related concussions. david savage, a supreme court reporter, reviews the high court's upcoming cases. >> this is now a federal terrorism investigation, led by the ei. the reason for that is the investigation so far has developed indications of riley radicalization by the killers. ♪ host: that is fbi director james komi commenting on the situation in san bernardino. he mentioned that so far the couple has not been attached to any terrorism network. linked to terrorism, it would be the deadliest attack on u.s. soil since september 11,

two thousand one. we want to talk about the change in the nature of the investigation. the gag now looking at it as an act of terrorism. 1 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. for independents, (202) 745-8002 . on social media, you can post your thoughts at @cspanwj. at facebook, facebook.com/cspan. send us an e-mail on this topic as well at journal@c-span.org. here is how the major papers are taking a look at the announcement by the fbi yesterday. the "washington post" calls the shooting and active terrorism. journal" -- eet probe focuses on on terror. you will notice, on the front page of "the new york times" and

put an editorial on this topic, the first since 1920. president obama made comments on this topic. we will hear from that shortly. again, if you want to call and talk about the change in the investigation, (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 745-8002 for independents. the fbi changing the nature of the investigation, looking at it ofa possible act terrorism. it was president obama who used his weekly address to look at larger issues involved. here is a portion of his statement. [video clip] >> is entirely possible that radicalized to enact an act of terror. the eiffel and other terrorist groups are actively encouraging people around the world and in our country to

commit terrible acts of violence , often times as lone wolf actors. even as we work to prevent attacks, all of us -- government, law enforcement, communities need to work together to prevent people from falling victim to these hateful ideologies. more broadly, this trend reminds us of our obligation to do everything in our power to keep our communities safe. we know that the killers used assault weapons, weapons of war, to kill as many people as they could. itis a tragic reminder that is way too easy for dangerous people to get their hands on a gun. today, investigators are searching for answers. across our country, law enforcement officials are tireless, working around the clock, as always, to protect our communities. as president, my highest priority is the safety of our

people. this is work that must unite us all as americans, so we do everything in our power to protect our country. that is how we can honor all those lives lost in san bernardino. we are americans. we will uphold our values. we are strong and resilient, and will not be terrorized. host: the fbi looking at this as a possible act of terrorism. again, your thoughts on it. (202) 748-8001, republicans. (202) 748-8000, democrats. independents, (202) 745-8002. we will start off this morning with walt, republican line. the fbi declared it terrorism, president obama was on tv saying it wasn't. what i did find out was interesting. that they can't do

nothing to them. the other thing that was interesting, remember that kid wheneverlt the radio -- they stopped him in school, obama praised the kid and said it was a good trade because he was muslim. people were afraid to say anything because of him. i think the biggest danger to america right now is obama and loretta lynch, and the rest of these people. republicanstacking for praying -- that is unbelievable in this country. host: as far as the fbi investigation, were you surprised? caller: no. .hey knew they had pipe bombs they knew they had military style equipment and protection. that's the other thing, obama wants to take this off our

police. however lee supposed to handle people like this if they don't have the equipment? it does not surprise me. i looked at this yesterday, and , what het a minute, four, the boston marathon, and this guy. host: let's go next to rob, florida, republican line. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. you know, we should have never left iraq a couple of years ago. when isis started to rear its ugly head, we should have hit them hard back then. i want to preface that, as a democrat. i think we need to go back to iraq, and take care of business. host: what do you think of the announcement of a possible active terrorism? caller: i think that of course

it is. i think the democrats, bernie sanders included need to step up talk.game, and talk the that is the thing that donald trump really appears to talk and walk, but if you put a piece of chewing gum in his mouth, i'm afraid he will trip. the democrats need to step up and call this for what it is. not know why -- i don't understand why obama doesn't or republicans don't flat out say, outlaw machine guns. i saw a news piece that there is no regulation of bullets.

you do not have to be a licensed gun dealer to sell bullets, and you do not need to have a gun .icense to buy bullets the idea that you can go on one of these websites and by all of that thousands of rounds we do not have simple regulation. it is time we have simple regulation. no machine guns throughout the united states. host: got you. "then yourpiece in times" this morning, take a look at the presidential candidates, and how they are responding. offer moreeemed to muddled response, torn between their instinctive desire for tighter gun regulations, and the need to confront the threat of homegrown islamic terrorism. in sioux city, iowa, hillary clinton spoke of not more, but

the need to ferret out those on -- ho are ed therubio mock andcratic candidates president, saying, 48 hours still out there talking about gun control measures, as if somehow, terrorists care about what our gun laws are. , good morning,na republican line. you are next. caller: good morning. this is the mother of all crises that they don't want to let to go to waste. you notice, it was a terrorist acts, but the very first thing that happened was the "let's antrol the guns," it is not matter of controlling the guns,

but the second amendment. if you remember, loretta lynch made a speech -- a muslim activist group, i believe it was thursday night, talking about the hateful speech, and how we need to control that. when you say hateful speech, who decides that? the last caller talked about machine guns. they were not used. control no gun legislation, ideas, rules that are being suggested that would have anything to do with this. control,trol, and gun and violating the second amendment. it is not about terrorism. that is what they will use. if you notice, we now have the federal government, the controllinghe fbi this investigation. i might point out, we have yet femalethe picture of the half of the duo.

i am skeptical of it. i think it is a crisis that the president would use -- just like what was talked about eight years ago. .ost: that was john the female photo being released, attached to several stories. there is the photo from "the new york times," attached to the story that you can read online. jim in west virginia, democrats line. caller: good morning, pedro. i think it is a real serious thing. i think it will happen probably more often now. i am concerned about it. with i'm concerned republican callers calling in and saying that our president is a muslim and that we pulled out of iraq too soon. we should not have been in iraq to begin with.

that was george bush to put us there. host: what is the best way forward? caller: that is a good question, pedro. i'm not really sure what the best way forward is. one thing -- automatic weapons. i do not think people should own automatic weapons. that should be for the military, police officers. they are saying second amendment -- go back to muscat loaders. that is when they wrote it back then. host: there is a picture of the semi automatic weapons used in the shootings in "the wall street journal" this morning. the story talks about some of the gun laws, and how the shooters got around them. while saying that while california's laws are among some of the most cup located, for

instance, california law bans semi automatic guns with a state law allows semiautomatic automatic guns accessed with a hard mechanisms. all four guns were purchased legally, but alterations were made to two of the weapons, making them unlawful in california. it is a strong law, with a .eally easy workaround also, the story adds that california has the strictest background checks, going further than federal law, but there are ways to get around it. a person can lend a gun for as long as 30 days without running a background check, and transfers between family members are also exempt from background

requirements. your thoughts on this investigation. the fbi saying they are looking at it as an act of terrorism. maryland, this is james. caller: i'm not surprised that they are investigating it as an act of terrorism. just because of the simple fact that it seems like increasingly in america the definition of terrorism is when a brown person commits a crime. when the charleston shooting occurred, they did not call it terrorism. shooting,d parenthood they did not call it terrorism. i'm not trying to play the race card, but when a white person commits crimes, they do not call it terrorism. as far as the whole gun control debate, i think it is silly because of the simple fact that gun control, all that does is fromlaw-abiding citizens getting guns. criminals,errorists,

they are bad guys. by nature, they will have guns regardless. i think the whole disarming the ,eople makes it sitting ducks essentially. i think of people were able to be armed, they would respond better. i'm not trying to sound like an and ra advocate, by think the whole reason the second amendment exists is to protect people from day to day threats and from a tyrannical government. type of attacks, do you think they will happen again in the united states? they have been happening. i think, of course they will happen again. just me, as a citizen, as an individual, i think i should be responsible -- saying you do not have a gun because we have police is like saying you should not have a fire acting or sure because we have firemen.

it is a tool. i think people should be able to protect themselves. host: by the way, the fbi does have differing definitions of terrorism. if you go to the website, they provide a link of how that is defined. involves actsrism dangerous to human lives that violate federal or state law. intimidate or coerce a civilian population. it occurs primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the united states. again, you can find that at the fbi website. john is up next from pennsylvania. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. the reason i'm calling is because i am more concerned visas.the hb one b these are people that came in isas.gh v

there is another reason why i am concerned. there is now a huge investigation on someone who visasout more hb one b throughout the world. in turkey, turkey put him on the number one terrorist list. he resides and pennsylvania. the reason i bring this up is because the attorney that was hired was robert amsterdam. the investigation has to do with charter schools. stop visas altogether? is that what you are saying? caller: i'm not saying stop the visas. you have bad people and good people of all races. the problem is i think we are not doing as good of a job -- some people come in and they

become radical, or they are radical, and we not aware of the situation. host: let's hear from amy. caller: hello, thanks for taking my call. surprised that it was an act of terrorism. especially when i saw the picture of the phenyl shooter. shooter. first of all, she is not smiling. second of all, it looks like she is consumed with hate, i don't know what. it also concerns me that these people came into the country theiry, and obtained weapons legally. when they said that the lady was nursing her child -- i saw an interview with the sister. i think it was the lady shooter. leaving a babye

that i was nursing, and going off and killing people. there is something wrong with these people. the fact that they had all those bonds, ammunition, all that stuff in their house -- you do not just have all that stuff ready to go if you are going to go into your workplace because you are upset with them. it does not make any sense. i was not surprised at all when they said it was an act of terrorism. is amy and virginia. again, we will continue with calls. the fbi yesterday talking about looking at this shooting in san bernardino as an act of terrorism. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. .202) 745-8002 for independents we heard from the president, talking about this case earlier. the republicans also addressed this issue, specifically focusing on the fisa waiver

program, which allows some countries to have access. it was candice miller of michigan who spoke about this. here is a bit of her comments from this week. [video clip] topart of this program is make it easier for people from other family countries to come to the united states. you can come here for 90 days without a visa. that means you do not need to do an in person interview at a u.s. embassy. there are 38 participating countries, and all of them are good friends of america. countries like britain, france, germany, belgium. that being said, it is no secret that isis's recruiting people from many of these same countries. for instance, the suspected mastermind behind the attacks and paris was a citizen of belgium. the department of homeland security checked all these applicants-- via

against our database, but often we do not have all the information we need to identify all possible threats. a prime example. european authorities have been watching him for some time, but never alerted the united states. that is why i am working with my colleagues on a bill to strengthen the security of our program.er it would allow the department of homeland security to suspend the country's basis participation in the program. the bill would also disqualify anybody who has traveled to five or iraq in the last years from the dissipating in our program. from now on, they will have to get a visa and go through all the additional security steps that it requires. finally, the bill strengthens our counterterrorism efforts by

codifying the practice of collecting more biographical data. host: @cspanwj is our twitter handle. t.j. writing, the president wants to dismantle our citizens, and wants to bring refugees here. haveh king says, we do not a terrorism problem or mental health problem, we have a gun problem. we will hear from tony next. caller: good morning. i find it interesting the you try to define terrorism. do you have a definition from state terrorism? host: i was just reading off the fbi of how it is defined. caller: that is important, if you try to define state sponsored terrorism. we have a criminal element in our government.

