i'm maury. right now the patriot games. democrats aren't seeing eye to eye. >> i'm angela rye in for crystal ball. this hour, a politician who has stood up to members of his own party under the patriot act and today congressman peter welch is reviewing it. >> don't believe the hype over addiction. >> and i'm s.e. cuppen, indianapolis. i fled the coast for middle america, well, for the day anyway. but many americans are making it a permanent vacation to jobsland. well, the secret's out, or is it.

two top senators are demanding that the court. that's a big "t" for transparency, i'd say an "a" for effort and according to some a "d" on arrival for the senate according to senator dick durbin anyway. now tech companies are asking president obama to's. google says it may make them feel better. the actually now collected in the searches is far less than many people may think. the basic approach of monitoring everyday communications by the nsa, of course, and of americans was made legal by the patriot act and expanded in 2008. a select few members of congress, however, have been very evoke dal. one of those, peter welch from vermont will join us in just a few. stick around for that. first we have a friend of the show, "washington post" matt miller right here at the table. >> matt, thank you so much for joining us today.

the issue that we really need to figure out is why are people so concern concerned about the government having access to the information through twitter, social meade yarks pictures from everything from their feet to their new hairdo. is the worry that the government is accessing this without us knowing it or should they by sharing. >> that's a good question. i think the polls are showing most americans are not upset. there's a very vocal group. most americans are looking at this with kind of a shrug, kind of assuming this was going on already. i agree. those guys are doing it to monetize all of private

information. thing it's arguably as fishy if not more. in fact, if google's writing saying they want to have the government say what was the request, let us expose what you've asked us, i'd like google and facebook to explain their algorithms, how they roll up our information, monetize it and sell it to advertisers. thank would be wildly informative. i think if we knew what they were actually doing we'd find it also as creepy. >> you see them agreeing but on this they are in cahoots. friedman says, look, if there's one more 9/11, it could lead to the end of open society as we know it. if there was another 9/11, 99% of americans, he fears, would tell their members of congress, do whatever you need to do to make this go away. so the encroachment if we consider it that that we have now with the nsa program is nothing compared to the

intelligence program we would have and do you agree with the idea? >> i do agree with that. the big picture here is i thought we've always been incredibly lucky. there are the real heroes. worse, man, if something like that happened or one or two of those things happened, we seed see the kind of crackdown that you associate with fiction. there was a movie called "siege" a decade aerks martial law and people locked up. if you need to find a need the haystack you need a haystack. look. i'm a ron wyden fan. i think it's fine to get more details about what's being done. i think we'd be upset if something happen and we didn't do something. >> i thought it sort of encapsulate add whole bundle of the misperceptions that i've

seen this the washington pundit class. >> remember, i'm based in los angeles. >> that's one strike. >> so that's the real world. >> l.a. is reality, not image. look. you write, matt, it's program that's legal, reviewed by congress and subject to court your sight and those are arguments we've heard a lot. it's not league in the sense that the supreme court has affirmly ruled on this. you know. you're lawyer. the court said we're not going to get to the merits of all the surveillance programs. it basically said they cannot prove it so they don't have standing. so for general discussion in washington i understand why some 350e78 say, well, doesn't this sound legal, it's not illegal and hasn't been ruled illegal. point two, you mention congress being involved. they've slurly been involved at the structural level.

yesterday for many members of congress including reliable members of the intelligence committee, what we're hearing is what they authorize, the statutory language, was not intended to go this far. we've seen both parties say that. third, to that point, if you look at the report which i have here, the 2012 report, they say, well, we did 205 requests for these kind of records in 2011 and this year in 2012 we only did 212. very slight uptick. we found out that number is for all intents and purposes a lie. no one will call that that in washington. it was incomplete. it's one thing to sate's classified and another when the government sends something like this, this being from the obama justice department with lice in it. we learn it's not 200, not a thousand, several million to verizon alone.

