legal protections and usually a great sacrifice to our security and to america's stature as a law-abiding nation. and whenever these issues, the people that want to go in that direction try to fan the flames of fear rather than trust. even though i think they are all kinds of evidence that responsible intelligence operations committees like ours actually strengthen the capacity of these agencies to defenders. they made it more possible that they would do their job well and efficiently. also this argument totally ignores the effect of limiting democracy upon the public process. if you just say we're going to

turn off the constitution for a while, it is not an innocent thing. you kill the whole public process. you prohibit debate this should be heard. performs at can follow. the right of the public to be heard on these great issues. i think it is a hard argument to make a but i am confident that what we did and how we tried to do it in the spirit of what we did is the best way of protecting our country. >> rick and pat. >> it is great to see the three of you together again. i can't believe it has been 40 years. i would like to ask two questions. one of the cia and one of the fbi. on the cia post 911 i read a report in the "washington post" saying the cia has become a highly efficient killing machine.

this goes to the question of the use of drones. we know that is something we did not have to deal with because drones and hellfire missiles want them. this is something that is of concern for a number of reasons including whether or not they use of drones for basically targeted assassinations is bumping up against executive order. i think the administration says that enemy combatants is the way they are allowed to get around the assassination prohibition. but there are real questions about whether or not the cia has evolved from the central intelligence agency to a central action agency and is losing its central function of collecting intelligence to inform decision-making. pres. obama and john brennan have said that they think maybe this should be offloaded to the pentagon. my question is, are you concerned about this evolution?

do you believe that these kinds of actions which will certainly continue in the future should be military are cia. a quick question on the fbi's. they are looking for a new building. it will be either in virginia or maryland. my question is, is, is it now time to retire the name of j edgar hoover? >> bob morgan one of the takeovers name off. we decided to wait a while. >> it would be great. why should hoover's name be on the fbi? he was a great bureaucrat. he did so much on harm to this country, not just the people the by confusing presidents to believe that communists controlled the civil rights movement are the anti- vietnam war movement. his name should not be on the public building.

now that it is a new building it doesn't have quite the same looking like the soviet union. it is the choice not to put it on the building. >> the drones. the technology earlier it's been a a great change in the last 40 years, and that is one of the. there are those who think the use of drones is a sophisticated assassination. and if you look, if you think about the use of drones in the battlefield or in the battlefield now, it's not undefined place in the battle of

the bulge or the battlefields all over the place. it raises amazing moral questions, and we all know what those are in the sense of it is it better to take out a handful of people with the drone, not only the bad guy but his family as well and people who happened by the time were dropped from an wipe out all village? well, if well, if you put it to a vote most people said the former. can find the ancillary damage that you do take the human element out of it. hollywood has discovered this. stage plays about the kind of anonymous game player in some

vehicle in the desert in nevada killing somebody are somebody's in afghanistan. it is an audible i don't think we have developed -- after world war ii we the world created these conventions' on warfare and how to conduct warfare and repatriation. we more we more or less created rules of conducting civilized warfare. and now you almost have to go back and create knew international conventions to deal with these kinds of

questions. i'm not sure again from not only the law school graduate but we have come close to figuring out the moral dimension that drones and other things like drones represent. >> one thing, i think it should be transferred to the department of defense because the department of defense is more accountable to the congress for the appropriations process. the caa is a dark cloud out there somewhere and it is not responsive, not accountable, and i think that if it were moved to the defense department doesn't solve the problem, but if there

were chances of making it more accountable and responsible they are improved. >> the one question. >> after the church committee over to the executive branch and discovered as a civil servant the budget has never really been analyzed in a public way without revealing sources or methods. i don't think i don't think we need to know that we do need to no dollars and cents '. if we had a budgetary process those truly followed i would i would be interested on your own notion. one last question, what do you think of his most recent article in the london literary magazine?

>> how you felt. >> i read it twice. >> the other question was on the budget process. >> obviously yes. i don't know why we keep these so-called secrets about what these departments are spending. would we be better to do it in a responsible way where we could rely on the information we are getting? >> please thank vice president mondale and senator hart. [applause] >> that was a lot of fun. >> in a little more than one hour, the senate will gavilan to consider a way forward on expiring provisions of the patriot act, including authorization for the nsa's they

do commission program. senators could vote to extend the freedom act that extends the means by which the nsa read -- acquires phone data. it expires tonight at midnight. on the sunday talk shows, we heard from senators mike lee of utah and bernie sanders of vermont. here is what they had to say about the approaching deadline. senator lee: the question isn't whether we will get this passed but when. it will happen on wednesday or some time in between them. we are going to pass the freedom act which passed with a bipartisan super majority of 338 votes. this is a good day for the american people whose rights will be protected and whose

privacy interests -- interests will be protected. >> 72 hours, that would provide a window where their powers are extended, even a short window, considering the level of the threat from groups like isis would provide an opportunity, a danger will stop are you saying that there will be a time where these powers are suspended? senator lee: i think that would be unfortunate and unnecessary. i will point out that i tried to bring this up early last week because i recognize this clip was coming. we have known for four years that this was approaching and the american people are starting to demand more and that congress moves ahead of the game. the american people deserve better than this.

