questions, things you want to hear answered by the head of the nsa still? aller: i would say, were the answers and responses you gave were prepared? it seems to me that they were. even congresswoman bachmann's -- when she and her question said is this treason thisaction, automatically man snowden -- i am telling you, i really feel sorry for that poor kid because he really, he is in much the same straits as friday manning -- private manning. he will be hunted down, and i am afraid he will probably spend the rest of his life in jail. were all the,

questions and answers prepared for that hearing? host: another pennsylvanian, tim is on the independence line. caller: how are you doing? host: what are your thoughts, tim? caller: i am a young person. my opinion is -- host: you are fading out a little bit. caller: edward snowden is definitely a hero and to every young person i know, they agree with me as well, because he did a great service by leaking this information. host: what do you think about what general alexander had to say yesterday questioned he talked about -- he and others who testified edward snowden are making claims about information he may not indeed have an defended the program and the dozens, over 50 plots have been for you. what do you make of that? generali saw what

alexander said and i really just didn't buy it. i saw it as a cover up. i could almost see the worry in this phase that this information has gotten out of the public to the degree that it has. i have sort of known about the nsa and know their operations for a couple of years now. i was waiting for somebody like edward snowden to come out and let everybody know what was going on. i think he is a hero. i don't leave anything -- believe anything alexander is saying basically. 50 plots. the whole the world communication -- such a small number. , their opinion. host: you said you were young? caller: i am 20. host: let's go to dave -- wade from south carolina. caller: how are you doing? host: how are you? caller: pretty good. ? he wanted to talk about

-- on tv they can't talk about stuff. congressmenthese sitting there trying to grill him, you know, they've got to approve the budget for the nsa every year. for them to sit there and act like they don't know what is going on, they really ought to be ashamed of themselves. it is just political, i think. vatexan hads what to say. host: a different opinion -- host: aj from baton rouge, louisiana, independent line. caller: good morning.

i wonder what the response would from a lot of the democrat callers if this was brought out during the bush administration. , it is angood honorable thing to do this now. when they started the homeland security thing back in the bush days, it was terrible. we are going to be spied on. these people are going to be spying on us. it isat it is a democrat, ok. host: what do you think about this? caller: i think it is terrible. host: you do think that way? caller: definitely. if they knew i was a terrorist of any type and they've got the correct judicial thing to check

me out, that is fine. millions and millions, no way. host: are you more focused on the politics of this? you talk about what immigrants would think back during the bush years versus now. are you look at the politics or more of what it means for civil liberties and privacy and also security? caller: both really. the politics part of it is going to creep its head again. if it was under the bush administration, it was terrible, and now it is ok to do it. as far as the civil liberties deal, no, when i pick up the phone to talk to you folks, i don't want nobody to know about it. host: george in sheffield lake, ohio, on our democrats line. caller: good morning, libby. i just want to start off by saying that i am almost 70 years old and has time as went

by i see more and more and more of our liberties and privacy and freedoms disappearing. young people don't understand that, because they have never seen what it was like in the old days. but us older folks see what is going on, and it scares the heck out of me. they are throwing our constitution into the trash in the name of security. going to beare foiled, but what's next? we would be much safer if we allow the police to come into our house whenever they felt like it. you know what i am fine to say? we are losing our freedoms, losing our privacy. we hear about these things, but what is going on that we are not hearing about? that scares me. thank you very much. host: and american herojoe tweets -- host: more information from "usa today" -- one of the alleged

plot was related to the new york stock exchange. here is what we saw from the deputy director of the fbi sean joyce. he said -- host: looking further into the piece -- host: what are your thoughts? anna from dayton, ohio. independent.

austin, democratic caller. often in las vegas? -- austin in las vegas? caller: thank you for putting me on. my thoughts about edward snowden. saying he isle like a rat or a traitor. i don't think that is true. he has a lot of courage, i think, for doing what he did. host: later on we will hear from fbi director robert mueller testifying before the senate judiciary committee on c-span3 live today at 10:00 eastern time. and you can see more of on our website www.c-span.org. david is from louisiana, independent line. am calling to talk about the claim mr. alexander made that there were 50 plots that had been foiled.

i just don't know if i buy that. this man has obviously been set up to support the program. he has lied before the very same committee before about the program, them not having the ability to collect any of the information that has come out with edward snowden's leaking. a lot of this, mr. alexander has openly, penn said none of this is happening. and james clapper also did the same thing. i do not think in front of the same committee. he made claims none of this was happening before. if they miss video where he was sitting there talking about how they do not have the ability, and he was rubbing his head, looked like he was nervous. i just don't know if i buy these guys. these are paid spokespeople from the government coming out and making these claims. i would not by what these people say. they are just covering themselves. if you want to try to get real

information about with the government is doing look to independent sources. host: what about the specific plots that some of those who testified outlined regiment let me just share some with you. the deputy director of the fbi talked about the case of several men convicted by a jury in february of raising and spending about $8,500 to house shabab, a al terrorist group in somalia. the nsa had flagged the calling activities of one of the men suspicious. leppo -- caller: there are one or two instances they can point to. but i just don't know. i do not know the extent, because he made lanes about numbers before. only about a couple dozen before. now it is 50. other ways we had to do the investigating before. as the reason we have to have a

huge databank going back five years that has people's information, who they called, ,here they were, through gps information and all that. .his program goes way too far regardless of whether or not it has been one or 50 plots -- i don't think that we should be giving up the amount of liberties. obviously, in my opinion, a huge violation of the fourth amendment. host: brenda from columbia falls, montana. democrats line. caller: thank you for c-span. first time calling and getting through. i believe that snowden took a pledge that he would keep the information that he found or , and he broket his pledge. so, who can we trust in our government if they can't keep their word and keep their pledge?

believe me, all these people i am listening to today that just think snowden is a hero, i think they are not. this man is a traitor and this thingsu know, gave away to countries that shouldn't even have our information. i don't have anything to hide. i don't think that every single president that we have ever had from george washington on told the public everything they were doing. how can you protect us? believe me, if we had someone that blow up this place again, all the same people would be screaming to have these same policies put in place. and they are not having any freedoms taking from them. unless you are a crook and a bomber and a terrorist, what do you have to worry about? nothing. host: here is bill's opinion on twitter.

host: well, "the washington post" has a story about google and the effort to give more of -- get more information public on how it worked or not worked with government. host: what do you think, mike? plymouth, ohio, independent line. caller: i am a 50 one-year-old retired veteran and i have been all over the world and anybody who has worked for the government or is in the military is well aware of what our government is capable of. and snow that manning are heroes because there is no transparency. we are dealing with individuals who feel they know what is best

for us. we went to war and left our borders wide open. the enemy has been amongst us since bush started the war. cyathere is -- everybody is in washington. the problem is that we have a two-party system that feels they know what is best for us and we the people have lost control of our constitution. what are we going to do? i am asking you. what are we going to do, people? host: we will throw the question from our callers and here next from david from el paso, texas. democrats might. caller: good morning. first off, i don't think snowden is a hero, and had he only released the part about what he thought was the secret program, i don't even necessarily think he would need to be prosecuted. but he has released more information than that. to these callers who think that the united states government can listen to their phone calls, over 300 million people in the united states.

ofwould take three shifts eight hour shifts of over 300 million people listening to your ,hone calls day in and day out and that is just impossible to happen. thank you. host: las vegas, nevada. republicans line. welcome, jesus. caller: i think a lot of people should reserve their comments to what they are actually saying. because, what we should be looking forward to is how we fix what happened. i mean, things happen for a reason. unfortunately this citizen happened to speak up and say things he shouldn't have, especially if he is working

within. you know, but, i mean, how can we fix this? host: how can we fix it? what do you think? caller: i really don't know. i just happens to be watching the program and i am like, whoa, what's happening, so i really paid attention to what is being said. i am just catching up on anything. unfortunately, like i say, things happen for a reason, and maybe we shouldn't really be talking down upon our country and looking to make matters worse. trying to fix whatever has happened. that whoever works for, say, the nsa, named -- they

know that. at all that came out -- how can it be prevented? maybe the person was already looking for trouble, and that is why he went out there and look about what we are doing as a country? host: we heard the head of the nsa general keith alexander talk yesterday before the house intelligence committee about the role of contractors. let's take a listen. [video clip] well, there are system administrators throughout nsa and all of our complexes around the world. on the order of 1000 system administrators, people who actually run the networks that have, in certain sections, that level of authority and ability to interface. outsideany are contractors? >> the majority of contractors did as you may be called, about

12-13 years ago, as we tried to downsize our government workforce, we push more of our information technology workforce or system administrators to the contract arena. that is consistent across the intelligence community. host: the head of the nsa speaking before a house panel yesterday. we are seeing some comments coming into us from facebook. tracy says -- host: let's hear your thoughts from floor -- fort lauderdale, florida. come up with a unique way of dealing with this. all of these individuals have a problem, think there) violated, we should have congress pass a andwhere those individuals all the legislators and everyone else who thinks the nsa

is violating their rights on the they should be able to move and then wec state will public information out to let the terrorists and everybody know which states are concerned .bout the program if they are able to foil a possible plot -- we will not use any intelligence information to stop any of those activities. so, therefore, we will go ahead and investigated after the fact, but if you have terrorists who want to go ahead and try to blow something up in the united states, they could use those particular states where people are worried about their rights being violated. then we will see how long that lasts. host: ok. let's look at a comment on twitter.

host: that is fred's opinion with concerned about the irs. we are seeing a tea party group gathering in washington today. this is from "the daily caller your coat this will be the largest tea party protest since 2010 -- this is from "the daily caller" -- host: c-span will be bringing you live coverage of this. you can watch portions of it on c-span3 this afternoon, and you can catch the whole thing live streaming on our website www.c- span.org.

let's look at a couple of other stories in the news. some from washington. the vice president tries to revive the gun safety efforts in congress. a story from "the baltimore sun ." host: and there is the vice president with one of the victims of the colorado shooting last summer. over in the senate, immigration bill gathering steam, reports "the baltimore sun turcotte -- "the baltimore sun." host: looking at a couple of other stories related to congress and legislation there. house has okayed a bill to ban abortions after 20 weeks. it is not expected to go anywhere else in the senate or through the white house, but we see from "usa today" that the

house did approve a far- reaching bill to ban abortions more than 20 seats after conception on a mostly partyline vote yesterday. we do expect to see the federal reserve chief ben bernanke speak today. he is giving a briefing. president obama let's let this week he may not be inclined to dissuade the federal reserve chairman from stepping down when his term ends in january. and we are going to see the 59- year-old chairman of the federal reserve talk today. you can find information on that on our website www.c-span.org. he will host a news conference, and people will be looking at what he says about quantitative easing. we are asking you this morning what you think about the nsa cheetos comments yesterday that the programs have prevented more than 50 terrorist plot -- the nsa chief's comments yesterday. caller: terrific show. i always love c-span.