>> i feel like this is part of the perry mason show where i should withdraw my "washington post" column. look, you raise a lot of points. the shorthand i was trying to use of it being that it wasn't some rogue set of spice who were off doing the kind of off the books thing that you'd see in a matt damon lud lamb-style miller and there's a process and procedure where this analyst at 29 wants to -- you know the guy who's off in hawaii upset by this. there are other modes he could have taken. he could have been running to ron wyden or running to jeff merkel. there's a million things he could have done to reveal something thousands of americans and billions of dollars could have spent to make us safe.

i'm not pooh-poohing that. my own in the big picture is i would expect the government to be doing something like this in the idea in the initial hours in which he was being cast as a hero. >> i understand that. to your point not totally off the books we want to go to some breaking news. we have some testimony we're going to hear today. i believe that's senator durbin speaking in the senate in a committee hearing on this very issue. let's listen in. >> but under my provision, innocent americans with no connection to any of these would be protected. the republican controlled senate approved my reform to 215 unanimously. however, the bush administration objected. it was removed in the conference committee. i tried to put this back into the patriot act. now that the cloak has been lifted by media reports that the nsa obtained phone records of millions of innocent americans

with no connection to terrorism. the data includes the numbers with both parties to the calls, the location of the calls and the time and duration of the calls. i've about been briefed on these programs and i obviously won't discuss their details here, but it appears to me that the government could obtain the useful information we need to be safe and still protect innocent americans. my question to you is this. section 215 can be used to obtain, quote, any tangible thing, close quote. that could include, could include medical records, internet search records, tax records, credit card records. last year the government filed 212 section 215 orders. that's an increase from 2009. clearly it's being used iffer something other than phone records. so let me ask you. do you think section 215 giving

you authority to secure tangible things could include the categories of information that i just listed? >> we don't -- i don't use those so i'm not aware of anything that goes like that. that would be outside of nsa. all we use this for today is the business records, fisa. i do want to point out something you said here. as you know, this was developed, and i agree with you. we all had this concern coming out of the 9/11. how would we protect the nation. we had information but we didn't know where he was. we didn't have the data collected to know he was a bad person. we had no information on it. and if we didn't collect it ahead of time, we couldn't make those connections. so what we create is a set of data and we put it out here.

and then only under specific times do we query that day tachlt any time we do that, it's audible by the committees, by the justice department, by the court, and by the administration. we get oversight from everybody on this. >> i'm over my time, but i want to -- here's the point. if you knew that a suspect had made a call into area code 312, the city of chicago, it certainly defies logic that you need to collect all of the tell phone calls made to the 312 area code on the chance that one of those persons might be on the other end of the phone. now if you have a suspected contact, that to me is clear. i want you to go after that person. what i'm concerned about is the reach beyond that that affects innocent people. >> so we agree at least on that part and the next step in the debate that we actually need to talk about is so what happens if you don't know he's in 312 yet and so something happens and now

we say who was he talking to? so let's take midar. you would authorize us to get midar's phones in california, but midar was talking to the other four teams. under the business record fisa, because we had store thad data in a database, we now have what we call reasonable arctic u label situation and we could go and see the four other groups. we don't know who those people were. we'd only get numbers, say this looks of interest and pass that to the fbi. we don't look at the identities of it. we only look at the connections. >> i'm way over time. i'm not going dwell on it. you have just given clear information about telephone contacts which i don't worry with. what i quarrel with is querying

all calls in california. >> thank you very much. >> general alexander i want to talk cyber command, but senator durbin has raise add very interesting question. let me just follow up on this. would this lead the scenario that he's laid out, would it lead to a telephone record search for all of omaha or walk us through that. >> so the methodology would be let's put into a secure environment called detailed records. these are two phone records. and at a selected time -- so we don't know anything that's in there. we won't search that. unless we have some reasonable arct arctic u label situation, we can

now look and say who was this guy talking to in the united states and why. >> so you could search across the breadst of the records? >> if you didn't collect it, how would you know who he was talking to and so the information becomes if you don't have information -- i don't have any connections. i just give you the number. find out who he's talking to. you don't have the information. so you see the issue is this was the debate -- i mean you bring it up because this came up ten years ago. we want to protect civil liberties and we want to protect the country. so the thought was a reasonable approach that we all agreed on. congress, the courts, the administration was we'll put this in a way that we have

tremendous oversight by the court and so every time your people, the small set can, they have to have a small reason to look at the data and when they get something out they have to say does this meet the reporting guide lions and put it in the report. only a few go out a year. handfuls. >> does this extend beyond telephone records? for example could you check and see could yu check and see who that person is e-mailing? so there's two parts to your question here. so going to the next step, once we identify a person of interest, then it goes to the fbi. the fbi will then look at that and say what more do we now need to look at that individual themselves. so there are issues and things that they would then look at if passed to them.