most of the terrorist attacks are staged by the government. the u.s. government is the seller in armed america. -- in the world. every time somebody commits a crime, they start targeting responsible, law-abiding citizens. you have 20 million gun laws, and a criminal will not follow one. every time a criminal commits a crime, they target responsible law-abiding citizens. host: republican line, go ahead. hello? from your cave in, pennsylvania? to philip inxt

california. good morning. caller: good morning. i'm philip. i'm a vegan. .- i'm a veteran i was in morocco when the french there. i think we have opened the can ofworms with the violence the last 13 years in that part of the world. it is open. we will have violence in the street. i was in security and law enforcement. so, we've got it. host: what should we do next then? caller: what should we do next? ourselves, for one thing. we should also try to minimize what we are doing overseas. we are making enemies. enemies on top of enemies.

it is not going to stop. we have a whole different way of thinking. the whole different culture. we seem to be trying to make them americanized. we're not going to be able to do that. it is going to be one group after another resisting, unless they change their beliefs system. we are over there killing people. killing combatants, which are also killing women and children. we are also making enemies. these enemies are going to strike out. the one thing that is really important is when we went over there in the first place, it was a mistake. you realize how many people died of that mistake. we made a mistake. we had bad intelligence. host: since you come from a security background, what should we do here domestically? especially in light of what happened in san bernardino.

caller: it will be almost impossible to protect soft targets. the movie theater, the shopping center, the beach. once this can of worms is opened job tois an absolute big curtail it. you know what i mean? host: let's hear from earl. caller: good morning. i'm glad i'm following that gentleman. it coincides with what i'm saying. it is never going to stop. because of the hypocrisy -- when obama mentioned early in his career that they hold onto the bible and the gun in the other hand, they cried about how unjust that statement was. trust,"of "in god we they need to put "in gun we trust you."

i think i remember jesus saying that those who die by the sword -- live by the sword will die by the sword. i wonder if the same application applies to the palestinians, and if they had guns, the holocaust they are going through would not have occurred. the hypocrisy is amazing. host: two editorials to show you this morning. saying, that the eye director said-- the fbi director more than once that the investigation is in early stages, but he deserves support for speaking frankly about the evidence and dangers. president obama's failure to respond, or seemingly understand thishreat, has allowed

evil inspiration to spread as islamic state claims to be the vanguard of islamist history. that is "the wall street journal." if you go to the front page of "the gnu at times" this morning, they have something to have not had since the 1920's, and that is an editorial, looking at the incident in san bernardino, and talking about the gun laws attached to it.

host: again, the first editorial since about 1920, from "the new york times." tennessee, independent line, go ahead. caller: you started off with what i consider to be a false premise. you said that the 9/11 thing was the last act of terrorism by islam, or whatever. people, theormed jury is grossly still out as to whether 9/11 was an inside job, or an outside job. all of that being said, this thing going on right now is simply a grab for shutting down the second amendment. the guns that they showed -- the m-16, and 15, whatever, those

are used in a whole lot of hunting and sporting things. of course, it is not about hunting and sporting anyway. the second amendment is about the american people having the right to protect themselves from an internal or external threat. host: darrell up next from virginia, democrats led. -- line. caller: how are you doing? host: fine, you? caller: i think that some of the stuff going on could eat prevented-- could be with people sitting down. they say that you are not supposed to negotiate with terrorists, but don't you need is going on? i do not think more guns, or putting boots on the ground, or strapping bombs on people will really solve the problem. we killed them, and then they

kill us, and we are not prepared for it. read up next, sacramento, california. caller: how are you? thank you for taking my call. i just want to call and say that it does not have to do with the color of this again. that one caller said it is brown people doing it. it has to do with religion and ideas, and the ideology based on the religion. in saudi arabia, they are saying on the television that it is the 's salts, and blaming all the problems on the west. that is rather glazing people. they will keep coming over here and killing us. .here is no end to it guns do not kill people. the people who pulled the trigger are the ones who kill people. are we going to outlaw cars?

it is ridiculous. host: "the washington post" headline reads, fbi call shooting an act of terrorism. shows not only the investigation, but picture of the woman, released yesterday. you can see that in many of the major papers this morning. it was the fbi director who spoke yesterday morning on the investigation. here is more from yesterday. [video clip] >> again, it is only two days old -- so far, we have no indication that these killers are part of an organized larger .roup, or form part of a cell there is no indication that they are part of a network. i, it is early, we are working hard to understand. so far, we do not see such

indications. second, there is nothing in our holdings about these two killers. i have seen reporting where reports where they were in contact, at least one of the killers was in contact with people that were subject of the fbi investigation. not to make too much of that. there were no contacts between either the killers or the subjects of our investigations of such a significance that it raised these killers up. i would not want you to over index on that just yet. it is, as i said, just 48 hours old. there is much about this that does not make sense, even for those of us who do this for a living. that is why we have hundreds of people spending tremendous amounts of time as we say here, trying to understand the electronic record on these killers. ,ost: let's go to barry

republican line. say that would like to this is not a new problem. we had this problem before. we had the ku klux klan. they claimed to be a christian organization. nobody said, we cannot go after the klan, they are christians. watchedtrated them, their money, and destroyed them. they're not a problem anymore. for some reason, islam is treated like it is untouchable. northirving from carolina, republican line, talking about the fbi announcement yesterday. go ahead, please. caller: i cannot believe we are having this conversation. anybody that has any ounce of intelligence knows that it was an act of terror.

why has there been an increase of muslims coming here after 9/11? it is almost like, people are that it? that were that ignorant will let those bad guys in here? there was a story about a man who took up a rattlesnake, carried it to the bottom of the , and he, and bites him says, why did you bite me, he said, i am a rattlesnake. that is what is going on. we are letting rattlesnakes into our country. host: from virginia, this is deborah. caller: please do not cut me off. here is what i have to say. first of all, muslims have been here for decades. they are not just coming in here for that. be -- ent is going to

host: go ahead. , just give me a second. host: what did you think about yesterday's announcement by the fbi, looking at this as a possible act of terrorism? caller: first of all, any gun violence is terrorism, by anybody. black, white, red, or green. second of all, if you do not call christians terrorists, do not call the muslim terrorists. host: let's go to larry, texas. ialler: y'all are talking -- keep hearing everybody talk about radical islam. it is not radical islam, it is islam. host: the point? caller: they have a 1500 year history of this, going back to mohammed in mecca, when he

started killing other religions, and was driven out after 13 years of him announcing other religions. he came back, slaughtered people, and did there that the center of his religion, which is islam. it is not radical islam, it is islam. it is their history. that is what people need to understand. read the koran. there are lots of paragraphs are say, all nonbelievers rats.nd host: one of the story from yesterday is the opening of the townhouse with a couple that was suspected of the shooting incident lived. that home, quickly swarmed by

reporters saying, the suspect 21,ed 14 people, wounded and at a news conference, the ,bi had issued a search warrant and returned to it with the owner -- once they boarded up, anyone who goes into it, have nothing to do with us, said the director. there were photographs of an woman, and the kitchen left, as though someone was going to return. msnbc, digging through personal items. this is crazy, in a statement saying, we did have the first live shots from inside, we regret that we

briefly showed images of photographs and identification cards, that should not have been aired without review. that is from yesterday, the video you are watching. carolina.south caller: how are you doing? host: well. caller: first off, what is going on in the state of maryland? you live up there. thead people that invoke race card, and claim they do not want to. we had people that claim the government is responsible for all these events. it seems to me that every time you get a call from maryland, it is someone with a crazy agenda. beyond that, there are so many sides to this thing -- this thing. hear -- nn roof did here, wasn roof did

an active terrorism? yeah, it was. it is not just brown people. i think when we say the word terrorism, in the broad sense, we're talking more about this theme, and oriented islam, frankly, because people hate our way of life here from that part of the world. again, that is not to say that what roof did, or this lunatic centerhe abortion clinic killer did. it is not to downplay that, but when we say this word terrorism, as a general rule, you are speaking more about these people hate ouragain, they way of life and are trying to impact us in ways that they can't because we happen to have

a stronger military. host: let's hear from tom, michigan. caller: good morning, pedro. all, i think that from speaks know right now, quite clearly that this was an act of terrorism, when you have people who purchased firearms, so they werehem capable of holding more ammunition. california does have some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. tactical gear, things like that, large amounts of ammunition. they rented a vehicle so they could not be traced in their own vehicle.

i think it is pretty clear that this was an act of terrorism. it,ver, on the flip side of as a gentleman said earlier, as terrorism,ng islamic yes, these people may have been islamic, and i believe they were, however, there's also the issue of -- they mentioned those roof, who massacred nine people, and he was an american. terrorism is terrorism is terrorism. it.e is no face to there is no clear understanding of who it is. it is just a person out for a group of people who go out there -- you know,murder

unmentionable amounts of people. host: got you. we will take a few more calls on this topic, but first, want to let you know there is a re-air of our "landmark cases" series. we look at not only what happened historically, but the impact that the cases still have . you can watch a re-air of that entire program tonight at 9:00. this is looking at mapp versus .hio here is some of the program. [video clip] >> when we talk about what happened today, it ends up being a little bit sterile and removed. i think probably what would have been a very scary experience for

a single mother at home, in a house that is being laid siege police officers. when police officers first come, they yell at her politely that they need to come in. she says why, and they do not tell her. she could not leave, she could not exit her home at all. she is on the phone with her lawyer. her lawyer shows up, they do not let her lawyer in the house. as she is coming down the stairs, the police are breaking and her backdoor. when you think about what kind of an experience that must've and the this woman, bureau, a special bureau of the police force coming into the house, was notorious for policing very aggressively members of the black community. they routinely went into homes without warrants. they routinely engaged in

behavior that violated the fourth amendment, with regard to the population in cleveland. our website, c-span.org, for more information, not only about the show, but the "landmark cases" series. we will hear from elroy, arkansas. veteran,'m a retired under the bush and administration. suggest for the government to have all transparency within their weapons range, and transfers to .he civilian level obama should make an executive , for eachtransparency

individual company, selling to any people who have a vendetta with the government. we could put people in the communities, investigative -- toto her crew, and al recruit. i do not think you need a weapon at all, if you are going to ly.der someone innocent l all i would say is -- host: we will leave it there. thanks a lot. liz robbins writes in "the new york times" about syrian refugees coming to the united states, texas trying to keep them out. writing, a dozen of them found temporary respite in new york city, where bill de blasio d them with open arms.

