being debated in the nation's courts. and former homeland security department general talks about overseas airports. and we will take your calls and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. washington journal this next. .

. >> what role should gregg play when it comes to oversight of college athletics. phone lines are open. republicans call 202-585-3881. democrats 202-585-3880. independent 202-585-38882. catch up with us on all of your favorite social media pages, on twitter, facebook or e-mail us at journal@c-span.org. . >> a very good saturday morning to you. a few headlines from that senate commerce committee hearing this past week. here is the "new york times" story on the senate presses ncaa signalling interest in the

direction of college sports. national journal has the headline, congress taking on escalating ncaa crisis. a senate committee grild the college sports president over mistreatment of student athletes. we will show you bits of that hearing throughout the first 45 minutes of the washington journal. we will start from the senate commerce committee hearing, talking about why the committee is getting involved in this issue. >> there is a growing perception that college agethletics, particularly division 1 football and basketball are not avocations at all. what they really are is highly profitable commercial enterprises. they believe that. critics believe the goal of is not to provide students with a college education but reach national awards for the athletic departments and their schools.

it is not, however, about the students. they are part of what generates the money. it's about capturing the billions of dollars of television and marking revenues that college sports do generate and will generate even more. colleges say these benefit their student bodies at large. we have to consider whether the lure of such riches could corrupt the basic mission. winning teams get higher payouts than losing teams, which creates a strong incentive to win an incentive which public universities and others are more than happy to follow and win at any cost. much of the money is often followed right back into those sports programs in the form of

multi-million dollar coaching salaries and state-of-the-art facilities, many paid for by taxpayers to person p to perpetuate winning. >> here is the author of that story, college sports reporter mark tracy joining us on the phone now mark tracy, good morning to you. >> good morning. thank you for having me. >> thanks for coming on. >> that's senator j rockefeller talking about why he is getting involved. why now on this hearing and the airing of grievances that happened this week? >> that's a great question because, i mean, the ncaa and big time college sports is facing a level of scrutiny, a level of attention that it has never faced before. there was a hearing a few months ago. but this timing is even more

precarious. the lawsuit, a federal trial based in oakland, california. it ended and a decision expected this summer all about former ncaa student athletes. there is another anti-trust lawsuit in the pipeline. there is a growing sense that washington is going to get involved with the ncaa and play big 12 engaging lobbyists. there is this steady trickle of events taking place that suggests that between the court system or the legislative system, you know, outside regulation to the big level inter collegiate athletic stricture is coming. >> what was the tone of wednesday's hearing? where did most senators come down on it? >> it's funny, to have different

lines for different political per suasions, but, in fact, a drama calling the hearing. and the ncaa's defender was probablyr dan coates from indianapolis. senator rockefeller brought this up at the end and i did notice it. the coaches are clearly the biggest offenders. the ncaa as an organization is based in indianapolis, but the ncaa is not a gigantic organization. not just -- but doesn't have a ton of employees. so, i don't know exactly how much a role that plays and the tone, frankly from both sides of the aisle was pretty harsh. a lot focused on a specific issue, which was the handling of sexual assault on campuses where

senator mccaskill found regarding handling sexual assaults, that it's a bad thing and not to minimize that in any way but that might end up being a bit of low-hanging fruit. they can go and fix that probably more easily than they can some of the other issues and so, you know, if we get to other issues where one of the solutions is unionization, i think you might see more partisan terms where democrats were a little more in favor of aa unionization by northwestern football players but the tone was pretty resoundingly critical on both sides. >> as you mentioned earlier this year, that hearing on unionization by college athletes, where did that issue stand at this point? >> the national labor relations board is reviewing that.

and after they review it, there will be appeals. it won't be resolved anytime soon. not only -- you know, i don't want to says -- i am pretty sure. it's obviously complicated stuff but i am pretty sure we won't even necessarily know the result of the union votes. so they voted on the union. the northwestern ball players. but those were until the national labor relation board votes. they deliberate on the regional nlrb's decision. it could go longer than that. i think other things will happen in the meantime before that process ends. >> and we are asking our viewers to call in to comment on how congress should get involved in this issue. should they be involved in this issue? and their thoughts on some of the issues that were brought up in that hearing from athlete pay and compensation, the concussion

issues. but marc tracy of "new york times," are there more hearings scheduled already? what's next on this for congress? >> you know, it's funny, the short answer is there is nothing to my knowledge scheduled. senator rockefeller definitely kind of went there, you know, after his opening statement, his presentation, his presentation of the hearing, you know, we are going to look into this. you heard him say there. lots of people believe this. i guess he believes it. he doesn't say that. after the openingly statement and by the way, we said the reason this hearing was so high-profile and this is very much not true of the house hearing is that none other than mark hammer, the president of the ncaa who, among other roles, he has become the same -- i don't mean to minimize his role but he has become the main sort of advocate for not necessarily the status quo but of the

importance of inter collegiate sports. so, he was there and so after all sides gave their opening statement, senator rockefeller muwas much more cle where he stood and said, you know, this is not going to be enough. it's funny, we thought for two hours and i thought interesting things came out but he started by saying i don't know how much is going to come out here. i think i will going to need to subpoena a bunch of presidents from universities and, you know, subpoena them and get them up here. this is not a -- none of the witnesses, i believe certainly not dr. emerrett were compelled to appear. >> marc tracy from the "new york times," appreciate you getting up with us on a saturday morning. we will look for you down the road with more hearings if and when they happen. >> thank you so. >> we are asking our viewers: what should congress's oversight of college athletics be? we will start with tom calling

in from downers grove, illinois. thank you for calling the washington journal. >> thank you. my opinion is that congress had nothing to do with this. congress has other things to deal with. don't get involved. don't get involved with steroids in baseball. it's none of their business. a couple of weeks ago, a month ago, what should government do with families and kids? get out of our business as c-span 2 about chasing rileys book. you ruinous. it's nudge of their business. period. >> tom on our line for republicans. several commenters on facebook agree with tom's sentiments. steve saying congress's role should be nothing. congress should be sent back to school to study the constitution

and pass a competency test. below that, cheryl rights in, the federal government has gotten involved in anything? it's gone downhill. they should involve themselves in securing our border. >> that's their job. jacob writes given that they are, the collegesu, profiting of of public institutions and off of the back of taxpayers, he believes congress's oversight role should be quiet a lot sam on our line for democrats. good morning to you. >> good morning. i wanted to say i think congress should stay out of the college sports. they have been complaining about the size of government and how much they spend, how much money is spent here, and i saw yesterday that they're even discussing the depreciation of construction materials. what does that have to do with congress? nothing. thank you very much. >> sam, if you are still there, let me ask you: do you follow

college sports and the debate over whether athletes should be paid? and if so, what are your thoughts on paying college athletes? >> i don't -- i don't follow college athletics except in the news. i don't watch sports at all. but i don't think they should get paid. if they get -- if they are good enough to get scholarships, that's fine. i got an athletic scholarship to college, and i still had to get a part-time job to make ends meet, but i had -- as i said, i had an athletic scholarship and family help to get through college. >> what did you play? >> i was a gistnist. >> sam, what about the concerns raised especially about some members in this hearing this past week about lingering health concerns for college athletes and concushion issues, the concussion issue actually a subject of the lead editorial in

"the new york times." your thoughts on those health issues that some college athletes continue to have to deal with? >> i think that's something they need to take up with the ncaa. at the point where people say, my god. what's going on here, then i think congress should stay out of it. it should be between the universities and the ncaa. >> sam on our line for democrats. our phone lines are open as we said. a special line this morning for current and former college athletes, especially want to hear from you in the segment. 202-585-3883. we are just talking there about the idea of paying college athletes. here is a poll from earlier this year from the washington post that asks the question: beyond any similarships that they receive, do you support or oppose paying salaries to college athletes among all adul adults, 19% said they very much

support it. 47% completely opposed to it. you can see the numbers there in the poll from the abc washington post poll back in march. as we said, the "new york times" also had a lead editorial on this today talking about an inadequate response to concussions that helped issue for college athletes. >> lead editorial noting that the ncaa has new voluntary guidelines released earlier this week for concussion safety. the editorial board noting while these recommendations make sense, some have argued that they don't go far enough. the president of the national collegiate players association had said, for instance, that the ncaa's definition of live contact is too narrow since it excludes various drills that may lead to head injuries. they note that as mr. huma has pointed outed >> the ncaa is willing to enforce all manner of pety rules that have nothing to do with safety going after a player selling a bull ring or johnny

manziel getting paid for signing autographs, protecting students should be a higher priority. the evidently board read more on that today as marc tracy of "the new york times" pointed out, at wednesday's hearing ncaa president and he discussed some of his proposals for reform of the college athletic system. here is a bit of what he had to say: >> college sports in my opinion work extremely well for the vast majority of our 460,000 student athletes. while it can and should be modified, the collegiate model should, in fact, be preserved because of all of the good that it provides for so many. nonetheless, i agree there are very important changes that need to be made and many university presidents happen to agree with me. let me describe the most important ones. first, student athletes in my opinion should be given a scholarship for life so they may complete a bachelor's degree even if their education is

delayed for any reason unrelated to a lack of academic progress or serious misconduct. second, scholarships should cover the full and actual cost of attendance, not simply tuition, room and board, books and supplies. third, nca schools must always lead in the area of health and safety. for example, the nca along with a variety of medical experts released realtime new guidelines that address the diagnosis, the management, and the prevention of sports-related concussions. fourth, the ncaa must work assertively with all of our universities on sexual assault prevention and support for victims. this is a national crisis, and we could all do better. >> most of the statements on facebook and twitter this morning on c-span saying congress should stay out of college athletics. here is a sampling of some of the tweets: congress and college athletics, take a look at what title ix did for

athletic budgets. stay out of he had indicate, congress. >> that's from jim. steve writes, it's a great idea to have congress become involved in college athletics if we don't want anything to happen in college athletics. ariel writes: they refused to deal with important issues. these guys should go t stewart from naples on our line for democrats this morning. >> good morning. you know, i had worked for governor nelson rockefeller so when senator j rockefeller guessed involved with congress or sports, i think they are stepping over the line here. i also represent john grisma, the author of the perfect game. most people with basketball t-shirts don't even know who invented basketball. he was the first person, the only person whoever invented a sport.

as far as congress and the craziness in the world today, our priorities are not in synch. everyone wants to speak, but from the hip. sit down, lay out a plan, you know, that can help the public. you know, sports is in the their own realm. they are doing a great job when these do these athletic coun sizzle, teach the young kids the morals of society and the fashion of playing a sporting. they are interactive. kids used to go out and play in the playgrounds and now, they a are' twitter and computers. they are indoors. everything has changed from my generation, but, you know, i just think that the congress should just put everything on hold, re-evaluate and then, you know, move on to the important issues. >> that's all. >> stewart, let me ask you, setting aside congress's role here, lots of debate of whether athletes, college athletes, should be paid. where do you come down on that issue? >> well, you know, some of the

pay is obvious trucive. it's astronomical. when you have a basketball player or a baseball player making 30, 50 million a year, they go bankrupt. they go broke. it's unbelievable. i can take a million dollars and stretch it for 100 years, you know. everything is relative. and the other issue that is a big problem with the nba, the tattoo issue. most families will not take their children to a basketball game. the at that titattoos that some sports athletes wear are obvious trucive, a full arm. you know, if you have to have a tatoo that has meaning, put on "god bless america," "help our troops" help the real issues, you know. >> in naples, florida, we are talking about college athletics this morning, the role of congress in the oversight of college athletics coming off of that high-profile hearing. a special line for current and former athletes. gary is on that line calling in

from elizabethtown, pennsylvania. good morning. >> good morning. how are you? >> good, gary. go ahead. >> yes. i believe congress should do what they are supposed to do. they need to keep their nose out of this. they are not doing their job as it is. excuse me. they are sending an awful bad message to the students who go to college. they are getting to the point to where they believe they are entitled to everything. as for students being paid, i believe that you need to work your way up to get to that level. look what they have done to joe paterno, after all of the money he has earned that school and they kick at that man when he is down. i believe it's awful. >> gary, let me ask you: you are a former college athlete. where do you come down on the unionization effort that some college athletes, football players at northwestern university are pushing? >> i believe it's awful. i believe they need to grow up and grow up at a normal rate that the we used to grow up. i am not of this younger

generation, obviously, and they need to learn to be kids before they become adults. like the gentleman said before, these kids are making millions and millions a year once they get out and get into a pro program. what's the percentage? it's not that high. and once they get there, they end up bankrupt. >> all right. i didn't mean to lose you there. i thought you were done. the washington post poll that will we pointed out earlier this morning also asked the question: do you support or oppose allowing college athletes to perform a union like the professional sports union among adults, 47% supported allowing them. split failure evenly. their prowess writes in on our twitter page, i am sure unions want athletes to be paid so when