senator sanders: we have to be vigilant in fighting terrorism and protecting the american people but we have to do it in a way that protects the constitutional right of the american people and i'm very worried about the invasion of privacy rights we are seeing not only from the nsa and government, but from corporate america. we are losing our privacy rights and it is a huge issue. >> and the government is going to be asking corporations to keep this under the usa freedom act. you are comfortable with that? senator sanders: no, but the question is whether the nsa keeps it or its transferred to the phone companies who already keep records for an extended time. >> and as always, we will have live coverage of the senate at 4:00 eastern on our companion network, c-span2. for more on what could happen in the senate, we spoke with a national security reporter on "washington journal."

the senate today coming up later today with daniel palmetto. what to expect? guest: at 3:50 9 p.m., the white house said they will begin the process of winding down this program, venice able to -- the nsa data collection program. the government will no longer be sweeping up telephone records on millions of americans from telephone companies that they cann hold on a search by search bases once they decide that someone needs to be surveilled. that will be happening on the executive branch side. at 4:00 p.m., the senate comes in. they will have several different options. really, none of those options it sounds like, will be able to pass today. they could essentially and the

boat data collection -- bulk data collection, give me the executive more power. it is not clear that will have enough votes. other option would be a one or two week extension to give them more time to debate this. rand paul, the republican from kentucky, who is also a presidential candidate, says that he will block all of these efforts, or at least to expedite the efforts, and that makes a almost impossible to have a deal by midnight. host: let's follow up on the fact that if you are telephone company and say, yes, we will collect the data. some companies may say we will not do that, and use it as a marketing tool to get more customers. guest: absolutely. no company has said that right now. we're talking the major telecommunications companies. you could have a new company or

existing company do that. we have seen internet companies do that, and even apple or other mobile devices say that. that is a real attraction for people. not just terrorists, but a lot of americans do not want the government looking at their communications and information. host: we talked about how one senator can really come up the work -- for those were not familiar with the minutia of senate parliamentarian procedure, what power does senator rand paul have today? guest: essentially the majority leader, mitch mcconnell, will need unanimous consent from all 100 senators to expedite the debate. if they want to speed up the process tonight, he will need the unanimous consent of all 100 members. senator rand paul said yesterday that he would stop that effort. there will not be unanimous

consent. he will block anything no matter what they do. essentially, there is no way they can get a process from the starting line to the finish line without his consent. host: what happens after midnight? guest: there will probably be a lot of fingerprinting -- finger-pointing. they might have to go back to the drawing board. it depends. the white house may have to come up with some plan. the nsa may come up with a plan. the house will have to reevaluate what they have to do. the president, himself on friday raised the issue that if there is a terrorist attack, heaven for bid we don't have this. while rand paul may be on his own in the senate, a lot of americans identify with the course he is pursuing. quite frankly, this is the first time since the edward snowden leaks about the scope of power that the nsa has taken on, the

secretive nature of some of these surveillance programs that we have had a debate. obvious leaders of the 2016 element to him. if this is time to take his ted cruz stand, like he did on obamacare. we will see how this plays politically. i think he has nothing to lose, and perhaps everything to gain. host: the first president to digital -- presidential debate will be today on c-span 2 according to one journalist. guest: that's right. he will be attacked by republicans, and democrats will attack him as well, but i think a lot of them identify with his efforts to shut this down. host: we will walk through this hour, exactly what to expect in the senate today, and also what it means when the patriot act does expire. if you support the patriot act

(202) 748-8000. if you oppose it, (202) 748-8001 . as always, we will take your tweets, @cspanwj. [video clip] president obama: i thought this would be a good opportunity before we break for the weekend to remind everyone that on sunday at midnight, and whole bunch of authorities that we use in order to prevent terrorist attacks in this country expire. fortunately, the house of representatives was able to put forward a piece of legislation the usa freedom act, that received overwhelming bipartisan support. what it does is not only continue authorities that currently exist and are not

controversial, for example the capacity of the fbi or other law-enforcement agencies to use what is called a roving wiretap. if we know there is an individual where there is probable cause that they may be engaged in a terrorist attack, but they are switching cell phones weekend move from cell phone to cell phone. not a controversial provision. those authorities would be continued. what the usa freedom act also does is it reforms the bulk data collection program that has been a significant concern, and i promised we could reform over 1.5 years ago. we now have democrats and republicans in both the house and senate who think this is the right way to go. we have our law enforcement and national security teams, and civil liberties proponents and

africans, who say this is the right way to go. the only thing standing in the way is a handful of senators who are resisting these reforms despite law enforcement and the ic saying, let's go ahead and get this done. we only have a few days. the authorities expire on sunday at midnight. i do not want us to be in a situation where for a certain amount of time, those authorities go away, and suddenly we are dark. heaven for bid, we have a problem where we could have prevented a terrorist attack or apprehended someone who is engaged in dangerous activity but we do not do so, simply because of inaction in the senate. i have indicated to leader mcconnell and other senators, i