thathe bu bill de blasio said new york will only be a temporary home for them. the state of texas, the story adding, sought to block the resettlement of refugees within its borders, suing the federal government over concerns about the security of the vetting process. the american civil liberties union and the justice department submitted opposition briefs on friday. canada's lives in florida, independent line. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. terrorism. when they change the subject to terrorism, is that supposed to give the family a better feeling of their loved one being murdered? i do not understand, why is it

call itrybody pushes to terrorism, or this, or that. it is murder. it is terrorism, does the family get a different sense of feeling from the government? host: maxine is from maryland. caller: good morning, pedro, and thank you for taking my call. i have a few comments on this terrorism. i understand why the fbi has certain levels of terrorism. i understand why they were reluctant to call it terrorism, even though we knew from the get go that it was terrorism. my problem is we know there are terrorists here in the united states. we know that. something we have never seen before. no one has ever seen before. a mother, nursing a child, goes and commits these acts. that is something i cannot get

my head around. my other concern is we do not have leadership that knows how .o combat this our president thinks this is a gun problem. this is not a gun problem. it is an ideology that once to totroy us -- wants destroy us. we do not have leaders that know how to combat it. i think our president has lost reality. con gun hell-bent on control, he does not understand what is in their minds. that is my basic concern. i think the president has lost touch with reality. host: again, if you want to find out how the fbi defines specifically, you can go to the fbi website. they have definitions from u.s. code on terrorism. we will tweet that out.

a couple more calls. martin from pennsylvania, democrats line. caller: good morning, pedro. . talked to you before it is concerning the world trade bombing. for over 15 years now, i am trying to bring a terrorist enemy combatant group, whatever, involved in the terrorism bombing. i can say this because i walked into a store right after the bombing occurred. i reported this to the fbi in philadelphia, secret service to theaster, i talked talked to brian back in 2001 in c-span. brian said, how do you know they were the individuals that you

saw were in the store? i gave a description. on,ge shirtgoing shir dirty sneakers, -- host: that saying what? years, no one has taken me serious. they were either a terrorist cell, or an enemy combatant cell. host: ok. james from wilmington, north carolina, you will be the last call. caller: how are you doing to g? host: well, thanks. go ahead. caller: we are too busy trying whoast the blame and find is to blame. we are our brothers keeper. we have the eyes and ears on the street. that is where solving this

problem will happen. we cannot put it on the obama administration. isis is an ideology. .t is a mindset we have to recognize it is the eyes and ears on the street that will solve this problem. we cannot say the fbi will solve it. the crimes that are actually ing now, even what happened in california, it will be solved in the street. people have to start putting their head in the sand, and have to begin to talk. bet: ok, you will have to the last call on this topic. we will discuss, in our next segment, take a look at the national security agency. you might remember that it was edward snowden, and others, that showed the collection of

metadata. that program saw some changes this week we will talk about not only the changes, but how it affects investigation into terrorist related activity with two guests, stewart baker, and neema singh guliani. of newdennis cardone york university will join us. first, we want to talk about our "newsmakers" program. our guest is bob goodlatte. during the interview, you can listen to have describe how congress is talking about the potential for eight harris -- a paris type attack in the u.s. [video clip] >> the house has been addressing this since before that. to build, one that passed two weeks ago, about the possibility of people using the refugee

system to enter the united states. now, our focus has shifted to , anvisa waiver program important program, used for legitimate purposes to do business, travel, or tourism purposes in the united states. that theem there is process by which you enter the country without a visa, by its very nature, constitutes less scrutiny. we have a bill that will be on , thatoor this coming week will deal with the issue of people who have traveled to iraq , syria, iran, or sudan, and have dual citizenship in any of those 38 countries. if you are both a french and , you would citizen not be able to enter the united states under the visa waiver program. you would have to apply for a

circumstances closer scrutiny can be given before you enter the united states. that the imagine judiciary committee, or congress generally, would consider supporting legislation specifically targeting gun violence, and how to prevent it from happening? >> i think there are a number of things that can be done. first of all, the mental health murphyat congressman tim , who himself is a psychologist, is gaining increasing respect and momentum. i am a cosponsor of that legislation. i hope we are able to move that thehe floor, passed out of energy and commerce subcommittee , and i hope it is taken up in the full committee as well. i am also working on legislation workplace violence

issues. employersre that when hire somebody, they have the most information possible so whether they have had a problem with violence, rage, or so on. >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us for conversation on the national security agency, and collection program, two guests. and stewartguliani, baker. to both of you, thank you for joining us this morning. have heard about this program, section 215, the collection of metadata. what does it include specifically? guest: the program collected metadata, that is to say, who you were calling, and who was calling you.

all of the calls into and out of the united states. database,t in the locked up the database, and said, the u.s. government can go into the database if they are theying a terrorist, and have a terrorist number, and want to see who is in touch with the terrorist. host: as far as the nature of the information that it took in -- did a deal with content, or was it more logistical? guest: it did not deal with content, but we have to remember, it is extremely revealing. metadata tells you a lot about someone's life. the program was extremely invasive. congress did the right thing by limiting it. host: since you both brought it up, the limits on it. what limits were placed on this program? look, wengress said, will have this program, but we will not allow it to be quite as broad a you cannot collect all

the records in america, or in a particular state. you can collect records if you bee a reason for it to collected. it's not completely eliminate the problem of the government collecting large amounts of information on innocent people. the original program was filled with protections. you can only go into the database if you had reasonable suspicion. there were only 20 people authorized to go in. the number of searches work 300-500 per year. this was not a dragnet program. there were a lot of protections on going in. what the changed program does is essentially say, the government cannot collect all of that and put it in one place. have to go to individual carriers and ask each of them to look through the records that they have collected and stored. .hat is what they are doing now

again, they have to have a reasonable suspicion with respect to terrorist numbers before the collect the information. it is it i have about is not anywhere near as fast, probably not as copperheads of -- as comprehensive, and if you look at san bernardino, we would have liked to have known smmediately who those terrorist were talking to, and have a theirassessment of connections. the old program would have done that. now, the data is locked away. host: can i ask, what was the justification for the broad collection of information? guest: if you are trying to quickly determine, who are these with, you in touch

need to be able to do the search of a be able to get it quickly, and that is the only way you will be able to control how you get that data. the phone companies keep it as long as they find it useful, which is certainly not as long as they might find it useful. host: if some incident happens and you have to get a wide scope of who is talking to whom and things of that nature. two important points -- the agency said that these would not enhance their intelligence capability, so we have no evidence that this would undermine their ability to investigate legitimate terrorists. the second point is this program has not proven to be effective. there were two independent boards that looked at the nationwide called metadata program, and what they concluded

as they never stopped an act of terrorism. aboute of the assertions whether limiting the program will actually have an impact on national security -- joining us, ifs you want to ask them questions about nature of collecting information and things associated with that, (202) 748-8001 for republicans, (202) 748-8000 for democrats, and independents, (202) 748-8002. you can also post on our website, on our facebook page at facebook.com/cspan, and on twitter @cspanwj. mr. baker, what do you think about what she said? i do not want to paraphrase. guest: it is fair to say it never stopped a plot that it was designed to stop, but it was designed to stop plots where careful reparation and recruiting and planning for an operation was carried out in a terrorist safe haven, and terrorists coordinated here and

quickly launched an attack, which was what happened in 9/11. the reason it never stopped a plot is that we wiped out those plots at the source by taking away the taliban and al qaeda safe haven. what is truly troubling as we are getting rid of this program just as there is a new safe iraq emerging in syria and , as we have seen in paris and now possibly in san bernardino, about people in that safe haven are planning and recruiting for attacks on the united states and the west, and we have deliberately blinded ourselves to carrying out a quick assessment of possible attacks, identifying possible attacks just when we need the program most. guliani, what do you say about that? guest: there is no purpose to

investigate people who were not associated with terrorism, and that is what a dead -- a collected a lot of information about people who the government did not need about. they have to go to the intelligence court and request information when they believe they need it. that is assistant to allow us to respond to emerging threats and emergencies. if the government needs information, they are able to get it in a timely fashion. host: the first call is from a hamas in milwaukee, wisconsin -- is from mohammed, from the milwaukee, wisconsin. the nsa was collecting this information from the past several years, and killers, bernardino especially the man, were in contact with other people who the fbi and department, security say were on a known terror watch

list, they were known to be in contact with them -- why was somebody like this, they were collecting all this credit card data, telephone data, why would someone with the oldest ammunition online using credit cards possibly, all the machine guns and everything, the department of homeland security and the fbi failed the united states and the public by not being able to control these people. what happened to all of the data that was collected on these guys? guest: let me address that first. the program that we are talking about today is designed to get people who are in touch with terror by phone outside the do notstates, and so we know -- at least i do not know from the report, whether the or ints were online encrypted form or whether they were actually phone calls. if they were phone calls, then they should have shown up, but

if the phone call occurred after that would be over, and it would have been very difficult for the fbi or nsa to identify those contacts and quickly determine whether there was a broader plot. that: i want to respond to fear it in a case like san bernardino, there are still a lot of facts that we do not know. been impossible for the fbi -- it would not have been impossible for the fbi to collect information. could have gone for an authorization. the idea that we have reason to believe someone will do something and commit a terrorist attack and the government has ample authority to get the information they need, including call records and other types of data. is dataain, our topic collection by the nsa. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8002 for independents. what happens to the information

that has already been collected? where does it reside now? guest: the database still exists, but it has been locked away. the government has asked for searches to run compare how effective the new program is compared to the old program. so far, they have not gotten that authority. in fact, i suspect the aclu is litigating to prevent that. host: is that true? guest: it is important to remember that a federal court ruled that this program was illegal. it went beyond what the law allowed. happen to is going to all of this information that was collected by the government illegally? it should be destroyed. the government did not have authorization to do what they were doing. host: and the house had legislative efforts to take hold of that information and allow the fbi, nsa, and others to gain access to it. guest: i think senator causes and senator cruz have requested

that. sooner rubio, i am sorry. host: is it easily interchangeable among those that need it? guest: yes. connie in oklahoma, republican line. you are on, go ahead. caller: i am? host: yes, go ahead, please. caller: ok, here i go. i hear him. we are going to put you on hold for a second. we will go to another call. if you do not mind turning your television downstairs we go to jimmy next, san antonio, texas, democrat line. hi. caller: yes, i was a member under an assay for over 40 years. i know what the program is like. i know it works. it is nothing better than getting raw data then you can work on immediately then waiting

three days or four days to find out what that data is. and ourct our sources means of gathering that information. the other important thing is tree,ith us, it is like a you know. you find out where the root is, and then from the root you lead frome trunk, and then the trunk to the branches, from the branches to the leaves. what this program change has done is prohibited the nsa from finding out a source and then tracing it up without going to private companies to ask for the information, which could be compromising in the information. guliani?. cooley o

