lead, we have these cutting edge technologies, a development, ing cloud commute something just one. these are all areas where we in a fragile conomy to create good paying innovation orient the jobs. my take is that if a foreign was doing the damage to the american economy that some these overly broad n.s.a. practices are doing, our up in arms.ld be people with be up in arms coast.ly from coast to and you have highlight ed at pae testimony the forester study i believe or the foundation, $35 cloud loss to the computing industry just one part sector over logy three years. balkanization the

internet. i assume what you are touching on is when countries like europe are razil and others applying various restrictions access to nities for our digital goods and services us to makes it hard for have that seamless internet. flesh out that concept if you the balkanization of the internet. because i think it is important really understand the implications of the economic arm being done to the american bra brand. your companies have gone to great lengths to constantly innovate, by and large they like to be left alone by government. > that is an accurate statement. >> be left alone and innovate. -- d about john claim those who are up in arms. flesh out how these overly broad

practices have damaged companies and what you mean by balkanization of the internet that you feel has taken place. and i feel so strongly about i'm investigating it as chairman of the finance committee because i think this implications on the global competitiveness of some most important companies. >> thank you, we appreciate that. the two concepts are interrelated. the internet as i mentioned in y testimony is built on open interoperable global platforms. reliant on vily trust. what we see in a lot of a move ional markets is toward creating barriers to that interoperating, which would lead to new governing structures where you essentially wall gardens that are separated from the broader global internet, which lightly problematic. the benefit of the internet is

hat it is global and interconnected. the loss of trust as well in ally, which i mentioned my oral testimony, it is highly problematic because the reason we have done, u.s. done so globally is because we innovate but there s a trust in what we are innovating and advancing. if you undermaintain both of hose it results in economic loss and those are not theoretical, they are real and not broader implications just for our companies but if the foundation of the internet of the ed then all derives from it is lost. >> thank you. is baker, first of all it good to see you again. >> did is a pleasure. >> i very much appreciate the gave us some

real-life examples to as we attempt to get this right, and that is what on this committee wants to do. does verizonw long record y retain call data for business purposes? >> that is a complexion question to answer because we have many different systems for retaining da data. i would take the opportunity to say that a number of witnesses nd members have referred to an f.c.c. requirement that we retain for 18 months. >> that was going to be my next on whether you think you are required to retain data for 18 months. the answer is no. requiresc. requirement us to maintain billing records for 18 months. that raul -- rule was in the 1980's our

a lotg records integrated of call detail records. telephone bills used to be pages pages and listed calms and there was a difference between local.istance and as the system has evolved most of our customers, about 70% to wire line customers and over 80% of wireless customers plans.unlimited type that call detail record is no billing records that we retain for f.c.c. purposes. more and are moving more toward flat fee monthly calling plans. so, i'm trying to figure out how you aregoing to work if not going to have the kind of that ed phone numbers could be queried. keeping all e not of the data for at least 18 months. so there is no -- it sounds like

ou are collecting or keeping ess data than you used to we there were individual calls that you were charged for if you were customer. nd you are keeping them of varying length and don't accept that there is an f.c.c. that ement to keep all of data for 18 months. and correct where i am wrong. >> to the first point, we are discriminatigenerating fewer cl records. generate them. even when customers are on unlimited plans the system and the gateways aufp aufpltly generate them. managing the r traffic across the system. we have many different systems. we are generally retaining them purely months for business purposes.

we satisfy the f.c.c. by retaining actual companies of the billing paper work. -- the.c. requirement is f.c.c. requirement is all about esolving billing disputes with shers so we keep copies of the bills. are he call detail records still being generated. >> excuse me for interrupting. if, after 12 months, you are purging the call detail record billing retaining the reco record, which doesn't have the cases, then n many losing -- wouldn't the government be losing access months' worth six of data? there seems to be this common there is going to be 18 months of data. it is not in the bill and you that you don't keep that kind of data across

the board. >> that is correct. if a law enforcement agency or the intelligence community came us and asked us for call detail records from three years we might not le, able to honor that request. but that is the position that right enforcement is in now. the bulk collection is for a onger period of time only because n.s.a. is getting a continuous feed and is keeping themselves. even now we don't have data five years back and it would just all collection would be from our ordinary business records. baker, do you see that as a problem from your perspective a former intelligence community member? > i said this was a step into the dark and it looks like a very long step down. don't know how much data we will be able to get by serving orders, and waver verizon's practices are we don't