they unionize, they can steal their money. win fortunatemer congressman wa senator cory booker of new jersey, former college football player. here is a bit of what he had to say at wednesday's hearing? >> clearly this is my problem. this was a challenge for when i was an athlete some 20 years ago athlete after athletes are going through spacing what i consider the an exploitation of athletes. it is an exploitation when you have an athlete working 60, 70 hours a week but yet still not able to afford the basicnessties, not having your parents fly back and forth but being put in horrible situations where they see their jersey with their name on it being sold making thousands and thousands of dollars but they can't even afford to get the basicnessties

of life. they try to sell their jersey for 50 bucks. they then get penalized. >> that's an exploitation of an athlete. it's an exploitation when you give your body -- gentleman on the end, how many linemen do you know today that played with you that have gone through four, five and six surgeries for their knees? >> many. >> a lot. and if they are going in to their own pocket after giving up their knees to make millions of dollars for the university and then the universities aren't even compensating them appropriately, that's an exploitation of a college athlete that has to be addres. d >> a few tweets from other senators this week about that hearing. here is kelly ayotte concerned at what college athletes' compensation could mean for women athletes and non-revenue generating sports noting that she asked the ncaa president about it at that hearing on wednesday. then there is senate majority

leader harry reid: college athletes should have the right to organize, pointing to the unionization effort. go back to the phones. matthew is in tacoma, washington on our line for democrats. matthew, good morning. >> hi. yeah. these people that are calling in, saying don't pay them and congress didn't have anything to do with it. of course congress has something to do with it. these are public schools that get government money, not to mention these players are especially ball players get repeated head blows and are disabled the rest of their life. and that person that was talking about joe paterno, what a great guy he is. he let it go on his logger room which he is over seeing horrible crimes. so, i don't know. all sports are extremely corrupt. >> matthew, what would be your recommendations for fixing college sports? what would be the proposal that you would push for members of

congress? >> we lost him but we will go to term. ? >> good morning. i think everybody is missing the basic point and that is that college attendance and participation in athletics is all voluntary. take it or leave it. >> tim in ohio. as we said, this debate over what congress's role and the oversight of college athletics should be is our subject for about 15 minutes. several folks on facebook and twitter saying congress should have no role here here isnator jay rockefeller, the chairman of the senate commerce committee. a little bit more from his statement on wednesday explaining why he's getting involved in this issue. >> this country is now so soaked in the culture of espn plus, i guess, a couple of other

stations, and watching ball, baseball, world soccer, all of the rest of it. i mean it's -- i think it's -- my own view is it's undermining our values. i will tell you one thing for sure. i think it's undermining our commitment to education. >> commerce committee chairman jay rockefeller on wednesday. wield love to hear your thoughts. our phone lines are open. as we said, a special line this morning for current and former college athletes, 202-585-3883. also want to point to you some of the other stories in today's paper on the papers on the intersection of athletic and public policy. here is the front page of the richmond times dispatch this morning. richmond has spent $500,000 on ballpark, noting that the -- though the stadium may neverto come to fruition, the city of richmond spent half a million

dollars to get the plan to this point, 50 spics,$798 on contracts with outside vendors for surveys, studies and other consulting and legal work. if you want to read more on that project and the state government in richmond's role in that project, it's the front-page story, the lead story in today's richmond times dispatch. the lead editorial in the financial times is brazil after the world cup. it was a splendid tournament. now the real drama begins talking about campaigning beginning for october's presidential election in brazil and what the world cup has meant for that issue. also, on the subject of the world cup, here is a story from the new yo"new york times": an argentine and german but no sign at the vatican of a world cup rivalry. they have prayed and embraced but pope francis and his predecessor find themselves confronting an odd sort of schism. their countries are competing in

the finals of the world cup on sunday. vatican spokesman reverend lombardi who fielded soccer questions this week with a chuckling amusement documented that the two men would watch the game together or at all. father lombardi said the current pope sent the argentine his best wishes but added francis watches very little television. the final of the world cup, of course, taking place tomorrow. one other sports story that's gathering headlines across country treat and on plenty of front pages today is lebron james' decision to go back to ohio. the front page of miami herald, farewell to the king. lebron james chooses the cavaliers is the headline there over to an ohio paper, "the independent" "i'm coming home" a picture of lee bron james on the front pages of everything from the los angeles times to the

front page of the financial times, members of congress tweeting about this as well. senators on capitolhill, from ohio tweeting about this. rob portman, welcome home, the northeast ohio king james! is his tweet from yesterday. a big week for cleveland. other greets members of congress on this issue, you can check them out on twitter, especially most of the ohio delegation. on the role of congress in the oversight of collegiate athletics, stewart is calling in from northeast maryland, a former college athlete. stewart, good morning to you. >> good morning. >> go ahead, stewart. >> yeah. i would like to say that congress should have a very limited role in anything about athletics. it's great that the students at northwest earn are trying to unionize because i think there is on a higher square, there is

a lot of money in college athletes. >> did you see any of that an exploitation as an athlete? >> i went to a smaller school. it was a pretty balanced situation between athletics and academics but my daughter is playing volleyball in maryland. i thought it was interesting. she had a statement for academics. and i thought many of the athletes were entitled today a stipend. i think the higher level is where they are bringing in hundreds and hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of dollars but the athletes should have a -- it's almost like a full-time job actually. as a student for those kids. i don't have any problem with them getting paid for the amount

of work that they do and for the overall risks to their bodies that they incur at the time. >> stewart, what did you play in any lingering health issues from your work as a former college athlete? >> oh, yeah, you know, i think any athlete -- i played two college sports and have some lingering issues with shoulders and hips and knees and all of that kind of stuff. but basically that was part of the deal. and it's part of the deal when you, you know, when you get older. but, you know, i don't feel i was exploited. i actually had a wonderful time doing both things. but when you are a division 1 athlete, i think the amount of work involved and the amount of time and the wear and tear on your body is much more than it used to be.

>> stewart in maryland, camden, new jersey is next for current and former college athletes. >> number, 2025853883 if you want to call in our next 15 minutes on the washington journal. scott in camden, in general, good morning. >> i would like to comment when they bring up subjects like this such as this, i think it's only the two major sports in colleges and that's basketball and ball. but i don't hear people who are calling in or people who comment on this rarely comment on field hockey or soccer or the golf teams or volleyball teams or women's golf. it's on those two sports i think because of race, primarily because of race. and i think that avenge affects most of americans in a way that

complooefz that those two sports, the participants in those two sports, those two programs are getting over or getting something for free. most comments you would hear if people are getting a free education, that should be enough. they are not recruited to go to a school to be a cardiac electrophysiologist. they are recruited to go to school to play a sport, football or basketball which the two most highly revenue generating programs at a school. buzz rarely will you hear anyone comment about the baseball program or the field hockey program. i think that's sad in a way. >> do you think these health issues, compensation issues unionization issues apply across the board fore these programs? do you think college athletes are of all of these different sports are clamoring for these

things? >> i think they should be compensated in some degree or issued a stipend. i say that primarily as the previous caller mentioned is that when you are a college athlete and you start the academic case load, you have to maintain that you have to go to practice, weight room, read your playbook. there is more that a student athlete on scholarship has to do that music scholarship person is not going to generate half as much money for that school as a student athlete would. but the student athlete has to do far more than a regular student athlete. and i have always said this to a lot of people. a lot of people say -- earlier caller had mentioned that most

of these individuals who come out of here can't read and write afterwards when they get out and they are only there for an education or words to that effect. i look this way. if a person goes to law school, if they go to medical school. if you graduate last in your class, they still call you a lawyer. they still call you a doctor. so, it doesn't matter if you graduate in the top 5, cum laude, all that good stuff, but yes, student athletes should be compensated. >> let's go to grant in massachusetts on our line for independent. good morning. >> yes. i think they should get paid but be able to do the school work. but i wish you guys had a program on government contracts like in afghanistan, you had a program on c spanning where the government spent $129,000,000,000 to rebuild

that. democrats, they don't even know where half their money went. i would like to know who these government contractors are. >> appreciate the suggestion. you can always e-mail their suggestions in for washington journal segments, journal at c-span.org. a couple of comments on this question we have asked about the role of congress and the oversight of athletics. ron: how much will it cost when every athlete in every sport will have free healthcare for life? one other e-mail this morning from bill: young bodies used as commodities and canon fodder. it all has nothing to do with the mission statement of higher education. college athletes should not get paid. they should get to class.

>> that's bill writing in over e-mail. let's go to laurie from north palm beach florida on our line for independent. good morning. >> yes. i definitely don't think congress should get involved. congress has enough work to do that they are not doing. they should stay out of the college scene all together. students get scholarships to go to school. they are getting paid. and it's their choice whether they play sports or not. i think the government is over-stepping and they need to deal with what they need to deal with. they are not doing work they should be doing. i also think they shouldn't be going on break. they should be staying in washington to get this mess cleaned up and for get the vacation for the month of august. it's ridiculous. >> laurie call from north palm beach. on our twitter page, when congress gets involved, costs go up.

college stewition, healthcare, credit cards, bank fees, food prices, gas prices. ryan is in henderson, nevada on our line for current and former college athletes. ryan, good morning. >> good morning. how are you? >> i am good, ryan. go ahead. >> you know, i have been listening, and i have been trying to hold my tongue. it's not even 5:00 in the morning here i am listening to these guys call in on the former athlete line, and, you know, i don't know what sports they played. i don't know how you vet them or anything like that. but coming from somebody who played a contact sport, an upper extremity sport, there are so many different issues here. i am as conservative as the next person. but, you know, when i went to college, i went to college on a scholarship, a hockey scholarship, and we were a non-ball school. so we didn't have really big revenue-generating sports. there were surrounding schools that did, but i mean there is a multitude of issues here.

one: should athletes be paid? yes, they should be paid. how should they be paid? you know, in the pros, they have salary caps in college athlet s athletics, there is no spending caps. you have smaller schools whose entire athletic budget is a 5th of say the usc's football bucket alone. so when you have all of this money out there, i mean it's really hard to control. so you need to have a way to control it and, you know, my suggestion would be for those non-football schools. it's like bowl system. two different tiers and systems on how you are going to pay these athletes, but everybody says you shouldn't pay them. they are there to do this the ncaa bars us from having a job. i don't know who these athletes are calling in, saying you can do this. you can do that. parlay into this and that. you cannot have a job.

are you tracking what i am saying thus far? >> yeah. ryan. not an issue i know much about. do you know when the ncaa put in that role about whether you could have a job as a college athlete? is that something that's fairly new or older? >> no. it is older for the gentleman. maybe it wasn't in play when he was there all you have to do to go back to justify the pain of college athletes is you did look at the lead counsel who was brought in. prior to his death, he was sitting there explaining everything that they sat down and spoke about when they were drawing up the contract so that when -- because they knew this issue would come in up down the road. that was back in the '60s and '70s, they put language in place, put protocols in place so it couldn't be challenged in a court of law. he went top his death bed, you know, basically re-sescinding

everything that he had created. he was upset with the fact that he did that. he wanted to help college athletes towards the end of his life and did so by speaking out, but that's just another issue, speaking out when we are talking about the health problems. i mean we have combat veterans returning with traumatic brain injury from just one explosion, one concussive event. you have football players, rugby players, soccer players which is now scientificly proven, you know, head butting a ball can create some of these injuries that they are seeing. i mentioned hockey. rugby players. you have all of these other kids playing high contact sports and not only at a high level of contact. it's repetitive. >> ryan in henderson neffvadnev are talking about college agent let's and the oversight speaking of congress and capitol hill and here in d.c., a few headlines i want to run through for you this

morning on the washington journal: this news out from the white house yesterday. the white house budget office on friday projected 2014 budget deficit would be $383,000,000,000, about $66,000,000,000 less than projected earlier this year in the mid session review by the office of management and budget, the admin trace found the deficit would be 3.4% of gdp and nearly a billion dollars less than last year's deficit. acting o and b director brian dies touted the recent decline in unemployment as a factor in the lower deficit promming ex. and then in terms of legislation moving from congress to the white house, workforce train to go get an upgrade under a bill heading for obama's signature is the headline from the mclatchey. they say they got something done, a bill with overwhelming support in the house and senate which will streamline and improve work force training on friday is now on its way to the president's desk for his

signature. the federal workforce money tied to employers who will customize training programs at high schools and community colleges. it could solid it's a programs and provides more local flexibility in how they are run. we also noted earlier in the program that we'll be going later in the show to the national govern's association meeting. there is a story on that meeting in the "wall street journal" this morning with the focus on the common core academic standards. the story notes that the national govern's association, one of the founders of common core is one of the founders of common core but governors gathered in nashville, it wasn't on the official agenda. a sign of how the bi-partisan idea has become a political minefield. if you want to read more on that story, that's in the wall street journal. again, the nga meeting happening live today at 10:00 a.m. here on

c-span, 7:00 a.m. pacific. i'm for a couple of calls. let's go to brian in indianapolis, indiana on our line for democrats. brian, good morning. >> good morning. how are you? >> good. >> i really just have, you know, two points -- actually 3 points that i would like to make. the first is obviously the roll of the government. i don't think they should step in. i think, you know, for college athletics, whether it's the ncaa or naia, they are the governing body for the group of universities and colleges out there. i do, however, think that there needs to be some over sight not on the government side but in those organizations. you have these players playing really it's a full-time job for them. so they are playing, they are getting injured. they may be having a career injury where it takes them out.