guest: the reforms that were made still leave ample space for information and get it in an accelerated manner if there is an emergency. i think you will still have this ability to connect the roots and the trees. you will does have it in a way that does not result in mass surveillance that collects millions of americans' information, who have no connection to terrorism or terrorist activities? host: mr. baker? guest: i think that is like saying to someday, "we are pointed to a google away from you, but you can still go to the library and look up the information you need, and we are sure you will find it there." maybe so, but it will not be as fast or as effective, and it will put people at risk. host: connie, let's try her again. brock, oklahoma, republican line. go ahead. caller: what i was calling about is everybody in my community is

really upset about what the president and loretta lynch said today -- they just seem like they was more concerned with the andims being harassed everything than they was the american people, and i just don't understand that. host: ok, connie. we move on to matt in new jersey, independent line. you are on with our guests. caller: thank you, good morning. i believe the gentleman, mr. baker -- hello? host: you are on, go ahead. caller: yes, thank you theater good morning to her it i believe the gentleman, mr. baker, is correct in his points. however, the first response ability of a president is to protect the american people, and this president has failed miserably by his deliberate refusal to confront isis, and thank god the french, the

russians, the brits, and the germans are doing this. and one question for these good people here -- why is turkey allowed to support isis by buyinkgg their oil and letting terrorists go freely between syria and europe? last point, if i may, please -- obama's supporters -- the only thing they have left is to falsely accuse gun owners who want to protect their own families of causing problems like this. it is outrageous. host: that is matt in new jersey. mr. baker, if you want to pull from that, go ahead. guest: as i have said earlier, the way we stop terrorism plots for 10 years was like taking away the safe haven. now the safe haven is back. if we are going to concentrate on stopping all of these attacks

essentially in the end zone, we are going to have to be much more aggressive about pursuing the plots in the united states, and unfortunately, because of 10 years without serious attacks, congress felt it was free to start taking away those protections as well. i think that is a bad idea. guliani?. cooley o guest: it is possible to have our liberties in ways that still protect national security, and when you look at events of recent years, what we have seen a lot of them come in many cases, the individuals who were knownhese acts to police and were known to investigators. what that tells us is mass surveillance is not necessarily the solution. other methods allow governments to better connect the dots, better than they did in 9/11, and then potentially the case of the terrorist attacks. turnaroundis the

time usually from a request to a five the court by the nsa. ? guest: we do not know what the turnaround time is because the program has only been running for a week or so. as far as i know, there was not any live testing, so we are actually probably giving at work of sanht now as a result bernardino, but there is no information yet on how effective that program has been. we have statements from intelligence officials who look at these changes before they were passed and said that they -- not believe it would intelligence capabilities, and we have provisions through draft emergencies, so every expectation is that the program will operate just as effectively and efficiently. guest: that is the second time that she has said that, and i agree that that is true, but these are people who work for president obama, and president obama decided to accept this

legislation, and you would be a very fully tie-breaking intelligence -- high ranking intelligence official to say the president like this program, but i do not think it will work. they have little choice but to say, "we think we can make this work." guest: it is important to reforms were these result a result of a two-year debate in congress. factwere concerned by the that the program had passed and were very concerned that it was operated with very little information provided to the members ofsome congress. i do not think we can frame it as a push from one particular person. specific debate and included voices from across the political spectrum. host: from david in fayetteville, georgia. go ahead. you are on with our guest. republican line. caller: good morning, how are you doing? i am doing great. i wanted to ask a question -- why are we debating civil liberties when we are at war?

when we are at war, we should use every type of measure, and the government should have every type of access to everything possible to keep our country safe. i hear rand paul and ted cruz and donald trump talk about the word "privacy," but chris christie is dead on that once you are at war, the country has -- has to that of her do whatever provisions to keep our country safe. congresstalked about debating this for almost two years, but part of that -- the house, those tea party-driven pushe that are trying to the civil liberties, but we are at war. we need to prepare and do everything we need to do to keep our country safe. chris christie has to run this country because they do not know what it takes to run this country. they need to know that we have to keep our country safe. host: ms. guliani? guest: i think it is false to

say this is a choice between national security and liberties. we can have both. but we can also not be blind to the effect that surveillance has had on our country. we talked to journalists who now say look, i have trouble getting people to talk to me because they are concerned that my phone might be surveilled. you talk to companies who are having trouble remaining competitive in the global market because consumers have concern about the privacy of their information. i very much agree that discuss a national security and how we can protect our country is important, but that does not mean we should sacrifice our constitutional liberties, and it does not mean we should sacrifice other values that are very important. guest: i agree. while it would be nice to have civil liberties and it is unprovent -- that is an unproven idea that we can protect our privacy as

theessively as congress and aclu want to protect it and also be safe from attacks. is thenvinced that that case, and i share the view that republicans were complicit in passing this bill. they let their hostility and suspicion of the obama administration translate into hostility and suspicion of the intelligence community, which i think is a big mistake. i think i told the "wall street journal" the good news from the republican primary campaign so far is nobody is going to get the republican nomination by running with edward snowden as the running mate. host: as far as the telephone companies, what is the asset and liability of having the telephone company hold onto the information, the metadata? guest: the theory is they will resist and proper requests for data by the -- resist

improper requests for data. they will be an independent check on the government's governing information properly. -- improperly. of course we lose with that, being able to know that we have the information for a set period of time, and that we can quickly compare the information that verizon has with information that at&t has about calls. after all, you can call somebody with a verizon phone if you have an at&t phone. i think trying to draw that connection requires that we go to more than one place to get the information. that is much less efficient. host: so the telephone, he can turn down a request? guest: they can fight a request. they can say we do not think this is justified, they can ask the five the court to review what has been done -- the pfizer court to review what has been done. host: same question.

guest: it is significant on civil liberties, the telephone companies holding onto this information. the constitution was never to allow theto government to collect information to people who have no connection to criminal activity. this is a step forward to limiting this kind of dragnet surveillance. you have been talking a lot about how effective these programs are, but there is very little evidence to show that they have been effective. host: 40 is on the phone, kathleen, florida, republican line. you are next. go ahead. caller: yes, i agree that the isernment or whatever agency charged with protecting us has to be able to do it. when we are at war, there are certain liberties and freedoms that have to be sacrificed. the idea that you can make requests for information that might help in preventing an attack should go

through a system that could take days or weeks is absolute insanity. we need to be protected, and if groups like the aclu have a problem with that, let them stand in the front lines and see how willing they are to make 6, 7, 8 weeksakes to get a response so that they would be safe. host: ms. guliani? guest: there is no evidence that getting this information will take 6, 7, 8 weeks, as you say. our intelligence official saying that they expect that the program will work, so to say that these reforms are somehow making us less safe, we have no evidence to support that contention. not going to get that information is the aclu is litigating to make sure we cannot check how much faster it would have been to use the old system. they are afraid of the facts, i think. host: one thing that came out of

this is the call for backdoor technology to the phone companies. can you explain that? guest: i am not sure what is meant by dr. access. -- backdoor access. do you mean access to encrypted information? host: yes. guest: this is a different but related fight that the director of the fbi said makes it possible to find out who they are talking to or what they are saying at least, and he says that the companies that supply that encryption should have a mechanism to decrypt it when a court order is presented to them. hasthe companies' response been, "we prefer not to do that. we think it would be bad for business and technologically difficult and potentially a security risk." and now in in paris

san bernardino are going to make that a much livelier debate than it has been up to now. host: senator dianne feinstein s show.sunday' komi and i think john brennan would agree that the achilles' heel in the internet is encryption because there are now -- it is a black web." guest: encryption is what helps protect your data when you lose your phone, when you are trying to find medical and financial records on the internet. what technology experts have said is there is no way to build or key toal back door decrypt communications in a way that is not going to open up enormous security vulnerabilities in our systems. at a time when we are seeing security breaches and hacks monthly or almost daily, it would be very unwise to go down a road where we are actually weakening the very protections that are systems lie on. encryption --

guest: we have not seen evidence or data on whether encryption is a hindering the ability of law enforcement. what we do know is that law enforcement has access to potentially more from asian then they have ever had before, so going down a road of weakening the cyber security of our systems and the actions of evidence that is needed is unwise. shane lives in fort pierce, florida, democrat line. hi. caller: hi. good morning. my comments this morning is -- i am listening to you guys talking , you know, i can understand why we would not use every tool we have to catch every terrorism, home grown plot. me talking on the phone, i feel better for the families are massacred by me talking on the phone.

phone, and the talking about murdering a massive amount of people, i am glad they do catch me. we should use every tool that we have. if you do not want nobody to come help somebody, if you are going to do something heinous, i think you should use every tool this country has to keep us safe that they have been doing. don't stop. i hope they are still doing it, to tell you the truth. don't say it on the phone, thank you. that: i would simply say here, and he risk is right that we need to take a close look at some of these tools. we do not know much about the san bernardino killers' communications, but those guys in garland, texas, two people armed with semiautomatic weapons

who want to do the same thing, apparently, according to the hundreds of communications prior to that attack, which we cannot read because they are encrypted. says we haveuliani never seen it, well, you have not seen it because it is a corrected, and you cannot read it, and the government will never be a to read those in contention -- those communications. lot wethere is still a do not know about the san bernardino shootings and the attacks in paris, whether encryption played a role at all. i want to go back to the caller. that is a question of, should we be listening to everybody's phone calls? i think the answer to that is no. there are values in our country -- free expression -- that are not just important on paper. they very much contribute to the type of lives we enjoy and contribute to the strength of our country. to ability of journalists report on imported national

security issues and call into question issues by government officials -- for example, the vietnam war. when we engage down a road of mass surveillance where people are afraid to say things or feel like they are under constant government scrutiny, what we really were ris -- what we really risk are some of those values. host: the metadata program just stated that, it never dealt with the concept of conversation. isst: that metadata extremely revealing. if i call a suicide hotline, you may be able to infer a lot about my life. if i call a minister, you might be able to infer my religion. simply because a program did not deal with content does not completely remove the impact it has on people's privacy and the intrusion.f guest: you can gain content if you have, in the united states, if you have a court order that authorizes interception of

content, and it is a higher standard than the standard of reasonable suspicion. but i think it is important to say yes, metadata can tell you a lot, but it is only searched when we had reasonable suspicion that someone was in touch with terrorists. withmeone is in touch terrorists and also calling a suicide hotline, i think the authorities need to know. host: from maryland, robert is next up, and -- next up, independent. hi. caller: there was a program on hbo labeled "spymaster's," and i think -- all show remorse for policy the mistakes, mistakes that we've made in our country. i am a vietnam veteran also.