know what the practices will be comcast or a much smaller provider. o it is going to be a very bumpy ride. >> thank you. >> thank you, senator collins. your comments to a great extent crystallize this. i would like to, since there are just the four of us, just have a -- you didn't get your five minutes? >> you didn't call on me. i'm sorry. take 10. >> mr. geiger, mr. baker gave us about the examples before use of 2015 -- i could more.ou a dozen the u know of any abuse of use of 2015? there was an abuse of ection 215 it is unlikely the

public would know because it would be classified and shrouded in secrecy. certainly the over broad use of it has resulted in a loss of american companies and translated to real dollar loss and lost jobs. moreover, mass surveillance is privacy rights of americans and human rights of the governmentnd has will lift of abuse, not just there government but governments worldwide when surveillance power is too broad. of there is not a lot evidence that the authorities are effective. we have had multiple independent including the president's review group and members of there panel who have the classified evidence and have determined that less intrusive means can achieve the ends. so, i would say not only do i not have information about have information that

the authorities that you are effective.ut are not >> well, i would strongly with you. just as a simple example that baker gave about the zozzi had 215 i'm not convinced that if we had this place under the facts of that case we would have probably an explosion in the subway new york city. and the reaction that we had 9/11 that you referred to and iay be overstepped -- understand what you are saying, that is the way congress tends -- the nfortunately reaction would have been to the opinion, where we went be here today talking about modifying in a softer way, we would be talking about modifying

them in a stronger way. mr. baker, you at homeland so?rity until 2009 or >> yes. >> i'm not sure how much access will to reviewing cases that may have involved the use of 215. you shed any light on this from a standpoint of any, number even se he abuses or reasons wy stronger reasons why 215 should be maintained? say he ard mr. geiger didn't know of any abuses and i agree with that. abuses.ot see and i will say we felt so importance of the having a large data set that we ad bitter battles with the european union to make sure that we could get information on into thewho was flying united states. and, of course, most of them we needed the ut data so we could look at most

suspect passengers and give them little bit more questioning at the border. effective normously program that relied on having a omprehensive data base, not a selective data base based on terms.agic >> if i can clarify the earlier statement, what i said was that overbroad use of 215 is problematic. it used in ways that are not bulk connection and they can be useful. compiled so idence far is the bulk collection programs are problematic and to is what we are trying end. >> i understand that. woods, if -- and i'm going to ask you this and you may not be able to answer because it practices of to your competitors but i assume generalities in your industry.

were mandated to law that ds by this aware debating and -- that we and ultimately may pass. if you were mandated it keep up to 18 months, do you have any idea what that with industry? senator, i bgs don't have any reliable figures. >> would there be a cost? >> certainly increased storage space would be a cost. the magnitude.of >> let's say we don't mandate it nd leave it wide open as the house did, which i think is a huge mistake. nd let's say that you were -- you received a query on one of who was in rs onversation with a customer of

contact was then in with a customer of sprint. under this bill, as i understand a query then you would give information on your we would have to o back to -- d.o.j. would have to go back to the fisa court for an authorization for a query on the at&t customer and they would have to go back to the fisa court and get a query on the customer. is that your understanding? the m not sure exactly how process would work. we would respond with the call records of whatever we had. we have call detail records on ur customer and on calls that are not by our customers but

transit our system as we handle used to call we long-distance and international calling. so we would simply respond with much as we had which might be the call from the verizon customer to the at&t customer. it might conceivably include or c.d.r.'s relevant. but it might not. >> that is totally dependent on routed through the telephone infrastructure. , ashich makes my point that mr. baker said -- as you said, it all ight now we have point and there is only one query and that one us all of the numbers in that little spider built when a terrorist makes a phone call to .omebody who makes another call and the information is available instantaneously as opposed to

by n.s.a. or may request iter over a period of hours or even days conceivably. chairman is right, this , -- and i understand your both the problem that you, geiger field and you mr. raised relative to the economic issues and whatnot. let's don't kid ourselves. we are not the only ones that do th this. the pond folks across who do this against us. been d it is -- it has necessary to interrupt and disrupt terrorist activities. say something, mr. garfield. >> i want to be clear we are not in esting not engaging activity that would protect our national security interests.