i think medical should be a lifetime for them whether it's from the school or the money that the ncaa is generating from all of these championships. the second is the ncaa, it's obviously their earning a lot of money. so that money should be given back to these universities which they are through championships but i think the money should be funding help with that medical side but, also, investing in these kids, possibly setting up a trust where these players can over time if they graduate, they get money, whether it's later in life or right when they graduate. i think that's a conversation to have but it at least gives these players an opportunity to have some money after they graduate, after they start a professional life and then, you know, somewhat of a reward. then the fine thing is really perdue deim. i think these players because it's a full-time job, they are

not able to get a full-time position. so, i think per deim should increase so that they can go out to the grocery store, buy food, stay healthy. they are exerting so much energy. you know this. a lot of cafeterias don't have the healthy foods. the gentleman that called in from nevada some of these football schools, they have, you know, training tables for athletes that give all of the best foods whereas the smaller universities, there is a lot of fried stuff. i mean to play at the highest level, you have to -- you have to have a certain nutrition of value. i think that's how we could move forward with these athletes taking care of them because they are young. they don't really know the advantages and disadvantages of what they are doing right now. but in the long run, i think government just needs to be a by stander and on the sidelines, so to speak, until the governing

body starts taking advantage of these kids. >> we will end with matthew calling in from holton, kansas, on our line for republicans. matthew, good morning. >> good morning. pleasure speaking to you. >> thank you for calling. >> i am a former player. now i am a division one official. i have seen the progress of college athletes from two arenas, both from playing and both now officiating. we have a congress, political system that is totally inept right now. if we have them get involved in athlet i could action all we are going to do is ruin athletics, contrary to what the previous caller said, athletes go into this as a volunteer activity. yeah, it's tough. yeah, it's difficult. but they know what they are getting in to. we don't need to pay them extra. we start paying them, they are

not actour athletics. they are professionals and that will ruin the taste and the flavor of amateur athletics to a point that we will never be able to return to again. >> matthew you, what sport did you play in? and what do you off issue 80 now? >> i played college tulle, a left corner. i officiate division 1 ball, basketball and women's softball. >> matthew, has your views changed at all from your time as an athlete to now, or have they stayed the same? >> i knew when i was getting in to agent lettics i had to keep my grades up. i had to spend time between books, study and working out and it's all about organization. if you don't organize, in anything that you do, you are going to fail.

preparation in excess leads to success. >> that's what an athlete has to do. they have to prepare and that breeds success. >> that's in college athletics, in officiating and in life. >> matthew from kansas, our last caller in this segment of the washington journal up next, we will talk about a class action lawsuit that the aclu joined this week on behalf of immigrant children and later, we will talk about the supreme court's hobby lobby decision and the issue of religious liberty. on newsmakers this week, we were joined by arizona congressman raoul gri a lot of va and the situation at the southern border. here is a bit of what he had to say? >> the law has become the middle ground for whether or not the president gets what he needs and wants for these agencies in terms of supplemental. i think that's a mistake. and to tie these two issues, the

need to -- you know, the supplemental is basically a request to implement the laws that exist. i worry that there is going to be piling on. i think when chairman rogers is through with the request, i think it will be much different than what the president said. i think the focus will be enforcement, issues about letting the national guard and the governors to have authority to put them on the border. you will see a dilution of the 2008 law. it's a huge mistake for many reasons. the law was put in place because there was violence, there was a legacy of violence in the region and now that it has been tied to kind of the boiling point of everything having to do with immigration, i think there is some political expediency to getting rid of the law. i think that's a mistake. the supplemental then becomes an enforcement tool only and the

implementation of the law is lost. you know, we have mr. cuellar from texas already supporting that concept for eliminating that law. i worry that by us not being firm on that human trafficking law that everybody voted for, even the most ardent anti-immigrant folks, antireform folks in congress, king, steve king, voted for that. and so at this point, i think that it is a step backwards and then jeopardizes sport for the supplemental on another end. i include myself in that category. >> baseball does strike me. i don't want to get metaphysical on this t democracy is about compromise and settling. you don't get everything you want. baseball is like that.

it's a lot of losing in baseball. every team that goes to spring training knows it's going to win 60 games, lose 60 games. you play the whole season to sort out the middle 42. if you win 10 out of 20 games, you are by definition mediocre. 11 out of 20 games, you win 89 games, you have a good chance to play in october. so, it's the sport of the half loaf as is democracy. >> george will on his latest book on baseball and wrigley field and the recent controversy surrounding one of his columns. . >> washington journal continues. a legislative policy analyst, this week, the aclu joined in a class action lawsuit on behalf of immigrant children coming across the southern border. ruby epstein, what's the lawsuit about? >> yeah. thank you so much for having me this morning. last week, the aclu, along with

several other organizations filed a nationwide class action lawsuit against the government arguing that every child placed into deportation proceedings in front of an immigration judge should have legal representation. now, this case is on behalf of 8 children from central america. they range in age from 10 to 17. every one of them is in deportation proceedings without an attorney. they are up against trained government attorneys arguing for their deportation. they are being asked to make arguments on their behalf nav gaying a body of law that's been compared in complexity to the u.s. tax code. so the deck is stacked against them. >> how does the immigrant courts work? what do these children -- what are their experiences like as they go through this deportation process? >> if you can picture a child without an attorney, we are seeing kids as young as five years old up against, as i said, trained government attorneys,

prosecutors essentially who are making the legal argument for the kids' deportation and the kids are forced to -- are being asked to navigate this body of law that's incredibly complex body of law, often make asylum claims which require extremely complicated legal arguments, findings of facts by themselves. our clients in this case, in this nationwide class action case all sought out the assistance of legal service providers. those which have doing valiant work across the country do not have the resources to help every single kid. many of these kids don't have the funds, themselves, to pay for private attorneys. >> you are talking about the right to an attorney here do non-citizens have constitutional rights in our system? >> so this lawsuit's legal arguments are based in the due process clause of the 5th amendment of the united states. our co counsel are con tinding every child in removal proceedings in front of an

immigration proceeding should have an attorney. the government concluded adults with serious mental disabilities should have legal representation. so this is a reasonable next step. >> how many children are actually deported through these proceedings? here is a graphic from the "wall street journal" from earlier this week from friday talking about the odds being in the favor of children who come through this system noting 47,397 children apprehended and juveniles physically removed from the u.s., about 1600 were actually deported. >> yeah. what those numbers don't actually -- the story that those numbers don't tell is that there are incredible backlogs in our immigration courts today. the reason for that is that congress has consistently under resources immigration judges. congress is investing every year in immigration enforcement and

customs enforcement and customs and border protection which are the two enforcement agencies for immigration law. congress has not been investing at a consistent level, at a proportionat level. >> that's the reason for the backlogs and the reason we are not seeing the deportations at the same level as the apprehension. >> so we talk a lot this week about president obama's $37,000,000,000 he is trying to get congress to approve to address the situation on the southern border. what would that money, if it is approved, do for the situation you are talking about? >> so the money that the president has requested from congress has good pieces and bad pieces in it. i think it's important to recognize that. on the issue of counsel for kids, the president has requested $15 million that is earmarked for legal representation for kids but we actually don't know any details about how that -- about mechanisms by which that money would turn in to counsel for

kids. it's certainly not sufficient to meet the need. >> we are asking viewers to call in with the questions and comments during the segment of the washington journal with ruthie epstein of the aclu. republicans call in 28253853881. democrats: independent: if you are outside the u.s., it's 202-585-3883. you said until now, the pro-bono community has been sort of filling the gap here can you talk about those efforts and whether -- how big that gap is? >> sure. well, when we are talking about -- when we are talking about legal representation for kids and the need, we actually don't have precise numbers about the need because the government doesn't track those numbers. we know we are talking about thousands of kids. if you walk into any immigration courtroom in the country, you will see kids as young as five

up against these trained government attorneys seeking to make their case without an attorney. in terms of their resources available to those kids, there are really three avenues available right now. one is if families have money to pay private attorneys they can do that just like in the criminal justice system. maybe migrant families, many newly-arrived families don't have the funds to pay private attorneys. secondly, there is a vast network of nonprofit legal service providers across the country. i used to work for one of them. these non-profits are strapped. they are seeking to meet a need that they are doing their best to meet, but these cases are complex. they are resource intensive. >> that's why many of the non-profits have turned to pr pro bono attorneys but it's not sufficient. the aclu and our co counsel again contend that the government is responsible to

ensure legal representation of for these kids. >> what would the cost be? do you have any estimates? >> it's going to be money. i am not going to pretend otherwise. but due process is a principal that's en shrined in the u.s. constitution. the government, when they cease to deport kids without legal representation. the government is somehow able to find money for the prosecutors in these cases. why not find money to pay for an attorney who is helping the child look out for his best interests? >> american hero writes on twitter, our constitution says it's not just citizenship. everyone who is a human has these rights. let's get to your calls and comments. james has been waiting in middletown connecticut on our line for democrats. james, good morning. >> good morning. >> you are on with ruthie epstein of the aclu. >> i have a question. why is the government focusing

more on the immigration and not focusing more on the borders? and our safety. i understand that these children are coming over from third-world countries which have a lot of issues and problems, but i think, you know, we should be fixing our own problems before we take on the responsibility stic fix other countries' problems. >> yeah, that comment reflects concerns of a lot of people in this country. the issue of border security is one that's actually been a big part of the conversation around this humanitarian crisis at the border. the thing to recognize in that conversation is that these kids

are actually turning themselves in. they are crossing the border and they are looking for u.s. government officials to ask for help. the issue in this case is not one of border security. they are not slipping through. and in terms of the united states' obligations to other countries versus people who are already in our borders, that, again, reflects a common concern, i think, across the country. the government's emergency supplemental funding request that he presented to congress this week constituted less than .1% of the total u.s. federal bucket. so we are not talking about taking resources from other important needs to give to the this need. the united states is blessed today have resources to meet a number of needs. >> one issue that has come up on the crisis is what is driving this surge in unaccompanied

minors, you say this is on bhaufl of a handfehalf of a han our lawsuit is actually not a response to the border crisis right now. it's an issue that the aclu, our counel have been concerned about but providing legal representation for the kids being apprehended right now would help one aspect of this crisis by helping the kids presents their case in a fair case to see if they qualify. in terms of your question about root causes which has been a big part of the discourse around thissish and polit sized, you know, any migrant who flees their country going to another country is going to have multiple factors that play into

their decision there is no question that the area where most of these kids are coming from is one of the most violent regions in the world... ...

if the aclu wants to get legaled with representation, let aclu come up not the taxpayers taxpayers. oure children are flooding schools. they are also bringing diseases .o our country i've seen many things on the peoplet and just hear talking. these diseases are deadly to our children. host: ms. epstein? guest: thanks very much for your call. appreciate that you're calling from tennessee. i'm actually born and bread nashville. growing up in nashville, tennessee, in the 80's, my elementary school was schoolshe most diverse

in the city at that time. the united states was providing refuge for people who were fleeing war in southeast asia. they were coming from cambodia, parts ofother southeast asia. so the u.s. actually has a history, ofroud providing safety for people fleeing difficult circumstances, violence. and tennessee, i am proud to welcomingong those parts of the united states. arguing that the united states has a responsibility to house and keep -- provide permanent legal status for every one of these children coming to that's atry i think really important thing to keep in mind. what we believe is that every have access to a fair process to determine whether they are eligible for the uniteds in states under our current legal system. end goalthere's no here to have more of these unaccompanied children staying. there not concerned about

end outcome. you're concerned about the representation issue. guest: the concern is process. concern is absolutely process. and process under u.s. law and of due processs enshrined in our constitution. >> herbie is in moss point, on our line for democrats. good morning. morning.ood it's beginning to look like we're concerned about citizens.ns more than we have a lot of kids that's going to jail for non-violent doing a whole lot of time and the aclu don't them.ent half of if they were representing them, beercentage of them wouldn't locked up for the long period of time that they're being locked up. peoplet shows that these are wanting something for nothing. theory thathas this the american citizens want something for nothing. necessity want to cut food stamps, different things that getting.are not

it bothers me because in america, in the inner cities we have so many black children being deprived of the american want to try to give the american dream to some non-citizens. give out this to non-citizens, even its money we give to israel and different things like that. make our cities flourish if we were to use this money right here. should start standing up for black people here in unjustlyhat has been done since america has been here, period. what's yourstein, response? guest: i am sympathetic to a lot callerconcerns that the is raising. these are issues that we've been discussing internally at the well.s the aclu, you should know, has projects, does lobbying across the country on criminal justice reform to try the very issues that the caller is articulating, very important issues

of due process, of access to of racial disparities in the criminal justice system. from our perspective, this is either/or situation. there are vulnerable people. there are disenfranchised populations in the united states states ide of the united states. as i mentioned earlier, the money that the government -- askinge white house is for to address this crisis is a tiny fraction of the total federal budget. so there are plenty of funds hat can go to multiple purposes purposes. host: you said earlier that it's unclear what the total cost provide to representation for every one of these children. do we know how much it would cost to provide representation just one of these cases? is there any estimates on that? >> that's a good question. a goodre's actually not estimate because every case is different. some cases will take hours and prepare for. others are more straight forward. so, again, our focus is really obligation under the u.s.