, ofst want to say that course, mr. snowden did violate his work rules. i am sure he did. whether he is a hero or not, i don't know about that. but i really wanted to say that the intelligence officials who seem to be saving their own jobs are the most vocal individuals blaming that the programs are so effective. the telephone call monitoring programs. , they that these people intelligence officials, i believe, are probably the same kind of people ironically who spend all of the rest of their time calling for smaller government him a less intrusive government. i just find that kind of ironic. kingsville, maryland.

republican line. caller: for all of you long-time listeners, i was taking over when george bush enacted the patriot act and signed into law and all the democrats who were calling and crying about civil liberties being trampled upon and all the republican supporting it. now we step ahead ahead eight years and we are looking at the nsa and civil liberties and you have the republicans crying about civil liberties and the democrats saying, it is just fine. i am just wondering if any of them are realizing that constitutionally both of the presidents were wrong and the flip-flopping of positions is really peculiar to me and i am wondering if your other listeners are picking up on that over the years. host: you call on the republican line. has your opinion of this changed over time? caller: absolutely. when i went through it, i have become much more of a libertarian in my focus, understanding the government's

role is not to monitor civilians. even if it says it is covering for safety. i could be wrong, i think it was franklin who said those who sacrifice security -- liberty for a little security and up receiving neither. liberty nor security. host: houston, texas, democrats like. welcome. caller: to respond to the last caller. he had no problem with the program when bush was in office. it is always a problem when it is obama. i have a problem with the program. he needs over the last two years obama has been president. host: he talked about how his feelings have changed over time and he pointed out irony of people changing their opinions. have your opinion stayed consistent? caller: might have stayed consistent. i agree with some of the callers. it is both ways. it is a question that needs to be debated.

when they say we defended , yougn plots -- 50 plus have to explain. the american people can't just take your word because nobody trusts the government so you got to explain what you did. on top of that, we do live in a society where people are trying to harm americans. we have those people here in america and abroad. you have to be able to try to monitor them. you are not going to stop every lot, but if you stopped 50, you have to tell them. i just have a problem with people now because it is obama, now this program is bad. but when bush had the program, those same people were supporting that. it is for the president to come out to explain and for the nsa to deeply explain how it works and how they stop these plots. so farrican people -- -- you can't take it for granted and say we stopped these. tell us what you did. host: this is what "the

washington times" says. host: this story coming to us from "the washington times." .armine new rochelle, new york. republican. caller: here is what troubles me. in the name of terrorism, the government terrorizes the citizens with a massive surveillance, and then having watched these hearings, i find out that there is a secret onrt issuing secret decrees a secret program and it is all done for a secret agency. i just feel secrecy of this type leads to corruption.

i was told very recently, but i am not sure this is true, that during the bush administration they went around the fisa court, and if that is true, it proves again to me that secrecy leads to corruption and corruption leads to tear any -- tear any tyranny. host: byron, republican caller. caller: i think the lack of trust in the american government is because of the irs scandal. it has a lot to do with it. you trust the irs to do the right thing also. after reading the papers, i don't trust the government because you have so many scandals right now that the trust is just gone. apa, the private e-mail -- and the epa, having e-mail accounts

and others with private e-mail accounts where they aren't accountable to anyone. that thisirs's fault actually came up, i think, because we are finding out a lot behind theoing on curtain where nobody knows what they are doing. somebody has got to be accountable. talking about taking the oath of office. these people, these administrators of different government agencies to mother take an oath of office also and pledge allegiance to the united states of america. yet they turn around and lied to congress, like some of the other. people lie. you just have to realize that. we need a straight up

government that will tell you the truth and let us know what is going on. host: thank you for your call. that's go to texas and hear from danny, democratic caller. last call for this segment. kohler co. how are you today? host: good, how are you doing? caller: i'm doing all right. i am 67 years old and i am a retired farmer. i would like to say something about nafta and gaap -- with does it have to do the nsa? caller: it could. notthing about it, we do have stability and anything anymore since we lost section 22 in the 1949 farm bill, and it covers the whole world. that is all we need. we need stability and some common sense going on.

whole can't let the world come into this country and do what they want to do. host: here is what beattie writes on twitter --dee dee writes on twitter -- host: the u.s. and taliban talking peace. negotiations said as security is heading -- handed over to afghans. and for u.s. troops have been killed in an attack on bagram airfield in afghanistan, according to u.s. officials yesterday. in response to this news that the taliban is willing to talk peace, the afghan president hamid karzai has said he will suspend talks with the united states on a new security deal. it is in protest against the way his government is being left out of an initial peace negotiations with the taliban. president obama is in europe. we will see him make a speech

today at the brandenburg gate. yahoo! news as five years and 50 years, as president obama revisits berlin. he can't escape the anniversaries and the inevitable comparisons -- his own speech five years ago when he was well received in europe him a and then also the anniversary of president kennedy's speech back in 1963. we see that the president has found a cold shoulder, according to "the new york times." a picture of him with vladimir putin, president of russia, in a meeting early this week. we will learn more about what the president plans to say today but we see in "the wall street journal" that the u.s. plans to propose new nuclear arms cuts. he plans to say the u.s. and russia can trim arsenals by another 30 from current levels. we will be following the president's speech later on today. we expected to start around

9:00 eastern time. you can find out more on our website c-span.org. coming up next, we will talk about some of the news out of the g-8 summer this week and international issues. our guest is virginia representative gerry connolly. later on, we will talk about the nsa surveillance programs with pennsylvania republican congress was at perry. we will be right back. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> it was essential to remove france from canada for the united states to have the opportunity to achieve its independence. and a few people, led by franklin, recognize the possibilities for america to become a great country. let me just put it in different words from what i said a moment ago. to american achievement,

win a half million three people and half a million slaves, for them to get the british to evict the french from their borders and the french to help them evict the british to manipulate the two greatest powers in the world was an astonishing achievement. >> conrad black on the emergence of the united states as a world power. saturday at 7:00 p.m. eastern, art of book tv this weekend on c-span tw2. , and to gettysburg think about lincoln's charge, to think about the carnage and the lives lost, the great battles before -- fredericksburg, the wilderness in chancellorsville, you talk about antietam, you talk about shiloh and manassas. peoplethese battles

defending either what they think a way of life, slavery, all of it, all of that bloodshed to settle this contradiction. and we won. we have our country. and i like to go to gettysburg to say to my clerks, do we deserve this? fore deserve the sacrifice the country that we have? and are we living up to that? >> 150th anniversary of the battle of gettysburg, live all- day coverage from gettysburg national military park sunday, june 30, starting at 9:30 a.m. eastern on c-span3. journal"ngton continues. host: congress and gerry connolly is our guest him a democrat of virginia presenting the 11th district.

member of the foreign affairs committee. let's talk about foreign affairs. the g8 summit, we see headlines like this one. leaders besides that differences over syria but they have advanced some economic goals. that is the headline in "the new york times." we see the leaders of the g-8 summit posing for a picture. what progress, if any, was made on syria? guest: i think the issue is coordination now that the united states publicly committed to us it -- as if the insurgency. but i think there are real hurdles. who is it we are arming? the last thing the united states wants to see -- and i assume our european allies as well -- is that we end up with the best of intentions, arming and training and equipping the jihadist element in the syria revolt, and that is the strongest part of the rebellion that ultimately comes in part

to replace assad. it is not in our interest, the regional interest, and not in the european interests. those are real issues that have to be wrestled with. i also think it is a matter of coordination for refugee assistance. it was an announcement of a 300 million dollar package from the united states to provide additional assistance to refugees. coordinating that with our allies is also tricky is this. host: "national journal was quoted has this headline -- slipsliding into a third war. is there a danger of this turning into a third war after afghanistan and iraq? i find that an odd kind of headline because actually president obama has been criticized by the likes of john mccain and lindsey graham for being too slow, leading from behind. i think the president has shown great caution, understandably so, and the point of soervention -- to limit

precisely this does not happen, that it is not slipsliding to a third engagement. this is a president very much committed to ending the wars he inherited and not starting a new one. host: what is the danger of escalating and spilling over the syrian borders question mark we see "the new york times" saying tensions moving into southern lebanon. there are concerns about the turkish border. you cochair of the congressional -- caucus on u.s.- turkey relations. guest: first of all, we already hezboollahh the -- from southern lebanon into syria proper and there is a risk of this writing into lebanon itself. lebanon is a country that certainly has seen its own share of civil war, and we do not need to see that reignited. the carrion violence in lebanon is a real risk with the syria conflict -- secretary and violence in lebanon is a real

risk. and in the case of turkey, not necessarily sectarian violence in turkey but there has been shelling across the turkish border that led to some retaliation from the turkish military. i think the turks are very concerned about the possibility of the spread of this conflict across their borders. that is something as a nato ally and a crook -- close ally of the united states, that is something that has to concern us as well. host: the u.s. and the taliban, we may see some peace talks over afghanistan. there is a plan now for meetings in doha, qatar, but there is a pushback because hamid karzai, president of afghanistan, says he he is not being included in this. been: i have always skeptical, frankly, about peace talks or negotiations with the taliban. the taliban historically has , veryake no prisoners extreme ideological movement.