>> so the answer to the question is yes. >> it would. >> or would it take a court order. >> it would. to do any kind of search in these areas, you have to have a court order. >> so now you've gotten into phone records. you've gotten into who they might be googling. you've gotten into who they might be e-mailing. what else do you feel that you can get? >> so i'm not sure of your question. a terrorist acting -- >> you don't know that it's a terrorist yet. you've got this kind of uneasy notion, this feeling that something is happening here. >> so that's the -- >> wait, wait. let's just stop here a minute. we're not -- we're not going inhibit your questions, but i think we need to clarify that

the activity in which you're operating, general alexander, we're getting into probable cause about these that are absolutely important in the debate. you will be functioning also with a warrant. senator feinstein, did you want to clarify? you'll get more time. >> if i may, quickly senator, it's my understanding you have the metadata, you have the records, what appears on a phone bill, and if you want to go to the content, then you have to get a court order, the same thing you would do in a criminal case. you'd have to get a court order that would permit you to collect the content of the call. you can ask him if that's right or wrong. >> that's correct. >> but i mean -- and i assume that, but i'm not talking about content at this point. i'm not asking if you can read somebody's e-mails. i'm assuming at some point there

would be a legal standard by which you could do that. being a lawyer, i know that. what i'm only getting to is you've identified for us that you can get phone contacts, can you get google contacts, e-mail contact? i'm not talking about reading the i'm or what they're saying back and forth. i'm not at that point, but what i worry about is how far do you believe this authority extend ss. again, i'm not askinger reading the e-mail. >> there's a couple of things i want to make sure we've got. the b.r.fisa only talks about phone contact, phone me tade ta.

that's all that program talks about. so any program that we have -- and senator feinstein, if you want to get the content, you'd have to get a court order. in any of these programs you know we have court orders for doing that with oversight by congress, by the courts, and by the administration. >> we are listening live to the appropriations committee on cyber kmurnlt where executive keith alexander has been answering a rage of questions from senators both broadly supportish including senator feinstein as well as some critics including senator durbin. as some people recall durbin was one of 29 senators who voted against expanding surveillance under the act recently in in 2008. a lot those kpangss are now a big subject of the ongoing surveillance. i'm going to throw it to matt

from the "washington post" who's still with us. >> matt, i wanted to go back to a couple of things we talked about before we tossed to the hearing. one ones, the argument that the republican has done. we shouldn't use public outrage as a barometer for what's right and wrong. they're not necessarily right or wrong. i find it start ling hypocrisy when we're talking the nonshah lance on the left in some regard for this program when there was a lot of outrage when there was a republican in the white house so i just wanted to make those two points. but there was a point you made in your columbia that i completely agreed with and that is your psycho analysis of folks like snowden. i completely agree that there's a weird grand yosty to folks like him to seem to believe that they can justify their criminal alt by saying that there was an

earnestless, a self-righteousness, they really believed they were going to change the world here, when really they're just criminals. so my question to you is do we care what their motives are? is that an important thing to sort of ses out? >> i think it's interesting. thing we were all mesmerized when the news broke out on sunday. i went and the looket add this book that albert hirshman wrote and when do you rebel by speaking out and when do you not. i don't know what the use was for going back to the books but it was interesting. i think the motive is that's part of the story. i think you and i agree s.e., this was a grand yoez young man who decided to do something that was illegal and a betrayal of a trust and something that he swore not to do, and that's

regrettable and he'll pay some price for that but it's a good debate to have and these issues are going to be with us. the thing i was struck with by watching the hearings is to me how impressive a figure that nsa director seemed to be and also i would love to see hearings not in a legal sense but informational sense. i would love to see the internet companies explain what they're doing the very same way because they're tracking every click and they know everything about our online behavior which is an increasing amount of the time americans are spending every day. >> but we're aware and participating that sort of contractual agreement. we might not like it and we might decide this is the price we're going to pay to have medial information at our finger prints. at least we're aware that that's going on. >> i don't think people are aware of the extent you're being monitored and your behavior sold to advertisers.