with gandhi, what is the religion in the far east? with hinduism, with christianity, with buddhism, it is not about religion. it is about when people are abused. that is the issue that i have heard the former cia director say. it is about people feeling abused, but we keep this casting it as being religion. it is retribution. people are tired of this abuse, and all of these good cia people that we have -- we are overworking them with these bad politics that we make. host: mr. baker? guest: i think there is always a problem in the intelligence community. it is always subject to suspicion, and it is unfortunately that former al of the intelligence community, but

it is part, unfortunately, especially the last 50 years, i really want to be protected, give the intelligence agencies everything they need, and then five years later, oh, that is too much, we ought to cut it back and be a little more measured about what we authorize the intelligence community to do. guest: i think it is really important to note that a lot of the outrage on the program is the fact that is shrouded in secrecy. you have members of congress who drafted the patriot act to said look, it was never my intent to allow this kind of surveillance. members of congress who said it were not aware of the surveillance. and you had members of the public who were deprived of the debate before we should engage in these massive program's. so the notion that the distress that now has resulted from the disclosures is not justified i do not think really tells us the whole story. host: by the way, the documentary "spymasters," we had two people behind it on a

program last week. if you want to see more about the documentary anything that -- andducers found out the things that the producers found out, go to c-span.org. two stewart baker, a former nsa general counsel. and neema singh guliani of the american civil liberties union. mike, republican line, ohio. over theur government last 100 years, 200 years have been dishonest. since we cannot trust our government. i am a conservative, i do not believe in abortions or our government should take our money for any purpose. our government is not trustworthy. the more power you give them to spy on us the more they will spy on us. i do not knew nothing -- do nothing, my neighbors are not a threat.

our governmente should be able to access anybody's records anytime they want. they might say they are getting a warrant but i do not trust them. host: about that level of distrust, mr. baker. guest: that is unfortunate and wrong. i worked in the government in many capacities. many of the people on the program i worked with here at. they are responsible americans who believe in civil liberties. who believe and privacy but wanted to make sure we were protected from attack. to say it is quite wrong you cannot trust the government. host: i'm sure that is not the first time you have heard that. guest: we need transparency and accountability. we need to know what programs are being run and what americans are being impacted. it is hard to have confidence in our intelligence agencies when we have a secret intelligence

court that has had little information revealed about their command and a legal basis for their opinion. address this distrust we have to reform the laws that have proven to be used improperly. we need to have that transparency and accountability so americans know what is happening. you can do that in a way that maintains the secrecy that intelligence agencies need to operate. host: this is the fisa court? guest: they authorized nationwide collection that an independent oversight was a misinterpretation of the law and a federal court said was a misinterpretation of the law and congress said it was a misinterpretation. it is not surprising that in the wake of the revelations that people have a level of distrust about our intelligence agencies and what has been authorized. guest: this court has existed since the 1970's. it consists of federal judges, the same ones who sit on other

cases. oversight, the extent to which a judiciary, congress, are involved in overseeing what information is searched is unparalleled anywhere in the world. we have more oversight for intelligence community than any other country. those countries are gathering intelligence on us, americans, and american institutions. we have largely not entirely disarmed ourselves in that intelligence battle in a way that will turn out to be very dangerous. the fact is you cannot have intelligence programs if you tell your adversaries everything you are doing. has said is guliani would like to have everything about these programs may transparent. if you do that you will not have an intelligence program.

guest: that is not my claim. there are parts of these programs that need to be kept secret. the american people deserve to know how much of their information is being collected. it is congress job to oversee these programs and they need to know how many americans are being affected. when you have members of congress saying i never knew about these programs, they have existed over a decade and federal courts calling them illegal, it is hard to see that being appropriate. i agree with stuart that there needs to be a global conversation. it is not enough for the u.s. to look at his laws, we have to examine many intelligence partners who give us information and who we provide information to. host: what elements of the do we have to take on with our global partners? guest: developing standards with -- for what information we provide and receive from them.

it is good to have laws here but if a foreign government can get the same information and give it to the u.s. without following restrictions, we will have americans whose rights are violated despite the changes in the law. host: what do you think, mr. baker? guest: it boils down saying the aclu would like more restrictions on their intelligence programs. the restrictions should extend to what foreign nations collect and use when they engaged in intelligence collection. i have not heard any suggestion about how we would effectively control chinese or russian intelligence programs entering information this minute against us. host: as far as some was metadata is searched by the nsa, does that person know that that took place or can they know? guest: if it is used in a criminal case, yes. there are mechanisms i which the

fact of the search will be made available to the descendent, but that is rare. there's only 300 to 500 searches a year for any purpose. host: -- guest: that is not accurate, we have seen the government take the position that even as evidence for section 215 is gathered, that the government has no notice obligation. extend to people who have the information search but were never charged with a crime. the notion that americans whose information is collected and searched are receiving notice from the government, even after an investigation has been closed is not accurate. host: steve is in phoenix, arizona, democrat. caller: good morning. i agree that there could be concerns. the other side is that if you shut down the collection of information you pretty much stop listening to your enemies. that is a big part of how we won

world war ii is listening to germany. the admiral that ran their fleet , i cannot think of his name, he did not think the germans communications work listening, that they could not crack the code. lost an element took eight guys in paris to kill 130 people. and sever did you know, two people killed 14 people. the terrorists have lost the element of surprise. -- democracyocracy versus islam. in islam, a lot of people both for the offices in their religion. -- vote for the offices in their religion, it is islam versus capitalism.

they have restrictions on the religion and capitalism lets you buy anything. to the firstk point you raise, no one is saying that is when there is reason, the government should be able to get information, what the constitution requires a process and that there because. -- there be cause. we can maintain the ability to gather information about terrorists while remaining consistent with these values. point, extremism comes in many forms, muslim americans are not the root of this problem. i do not know if that was suggested but it is an important point to make. host: mr. baker? guest: there is no doubt we have done a better job than we have used to of reducing the catastrophic damages that could because by an attack we were not prepared for. o people killing 14 is not an

acceptable outcome. we need to do a better job to protect against the kinds of attacks we saw in san bernardino and garland, texas and paris. host: jackson, tennessee, independent line. caller: we should not let fear rule us, without our rights we will not be saved or free. a quote from abraham lincoln, "america will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms it will be because we destroyed ourselves." "three greataid forces will be world, stupidity, fear, and greed." we cannot let extremists make us fearful. we have to have our rights. i stand with the aclu lady. we cannot let fear rule us. we need our rights and freedoms because we do not want the terrorists to dominate us because to me it is like the line in the fly scenario, the

fly cannot lock -- not belie and lion out.ck the guest: i do not think this program is driven by fear, getting rid of this program is stupidity. it was a valuable backstop against an attack from a safe haven that was planned and executed here. -- planned abroad and executed here. of whata possibility happened in san bernardino. we are stupid to ignore that possibility. guest: i do not think that reflects the debate over the patriot act, it was a rushed bill that happened in the wake of 9/11. it received very little debate. it was used in a way that congress did not intend. after an attack or a tragic event, there is a knee-jerk

reaction to pass policies that are not good for our liberty or security. mexico,s cruces, new republican line. chuck. caller: i had an interesting observation, there are two forms of collection, the one in the government which is being destroyed by the sel you. -- by the aclu. another one by google and private entities that looks at our profile, the aclu is allowing them to collect information on us. if they attack the government that wants to protect us. wantsogles of the world to profile us to get information. i do not understand why the aclu wants to shut down steps to protect us it does not do anything with the commercial entities. by the way, i was in the

business, and i used the fisa court and it takes forever to get something through. if you get something to me that will attack us and you want to have readily available information to find out what is going to happen, this law is going to cut us down. it is not good. guest: two important points, private collection should raise concerns and there should be standards companies follow to ensure they are appropriately protecting the rights of their customers. there is a big difference between google collecting information and the nsa collecting the information, google cannot put you in jail. a college the differences between private sector collection and government collection. guest: there is a big difference. , google is not going to protect you from a terrorist attack.

the reason the government needs this information is much more significant and much more valuable to a society then having better focused apps. it is striking to me that technology is making it easier to hide communications with encryption. and it also making it easier to gather information quickly and efficiently and go through it to find suspicious behavior. the aclu is off for the intelligence -- the new technologies that make it difficult to catch terrorists and against using the new technology that would make it easier to catch them. we need to recognize that sometimes what the technology is taking away with encryption, we should be counterbalancing by using a data and the capabilities. the last point, for our listener, i have a lot of contact with the fisa court and

wrote about the experience in a book. that made your point, the court was so afraid of critics like saying you are a rubber stamp that it was far beyond the law in imposing restrictions on what we could do and contributed to the success of the attackers on 9/11. guest: i want to respond, that is not an accurate reflection of the aclu to say we are against everything that protect security and or everything that protects privacy. when you have programs that courts have found the legal that have proved to be ineffective and have gone far beyond authorized, that is a problem that needs to be recognized by congress and the judiciary. there are steps the government can take to protect national security that they can do that within the bounds of the constitution. i was a federal employee just as you, we have a responsibility and a duty to comply with the law and the constitution.

guest: this program was reviewed by 25 judges, one judge still believes that it is ilegal. decidedher court has that as adopted by the most recent law and approved for six months, it is legal. the only reason there were terminations of you legality is because the aclu argued to all 25 that it was illegal. techniquenow of a new the aclu approves of. guest: the only court to reach the merits of this program found that it was illegal. when we talk about -- guest: say that the new six-month program authorized the six-month extension is is

illegal, the court says no it is legal. guest: that is inaccurate to the second circuit said the case is moot. we have a reform by congress, and the issues you raise are no longer relevant. that is different than examining the program and understanding the effect it has on civil liberties. yes, there are new technologies and law enforcement may want to take advantage of new opportunities to investigate crimes effectively. that does not eliminate the constitution or the need to get a warrant. it does not eliminate protections we enjoy. to frame this as an issue to say we either have to collect everything with no protections whatsoever, or we have nothing is not an accurate way of looking at it. the government is able to collect information about people who pose a threat and they can do so following the appropriate procedures that protect the amazing -- the american people's liberties. guest: i remember when the boston police got access to

database where they can look up suspects quickly, the aclu criticized that. name a new technology the aclu has said we do not have a legal problem with. guest: the aclu does not have a problem with the government using new technology in certain cases when it is targeted, when they go to a court and get a warrant and when there was appropriate notice. to say that we should just use any new technology, ignoring the very impact it has on privacy and ignoring whether it raises constitutional issues is not consistent with what the public wants, and not consistent with the laws. guest: that says we will challenge every single new technology with the argument that it is probably unconstitutional and then wait wait tocourts to see -- see what the courts have to say. guest: that is inaccurate. host: neema singh guliani of the ,merican civil liberty union

former legislative counsel for the aclu, and the former nsa general counsel, stewart baker, thank you. we will talk about the topic of sports related concussions. renewed interest due to recent sporting events and an upcoming movie. we will learn more about that with dr. dennis cardone. later on, up taping -- upcoming cases with the supreme court appeared david savage will break down the cases. on our american history book tv channels this week, looking at the history and literary life of monterey, california. one of the interviews you will get a chance to hear is the co-author of the death and life of monterey bay.