constitution. host: a tweet, is lawyering up money in the puts lawyers pockets, no more money to the aliens, we are broke in the u.s. next, long beach, mississippi, on our line for independent. sherry, good morning. good with what you just said, but obama has sent a andage out that y'all come y'all can become citizens and you can vote democrat because the democrats are the rebe distributors, they're here to take money from the other guy and give it to you. own statistics, 47,000 in and only 1600 deported supports that. we're $17 trillion in debt. how many, ma'am, do you think we should let in this country? you know,obably, 200 million that would like to come. would startway, we with ending the anchor baby thing. oft would be the beginning it. stop it right there, nip it in the bud. will justaybe people

stop this. we can't afford it. i'll let ruthie epstein respond to you. just wanted to point out peggy nunan's column that you might be interested in. she addresses some of the issues talking about. the crisis on the border, on what's causing the surge, she whatinto debate over administration's laws are surge. these she writes the latest border surge has been going on for at least two years. children and others are coming believe that under the president's leadership if it they get here, they'll get a pass to stay. probablyays they're right. but ruthie epstein, i'll let you respond to sherry. guest: yeah, there are a lot of complicated issues embedded in that question. and, of course, sherry's are not unique. itst of all, i want to make clear that the response to this beens unfortunately has politicized. this is a humanitarian crisis. we're talking about kids fleeing their home

countries. we're not talking about creating democratic voters. think for all the cynicism that is reasonable to have in is not a reasonable perspective to take. the united states has obligations under international law and domestic law to ensure not returning people to country where's they face persecution or threat of persecution. we have a system in place to ensure that we're not returning people to persecution. states ends up restricting access to that system, we will be in violation of our international human obligations. host: do you have any stats on lawyer at these hearings makes a difference, percentage of children end up deport who had don't have a lawyer versus those do? guest: absolutely. there's no question that having counsel can change the outcome a case.

there have been studies in places like new york city that that something along the lines of 70% of people with up winning relief in their cases whereas less than -- host: winning relief means they're allowed to stay. guest: means they're allowed to stay, yeah. these are detained cases. who are inple detention who don't have counsel the percentage is more like 10% 13%. so it absolutely makes a difference. and if it makes a difference, it means that we don't have a fair when people don't have attorneys. host: angela is next calling in air force base, just outside of d.c., in maryland. angela is on our line for republicans. morning. caller: hi there. i am not military. son.ere visiting my my question really relates more just to the human side of this a side that has not been well covered in the news. i think i heard maybe one interview some time ago of a you would sendhy

your unaccompanied young child situation. i practiced law at one time. now i've been a teacher and own for aildren of my very long time. this doesn't relate to the organization so much, but i'm wondering if attorney epstein or if she is a parent or even if not or other members of the organization, when you're just sitting around sort of asking ideas around, do you yourself what kind of a parent would send a young child, not an oldermpanied by teenager or by anyone else, in a company of criminals, which i of these guides are, ofoss a dangerous stretch land? i know things in the country are not good. that.t talking about i would never send a child in a situation like that. withon't the parents come them? why don't they find another way, to another country? hard timeeal sympathizing with parents who would put their children in this situation.

and i've heard very little comment about that. a mother if youa are or others in your organization, do you ever talk about this? guest: yeah. it's an interesting question. it's certainly one that comes up with advocates. ask isstion that you what kind of a parent would send their kids through a dangerou dangerous -- on a dangerous journey to come to the united states alone. i think the question that might to ask ispropriate what sort of situation, what straits must ate parent and their family be veryg in order to make the difficult decision to send your child alone seeking safety and protection in the united states? as i mentioned earlier, the situation in these countries is dangerous. the united nations office on and crime has called honorablhonduras the murder capf andworld, el salvador

guatemala come in at numbers four and five. fleeingds are often sexual violence, targeted gang recruitment, gang violence, drug cartel-related violence. and so the question really is, how desperate must you be to send your child on a journey like this it one? think we as a nation should be proud, actually, that we are and as a place of safety protection by others in other parts of the world. in new haven,next connecticut, on our line for democrats. good morning. morning.ood host: go ahead, tony. caller: yes. i'm a strong democrat. i have nothing against children. i think the united states should worry about the young in carst are being left in this country, doing more about that there. also peeves me is that there are 3.1 million people that had lost their unemployment benefits, people that are economy,oney in the

and congress and the president don't seem to think about these american people. children,hing against but these immigrant children aren't going to put back the economy. into look around the united states. we shouldn't have no homeless benches.eeping on park i think it's about time the united states, the president, themselvess, get together and start thinking about people in this here country. i have a mixed variety of people in this my neighborhood, where i from, and they are getting more than what the american people are getting. we're getting laughed at. we startt time that thinking about ourselves. host: ms. epstein? tony is echoing some of the comments that we've heard from other callers as well. again, i would just repeat what i said earlier. this isn't an either/or we don't need to pit different groups of people with various social needs one another. host: and mark is in henderson, line forolina, on our

independence. good morning. caller: good morning. i got a couple of questions to ask her. said that it's the law, in the constitution. what is that law that we're supposed to provide legal representation for the children? another thing is if they would show there's more adults, why did they want triple-x, extra large underwear for these refugees. will actually, they're really knees nor immigrants, they're illegal children. they're here illegally. ok? and how about like on the last caller stated, he stated about the children and the people here the united states, the poor i forget her name up in massachusetts that was torn cps.from her family from ok? she finally got returned. ok? parents fought years and out of their hard-earned money. you got veterans here that do enough money.

there are homeless veterans. they're out on the streets. that arehildren here out on the streets. you got people, all of this had money is going to go to these illegal children or illegal adults that's actually coming across using the children as pawns, and if they're able to these,000, $4,000 to coyotes, why can't they pay the money to take for their own legal representation? why is the aclu wanting to take our taxpayer moneys to provide funds for these illegal people? host: several questions there if them.nt to take a few of guest: sure. first question that mark raised is where is the constitution actually say that the u.s. government should provide lawyers for kids in deportation -- proceedings. the legal arguments in the afternoon clu's lawsuit that, co-counseling with several other organizations, is due process clause

in the fifth amendment to the constitution. legal arguments, the precise requirement is not the bill ofin rights, but there is a foundational principle of due is ins protection that the fifth amendment to the u.s. constitution. host: another chart to show our viewers. this showing where the children are from who are crossing the border. top line up here is children from mexico. since 2009 upat and down, but the big jumps here el from children from salvador, guatemala, and honduras. let's go to joyce waiting in houston, texas, on our line for republicans. good morning. caller: good morning. to 100% echo the last caller. but since i'm on, let me say a things. first let me say that i renamed this organization. the american communist lawyers union. and i want to say, and to ms. epstein, since

you all are so compassionate towards these children, put a in your window saying bring at least i'll say 20 to my house and i will take care of them. not take any welfare, not take any wic, not take any food stamps, i will take care of them. a black senior citizen grandmother, and it is disgraceful what this country is own citizens. take care of your own home. ms. epstein, what i just said, i bet you you will send these children back to their homes. host: ms. epstein? joyce, again, is echoing some concerns that we heard from earlier callers. i would repeat what i said earlier that we don't need to pit populations in need against another. the united states is blessed with the resources to respond to more than one crisis at the same .ime

host: on our twitter page -- desperation to save your child's would drive parents to take any risk. can you talk about who else has this lawsuit and where it's going to be heard, this lawsuit?ion guest: the class-action lawsuit was filed in the u.s. district in seattle. that's because our lead plaintiff a 10-year-old boy from el salvador, lives in seattle. and our co-counsel on the case are the organizations american counsel, public council, which is a non-provely los angeles, the north immigrants rights project based in washington state, and the private law firm of k & l gates. of. host: and what's the timing of this lawsuit will be heard and when a decision might come down? guest: the timing is up to the at this point it depends how they decide to respond. we filed the complaint last week. i do want to note that there are many officials in the current who haveation

expressed agreement with the should haveat kids legal representation in immigration proceedings. so this isn't a concept that is opposed by the obama administration. fact, several weeks ago the administration launched americorps towith provide legal representation for some portion of the kids who are in depore payings proceedings. buteportation proceedings, it's simply not enough which is why we filed the lawsuit. host: time for a few more calls aclu's ruthie epstein. jesse is next in alabama on our democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: i just want to know how they forgot -- the word is still legal. ok? host: all right. have another comment? caller: yeah. we need to take care of our own. they say they don't have money schools every year.

where is this money coming from? host: jesse in oxford, alabama. forou have any response jesse? guest: the president's emergency budget request went to congress last week. it's unclear how congress is respond whether indeed they're going to provide the money that the president has requested. to take the opportunity when we're talking about the administration's of congress to note that the administration requestedely has also in addition to the money to change the current immigration to curtail protections available to kids fleeing america.in central host: this is that 2008 law. guest: that's right. it's gotten a lot of press coverage. of it quite misleading, unfortunately. this was a 2008 anti-trafficking law that was passed bipartisan, signed into law by president

bush. this law does is lay out protections to ensure that countries other than theda and mexico have opportunity to make their case to have their case heard before judge,gration particularly to express fear of return to their country or other needs.ion what the white house and some members of congress seem to be right now is to amend that law. it's a really, really bad idea. the procedures currently in place to screen mexican kids are cursory,w limited. identifyt serve to general asylum seekers. host: if that law gets changed, would you expect those numbers that we showed earlier from "the wall street journal" chart on the number of children who are to jump deported significantly? guest: yeah. and what i would actually expect startpen is that we hearing stories from honduras, guatemala, el salvador and facing violence

and even death who we have .eported from this country host: teresa is up next on bolling brook, illinois, for independence. good morning. morning.ood i have a comment to the american people. if you don't want people coming america,r countries to you need to pay attention to what your government is doing. years what the0 government has done to salvador, and honduras. how they put in puppet government to pay attention and to what america wants and not their own country people. any time it's a leader in those countries that wants to take care of their country and their people, they are always destabilized by the american government. the american government has been destabilizing latin america for years.

and it's not just the united states. it's europe, too. the former colonial powers. went over to africa and did all of these things. now these people are fleeing, europe. these people are desperate because of all of the wars and all of this stuff is going on. it's at the hands of europe and the united states. so if you don't want these borders,ming to your pay attention to what your government does. these trade deals that they're doinging nafta is the reason the mexicans are coming over here because they took their farmland, their livelihood what else are these people going to do? host: teresa with her comments for the american people. as she said. from pennsylvania on the line for republicans. good morning. caller: hello? host: hi, paula. you're on "washington journal." caller: yes. to know -- there were 47,000 that they say immigrated the united states.

that only 1,600 have been deported. like to know how many of those cases are pending those 47,000? guest: paula, my best guest is them are pending. the reason for the gap, as we were discussing earlier, between people apprehended by the government and the number is reallydeported about the backlogs in the immigration court system. and the reason for those backlogs is that congress has not adequately invested in system.ion court so they are not resourced to provide hearings in a timely manner. host: so you're saying that 1,600 number are people who are apprehended perhaps years before? possible.s it's possible. host: let's go to pam, our last segment, from virginia beach, virginia, on the line for democrats. morning.ood i just want to say i have been listening to this and i don't sonk i've ever been

disappointed in comments from people as i am this morning. one issueonflating with something entirely different. borders tomorrow anyonee no money to not, our government still adequately would care for, because of political issues, to adequatelying take care of our children here. to aidhem giving money countriesle in other and people are saying well taking away from our kids, it's not. no matter what you do, the republican party, they're not to release money to help our citizens anyway. the makeup of that party. there's always going to be a reason.

when they can afford to spen spend $24 billion to shut down our government, when they're suing the president and they whenthe money to do that, they have blocked healthcare getome times, these people and there's0 a year 535 of them. there's money there. just they don't want to -- it's their ideology. people are confusing that by have money tot take care of ourselves, why should we spend it for other people. money. the host: ruthie epstein? guest: i have nothing to add. agree.to host: i want to thank you for coming on to talk about this issue. we'll follow the case as it the road. guest: thank you very much, john. i appreciate it. host: up next, we'll talk about of religious liberty in the wake of the supreme court's hobby lobby decision. and later we'll talk about new to step up airport

security with clark kent ervin, general ofinspector the department of homeland security. we'll be right back. >> tune in to "book tv" for the harlem book fair with discussions on the state of african-american literature. multicultural book publishing black arts movement. live coverage starts this morning at 11:45 eastern on tv."n2's "book >> let our republicanism so focused and so dedicated not be futile by and labels.ng and stupid [applause]

remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. [cheers and applause] thank you. thank you. .hank you thatet me remind you also moderation and the pursuit of virtue.is no