i think if that were exposed to public scrutiny, there would be more outrage to what those companies might do. >> that's mat miller with your corporations and your government. thanks for being here today, matt. we're also watching another hearing here. certainly an issue that everyone can agree on, right? well, we'll find out on "spin" next. on home repair to healthcare written by people just like you. with angie's list, i know who to call, and i know the results will be fantastic. angie's list -- reviews you can trust. a body at rest tends to stay at rest... while a body in motion tends to stay in motion. staying active can actually ease arthritis symptoms. but if you have arthritis, staying active can be difficult. prescription celebrex can help relieve arthritis pain so your body can stay in motion. because just one 200mg celebrex a day

can provide 24 hour relief for many with arthritis pain and inflammation. plus, in clinical studies, celebrex is proven to improve daily physical function so moving is easier. celebrex can be taken with or without food. and it's not a narcotic. you and your doctor should balance the benefits with the risks. all prescription nsaids, like celebrex, ibuprofen, naproxen and meloxicam have the same cardiovascular warning. they all may increase the chance of heart attack or stroke, which can lead to death. this chance increases if you have heart disease or risk factors such as high blood pressure or when nsaids are taken for long periods. nsaids, like celebrex, increase the chance of serious skin or allergic reactions, or stomach and intestine problems, such as bleeding and ulcers, which can occur without warning and may cause death. patients also taking aspirin and the elderly are at increased risk for stomach bleeding and ulcers. don't take celebrex if you have bleeding in the stomach or intestine, or had an asthma attack, hives, other allergies to aspirin, nsaids or sulfonamides. get help right away if you have swelling of the face or throat, or trouble breathing. tell your doctor your medical history.

and find an arthritis treatment for you. visit celebrex.com and ask your doctor about celebrex. for a body in motion.

visit celebrex.com and ask your doctor about celebrex. for a store near you go to benjaminmoore.com/bayarea. we continue to watch that senate hearing where the armed services committee is marking up a bill to tackle military sexual assault and that effort has taken a big hit. senate armed services committee carl levin said today he was dropping an amendment proposed by senator kirsten gillibrand. it would have given military prosecutors rather than commanders the power to decide which sexual assault crimes to

try. in an effort to placate gillibrand supporters levin replaced it with a measure that would require a senior military officer to review decisions by commanders to decline sex abuse cases. still, though, keeping it within the chain of command, which the military command wants. so let's start the conversation with nbc news capitol hill hill correspondent kel yo o'donnell. >> it's good to be with you. i think there's an important thing to look at. members of this committee in both parts agree something has to be done, something big has to be done to change what has been a rampant increase in sexual assault cases within the military. the big fight is ore how do that and there's a really serious divide over believing that the military's history and its own culture of running all of its big decisions through a chain of command, if that should stay in place or if there should be the changes that you just outlined. and so kirsten gillibrand got a

lot of attention for this, moved it forward in a big way. right now there are many members on the committee who while they appreciate what she has done are willing to support this alternative that the chairman has put forward which would make incremental steps. it would make it a crime to retaliate against someone who had a case of sexual abuse, bring in additional military supervisors but still stay in the chain of command. this is not the end but for the plan that kiersten gillibrand put forward with two dozen other members, that is coming to an end today. she made a passionate argument for it. she said people don't come forward because of the chain of command. not that they don't trust their judgment but the whole idea that in addition to it someone's career is on the line, someone who's decorated a at higher level would feel a lot of discomfort doing that. they say there's just abundant evidence that the chain of command is part of the problem.

there's disagreement on that, but carl levin is going to prevail in this, and, of course, that means that the brass from the pentagon that wanted this to stay within the chain of command will also get its way. s.e.? >> thanks, kelly. let's spin on this, guys. let me start by saying rare is the occasion that i agree with kirsten gillibrand, but here she is 100% right look, i am fine with allowing our military leaders to decide what's best for them. i was fine with that when it came to allowing women to serve in combat roles. i was fine when it came to repealing "don't ask, don't tell." i believe that their judgment is good. i'd be fine with that in this case if the record of adjudicating sexual assaults in the military were not so appallingly ineffective. you have lost our trust.