>> i am a marine biologist. i talk to people about the dangers of pollution. the threats from people. overfishing and climate change. habitat destruction and pollution. now we come back here and this bay was stunningly gorgeous and i feel guilty. why is this place so special? how come it missed the problems? , me" other -- me and hadco-author fix, this bay those problems, it had them all. 80 years ago, this is a place you would not want to be standing. doing anything. because the water was polluted and the air was foul. the seals and whales were gone.

fishing was bad. the sardines were taken as well. all of that was happening 80 years ago. the difference is that monterey bay got better. the story of the revival of monterey bay from eight years ago is the story in the book. >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us is dr. dennis cardone from new york university concussion center. a member of the primary care sports medicine department appeared the chief of that department, thank you for joining us. guest: thank you for having me. concussions,ic, sports related concussions, can you paint the picture of not only what the concussions are but what you're hearing in the sports world about how they are happening. they are serious

business. one in every 10 sports injuries, 10% of sports injuries are concussions. the significant numbers and their serious injuries. these are a type of traumatic brain injury where there is altered brain function. it is not only i direct hit to the head that causes these injuries but a direct hit to any part of the body that transmits force to the head. especially when you talk about contact sports, there is big concern for this type of injury, both in the short term consequences for athletes and long-term consequences. a big part of it is, we discussed we are of the infancy of understanding concussions, that makes it tricky. and mexico traverse you will that we do not completely understand concussions in a way that we should. host: what are some of those questions that need to be answered? guest: they are plenty.

we need to answer questions such as, how many hits are too many? how many hits will cause potential long-term consequences? when should we start introducing contact in sports? at what age is it safe to introduce contact in sports? should we monitor the force of hits? should we use sensors? maybe like we do in baseball with pitch counts, move players from a game, or remove them from a season if they have head hits? a lot we do not know. we would like to be better at diagnosing concussions. and when it is safe to return players appeared these could be blood tests. we need to understand better imaging studies.

we have quite a way to go. host: i guess the image that comes to mind for most people is the sport of football. are we talking just that or other sports? guest: football gets the most attention. in no way is it only football. when you look at the statistics, the number of concussions, you need to look at all contact sports. that includes boys and girls soccer, lacrosse, hockey, basketball, gymnastics, volleyball, there are plenty of sports we are looking at. we hear the most about football but any contact sport has the possibility to have concussions. host: we will continue our discussion with the doctor, 202-748-8000 four students and parents. coaches, if you are in the sports world, your thoughts on

this, 202-748-8001. medical professions, 202-748-8002. all others, 202-748-8003. back to football. if you redesign the helmet could that change the nature of concussions? guest: it is not that simple. that is a bit controversial area, football helmets came about in the 1970's and they worked really well preventing skull fractures but did not prevent concussions whatsoever. one is a linear force they are sustained. the other is an acceleration forced. if you have the most protective helmet on, most of the tocussions are related rotational or acceleration force . it could be a hit to another part of the body or a hit to the head that is not a direct blow to the head that causes more

rotational forces, almost like a whiplash type injury. while we would like to hope that helmets can prevent concussion, they do not write now. -- right now. host: you talked about diagnosis. how do you diagnose a concussion? what are signs and symptoms? guest: we have good tests we use on the sideline and in the office when an athlete comes in with a suspected concussion. we look for certain things that have changed in their mental status. an acute alteration or mental status. how oriented, how good are they at concentrating? what is their memory, did they have a sudden memory loss? slurred speech, do they feel nauseous, are they vomiting? headache is one of the most common symptoms. someone has a

concussion, are the results automatic, could they manifest itself months and years down the road? concussions, it is just an acute injury. ofptoms will resolve in 90% athletes who sustained a concussion within a 10 to 14 day time, a small percentage who sustained multiple concussions or what we call subclinical concussions, where they do not have symptoms but multiple hits to their head. there is concern that these multiple hits or multiple concussions may have long-term consequences. you may hear about cte. it is an area we do not understand, what is the number of concussions or number of head hits that places a player at risk, are there players more at risk, or congenital issue that they have. we do not understand it well enough.

there are great studies being , any looking at short-term, the number of hits, the forces of hits, and we will follow these players long-term. a great study, a long-term study, we are gathering information but still years away from quickly understanding the long-term consequences of concussions. host: if you are a student or parent, 202-748-8000. a coach, 202-748-8001. medical professional, 202-748-8002. all others, 202-748-8003. new jersey, george, a student. caller: i am wondering how concussions -- i played pop warner football and we got so many concussions that the helmets were terrible. how can concussions early in life affect your brain down the road? guest: a great question.

one or twoy that concussions even at a very young age will likely have no long-term consequences. probably do just fine. there is a big movement in football and soccer and hockey to try to eliminate or decrease these head injuries. there have been new guidelines established by usa hockey, usa soccer, and looking at football. in terms of decreasing contact at these young ages. we have concerns about the younger, developing brain, not fully developed. we suspect it is probably multiple concussions, many concussions over a longer. time. of bill in scottsdale, arizona, a student. caller: thank you. question, ifthat

you look at high school and college athletics, these contact sports like hockey and football, at that level, where there are real potential stakes for the people involved, the great high school football player could get a scholarship to go to college and in college he can go to the nfl, etc. do you think that parents, coaches, administrators are sufficiently, as of now, informed and concerned about these risks? are they doing enough to mitigate the risks as much as possible? guest: they are better informed. it is a key point you make, one of the best things we could be doing in terms of concussions and concussion prevention is education. , big movement at all levels high school, college, adolescent, people we level

about education. programs out to educate parents, players, coaches, guest: we have a program here in new york city. the key component is the education of peace. recognizing concussion and feeling comfortable to speak up when they have a concern. if they have sustained a head injury, it should be a safe environment for feel they can speak up about the injury. it's a great point that you make. education is a big piece of this. host: when you talk about the , what is concussions the general reaction when you get? guest: it's typical. whatever you make a change in a sport, coaches have been doing this for years and years.

nobody feels comfortable change and everybody is resistant to change there is some resistance. especially when you talk about introducing rule changes, we see resistance. peace, theycation realize what's going on. they are the best person to see the change in behavior of one of their athletes who is sustained a concussion. they are changing. they are one of the best people on the field to recognize early off of there has sustained a concussion. 1.5 million blows to the the u.s..atively in over 2200 blows to the head by high school football players in one season. we will speak to a coach in florida. philip is joining us. caller: good morning.

changes are incredibly difficult. i know exposing anything new is ask, haveto i want to you heard of this tool that ?reates no noninjury us sports if he has not, i think it offers a great solution to every element of having a competitive sport that is gender-neutral in noninjury us. it's not easy to bring something good changes very difficult. veryting something new is difficult. maybe he can do some things to help bring it to fruition. we are concerned about injuries and head injuries and gender inequality when it comes to sports. but kind of coach are you?

caller: i am a fitness coordinator. peoplere a lot of young who could receive more fitted -- physical education to calm them down. i have been in the forefront of doing that. host: thanks. go ahead. not specifically, i don't know what he was talking about. it's something that decreases contact or it's a no contact type of football. pushhas been a big part or for youth athletes from the age of 11 or 12. instead of playing tackle football play some type of flight football. , it you take up the contact

can be a coed sport. from we have a parent maryland. caller: good morning. have a question about this orientation or a blackout situation. my son got hit in the neck. he got disoriented. another occasion he landed on his head. he blacked out for a few seconds. he showed no symptoms. they looked at him on the sideline. that would indicate a concussion? one of the symptoms and everybody thinks about in terms of caution is a loss of consciousness or blackout. it turns out that's about less than 10% of concussions involving blacking out or a lock -- loss of consciousness. oftentimes, the public believes

that you need a loss of consciousness in order for to be a concussion and that is not correct. your son hits that sustained, they are concerning. it sounds like at least one involved a loss of consciousness. that is always a concern. even if it's a very short loss of consciousness. second one sounds like a concussion. the direct hit to the neck in addition to the head injury, there are other injuries we could think about with a low directly to the neck. both are concerning. the second one sounds like a concussion. a lack of consciousness is always a concern. host: larry is on with our guest. go ahead. it you're a coach. coached peewee. the biggest problem with football is the helmet itself. they tend to bounce off each other.

putting material on the outside of those helmets, you could reduce the accelerated force tremendously. interior how good the of the helmet is, it doesn't at her. if it bounces, your head is going with it. a half-inch of soft material to the outside of the helmet, you could reduce concussions. thanks for taking my call. guest: there is a real concern about sports with helmets. when people the helmet on their head, their head becomes a potential weapon. they feel safer using their head is a contact. that is one concern with helmets. other concern is though it seems theoretically that if we add padding to the outside or inside of the helmet, we don't have evidence that shows that.

great studies of been done across the country. we don't have good enough evidence to say we are decreasing the rate of concussion or the risk of concussion with helmet where. we hope to be to that point. there is an acceleration of rotational force with concussion. helmet,r how good the most of the more concerning concussions are related to this rotational force and acceleration that helmets won't tech or prevent. host: how has the nfl treated this issue? guest: i think they have become more serious about concussion in treating concussion and protecting players. over the past couple of years we feel they are doing the right thing. they have spotters in the crowd. they have an independent meteorologist on the field. they are taking it seriously as

they needed to do. we will hopefully see more and more intervention and some changes to make the game safer. they made some grants and investments to look at safety and for studies related to concussion. they are moving in the right direction. when you read the paper or look games, thethe concussions are still being messed. host: what would you advocate for? thing, onebiggest would be proper tackling technique this would start at the youth level. they need to teach proper technique to protect the head. coaches should know how to coach this. rule changes to protect the head would potentially be good. they need to look at what rules would protect the head. they have done things like movie

kickoff up a little bit. that would help. good sportsmanship, referees need to be on top of what's going on on the field. we talked about helmet safety and equipment safety. you could make the sport that much safer. rule changes and beginning at the youth level. host: next up is jack in philadelphia. he is apparent. -- a parent. caller: my son is in golden gloves boxing. venturetting ready to into mixed martial arts. i haven't heard you say anything about boxing. there is constant blows to the head. there is no protection. that,you make a note on please? reason boxing hasn't

come up is because it's not a sport that we commonly see in high school or collegiate athletics. major of course is a concern for concussion in injury. of boxing is to knock your opponent out. that is another sport unto its own. there are major major concerns about the safety of doctors. re-examine that sport and see how we could maybe change it for participants. mma, it'se ma -- about doing our best to protect the athlete. we want to encourage sports participation grade sports are some the greatest things that are young youth can participate in.