expect them to take action, and take action swiftly. that is what the american people deserve. this is not an issue in which we have to choose between security and civil liberties. this is an issue which we in fact have struck the right balance and shaved a piece of legislation that everybody can support. let's go ahead and get it done. host: the president's comments on friday. in response to that is from senator rand paul. "i do not do this to obstruct, i do it to build something better, more effective, more lasting and more convincing -- cognizant of who we are." is the deadline is not met, what happens? in terms of the patriot act and gathering information on potential terrorist, who may be using cell phones or other sources of information. guest: that is a great question. one of the problems, from the public point of view, it is not

a lot of transparency as to what the government does. they can obtain information. one of things that people data collection -- bulk data collection does is who we call and when we call them. they can kind of connect the dots. that bulk access to information will end at midnight. senator marco rubio that if we had had those powers before 9/11, it could have stopped the 9/11 terrorist attacks. we will never know if that was true. it is hard to put that much response of the on this program which is really supposed to comment other national security initiatives. there are a lot of people, and a lot of senate republicans, who believe that having these

programs is essential to having a robust national security program. host: certainly no shortage of comments on our twitter page. you can join in on the conversation at @cspanwj. this is ed who says that the freedom act -- patriot act took freedoms away from the people without asking if we supported it, big brother needs to back off. first, some background on what is the usa patriot act, of course, put in place after september 11.

let's get your phone calls. chris, san antonio, texas. you support the renewal of the pager asked, why? caller: because it is protection of our freedom. we need to protect our freedom and follow the presidents leave. it is not about civil right, it is about god's rights. guest: it is interesting. this is not a typical democrat-republican issue. especially on the usa freedom act, which i think both sides feel is a compromise. a lot of americans don't want the government sweeping up records on the phone calls, but

it allows the government to obtain information from the telephone companies. the big bright is whether the phone companies will retain the information. that sort of thing is not in the usa freedom act, which has been a sticking point. there is a lot of overlap between democrats and republicans on this, because i think they feel that if there is another terrorist attack, they will all be to blame. host: richard rogers says this, the government does not listen to phone conversations without it warrant, what is obtained with the patriot act are phone numbers. guest: that is right. if i call you, it will say that my number called you and the time. host: let's go to mobile alabama. you oppose the renewal of the patriot act, why is that? caller: because there is so much confusion about the full situation. it is not doing away with the patriot act. it is doing away with several

aspects of the patriot act. what thate government is doing -- people need to understand this. every phone call that we are making in america, including phone calls that we are making to c-span. if you mentioned words like "terrorism" or it "terrorist," that trigger something. in other words, we are not talking about the patriarchs, we are talking about the bull collection of every phone call that is made in america. the government is actually collecting -- if you call your mother, your sister, or your son in college and he might mention "we had some protests for terrorism." that is triggering something. host: we will get a response. guest: i don't think that essentially true.

i think the caller is getting some of these programs mixed up. with the page react, it is just the records of phone calls, who called who and for how long. there have been many conspiracy theories. several years ago, it would have been a conspiracy theory that the government was collecting data on all americans. that ended up to be true. host: another comment from another viewer who says that senator rand paul is a man on the margin, exercising leadership, and making a difference. this is from senator bernie sanders. history on the page react -- patriot act. in my view, that is a is out of control and operating in an unconstitutional manner. guest: rand paul's father never really had the numbers to get into the mainstream, but he was

on the debate stage and change the debate. with senator rand paul, you have a younger figure, little more charismatic, but he has the same kind of like to find personality on the campaign trail, that he gets a lot of people, especially young people excited. i think a lot of his opponents on the 2016 platform are stumped by how to counter his message. host: this tweet probably typifies how many people feel. it says, i am conflicted, we need the page react, but it can be easily abused. guest: exactly. i think no one knew before edward snowden's disclosures about these, and now wonder, how far has the government gone? host: if you're just tuning in or listening in on c-span radio, we're talking about the senate debate. it will get underway at 4:00 eastern time. joining us at the table is

debuted a little -- damien political from "wall street journal or." good morning. caller: top of the morning. i support it with two provisions. one, a poison pill is incorporated. if someone violates intentionally, they go to jail. if a public official does something unconstitutional, they lose their office. i would be happy to send my phone number to the nsa any day or night. i want to thank you for bringing up the subject because we -- i think my government bothers me right now. thank you. guest: obviously, september 11 is one of the most tragic events in american history. now that we are 14 years removed, i think a lot of people are second-guessing some of the responses. the fact is that there has not

been attack on the country anywhere near that scale since then. i think a lot of americans appreciate even though they may be aggravated by some of the security measures. i think a lot of americans will put up with more aggravation, in order for more protection. the question is where is that line? went has the government gone too far? we have had these lone wolf types of attacks, the boston marathon bombing, the shooting at fort hood. it is unclear if the page react would stop them or wouldn't stop them but the government is trying to make a difference. host: i want to get your reaction to "the chicago sun-times," a photo of dennis has to -- hastert. now he is facing federal charges

