many different views in this body that we the time comes for these sections of the patriot act to be -- that sunset next year -- there's going to be chaos. and that concerns me greatly. there is a likelihood that we get left with nothing. so my hope is the various parts of the community can come together and we can find a way. the private sector is not perfect in terms of privacy at all. i mean, i know people that don't want their homes on the google map because of privacy concerns. and there's nothing they can do about it. it is there. facial recognition. all of the internet goings on that take place, hacking, which

is epidemic. so, privacy every day is threatened. i think you want to limit the numbers that have access to this. i think you want to limit how you do it. this is what we are trying to find a way. there are a lot of telecoms out there now and if we go it a mandate which we may have to do and mandate the length of time, which we may have to do, i suspect there will be a court battle somewhere. and that is not going to help us. we have a very limited period of time to solve this problem, and it is up to when all of these sunset. and there are people in both bodies that want to do away with all of these programs. until someone gets blown up at a

big sports match, a number of people, a big building gets blown up, planes get blown up, and people have to understand, i'm really concerned. there are bombs that going through magnetometers. we know the person who makes them is still alive. there have been four attempts to get these bombs into our country. one was in 2009 and it misfired. he wanted to explode the plane over detroit. there was enough explosives to explode the plane. two were find in -- found in printer cartridges in the dubai airport headed to the united states. one was an asset that helped recover this bomb that was headed for the united states. so, these are real things out there. and the only way we have to

disrupt this is intelligence. so, i beg people, please come together and enable us to do the right thing for both, for privacy and for protection of this country. i think the telecoms have to come aboard. the big companies have to understand what we are trying to do. i have been visited by members of the european community. i have heard from many of your companies that they are concerned. yet, half of what was produced by this program went to europe to help them disrupt plots there. and that is the irony of this.

so, i hope we can work something out. it is not easy to get something through the house and when the house passes something 3-1 with both political parties and two committees, if we could work from this and we could make certain amendments to it and could strengthen it, and we could pass it, the chairman of the house intelligence committee has said look, we will conference it right away and get it done because there's a sense of alacrity that we need to do this. bottom line, we would like to have your thoughts. but we are dealing with bill language now. having bill language submitted to us to solve problems that you have made, if you don't like minimization, give us some language. i don't know what to do about the telecoms because i think i know where you are going.

but this is based on the telecommunication companies' understanding that there is a problem out there. and my sense is, if there is the will, that we mandate it. because you wouldn't want to be responsible if there were three planes going down loaded with people, or buildings hit by them. and that is really where we are. so, i really thank you. i'll look forward to working with you. we will make ourselves available. we will make our staffs available. and you are just an example of what is out there. anyone that has concrete thoughts, please contact us. because this is the one opportunity i see to sustain a program that certainly disrupted

zozzi. and he pled guilty and some of his conspirators pled guilty and there was no question he was going to blow up the new york subway system. with that in mind i say thank you very much. it has been a long hearing. thank you very much. this meeting is adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> in a few minutes, a look at the history of presidential signing statements and legal issues in the u.s.-taliban swap that led to the release of sergeant bowe bergdahl. a press conference with president obama and british prime minister cameron. and a look at how the nsa gathers and uses data. >> several live events tomorrow

morning. speeches by president obama and french president hollande at the normandy american cemetery to mark the 70th anniversary of d-day. 4:30 a.m. eastern. you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. we will have more coverage of ceremonies on the anniversary of d-day on c-span 2 at 8:30 a.m. eastern and c-span 3 at 8:45 a.m. -- the brookings institution hosts a discussion on the state of the european union. now, a look at the history of presidential signing statements, and legal issues involved in the u.s.-taliban swap that led to the release of sergeant bowe ber gdahl. from "washington journal," this is 30 minutes. >> joining us is jonathan turley, a law professor at

george washington university law school. we will talk about the release of sergeant bowe bergdahl in return for five taliban commanders. i was hoping you could walk us through details surrounding this. for people who might not be aware, if the white house wants to transfer prisoners from the facility, what do they have to do? >> there is a law where congress sets standards. there is a provision that says if you really someone from guantanamo bay you need to have the secretary of defense make determinations, like this one not come back on the united states in terms of risk, that you have taken steps to determine what is going to happen to them. these are the types of determinations that any administration would do anyway. the provision relevant in this controversy is the one that says before you make these releases 30 days in advance you need to tell congress. the administration has consulted with congress in the past, but they didn't here.

when they decided to pull the trigger, congress was left in the dark. many members said, look, this is a violation of federal law. there is no question, i think, that this is a violation of that statute. there was no notice given. the provision doesn't have any loopholes or exceptions. the administration has said various things as to why or whether it violated federal law. number one is that it really didn't violate federal law, that it simply interpreted it to mean that it didn't have to notify congress. that one has left a lot of people scratching their heads, that we complied with a law of notification by not giving notification. but what they are really saying is that they never really viewed this provision as constitutional, and when it was passed, president obama put a signing statement, something he said he would never do as a

candidate, that said "i have real serious reservations about this provision." host: let's talk about this provision a little bit more, part of the national defense authorization act. mcclatchy reports that white house press secretary jay carney was asked if the president felt he was above the law. carney said absolutely not. [laughs] host: you obviously have a reaction to that one. tell us what you're thinking. guest: that is one where the answer is obvious. if he had said that the president felt he was above the law, a lot of us would be surprised. the controversy goes beyond the ndaa provision we're talking about. i testified before congress about a long litany of laws that the president has said he will not enforce, or laws that through executive order he has changed in significant ways unilaterally. many of these changes occurred after the president failed to get those changes in congress.

we've had a series of hearings about the implications of that. the president in his state of the union said he was going to go it alone, that he was going to circumvent congress. as surprised as many of us who teach the constitution, the response was applause by any members, which is seemed to border on self-loathing, where the president said i am going to circumvent you. but he has and that raises separation of powers questions. the issue that went to carney goes more broadly to that, that the president has repeatedly circumvented federal law or simply said he will not enforce federal law. that is creating a crisis in this country. and it did not start with obama. i want to note that. this whole process of expanding presidential power certainly didn't start with him, but it has reached a level today that is unprecedented. host: our guest is jonathan turley of george washington university law school.

jonathan turley, you mentioned signing statements. i want to talk about those a little bit. we will put on the screen for those watching a list of signing statements by the president and i want to get your take. as of june 2, 2014, obama has issued 28 sending stamens, compared to george w. bush, 228, was in bill clinton, 381, and ronald reagan, 250. what is different about the way president obama has used signing statements in contrast to his predecessors? guest: i have been a big critic of signing statements and that as a constitutional scholar, they make no sense to me. they are not law.

they are presidents attempting to effectively rewrite laws, even though they are signing the law. president obama signed the law and said, by the way, i don't think i have to comply with this law. as you may recall, i was a big critic of president bush's signing statements, which were in my view an effort to circumvent congress. the difference is that president obama ran on this issue, how he believed signing statements were a circumvention of congress, that they were wrong to do. even though he has had fewer, many people elected him leaving he wouldn't engage in this type of thing. if you think that the ndaa provision is unconstitutional, you don't sign it into law. what the president did is what president bush did in the past, which is to sign it and then say, by the way, i don't think i will comply with the federal law. host: as our guest jonathan turley noted, it is something that senator obama talked about

during his campaign. i want to read a quotation from him from may 2008. he said -- host: obviously, you can't get into the president's thinking, but why do you think there's been such a shift from what he said in '08 and what he does in 2014? guest: look, i voted for president obama. i am from chicago and i was happy to vote for him. but he's not the first to change when in office. quite frankly the president has , done a number of things effort -- different from what he promised in the campaign. for civil libertarians like myself, he has been a nightmare in terms of what has happened with the civil liberties area. particularly the national security area. he not only maintained many policies but expanded them. things like the kill list policy, surveillance issues. this is something that happens

in the oval office, quite frankly. this is not the world's most principled forum, quite quickly. presidents in their second term tend to focus on the legacy and they view the constitution and these issues increasingly as niceties, technicalities. even as someone who taught the constitution, there is this corrosive effect. i also think, as someone who is familiar with obama as a senator and president, even though i voted for him, i am a columnist for "usa today" and i wrote a column after his first election and said you know, people have the wrong idea about this man. even though i voted for him, principles of this type are not motivating barack obama as much as programs. he has a good-faith desire to see programs occur, to see changes. that is a positive aspect of his personality, but he has never been as motivated by what often seemed abstract principles like separation of powers.