[cheers and applause] >> senator goldwater's 1964tance speech at the republican national convention, this weekend on american history "reel america" on c-span 3. >> "washington journal" continues. host: hannah smith is a senior counsel at the beckett fund and joins us now. hannah smith, for those who aren't familiar with what the beckett fund is, what is the group and what was the group's involvement in the hobby lobby the supreme court? guest: the beckett fund is a non-profit law firm. we do exclusively litigation related to religious liberty. represented the green family and hobby lobby in the supreme court case that was decided last week. host: and the full name of the group is the beckett fund for religious liberty. definition forl religious liberty? guest: religious liberty includes a lot of things. the rights not just

to believe and to worship but it also includes the right to act upon your believes -- beliefs. the words in the constitution sheally mean something when say free exercise. the exercise of religion than justuch more belief or worship. it includes the right to act or interact with others in the yourc square according to religious beliefs. host: we're talking with hannah smith of the beckett fund for thegious liberty for about next 45 minutes this morning on "washington journal." we'll be talking about the hobby lobby case. do, if you have questions or comments, you can call in. host: coming off of the supreme hobbydecision in the lobby case, a lot of reaction on both sides including the well.es as here's a headline from the national journal from justice ginsburg.

radical hobby lobby ruling may create havoc is the headline of quoting some of her dissent. what would you say to critics. hobby lobby decision who are concerned this case will now allow companies to assert religious claims just to opt out of other laws? guest: i think you saw the majority opinion very severalally devote pages, actually, to that claim. theice alito who wrote for majority said this case only deals with the contraception mandate it does not deal with that a religious employer might bring to exempt that wouldfrom laws require them to pay for blood transfusions or vaccinations or would allow them to discriminate based on race. so the majority opinion was very specific that this decision does of apply to those kinds cases. of i think what we've seen following the decision is, quite mongeringlot of scare and just a lot of political theater in a lot of ways because evidencebsolutely no

anywhere that any religious employer has actually sought to for healthcare insurance those types of claims. host: you can talk about the underlying law that was the thes for this case, religious freedom restoration act, and how that law changes as result of the hobby lobby case? guest: the underlying law, the religious freedom restoration act, was passed about 20 years bipartisan support. both sides of the aisle unanimously agreed that this was reallyng that they needed to address. so this law essentially establishes a balancing act where it says you have to interestse government versus the religious burden on religious exercise. this case the justices said, well, first of all, hobby for profit enterprise was able to bring this claim under rfra. the first question they raised. and they said, yes, that hobby lobby would be able to be heard the religious freedom

restoration act. and then they went on to say there is a substantial burden here because this hhs mandate would impose crushing fines on this particular family, on their business, if they were to not four drugs and contraceptive device that they abortifations according to their religious belief. so the substantial burden was there. and then it goes to the to say, well, have you shown a compelling governmental interest? they assumed the interest in went straightjust to the last factor, which is the least restrictive means. opinion said there are so many other ways that the government could accomplish this of providing contraceptives to women other than forcing dose religious objectors to it. and ultimately that's what they decided the case on. know, that the government could pay for these contraceptives themselves or offer the entities the same accommodation they've offered enterprises.t

that was the decision. it didn't change rfra. it was just a straight forward rfra.ation of that's the legal standard that congress passed 20 years ago. and the supreme court just forwardly applied it in this case. host: what do make of efforts lobby decision to exempt the affordable care act from the provisions of rfra? we saw a bill dropped in the by senates week democrats to that effect. guest: i think a lot of it is political theater, quite frankly. i think it's an over reaction to the decision that the supreme made. the supreme court specifically said we are not exempting claims, we are not exempting blood transfusion advocatingare not race discrimination by religious employers. that was specifically stated in opinion.ity and yet you see some following the decision using those exact examples as some scare mongering and saying the sky is going to thisand we need to pass

legislation in order to correct it. so, quite frankly, i think this's no evidence that bill is needed. and quite frankly, i think it's over reaction to the hobby lobby decision. host: and here is a video of senator patty murray, democrat, in the senate talking with harry reid about the introduction of this bill that we're talking about. male justicesive gave their blessing to c.e.o.s americaorations across to go ahead and deny legally forated healthcare coverage their employees when that news broke, i was outraged. i was just one of millions of this country who was shocked and angry. always beenn has between a woman, her partner, faith.tor, and her now, by the way at a time when 99% of the women in the u.s. birth control, those five justices decided that a a say. boss also has

so today these women are looking a us and they are demanding change. and it is not just women who want congress to act. the countrys understand that if bosses can can birth control, they deny vaccines or h.i.v. treatment or other basic healthcare services that their employees or their dependents rely on. think what men in america understand as well is that it's not just the female employees are impacted here. it's their wives and their daughters who are on their plan.care host: that was senator patty murray on thursday. robert's question from twitter. what does the guest think about the religious liberty of versus thef workers two owners of hobby lobby? guest: there's a balancing test here. the supreme court said we have sincerely held beliefs of the green family as the employer in hobby lobby.

and their religious belief is that these drugs are abortifations. we can't question that belief. that's not our rule. that's a religious and moral question. that, whetherion or not providing insurance is objectionable to them because of belief. we just can't get into that. that's a religious and a moral question. it's notow, obviously an issue really of access to contraception. before 2012 when this rule came into place, people weren't complaining that they couldn't contraception. there's title x, the government spends millions and millions of providing contraception under title x. there's so many other way that get contraception if they need it without forcing a objector to do so. so it's about applying a federal protect theo exercise. here there was one that the green family had and the supreme did. said they host: we showed senator patty murray. that law is passed

that that would be something the supreme court would take up immediately? guest: well, first of all, i really question whether the law is going to be passed, to begin with. is justa lot of this posturing and not very confident at all this will pass. think should it be passed, of course we'll look at our option and decide whether or not this is something that can be challenged. ultimately the supreme court has a lot of discretion what they take. court only takes 80 case a year. so they can decide whether or not they're going to take up challenge should it be presented to them. host: hannah smith a senior counsel with the beckett fund religious liberty here to answer your questions, take your comments. we'll start with jane calling in from river edge, new jersey on our line for democrats. good morning. caller: yes. good morning. to point out one

thing here. thesem of religion in united states also means freedom from religion. ok? pay, i'm wondering why you for viagra and the like for men and there are millions of them taking these little pills for etc., and their poor wives and girlfriends are now you know, any contraceptives. me. is ludicrous to i'd like your comment. thank you very much. host: ms. smith. guest: sure. out thatnt to point the green family and hobby lobby the 20jected to four of contraceptives that were covered under the contraception mandate. at hobby the employees lobby were able to receive your contraceptives before this case came to the supreme court and will continue gardenble to get your

variety contraceptives after this case. what this case of the supreme was simply theh four kinds of contraceptives, emergency contraceptives that objected to -- plan b, the morning after pill, he willia, the week after pill, and iuds that they deem because theyations prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg. with were really dealing only four types of contraceptive methods that killed a human life green'sg to the believe. so to the caller's question, the at hobby lobby have always been able to get access to contraceptives and will thisnue to do so after case just not the four that were at issue in this case. host: is there anything in the it fromhat keeps becoming a slippery slope to other contraceptives beyond just the four that were at issue in this case? guest: i think you saw the bereme court in this opinion very narrow in its decision in this case. they said this decision only closely held

corporations. it only applies to corporations religious beliefs of the owners are expressed through their business practices. the business practices of the green's, they only objected to those four. it was a very narrow opinion. we'll see going forward as other courts apply lower this opinion how they apply it, whether or not they apply it to cases where people object to than just those four. but we don't know that yet. host: matt smith haze question has areligious -- question about religious beliefs what would we do hypothetically a religion belief that required hobby lobby to these? whose believe trumps who? guest: rfra is about balancing the interests. a lot of discussion in this case about third party employer'sersus the interests, and the government's interests in making this available. again, before 2012 there was no fundamental right to get free .ontraceptives

there may be a right for people to use contraceptives, but there's no fundamental governmental right for individuals to get free stuff. and here that's what this was forcing the greens to pay for these drugs and in their employer insurance plans. that's ultimately what was at case.in this host: philip from stafford, virginia, on our line for independence. .ood morning caller: good morning. of a comment for the american people. the supreme court taking up this issue when they take up limited number of cases, bigger problems. theave monsanto flooding market with, i guess, genetically modified food, we poverty, wee have have economic problems. i just feel like this is just a distraction. like to know what billionaire's funding your organization. it just seems like these billionaire fund these organizations for these trivial reals when we have

problems. american people, wake up. host: you can give us some background on the beckett fund and where the group came from and where your funding comes from? guest: sure. fund was formed about 20 years ago. hassan was the founder. he was working in private practice here in washington, d.c., working on some religious freedom cases, and realized that what his --were where his real passion lied. so he decided to leave private and formed the beckett fund as a non-profit litigation we would exclusively focus on religious freedom litigation. so that was 20 years ago. has grownt fund .remendously since then seamus started the shot with just himself. and now we've grown to a couple dozen staff and so we've grown in the last 20 years. funding goes, we receive funding from a wide variety of people, a wide different religious

groups a wide variety of those freedom.d in religious libertarians, actually who are interested in making sure the government doesn't encroach too freedoms generally and religious freedom specifically. wide variety of donors. host: the caller seemed concerned about one large donor. it's a wide variety of folks. guest: it is a wide variety of people. host: if you want to read more the founder of the beckett fund, there is a profile piece in the "the washington post" from june 30, the founder of hobby lobby's law firm pioneered over religious freedom. you can find that online at the .the washington post" website we have about a half-hour left with miss smith of the beckett fund. go to sun sarah from georgia on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: hi. questions. of in the supreme court finding is language stating that

onby lobby's objections to tray exception -- contraception is the only one that they found valid or is it kind of no one has brought up any other transfusions or vaccinations and we'll cross that bridge when we come to it? words are they holding contraception as the only valid objection? question is, in politifact they verified hobby lobby provided the four ofective forms contraceptions prior to this lawsuit and only dropped them in order to get a standing in the lawsuit. their religious objections were very, very recent. guest: well, on the first question, yes, the ruling by the supreme court was a limited one was just anat this

exemption from the contraception mandate. thet only involved contraception at issue here. it didn't involve all of those other claims regarding blood transfusions and vaccinations and other things that were addressed in the dissent and that have been talked about on hill following the decision. so it was a narrow ruling just on contraception. second question, you know, there have been some articles obviously during the litigation that have tried to call into question the sincerity of the greens and their objection to this kind of contraception, this emergency it.raception, as they call but all of those articles have been false. throughout their business with hobby lobby have tried to notely drugs that they have found to be objectionable. so they have very consistently ernestly sought to make sure that those brands of contraceptive that they object a religious ground were

not included in their insurance policy. from time to time, if they cropped up and were added in by someone else,or then they went back and took them out again. so they're obviously very sincere in their belief. even the government didn't question that in this case. the government did not question the sincerity of the greens belief. said thatpreme court we have no basis to question their sincerity either. riverton, wyoming, on the line for republicans. caller: good morning. for your, c-span, getting involved in these issu issues. i just don't understand. i'm an old lady now, but i do not understand why people think that the government should have for healthcare or for .ontraception we never did that when we were kids. had a pretty good

world. and now everybody wants the .overnment to pay for something thank you. host: bonnie in riverton, wyoming. guest: i agree. before 2012 there was no right to have anyone pay for your certainly notand religious objectors. so i completely agree. florida, ontampa, the line for independents. caller: good morning, ms. smith. you today? guest: good. thank you. caller: two things. first thing you need to that every single host on c-span voted for obama and they're in the tank for obama. and you can tell that by the e-mails that your host is .eading this morning the second thing is that the other side has to lie through teeth about what this decision is, and that's an them to appeal to the low information voters. only way they can win elections, by skewing the truth and not being honest with the people.

you have a good day. e-mail.ny, send me an i'll read that, be too. hahannah smith, i'll let you respond. guest: you should probably respond to the first part. [laughter] i to the comment, you know, think we have to be careful that we do deal in the facts of this case. ofre have been a lot articles that have been written about hobby lobby over the course of the litigation that been untrue, that have called into question their beliefs that have called into their sincerity. toiously that's hurtful them. it's just untrue. host: a question from richard on twitter. ms. smith, how does any corporation have a religious belief? guest: well, the supreme court had to deal with this question in the hobby lobby decision. specifically held that corporations are merely the vehicle through which their owners express their beliefs. so a corporation is formed by

humans to accomplish certain ends. so they said here this for-profit corporation, hobby lobby, was formed by the greens their ends.h and some of those ends are religious ones. very strict about how they treat their employees. they give them sunday off. they put newspaper ads on easter and christmas talking about savior,lief in the jesus christ. they do a lot of things to that this business is also a part of their religious beliefs. so, you know, i think the specifically held in this opinion that corporations, specifically the vehiclenes, are through which their owners express their beliefs. becan be religious it can otherwise. certainly you've seen some corporations express their adherence to moral principles. of for example, whole foods doesn't sell meat unless it's humanely raised.