tied to his own sexual -- allegedly show misconduct, allegedly with a teenage boy. the accidental rise and shocking fall -- from "chicago tribune." guest: and unbelievable story tragic story. we obviously don't have all the details. if true, it seems that the former speaker lived with these secrets and ghosts for a long time during his tenure as speaker of house. we will have to see how the court process plays out. and unbelievable story. host: there is a related story from "the washington post," looking at the about of money that he made as a lobbyist, and in many cases, switching sides on issues just to make more money. guest: speaker of house is a big thing to have on your business

card. he was not a very public speaker, but carried an enormous amount of influence. he commanded huge bills for being former speaker of the house. it is not surprising how much he amassed. host: what does that tell you about the state of washington? guest: you know, money talks. i think a lot of americans are uncomfortable with washington and the campaign finance system because of the amount of money poured into it. when you see someone like speaker hastert, who was a very powerful figure, but not very public, a lot of people will question how the program works. host: another piece from "the washington post"." ron is joining us from virginia. good morning. caller: the caller who says they

are for our freedom, isn't that what the military is for? we have the best intelligence agencies in the world. i thought they were doing a fine job before the patriot act. guest: even intelligence agencies say they did not do a fine job stopping the 9/11 terrorist attack. this is needle in the haystack kind of attacks. they feel that they need all the powers under the constitution to stop these attacks. that is what the patriot act was supposed to do, but the question is has it been interpreted in a way -- and we saw an appeals court ruled that it has not -- and that some of these powers have gone too far. host: let's go back to the lone wolf provision. what security with that provide? guest: the white house said a few days ago that they have never use the provision, but they insist that they needed.

it would allow them to track lone wolves, people who do not have a direct connection to al qaeda or the islamic state. in other words, they are not part of the embryo group, but have taken some steps, that make it look like they are ready to commit an attack and i do it on their own. host: from twitter more like a dragnet then a targeted program. you can share your thoughts on twitter, @cspanwj. joe is next, you oppose, why? caller: damien, you mentioned a couple of things i want to talk about. you mentioned the boston marathon bombers. you also mention things that are illegal under the constitution. rand paul said it, and i agree this amounts to a general search warrant, which is illegal. here is the thing. i'm trying to figure out what

major threats, or what might be considered minor threats. let's go back to the boston marathon bombers. isn't it likely that they use a cell phone prior to that? and let's go to an event in texas. we know there is a known threat when she has one of these contests. there was nobody from the federal government there. there were local police only. there was no one from nsa, the fbi. it seems like there is something strange going on. when we have known there is a threat, and no one is responding from the federal government, how can we expect them to go on the phone records? i am not seeing it. steve, by the way, i'm looking forward to the 2000 and like seeing -- 2015 election on there. host: and we have more nonsense coming up. lindsey graham, rick perry.

of course, martin o'malley yesterday. no shortage. guest: i think something the white house has been tying itself up in knots -- saying look at me, if you can tell me these powers should be ecstatic, i will listen. the white house and nsa has been very careful to not provide too much information. they do not want the terrorists -- this is what they say -- they do not want the terrorists to know. it makes a lot of americans like joe skeptical that the government is really doing what they say they are doing. host: lindsey graham, the latest republican injury. we will have live coverage from his hometown in south carolina. that will take place at 10:30 eastern tomorrow on c-span. a tweet, the maid of data --

metadata is for after the fact. guest: that's right. they have to ask the federal intelligence surveillance court to approve the access on specific information. they have the records in the database to ensure that the records are not destroyed, but then they have to get court approval access to the information. i think the most recently -- most recent records that they released, they do not just get the records that they are looking for, but also the people who they are calling as well. there is a spider web affect. host: good morning. you support the patriot act why? caller: i do not support it as it is. i would like to make some comments here about us, the

american people. the underwear bomber was brought down by passengers on the plane. the shoe bomber was taken down by passengers on the plane. the person who went crazy with brought down by the patriot act. who brought the information about clinton and blumenthal? a hacker figure that out. even snowden was not even known on the inside that they were being hacked. this is a great span that we do not know anything about. they know all the information about the -- about us, and we know nothing about them. we cannot audit the fbi or see it -- nsa. even the boston bomber was found by an upstairs person, looking down at the boat.

it was not the cia or anybody else. it was the american people. guest: a lot of times with these e attacks, in retrospect, you can see intelligence misses. they should have found someone been listening on a phone call arrested someone -- the leader of the islamic state was held in a prison in iraq about 10 years ago. in retrospect, it is easy to say that there have been mistakes. what this caller may be overlooking is that it is really hard what these intelligence agencies have to do. they have to sort through all the chatter all the threats both domestic and foreign, to find potential threats. the boston bombing, in bridges by, you can see the radicalization of the older brother. that's a thing, we see a lot of people at some age become more

extreme. host: a graduate of boston college, earned his master's from the wrist in missouri. here is an example of what we could hear later today from senator majority leader, mitch mcconnell. [video clip] senator mcconnell: one more opportunity to act responsibly to not allow this program to expire. this is a high threat time, and we know what is going on overseas. we know what has been tried here at home. my colleagues, do we really want the law to expire? we have one week to discuss it. we will have one day to do it. we better be ready. to prevent the country from

being in danger by the total expiration of the program that we are all familiar with. host: of course that one day that the senate majority leader is talking about is today. guest: send a rand paul has been taking the stand, preventing this from speeding along, but this is also been a fund-raising bonanza for him. it will be really interesting to see how successful the fund-raising effort is. if you bring senator medicine out of money, i think it will send a signal to the other republicans running for 2016 that they need to reevaluate their support of some of these powers. if he does not bring in much money, it could marginalize him. host: nick has this, the loss of liberty is worse than the threat of terror. dodd is joining us, a burly from salinas, california.