and you have seen that whenever they govern, their policies have been abhorrent. and the idea that that is the crowd with which we can negotiate is to me a strange one. so, i go into this very skeptical as to the likelihood of positive results. i am a worried that from the taliban point of view, it is just a tactical maneuver to buy time before the united states fully disengages from afghanistan. i hope that's wrong. i hope the taliban negotiators are sincere. they did open an office in doha seen as a welcome sign. but i think the jury is out on this one. host: as we see the g8 summit leaders conclude their meetings, "the washington times" uses the headline, president obama you -- president obama leaving the gathering without syria headway. what kind of reception did the

president get from the rest of the g-8 leaders, and where do you think is relationship stands with people like vladimir putin? we see images of the two of them, a chilling meeting, it is described by the press. guest: i don't know. i wasn't there. so, i can only be lie on reports. .- i can only rely on reports sometimes journalists have to report something, and they characterize it in ways that may not fully reflect the dynamics. you know, these are regular meetings. the relationship with vladimir putin has always been problematic. partially the personal chemistry on the part of mr. putin and partially because frankly, some of the activities of his government contradict u.s. policies, long-term policy, and hope for a democratic russia. be so, there are bound to

some tensions there. and russia has persisted in its support of the assad regime in syria and it flies directly against u.s. policy and interests and the rest of europe. so, of course there are going to be tensions. maybe it is a little bit chilly, because there are real differences that will cost a real lives. host: let's go to the phones. here are the numbers to call -- host: our guest, congress and gerry connolly, democrat of virginia who represents the 11th district did he said, as we mentioned, on foreign affairs. he is also the ranking member on the subcommittee on government operations, part of oversight and government reform. robert from baton rouge, baton rouge callers. independent line. important for the international community to intervene in syria just to

consistently enforce international standards, where there is chemical weapons used in genocide? you think about rwanda, where the international community waited too late and many lives were lost. as a deterrent to other rogue nations or leaders. and don't you think it should be multilateral? if the united states does it unilaterally, that it just looks like a superpower bullying smaller countries? thank you. guest: thank you, robert. you have several parts to that question. let me take the multilateral one of first. i agree wholeheartedly that this cannot be unilateral intervention by the united eight. it's got to be on a multilateral front with us, our allies, and the arab league, whatever the intervention will ultimately be. it has to be done on that broad level. i totally agree with you. comparing this to rwanda i think really is perhaps an overstatement. in rwanda, it was fairly clear

that there were people to be protected and people who were perpetrating atrocities, among the worst of the last century anywhere. in syria it is a much more muddy the waters, if you will. there are lots of different elements in the insurgency. lots of different elements in support of the assad regime. a lot of minorities in serial who frankly feel that they were better off under the assad protection than they would be under the insurgency's protection. so, it is not a clear-cut situation. it is very clear that the regime is a brutal regime and needs to go. but what replaces it? and who is it we support? it is not like you can just fly into aleppo and pick out the good guy from the not so good guy. the guy we want to support and the people we definitely don't and we give weapons to the

former and make sure that the -- i wish lifet were that simple, but it's not. there is a disagreement between us and some of our allies in terms of who would qualify for those categories. so, sorting this out is going to be very complex, very difficult. and i believe the obama administration's we left is to directly get involved in the military supply of the insurgency reflects this concern. and it is a legitimate concern. american hero rights in and asks for you to tell him why he should support the rebels in syria. as i have been saying, it depends on which rebels we are talking about and sorting it through will be a challenge. in an ideal world, obviously as americans, our sympathies always go to anybody who is purportedly fighting to broaden .reedoms and for shared values

when it comes to human rights, civil liberties, the right of political expression him and the construction of democratic institutions. the real question is him is that what all of these rebels are fighting for? and the obvious answer is, no. some of them are, some of them are definitely of a secular bent want to build secular democratic lasting institutions in syria. that would be a wonderful outcome. but that is not the only possible outcome, and that is what we have to really try to sort out. from new york,r democratic caller. good morning. know, mr. obama has cited the use of sarin gas and that is the reason he wants to send arms to the rebels. as you probably also know, the united nations has done their

own investigation and they have not come to the conclusion that the assad regime has used sarin gas. suggest, mr. conway -- and you were probably in congress a few years ago when george tennant, the then cia oval, walked into the office and says, mr. -- mr. president, it is a slam-dunk. iraq has weapons of mass destruction. congress and the rest of us should be very skeptical about president obama's claim that he has proved that the assad regime used sarin gas. the call.nk you for i have to say to you, my gray hair notwithstanding, i was not when that happened.

i got elected in 2008. right, wek you're always have to be skeptical about alleged intelligence that leads to a major policy intervention. that is what i've been saying in , thatnterview and that is is what i think the administration has been cautious about. they have not just been jumping the rebels. i think the president has been very nuanced in his approach. his administration and the intelligence committee have declared other than what you suggest, that sarin gas was used. that is a red line for this presidency and the administration. something will be done in response. what that something is going to be is what we're all trying to shape now. independenta on the

line, david, go ahead. turn down your tv. caller: i could not hear you. host: turn down your tv. we cannot hear you, either. caller: oh, i'm sorry. this goes back all the way -- lost inthink david got the sound of his own voice. that's go to kentucky, frank guest:, a democrat god bless kentucky, frank, a democrat. guest: god bless you, frank, a democrat in kentucky. caller: there are not enough of us. i want to say that president obama does not get the respect that he deserves.

that don't seem right to me. we certainly don't need to get conflicts. we do not -- we definitely need to know what we're doing before we go in there. we keep going blind. is, if you really want to talk about nsa and security and stuff like fact -- like that, and people taking notes and getting sworn in, i think the congress should be sworn in every morning under or -- under oath. i watch c-span a lot. the speeches that they get up there and give, some of them, it is plumb ridiculous that a bunch of humans stand up there and think that the american people are not smart enough to know that they're standing there

lying. is some on both sides, too, but mostly on the republican side. i think it is. there are people who would disagree with me. take noteey should every morning before they start. host: let's get a response from the congressman. -- i assumeld never everybody is passed reproached in their public statements and in their debate. congress is sincerely motivated. i do think congress exists and was designed by the founders to be that sort of a rematch in which there is a clash of values and philosophy -- to be a sort whicheena -- arena in there is a clash of values and philosophy. but what you do with that? what they designed it to do is

to then forge an agreement, a compromise, not where you walk away from your principles, but where you find common ground to move forward legislatively to make the changes the country desperately needs. that peace seems to have fractured. that is what we have to try to repair. host: congressman gerry connolly represents virginia as the 11th district. he was elected in 2008 and is in the middle of his third term right now. president obama is making a speech later on today at the brandenburg gate. we saw him take questions earlier with angela merkel, the chancellor of germany. and the president talked about the nsa prison program, the

internet server l.s. program that deals with people overseas. let's listen to what the president had to say. [video clip] say to everybody in germany and everybody around the world is that this applies issues relatedo to terrorism or proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. there are few categories and we get very specific leads, and based on those leads, again, with court supervision and oversight we are then able to access that information. this is not a situation in which we are rifling through the ordinary e-mails of german citizens or american citizens or french citizens or anybody else.

this is not a situation where we simply go into the internet and start searching any way that we want. this is a circumscribed, narrow us being abled at to protect our people and all of it is done under the oversight of the courts. germanyesident obama in defending the nsa program. your response? guest: i think a few people should always reserved a healthy skepticism about government intrusion, government scrutiny, and government senses. i don't want to take that sofar as paranoid. the government has a legitimate interest in protecting the public against terrorist acts. this is the tool. but it ought to be, it seems to become a limited to will and one that has carefully built in

me, ations -- it seems to limited to will and one that has carefully built in protections. based on what the president just said, i know how bureaucracies work. once the database is available to you, it is a very short step to its abuse by somebody, even if it is not systematic abuse, even if it is not coordinator were approved at the top at all. ,ut once you have the data content follows. that is what is of concern to me. i felt, for example, that the patriot act did not adequately address these issues and i voted against it for precisely this reason. i take no joy in now feeling vindicated with the revelations of the last few weeks. disagreenot say -- with what the government is trying to do in terms of protecting the government. -- the public.

i think that is legitimate. but there is a risk of long-term abuse when you require these databases, whether it be e-mail, phone records. what could go wrong with that? and congress has been privy to information that members who do not sit on those subcommittees. -- shouldur committee they be briefed? guest: the american people aected all 535 of us, not handful. and while i understand the desire and maybe even a necessity of somewhat limiting access to information under certain circumstances, here is a good example of the downside of that. the overwhelming majority of us

can and legitimate they say, i didn't know anything about this. no one briefed me, and had a, i would have express these concerns. i don't think that is good for the nsa or congress as an institution. host: let's hear from st. louis, missouri, nathan has an independent caller. nationalimmy carter's security adviser, as zbigniew led the organization against al qaeda in the 1970's and the soviets. and then the cfr member said, in short, the nsa need to al qaeda now. why should americans care of

millions of dollars and their liberties to fight terrorist that we created and continue to support? situation that you're wasribing in afghanistan almost a world away. the soviet union was still very much alive and functioning at the time. they had invaded, as you may recall, afghanistan, and the coalitionrted a broad of the mujahedin to try to dislodge the soviets and make them pay a very heavy price for their occupation of afghanistan, and to ultimately to get them to leave. that policy worked. follow wasat did not now what do we do? thedo we help in reconstruction of afghanistan? how about weiters and nation- building in getting the soviets to leave?