he is much more interested in getting things done. i think the american people like that about him. the problem is when you depart so much from those principles that you are creating a fundamental change in our system. that is what is dangerous. i told congress that we are now at what i consider a constitutional tipping point. our system is changing. it did not start with president obama, but it is changing, in my view, in a dangerous way and we are not having a debate about it. host: our guest is jonathan turley of george washington university law school. first caller is kathleen on the line for democrats. caller: hi, mr. turley. i have followed what you say and write for years now, especially during the bush administration and the signing statements and then and some of the actions. but in regard to this bergdahl situation, i am listening to chris matthews and joe scarborough and these guys who have never served in the military and don't have children serving in the military

screaming about president obama's decision. what is fascinating to me about all these programs -- i have to say, a little bit "washington journal" as well -- they don't have a lot of vets on who have been in these situations. none of us who have never served have no idea what it is like to be in the situation that bergdahl was in. i am not condoning whatsoever what he allegedly did. but if president obama were to leave him there, wouldn't that be exactly what we are complaining or people are complaining about bergdahl doing, abandoning his comrades or whatever? i just think they had to do what they could do to get him released, because that is just an example of we don't leave people behind, even though, ok, bergdahl, whatever they find out through the hearings. the other thing i've become

aware of this what our soldiers have really gone through by listening to the winter soldier congressional hearings. i just want to encourage joe scarborough, chris matthews, "washington journal" to have actual vets on and not let these situations with our vets get so extreme -- for instance, with the v.a. situation -- and then scream about everything. guest: well, it's an interesting comment. first of all, i didn't make it to boy scouts so i am hardly a person to hold forth on what happens to vets, although i want to encourage one thing for you to think about. i don't think it is fair to tell folks that they can't comment on subjects related to military unless they have served. that was long a criticism, including of many democrats, from people that were arguing against cuts in the military budget, saying, well, you can't really talk to because you haven't been in uniform. these are important public policy issues and i think that

some of the aspects of this are worthy of public debate. i think that you are right when it comes to boots on the ground, that is a perspective that we need to hear from veterans. as to the release itself, i happen to agree, even though i disagree with many of the actions that president obama has taken -- circumvention of the separation of powers -- i happen to agree with many of his policies, so i am divided. i happen to agree with him on things like the environmental area and other areas like doma, where he has taken these steps. but as a constitutional scholar, he concerns me a great deal. in terms of this exchange, i agree -- how he ended up in the hands of the taliban is irrelevant. we did need to get him back. we can deal with that issue now as to whether he did desert. that is really, i don't think, appropriate for folks to say we should have left him over there. but the policy debate is a legitimate one.

when you look at these 5 individuals, there are obviously going to be some deals that all of us would agree would be too high. if the deal was everyone should be released from guantánamo bay and we should leave the country, there would be a question as to whether that is a price too high. that is a legitimate issue of public debate. host: burlington, north carolina. debbie is on the line for republicans. caller: thank you so much. thank you, c-span, for allowing me to talk to this gentleman. i wish i could have an hour with him. guest: [laughs] caller: mr. turley, our forefathers gave us our constitutional form of government with the balance of power between three branches of government so that we the people would be no longer under the rule of the king. with this in mind, do you feel like our president has acted in an imperialistic manner by bypassing a law himself signed

into being, and if so, warning, do you feel that his action is treasonous in nature worthy of impeachment? thank you, and god bless. guest: well, first of all the term "imperial presidency" i have used in testimony before congress and certainly my writings. it is a little different than people think of. when we talk about the emergence of an imperial presidency, we are not really saying that president obama wants to be a tyrant or a king. i don't think he does, i don't think it is in him. i don't think he wants to be tyrannical in any sense. but imperial presidency means something that should concern many americans, which is this almost nixonian concept of a president who can act unilaterally, who becomes a government unto himself. what is fascinating is that president obama has accomplished many of those aspects -- i spoke on the anniversary of the

watergate controversy at the national press club, and in the audience were many survivors of the watergate scandal. i changed my speech at the last minute and said, how did nixon win? 50 years later or so, looking out on that audience, just that morning the papers showed president obama doing many of the things that were in nixon's articles of impeachment, the unilateral action that nixon claimed. those powers are being used openly. the thing i asked the audience is what has changed? i think we have changed to some degree. the american people have become more passive. there is a danger to this. i think the reason why president obama has succeeded is he is very likable, that many people do like him. many people don't, but he has a

power of personality and even his staunchest critics don't view him as wanting tyrannical power. he is someone who wants to get these things done. but having said all that, i think it is dangerous, the trend we are going. we are seeing our system change. we have a system designed for 3 equal branches and people understand the separation of powers. it is not to protect the interests of these institutions. separation of powers is not there to protect congress or the white house or the court. it is designed to protect individual liberty. the framers believed that the concentration of power would bring tyranny, would bring abuse. so it created a system that it believes would stop that aggregation or concentration of power. we have lost it. the president is increasingly acting like a government unto himself, and while you can agree with this president -- one thing i have told democrats in congress is this is not going to be our last position, and he -- president, and he does not have a lot of time left in

office, but these powers will last, and what you say when the next president comes in and says "i will suspend environmental laws, or discrimination laws." what will you have to object at that point? host: we were talking about the evolution of members of congress with regard to the release of sergeant bergdahl. i want to read a couple of tweets from members and get your reaction overall. first, from congressman bradley --d -- -- bradley byrne senate majority leader harry reid -- one more, from iliana ross lightman --

your thoughts? guest: there has been an evolution you have seen on the hill. a lot of democrats seem to be walking away from the deal a bit. there is certainly a coalescing of views in congress that it could have been consulted, and i think that -- or notified, and i think that is manifestly true. the white house decided not to tell congress i think for political reasons, to be honest. they did in fact raise this issue years ago but whether they could swap taliban people for bergdahl, and they got pushed back from members of both parties. i think what you see in the backlash following the deal is the most likely reason they didn't notify congress, that there is a sticker shock that comes from these 5 guys. some were viewed as having connections with al qaeda. one is particularly bad in terms of his connection to the deaths of hundreds, maybe thousands of people, but certainly the

dislocation of thousands. the irony is the law was passed precisely for this type of the case. the law was passed to allow congress to come in. one of the things i've emphasized in testimony to congress is that the framers were right. we end up with a better government when things are filtered through the separation of powers, through these new three branches. sometimes a president needs to hear these things. the separation of powers forces presidents to engage congress, and this would have been a really good idea. the irony is he could have done it anyway. all you have to do is notify them and he could have worked out these issues and he would be in a better political place if he had done that. host: saint augustine, florida. owen is on the line for independents. caller: thank you for taking my call. i do think that the guy thinks he is a king and above the law, and all these scandals -- irs,

benghazi, he didn't know nothing about anything. it is like the guy is inept or something. he is the president of the united states. if i was the ceo of a company, i would fire people below me if things like the irs, spying, spying on the news media, and when it all comes out, you don't know anything. and then he pulls this stuff with not notifying congress with the bergdahl thing. the guy does think he is above the law. he holds nobody accountable, he doesn't hold himself accountable. it is like the guy is a tyrant or something. guest: well, first of all, if by above the law you mean he thinks he can simply disregard federal law, i'm afraid that is manifestly true, because he has done that. in the health care area, the gambling act, immigration, these are areas where the administration went to congress, asked for changes, was not

successful, and he then went and ordered those changes unilaterally. that is a direct attack, in my view, on the separation of powers many of these things are clearly legislative. the question you raised is a good one. i am saying, i don't think it is a his nature. i do not think he is viewing this as a self-aggrandizing move. like many past presidents, he rationalizes this. but we are all at fault here. a president went to congress in the state of the union and said i am going to go it alone. and you had half of congress applauding wildly that they were about to be made into a functional non-entity. i think the framers would have been horrified. they assume that regardless of your party that people in congress would fight mightily to protect their institutions. that is what has changed. there used to be people like harry byrd in the senate, who often did fight with democratic

presidents, fought for the separation of powers. you do not have that anymore. the members particularly in the senate today are much more in lockstep with the party. even when they see their own authority being drained away. in my view, it is a very foolish thing. this president has only a couple years left, and these democrats will rue the day that they remained silent as their authority was drained away. there is no guarantee who our next president is, what this is not going to be our last one and these powers will remain. presidents do not tend to give back power. host: in "the daily beast," the headline "the real reason the u.s. did not rescue bowe bergdahl."