caller: i have a number of reasons as to why i am opposed to the metadata collection of the patriot act. it assumes that everyone is a person of interest, which is unconstitutional in my mind. they are already suspecting you of a crime, that is why they are collecting the data. number two, even if you're not listening to a phone conversation, if you have a list of the numbers of people who you are calling, that is intensely personal information. that information can be damaging to your reputation, ruin careers . number three, with the information, if a partisan person in the government, like what the irs was doing to conservative groups, targeting them you can damage people's lives and careers with this information.

if you really believe that this metadata is kind of a lockbox that no one can access, then e explain to me why some low-level person like snowden could access these records. i think it's disastrous to give the government this much power over our personal lives. host: a quick question, do you trust your government jet will -- government? caller: i trust my government to do its basic function. i do not trust my government to run my life, tell me what to do, or to take all of my personal information and stick it in their pocket and say, it is safe here. guest: i think the points you raised are points shared by a lot of americans.

one of the counter arguments that we have heard from senator mcconnell, and other republicans who support these powers, is that the grocery store card on your keychain allows the grocery card to collect way more information about what you are buying. if you are sick, pregnant, if you don't eat or drink dairy. they collect way more information than the government based on your phone calls. that is a counterargument. but we only know about this program because of former nsa contractor, edward snowden. host: alexis, wilmington, north carolina. the morning. caller: good morning. i would like to say that when the page you first came out, i was opposed to it. i did not want the intrusion in my life like the last caller just said.

as many of the callers -- they did not understand that you did not actually here the conversations -- hear the conversations. now that i understand that they are clearly -- especially with isis, there is so much that we do not know. as much as we would like to see transparency, we have adversaries that are lethal. guest: she raises a point about the islamic state. they might be doing some terrible things in the middle east, but they are not a bunch of dummies. they are likely not using their phones in a way to do easy tickets for the government. one of the things we have heard from supporters of the program

and members of the intelligence committee is that the islamic state, al qaeda, and others have adjusted their behavior to avoid some of these programs that were exposed by edward snowden. it is unclear how this exact program, section 215 of the patriotic, interacts with the islamic state and terrorist groups, but the white house says that they must have some of these powers to prevent attacks. host: "cq weekly" puts it this way -- patriot games, a shift of laws, congress goes to a brink. jen wants to respond to your earlier point. guest: that is an awkward dynamic on the hill.

senator ted cruz got a tremendous amount of money and support when he was opposing the implementation of the affordable care act, which obviously led to the government shutdown. he was not doing it in quite the manner that senator rand paul is doing with the direct connection between the 2016 platform and the stand he will take later today on the hill. there will always be a connection between fund-raising and grandstanding. i guess it depends on what you see it as grandstanding or trying to protect the constitution. senator rand paul is making this part of his 2016 pitch. host: johnny said, i would trust the government if it trust me. some comments from frank church but first randy from ohio. caller: good morning and thank you for my call. i oppose, and i will tell you why. they have been sneaking in doing

things behind their back anyway, regardless if we approve or not. i will give you an example. start looking up. if it is supposed to be cloudy look at the sky being painted by these big jets up there. i got into looking at that. i found out that they filed for a patent in cloud seeding back in november 1966. they said they had been doing this for 20 years before they even filed for this patent. google "weather modification companies," and look all the companies in north america. it is unreal, the things going on behind our backs. i will tell you something else. if people start analyzing these new 9/11 or videos, i think they would have a different opinion as to who did what at that time. guest: all i can really say to the caller is there will always

be conspiracy theories about what is going on. some will be outlandish, and others will be very hard to believe. i think what editor and -- edward snowden did -- he affirmed for a lot of americans that there are things that push the envelope that we never thought would happen. a lot of americans think that these things are necessary to protect the country from an attack, but others think it is going to far. host: another viewer saying they're not holding of the law for political purposes, they are holding it up because it is a terrible law. tom from st. louis. good morning. caller: as a combat veteran, i would just like to say that this need for american staff transparency -- we are in a hostile world. you cannot have transparency and afford the american public the

protection that they demand. something has to give. it would be like requiring our police department to notify a drug group that we are coming to raid you next thursday at 5:00. no one in their right mind would think that is a good idea. the patriotic serves a purpose, you cannot always have transparency. you cannot afford our enemies are constitutional rights. guest: im from st. louis, i listened extra carefully. i think what other people feel with this book made a data -- bulk metadata program is does the government relating to be collecting the information? host: john riccitiello at my earlier question, do you trust your government?