he thing we're suggesting is particularly as it relates to the language in the bill that there are ways to do that while addressing the equities related to privacy. behind you is the seal of the united states. it tufrpbs out the american people have lost trust in its domestically and internationally and the impacts be he programs will significant. and i think it is important to come up with language that want but hat you ensures we are not doing it in an indiscriminate way. >> and i don't think there's anybody here that disagrees with that philosophy. i do think there will be isagreement over how we get there. ok. your i can respond to point about data retention, as the een noted earlier, telecommunication companies and

many other internet services requests llions of from law enforcement around the ountry every year and they are responding and law enforcement generally doesn't have the ability to build such a gigantic data base. been any evidence so far that we have seen that a mandate is on or ssary for the companies law enforcement to use the data from the requests to catch criminals. a data rpbgs mandate would be an enormous burden both technological infrastructure for small companies and start-ups but loss of user trust and potential problems with privacy and data breach. urge you not -- we urge you not to go down the road in a data retention mandate. >> the problem is as mr. woods said they may not keep these more than two months next year and things are going to change five years from now or now. years from we all know how fast technology

changes. there's not some requirement that it be kept for some period as well notn we may have this program. we will lose it and we will lose he ability to interrupt and disrupt terrorist activities. so there's going to have to be understanding or some kind of - understanding that is firm -- or some kind of mandate in the law time.period of beerwise, we simply will not able to gather the information on guys that are talking. these guys are as smart as y'all we a lot smarter than what are up here. these guys that want to do bad things to us. they are going to figure out their way around it. it is already happening. we see it. can tell you some things that would scare folks to eath about the way some of the folks in the terrorist world are

revelations by mr. snowden. giving t here today, to this information terrorists i assure you there are folks watching this who are making notes and they are going try to hose notes to avoid whatever type of system we ultimately come up with. so, we've got to be mindful of that as we try to carefully that this legislation protects privacy rights, we all gree that that needs to be done, but at the same time protects americans. madam chair. >> thank you. senator rockefeller. thought.a quick that is the influence of public thinking about the activities of government. shared by most people. all people.

used we have an approval rating of 9% in i think i was quoted correctly. i think it varies piano 11% and 9%. and i think we have a esponsibility to consider what that means, but at the same time this committee, whose public ot to measure reaction but to do the very best it can do to do something called protect our national privacy at the same time. senator chambliss made a strong his opening statement terror is breaking out all over world. it is the biggest growth industry in existence. enormous the emotional advantage of being

tribal hatreds, retributions nce, from 200 years ago, flat out i racism, territorial disputes. n in the hat is going opb and ds off china philippines and taiwan, south korea all of them claiming a rock beneath which is a lot of oil. increase and increase and increase and increase. need for broad d d highly professionalize analysis of the intelligence hich aware able to collect -- which we are able to collect, if enough -- to collect closed down o we paid a terrible

price for that. conscious of being on the intelligence committee. but the her committees intelligence committee has a responsibility to do in secret for the most part this is a very rare occasion when we have are an open meeting. don't consider that bad. i consider it good that we do privately. because awake -- we can talk to with ways we can trust and talk to the government and have and c.i.a. our disputes in ways that are nderstood by all of us as we try to adjust to extremely pal -malevolent fast be ging events so we better good at collecting intelligence and protecting privacy. convinced that if somebody wants to say that n.s.a. is

bulk that so much isy could become malevolent, a usable argument in this country. tootsie rolls tasted like lemons people them but ouldn't buy they don't. of ave not will problems privacy. we have the perception of problems with privacy. we can't stop. that is not our job. , through to protect intelligence and through security our people. is what this hearing in a sense is all about. t is not reacting to public istaste for government or for collecting information. it is just that people are they of government and always have been.