officials say the obama administration did not want to risk political fallout from another unilateral u.s. raid like the raid that killed osama bin laden in 2011. your i think that sounds quite logical. i think none of us want to see them in harms way. we did go into another nation without their approval. while we feel that was justified

. wegine if mexico did that. would be calling for a war. i think the reluctance makes a lot of sense. people say they died looking for him i don't know if that has been established, but some people in their unit believe that. another aspect. ns. youer: i wanted to give three questions. number one, i just wonder why the congress is not going to impeach obama.

he has done a lot on a number of occasions. none of the soldiers of his fellowship don't think bergdahl is a hero, they think he is a traitor. and the other question -- what is the deal between this trade -- the deal on this trade between sergeant bergdahl and the taliban? guest: people are sort of getting their arms around the question of whether this was a pay. too hi to as to the reaction of congress, this is something i find truly mystifying. i have been around congress for a long time since the days i was a congressional page, and i have seen a change in congress. there used to be a core of members who did fight for the

separation of powers regardless of who was in the white house. they simply have changed. congress was a -- congress is a different place. i do not think it is a better place. my concern is we have not only congress that is increasingly passive in the face of presidential overreach. we also have courts that have adopted the policies and doctrines of avoidance, so the courts have removed themselves from any of these separation of powers fights. the result is what the framers never thought would happen. extraordinaryally expansion of presidential power in our country. neither of the other two branches are actively checking that power. the result is a new system is emerging, one very different from what the framers intended. and i think one that is less stable. that separate nation -- that doctrine isf powers

what has given us the stability. it is why we have lasted when other systems have not. these are changes that are so fundamental and important, it is established -- it is astonishing that we have not had a debate about this. host: our guest is jonathan turley of the george washington university law school. an e-mail question came in that is right at the heart of what you are saying -- guest: he is, but that is not a good enough excuse. he is saying congress is not acting so i am acting alone, and many people applauded that. that truly mystifies me. first of all, there is a reason we cannot get things done today. we are a divided nation. we are deeply divided on these issues. it so happens in the areas where the president is acting unilaterally are those issues where we are divided -- immigration, health care, and

the like. those are areas we cannot get a national consensus. we are a representative democracy, and it does reflect those divisions. when we are divided, fewer things get done. that might not be such a bad thing because it is better to wait for when things come together that here is your answer. tried to obama says i get congress to do this and they did not do what i wanted them to do, so i go it alone. there is no license to go it alone in the madisonian system. congress is so dysfunctional -- the framers designed this system for bad times because they lived in bad times. when people say, you know, it is like they want to kill each other in congress -- they were actually trying to kill each other back in the time of the framers. they had the alien sedition act. theyactually want to --

actually wanted to kill each other. this is precisely the time this system was designed for. the one argument i have little patience with from the white house is that he has a license to do that because congress will not do what he wants them to do. host: in florida, mike is on the line for independents. caller: mr. turley, it is an honor. i have watched you time and again in front of subcommittees. the one that jumped out at me irsyour response to the subcommittee in the senate when you basically leveled some of these important accusations. herein lies the conundrum, or at least i think it is. about, in talked congress, on the congressional side, not the senate side -- if hasnot mistaken, stuff that been passed up. there has been roadblocks on a

variety of issues pertaining to this. on the flip side you see the president going through using czars, executive actions, i passing everything. you state clearly, this is dangerous and how do we address it. but right now there is a roadblock between the congressional sides that will never allow it to be addressed. look at the stuff that has come out in the last six months and all the screaming and hollering. at the end of the day, what is resolved about it? nothing. people get frustrated by it. if you are somebody who picks up a newspaper a couple minutes ago -- a couple minutes a day, 50% probably do not know what is going on. like you say, they just want to see something happen. you go, guys, it could be bad. that is my comment, sir.

guest: it is an excellent comment. it is funny when people say i just want to get something done. in a madisonian system, it is more important often how you do something than what you do. that is why the democrats are acting so foolishly. they have tossed aside many of the things that defined them as a party. certainly many of the things that protect them as a party, and those means are important. for the short term gains they are going to pay a heavy price. when the democrats killed the filibuster rule with the regard to nominations, i thought that was the most foolish thing i had seen in my life. democrats could very well be in the minority in a couple of asideand they just tossed the most important protection they would have. i did not think that was a price worth paying. the reason things are not going to get done and it is not going to change, we are divided.

that division is going to take a while for us to come together on some issues. but that is not how the system was supposed to work ultimately. the framers expected congress to be divided on some occasions. what they did not expect is for the court system to remove itself from this. vent thatary is that allows for these pressures to be funneled into judicial review. as i have written as an academic, this crisis is the product of the courts removing themselves from their constitutional function. when people blame the two parties for all the stuff going on on the hill, i take a less judgmental view of the parties. i do not think it is their fault. when the courts say we are not going to get involved, you leave the parties to just muscle politics. you leave them to do these stupid, juvenile type of things because the courts are not resolving the constitutional questions. i frankly blame the courts in

terms of what we are seeing today, and that is where our focus has to be. seeing the courts engage more and help the find those lines of separation. then that clarity will decrease a lot of this foolishness. to a couple to go of tweets and get your comment on them. host: another tweet i would like to look at is from dana. host: your thoughts on either of those? guest: first of all, the white house has come out with various rationalize stations for why he violated law. risk a leakant to from congress. that is the least persuasive of the rationale. if that is their rationale, they could refuse to comply with a host of areas.

with any disclosures and the national security area. it also borders on defamation. i have a lot of criticism of the senate and house intelligence committees because they are, in my view, a rubber stamp in many regards to the national security complex. but to say that you cannot inform someone like diane feinstein and others about this operation is perfectly ludicrous. these are disclosures that are made in skiffs, special rooms of cleared individuals. they are overseen by security officers. there has not been this type of leaking of the information. i don't think people should tolerate that type of argument. -- a a post-rasul is a post-rationalization of violating federal law. that seems closer to the mark. the argumentout that the white house needed to move quickly and that is why

certain things did not happen? there is no evidence to support that thus far, but more importantly, they did raise this years ago. this has been going on for literally years. i am very skeptical that they could not 30 days ago say we are moving very close to a deal, or we intend to move forward with this deal. the last time they raised this years ago they got a serious pushback where people started to raise concerns like we are seeing today. i think that pushback is the reason we did not see notification. host: we talk a lot about congress. but listen to senate majority leader harry reid, speaking yesterday on the senate floor, suggesting there may be was another avenue. a victory fornot president obama, it is a victory for soldiers, their families, and our great country. president obama sought to that.

mr. president, there are questions regarding sergeant bergdahl's disappearance. --se are issues that were that will be resolved by the united states army and not monday morning quarterbacks on capitol hill. many just say this. the central argument -- let's assume bergdahl did violate his sworn oath. what do we do? do we meet out justice to an american soldier? as the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff has said yesterday and the day before, if he has done something wrong, military justice will step in and take care of that violation if in fact there was one. i don't know, but certainly that is a better approach than having the taliban do it. i always choose the justice system of the united states army, american justice, every time.

we see the brutality of the taliban and. -- of the taliban. what is the alternative? would any american honestly a u.s. soldier remain in captivity until all the questions have been answered? of course not. states, we rescued our soldiers first and ask questions later. jonathan turley, your thoughts? some of that i don't think anyone would necessarily disagree with. we do have this strong commitment to our soldiers thomas to bring them home -- to our soldiers, to bring them home. the price that should be paid to it, i leave that to other folks. i really do not know. what i find fascinating about his comments is how he brushes over the federal law that was passed while he was in the senate signed by this president and ignored.