we want to encourage sports, but in a safe -- and. host: kevin is in texas. hi there. caller: how are you? interested, people who are asymptomaticare and then later in life have an event. i was a boxer at an early age. i lost my ability to do higher-level math. i was diagnosed as bipolar. how common is that? done one been research other factors such as congenital or genetic problems? are some people more likely to

have a problem from a tbi? great question. it's a multifaceted question. there is some congenital component to concussion. some athletes are more at risk for long-term consequences. that's what are we are looking at. we are looking at biomarkers. there are some blood tests we can take that will alert us and warn us about certain athletes that might be at a higher risk for high -- higher consequences. we were talking about subclinical hits to the head. the example would be like a boxer or football player that gets hit in the head multiple times. maybe it's not an acute concussion. they are adding up. time that athlete is at risk for long-term consequences like you were explaining. we know people that have

behavioral disorders from depression or bipolar disease, they are at increased risk for prolonged recovery from concussion and maybe an increased risk for long-term consequences from concussion. host: we are talking about sports related concussions. dr., you talked about this disease. there were stories recently about the death of frank gifford. he had cte. can you talk about the illustration of this type of disease? tost: cte is related repeated head injuries as an athlete. the concern is someone who has

had multiple injuries, they can .evelop this cte some people compare it to early onset alzheimer's. protein, these certain players are at risk for it. we don't have an understanding or a good understanding about cte. how much force does it take? who is it higher risk to develop it? when you look at the evidence and you read the papers, there is some controversy about cte and the risk that some athletes have been developing cte. it's been in the papers. frank gifford looks like he had

cte. it's a big concern. a great study is being done. we are at some of the risk factors. we are some years away about determining how we could decrease the risk for this problem in the long term. host: barb is next from a chicago. caller: thank you so much for this topic. i hope this leads to places where people understand what's wrong with your brain, kind of like physical therapy. there are things you can get back. i had a one-time seizure a year ago. the doctor looked at me like i was ok. i could not walk straight. a word and my hand would drop. i really hope this leads to places where someone can get encouragement. who isave a neurologist encouraging and it's helped me

tremendously in coming back. guest: that's interesting. a retired linebacker for the giants said that while he was intake, the eggshell was -- intact, but the yoke was scrambled. recognizee just don't . the person is struggling with concussion, they're not recognized for struggling with it. have thesenters concussion centers. here in new york, we have a few. they argue usually multi-disciplinary. you make an excellent point. it's not just about the diagnosis. it's also about the treatment of the concussion. we have good treatment now.

headaches, things that people have from head injury. we are much better at diagnosing. host: our guest is the codirector of the concussion center at nyu. concussionsng about that are sustained during sports. sherry is from maine. you are a grant. go ahead. caller: my grandson is 16. he got his first concussion at their teen. he got two from foot wall and two from wrestling. the last year has been really bad for him. his mood was angry all the time. it really changed his personality. the uc trouble for him down the line?

he is doing really well right now. he is seeing a neurologist. is he still playing sports? caller: not for the winter. he is going to play baseball in the spring, but he's not going to be the catcher anymore. this is the athlete we would have concerns about. he has already had five concussions. he has had some personality changes. this is you need to sit down with the family and a multidisciplinary team and have a frank discussion about the risk. in a 16-year-old, we don't want to limit his participation. could find a petition or sport that puts them at a much lower risk for concussion. it's a tough decision.

it needs to be made in conduct -- conjunction with a health team along with the athlete in the family about continuing orts. five concussions, they need to take a good look at potentially limiting all context ports or high risk sports. host: darlene is in las vegas. good morning. caller: good morning. i hope you're having a lovely day. i'm sorry. you are being disingenuous. you are failing to tell people that the brain is not formed until 25 years of age. that means children participating in sports are no different than children who suffer from shaken baby syndrome when they suffer these traumatic brain injuries. no one is taking that seriously. it's very shameful that you

didn't ring this point to light as you sit there speaking with everyone this morning. people should be more protective of their children. years spent the last 27 working in neurology. inspiresliar with what with whiplash or an actual head injury. people auld give little more information and remind them that children getting injured in sports at such a ages are the reason we are finding out children between 25 and 32 are now judgment impaired and doing things like mass shootings. this is what we've but have been talking about all along. this is the population we try to protect the most while the rain

is developing. this is why sports like soccer or hockey have made significant rule changes about contact in the developing brain. the younger the athlete, the more we try to attack that developing brain. we have evidence looking at concussion and duration of recovery. the younger the athlete, the longer the duration of recovery is. if you look at the high school athlete compared to the collegiate athlete, it's a great point. the younger the athlete, the more we need to be concerned to protect them. many of our organizations, soccer, lacrosse, hockey, football are making rule changes to make sort -- sports safer. host: brandon, you're next. goodr: it's a

conversation. i have three quick points. i've been playing football since top corner. i've played all the to college. i got my first concussion in the backyard. how would we rectify that? we can fix all the equipment in the world, after 10 years, it's no good. what i have seen in my league is there is nobody there to say if the equipment is good enough. i do agree. but happens after three years? are independent leagues out there. they are not governed by anybody. you never know. i can't are my third paint. my main point is i think there needs to be somebody to monitor

equipment after a certain number of years. my third one was promoting the heads up program. i'm going to have to remembering those questions. that is ard injury, piece of education we talked about. one of the biggest movements is education. that's one of the best things we can do. educating parents, athletes, coaches, referees, health professionals. out prettyd participation forms to parents to sign it, we have an education piece on that form. we recommend they watch and education piece online. parents should be very involved and educated about concussion.

involved inbe very the safety of their children participating in sports. care, it's helmet also an excellent point. we will talk about football, but we can talk about hockey and lacrosse. at least annually at the end of the season or during the season it, there should be a good equipment check. look to seehelmets, if they have any cracks or should bet where it updated on an annual basis. organizations,s is there more of a liability now to protect themselves against lawsuits? can you tell us anything on that front? guest: there is. with all of this out of the media and the public about

concussion, they are much more foldable. they have to be on top of what they are doing. diligent to be very about following the guidelines in teaching best practice. they need to maintain best equipment. in a good way, the media and the attention to concussion has gone a long way. it will continue to. leagues in the small parts of the country, they need to follow these guidelines. this an issue that capitol hill needs to take care of? are there things congress should address? guest: and coordination. it goes too far in the other direction. we need to look at coordination with health professionals and get parents involved in coaches

involved. look at safety. how can they make sports safer. host: we have a medical professional. your next. caller: good morning. i am a physical therapist. i would like to ask about the relationship between concussion and disorder. unless you are talking to the chairman of my department, i am still an associate professor. i appreciate that. common postconcussion symptom sign, where patients will complain of balance issues. the physical therapists who do this type of work are wonderful. make ae great and they

big difference in getting our athletes better and hitting them back to play. a big part of is component -- concussion. recovery with physical therapy is a big part of it. host: we have one more call from maryland. monique as a coach. caller: i am with a cheerleading group. i wanted to know what progress has been made on concussion research in the cheerleading industry? we have young athletes who engage in this activity. sometimes accidents happen. sometimes they fall. we wanted to know what research is out there on concussions in cheerleading. you probably know this better than i do. that had the worst

history for catastrophic injury and serious spine injury was cheerleading. over the past 10 years, there have been significant changes to what they can and can't do. how high they can build the pyramid, how high a young woman can twirl. they've made some significant changes. there are a lot of people looking at that sport and making changes to make it safer. cheerleading has become safer. how can we make it even safer? research,ar as the what do you see as far as the future is concerned? what you looking at? guest: the future is bright. fronts, on a number of helping us diagnose concussion.

maybe it will be a simple blood test to help diagnose. return an safe to athlete back to play? hopefully we will have better answers in the future as well. this might be the same imaging study to help make that decision. who is at risk for long-term consequences from concussion? hopefully we will have these biomarkers to be able to determine that. there is a lot that's being looked at across the country, a lot of research is being done. we are going to see a lot of changes. things may be very different than what we are doing today in terms of our management and treatment of concussion. host: host: coming up, we will be

joined by david savage, talking about current cases before the high court. we will have that conversation as "washington journal" continues. ♪ >> every weekend on american history tv on c-span3, 48 hours of programs that tell our nation's. story. 11:00 eastern, we are live

from williamsburg with reenactments of revolutionaries and british loyalists mingling on the street. the virginiatour capitol building. thro today, we will take your calls with historians and experts. saturday, we will hear the aspirations of presidential hopefuls. from 1987, donald rumsfeld shares his thoughts about running from manchester. explores, dick cheney a positive -- possible run in the presidential race. >> it is a wonderful landscape to try to figure out what your prospects are. , theore i think about it more i think it is a personal decision. >> at 11:30, on lectures in history, illinois university professor robert paulette on the

sugar trade, its role in the development of the colonies, and slavery in the 1600s. maingar was one of the motors of the slave trade in america. 75% of all africans brought to wereca and the 1600s growing or making sugar. theas, some would argue, first industrial enterprise in the western world. >> american history tv on c-span3. ♪ joining us now, we have david savage, supreme court reporter for the los angeles tribune. david, welcome. guest: good to see you. host: next week, we have a couple of the supreme court

arguments coming up. one is a redistricting case involving voting rights. it is in issue i never heard of until this case came along. it is a fundamental issue of when drawing election districts, who counts? the rule has been throughout history that you take census numbers and everybody counts. in the 1960's, the supreme court handed down a series of dishes and that changed redistricting -- decisions that changed redistricting. be equal tove to the one person, one vote rule. now there is a conservative group that filed a lawsuit in texas saying that you ought to count only eligible voters. adults who are citizens. the reason that is a big deal is

in texas, california, a lot of places, there are districts where a substantial number of people are noncitizens. they could be immigrants here illegally. they could be people from canada or australia living in those areas that are not citizens. they say to the supreme court, you ought to say to all the states, you need to count eligible voters, not everyone. a big deal ist is because it would force every state in the nation to redraw district boundaries for city councils, county boards, school boards, state legislators. thisf the court buys claim, they could have a real political impact. these tend to be democratic districts in l.a. and houston. they would shrink in number. , thereublican districts

would be more of those districts. about --k a little bit this case has a racial element. districts have to be drawn in a way that does not disenfranchise voters. at the same time, it can have an impact based on race. guest: their is sort of an overlap that makes this more complicated. the voting rights act has said you cannot shrink the number of minority districts. you cannot go backwards. complicates it for states that had to draw districts preserving minority districts. they have sometimes had to shift people around to preserve districts. it complicates an already complicated opinion, situation.

there are a couple reasons the supreme court may not buy this argument. the constitution, in the 14th thedment, says counting whole number of each state when the census is done, it says you count the whole number of people in the state and divide up. to have be a little odd the constitution use the phrase "the whole number." then have the supreme court turn around and say, it is unconstitutional. you only have to count adult citizens who can vote. i think there is some reason to think the court will not buy this. the other good argument is there is actually not a good database , that counts only voting-age citizens. the census counts everyone.