nd that in no way diminishes our responsibility to collect, analyze, query, one hop, two hop, three hops, whatever, with fire walls built. the fisa act and patriot act was xtraordinary particularly the fisa act of fire walling people -- so the chair ould say there were very few cases where we had to actually go after folks. very few cases. people would guess thousands and even 25. i just want to put that plug in of the importance of the job the intelligence committee and hy it is that we can not be swayed by public opinion. we can listen to it and learn it but not be sway ed by it

way from a stronger, more protective and better protection of privacy courts. thank you. >> thank you very much, both of my colleagues. with what you ee have said. druthers, do i believe that the privacy rights by having the ed telecoms hold this or having the it?rnment hold i actually believe privacy rights are better served by a limited number of peop people, whom you know, who you who are supervised, who re no more than 22, who do the actual querying, other than outreds that you don't know in telephone companies. and i am really very concerned up nextare going to end ear with this we will program

going down. hat is a very real concern che e what both of my colleagues have said and we see the intelligence and read the ntelligence and we know that terror is up around the world and we know that they will come they can. so, the only way you stop that intelligence to be able to disrupt a plot. what has been happening. in the main. good there are so at, many different views in this the time comes for these sections of the patriot sunset next that year -- there's going to be chaos. and that concerns me greatly. nd there is a lie likely

-like -likelihood that we get left with nothing. so my hope is the various parts can come munity together and we can find a way. the private sector is not terms of privacy at all. know people that don't want their homes on the google concerns.e of privacy and there's nothing they can do about it. it is there. facial recognition. goings on internet that take place, hacking, which epidemic. so, privacy every day is threat threatened. think you want to limit the numbers that have access to this.

i think you want to limit how it. do this is what we are trying to find a way. are a lot of telecoms out go it a and if we mandate which we may have to do and mandate the length of time, we may have to do, i suspect there will be a court battle somewhere. is not going to help us. we have a very limited period of problem, and this it is up to when all of these sunset. there are people in both bodies that want to do away with programs.se until someone gets blown up at a a number of tch, people, a big building gets blown up, lanes get and people have to understand, concerned. there are bombs that going magnetometers. we know the person who makes

them are still alive. four attempts to get these bombs into our country. in 2009 and it misfired. explode the plane over detroit. here was enough explosives to explode the plane. are ere found in print cartridges in the dubai airport headed to the united states. one was an asset that helped ecover this bomb that was headed for the united states. so, these are real things out there there. to the only way we have disrupt this is intelligence. so, i beg people, please come do ther and enable us to right thing for both, for protection of this country.

telecoms have to come aboard. have to ompanies understand what we are trying to do. visited by members of the european community. your heard from many of companies that they are concern concerned. yet, half of what was produced went to europe to help them disrupt plots there. and that is the irony of this. something we can work o out. easy to get something through the house and when the 3-1 with es something both political parties and two if we could work from this and we could make

and in amendments to it could strengthen it, and we , the chairman of the house intelligence committee look, we will conference it right away and get it done because there's a sense alacrity that we need to do ther this. bottom line, we would like to have your thoughts. but we are dealing with bill now.age having bill language submitted to us to solve problems that you made, if you don't like minimization, give us some language. i don't know what to do about he telecoms because i think i know where you are going. on the is based telecommunication companies' is a tanding that there problem out there. and my sense is, if there is the will, that we mandate it.

to be you wouldn't want responsible if there were three with going down loaded people, or buildings hit by them them. and that is really where we are. i really thank you. i'll look forward to working with you. make ourselves available. we will make our staffs available. and you are just an example of is out there. anyone that has concrete please contact us. because this is the one i see to sustain a program that certainly disrupted zozzi. and he pled guilty and some of pled guilty and there was no question he was going to blow up the new york system. with that in mind i say thank

you very much. "t has>> "washington journal

continues. host: joining us now is jonathan turley, a professor at george washington university law school here in a d.c. thank you for joining us. guest: thank you bot. host: we will talk about the release of bowe bergdahl in members for 5 taliban at guantánamo bay. if the white house wants to transfer prisoners out of that facility, what do they have to do legally? guest: there is a law in which congress sets some standards. some of them are rather obvious. that is a provision saying if you released someone from guantánamo bay, you need to have the secretary of defense make certain determinations, like this is not going to 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. has consultedtion 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 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 new polls are 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 certainly -- assembly 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. that whiteeports house press secretary jay carney was asked if the president felt he was about t -- above the law. carney said absolutely not. guest: [laughs] host: you obviously have a reaction to that one. 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. before congress

about a long litany of loss that the president has said he will thatnforce, or laws 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 cindy said he will not enforce federal law. that is creating a crisis in this country. .t did not start with obama