that is part and parcel to what we have been talking about. this is not a huge violation of federal law in the sense of talking about impeachment or things like that. that is not going to happen. but this is a mantra of the white house, to say that we just simply felt that we could not comply with federal law. you are not allowed to make that decision. but what is fascinating with congressional leaders who are bracing -- who are embracing this uber presidency, this new presidency, certainly unilaterally with absolute power in certain areas. it is like the democratic party in the nixon era, who fought very hard for the separation of powers. this will come back to haunt them. the polls are not good for the democrats, and they are creating a horrific situation for themselves. if they lose the senate and the white house. host: as a counterpoint to

what senate majority leader harry reid said, this op-ed from the editorial board of "the wall street journal" -- host: they say the larger problem is that esther obama treats foreign -- that mr. obama treats foreign policy as a calculus of the political system. he could more easily sell the prisoner swap, which would then help empty guantanamo so he could fulfill that campaign promise, too. i wouldhe one thing agree with is that the handling of this has been remarkably ham-handed.

it has been remarkably poor. i am surprised by it because i would have looked at this and thought no matter how this goes there are you -- there is going to be serious backlash. but the white house seems to be taken by surprise. what strikes me as odd is the different rationale that has come out of the white house, machine-gun like. some members of the administration called democrats and said we violated the law and we are sorry. while those calls were being afterward, youy had other people going on the air and saying we did not violate the law, we interpreted it. and others say the reason we did is not raising the constitutional question but because we thought we could not trust you. these are all coming from different directions, none of which are particularly persuasive. together, they undermine any quad ability -- they undermine any credibility for the white house. they lack someone who is going

to keep them on message but also to make sure that the message can withstand debate. the white house often tends to throw different messages out to see what succeeds, and they have an army of folks that go out there and appear on the cable system. that is a very good system for a political campaign. it is not very good in the separation of powers fight where people are looking for the principal line, the limiting principle that you are maintaining. host: let's go to international falls, minnesota. paul is on our democrat line. yes, good morning. i am calling to say that we are talking constitutional law and we have a president that we just war overf who went to false pretenses. and we picked up all these prisoners. 13 years ago.

you are upset that we are getting rid of five of them? it don't make sense. all, i had a lot of problems. i oppose both of the wars. i certainly agree with that. but i do not think it is enough for democrats to continue to say george w. bush is. this is a president in his second term. he is an adult and he owns these decisions. this mantra that we are referring to george w. bush, i think it is losing its resonance in terms of how convincing it is. there is an interesting dynamic with gitmo. i agree with the president that gitmo should be closed. i have been a critic of gitmo for a long time. ifinteresting dimension is, you are going to close gitmo, i actually thought the spin that

was going to come out -- we have determined that obviously we cannot try these guys, otherwise we would have tried them. we are going to shut down gitmo, which means we are going to have to do something with these guys, and we got value out of them. i expected that sort of to be the line. it was not. but it does force attention again on gitmo. that is, what are we going to do with all these people? he has been a disaster. the military tribunals have been a disaster. neither partyy, in congress wants to be seen as facilitating the closure of gitmo and the release of these individuals. so we have a real political problem here. we are going to take a look at the roster of current detainees in guantánamo bay. are from yemen, 12 from afghanistan, 10 from saudi arabia, six from pakistan.

and then 33 are other. --weet from jodi guest: that is a very interesting question. it is getting lost in the more pressing issues of the violation of law and the price for it but this is the concern that many of us have had with gitmo for a long time. gitmo is a place that was created by george bush, maintained in the obama administration that was for a reason on the other side of our border. george bush was arguing that if we put it on the other side of the border, he would have absolutely true over this facility. we have a facility that clearly violates international law. we are holding people without trial, indefinitely. in many cases we are holding them at the secret behest of other countries who do not want them to show up, return. the problem is where the legal principle lies in my criticism

of president obama is that when he looked at gitmo he said he wanted to close it. but with regard to military tribunals, which some of us view which some of us view as a violation of law, he reserve that right. he said i will continue this role, this sort of caesar-like role, that you go to a trial and you do -- you go through one that i created. host: sunday morning at 9:15 eastern carl rosenberg discussing this particular issue. let's go to vallejo, california, where don is on the line for democrats. guest: good morning. you sure do change your program. you used to let a whole lot of people call-in. i guess you want to be more like

greta. host: go right ahead. guest: i was calling with regard to this guy. talked about how he voted for president obama. he did not vote for obama. he criticizes him more than anybody i ever heard. then you have congress, talking about them being so dysfunctional. you know why they are dysfunctional. they are not going to do nothing for no lack president. nothing is going to get done. you wait until this white president comes in. you will hear nothing else about no president doing nothing. congressrst of all, has done some things for this president. -- that is a continuation of rather lethal how ticks, and this call reflects those types of emotions. as to voting for president obama, i did not have any problems with voting for him for the first time. but i think this is the problem for democrats.

they have to avoid a cult of personality. they have to avoid feeling that it is disloyal to their values when we first elected president obama to then criticize him. we have to separate ourselves from our personal views, our personal respect for someone like president obama and concerns about our constitutional system. what is being burned here is the very bridge we are standing on, and we are going to miss it when we have bad times ahead. host: we had just a couple minutes left with jonathan turley of the george washington university law school. mike is from des moines, iowa, on the line for independents. caller: i believe this trade for bergdahl was the most ludicrous thing that could happen. tell me this -- a couple of the filth that was traded for him, weren't they wanted for war crimes? guest: a couple of them appeared

on international lists and are considered to be possible war criminals. i was surprised with who was released. these are really high ranking taliban. at least two of them have very plausible war crimes allegations against them. so i was taken aback when i saw the actual list. host: fayetteville, north carolina. robert is on the line for republicans. caller: good morning, america. i just wanted to say that i have celebrationth the of bergdahl. he was celebrated in the rose garden, followed up by the comments by susan rice saying that he served with distinction. after serving in the military, you are always inculcated with

the first standing order that you do not leave your post until properly relieved. we have to bring him back and i understand bringing him back because he is an american soldier. but to have him celebrated and his father standing next to him, and then i found out that he made these comments on twitter that was released -- i said, oh, my goodness, he has given me the impression that he is now sympathizing with the taliban have american trained taliban in the united states of america. the celebration of his release. it should have been done quietly and discreetly because he has some serious questions to answer he comes back on our soil. a lot of democrats in

congress would privately agree with that. the optics are not good. a white house seems to have put itself in the most exposed possible way without knowing what the backlash would be. that is what you are hearing in terms of grumbling from members of congress on the democratic side, that this could not have been done to maximize the damage more. i have to say we have to be very careful. i do not know what happened with sergeant bergdahl. i think there are reasonable questions as to why he would walk away from the base. that raises questions of desertion. housethink what the right -- what the white house is trying to do is say as of now he has not been convicted of any type of desertion. he did serve his country over there, and we will have to drill down on the conditions under which he left. but i do agree, and i think democrats would agree, that the white house walked into a buzz saw here. they did not seem to see it

coming, which strikes me as being very odd. this white house has had serious trouble in looking down the road, even just a few steps down the road. most of us would have assumed the opposite. host: and we will mark the 70th anniversary of d-day from the world war ii memorial at the washington mall. turnevery day at 7 a.m. is .

and the house passed will that would limit how the nsa uses data. and then the history of presidential signing debt that and a look at the swap that led to the release of sergeant bergdahl. live event to tell you about beginning with speeches by barack obama and french president françois åland -- francois hollande. you could join the conversation theacebook and twitter. brookings institution hosts a discussion on the state of the european union.