so if the court buys the argument, they will have to figure out how you get the data that tells us in each who are the eligible citizen to vote. host: we are talking about the supreme court cases coming up. atublican line, call in (202) 748-8001. .emocrats, (202) 748-8000 (202) 748-8002. another case being argued has to do with affirmative action and colleges. guest: it is a controversial issue going back to the 1970's. the courts have said that while the equal protection clause says you should not use race to make decisions, colleges and universities can consider a student's race as a plus factor.

the idea being you have a lot of qualified students. the universities have some discretion to decide who to select among very qualified students. that has been challenged on named of a white student abigail fisher, who applied to and was denied at the university of texas. is a goods she student, not an outstanding student. nonetheless, she said the considers of texas race as a factor and that is unconstitutional. it is confusing because the court had the case a couple years ago and did not quite decide. they sent it back to texas. the complexity in this case is that the university of texas, unlike any other university in the legislature

passed the top 10 law. who graduatesy from the top 10% of the high school in texas can be admitted automatically to the university of texas at austin. it has now been reduced to the top 7%. what that law has done is wrought in large numbers of hispanic and african-american students. it is now about 35% under that law. the question for the supreme court now is if your university has a fairly substantial percentage of minority students through this so-called race-neutral plan, can you also use an affirmative action plan? the court may say in that circumstance, you do not really need an affirmative action plan to bring about diversity. i think the real issue in the case is if you can do it through

one way, bring about diversity in one way, can you also have an affirmative action plan? host: we are going to our collars. our first is barbara on the independent line. morning, mr. savage. i am confused about the voting case you spoke of first. it seems to me that whatever laws are passed apply to everybody, whether they are voters, citizens or not. it seems to me the representation should reflect the number of people, not just the number of voters. if you could explain, i would appreciate it. guest: your argument is the argument of a lot of people. i agree it is confusing. say, it is a question of

who you should count. i think many people make the it shouldhat represent everybody, all the people, not just the voters. -- the supreme court used the phrase "one person, one vote." this is kind of mathematics i never paid attention to. but in some of these districts, they may have 800,000 people. 800,000, thehas next has 800,000. but in the first, there are 550,000 people eligible to vote. the other district, maybe along grande, only 350,000. the people in the first district say that their votes count more than my vote. being askedcourt is to shift the question about counts. i agree with the point.

most people think and many lawyers argue that legislatures and city council has to represent all the people and you should count all the people. host: will this case have an impact on the upcoming election in 2016? that?t go beyond the -- guest: it is unclear. the plaintiffs did not say to the supreme court how you should remedy the problem. they said the way texas is doing it now is unconstitutional. as i say, the people in the white republican districts are saying our votes do not count as much as the other district. you ought to do something. they did not say with the remedy is. i would be surprised if the supreme court were to say in state, you need

to redraw your district. it would be a mess. you would have to redraw the boundaries in terms of state legislatures, city councils in all 50 states. i do not think they say this would apply. host: republican line, we had john from virginia. you are on with david savage. caller: hello. i am on the democratic line. host: sorry about that. caller: that is all right. the constitution contemplates that representatives would be representing in an eligible -- ineligible voters. slavery,mericans in there is contemplation of in eligible voters. it counted them towards representation even though it

was designed to benefit slaveowners. also, in virginia, my state, where only white male property owners of 40 acres or more were one,ed to vote, from day the constitution does a dress that. now clause is nonoperational, but that is the history of the constitution. guest: absolutely right. the 14th amendment essentially repealed that clause. but it said count the whole number of persons. that was passed, women could not vote, but women were counted. the entire history of the united states has been that, when you are drawing districts, allocating power, you count everybody. not just the actual adult citizens.

you are right about that. ,ost: independent line silverton, oregon. caller: good morning. that every time we , weinto the conversation original conversation about how we came to that conclusion of affirmative action. said, something is getting ready to happen. i am in junior high school and i told my friends, something crazy is going to happen. roots was popular. the indians and japanese, do we

compensate them or not compensate them? that is where affirmative action comes from in the first place. that is what the war was actually about. host: right. about howe a question this applies to colleges? caller: if they go to the court ,gain to talk about any of this and actually, you look at the bigger picture of what is the problem. why are we doing this again? i do not want to pick a particular names. i heard somebody say the other day left wing or right-wing, it is still the same bird. i like that. but walking in a church, shooting up churches, nobody is from here. host: let's give david savage a

chance to address that. frames of affirmative action came about in the kennedy administration. the idea was that, for years, we had segregation rules that prevented african-americans getting certain jobs. when you lift those rules, the idea was to seek out people that had been excluded, open the door, and say we want you to come in. colleges and universities, the same applies. university of texas, for years, did not admit african americans. to some idea, affirmative action was saying, let's welcome new students in. we want talented minority students. in case is an interesting twist because it is like, which students and how do they come in?

under the top 10 plan, a lot of kids who graduate at the top of their class in houston, predominantly black or predominantly mexican-american, they do really well. on the other hand, the state are somey says, there really good high schools where the minority students are in the top 12%. they have excellent sat scores. we want them too. the question of which minority students come in and what is the formula. host: given that texas has a specific formula, how big of an impact will this case have on other schools? there?t affect policy guest: the one impact i can imagine is if justice kennedy were to write an opinion that ,ays you are a state university

you need to try race-neutral policies like texas before you plan,n affirmative action this would be the biggest possibility. are at the university of virginia, north carolina, or illinois. university of wisconsin. the court could say to all those universities, before you use a race conscious plan, you ought to try a plan like texas. that could have an impact if they were to say that. host: democratic line, we have mike from albuquerque. caller: good morning. i wanted to go back to the question of the allotment of power in terms of voting. in law school, we have argumentative tools. horribles, statistical

weaknesses. what do the voting rights groups , for example, my former professor, very instrumental in that history. those universities used a lot of those arguments. you look at the troublemakers back then, they used that. what is the present argument you see from those experts on that side of the argument of the different argumentative tools being utilized to say, an undocumented immigrant -- within the households, there are different people with different legal statuses. go ahead, david. guest: the argument they make is follow what the constitution says.

you count every person. children cannot vote, but they are counted. you aregument is if going to create a city council district,legislative you should divide the power and count all the people. we should not make gradations between citizens and noncitizens. their argument is stick with the law. count all the people and divide up the power. say, we have, they to provide support. somebody said in a conference call the other day, when you are fixing potholes, you are fixing the potholes for everybody. citizens and noncitizens. we need money from the state capital for social services that applies to everybody. they say stick with the rule. host: next on our independent line, we have andreas from

washington dc. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have a question for mr. savage relating to the potential retirement of one or more supreme court justices and what that might impact, how that might impact the decision. host: good question. guest: a huge question. i wish i could answer it better. you said impact these decisions. i do not think anyone is going to retire anytime soon. in other words, there is sort of a rule at the supreme court, everyone understands you do not want to retire going into an election year. i am assuming no one is planning to retire in the next year or so. none of the current decisions will have the same justice. , ruth ginsburgrd will be 83.

alia and kennedy will be 80 next year. eyer is getting close. is whoever is elected in 2016, that president has a good chance to replace three justices. it is obviously a huge impact going forward. host: some of the cases coming , they're coming up in this term, but going beyond, including the affordable care act, may come out differently. guest: i have been doing this for a long time. fairly there are four liberal democratic justices on the left side and four fairly

conservative appointees on the right side of these cases, gun rights, gay rights, abortion, justice kennedy has been, for years,t x number of voting with the conservatives on a lot of issues. on some of the very big issues, gay marriage, for example, votes with the liberal side. if justice kennedy were to leave, everyone would know it is areplaces him, if conservative justice, the court tips one way. if it is a liberal justice, it tips the other way. you have covered this for a while. these issues come back every couple of years. they take up affirmative action, and abortion regulation case.

a new justice could tip the case left or right depending on who it is. guest: next on our republican line, we have robert from maryland. hi, david. i am a taxpaying citizen. i think in order to have a vote, you ought to be a paying citizen. these people that come in that are illegal and you are trying to count them, make them a part of the united states, it is not right. you have to be a taxpaying citizen. that is how the whole system works in this country. everyone down the line has to pay taxes. this person should not have a vote if they do not pay taxes. this is america. this is a capitalistic society. if they are not a bona fide citizen, they should not have a rate. i hate to tell you, that the

whole country operates on the system. host: just to be clear, it is not about who gets to vote. it is about how districts are drawn. guest: you are right about the vote. nobody gets to go to the ballot box and vote who is not a citizen. just like a 10-year-old kid does not get to go vote. abouts is a question dividing up electoral power. not a question about who gets to vote. robert may have the view that we should not count, we should only count citizens. -- i sawe confusing some data about this the other day, there are a lot of areas where there are not many children. you could have an area where there are older retirees. you could have another suburban community with a lot of families with young children. would you want to take away

political power from the communities that have lots of children because the children are not voting age adults? that is the question. how do you divide electoral districts? do you count everybody or just the actual eligible voters. host: these are not the only big cases coming up. there are a couple other big cases that have to do with the president's executive action on immigration on deportation. tell us about the likelihood of that one reaching the court. guest: well, we think the court will decide the case. basically, president obama issued an executive order that said we are not going to try to deport otherwise law-abiding people who have lived in the united states who even have a child that is a legal citizen. we would actually like those people to come forward, register

with us, go through a background check. if everything checks out, they can get a work permit. a temporary suspension of deportation, it is called. texas and a lot of republican aates went to court and won court order that blocked the order from taking effect. lawyers have appealed to the supreme court. re-think in january they will vote to hear the case and decide it by june. -- iourt would have to say think this is a close call -- whether the order, using the president's power to enforce the law or if the president has gone beyond the law and gone too far. the likelihood is they will decide the issue in june. the president's order could go into effect the last eight

months of his term or blocked. host: busy term ahead. next, we have ernie from arizona. you are on with david savage. caller: i would like to ask mr. savage if he could give some kind of inkling on why we cannot vote on the weekends. how come it is not so much easier to vote? one other question would be, there some way to do this electronically or with a computer or something so we do not have to be on tuesday every time? my time is valuable. i know it is important to vote. host: i am going to cut you off because we only have 30 seconds for david to answer. guest: i am with you. they should make it easier to vote. some states have allowed early

voting on weekends. it does not seem like we are heading to electronic voting soon. it strikes me as a good idea. but that is up to the states, not up to the courts. host: david savage from the los angeles times, thank you for joining us. guest: good to be with you. host: that is all for today. we will be back tomorrow at 7:00. have a great saturday. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> coming up, a look at wasteful spending by the federal government according to james lankford. then, bob