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. host: 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. 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 presidents attempting to 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 granite of president bush's signing statements, which were in my view an effort to circumvent -- 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 postop 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 president obama -- as senator obama talked about during his campaign. i want to read a quotation from him from a 2008. 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 he does in and what 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. the president has done a number of things effort 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. he is not only contained the 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 principle for him -- principled forum, quite quickly. presidents in their second term tend to focus on the legacy and they view these issues as niceties, technicalities. even as someone who taught the constitution, there is this corrosive effect. and 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 not -- areing barack obama not motivating barack obama as much as programs. that is a positive aspect of his personality, but he has never by what oftented 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 somewhat 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 a constitutional tipping point. our system is changing. he 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've followed would you say and write for years now, especially

during the bush administration and the signing statements and then and some of the actions. in regard to this or golf situation,- bergdahl 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 -- ony don't have a lot of vets who have been in these situations. a lot 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? do whathink they had to

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, this 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. criticism,ng a including of many democrats, from people that were arguing against cuts in the military 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 come 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. 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. debate is acy legitimate one. when you look at these 5 individuals, there are obviously that allbe some deals of us would agree would be too high. 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. much.: thank you so thank you, c-span, for allowing me to talk to this gentleman also i wish i could have an hour with him. guest: [laughs] 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 come and do you feel like our president has acted in an imperialistic manner by bypassing a law himself signed into being, and if so, that hisdo you feel action is treasonous in nature worthy of impeachment? thank you, and god bless. thet: well, first of all 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 all most makes and -- almost nixonian concept of a president who can act unilaterally, who becomes a government unto himself. what is fascinating is that president obama has encompassed omplished many of those aspects -- i spoke on the anniversary of the watergate congress 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? 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 might president obama has succeeded is he is very likable, that many people do like him. asy people don't, but he h a power of personality and even his staunchest critics don't view him as wanting tyrannical power. 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. 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 pulled democrats in congress is this is not going to be our last position, 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? the: we were talking about 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.

host: your thoughts? guest: there has been an evolution you have seen on the hill will stop 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 , and ihat -- or notified 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 people fortaliban 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 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. passedny is the law was 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. dsmetimes a president nee to hear these things. the separation of powers forces congress, to engage 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:

>> ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats. please silence your cell phones

for the duration of the eremony.

>> ladies and gentlemen please rise for the president of the united states and of france.

>> please remain standing for the posting of the colors and the playing of the national anthem of the french republic tand united states of america.

[applause] > president, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen, lease be seated. >> it is our privilege to welcome all the distinguished visitors joining us today. we extend a special welcome to

the d-day and world war ii veterans and their family members in attendance who honor us all with their presence. today we commemorate the 70th anniversary of the d-day landing which began on the morning of june 6, 1944. [applause] >> today's ceremony will honor our military men and women who made the ultimate sacrifice for the liberation of europe including among those

[speaking french] >> ladies and gentlemen. please bow your heads for the the mostn delivered by reverend f richard spencer. may we join our hearts together in prayer. almighty and eternal god, as we gather here on holy ground to

remember the fallen heroes of ,esterday, everything we see everything that we cannot see exists because of you alone. peace comes from you. glory.xists for your history is our story. path is to not fix the blame , but to fix the course for the future. leaders to lead us with , the compassion to lead us with generosity. help us to remember that we are human beings, united not by race or religion or blood, but to our

common commitment to freedom and justice for all. serve, andshare, to to seek the common good for everyone. whenever we face difficult days ahead, my we have a new birth of clarity in our aims. actionsbility in our some humility in our approaches, and civility in our attitudes, even when we differ from one another. goodwill joined together to work for a more just, more healthy, and more and a moreworld prosperous planet. amen.r holy name we pray, >> ladies and gentlemen, the fred zevon -- president of the

french republic francois hollande. [applause] >> dear veterans of d-day, ladies and gentlemen, today we 6, m emeraldn june date -- a memorable date in our history, were two peoples were joined in the same struggle, the struggle for liberty. today next to the

beach near the cemetery, a peaceful beach. 1944, it was a horrible battlefield. this is what we want to remember today, 70 years later. history, there are always challenges to face. things sometimes go wrong. and in the pretty hours of dawn started to go wrong -- everything started to go wrong on omaha beach. the navy's artillery had missed its target's and the tanks that were to support the infantry had sunk.