cvs recently decided it was stop selling cigarettes. it was praised widely by the administration for doing so. so there are a lot of corporations that decide that they're going to advance their in various ways. and why should it be any different for religious people. about hannahalking smith, a senior counsel at the beckett fund for religious liberty. hobbyrm that related lobby in that high-profile case at the supreme court. were through for the oral arguments? guest: i was. i actually clerked at the supreme court about 10 years ago. i was actually in the courtroom when the decision was being re read. the becketto at fund actually made the argument in front of the court? guest: well, the case was actually consolidated with another case, conestoga woods. and they were represented by the alliance defending freedom. so you had two different cases the were consolidated by supreme court to be heard together. because of that the parties to have a third party

actually argue the case. so it was paul clement, a very well-known supreme court advocate who is the former solicitor general who now is in private practice. and he was actually the one who argued the case before the superb court and did a job. host: nick is next in bedford hills, new york, on our line for democrats. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. ms. smith, i just have two short questions. suppose you have another set uption that is identical to hobby lobby but the have religious objections to any contraception. your position or the position of your fund in a case like that? know, there are some corporations, non-profit thatrations, currently have lawsuits pending in the lower courts that do have an all forms of contraception. some catholic organization that the emergency

contraception but also to any form of contraception. sisters of the poor is a group out in colorado that currently pending. they are a group of nuns who the elderly to poor. forms ofbject to all contraception. so that case is still making its way through the court system and obviously not reached the supreme court yet. other than in january the supreme court actually told the little sisters of the poor that they need not sign the form, that the government had required to sign as part of its accommodation to these groups, that it need not sign that form because the little sisters of the poor felt that that form was an actoff complicit on their part in inticipating in this -- providing this form of contraception they themed objectionable. the supreme court said all you tell theo is government that you are a religious objector to this form control and you don't

need to do anything further. so the supreme court has already provided that temporary relief to the little sisters of the poor, but their case is still ongoing in the lower courts. of course, that's a non-profit case, not a for-profit case. are cases that involve organizations that object to the of contraceptives. we'll see how they play out now after this decision has been .iven by the supreme court host: and nick, did you say you had a second question? caller: yes. ms. smithte what said. before i get to my second question, i just want her to clarify what is your position in a case like that. i know there are cases. i'm just saying what is your position? guest: well, i think, you know, rfra is thatnt of there's a balancing test between the government's interest and objector'sus interests. so obviously in the hobby lobby objection tos only four of those forms of contraception. ae court didn't deal with

case where it was all of them. so we don't know what the court thinks about the application of to all formsg test of contraception. but obviously if there's a religious objection and it's sincere and the court and hobby lobby specifically said that the not our business as court to get into religious and moral questions of where to draw the line, i think that's a pretty good indication that the court is saying it's not our toiness as a supreme court decide whether you've drawn the line in a place that's acceptable or not. companies or for non-profit organization that object to the full spectrum of that the supreme court has indicated in hobby lobby that it's not for the well,to step in and say, you're wrong, that your religious views here are incorrect or flawed because theve drawn the line in wrong place. host: to our republican line. david is waiting in plymouth, carolina. good morning. caller: good morning. whenever you are dealing with a political system court andhe supreme

the house of representatives who have determined that they're destroy any effort that the president makes, what you have is when issues come before the supreme court, the issues based on balance. thatre based on the fact if it destroys the presidency and is good for the party. a republican, it bothers me that the people whether non-religious, decide that they want to dictate what -- my thing as a ministry, as a church, i don't my handsrnment tying in my religious practice nor i religious practice imposing itself upon the will of use ofple through the of a supremecy court and state representative to destroyt there

government moving forward as opposed to imposing law that help the people of america. host: ms. smith? that: i would just say that's exactly what the green family has been saying all along, that they don't want the government putting them into of being in the middle of a woman and her doctor as far as these drugs are concerned. government that thrust them into this position of forcing them to provide these services. so all the green family has been saying from the very beginning is, please, take us out of this. please, government, don't thrust us into this position by us.sing this hhs mandate on if we don't comply, then charging us crushing fines to tune of hundreds of millions of dollars a year. has adidi fredericks question about hobby lobby itself. does hobby lobby support their beliefs in other ways such as sundays aed on profitable day for retail? guest: yes. to givese on sundays their employees a day of rest. and they lose a substantial amount of profit every year that.e of

but it's part of their religious conviction to do that. they also provide a lot of other benefits to their employees. will they actually pay almost double the minimum wage. employer. a wonderful and they do a lot of things according to their religious beliefs to provide an that's very -- that's a very good environment for working there. in colorado on our line for independents. good morning. caller: hi. i just wanted to mention that's never spoken most religious groups as far as i can tell, about the liberties of women as opposed to liberties of religion. and where men play a role in this whole abortion type of .hing that she's talking about that a sexualises encounter, especially when it results in pregnancy, is caused two people.

and in our society, in our patriarchal, the men don't share near the women do forthat this irresponsible act that's performed by two people. there's no rhetoric or discussion from the religious what men's responsibility are in this. back to how comes we're discriminating against women in this whole issue. and, of course, the men's part is completely left out. so i thank you for listening to morning. host: that was anne in colorado if you have any comments on her statement. guest: again, i would just say this is not -- the case is not about whether women have the use contraception. or men, for that matter. thecase is about whether government can force religious objectors to pay for it. about getting free stuff. and i think that the point is able to access

contraception through a variety of means. title x is a government program that's already established that provides contraception to women it are unable to get otherwise. so, you know, this case was not about using contraception. about whether or not the government can force religious objectors to pay for it. host: twitter question. about the rights of corporations. corporations have the rights of citizenship, are they then also subject to incarceration as other citizen is? guest: well, you know, we actually submitted in our brief the supreme court the fact that there are many other areas of the law where a corporation a person in ae lot of different ways. so this is not a novel concept. new to treat a corporation as a person. texts, inn other con the first amendment for purposes of free speech, media to freeions are subject speech issues as a person would be. so it's really important to

remember that this is not an outlier. that corporations are already persons in a lot of different areas of the law. host: pat is in perryville, line for on our democrats. caller: good morning. is that if hobby lobby does not have to pay for emergency contraception for females, why would they have to pay for vasectomies for males, of contraception contraception? so i think this is aimed at women. and they're not looking at contraception for men. forthey paying for viagra men? i think you need to look at the whole program. i think this is stemmed at not men.t women and guest: well, again, i'll just point back to the fact that very, very long list ispreventative services that required under this hhs mandate. and those preventive services include a whole host of devicesptive drugs and

that hobby lobby already covers and they will continue to cover case.this so all forms of garden variety contraception, preventative services like mammograms, all ofcy screeningings, those sorts of things that are required by the hhs mandate will covered. they were covered before. they will be covered after. so it's a very long list. qloib lobby only -- hobby lobby only objected to four of them. or 10 --e host: five or 10 minutes left with hannah smith. them out atk with oneund, beckett t. you today? are host: good, kerry. go ahead. caller: ms. smith, is it true -- a question and a comment. .y question is for the nuns judge sotomayor who

said they should be exempt? outshe the one that came for them? early before this case even came court? guest: yes. caller: justice sotomayor who is a woman. isn't that correct? guest: yes. the supreme court works is that each of these circuit .country appeals around around.country -- around the country has a particular justice assigned to that court of appeals so that when emergency requests come to the supreme court that particular justice is in charge of reviewing those emergency requests. was overe sotomayor the circuit court of appeals from which the little sisters of case came. and then she referred it to the entire court. and then the entire court issued the order that provided little sisters of the poor the relief to sign being forced the form that they felt made providingicit in

these aborti fations. justice sotomayor who referred it then to the entire court that then gave the order sisters of the poor granting them at least temporary relief while their pending. host: kerry, did you have a follow-up? hobby lobby,r as it's either/or. provide --either they could either win their case, which they did, or they not be able to provide any insurance for any of their employees because of the crushing fines by obama care. so which would you rather it be? forneed to go and fight your beliefs or you can't provide anything for your employees. hobby lobby is a fantastic company. i do not work for them. i have nothing -- i am very in.d they provide twice the wage, twice the minimum wage. believe that nothing is being taken away from anybody. anybody can go out and have an do whatever they

want to do. but when it comes to providing not --rugs, four drugs, there are still 16 birth control that's available, you know, this be stopped. you american democratic women up, uninformed voters need to wake up and study the issues. this is exactly not what they're you.ng it is absolutely what she said. regardless. all fear and mongering. women against men. this needs to stop. america. host: kerry in florida. louis,next in st. mississippi, on our line for independents. good morning. caller: yeah. my issue is with this free system.se if you don't like what hobby doing, don't go to work for them. their beliefs are pretty well stated. if you don't like what hobby lobby is doing, don't buy their them.from

so it's a free enterprise. withoutave this issue being invaded by the government. thank you. art in st. louis, mississippi. on twitter, to me it's the idea of infusioning companies with the rights of personhood. we'll go to grace waiting in dwight, illinois, on our line for democrats. morning. caller: good morning. lobby'sd where hobby investsirement plan millions in company that manufacturer emergency devices,tive pills, in drugs commonly used abortion. when that's added all up, it involves about 3/4 of hobby lobby's 401k assets. they also import oddles of its products from china, one of the worst human dignity,

unborn infant life and economic justice anywhere in the world. that? you respond to guest: you know that article came out actually after oral argument during the pendency of the supreme court case. was a really good response up.t that was written the point of the matter is that hobby lobby itself does not invest in any of those companies. the fact that they set up a very 401k planmployee where the employee is the one choose where they invest their own money for their retirement, that's a very different issue rather than itselfthat hobby lobby is investing in those companies which it doesn't. are think those two things very different. as far as the china claim, you know, i think it's very hard to any company in america today that doesn't have some china.n with

they are a global economy. they provide a lot of goods and services to many different companies. you'd be hard-pressed to find any company that didn't .ave any tie to china host: clan smith from the -- becket fund.from thanks for joining us this morning on "washington journal." guest: thank you very much. talk aboutxt, we'll efforts to step up airport security with clark kent ervin, former inspector general from the department of homeland security. .e'll be right back >> 40 years ago the watergate scandal led to the only resignation of an american president. throughout this month and early august, revisit 1974 and the the nixons of

administration. this weekend hear the supreme argument, united states v. nixon, as the prosecutor contests the claim of executive privilege over his oval office recordings. benow, the president may right in how he reads the constitution. may also be wrong. who is therewrong, to tell him so? is no one, then the tosident, of course, is free pursue his course of erroneous interpretations. what then becomes of our constitutional form of government? >> watergate 40 years later, sunday, 8:00 eastern on tv" on c-spanory 3. >> now you can keep in touch with current events from the nation's capital using any radio anytime with c-span

on audionow. 626-8888.ll 202- listen to a recap of the day's events at 5:00 p.m. today."on "washington you can also hear audio of the five network sunday public affairs programs beginning sundays at noon eastern. audionow.io on long distance or phone charges apply. >> for over 35 years c-span affairs events from washington directly to you, putting you in the room at congressional hearings, white house events, briefings and conferences, and offering them gavel-to-gavel coverage of the u.s. house as a public service of private industry. c-span, created by the cable tv industry 35 years ago and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. watch us in hd, like us on

follow us on twitter. .washington journal" continues host: over the past week the department of homeland security has stepped up security measures airports to respond to concerns about new types of u.s.-bound planes. clark kent ervin, the former inspector general at dhs, now as director of the aspen institute's homeland security program. do we know about the intelligence threats that led to this security change? course, we'vef been concerned about al-qaida in the arabian peninsula in particular, the yemeni affiliate of al-qaida, for a long, long time. there's a particular bomb make fill yailted with that entity -- affiliated with that entity who is very ingenious, very diabolical. he is behind a number of lots, the underwear bomber, the bomber not from a few years ago, efforts to evade airport security. people he's trained -- and he's trained a number of them anticipating at some point he'll be killed since

he's in our cross hairs, to evade security, different ways explosives inith novel fashion. so that's why the intelligence authorities issued this alert requiring airports, about 15 or so in the mideast, in europe, africa, for travelers bound for the united states to be able to power up their devices, their cell phones to make sure that they are in fact, cell phones and not essentially explosive devices. host: this release came out over implemented over the past week. what has this meant for security ?rocedures guest: the lines, as you might have imagined, backed up, especially in europe in lone gone, as -- london, as i understand it. having said that, my understanding is it's gone pretty smoothly. we the public have been at this 9/11. so a number of years now. of we understand that we, public, have the to be as adaptive as we can be and as adaptive as the terrorists.