-- how about we do some nation- building getting the soviets to leave? we were not particularly interested in investing in infrastructure and institution building in afghanistan. we paid a terrible price for that. that led to the taliban and al qaeda training camps protected by the taliban in afghanistan. back to the back and fight the longest war in our history, and we're still fighting it. someone asked me a question if i thought it was a good idea to be negotiating with the taliban, a remarkable question if you think about it in a lot of ways. i think about who we are supporting and what the outcome's you expect from that .upport that is a. in the case of syria and other places throughout the so-called arab spring. i frankly think that folks like

senator john mccain and senator lynsey gramm our way to trigger happy in getting involved in every conflict in the region when these questions are unanswered. humanitarianrd to concerns in particular, joe writes in about national security interests and humanitarian suit -- concerns. aboutother that talks syria and civil war and that we cannot help them. can't we just help with humanitarian aid? guest: that is pretty much with the u.s. has been doing, providing humanitarian aid, and that is what president obama has been criticized for, that he has not been arming the rebels and helping them to rebuff the assad been on theich has rebel lately because it has been resupplied by russia and been reinvigorated

by hezbollah fighters coming from southern lebanon. dot should the united states by way of response? that has put a lot of pressure on the administration, that combined with the fact that the administration has found that the assad regime has crossed its red line with the use of chemical weapons in the country. that has put a lot more pressure on the president to respond with military supplies, not just humanitarian supplies. the question is, what is our national security interest? andnstable, jihadist siri -- syria does not do anything to advance the peace process and would be a great threat to our ally, israel, given their common border and proximity one to another. have a national security interest in the outcome of this conflict.

host: lucy is a republican caller in virginia. caller: thank you for taking my call. i wanted to ask congressman if he thoughtlly it was a good idea to support the arab spring in egypt before we really knew who was going to .e taking charge the muslim brotherhood has been there and their -- they have a less than peaceful attitude toward israel and are intolerant of other groups. wondered why we have sent a number of f-16's and $1.7 billion. i do think it is very wise not to rush into syria until we know

.ho is going to be taking over it is going to be this huge jihadist regime throughout the middle east. that will be very difficult, especially for israel. from let's get a response the congressman. you put a lot on the table there. statement,thoughtful lucy, but let's back up a little bit. what the u.s. did was withdraw its support from the house the from the mubarak regime as its support disintegrated. the problem in egypt was, because frankly, no political space had been allowed to grow in the 30 or more years of the , there was no

organized political opposition except for the muslim brotherhood. there was a lot of excitement during this so-called arab spring and a lot of secular, educated elites were very excited about the overthrow of the mubarak government, but it was easy for the muslim brotherhood to get into the vacuum and prevail politically because it was the only organized opposition. and that is what has happened. now the question is, what will the muslim brotherhood do in terms of government? madeof the statement you was not entirely accurate -- accurate. muslim brotherhood has not violated the camp david accord. they have pledged publicly to honor the camp david accord, and so far they have. you talk about military aid going to egypt. it does not go to the muslim

brotherhood. does go to the visit -- the egyptian military. the two are not the same. that has to be kept in mind. the u.s. is working in very tight lines here in strongly encouraging democratic institution building, strongly encouraging a more liberal constitution, if you will, that respects rights and minorities. there's a huge christian population in egypt that is very wary of the muslim brotherhood of government. the u.s. still has some influence, but not a great deal of influence. having supported mubarak for 30 years, we get ourselves on the side of that political divide and we are now paying a price for the political space we were composite in growing. -- complicitous in growing.

except committee held a hearing on iran just yesterday. one of our viewers on twitter rights in and wants to know your reaction on the recent election in iran. is it a watershed event toward a change in the iranian government? guest: it could be, but it is way too old -- early for us to know that. .here's a lot of excitement ,nd the moderate candidate rouhani, won the election convincingly and did not have to go to the second ballot. but you know, he is a cleric, an insider, and has been affiliated with the teo credit rolls since it was established by ayatollah krabaki -- with the co

since it wasc rule established by the ayatollah khamenei. in favorrn out to be of reform. clerics have enormous power in the cabinet and everything else. you also have the parliament that will be a huge check that -- the conservative parliament that will be a huge check on anything rouhani wants to do. we saw this with the previous regime, a was frustrated at every turn by the conservative forces of the government. i think we're cautiously hopeful of the change that could government, by this

but we have been disappointed before. host: good morning, barbara. caller: when are the members of congress going to have a the law result of the united states wading into this war? and when the congress decides that we start having wars. as soon as the armed rebels, we do not know who they are going to kill, what citizens are right to die at the hands of the united states. and at what point do we cut them off and not find ourselves with our man on the ground over there dying? it is wrong. congress is supposed to be in control of whether we involve ourselves, but you're too busy talking about the health care issue. have the congress do their duty. stop putting it on one man, when president, to decide whether we get involved in foreign wars. guest: i think your statement is

very well taken. i happen to share your view that the constitution is very clear. it names the president commander-in-chief and many cars have been imputed to that over the century -- many powers have been imputed to get over the centuries. declare war iso exclusively in hands of congress. i think that congress has ordered abrogated that responsibility in the last six or seven years and is time to reassert its role in the making of the u.s. government and in making sure the issues of war and peace and u.s. intervention are either approved or not approved explicitly by the congress in exercising its constitutional responsibility. that is why we are debating syria right now. i don't know that it is going to race to the level of a declaration of war. and then quite confident it is

not going to rise to the level of direct u.s. military intervention. that is not being contemplated by president obama or anyone in congress. host: jim on the independent line, go ahead. ie the caller: -- caller: want to talk to mr. connolly about this whole thing about how the middle east with the arab spring and matt -- and back to these countries. being a military man myself, i ,ave seen what this goes to especially with every single country of what is most of the militant -- middle east countries have no commerce for us anyway. beenf these leaders have taken out of control, which controlled the people, and now

we sit here with one country left basically, and they want to take that meter out and have a muslim brotherhood -- take that leader out and have a muslim brotherhood united through the middle east. it is ridiculous. building was planned and orchestrated that way. -- the whole thing was planned and orchestrated that way. for us to sit here now and consider anything, humanitarian or otherwise, is ridiculous. i don't know about that. i think the reality on the ground in the near east and middle east is actually much more complex than maybe you suggest. i think there are vigorous debates going on in places post- arab spring in places like tunisia and egypt and libya as to what form of government they want, what are the projections for minorities, how much free

speech can we allow, how much religion in this new government, how secular can we be or should we be. those are vigorous debates going on and that is not an unhealthy process. it is something that i would think we would welcome. our ability to influence this is limited. we do not control everything that happens in other countries. and especially when we have been identified with the ruling league for generations. those that toppled the power structure, our influence over that will be limited. we will try to encourage democratic institution building, and we will -- we are doing that. most of the jury is still out in the region as to what the outcomes will be. host: our guest is congressman gerry connolly, virginia's 11th district representative as a

democrat. let's hear from a virginian. this one is from burk. guest: a constituent, ok, go ahead. thank you for the work you have done for northern virginia and for fairfax county as well before hand. guest: thank you. caller: i am more concerned about the data from facebook and verizon and allow these other groups. it seems to me, there's plenty of oversight in the federal government. whoever is president, you have the opposite party that seems to be the watchdog of all. organizations in advance, do you have any idea on what type of oversight they have and toing that data out

keep our personal information from getting on the air? guest: that is a good question and, obviously, the answer to which is evolving. it is not just that the government has access to a large database, but also the private entities that control and collect and put together those large databases. what are the limits they have put upon them? there are several limitations, obviously. ify can be subject to a suit they miss use the data. but things have evolved in a way that we have come to accept the fact that if -- that for one, the data will be collected, and two, the database will be shipped -- sold or shared or used for marketing and so forth.

it -- is of concern to me in the public's fear, because i don't want -- in the public sphere, because i don't that thatt so used to it becomes comfortable when someone misuses your data. i don't think we should ever be comfortable host: -- ever be comfortable. host: defense contractors and others who work for the government tangentially, should there be a calamity and down? should there be a relinquishing of control by these private -- a relinquishing of control by these private contractors? guest: i don't think so necessarily. there are folks who work for the

federal government to engage in leaks and have compromised security, just -- who have engaged in leagues and have compromise security, just as in the public sector. there were as one that had a foot in both camps. going to be ays rogue elements who want to make a statement. sometimes they intend to be noble. and sometimes they may be much less so. systems tocreate protect us from harmful revelations that might compromise legitimate security operations to protect the public. host: congressman connolly from virginia. thank you.

guest: thanks for having me. host: next up, republicans got perry from pennsylvania. later on, we look at the christian science monitor with lee lawrence. first, this update. afghan president hamid karzai in a statement released earlier says he has suspended talks over a new deal in protest over the way the americans are reaching out to the taliban. he says he did this "in view of withcontradiction of acts i the statements of america." they announced they would begin talks first before the afghan government was brought in. meanwhile, the taliban has claimed responsibility for an attack in afghanistan that killed four u.s. troops. this just hours after the insurgent group announced it would hold talks with americans

on finding a political solution to end the war. to pay $70about million in employee bonuses, according to chuck grassley, republican of iowa. he says his office has learned that the ira's executed an agreement with the employees' union today to pay those bonuses. ,e says it should be cancelled director has been appointed. meanwhile, there is a rally in the u.s. capitol being called the "audit the irs" rally. those are just some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> go to gettysburg and to think charge and tos

think about the carnage there, the lives lost, the great battles before of fredericksburg and wilderness and chancellorsville. shiloh andabout manassass -- you talk about shiloh and manassass, all of these battles where people defended what they think of as a way of life or slavery or whatever, all of that budget to settle this contradiction -- bloodshed to settle that contradiction, and we won. we have our country. i would like to go to gettysburg to say to my clerks, do we deserve this? fore deserve the sacrifice the country that we have and are we living up to that? >> the 150th anniversary to -- of the cattle -- the battle of

gettysburg. sunday, june 30, starting in 9:30 a.m. eastern on american history television and c-span3. host: congressman scott perry is our guest, republican from pennsylvania. thank you for joining us. we heard the head of the nsa general alexander, said they have deerow 50 plots because of the program. what is your opinion? guest: it is guarded, quite frankly. i'm happy to know that 50 per plots have been to order to. within the united states -- have been thwarted. within the united states proper, 50 plots similar to boston. i think americans are concerned what the government knows about us, how they use it.

and we are also concerned that we do not know everything. at the same time, as a military person, a person with a security clearance, you do not want to give the enemy information that they would use against you. there is a very fine balance. at the global all continued to be concerned and we are happy that we did not see any more that we would have -- that we would have otherwise. it lends some credibility to the program, but there are still questions. and there questions about how the information came out. snowden was seen by some people as a hero. other people, as a traitor, and as more people have gone -- as more time has gone on, most people see him as a villain. i do not know if he may be turkey's claims to a member of congress and was turned away, or

to the ig -- if he took his claims to a member of congress or to the ig and was turned away. or if that is not the case and he just went to the news agency in a foreign government and fled , that makes him look like more of a villain. you had a someone security clearance for nearly 30 years, how did you receive his security clearance and the access that he has had, were purportedly had it? had? purportedly i think he has been a little loose with his facts and a little disingenuous with his descriptions of some of the programs and what the level of involvement in the american government and people's lives, but still, he has had a checkered past i think. my experience with security clearances is that they know everything about you and the -- and you have to be as low the above reproach at that level.