he says, come on, there's nothing left patriotic than an american can do to trust the government. next up is tim. caller: hello. i know your time is precious. first of all, the plan for a new american century, which build out the patriot act before it was enacted, when bush and cheney were running back in the day. i incurred your younger listeners to read that. it talks about how the government needed a pearl harbor type of event to a strike the rights from people. to your other caller who said something -- i can't remember -- but, if you give up your freedom for security, you will have neither. i would just encourage your your

guest, with his left-wing attitude if security is so important, why do we have a border so poursousous? guest: one thing i will say is when it passed the patriarch some parts go on forever, but sections like section 250 expire. i think they did that because they knew these issues had to be a revisit. they knew these provisions were controversial, and a future congress would have to evaluate it. this is the kind of debate that they wanted the country to have when they passed the bill in 2001. quite frankly, this is the debate we are having now.

host: robert with this tweet, it seemed that the majority of callers today are against the act. guest: i look for a lot of frustration in majority leader and his colleagues. i will look for senator rand paul to maybe have his big moment. and possibly, to create a 2016 debate like we have not had yet, the fourth some of his counterparts on the 2016 platform. marco rubio, i expect to play a role. jeb bush will probably have to weigh in and offer a counter narrative. i think it will be about the room on the capital, but also about something much bigger. about what direction the country wants us to go in 14 years after 9/11. how much are they comfortable with and who should be the one to lead that?

shouldn't be someone like senator rand paul, who is not your most conventional washington politician, or should it be someone who has more experience like jeb bush or marco rubio. host: jeb bush will make an event today on cbs cost "face the nation," with a final program of bob schieffer. "face the nation" is one of the five programs that we carry sunday afternoons. you can check it out on xm channel 120. sitting at the table is damien paletta, talking about the senate, which will resume today at about 4:00 eastern time. mike is joining us from nonstory link -- mount sterling kentucky. caller: you were saying earlier

that if we would have had the patriot act before the 9/11 events happened, we could have prevented it. they had -- for what all we know now -- they had osama bin laden in their crosshairs several times, and they did not pull the trigger on him. i just want you to speak to how much the law has changed on how we pursue these terrorists -- how they go about taking them out. how the laws have changed so that we can pursue to kill them firsthand. guest: a really good question. like i mentioned earlier, the leader of the islamic state we had in prison in iraq. obviously, he is no longer in prison. he is one of the most influential and powerful geopolitical figures in the world. as we saw with bin laden, you

make a good point. they could have taken him out potentially before the september 11 attacks. obviously, president obama did authorize a program that took him out in 2011. i think there is more. they leaned forward a little more in terms of aggressiveness, as we saw with the drone attacks that were detailed a few weeks ago. sometimes some of these attacks can actually lead to tragic consequences. that is the trade-off that this a administration has been willing to make. you have to be more aggressive with some of these drone attacks and counter terrorism programs and except the consequences. host: back to the mechanics of what to expect today. the house has already passed its version of the usa freedom act. what are the options for the senate majority leader when he

tries to get a vote on this later this evening? guest: he will try to get another vote on the usa freedom act that passed the house. he only got 57 votes before. he needs 60 to pass this along. there might be three members who have disappointed -- decided to support, but even if he gets the three vote, senator rand paul may drag this on so that they don't get a vote until monday or tuesday. there may be a one or two day lapse and the program's steering senator mitch mcconnell can also try for a one week extension to have more time to debate, or a two week, or a one-month program. the house has not voted on this. they would have to come back to vote, which they will not duo tonight. host: that is what happened

before the memorial day recess. guest: exactly. it is virtually impossible, unless senator paul has a change of heart, which he said yesterday that he won't to get things past in the senate today. it is almost more impossible for deposit in the house, because they are not here. host: i want to get your reaction to this interview with senator frank church from august 1975. he was head of the senate committee looking at the collection of information. there was an event this past week in washington that included members of the committee. we cover that event on our website, c-span.org. here is what senator church told nbc in august 1975. [video clip] senator church: we need to

develop a capacity to know what potential enemies are doing. the united states government has perfected technological capability to monitor messages they go through the air. these messages are between ships at sea. they can be between units, military units and the sealed. -- in the field. we have a very sophisticated capability of intercepting messages, wherever they be in the airway. that is necessary and important to the united aids as we look abroad at the enemies or potential enemy. at the same time that capability at any time can be turned around on the american people. no american would have any privacy left, such as the capability to monitor everything telegrams conversations, it doesn't matter. there would be no place to hide

if this government ever became a tierney. if a dictator ever took charge in this country, the technological capacity that the intelligence community has given the government can enable it to impose total tyranny. there would be no way to fight back because the most careful efforts to combine together in resistance of the government, no part -- no matter how privately it is done, is in the reach of the government to know, such as the capability of this technology. why is this investigation important? i do not want to see this country ever go across the bridge. i know the capacity that is there to make tierney potable -- tyranny potable in

america. we must see to it that all operate under the law and with proper supervision so that we do not ever cross over that event. host: senator frank church in august of 1975. guest: he can make those comments in may 2 dozen 15. he could make those comment on the senate floor and they would resonate to the debate. what is interesting to that is that it shows the debate we are having today is not a new debate. it is a debate that this country has had continuously and in its history. especially with the church commission, they were examining some of the abuses of the central intelligence committee. a lot of reforms were made because of the work that he did. there is a lot more congressional oversight. i think the debate that they are having today, in which senator paul will try to bring up, did we go too far with the patriot act? he feels like we did.