>> c-span's new book includes financial journalist gretchen morgenstern. >> what role should the government have in housing finance. populist -- populace agrees it's something we should subsidize then put it on the balance sheet and make it clear. everyone aware of how much it is costing. when you deliver the subsidy through a public company with private shareholders and executives who can extract a lot , that'sfor themselves not a good way of subsidizing homeownership. >> read more from gretchen mortenson and other q&a interviews on sundays at eight.

now available as a father's day gift did your favorite bookseller. >> president obama and british prime minister david cameron spoke with reporters. originally russia was scheduled to host the g-8 but was disinvited. >> good afternoon, everybody. it is good to be here with my great friend and partner, prime minister david cameron. earlier this afternoon, we concluded our summit with our fellow g-7 leaders, and i want to thank his majesty, king philippe, the prime minister, as well as the belgian people or welcoming us back to brussels. david and i also just had the opportunity to meet and discuss some challenges including syria, libya, and iran, as well as the

process of ending our combat mission in afghanistan. we spoke about the deepening partnership that we have on issues like nigeria in support of our shared goal of safely returning the kidnapped girls to their families, but what i want to focus on briefly before we take questions are two issues that dominated our discussion over the last two days, and that's the situation in ukraine, and energy security. originally, of course, our summit was supposed to be in sochi, but after russia's actions in ukraine, our nations united quickly around a common strategy. we suspended russia from the g-eight and canceled the sochi meeting, making this the first g-7 held without russia in some 20 years. all seven of our nations have taken steps to impose costs on russia for its behavior. today, in contrast to a growing global economy, the sluggish russian economy is even weaker

because of the choices made by russia's leadership. meanwhile, our nations continue to stand united in our support and assistance to the ukrainian people, and the g-7 summit was an occasion for me, david, and our fellow leaders to ensure that we are in lockstep going forward. on ukraine, i shared the results of my meeting yesterday with president-elect poroshenko. like many ukrainians, he wants to forge closer ties with europe and the united states but also recognizes that ukraine will benefit from a constructive relationship with russia. i believe his inauguration provides an opportunity, particularly since he has demonstrated a commitment to reach out to the east and pursue reforms. russia needs to seize that opportunity. russia needs to recognize that president-elect poroshenko is the legitimately elected leader of ukraine and engage the government in kiev. given his influence over the

militants in ukraine, russia continues to have a responsibility to convince them to end their violence, lay down their weapons, and enter into a dialogue with the ukrainian government. on the other hand, if russia's provocations continue, it is clear from our discussions here that the g-7 nations are ready to impose additional costs on russia. i also briefed david on the new initiative i announced in warsaw to bolster the security of our nato allies, especially in central and eastern europe as well as our focus on building counterterrorism capabilities across the middle east and north africa. david will be hosting the next nato summit in wales in september, and i preceded him updating me on the preparations for that summit. we agree that it is going to be an opportunity for every ally to make sure they are carrying their share and investing in the capabilities our alliance needs for the future. the situation in ukraine has also highlighted the need for greater energy security.

at the g-7, we agreed to help ukraine reduce its energy risks, to include diversifying its supplies. we are going to help countries in central and eastern europe strengthen their energy security as well, and i am following the review i called for in the united states earlier this year, every g-7 country will conduct an energy assessment to identify possible impacts of any potential disruptions and offer ways we can better prevent disruptions and recover from the m more quickly. related to this, we agree that the g-7 to continue to lead by example in the fight against climate change, which poses a danger to our environment, our economies, and our national security. i made it clear that the united states will continue to do our part. earlier this week, we took a major step, posing new standards that for the first time would limit carbon pollution from our existing power plants. it is one of the most ambitious steps any nation has taken to

combat climate change. it would reduce carbon emissions from our electricity sector by 30%. it would help us meet the commitments we made when i first came into office at copenhagen, and it will improve our public health. it's also going to be good for our economy, by helping to create more clean energy jobs and ultimately lower electricity bills for americans, so it is the right thing to do. this built on the steps we have taken over the past five years to invest more renewables like solar and wind, raise fuel standards for cars and trucks, and make our homes and businesses more energy-efficient. today, we are holding our carbon emissions to levels not seen in nearly 20 years, so we are making important progress, but my action plan for climate change indicates that we have got to keep at it and do more. i know it is a cause david is also passionate about. we believe every nation has to do its share. all the major economies, including the g-7 in emerging markets like china, need to show leadership as we work on a new

global climate agreement, and that includes putting forward by march of next year and ambitious long-term target for reducing emissions. again, i want to thank prime minister cameron and our fellow leaders for our work here together in brussels. david, i believe that whenever our two nations stand together, they can lead a world that is more secure and more prosperous and more just, and we will be reminded of that again tomorrow in normandy as we mark the 70th anniversary of d-day. on that day, like so many others, american and british troops stood together and fought valiantly alongside our allies. they did not just help to win the war. they helped turn the tide of human history. they are the reason we can stand here today and a free europe and with the freedoms our nations enjoy. theirs is the legacy that our two nations and our great alliance continued to uphold. i am grateful to have a fine

partner in david and making that happen. thank you. >> thank you, and good afternoon. i am delighted to be here with you today, barack. as we stand here together in europe on the 70th anniversary of the d-day landings, we should remind the world of the strength and stead vastness of the bond between united kingdom and the united states. 70 years ago, as you just that, our countries stood like two rocks of freedom and democracy in the face of not security -- of nazi tyranny. thousands of young british and american soldiers with their canadian and free french counterparts were preparing to cross the channel in the greatest liberation force that the world has ever known. those young men were united in purpose to restore democracy and freedom to continental europe, to free by force of arms ancient european nations, and to allow the nations and peoples of europe to chart their destiny in the world.

thousands of does -- those young men paid the ultimate price, and we honor their memory today and tomorrow. shortly after d-day, my own grandfather was wounded and came home. we will never forget what they did and the debt that we owe them for the peace and the freedom that we enjoy on this continent. today in a new century, our two democracies continue to stand and uphold the same values in the world -- democracy, liberty, the rule of law. day in, day out, our people work together to uphold those values right across the globe, and that approach has been at the heart of what we have discussed here at the g-7 and in our bilateral meeting today. we have talked about one of the greatest opportunities we have two turbocharged the global economy by concluding trade deals including the eu/u.s.

deal, which would be the biggest deal of them all -- deals it could be worth up to 10 billion pounds a year for britain alone. it would help to secure our long-term economic success and generate a better future for hard-working families back at home. that is why i was so determined to launch those negotiations a year ago. since then, we've made steady progress, but we've got to keep our eyes on the huge prize on offer and not get onto down. -- bogged down. we also discussed what i believe is the greatest threat that we face, how we counter extremism and the threat that terrorist groups pose also to the safety of our people both at home and abroad. this year, we will bring our troops home from afghanistan. they can be proud of what they have achieved over the last decade -- deny terrorists a safe haven from which to plot attacks against britain or the united states. at the same time, as we have reduced the threat from that region, some al qaeda franchises have grown in other parts of the world. many of these groups are focused on the countries where they operate, but they still pose a risk to our people, businesses,

and our interest. barack and i share the same view of how we tackle this threat in the fragile regions of the world where terrorist networks seek a foothold. our approach must be tough, patient, intelligent, and based on strong international partnerships, so when it comes to serbia, now the number one destination of jihadist anywhere in the world, we have agreed to intensify our efforts to address the threat of foreign fighters traveling to and from syria. we will introduce new measures in the u.k. to prosecute those who plan and train for terrorism abroad. here at the g-7, we have agreed to do more to work with syria's neighbors to strengthen border security and disrupt the terror financing that funds these jihadist training camps. in libya, we want to help the government as it struggles to overcome the disastrous legacy of gaddafi's misrule and build a stable, peaceful, prosperous future. we have recently appointed envoys who will be working together to support efforts to reach a much needed political settlement, and we are

fulfilling our commitment to train the libyan security forces with the first tranche of recruits due to begin their training in the u.k. this month. in nigeria, we are both committed to supporting the nigerian government and its neighbors as they confront the scourge of boko haram. the kidnapping of girls was an act of your evil, and britain and the united states have provided immediate assistance in the search. in the longer term, we stand ready to provide more practical assistance to help the nigerians and the region strengthen their defense and security institutions and to develop the expertise needed to counter barbaric extremists. finally, as barack said, we had an important discussion on ukraine and relations with russia. from the outset of this crisis, the g-7 nations stood united, clear for our support for the ukrainian people and their right to choose their own future and firm and our message to president putin that russia's actions are completely unacceptable and totally at odds

with our values for this group of democracies. that is why russia no longer has a seat at the table here with us. we were clear about three things -- first, the status quo is unacceptable. the continuing destabilization of eastern ukraine must stop. second, there are a set of things that need to happen. president putin must recognize the legitimate election of president poroshenko. he must stop arms crossing the border into ukraine. he must stop russian support for separatist groups. third, if these things do not happen, sanctions will follow. the next month will be vital in judging at president putin has taken the steps, and that is what i will urge president putin to do when i meet him later today. finally, we discussed a cancer eating away at the world economic and political systems -- corruption. corruption is the archenemy of democracy and development. best way to fight corruption and drive growth is through what i call the three t's.