is there a concern for the american people that almost anybody can walk off the street and get clearance to look through your files or my files and make decisions? oversight is really critical. we need to know what we're dealing with and how far we want to go and what the checks and balances are to make sure america's privacy is secured. host: how assured congress institute those checks and balances? what oversight should specifically be done? let's start with clearance, since you talked about that when yourself. having been through that experience, should we reduce the number of people? shrewd defense contractors not get the clearest? -- should defense contractors not get the clearance? guest: solution, for me, is backed -- but it appears this gentleman got far less scrutiny than i got myself. they talk to family members and sit-down for hours with you to

go over all of your financial information. they know everything about you after this process, which is a lengthy process. it seems that this individual did not go through the same thing. i'm not sure about that, but it seems that way. american citizens, and congress, and certainly the intelligence committee as well, we need to know that this privacy is maintained. the change in the number, we , whatever the job that number is. oversight is critical. and just reviewing the fisa court, we want to make sure that the courts are not a rubber-stamp for anything that the intelligence community wants to investigate. certainly, we want to be responsive to the intelligence community and to law enforcement, but sometimes they might yellow overzealous. -- they might be a little

overzealous. what are the questions that investigators have? and we need to be ok with that. at federalng security processes is continuing in response to the league's right contractor edwards noted. and you do notan sit on the foreign intelligence community -- and the intelligence committee or of the foreign affairs committee. how you get information? guest: there are hearings specifically for freshmen, and i think that is a good thing. attitude, well, you've been here and this continues to move on seamlessly appeared before me, and other

people that have been here for six months, this was news to me. i raised my hand and said, with all due respect, i had no idea, when they said, will congress as known about this. well, congress has known about this. and then you set up meetings with the chairman of the committees and you ask questions that your constituents have rates that are quite honestly, the same questions i have. have,t your constituents and quite honestly, the same questions i have. host: president obama is in germany. we are expecting to hear remarks at the brandenburg gate. earlier, he took questions with german chancellor angela merkel and he was asked about the prison program, the program that looks at internet traffic from overseas. let's hear that.

[video clip] towhat i can say from -- everybody in germany and around applies verythis narrowly to leads that we have obtained on issues related to terrorism or proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. there are a few narrow categories. we get very specific lead, and based on those leads -- again, with court supervision and oversight -- we are then able to access information. this is not a situation in which we are rifling through the of german-mails citizens or american citizens or french citizens or anybody else. this is not a situation where we simply go into the internet and start searching any way that we want. this is a circumscribed, narrow

system directed at as being able to protect our people, and all of it is done under the oversight of the courts. president obama in germany. congressman gary, what is your response? perry, what is your response? has set think he himself up for this, not to be harper critical. during the bush administration -- not to be hypercritical. during the bush administration he pledged to never do these kinds of things and pledged to be very transparent and open. then you find a lawyer said that he not only continued the bush era policy, but increase the volume exponentially. say, too, that this

shows that there is a credible threat out there and that it needs to be addressed and this is a way of addressing it. but you lose some credibility, and i think the u.s. loses some credibility when you have the the free world saying, i'm against this and then you find out that he has amplified these programs and has been secretive. i generally want to support the security of the united states, within reason and within the bounds of the privacy requirements that all americans have, and certainly all free nations should have. campaigning is different. it is important to be responsible when campaigning as well. you stand for something, and some people support that. and i think some people feel like they don't know who this person is, and maybe they'll know where america is as well it is a detractor for us in the

world. it is not a good thing. state representative scott perry, republican freshmen. the numbers are on the screen. to brighton, mich., and hear from bill, on the independent line. for this greatou format. rose and ofharlie you, representative, that the president did not say u.s. spoke of beinge spied upon. he said "u.s. person." and yesterday, he said the same phrase, u.s. person. it smells of something of a play on words.

-- a the iraq war the gap lead up that could potentially be a play on words, it seems to me they are trying to hide that, a person has to citizen. guest: i think it's close to the skepticism that americans have about their government commanded just feeds into it. i would say that is credible. when you hear the things that the irs has done, and like you said, we go to war and we parked our words, americans do not want to have to pay attention to every single -- and when we parsed our words, americans do not want to have to pay attention to every single word and have the reaction be, oh, we did not say that. it leads to a healthy skepticism and that the government is keeping something from us. that is not what this

administration ran on and that is not what america is about. those are the things that congress wants to get to the bottom of. what does that mean? because our citizens have the right to know. what does that mean, united states person? does that mean all citizens and aliens or immigrants that are here legally? americanxclude citizens? we need to know what that definition means, and we should not have to listen quite that closely to our policy makers. speak plainly and tell us what the policy is. we will understand and decide if we agree or not. as citizens, that is our right and privilege. a person wantser, to know what you think of the briefings and what do you think of a member of congress not showing up? guest: i have attended every briefing, but i'm not on all the committees, so i would not be invited to those.

ofon't want to be critical different members. they have sometimes competing schedules or different committee meetings at the same time. maybe they got a briefing earlier, or not. this is an important subject to all americans, and members of congress, members of the government need to be attended -- attentive of it. they need to report back and help craft the policies that americans can support. host: new york, new york, alex, democratic caller. caller: thanks for taking my call and i appreciate your encouraging the healthy skepticism that is important for democracy. spying,o ask you about and is expensive war and security. all of these are motivated by 9/11.

if you have read them report that buyouts, you know that our thel liberties -- government never explained how the buildings came down. i'm going to stop you and ask you a question. we are getting a lot of calls lately from people who think that 9/11 is an inside job. are you part of a group or an effort that is trying to get this on the show? inler: actually, i've read homeland security training brochures that 9/11 treats activists are potential terrorists. and i guess that means my e- mails and from records are among those that the government can review, and that has me concerned. host: can you ask my question about whether this is part of a group effort or an organization or something? caller: i'm aiming at -- and i am an can citizen --

american citizen concerned about my privacy. host: akaka marlette to answer her question. i would have to disagree with you on what i think because of 9/11 is. it is clear for me. but i appreciate your view. and you're concerned about what knows thel government value. just because of your views, you could be on some list and surveiled in that regard. whether you're liberal or conservative, whatever your views, america is not known, nor should it be ever known for targetting people's political views or using their views as a target, and furthermore, using instruments of government, whether the nsa, the fbi, or the irs, to target people. i might disagree with you about what the causes of 9/11 work.

but i do not expect to be targeted, nor should you be expected to be targeted for your views. new administration should promote the type of thing or allowing in any way -- no administration should promote that type of thing or allow it in any way. next caller, go ahead. yesterday, there were many questions asked of general alexander. there was one question that was never asked. out of the 30,000 is sensations they're doing in the fight that -- dispensations they are doing in the fisa court, how many in andare dragged interrogated? , and relatives, co-workers

their records, and even if they ,re not -- found not guilty they are investigated for .ossible ties to terrorism i think the present court is way too lenient in letting us know what the rich -- the fisa court is way too lenient in letting us know what the results are. like to know that number as well, all of the cases that and have been brought in. how many were approved? who was watching the watchman, so to speak? as you have already articulate, is in people's lives can be ruined by allegations of this nature. proceeding with caution, we want to be secure, and we want to take every measure to be secure, by violating people's civil liberties with impunity and

andout high jurisprudence caution, that concerns me and other members of congress, and certainly not american citizens like you. host: blue, a republican. caller: i guess i have a comment more than anything else. is, the people are represented by our congressmen and representatives. how can we truly be represented if those organizations do not know what is going on? guest: again, i think that is a great question. saidresumption -- like i the viking in this year with 80 said, i i -- like i

came in this year with 80 or so other new members to and the assumption that members of congress do know about this, i would suspect that all of us that just came in, we have a look of shock on our face. you do not want to be in a position that you cannot answer when people call you with questions. and literally what i am finding out at the same time as citizens, that is not a place that your representative should be. there has been a cavalier attitude by the administration regarding some of these programs and how important they are and how and for now they are to american citizens and how american citizens view them. and importantly, the oversight that american citizens want to make sure they're comfortable with. and if everything is clandestine, is hard to be comfortable, right? host: congressman scott perry represents his district in

pennsylvania, including places like gettysburg and harrisburg. he has also served in the military. let's look at your military career. 100 for theth the general aviation battalion to iraq. he has a master's degree in strategic planning to the u.s. army war college. what do you think about what is happening right now in a place like afghanistan? we have seen headlines that the taliban has been willing to engage in peace talks, however the afghan president is now dismissing this. what is happening as american troops pull out the majority of forces? as a person who is interested in world affairs as many americans are, but with a military background, i have been

concerned with what our strategy is. i think it has been all over the highway, to use that kind of terminology. i think it is unclear for americans to know, and for the world to know. and quite honestly, i have a problem with giving the enemy timeline for withdrawal. in many cases, the taliban has been linked to terrorist organizations and has conducted operations in terror. and we do not negotiate with terrorists. i wonder, as the momentum shifts in their direction and they see themselves on the proverbial high ground to take an opportunity to further their life, and brightwood today? i look at the lives lost -- and why wouldn't they? i look at the lives lost, the ,olitical * band, the capital and i think what?