of the first waves of the assault found themselves faced withed and heavy artillery and machine guns. massacred,utilated, while the survivors were pinned down on the sand among the dead fire.unded under deadly the nazis were sure of themselves. they believed they would repel all assaults thanks to the bunkers on the atlantic wall.

in democracy, a great ideal takes great courage. men would give their lives to save other lives. on the continent of liberty. who set foot on omaha beach on june 6, 1944 was the hero. soldiers regrouped with a few officers with no orders and no plan and they ran fences.he german this desperate, unexpected come irresistible assault was victorious.

a few hours later they had won the battle. utah, all of these names evoke suffering and glory, desolation and pride, deliverance. more than 20,000 americans gave their lives here in normandy. 20,838. i shall not forget one of them. were your relatives, your brothers, and your friends. they were our liberators. what weill never forget owe to these men and women. what we owe to the united states of america.

will never forget the solidarity between our two nations. the solidarity that prevailed during the two great tragedies , which wet century faced on our shared dream of freedom. america remembers the contribution that france made to its revolution. , one france's independence was at stake, america was there to preserve it. in 1944, one france's soil was occupied, america was there to free it. i know what that cost to the great states come of this brother country, so much

sacrifice and human loss. here comes honored this little mormon developed, which one day -- normandy village, which one day was the place in thet world. here lie the martyrs of bloody omaha and the heroes. they fell to save europe. i would like to share with you a few names. killed in son both july 1944, one in italy and the other in normandy, both of them

here to save europe. 66 are buried two by two, side-by-side. among all these white crosses, three bertha goldstar -- bear the goldstar, the mark of the medal of honor. one of the first men to land at omaha. all day, he fought on the beach without cover before falling under enemy fire without ever seeing the victory. another who single-handedly captured a post defended by 43 germans. he died four days later.

in the countryside. , the son of least the 26th president of the usa died on july 12, 1944, he is buried alongside his brother, who was shot out of the sky over champagne on july 14, 1918. side-by-side stand , testifying to the unbroken ties between our two people, from one generation to the next. i will reiterate the oath of my predecessors. forget, we will never forget the sacrifice of

the american servicemen. president, we are the children and grandchildren of this great generation. normandy. here in that was almost completely destroyed during this battle. mr. president, you were born in that wasn a state heavily struck by the war. our parents, our grandparents told us the stories of these sufferings, of these combats. us thatsed us telling for everything to change, nothing should be forgotten. nations have built a hope from this common memory, the

hope of peace. that is the image projected today by normandy, where everyone is gathered today. normandy, were those who fought each other yesterday stand here together today. mr. president, the united states , in spite of challenges, has always been the friend we can count on. this is the friendship of two nations who were born into modernity. this is the friendship of two ofions and shared admiration

the philosophies of the enlightenment. the friendship of two nations that stand together in the face of tyranny who want to make the world fairer, more democratic, more peaceful. the french people recognize and americans and indefatigably and americans. because theye most themselves are the most ardent defenders in the love of freedom and they'd know that one a critical moment comes, when our fundamental principles are in danger, france and the united states always stand side-by-side

, like in the terrible summer of 1944 on the beaches of normandy and the beaches of provence. united against the threat against mankind. we stand together to face other threats climate change, inequality, underdevelopment, poverty, hunger. still today, we stand together to face those perils. extremism,ism, terrorism. the silence of this sacred place expresses the message of the soldiers

here -- the soldiers who lie here. we must be worthy of our past to continue making history. long live america, long-lived france come along live the memory of those who lost their for freedom.day [applause] ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states of america, barack obama. [applause] >> president hollande, people of france, friends, family, our veterans.

if prayer were made of sound, the skies over england that and i would have definitely world. night would have deafened the world. pilots tapped their gauges. commanders pored over maps. fully aware that for all of the months of meticulous planning, everything could go wrong. winds, the tides, the , and abovesurprise all the audacious bet that will waited on the other side of the channel would compel men not to shrink away, but to charge ahead.

freshfaced gis rubbed trinkets, kissed pictures of sweethearts, checked and rechecked their equipment. asked one, give me guts. , planesredawn hours , glidersown runways and paratroopers slipped through the sky, giant screws began to turn on an armada that looked more like ships and see. -- than sea. more than 150,000 souls set off tinyd the site -- this sliver of sandwich helped more whichf a of a war -- sand

held the course of human history. hollande, distinguished guests, i am honored to return here to pay tribute to a generation of men and women who defied every danger. among them are veterans of d-day. truly humbled by your presence here today. [applause] [applause]