some callers feeling we did as well. what does the new regime look like. what does the new surveillance world look like, and what apparatuses do we need to protect us from others. host:rino rino -- republicans in name only -- what the patriarch not because it has stopped terrorist attacks, but because it inches the government closer to absolute powers. harold from west virginia, good morning. caller: can you hear me? host: we sure can. caller: i was calling to say that i'm a democrat first and foremost, and i oppose it. i also agree with what i just saw from senator church. if the government is reaching

into everything in our lives and i have nothing to hide, but i don't want them to know who my doctor is, where my father as he is, and all the -- pharmacy is and all of this. guest: she raises a point ot that a lot of americans share they don't have anything to hide, but they still have a concern. i think senator paul has struck a chord with a lot of american saying that he will end this program. host: from twitter, it reminds me how much i liked frank church. thank you to nbc for the video. from rand paul, i believe we must fight terrorism and i believe we must stand strong against our enemies, but we do not need to give up who we are

to delete them -- defeat them. on sunday, i will force the expiration of the nsa illegal spy program. jerry is joining us from wisconsin. good morning to you. caller: good morning. good morning? host: go ahead. caller: i wanted to make a point here -- information. before the buildings came down wasn't there an fbi agent in minneapolis? host: that is a different topic. we will move on to joe in wisconsin. good morning. are you with us? we are getting some feedback on that. guest: with wisconsin, it will

be interesting to see what, scott walker, who is running for president, or expected to run for the republican nomination, how he will weigh in. so far, it has been a washington debate. you have senator marco rubio senator rand paul obviously both running for 2016. scott walker, he has not been directly involved in this debate. this will give him an area to explain some of his national security strategies, and identify one way or the other with an approach that he would take if he were president. we will be watching him very closely. host: this headline from "the des moines register" -- walker ahead by seven point. ben carson, jeb bush, and

huckabee follow in what is a tight republican pack. marco rubio is expected to rise. we would hear from him today in the senate. guest: it will be interesting with governor bush's ties. some people think they need to turn the page on him. scott walker will be there waiting for their endorsements. host: edward is joining us from liverpool, texas. good morning. caller: i just wanted to comment that people worry about people listening in on their conversations. this type of technology does not work in that fashion. it works in a fashion that i called you, so they know that i called you. if i'm talking about blowing stuff up -- it is not taking

care of everything all conversation, but looking forward certain words. people are getting worked up but when it comes to transparency, no one looks to the churches. the churches are not transparent at all. people never know what they are doing with their money. they say, we are making hospital, but when they go take their money overseas, that is what you have to worry about. guest: the surveillance programs are so confusing, i think a lot of americans mix them up. the caller is right. the specific program we are talking about is the bulk metadata collection. there is an aspect of this program, section 215, the expires tonight, and that is the

roving wiretap law, and that of action give the government the power to listen in on phone calls. this is specific terrorist among others who they are given court approval to monitor. they can monitor phone calls, but not in the bulk form. host: live coverage on a companion network, c-span 2. herb is joining us from north carolina. caller: i have been listening to your conversations. i will put it to you plane. you cannot stop what is common. the patriot act -- i don't care what you do. you can pass it, thrown away. the fact of the matter is that

the border has been wide open for a long time. he let the entity in here because you stop the surveillance on the ground. you cannot stop what is coming. you couldn't stop september 11, and you know about it. guest: there are over 300 million people in this country. there is a lot of debate about the southern border of this country. it is very hard to prevent terrorist attacks, especially from load was like the shooting we saw in fort hood. the boston bomb he was not a lone wolf, but lone wolves, plural. the question is what power should they have to try to prevent attacks, and we do these of up against our constitution. caller: i have a question.

i was calling about executive order 12 333 the president reagan put into effect when he was president. why do we even need the patriot act when the government is spying on our phone calls all the time? you mentioned earlier innot is supposed to be spying a terrorist, but it comes up with a lot of civilian calls. guest: by sweeping up the records of millions of americans, allows them to identify those they suspect of terrorism or violating some other law, to collect their telephone records for several years. they have information from 2012

as someone that they now identify as a potential terrorist. they will know that person was calling in 2013, 2014. they have this huge database of telephone calls, that it is controversial, the federal appeals court argued it was not even legal. they think by getting congressional provable, it gives them more leeway to conduct such surveillance. as you can tell, the majority of congress seems to feel like this program should end. the question is how do you replace it? do you just have it end and start from scratch or do you have something implemented within the next hundred 80 days so that they have some sort of mechanism to access information but maybe that does not go back as this currently does. host: the comments from reviewer