-- the political time spent, the capital, and i think, for what? karzai is saying, what are you doing, united states? again, i think it goes to our credibility and it makes me as a member of the military, who has dealt with family members, who has lost loved ones, and it makes me think, what has my loved one left home for, left wives and their children and their families, husbands, and gone over there and paid that sacrifice, for what, mr. president? and then i look at my time in the hallmark of failure, for me, not to be hypercritical, but the failure of the administration to secure a status of forces agreement in iraq. we went there for a time, and then we just turn around and

walk away. iraq has a huge border with syria. that could be critical to america's interests, but we can no longer do it from iraq where we spent 10 years. and we can no longer do it, where we spent so much in lives and political capital. and i think, please, let's not do that again in afghanistan. kathy,ewark, new jersey, democrat of next. caller: good morning. nsave a problem with the prism program. i'm not really paranoid with orone reading my e-mails clausing to my phone calls. i agree with vice president with vicejeanie -- president cheney. i think eric snowden is a traitor. and he was an i.t. kit and when he went in to fix somebody's

computer, he was probably doing something he was not supposed to be doing. that is where the oversight should be. i understand that you are just in congress this first year, but maybe all of congress needs to go back and look at the patriot act. guest: there is a lot of talk about reviewing the patriot act. , but just to give understandon, i programs and have been briefed on them. no one is monitoring the content of your phone call or reading the content of your e-mail. this is addresses, times that things have occurred, binary data, so to speak. i would be concerned if the american government were. with all due respect for my dog is their business to monnat to my phone call with my mother -- with all due respect, it is not their business to monitor my

phone call with my mother or my wife. we wonder how he got where he was and how the clearance allowed him to access the information he had and make decisions on the nsa's behalf as a contractor to avail himself of that information. that is where the point of scrutiny, as many points of scrutiny should be pointed in that direction at, as well as many other places. i did is a concern for many americans. caller: tell him to talk about citizens. idea of the what a joke. we have the underwear bomber, who tied tree bomber fireworks around a gas can in new york. joke.er a we have no credible threats. all the countries around the murderedhave raped and are too poor and underfunded to

attack us. but we want to hurt us can't because we are the most powerful nation on earth with technologically systems.military the e need to wait up and most important site on the web -- nathan, let's circle back for a moment. what do you think should be done? there's any nk threat from abroad? do you think there should be n.s.a. n of the programs? caller: totally. don't think eric snowden is a traitor. host: he says get rid of it all. respect i all due disagree. i think there are credible threats. put a perform face on this there are plenty of eople in the recent boston bombings that would disagree lives have been

emotionally and physically has affected it their families and some american citizens didn't come home from that. a direct result of the threat that is very credible. would have to disagree with you. the question is the balance of and ivil liberties security. i think that is what the congress is grappling with and american people are grappling with, with all due respect. host: let's get to new jersey, republican, don. caller: yes, everything that has been discussed recently about -- all the phone numbers and else -- has been electronic types of situations. he last couple of weeks i have read in the "wall street journal" there is something whereby the u.s. postal service many years been copying or scanning or whatever the is, the back of

is mailed.r that you are in the homeland security business. is this true? nd to what extent has this surveying or copying been taking does that fit in with the overall situation? that s just another thing is coming to light? guest: don, i have to be i have never you, heard of this program. chairman arly asked rogers and general alexander what other programs are out that we yet don't know about. so, maybe this is common members ofor certain congress, but it is not to me if here is a repository of that information. i know the post office does scanning, and it was my for letter it was delivery and package delivery, which mated process,

makes sense to me. whether they keep the data and what they would do with it i concerns and questions about or maybe they keep it for a period of a week mail ething assuming the is delivered at that point for crime investigation purposes. they weredn't presume keeping it indefinitely and i would have questions. that that to tell you is one of the major concerns of embers of congress is what is out there that we don't know about since we heard about this n.s.a. and we hear about issues with the you, and nd what have apparently the administration on many cases has known about these that come to light for us, they have known about them for years. concerning.very democrats nne on the line from virginia. caller: first of all, i'm surprised that i knew more about act than you did before you got to congress. why did you even campaign if you

didn't even know something as most as that, what americans all knew that. booz ion to you rbg, is llen is where snowden worked a private company and we know 22% f all private contractors are in the defense department and make up 50% of the cost. that is probably why a lot of ou didn't get to the n.s. afa.t briefings because you are dialing for dollars to the rivate corporations and which individuals. i understand that. ut what concerns me is if snowden worked at pwaorz allen -- booz allen and not what he he is a traitor or not, i'm glad this conversation is being had, but there same can sell that information to other countries tell them no way to

not to because they are private corporations who can do whatever they want with the same government is getting from them. is that correct or they are getting from the government? guest: that is not my understanding of the program. it is not my understanding that anybody. sold by and it is the government's informati information. is essentially requiring the private contractor, verizon or to maintainave you, the information. ooz allen is a contractor that hires people to review and do certain tasks, but they are not purveyor of the information. they are not allowed to sell it. not only the phone company or telecom company, but in that case the government has them hold it for the government's use. so, it is not available for sale by booz allen or anybody else. host: do you want to respond to she feels like she knew more about the patriot act? congress as not in

when the patriot act happened and we passed thousands of laws nd there are more than thousands of pages of regulations moved based on those every year. so, i apologize if i don't know single thing about what is important to you. it is what it is. we try as members of congress and we are expected to be the ts on everything from farm bill to immigration to national security, and it is a learning curve. that is not an excuse, but it is what it is. host: you mentioned the that actually have the data on american citizens' correspondence. we see in the "washington post" google is challenging gag orders fisa court data request because it says it wants to information blic about what they have turned over to the government and what the government has requested from them. companies be allowed to share more of that with their public and shareholders and everyone else? guest: we are asking from

homeland and intel communities, companies to the be more open and share more information regarding cyber security. so, it seems like a juxtaposition that the government is asking on one hand will you please be open and transparent and share because it helps secure the nation and on you to d we don't want say anything. i would say i think they have a good claim. i think what google is contesting is we are not the bad guys, the federal government do this and we had no choice under penalty of law except to comply. the other question is, is there going to be sensitive thermation that would alert enemy to programs that help keep if nation secure divulged they did so. i think that is what is going to have to be assessed. a question on twitter i agree sustains can help prevent case of ut in the boston it didn't. does this mean the government needs more surveillance? again, we expect our

government to be 100% accurate ll the time and terrorists and would-be folks that act like that only have to be right one confidence.e our i don't know that it has to be more, but i think it needs to be we have to accept as americans that it is hard to be perfect. operation for a big like there to be perfect in a free society. the balance we are trying to strike here. crestfallen for the victims of the boston bombings, about also have concerned our privacy and so that is where it is. perryrepresentative scott of pennsylvania. let's go to new jersey and hear cheryl on the independent caller's line. good morning. talking about accountability, i [inaudible] agree with all interestingrns that

hat everybody agrees but you say you are asking other members of congress questions that we have, can we accountability? can you be held accountable for anything? make any possible difference we can ask you what you are accountable for that you our concerns nothing seems but to reflect that later on? guest: i think you are right to ask those questions. every member of congress is knowntable to voters and i that probably is not the answer you wanted to hear. i have asked questions in committee, i have written letters to these these positions that can provide the answers. are ertainly those letters for public information. ther than that, we can offer

laws and we can vote on proposed accountable e us for what our beliefs are. that is essentially our system. votes accountable by the we make, by the statements we and and by the bills legislation that we offer to show our voters and american all around the country and people all around the world who we are and what we stand us andat is important to what we propose as a solution or what we propose to do about it. the is, i think, where accountability is found. now, you might disagree with ome of the things each member of congress, whether your member or me particularly based on my we would vote accordingly. constituents vote accordingly because we are here to represent not only our by the greater population of the american public. particularly, our constituency in the district we represent it is important we are them and speak

clearly for their voice. host: we expect to see president expect in berlin shortly this morning. news reports are saying he will nuclear arms reduction. he's going to be speaking at the brandenberg gate. what news does he need to come from the g-8 meetings and the visit to germany? will his ch power speech today give? uest: of course, it is an anniversary of president kennedy's speech at the brandenberg gate. a critical piece in world border between east and west germany and the struggles there. i think that the president is to gain some credibility for the united states, but quite is atly i think that there bit of a struggle there and we are a bit lacking. concerned about nuclear arms reduction. safer want to live in a

world free from the threat of nuclear warfare. and wen it is unilateral are dealing with folks that don't necessarily agree with our an point and we offer them advantage in that regard, that concerns me as an american a izen and concerns me as person who spent time in the military who is still on the that wede of that line, would diminish our own capability. i understand we want to take a role but we don't want to imperial our citizens imperil our citizens and establish or maintain peace the globe and so. i'm concerned with those and continue have to be sent. host: as president obama kicks in the next 45ks minutes we will carry that on c-span 3. c-span.org for more information about the remarks. a call from mobile, alabama, republican caller. welcome to "washington

journal." aller: when the n.s.a. announced that there had been important 50 plots that had been prevented, a lot of people of that number. i want to know how many people have been prosecuted, arrested imprisoned or even executed who were found guilty in those plots. are the questions that we are asking general alexander who has told us they through the classification, the clearances, to put that information out. we don't have all the specific information. i think we heard some specific somebody from ut the midwest that was involved in a plot, somebody from the west coast. i don't want to necessarily name particular towns right now. allegedly, or accordingly, that information particularly so plots or or incidents that were thwarted as programs is hese

forthcoming once the clearances have been made. ask mericans are right to that question because that is how we can determine in our own whether these s rograms and whether this diminishing of our civil rights is worthy. and without that information it hard, other than just accepting a number from the accept it is hard to that this is a viable, justifiable program. what has been the biggest surprise for you as you have service in congress? guest: i came from the state in pennsylvania and when we would go to the floor we ould spend hours and hours debating the bills and issues of day, and you knew your colleagues, for better or worse, retty well because you would spend hours upon hours with the same people in the same room. we don't really do

that. you get a 15-minute vote call nd come from our office and vote and stay a few minutes to make other votes and that is your time to interface with members, members of your own party and the other party, other than particularly going seeking opportunities to have that interaction. this in many ways is an operation of personal relationships. knowing why a person on the other side of the aisle disagrees with you is important find consensus. so, you really have to make a concerted effort to find reach out to to your colleagues on either side of the aisle so you can get accomplished. host: how do you change that culture? guest: i don't know how -- hange the rules a little bit i suppose so we spend more time on the floor debate being the issues. difficult for a membership of 435 members. pennsylvania house we had 203 and somehow we were able to do it there.

i think that the framers of the constitution wanted government to act slowly and move slowly so we were very deliberative. i know that the current process streamline that or else we will get probably less done in americans say what are you getting accomplished down there. do that.right to in the next phrase we are talking to the same person they so why are you doing this quickly and should we slow down. there.s the fine balance but i do think it is somewhat working ve to a good order to not have a decent working relationship with people m around the country that have different views than you do. ou don't get an opportunity to understand completely why. and they don't hear your side of sorry often so it is hard to reach consensus without that relationship with the person you working with every day. host: aaron from st. petersburg, florida, democrat.