generally travelers have gone with the flow and understood that our security professionals can tong everything they protect us against this ever evolving threat. host: in this segment we'd love viewers who have experienced these new security inbound at airports on .lights to the united states. we will take all of your comments on the subject. if you have experience, please do call in on one of those lines. are these security measures being considered enough? are we expecting more the future? in guest: there is some talk of expanding this beyond cell phones to other devices, laptops, tablets, of course. virtually every traveler now thoses a variety of devices. so i do anticipate that. also, as time goes by and as the i think therelve, will be other security restrictions. these things wax and wayne. willparticular restriction

probably be relaxed at some point in the not too distant future. others will be impose as circumstances warrant. host: you can talk about the evolution of these plane bombs you mentioned the underwear bomber. we have the shoe bomber. now we're concerned about cell phone devices. the trajectory of how these bombs or what devices in -- being hidden they're being hidden in? guest: it's a variety of things as you said. cartridges. now the concern about electronic devices. this particular bomb maker i is attributed -- a plot is attributed to him where an effort was made to isassinate the then saweddian intelligence device implanted in the bomber's body. is yet another potential explosive tactics security professionals are worried about. aviation security has gotten more sophisticated in the united states in particular and around the world, as we've deployed more sophisticated technologies, terrorists have

ways to evade that security. host: is the security of domestic flights considered strong enough? is the real threat here these in?seas flights coming guest: i wouldn't say strong enough. i want to give due credit. have been made since 9/11 in this country in particular. greater degree in this country than in any. relative to the rest of the world, we are more sophisticated and we are more secure. the world.es across at the end of the day, we americans don't set standards airports.foreign but there are certain protocols they're required to go through for passengers that are bound the united states. it is those procedures that have led to these restrictions that we're talking about this morning. host: your book "open target," where america is vulnerable to attack. does this issue come up in your book? guest: the nature of the issue does. the fact that aviation remains all these many years topr 9/11 the very, very

target for terrorists. there's a reason for that. first of all, that's how we were 9/11.ed on so if terrorists could blow up yet another airliner, all of afterwards, its shows that we're still weak at our strongest link. link, that leads to the second point as we have invested more time and more aviation security understandably since 9/11 than in this any other sector. attack on an airliner is iconic. there's something about it that attention.ic so for all of these reasons terrorists really remain fixated on it. why t.s.a. has a big job to do to make sure -- working in othert, of course, with security professionals to make sure that this never happens again. clarkwe're talking with kent everybody vein, the former inspector general at dhs from 2004.nd he's now the executive director of the aspen institute's homeland security program, also partner at squire patton boggs law firm. he's here to answer questions

and comments as we talk about these stepped up security at overseas airports. quinton, loxly, alabama, on the line for republicans. good morning. caller: good morning. was born and raised overseas. between moas yam beak and south africa, mandela -- an electric fence divides that country. secondly, the reason why i'm bringing that up is it seems like africa is very interested security also and so is mexico but we leave our open texas, down in loredo, wide open. so two questions. because it's related to the physical border which has not been closed. why is it that liberals and that open and not sealed just like with the fence.nic

if they get killed, they get killed. but in the united states they don't want it closed. they want it open. but they want to highlight airport security -- the reason i is i heard on the news recently that they found the border where they were physically coming through. and the t.s.a. allowed all of illegal people that were coming through not to be toeened when they went on those planes. so help me understand the discrepancy, one of not wanting physically,borders and or any other way, and secondly, allowing all of these terroristsple which come in through the southern border, can get on to any of planes. homeland security allowed all of withoutget on to planes any t.s.a. involvement at all. clarkwe got it we'll let kent ervin respond. guest: let me answer the second question first. i'm not familiar with any where by t.s.a., dhs allegedly allowed unscreened

immigrants on to airplanes. i find that very, very hard to believe. i can't imagine that would have happen.owed to on the first question about border security, land border security and whether certain our country encourage an open border, i don't really think that that's fair. efforts have been made on a bipartisan basis since the bush administration, which i and following that in the obama administration, to secure the border. we have a huge, huge increase in border patrol personnel, over the course of the last decade, years or so. an increasing use of very, very sophisticated technology, sensors, cameras, and u.a.v.s to do what can be done to minimize the influx of illegal immigrants from our southern border and northern border for that matter. it's a huge border. it's very, very difficult to that absolutely nobody gets through those defenses. the but great efforts have been made. as to whether there is a potential for terrorists to exploit the vulnerability that borderon the southern

and northern border, certainly there are vulnerabilities at least in theory and perhaps in fact. but i have to say that all of the evidence suggests that there caught to be a terrorist in the great influx from the .outhern border the millennial bomber in 1999 was attempting to come through border.hern so one thing to high light is with all the attention focused border,outhern relatively little attention has been paid to the northern bored. between the two, i think because thehat, because of disparity between the attention paid to the southern bored enand northern border, i this the is likely to come from the northern border. vigilant we need to be lirnl with regard to both. host: is anyone bringing up that point about the northern border congress? guest: yes. again, on a bipartisan basis, senate and house, have talked that over the years. i think i'm not alone in not has been paidon to the northern border. host: las vegas, nevada, on the democrats.

brandon, good, month. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. iller: i just wanted to ask question. why is it -- why wouldn't the the unitedork with nations and other country to identification system where you could identify planet,rson on this check out their mental health, their political beliefs, and we could see if they're anti-american and screen them out? a comment. make i wanted to say that your good.be is host: brandon? if you want to talk to the first question. first point, the whole notion of an identity card for americans is one that's been very sensitive politically in our country, historically. and there has been great resistance on the part of really every segment of society to that notion. security cards, of course, driver's licenses, identification.

great efforts have been made and great strides have been made to biometric advances such that we do know more about people than we have ever known before. but the notion of having some kind of technology whereby we know about everybody's political beliefs, of course, is in the fantasy, i'd say. host: a question on twitter. the use of electronic devices to detonate bombs is not new. what has caused the renewed interest at this time? that there ise is no doubt an intelligence stream, ofning a variety of pieces intelligence, signals intelligence, intercepted communications, human intelligence. fortunately in our foreign partners do spies around the world. up tick inbe some chatter about this kind of use of explosives and electronic devices. host: you mentioned the focus on alasari, is there any new threats emerging from the concernstate and the over isis in recent months? guest: i'm glad you asked about that. the last roughly three or

four years or so the primary concern i think it's fair to say the intelligence security community has been about al-qaida in the arabian said.ula, as i but now with the implosion in war, largecivil swath of syria ungoverned now run byentially being terrorists networks that are affiliated in one way or another with al-qaida or sympathetic to al-qaida. and now with the reversion of perfect storm. there is no border essentially in iraq and syria. has become ground zero a training ground, for terrorists and potential theorists from all around world. i might add that i and others are particularly concerned about gone tors who have syria and to iraq to learn bomb other terrorques, techniques, to train with relativism piewnity. if you have a western passport, european passport, american passport, it's much easier to travel into the united states and other parts of the west.

so this is great concerns. there are no doubt lots being all over the world now thanks to that training ground syria.n the middle of host: what do we know about their interests in carrying out an attack on u.s. soil or u.s. planes? guest: no less than homeland security secretary johnson said earlier this year at an event co-sponsored by the aspen institute and the wilson center syria, talking about syria at the time, iraq had yet to implode again. security irkmeland yew i think -- issue. i think the judgment since that winter, has only hardened in that regard. johnson. mentioned jay here's jay johnson from this past week on nbc's "meet the these newking about security concerns and the beingr security measures instituted in airports. is to try to anticipate the next attack not simply react to the last one.

so we continually evaluate the world situation. we know that there remains a terrorist threat to the united states. a large security is part of that. so this past week i directed aviationtep up our security. at some last point departure the unitedming into states. this is not something to over speculate about about. it's something we felt was necessary. we do this from time to time. it down from time to time. >> what bin side the country, domestic flights? time to ratchet up those as well? >> we continually evaluate things. the screening we have right now domestically from one domestic other is pretty robust as the american traveling public knows. instance we felt that it up important to crank it some at the last point of departure airports. will and we'll continually situation.e

>> adequately safeguarded in your judgment as best we can al-qaida or an isis threat that has developed domestically? the believe we've taken appropriate measures to deal with the existing situation and not unnecessarily burden the traveling public. host: we're talking about these threats and stepped up security measures with clark kent ervin, the former dhs inspector general, now the executive director of the aspen security's homeland program, here to take questions and comments. especially interested in hearing from any viewers who might have experienced these stepped up security measures in the past week. go to the call from monroe, louisiana, on our line democrats. wilber, good morning. caller: good morning. you is how to theseormed peoples are days. when i listen to them -- i all the time,an

fox news, all the news corporations. are misinformed. they talk about the southern border. into canada if you want to and get your canoe or paddlesomething and just right across. have no -- rightacross. they have no guards on the .order like the guy that came on before and said al-qaida was coming border.he southern flying back -- they catching so many people they can't handle them all really. news in this country don't tell the american public that. they want to do everything against the bad.dent, make him look .t's really outrageous like the person that you had on before. in herea question

somewhere. the person you had on before hobby lobby, you know, what i mean, was forced to true.eople -- that's not the insurance company was providing it for the people. host: we've moved on from the hobby lobby case. wilber seems to share some of your concern about the northern border. guest: i think that's a legitimate point. of course there's much more to border.on the southern we have a crisis. i'm hopeful that the administration and the congress basis can work together i think this present crisis underscores the need for immigratione reform. i'm worried about the relative paid to theension northern bored eastern the potential for terrorists to well.t that bored as -- border as well. host: have you looked into the emergency supplemental request by the president? from are the security perspective, the expertise that come from, what is it going to do if it gets passed by congress for the southern

border? guest: it certainly would increase the security technology deployed at the border. that means more drones, more cameras, more sensors. it would also provide for an increase in border patrol personnel. mant's that combination of power and technology that is the key to further securing the border. in all of this, as i said earlier, is the degree to which we really have made that regard already in terms of deploying man power and technology. andrews,, waiting at north carolina, on our line for independents. good morning. .aller: good morning the security on that southern border, they already -- they know that middle eastern terrorists groups are coming border.hat and now that they've got of radio active material, if they was to set at an airport or big

disaster.ould be a host: tell me where you're getting your information from on threats and what terrorists have. fox news.was watching sean hannity had the governor sheriff, border patrol on. thesee people are dying, kids coming up here, finding them along the train tracks, s.nding them in the desert what they need to do is teal that border.- seal let mexico deal with them. they're letting them across their border. shut our border down and let mexico take care of them. as far as these people saying we the workers, we got plenty prison that would be glad to work on these farms. take the non-violent workers, good. them they would be glad to have those jobs working on those farms.

host: another caller with concerns about the threat of radical islamic terrorists coming across the southern border. guest: i think we've discussed that. one thing the caller mentioned i would like to underscore is have been recent reports that isis, the al-qaida in iraq and syria now, does have access to radio active in itsl that iraq had doors. that's apparently been confirmed. if that's true, that is hugely concerning, of course. it is the fear of precisely that bushprecipitated the administration's invasion of iraq some years ago. so if, in if fact, terrorists have now obtained access to at ukrainian low level uranian material,t - raid radio active material, that a concern. host: fort wayne, indiana, on the line for independents. morning. caller: yes. i'd like to take the answer from guest once i hang up.

but this is all smoke and mirrors. haveed to be you had to i.d., a valid i.d., to get on an airplane. likeou got states california and a lot of states just giving illegal -- they know who they're giving givings licenses to, them valid i.d. where they can planes. so it's all smoke and mirrors. there's no question but that there's been a real licenses,ke driver's which are the primary form of identification, more secure as time has gone by. this law, real i.d., passed some years ago, that has money dated states by federal government to make their driver's licenses more secure. that said, there's been a lot of

pushback over the years from states in terms of costs, the whole notion being an they will notion of federal mandate. so time and again there has been the federalwed by government, by the department of homeland security, for states. do what seems to me what we can do to make identification as secure as it can be. great biometric advances. i have think those should be used to the maximum to make sure we know as much about the traveling public as we can. host: the caller talking about there.eats that are out with these increases in airport security that occasionally at all are you concerned about a cry wolf scenario, about securityt taking these threats, these alerts, seriously? guest: it's a very good question, yes. i think secretary johnson alluded to that in the comments now.you played just that is always a problem, always a concern for security professionals. a you call attention to security threat, if there's intelligence indicating that there is a particular threat to be concerned about and you call

to it and yet the threat doesn't appear to materialize because there is no or no obvious manifested attempted attack, then have you wolf? on the other hand, also as the secretary said, it is incumbent government officials to call the public's attention to these threats when they arise to assure the public that government is doing everything possible to secure us and yet to so in a way that's carefully calibrated so as to make sure people have -- do attention to the issue but are not unduly it.med by strike a balance between complacency and hysteria? we walked between the two 9/11.es since host: what would be your recommendation to a jeh johnson always air on sort of the side of caution here? guest: absolutely. secretary johnson and other security professionals in a few days about 10 days or

so, at the aspen security forum that i run in aspen. that is precisely my advice. i think it will be the collective advice of those who assembled there. as he said, we've got to keep ever vigilant. i think onendency part of every nation but especially for whatever reason on the part of the american the last war, to be very, very prepared for the incident.cular but because terrorists are so anptive and because this is a is i metric threat -- threat, we continually assess. i think the department of homeland security and other doingment officials are just that. host: for folks who want to find out more about the aspen can theyforum, where go? guest: www.aspensecurityforum.og lists our speakers, the schedule, the journalists who will be moderating the sessions. great three days for those concerned about the security of united states in the world.