[applause] [cheers and applause] >> just last week, i received a letter from a citizen. dear mr. president and the american people, we are honored to welcome you, to thank you then for all the pain and american people and others in our common struggle for freedom. today we say the same to the people of france. thank you.

especially for the generosity you have shown the americans who have come here over the generations to the speeches -- the sacredes and place of rest for 9387 americans. , proudend of the war ships set off for america. tens of thousands of liberated europeans turned out to say farewell. of theedged to take care 60,000 americans who would remain in cemeteries on this continent. man, we willof one take care of the fallen as if their tombs were children's -- our children's. you have kept your word like the true friends you are.

we are forever grateful. [applause] here we don't just commemorate victory, as proud of the victory as we are. ,e don't just honor sacrifice as grateful as the world is. we come to remember why america and our allies gave so much for the survival of liberty at this moment of maximum peril. to tell the story of the men and women who did it, so that it remains seared into the memory of a future world.

we tell this story for the old soldiers who pulled themselves a little straighter today to salute brothers who never made it home. we tell the story for the daughter who clutches the faded father of her photo, however young. the child who runs his fingers over colorful ribbons, even if he does not fully understand why. we tell this story to bill witness to when the boys of america reached omaha beach. by daybreak, bloodsoaked the ,ater, bombs broke the sky thousands of paratroopers had dropped into the wrong landing sites, thousands of round the into flesh and sand, entire companies worth of men fell in minutes.

hells beachhead earned its name. beach had earned its name. landing, weter the held only 10 yards of beach. in this age of instant commentary, the invasion would have been declared a debacle. but such a race to judgment would not have taken into men.nt the courage of free success may not come with rushing speed, president roosevelt would say that night, but we shall return again and again. paratroopers fought through the countryside to find one another. rangers pulled themselves over those cliffs to silence nazi

guns. to the west, americans took utah beach with relative ease. the british tour through the coast.- tore through the canadians, who shores had not been touched by war, drove far into france. , troops who omaha finally made it to the seawall used to the shelter, where a general barked, rangers lead the way. day,e end of that longest the speech had been fought, lost, re-pfought and won. a piece of europe once again, liberated and free.

hitler's wall was breached, letting loose patton's army to pour into france. within a week, the world's bloodiest beach had become the busiest port. within a month, one million allied troops poured through normandy. if pilot said it looked as the very crust of the earth had shaken loose. arc de to try out -- triumph lit up for the first time in years. [applause]

freedom's victory is made possible by so many others who are freedoms uniform. eisenhower's troops through north africa. three times before d-day, our gis stormed the beaches of sicily, salerno. 36isions like the fighting moved through italy, fighting through the mud for months, marching through towns past waving children before opening the gates to rome. the dog faces marked to victory in europe, the devil dogs, the marines clawed their way from island to island in the pacific and some of the wars fiercest fighting. women,me, an army of including my grandmother, rolled up their sleeves to help build a mighty arsenal of democracy.

here on the shores that the tide was turned in the common struggle for freedom. what more powerful manifestation of america's commitment to human the sight of wave after wave after wave of young men boarding those boats to liberate people they had never met. in the annals of history, the world had never seen anything like it. when the war was won, we claims no spoiler for victory. we helped europe rebuild. , other than land the earth where we buried those who gave their lives and where we stationed those who still serve.

america's claim, our commitment to liberty, our claim to equality, our claim to freedom, to the inherent dignity of every human being, that claim is written in the blood on the speeches. -- these beaches. it will and door for eternity. -- endure for eternity. normandy, this was democracies beachhead. war decidedin that not just a century, but shapes the security and well-being of all posterity. that into newurn allies, we built new prosperity, we stood with the people of this continent for a long struggle until finally, a wall tumbled down and an iron curtain, too.

70 years of democratic movement spread. knew only thence blinders of fear begin to taste freedom. none of that would have happened without the men who were willing to lay down their lives for people they had never met and ideals they could not live without. none of it would have happened without the troops president roosevelt called the lifeblood of america, the hope of the .orld barely more than boys at home, who turned -- return home heroes. to their great credit. war, some put away their medals.