caller: thank you. irst i would like to thank c-span support this show. it provides america with a great transparency we would not have otherwise. , congressman you service.or your the key word "we" and at thetability" which is root of america's problems it seems. squabblingm that the at the top levels of our toernment send mixed signals our soldiers and patriots in the fields at times. this? we rectify and are you ready to dig your boots in with congress and take long run?is for the because we do need some straight,ing out. gained by trust. i would like to look at our congressmen as generals and soldiers and how we used for the r

good of them and trust. he n.s.a., our government and our security needs to do its job. i would argue as a former that more than 90% of our soldiers would say snowden is a traitor we took care of secrets that were much less mportant than what he did with greater care and men who put their lives on the line. don't understand how a few people or many people can think him as anything less than a traitor. guest: well, i think that people emotions because he brought this program it light and i think we are thankful to that, but it is the method by which he did it. certainly initially he didn't know all the facts. right way by the going through the chain of command saying i have a concern or did he just say i disagree from a political standpoint

i don't agree with what the government is doing and i'm oing to a foreign government and going to divulge this information. as march of the fact -- more of facts and information comes out it points more to the fact hat, or at least the supposition that he's done this for personal fame with isagreement with the policy, maybe for financial gain, those types of things. so, i think for more and more we are seeing him as a person who has violated his over the and has been a traitor to oath and his country. that having been said, regarding your first position on accountability, especially at the top levels and squabbling between administration officials how do soldiers on the ground and service members internalize that and what do do, that has been one of my contentions that we have not had worldwide strategy or particularly in afghanistan. and, as you know, soldiers see commanders' intent and move from there. can we know the intent

when one day we are fighting fighting aliban and against the taliban and al qaeda and next day we are negotiating armsthem or we are sending to them? that sends very mixed signals to on the service members ground that are trying to perform the mission and it makes a very difficult situation for them to do a good job and commander's goals are or our country's goals are. that power and authority is in the commander in chief and i would say that he's been lacking in that regard in not understanding how members s for service in the trenches, on the ground, ver the seas in and in the air to enforce the policies and strategy of the united states what it is.'t know host: representative scott perry republican of pennsylvania, his is the fourth and he's a freshman. thank you for being with us. guest: thank you. up next our weekly

spotlight on the magazine egment looks at the christian science monitor the history and present day story of school prayer. lawrence our guest. first we have this news update from c-span radio. it is 9:20 a.m. officials say an attack on the united nations kphoupbd in somalia ended. militants nked detonated bomb blasts and reached the compound sparking gun battles with security forces that killed at least two. u.n. personnelall who reached the compound secure unker survived but it is not clear whether all reached that bunker. the first in-depth independent ook by congressional investigators says the launch of president obama's healthcare law some bumps and potholes in the road. it says in part government several have missed deadlines in setting up new health insurance is exchanges or small businesses and

consumers and there is a risk they won't be ready to open on time in october. ut the government accountability office the g.a.o., says that there are ositive signs in the overall preparations. their report is being released today. ome economists say that we are near the ends of the era of falling interest rates and orrowing costs are heading higher. regardless of the federal statement issued today nd market reaction at ben bernanke's comments the reality is that the flood of easy money is bbing and the kpheur shifting to a new period of ising rates. you can hear ben bernanke's news conference. he is chairman of the federal reserve board. hat begins at 2:30 p.m. eastern. listen to it on c-span radio. those are some of the latest c-span radio. our t us not be blind to differences, but let us also irect attention to our common

interests and the means by which those differences can be resolv resolved. and if we can not end now our differences, at least we can the world safe for diversity. they free men, wherever may live, are citizens of berlin. as a free man i ake pride in the words german] >> it was a much different firstent kennedy than the year. in 1963 you see a different one who at the same time is for a real e ground his nuclear te,and test ban treaty which was agreed 1963, while at of he same time all building up defenses and seeking a way toward peace with the american speech.ity

>> looking back on the 50th president of kennedy's speech. art of american history tv every weekend on c-span 3. "washington journal" continues. ost: this is our spotlight on magazines we look at the christian science monitor piece on prayer in school. lawrence is in new york city. a piece says 50 years after supreme court ban prayer in school makes a comeback. joining us.r let's start off by looking at the history. the s 50 years ago that supreme court essentially banned prayer. decisions?those guest: well, the two decisions 1962 and 1963. what they did is banned school prayer, not the actual action of praying in school. brought, rst one was

had started in new york with the about 10 children and the objection was that the imposed morning prayer and by the time it reached the supreme court it was not mandatory. but there was a prayer that was god to blessyer it the parents, teachers, country, et cetera. there was another ca pennsylvania. and there the issue was that the school district will a bible that was broadcast over the intercom and if it couldn't the the intercom then teacher led it and that was followed by the lord's prayer. family said that was imposing a prayer even though it mandatory, the parents ould ask for the child to be excused. the court ruled it feels sieve.tly coerce i have

-- coceres 61. t has these sort of school sponsor and state sponsored prayers. -- go ahead. host: please continue. guest: the decisions made point it was perfectly fine to study world eligion and religions and about the bible and influences that the bible civilization, culture, art. on any kinds a ban of talk of religion or study of religion. fact, the only people who could not be praying publicly the state employees, school administrators and school teachers. impose a prayer or lead a prayer. host: what happened immediately after the rulings? there were two. both about 50 years ago. difference in the effects after each of them? well, what happened is

people really, really were upset provoked a huge amount of controversy. was people decried that it imposing an establishment of a ecular religion, a religion of a tfr atheism. it.some supported because at the time we had recently elected our first non nonprotestant president and some were constitution to have a separation from church or state lest he take his orders from the vatican and there is a huge amount of controversy that families involved got a lot vile ail and some pretty things. at one point i think life magazine called one of the hated woman in america. reaction was that

some schools obviously abided openly didn't and defied the hrlaw. labama and then i believe arkansas defied it and schools did and little by little court cases started coming. so there was a flood of court over the years over this issue that started sorting it out. lee lawrence writes for the christian science monitor. piece looking at the about prayer in schools. who was on the court 50 years make the y did they decisions that they rendered? guest: they made the decisions based on history, on the fact the founding fathers had to the new world to escape government imposed religion, to have religious freedom. protected hat it

religion not to have the government too involved or involved at all. hey felt that -- and they felt these kinds of prayers did in fact do that. countered the notion that religion stablishing as secularism. to felt the government had be neutral and to be neutral was not to be sponsoring it. was in fact -- some historians have arced -- argued quite effectively this was a progression. 1890's.started in the there was a case of a bible in wisconsin and they bible ing the king james and some roman catholic families bjected and it was deemed in 1890 that this brought civil authority and religion too close

together. so, they ruled against it. so, there was a progression on a more secular approach in the public schools. you would like to speak with lee lawrence here is the on the screen. take us into the present day, lee lawrence. those still felt from supreme cou supreme court rulings? overow have things changed time? guest: well, some of the there.gs are still i think a lot of people feel religion itself has been banned public schools. and they are trying to get prayer back in schools. hurt, sort of has robbed children of a moral keel. that is one side. the other, however, shows that more religious

activity is taking place in schoo the ls, probably thanks to parameters that are set. so, what happened over the years in effect pretty quickly, by groups that istian were active on university campuses said well, wait a be active and school grounds, high school campuses and into middle school. the y that i mean fellowship of christian athletes, campus crusade for and they would help kids prayer and of solidarity. has continued over the years. so, you have a lot of religious that started on campus and hey come under special regulations. he faculty monitors them is an

advisor but not a participant according to the rules so they doesn't get it disruptive or go against policy division.t in cicite then there are some other that allow any kind of outside group to come in and after-school program must also allow a religious an p to come in and hold after-school program. so there is a lot more activity, is a very good argument to say there is much more religion going on. there is a lot of religion being taught and by that i mean courses about religion, not religious studies. courses about religion, world religion. as part of taught world history and world geography. electives on the bible as literature. .t is done in a variety of ways

sometimes better than others. it is n it is done well, great. host: our guest writes for the christian science monitor. you mentioned the question of whether groups such as the girl meet then they can the court has ruled that other roups like the good news group should be allowed to meet. ell us about the supreme court cases that got us to this point. 1990 and 2001 and what laws came into play. . in 1990 -- there were two kinds religious t activities can take place on campus. one is under the rule of 1990 which basically extended the access act to high schools. and under that it showed that it a public school -- if a ublic school allows schools to

form noncurricular groups. spanish club would be a crick curricular club if there is a a nish class taught but religious group would not be. the chess club might be considered a nonclick rare club. click -- n clubs religious should be allowed. that is one way that -- that was the ruling in 1990. in 2001 the good news club which after-school program by did anngelism fellowship after-school program in an elementary school. was argued e case under free speech. because they had other groups after-school programs there, girl scouts, et cetera, haveshould also be able to

an after-school program and to deny this meant they were the religious point of view. that the girl scouts talk about morality and ethics and issues that and so does the religious group from a religious to exclude it nd would be to discriminating against that point of view. host: let's go to the phones and here from our first caller, us from battle creek, michigan. on the democratic line. worried about the sort of creeping, i guess you movementl it religious in the schools. think it is going beyond prayer. at least from what i'm reading going on to curriculum and text texts, and specifically the teaching of science and rejection f science, of, let's say, theory of of, you , rejection

.now, global warming hen there is also the social -- ndas which would be anti anti-gay, that kind of thing. i think of it -- isn't it a whole movement? it a whole shift, not just , what but this agenda would you call the christian agenda? in a way i now, you are can see where coming from and how you would think that. i think that the teaching about is really about world religion and understanding view and points of different favorites. and that really enriches a not a way of is

injecting a particular faith or , ligious point of view into sort of indoctrination. there is also the issue that are, there are a lot of people of faith and to deny them public t to come to the square, which is the school is scare, and public they are is problematic. so we can look at the public school as a perfect ground to do that and do it well and respectfully, with curiosity one another as opposed to wanting to make somebody else do.eve what we it is tricky. which, re of a faith of really, your mandate is to li el evangelize and bring others to and express view that to others, then we have to figure out how that can be done

well. there is no religion in school religious very society and we are increasingly pluralist pluralistic so we need to understand all the facets of know faith that people bring in, the number of eople who declare no faith is rising so they have to not be attacked. up very good points. i think that it is an experiment hat is going on and i think that it is a very important one. host: a couple of comments on twitter. with the i agree status quo on school prayer. the school shouldn't endorse any or groups students can lead prayers. wants to n democrat make some distinctions. host: digging into organized prayer, you have been a

ifferentiation between school sponsored organized prayer and student-led organized prayer. uest: i guess it depends on what you mean by organized prayer. if you mean -- private prayer is thing. i can sit at my desk and nobody knows what i'm doing. that is a very private prayer. organized prayer is i get together with a little group club unch hour or in the time or after school and we have hat from the outside is an organized prayer. we stand together or gather as see you at tual of gather where students around the flagpole and have a pray prayer. that is an organized prayer that students lead and that is perfectly fine. mean something in the assembly hall that everybody has a different that is issue entirely.