-- our viewer, saying that i don't know about you, but i will never trust the government that will lie to start a war of choice. our last call her now. caller: in 1972, i was on the program, and senator church was speaking. we were approved i richard bake makes it, not reagan to collect every bit of information that appeared on the face of the earth. bar none. a cane back -- i came back from that program and was assigned a radar operation. we set up one across the entire gulf coast where you could not comment over 25 feet off the

seat, we knew. the part about you could not a car and 11, that is full. there was a police officer shot at the eastern airlines, where they killed police officer and flew to cuba. nobody walked down the tarmac and got down on leg with a gun because there was a member of the air force standing in every gate. guest: those were interesting times in the early 70's. and the reason that the church commission was so valuable at the time, and continues to shape the way we do intelligence right now is because there was not

very much transparency in all in terms of what some of these intelligence agencies, specifically the cia at the time was doing. now that there is a bit more transparency some of it because of edward snowden, we are this debate about whether the agencies need to be redirected and how they collect information and how that impacts the constitution. host: we have spent the last hour walking through the senate debate today. for those who have just today let's do a recap. guest: the senate will do a debate today on this program about whether to pass a law that the house passed that would end the old telephone collection for the national security agency and replace it with the ability for the government to obtain on a case-by-case basis telephone records from telephone companies.

who you call, how long the conversation was. they would be able to collect that information on a case-by-case basis. senator rand paul has said he wants the nsa's telephone program to add, and he believes the only way to do that is to have the full program start0 over by expiry at midnight tonight. we will see on the house will -- bill that already passed, and then they will also tried to vote on extensions. the version you going to want to keep your eye on the most is senator paul. you're also would watch majority leader mitch mcconnell, and a majority of democrats to see how they maneuver.

a lot of excitement in the senate today. give a comfortable seat. host: how frustrated you think lawmakers are that they have to seven minutes the senate will gavel in to consider the patriot act. senators are confident that there are enough votes to advance the usa freedom act which passed out of the house earlier this month. that bill extends surveillance provisions but makes changes to how the nsa acquires phone data. if 60 senators were to vote in favor of the bill it would set of 30 hours of the debate.

authorize a nation expires tonight at midnight and you can watch the senate to live over on c-span two. the new congressional directory is a handy guide to the 100 14th congress with color photos of every senator and house member, plus bio and contact information. also district maps, i fold out of capitol hill, and a look at congressional committees, the president's cabinet, federal agencies and state governors. order your copy today. >> monday night on the communicators, public knowledge president and ceo and former fcc commissioner on the proposed merger between charter communications and time warner cable. >> mayor -- very few consumers

have more than one -- has more than one wire in the hope you wireless broadband providers are available to they cannot divide the video streaming at you get from your cable company or if you have a telephone delivered service. the question is where do you get more competition. it is coming over the very same wire. one of it is your tv package the other is your broadband service. a lot of content companies want to provide new package services. i think law enforcement is going to have to make sure that there is no one there benefit to cable through this consolidation. of them on lots of americans, particularly young americans have cut the wire. they don't have a telephone or

wire subscription. they are purely wireless. they get the broadband they want. they are quite broadband sophisticated. you have new companies coming online to compete with wireless broadband offerings. the idea that there is any sort of market power or monopoly power in this industry is very difficult to understand. >> monday night at 8:00 eastern on the communicators on c-span two. >> next, a look at over criminalize nation, specifically in communities of color. speakers include ronald davis, who heads community oriented policing services at the justice department and the founder of black lives matter.

this is about an hour and a half. >> i'm executive vice president of the external affairs here. thank you for joining us for our important conversation about criminal justice reform. we are so very proud to be hosting it with the national network. the united states is the world's leader in incarceration with two point 2 million people currently in the nation's jails and prisons. a 500% increase. of these trends have resulted in prison overcrowding and a rapidly expanding penal system, despite increasing evidence that large-scale incarceration is not the most effective means of

achieving public safety. while acknowledging the need to keeping our community safe, the impact of over criminalize nation and over incarceration resonates throughout our country, between 70 and 100 billion americans or as many as one in three have a criminal record. a criminal history carries lifelong barriers that can block a successful reentry and participation in our society. this has broad implications not only for the millions of individuals who are prevented from moving on with their lives and becoming productive citizens, but also for their families communities, and the national economy. today a criminal record serves as both a direct cause and consequence of their property -- of their poverty providing

public assistance, family reunification, and more. one recent study finds that our nation's poverty rate would have dropped by 20 percent from 1980 to 2,004 if not for mass incarceration and subsequent criminal records that hot people for years after they have paid their debt to society. in fact, a criminal record makes achieving economic security nearly impossible. the impact of mass incarceration on communities of color is particularly staggering and is a significant driver of racial inequality in the united states. people of color make up more than 60 percent of the population behind bars. recent events and in baltimore and other american cities highlighted many of the challenges facing our communities. high poverty, lack of opportunity, and rampant inequality. they have also shown a light on serious questions about police practices and the tensions between our community members