that was at the heart of our g8 -- greater transparency, for your systems, and free trade. that was at the heart of our g8 agenda, and today, we agreed to push for more actions unfair tax systems, freer trade, and greater transparency, things that are now hardwired into these international gatherings this year and for many years to come. thank you. >> all right, we got a couple of questions from each press delegation. we will start with jeff mason at reuters. >> thank you, mr. president. you are going to france later this evening. since you last had president hollande visit, and a lot of tensions have arisen in the relationship, including on bnp paribas. the french say a potential multibillion dollar fine on that and would affect local -- the global economy and could affect trade talks. do you believe those concerns are valid? have you expect to address them with him tonight? and also u.s. concerns about the french selling warships to russia. prime minister, do you feel isolated among your eu leaders

about your position on jean-claude juncker, and who would you like to get the job? -- european commission president. second, do you feel pressure from president obama about your position of keeping the u.k. in the eu? thank you. >> first of all, the relationship between the united states and france has never been stronger. on a whole range of issues, we are seeing intense cooperation, and i'm looking forward to seeing president hollande this evening to talk about a range of issues and continue the work that was done here in brussels. my answer on the banking cases is short and simple -- the tradition of the united states is that the president does not meddle in prosecutions. we do not call the attorney

general -- i do not pick up the phone and tell the attorney general how to prosecute cases that have been brought. i do not push for settlements. a cases that have been brought. those are decisions that are made by an independent department of justice. i have communicated that to president hollande. this is not a unique position on my part. perhaps it is a different tradition than exists in other countries, but it is designed to make sure that the rule of law is not in any way impacted by political expediency, and so this will be determined by u.s. attorneys in discussion with representatives of the bank, and i will read about in the newspapers just like everyone

else. >> he says he is going to confront you about it tonight, though. >> you will hear the same answer from me tonight as you just heard at this podium. >> [indiscernible] >> i have expressed some concerns, and they do not think i'm alone in this. about continuing significant defense deals with russia at a time when they have violated basic international law and the territorial integrity and sovereignty of their neighbors. president hollande understands my position. i recognize that this is a big deal. i recognize that the jobs in france are important. i think it would have been preferable to press the pause button. president hollande so far has made a different decision, and

that does not negate the broader cooperation that we have had with france with respect to its willingness to work with us on sanctions to discourage president putin from engaging in further destabilizing actions and, hopefully, to encourage him to move in a more constructive direction. we are at a point where mr. putin has the chance to get back into a lane of international law. he has a president in poroshenko, who he can negotiate directly with. having spoken directly with president poroshenko this morning, it is clear he recognizes that ukraine needs to have a good relationship with

russia, but also rightly affirms the right of ukraine to engage with the rest of the world, and the steps that david outlined earlier and that the g-7 unanimously agrees with, which is for mr. putin to take -- seize this moment, recognize poroshenko as legitimate leader of ukraine, cease the support of separatists and the flow of arms, work with ukraine to engage those in the east during this process of constitutional economic reform -- if mr. putin takes the steps, then it is possible for us to begin to rebuild trust between russia and its neighbors and europe. should he fail to do so, there will be additional consequences, and one of the important things that came out of this meeting today was the recognition on the

part of all of us that we cannot simply allow drift. the mere fact that some of the russian soldiers have moved back off the border and that russia is now destabilizing ukraine through surrogates rather than overtly and explicitly does not mean that we can afford three months or four months or six months of continued violence and conflict in eastern ukraine. we will have a chance to see what mr. putin does over the next 2, 3, 4 weeks, and if he remains on the current course, then we have already indicated the kind of actions we are prepared to take.

>> you asked a couple of questions about europe as well. given the context, we just had a set of european elections where we have taken two countries at random, france and britain, and into european parties won. you can wish these results would go away or you can address the concerns of the people you represent in your country. i have a strategy to represent and understand them. it is important we have people running the institutions of europe who understand the needs for change, the need for reform. i would argue that is a view that is quite widely shared among other heads of government and heads of state in the european union. as for britain's future, i am clear in what i want to achieve. to secure britain's place in a reformed european union. i have a strategy for delivering that -- it is about renegotiating our position, recovering some important powers, making significant changes, and then putting the decision in a referendum to the british people. but very much recommending that

we stay in a reformed european union. again, it is a strategy for healing within issue, which i think if we just walk away, we towardee britney drift the exit, and i don't want that to happen. we have good discussions about these issues. as we discuss everything else. let's have a question from the bbc. >> mr. president, even if you don't have a meeting scheduled face-to-face with vladimir putin, are you going to end up talking with him face-to-face? do you see real possibilities of opening up the pathway whereby you engage in him? britain is potentially facing, mr. president, two major decisions, whether or not scotland stay part of the united kingdom and the united kingdom staying part of the european union -- what of those decisions mean to you? and to the people of the united states? prime minister, you will be the first to engage with vladimir putin face to face. despite everything you have

said, is there something of an olive branch in your hand? notr all, mr. putin has denounced the elections that brought the new president into power in ukraine. do you accept that germany may not come to your aid and stop juncker becoming president of the european commission? will your credibility be so damaged that people may simply vote to leave the union? finally, who are you more afraid of, angela merkel or teresa may? >> great question. right. let me take those. my meeting with vladimir putin this's important to have communication about some very important messages.

what is happening now is not acceptable, about the changes that need to take place. as the president said there is , an opportunity for diplomacy to take a role and to chart a path. we have had these elections. the ukrainian people have chosen a president. he's a capable man. it is possible that he could have a proper relationship with putin that could be a proper relationship between ukraine and russia. but change is needed for that to happen. that is the message i have been delivering this evening. in terms of your other questions , on this issue of who runs the european commission, the european institutions on what matters are people who need this -- understand the need for change, the need for reform. who realize that if things go on as they have, this union is not going to work for its citizens. thinks the message that i was loudly received in these european elections. as for who -- i am very fortunate in my life to work with some extremely strong and capable women, of which they are undoubtedly two.

>> i have no doubt that i will see mr. putin. we have always had a businesslike relationship. it is entirely appropriate that he is there to commemorate d-day, given the extraordinary sacrifices made by people of the soviet union during world war ii. should we have the opportunity to talk, i will be repeating the same message i have told him through this crisis. keep in mind that although we have not had formal meetings, i have spoken to him by phone repeatedly from the outset of the protests. my message has been very consistent. and that is that russia has a legitimate interest in what happens in ukraine, given its historical ties and its borders. ultimately, it is up to the people of ukraine to make their own decisions. that russian armed forces annexing pieces of a neighbor is

illegal. it violates international law. and the kinds of destabilizing activities that we have funded -- that we now see funded and encouraged by russia are illegal. and are not constructive. there is a path in which russia has the capacity to engage directly with president poroshenko now. he should take it. if he does not, if he continues a strategy of undermining the sovereignty of ukraine, then we have no choice but to respond. perhaps he has been surprised by the degree of unity that has been displayed. i do think the fact that he did not immediately denounce the outcome of the may 25 election offers the prospect that he is

moving in a new direction. i think we have to see what he does and not what he says. with respect to the future of the united kingdom. obviously, ultimately, this is up to the people of great britain. in the case of scotland, there is a referendum process in place. and it is up to the people of scotland. i would say that the united kingdom has been a mixed -- has been an extraordinary partner to us. from the outside, at least it , looks like things have worked pretty well. we obviously have a deep interest in making sure that one of the closest allies that we will ever have remained strong, robust, united, and effective.