do that.ls cannot they cannot -- an administrator or teacher cannot lead that kind or invite a clergy to lead them. there was a case that determined that. where regional courts are ivided is whether students can lead that. so the whole school says senior appoints john to lead the prayer, is that -- that is regional, whether the courts a ow that, that is still hrelittle going on around that. host: this is a call from florida. independent caller. go ahead, gene. lee, i want to address this issue of school prayer. student between eighth and ninth grade when prayer was -- takenof the schools out of the schools in 1963. for the past 40 years i was a retired a just couple of weeks ago after 40

years as a teacher. i've got to tell you, in the early 1970's when i started it wasn't perfect back then but i have seen in the last 40 years a tremendous decline in the morals and ethics and teachers in the classroom. it. absolutely appalled by i think when god was taken out led to a ssroom, it moral decline in our country. would like to see it put back in again. i think it was one of the best things. the ountry was founded on judeo-christian ethic by many of and i justg fathers, believe it should be in the schools. there shouldg that be religious classes in school. that is for the church. get believe we need to back to some of the principles f the bible and i feel it is very important.

well, there are a lot of character and value classes that taught in schools. if you look at those, a lot of are based -- the values come out of a religious radition and often a christian religious tradition. so, those things are being taught. society hat the whole has changed an awful lot and irst of all i admire anybody who is a teacher and i thank you because it is an amazing job do. you and it is a difficult one. one of the arguments that was ade, and i think it was the it was a bits that of protection of religion. got too government involved that the religion could be denigrated and could deteriorate. so, in a way i have to say i wonder whether a prayer that is

official, by a teacher over a loud speak er tht becomes a rote activity is less having the an ability for students to meet, to talk to each other. i think teenagers, one thing is how do you see the world and what do you believe? die?happens when we all those are big issues we confront as teenagers and to be able to it in and talk about groups and have your mates say i this ly go over to christian club and we talk about that thing, do you want to come over? that could be something thosever the long term as things grow there is a lot there in every school and that could be more beneficial than having something the loud ry rote over speaker or just in class.

remark now.ter one of the images we see in the christian science monitor story accompanies your piece, lee lawrence, is the image of a a class withont of things on the blackboard, church god exist.es ow is the teaching of not religiousness but religions dealt with in schools? religion l, to teach is to talk about what people believe, how these beliefs have actions, how eir they have generated great art, ow they have generated civilizations, how they have to do different things. hat is the teaching of religion, to explain how things

happ were borne out of a conviction. you really can't understand if you don't e understand the church. so, these things are very important. i agree with the first gentleman who wrote in that we should know about everybody's religion. that would be ideal. t is a big task because every religion -- there are a lot of them and they are not homogeneous. but teaching about it is sort of the difference between saying what s true and this is this community believes is true. it doesn't say that -- it is not pronouncing on whether it is or not, it is staying neutral, termsis a major points in of the supreme court saying the government should stay neutral religion, not saying one way or the other. that is basically the base point for teaching about religion. and there are guidelines by a umber of organizations that help teachers negotiate that. because teachers are not very

trained in how to deal with rill so the 10 deny -- with a lot of guidelines are out and they are helpful. the that picture by christian science monitor shows in blic school teacher flushing, new york, in a world religions unit. that is something taught to there.raders joan is the next caller from ohio on the democratic line. joan.me, caller: hi. i'm in my 80's so naturally i now a lot of things that went on in the 1930's that were ungodly. devout christian who does not like prayer in the school. i was was in third grade forced to go for six months to a school, and i suggested that we say a hail while.ce in a i was so bullied and beat up hat when the supreme court announced that we would have no more prayer i rejoiced.

say you want a prayer, six,e prayer will it be for seven and 8-year-old kids. thank you. guest: that's a very good point. and it ering is intense sounds in your words you remember it quite clearly. of the main reasons that we don't have school sponsored prayer. prayer will it be? very e -- we are religiously diverse even within christianity there are, you there are a lot of differences. o, that is a very important poi point. and i think that if people person who is t saying that prayer could be aying something that would really upset them, they might not like it so much. for your call. that was a good comment.

pieceanother image in the you wrote shows a hindu student association at a texas high holi onsor ed a sponsored celebration. t included indian dancing and drew over 700 people of all faiths. ow are other religions besides christianity dealt with in schools? in terms of religious clubs they have started joining in. -- i think actually thanks ite old because to the efforts of one teacher. people kept confusing he was teaching hindi hindu. so he started both clubs and settled the difference. other groups, jewish groups groups and secular groups have started probably in

and it is years -- still growing, there are not if you y of them -- but google around you can find them in several schools. under the same regulations as any religious club. they are ften if minority religions, that is what i found, feels that the tendency was that they were there partly to take comfort with each other, to discuss issues. some of the young muslims i peer to are under a lot of pressure for things that they don't feel is right with their in terms of dating, alcohol, in terms of the popular culture. so, it is a reenforcement for ach other to discuss issues with people who share their values or to be able to go and and -- read text and understand and negotiate their way in this world. is also for minority

religions of explaining who they others. so, in the jewish groups i attended there were several who e who were not jewish came because it was fun and it taught them something about a very on they didn't know much about. host: lee lawrence's peels is piece is "prayer in school" from the christian science onitor weekly and it is online at csmonitor.com. this is william from colorado, caller.ent caller: good morning. how are we doing? host: good. agree with the woman a couple of calls back. in theup going to school 1950's, and i remember what it was like all these little , where the ywhere majority of religion controls goes on.ls and what i went to a school -- this was a chicago, where n it was an all jewish school. be able to going to control these, all of these

sects when ligious it comes to having what you consider rules. be another fight because that is something that ever ppened for ever and is that we fight about our religions. will happen is you will have domination in every little to be ty on who is going right with their religion and taught. what will be and what happens is then as outsiders if re you do not believe just like the local school's teaching. an example of this is what is in texas right now. what they viding up consider the right religion. if they don't like it, they will it out of the books. well, the issue of

textbooks is another issue and worth another article and discussion. whenever you do -- i think even clubs, if you have a predominant, if you are in a community that is redominantly of one religion the schools always have to worry nd be mindful of any bullying, divisiveness, any kinds of attacks on one another. religion has and often sparks that, a religious belief the way somebody else is. and that is a big responsibility of the school. i think the more people religion is at taught in terms of understanding hat a set of beliefs is of somebody else, then you can see where somebody else is coming is probably more room for dialogue. a it is always going to be learning experience when you are

figure l and trying to out who you are and you are rying to identify yourself in relation to other people. other es in contrast to people. time and going to be a the more we understand how others believe the better off we are. write about a school in utah and a teacher who is the cultural ate differences between her mormon students, those who belong to church of jesus christ of latter day saints and those who church.long to the tell us about their ability to come together and have a dialog dialogue. guest: that was a case that to what the -- relation to whether the previous caller was saying. here was a community that is about 80% members of the church of latter day saints. probably doesn't occur to the 80% of the student body that

20% who are minority nd don't feel quite that they fit in a little like the previous caller who proposed the mary. so what happened in that case had a t this teacher world religion class and they talked about religion and world eligions and talked about how they felt about certain things. but there were issues that were some waeulgs.in then one day a student came in nd she had found that somebody had ripped up the book of moral,and scattered -- mormon scattered leaves around the campus and she was visibly upset. the next day the teacher put all tables in a circle and said help me understand how this could happen. so, what slowly trickled out was why this o much particular thing happened but

non-mormons the felt one way, they felt that, want ow, you really only to talk to us to convert us, you don't want to date us, we play school but in high school you won't date us. people told me i was going to hell, those kinds of comments. the majority of students much thinking well you look at us like we are -- they just will over each other's opinions and their reactions to in a very frank one so a lot of hurt, frustration misunderstanding came out and then a lot of understanding at the ends. jacksonville, florida is the next caller, republican. [inaudible] we are getting a lot of noise on the line. do you have a question? yes.r: i think they should be able to

pray in school as long as they everyone pray. host: anything else to say? caller: i think we should be allowed to pray in school. the jewish kids should be llowed to pray as long as [inaudible] they can do wherever they want. , we to follow up on that have a twitter question. guest: that is a very good question. proponents prayer i'm assuming that the writer means people who want to have in school.ayers certainly in terms of proponents students meaning that should be allowed to express their religion and live their of course eely, that applies to everybody. now, having said that, in some a group wants n to form, let's say there was one

school in georgia it happened to be that had a christian group on campus and even two, certainly one on campus. a secular, atheist student and he o form his group petitioned and they said, the school said yes because there no saying no. but the faculty was very upset. and they talked about it and how can they do this. and there was a brouhaha. but then it died down. months it was just another group on campus. answer his question prayer proponents, if it means initiated , student groups, absolutely. f he means the prayer proponents of officials you would have to ask them individually what they mean. this is david in clinton township, michigan. caller: i just want to comment sort of the callers that

of blamed the breakdown in ociety that we are having from taking prayer out of school. i think that is a little simplistic. kinds of things that you can blame for the society. of back when there was prayer we tv chans hey network now we have a proliferation of programming nd the is more violent and terrible programming. eople and children are being exposed to all kinds of stuff that they were not exposed to kid. i was a i would think you would point your finger more at something like that. also, when i was a kid i had a mother at home. e had a far more neuter herring family -- chur nurturig family so to blame the society woes on taking prayer out of seems simplistic. i when he said the

country was based on values i'm sure pilgrims were practicing over but they brought one reason they left england was to get away from the church of england. host: we will leave it there and get a response. thing to keep in mind is it was not as though everybody were always praying in and the supreme court decisions came down and levelled them. historian about 41% of school districts had a in er that was instituted the program across 26 states. o, that is not the whole country but that is a lot and doesn't count the schools here and there that might not have an official policy. but it is not the case that daily prayers in school and one day, boom, that was it and it was gone. host: lee lawrence, christian

science monitor correspondent. piece on the r front page of the christian science monitor weekly. school. 50 years after a supreme court ban. it makes a comeback. lee lawrence.uch, guest: thank you very much. you can finds that on the websi website. floor.ow go to the house that is all for "washington journal." joining us.r the house is meeting for morning take up life0 they business. we expect first votes around :30 to 2:00 and last votes hitting about 6:00 to 7:00 this evening. have a good day.