a headliner.nson who else? guest: we have a big contention d.o.d.might imagine from we'll have the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, general dempsey, we'll have the army of staff, we'll have the naval chief of operations. also have the president obama's white house homeland security and counterterrorism advisor, just to maim a few. -- name a few. host: about 20 minutes left with former dhs inspector general and works at the aspen institute. nathan is next in south field of, michigan, on our line for democrats. morning. caller: good morning. i just heard something about -- wept to war when -- when bush went to war, we went to find this materia materiel thats know, the mass destruction weapons. now, you know, we didn't find any. now we found some, isis found some materiel. understand.

is it possible you could explain findingw they're materiel now when they conned before? -- couldn't before? good question, actually. all i can say is iraq is a large country. course,re efforts, of to hide whatever materiels there husseinve been by the government. there were always suspicions on americanof the government, the british government, others of our intelligence partners that there caches.ll be some and apparently sure enough some have been found. scenario the nightmare is apparently they've gotten into the terrorists' hands. i'm very, very concerned about that.tential for host: nnamdi is in washington, d.c. calling on our line for independents. good morning. .aller: hello host: go ahead. caller: i was listening, regards to the border issue i think now we're .alking about security issues

then conflicting foreign policy spend tours -- expenditures with domestic and so for, ofvices for the list vulnerable in society. called thatone talked about -- because i think and the right are open to what is going on in the southern border. as an immigrant to the united states, my advice to the people the left is and that we need to find out -- you the to be concerned about foreign policies of the united states. when you talk about the in centraloing on america, in honduras there was a president in honduras and the united states supported a policy kicked him out of power while he was trying to make people.etter for his so if you're not concerned about theforeign policies of

american government and the corporations in the united states that go around causing in different countries and different continents, then, you know, you shouldn't be surprised when the ramifications comes in the unitedyou states here. thank you. have ai don't really comment about that. host: a question on twitter. to increase it cost security in these overseas airports? sort ofen these emergency measures are taking place, where in the budget is found?ney guest: we don't have a precise figure for what this has cost foreign airports. in terms of where in the budget measuresnd, these are that are required by the american government as a travelers to these enter the united states, conditions that are imposed upon airports. so those costs are ones that are born by foreign airports,

privategovernments, the sector in the countries at issue in europe and middle east and africa. necessarily an american security expenditure. this a question about yemenees bomb maker, this master been called. he's where he did come from? training?is how does one become a master bomb maker? guest: right. well, he has been connected over the years to bin laden. so he's really part of the core of al-qaida from the very beginning. it's very interesting. very, very a sophisticated organization. anys the case in sophisticated organization, it's compartmented, meaning there are skillswho have different and different responsibilities. and he is at the top of a cad it of bombunderstand makers who over time have evolved techniques designed to evade aviation security in the united states and around the world. mentioned, he has, we are

told through intelligence sources, trained a number of the world tound ensure that if he is killed, and he probably will be given how he's in the cross hairs of security professionals, that his others.n be taken by host: and those others are they otherp or in organizations around the world? guest: certainly others are in whichthe organization of he's been aif tillated over time. but as syria evolved in the chaos, iraq, as the rest the world it seems, all of this seems to be a perfect storm the world, no doubt he has trained others, he and his accolades, trained others in sirria, iraq -- syria, iraq, elsewhere. host: are we talking dozens, hundreds? guest: it's tough to say. my sense would be i think it's orr to say more like dozens so. one person who really knows what he's doing can do a lot of damage. 300 people killed, which is about the number that would have

that detroitn underwear bomber christmas day huge make a huge, statement and would rivet america's attention and the world's attention for months to come. at the end of the day, really, we need to underscore that. terrorists -- of course, they want to kill as many people as possible and asury as many people possible. but they want to terrorize everybody else, to have everyone by fear.lyzed you don't have to kill that many have an outsized psychological impact. terrorism.goal of host: clark kent ervin, former dhs inspector general about the stepped up security procedures at overseas airports. can we say how many airports we're talking about here seeing screenings?dded up guest: between a dozen and 15 or so in europe, middle east, africa. administration understandably i think has not identified which ones those are. thei think we can infer it, major ones, london, certainly, majori would assume, the

middle east ones, riyadh, for example. those regions. we can infer certain countries we know. host: and the real concern right now is the phones being used as bomb delivery. guest: that's right, that they might be hollowed out. that's why the requirement has imposed that you have to power up the phone to proffer that it's operational -- prove and nots operational just a hollow device. unless you prove that, if it have't power up, then you to leave the device and you're subjected to further questioning intensive screening. you might well be prevented from boarding that plane. host: we'd love to hear from viewers who may have experienced stepped up screenings in the past week or. so lamb yar on the line for lamar on the-- line for democrats in balm will balm, maryland. caller: hello. this is any first time calling in. long-time listener.

i'm a graduate student up here at the university of baltimore. is, there were some reasons why the public schools were segregated and that people strongly against the segregation, keeping the public segregated, back in 1954 brown v. resulted in board. is there a nexus between that and the ideology between the today?tion reform host: immigration reform not subject. our but if it's something you want to take up. guest: i don't see a parallel, i say.to host: to ben waiting in new york on our line for independents. morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. you're on "washington journal." had a couple -- i of things to say. the person that said that going canada, you could drag a log across the border, it was a bit disturbing because you can't. you really can't cross the at all withouta

having serious border patrol there. the other question i really had homeland security, to mr. clark, how many liberties do you feel that people need is ok for before it people to feel all right? guest: i think i understand the second question. . think it's a good one where should the balance be struck between security and liberty? we american people have been dealing with that since 9/11 and i think will be for a long, long time to come. i think the answer varies from person to person. depends. we americans have traditionally had had a very, very expansive notion of privacy and liberty. rightly. country was -- it was at the heart of our founding. to me we have an

unprecedented threat in this country. terrorists are absolutely determined to pull off another 9/11. so the american people have a choice. a 100%s no such thing as with 100%onsistent liberty. we've got to strike that balance. i think the bush administration, administration have generally speaking struck the given thence intensity of the threat that we face. i think if there's any good news come out of the recent spade of threats that we're talking today, it's that it has rivetted certainly our ,overnment's attention again the congress' attention again at the time when there's just toxic shship, and the american people's attention. three yearstwo, approximately or so i think we have begun to lessen our focus on terrorism.d people were beginning to think that terrorism reverted to a or third order of

concern. even as recently as about a year a commencement address the president gave at one of the military academies he onentially said that the war terrorism is like any other war in that it will end at some point. notable that at the summerement address this the president said the number one threat to the united states remains terrorism. the case thats the war so-called, on terrorism will end at some point but it's very, very clear now if there was any doubt beforehand that it won't end anytime soon and that boththerefore incumbent on the government and the american people to be vigilant. and the american people's part seems to me, the government's role is to secure us. there's very little an individual person can do about aside from being vigilant himself or herself. but american people's part it to me is to strike that bargain so that they're willing andive up some liberties privacy so that the government with due oversight from the inspectorsith

general, with the media, can do what it needs to do to keep us possible. georgia, forvans, democrats. good morning, josephine. caller: good morning. my first time calling. so please bear with me. hello? host: we are hearing you. go ahead. caller: all right. calming about the dirty bomb or whatever that they found in iraq. host: ok. caller: yes. mr. ervin was saying that he it, but it wasut found in the university of iraq. wasn't it? guest: yes. i think that's right. caller: so why didn't he tell the truth? host: truth about what, josephine? caller: about where they found it. said he didn't know where it was found. host: mr. ervin, if you want to explain what we know at this that issue.

guest: i don't think i said that i didn't know where it was found. i said it was in iraq. specify where. but my understanding is found it was found in a university there. i don't think we know exactly what the quantity was, what the circumstances were under which found. but as i said, there's been concern for a long, long time. that's what precipitated the invasion of iraq, that there weapons --arlz for materiels for weapons of mass destruction in iraq. host: do we know anything about actively materiel it is? guest: i find that hard to believe that we would have brought radio active materiel with us to iraq and if so we it behind. i think it's far more likely that these are residual materiels left over from the saddam hussein government. host: new jersey is next, lorraine on the line for republicans. morning. caller: good morning. i would like to make a few comments. terrorist goes,

totally.a mistake why don't we seal the borders? do, sealat we need to the borders. have a moratorium on immigration for a couple of years. nothing., no until we get everything straight. and terrorism if we would stay business, wene's wouldn't have to worry about terrorism. but the government keeps talking about it. worry about it. in the meantime, these bleeding howts for these immigrants, about bleeding hearts for the citizens of this it country? we bailed out banks, people lost their homes, people are out of work. it's a disgrace. now we're talking about terrorism. seal the borders. -- seal the borders. no immigration for a couple of years. straighten out things in america. never mind this scare tactics of to worryat we have about everything. seal the borders and do the job is supposed toss do. host: mr. ervin, something you to? to respond

guest: there is a focus on immigration this morning, isn't there? that's understandable. think theid, the i ultimate solution here is comprehensive immigration reform. the senate passed a bill on a bipartisan basis. up.house has yet to take it there are republicans and democrats who are supportive of this measure. really hope it happens because i think that's the ultimate solution. the notion of sealing the border, there is this fantasy that we can have 100% security the border, that we can prevent people from coming in. we just can't do that. it's a huge, huge border. what has to be stressed is the great strides that have been made again by both the bush the obamation and administration to greatly increase the personnel and the deployed on the border to minimize the flow to the maximum extent. i think the present crisis we're seeing as less to do with the lack of personnel and lack of technology and more to do with signals that have gotten sent to thato and central america

if you get into the united states, you are likely to stay. i think it's been a miscommunication a communication problem, miscommunication issue more than a security issue, frankly. the finalhing on point. if it we stayed out of other terrorism business, would go away. i don't think it's as simple as that. toon't think we can afford ignore terrorism. this is a very serious threat, time.th us for a long we're going to have to give full attention to it. host: a few minutes left with kent ervin. jacksonville beach, florida, on line for independents. good morning, gene. caller: how are you doing? i was just referring to the last the lady from new jersey about shoring up our borders. i'm a former military veteran. used to have temporary assigned duty where when you go you know,ty station, they put you somewhere temporarily. what i was suggesting was why the department of defense use our military resources, and

have them on a cycling basis borders,y shore up the all five branches of the military, and stop all of these cartels and shore up our borders against the immigration? on that?ur opinion guest: the answer to that is we prevents the that military from engaging in civilian law enforcement activity. the lines are, seems to me, rightly drawn and distinct the military can do and what law enforcement personnel can do. so securing the border to the be done is a job for the department of homeland security to do and for local do.ce officials to we need to support that effort with, a say, comprehensive furtherion reform and appropriations. so i hope that at least some $3.7 billion,s not wedded to that particular figure and i'm sure the administration is not either, of that version emergency appropriation is approved by the congress and signed into law by the president.

colorado.o, bill on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: yeah. this bill. host: do you have a question or kent ervin?clark caller: yeah. concerning the kids and the people on the southern border. could our federal government nafta and all of those organizations that deal with until they take care of people coming across on their southern border, we will not deal with him until it is of?n care host: you sort of laid out your on immigration. if there's anything you want to add to his question. iest: i guess the only thing would add -- we haven't really talked about this yet. part of the equation, also, it that it'se, is important to ensure that they're extent we can with mexico, with central american nations from wednesday coming -- whence the

flow is coming so people don't our country.ter i don't think generally speaking people do that voluntary. they do it because of the wheree of opportunity they come from. host: and in our last couple of minutes that we have here, we've about increased security at airports. what advice would you give to travelers as we're seeing some of these enhanced security effect? going into guest: two things. first of all, be vigilant. be on the lookout for suspicious activities, suspicious people, suspicious devices. something, say something campaign that former secretary of homeland security napolitano started should be taken seriously. i think it's been a very, very good program that's increased vigilance. the second is be patient. understand that security professionals, t.s.a. in huge, huge job a to do. so, of course, it can be a halesle to wait in a long line, especially in these summer months when travel is up. public, theeling

civilian public of which i'm now a part, have to do our role, as i said before, in working with government to make us as secure as possible. so those, it seems to me, are the two things the traveling and should do. >> what should the department of homeland security be doing as implementing these measures to make it be as guest: customer service principles need to be at the heart of what the department of homeland security and tsa does. tsa is the face of homeland security, and really the face of the government for a lot of people. they need to go out-of-the-way to be courteous and professional in dealing with a public that is not always reciprocal in that regard. secondly, as secretary johnson said, they have to revolve, adapt, and make sure terrorism is on top of the american people's radar screen without scaring the student.