ultimately, these are decisions that have to be made by the folks there. with respect to the european union, we share a strategic vision on a whole range of international issues. it is always encouraging for us to know that great britain has a seat at the table and the larger european project. in light of the events we will be commemorating tomorrow. it is important to recall that it was the steadfastness of great britain that allows us to be here in brussels, in the seat of a unified and extraordinary ily prosperous europe. it would be hard for me to

imagine that project going well without great britain. it would be advantageous for great britain -- would not be advantageous for great britain to be excluded from political decisions that have an impact on its political and economic life. this is why we have elections. we will see the arguments made. i'm sure the people of great britain will make the right decision. >> have you been surprised by the backlash that has been whipped up by your decision to do a deal to free bowe bergdahl? in retrospect, could you have consulted more with congress? or announced a deal that might have spared him and his family being caught up in the political crossfire? prime minister, how do you respond to the criticism that your decision to meet vladimir putin and his meetings with other key european leaders are devaluing the punishment that was meted out to russia by the

throwing it out of the g-8? should qatar be deprived of the right to host the world cup and if so, would britain be willing to host it? [laughter] >> i am never surprised by controversies that are whipped up in washington. that is par for the course. i will repeat what i said two days ago. we have a basic principle. we do not leave anybody wearing the american uniform behind. we had a prisoner of war whose health had deteriorated and we were deeply concerned about him. we saw an opportunity and we seized it. i make no apologies for that. we had discussed with congress the possibility that something like this might occur.

but because of the nature of the folks we were dealing with and the fragile nature of these negotiations, we felt it was important to do what we did. we are now explaining to congress the details of how we moved forward. this basic principle that we do not leave anybody behind and this basic recognition that that often means prisoner exchanges with enemies is not unique to my administration. it dates back to the beginning of our republic. with respect to how we announced it, i think it was important for people to understand that this is not some abstraction. this is not a political football. you have a couple parents who se kid volunteered to fight in a

distant land. who they had not seen in five years. and were not sure whether they would ever see again. and as commander-in-chief of the united states armed forces, i am responsible for those kids. and i get letters from parents who say, "if you are sending my child to war, make sure you make that child is being taken care of." i read too many letters to folks who don't see their children again after fighting a war. i make absolutely no apologies for making sure that we get back a young man to his parents and that the american people understand that this is somebody's child. and that we don't condition whether or not we make the effort to try to get them back. did you have a second question?

you can ask him about football. >> on the issue of meeting president putin, i think it is right to have this dialogue, particularly if you have a clear message and point to make. i think there's a world of difference between having a dialogue between president putin and excluding someone from an institution as significant as the g-8 and the g-7. i think was absolutely right to exclude russia. i think it was one of the first g-8 leaders to make that point. it was the totally right decision. there is totally a world of difference between the meeting we just held which did not include russia and having a bilateral meeting in which we discussed the issues about ukraine. on the issue of football, we should let the investigation run its course. of course, england is the home of football, as it is the home and the inventor of many sports. tennis, rugby, golf, skiing, table tennis, cricket. i don't think we can lay credit to -- >> baseball, basketball. [laughter] >> you did invent the english

language. [laughter] >> you've made a few changes to it. [laughter] they don't hold us back. final question. >> you spoke about the importance for you and your allies of being in lockstep on the crisis of ukraine? if this crisis shows no sign of de-escalating, the next step will be to sectorial sanctions. are you confident that you will be in lockstep with all of the european allies and g-7 allies? because there will be costs and consequences for them and their economies as sanctions get widened. prime minister, you spoke about the threats of extremist ideology at home and abroad. describe it as the greatest threat to britain and its allies. even by your own government's

estimate, there are several hundred british citizens learning to fight and kill in syria. with regard to extremist ideology at home, particularly in schools where there has been a lot of concern, do you think it is morally unseemly and wrong for members of your own government to engage in an argument about whether british children should be protected against extremist ideology? >> first of all, let me say on the issue of sectoral sanctions and this issue of lockstep between the u.s. and countries of the european union, i think it has been striking over the last few months how we have been able to stay as unified as we have. i pay tribute to barack for his understanding of how important it is for us to work together and deliver these messages together. i think it is surprising and i hope it surprised president putin. in terms of tackling extremism, i set up the u.k. extremism task force. which i chaired after the appalling murder of leave rigby -- lee rigby.

i wanted to make sure the government was doing everything it could to drive extremism out of our schools, out of our colleges, off campuses, out of prisons, in every part of national life. i think it is very important that we recognize that we have to deal not only with violent extremism, but also the stink of extremism, of tolerating extremist views from which violence can grow. the whole government is signed up to that agenda and is driving through changes to deliver that agenda. as for issues for the last day or so, we will get to the bottom of who said what and what happened. i will sort it all out once we finish these important meetings i am having here. >> i think what has been striking is the solidarity. between the united states and europe with the ukraine crisis. i think a lot of people anticipated early on that immediately the two sides would

fly apart. in fact, there has been a consistency in affirming the core values and the united and prosperous europe. that is despite the very real economic consequences that can arise by ringing sanctions against russia. i think europeans understand that the reason we have seen such extraordinary growth and peace on this continent us to do with certain values. certain principles. that have to be upheld. when they are so blatantly disregarded, the choice is clear. europeans have to stand up for those ideals and principles, even if it creates economic inconvenience. having said that, sectoral sanctions would be more

significant. our technical teams have been consulting with the european commission to identify sanctions that would maximize impact on russia and minimize adverse impact on european countries. that work is ongoing. my hope is that we do not have to exercise them because mr. putin has made some better decisions. i think it would be better for russia. i think the russian economy is not in good shape right now. we have seen significant capital flight just from the sanctions we have already applied. that could easily worsen. if we have sectorial sanctions, i think it will inevitably hit russia a lot worse than its it hitsit hits -- than europe, which has much more

diversified and resilient economies. do i expect unanimity among the 28 eu members? i have been president for 5.5 years. i have learned a thing or two about the european union, the european commission, the european council. sometimes i get them mixed up. >> welcome to the club. [laughter] >> the basic principle that you have 28 people sitting around the table and not everyone is going to agree -- we take that for granted. i also think that if in fact we have to move to sectorial sanctions, it is important to take individual countries ' sensitivities to mind and make sure that everybody is ponying up. that everybody is bearing their fair share. some people are going to be more concerned about defense relations, some will be concerned about the financial sector, others might be concerned about trade and basic goods and services.

that is the technical work that is being done. again, my hope is that we do not have to use it. i have been heartened by the steadfastness of europe thus far. i think that people underestimate the degree to which, given the history of this continent, certainly in the 20th century, the people are not interested in seeing any in the -- any chinks in the armor. they recognize that that is worth working for. thank you very much everybody. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [video clip] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> focusing on the three day trip to europe.

anniversary ofth d-day from the world war ii memorial on the national mall. washington journal live on at 7:00 a.m.day eastern. you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. moments, a senate intelligence meeting limiting how the nsa gathers and uses data. discussion on the history of presidential signing statements and the legal issues involved in the u.s.-taliban swap leading to the release of dahl.ant berg >> the reason we're trying to focus on the speaker is because it is the speaker with the full majesty and waited his position who yesterday made certain allegations which, at this point, he has not yet answered to.

>> you don't normally have the audience in the 26 hours you presented this to the public, but the interesting fact is the whole tenor of your remarks going back to 1970, 1972 taking out of context, you are there for one visit alone in my opinion and that was to imply that members were un-american in their activity. when you respond, you knew there was nobody here. scam -- camscam. on the your perspective two. >> speaker o'neill was really a giant. he knew the politics of the house and he kept much of it to of othern terms

members. he obviously received a great amount of intelligence all day long from members, what was going on in different places. he always believed that politics was the art of the possible. he was a broker within the democratic caucus and within the house. when you saw was newt gingrich who made a conscious decision that he would always be in the minority because they worked with the majority. he started attacking bob michael, the leader, john rhodes, everybody on that side, his own party. he said the only avenue to the majority is through confrontation and we will take them down. this was an argument about the misuse of tv coming to the fore where he would ask these rhetorical questions and make these charges and the fact that empty.mber was

that time the camera was very tight on the speaker at the time and the rule came to show that the chamber either had people in it or was empty and it changes the whole dynamic. that was a process that many years later has torn this institution apart and really paralyzed the institution. >> congressman george miller sunday night at 8:00 on c-span "q and a." >> on thursday, the one-year anniversary of the first story published on the edward snowden leaks from the nsa. the senate intelligence committee considers a house passed bill looking at how they gather and use data. witnesses including the nsa, fbi,s of and verizon. this is three hours.

>> the committee will come to order. any disruption at all, i will clear this room immediately. please, everybody knows that. this is a very serious discussion. it's a serious subject. be heard.deserve to members deserve to be able to ask their questions. at the first inkling of a demonstration, we will clear the room and come back when the room .s clear today, we meet to receive testimony and discussed the legislation passed by the house of representatives on may 22 to reform the foreign intelligence .urveillance act

not legislation, the usa freedom approved last month from the two committees of jurisdiction in the house. the house judiciary committee and the house permanent select committee on intelligence. after amendments on the house floor, the bill was passed by a 303-121. that is about three to one and it sends a very loud signal, i think, to this house. it was a very large majority voting for and votes came from both sides of the aisle. to bill makes major changes existing intelligence programs conducted under the foreign intelligence surveillance act, or what we call fisa. first, the house bill would end nsa collection of telephone metadata known as the section 215 program by reference to the

provision in the usa patriot act. the program has been approved fisathan 37 times by the court and upheld a further three times by other federal courts. the to believe that it is lawful and has been effect is. i recognize that the situation is such that change is needed. the house bill replaces nsa acquisition of record with a process by which the government can obtain a fisa court order that would compel telecommunication providers to conduct specific queries of the phone metadata that they possess. the government would be required to show that the information sought is relative to an authorized investigation and that there is a reasonable phonelable issue that the

numbers at issue are associated with a foreign power or the agent of a foreign power. the government would obtain only those records related to telephone calls of the individual of interest. unlike the nsa current practice authorized repeatedly by the fisa court, this legislation would restrict the queries of phone records to two instead of three. the bill prohibits the government from acquiring, through this authority, the names of people involved, their location, or the content of their communication. the result of this legislation would be to reduce by a significant extent the amount of information in the possession of the government. of which wouldty never be seen by nsa personnel. some information of intelligence given the be lost

telecommunication companies may not all retained their records for the five years that nsa does. by limiting query results in the limiting to two pops rather than three, the nsa has told this committee that the intelligence value of information and pain from a third and from records more than 18-24 months old has been relatively limited. as with other titles of fisa, the house bill would provide liability protection for companies that provide information required under the court order. it would also allow the attorney general to authorize and order in case of emergency when there is not sufficient time to go to the fisa court. the same limitations and protections are in place here as

in other parts of fisa. in addition, the bill prohibits the government from conducting any bolt election -- bulk collection. the registered trap and trace authority and through the use of national security letters. while prohibiting the collection is supported by privacy advocates and private sector companies, the language used in the bill is somewhat controversial. this controversy revolves around the requirement that the government focus its collection of information on what is called a specific selection term meaning that the government may only seek records or other information that is specifically related to its investigation. theproblem comes with

definition of a specific is noton term which clear on its face and i believe it is confusing. i believe a specific selection term in the bill is defined as follows, and i quote. such as a term, specifically identifying a person, entity, account, address, or device used by the government to limit the scope of the information or tangible thing sought pursuant to the statute authorizing the provision of such information or tangible things to the government. the government." i understand the definition has to provide some amount of flexibility in order to give government investigators the ability to gather information needed for a case, especially in the early days of a case without already knowing what there is about the subject.

i hope that our witnesses today will provide specific examples, and if you have better alternatives, now would be the time to put them forward. we might, hypothetically, have an intelligence source that tells us that a terrorist is on a specific claim flying -- plane flying to the united states, but we may not know their name. it seems reasonable to me that the fbi might want to find out who was on the flight manifest even though all but one or two people will certainly be innocent. there is also concerned that the definition that i just read might be so broad as to allow the fbi to get all flight manifests of an entire airline, for example, and i think we need to look at that. i know that is not the intention of the house authors, and i believe the government witnesses

today will tell us that they do not believe the bill would authorize them to conduct drift net surveillance or records collection, but i am interested in trying to find a more clear and more understandable definition, and make clear that it prohibits bulk collection of information under these authorities. finally, let me note that this committee has been looking at the nsa's business records collection for years. we passed legislation to reauthorize the provision multiple times and debate the legality of the program as well. 31, we passedober a bill that would institute a number of reforms to the nsa phone metadata program and make a number of other improvements to those authorized under fisa and executive order 12333.

i continue to support that legislation, but in the interest of passing legislation now, as soon as we can, before we get into election time, that will continue the business records authority passed its sunset date of june 1, 2015, and remove the bulk record storage from the government, which is what the administration supports now, the house supports, and numerous citizens and businesses appear to want. i believe we should take a close look at the house legislation with a view to its passage, perhaps as amended in the senate. that is the purpose of today's hearing, so i would like to welcome the witnesses, and they are in front of us for the first panel. they are james cole, the deputy attorney general. there you are. where are you much mark there

you are -- where are you? there you are. richard ledgett, deputy director of the nsa. mark giuliano, deputy director of the fbi. stephanie o'sullivan, the rentable deputy director of national intelligence. thank you for being here. after this panel we will have a second panel of outside witnesses who i will introduce at the time. let me turn to the distinguished vice chairman for his remarks. >> thank you, madam chair, and i join you in welcoming our witnesses and thank you for providing testimony on the usa freedom act. are experienced on these issues and i expect our committee will benefit from their insight on this bill. while i recognize this bill has gained a lot of momentum, i think we need to step back and ask ourselves if these changes are necessary. it seems this bill is fixing a

lot of things that simply are not broken. for example, the bill will end this section 215 bulk data collection program. all three branches of our government have performed extensive oversight of this program for years and have ensured it has been operated in accordance with our constitution and within the u.s. law. officials toermits conduct historical analysis of suspicious threats in an effort to identify emerging and evolving terrorist networks. the system where this data is maintained is very secure. the number of analysts that can access this data is extremely small. there are a host of multi-layered, oversight mechanisms in place to detect and resolve compliance issues. my phone data is in there with ierybody else's, but frankly am not worried. i am not worried because i do not talk to terrorists, and

hopefully, i am not talking to other people that are talking to terrorists. what do we get in return for eliminating the section 215 program? untested,et undeveloped process where the intelligence community and send specific selection terms to and inrs and received a a. it can register -- it sounds a lot like a pin register , only it will have the capability to pull records that out.wo hops i am concerned this hypothetical register will cause more problems than it fixes. it could be considerably more expensive than the current system, and it will probably also be less secure because

there will be more people involved in the process. it will be less capable because the analysts will not have access to the historical data using this new authority, and there will likely be operational delays as the selectors get sent out to the various service providers. the other problem is the bill does not satisfy -- specify a data retention period, leaving it up to the service providers to determine how long to hold the data. it seems to me that swapping the current program of for an untested system might be a bad deal from a national security perspective and for the american people. i think a lot of us are feeling the sting from the inexcusably deal thatal security resulted in the release of the taliban five. this protection system was designed to protect us from terrorists exactly like them. i do not think we should be compounding our errors right now.

and iyou, madam chair, look forward to dialogue with our witnesses today. chairman.ou, mr. vice we will proceed with witness statements. if you can confine it to approximately five minutes, and give us your written remarks, and that would be helpful. if you need the time, this is important, please take it. generaldeputy attorney cole, who will be followed by stephanie o'sullivan, mr. giuliano will. not give formal remarks unless you want to, and you'll be able to answer questions. begin.e, please >> thank you, chairman feinstein, vice chairman chambliss, and established members of the committee. we are pleased to express the for therations support

bill recently passed by the house of representatives. i appreciate the leadership and the considerable effort of this committee in working with us to explore how we can increase the confidence of our fellow americans in their privacy being protected while providing our intelligence agencies with the authorities they need to acquire foreign intelligence that is so important to our national security. the bill passed by the house last month would make significant changes to the provisions of the foreign intelligence surveillance act that we believe will help us meet these two objectives. it would prohibit bulk collection of information under section 215, the national security letter statutes, and the pin trace commitments of fisa. it replaces the bulk metadata collection program with a new framework that preserves the capabilities