another thing i find so interesting on how divided we are on this. i'm so speechless about this. you have carl levin against kirsten gillibrand. patrick leahy against sanchez. to me this is such an obvious solution. i think the division and resistance is really sort of fascinating to watch. >> i understand what you're saying, s.c., but the other thing you have to realize is part of our body politic is definitely torn by, you know, their constituents. there are military bases in some of the members' districts which you mention. the other thing to mention is gillibra gillibrand's proposal would bring about big change. those not in a chain of command that may not know these folks is uncomfortable. you have that. you also have the fact that eleven's amendment is a little softer, so it's microlevel change and folks may before more

comfortable with that. what's scary is you have an estimated 23,000 cases of abuse but only 3,374 reporting. so therein lies a huge problem. something definitely has to happen and it's time to get tough. >> something has to happen. we're in the moment right now. i think it's palpable to people who follow the news and follow politics. this issue, like many indem nick criminal injustices is not always news because it's always the case. and yet for a range of factors including the rising power of women advocates in the senate as well as i think some important advocacy journalism and primary reporting, we finally see this issue hit center stage. what's happening? it's what always happens in washington. you have a fake made up inefficient and unreal attempt to take the reform energy and avoid any real accountability.

there's no doubt that everything we just heard that's being put forward like kelly o'donnell is reporting has nothing to do with solving the problem. she mentioned the alternative proposal of making criming out of retaliation. well, these crimes aren't being prosecuted. if they're not prosecuting the sexual assaults, why would they prosecute the retaliation? it's not hard to figure out. then the one in eleven's proposal, raising punishment. meaning longer terms. again, no prosecution. >> no convictions. >> right. less than 1 out of 100. anybody who's had a cursory familiarity knows how hollow that is. eleven opposed the iraq war, looking at issues that have been politically unpopular, so i think what we're seeing here is a guy who i think is a good person. i don't think we have to impugn his character, but i think

several decades of working with the military establishment has left him with an establishment view of a problem that will not be solved by establishment solutions. we need reform, independent prosecutions. it's interesting to me as i mentioned once before this comes at a time when we talk about prosecuting lyrics and prosecuting other bad activities and there niece no doubt rape is an uncons schonable act especially when we're seeing it at this endemic level. i'd echo some of what you say, s.e. and we talk about it on the panel, toure. >> itthey are less crucial, they're making less of a sacrifice, seen as less tough and less strong because they're not doing the ultimate thing, the ultimate sacrifice, the ultimate challenge, going into combat. now the recent chang to allow women to go into combat is going to go a long way to helping change that and set them up as

not inferior but it's going to take years before that filters in and changes up the body. until then there's a problem in the soul of the military and i think about what john mccain said about could you protect my daughter if she want god into the military. absolutely not. i would be as much afraid of what a soldier might do to her as well as an enemy might do to her, which is insane. >> and let's not forget a lot of these sexual assaults happen to men as well. so it's a big problem. some breaking news we're following right now back where you guys are in new york city. some dramatic images of two window washers who are stuck on a scaffold. the window washers are near the top floor of the 45-floor high-wise and there's an ongoing rescue under way. traffic around the building off 57th and 58th street and th avenue is closed off. we'll continue to watch this

rescue effort. yikes. quick break. congressman peter welch is next. i want peacocks. peacocks? walking the grounds. in tuscany. [ man ] her parents didn't expect her dreams to be so ambitious. italy? oh, that's not good. [ man ] by exploring their options, they learned that instead of going to italy, they could use a home equity loan to renovate their yard and have a beautiful wedding right here while possibly increasing the value of their home. you and roger could get married in our backyard. it's robert, dad. [ female announcer ] come in to find the right credit options for your needs. because when people talk, great things happen.

otherworldly things. but there are some things i've never seen before. this ge jet engine can understand 5,000 data samples per second. which is good for business. because planes use less fuel, spend less time on the ground and more time in the air. suddenly, faraway places don't seem so...far away. ♪ rescue under way.

rescue under way. welcome back to the cycle. we're joined today by congressman peter welch who voefted against the fisa amendment act of 2,000. thanks for being with us. >> thank you. >> you are skeptical to some of the expansions of surveillance. two questions aft s off the top. number one, is this sort of what you were concerned about, and, two, what do you think of the new propoelsal this week of senator merkley argueling that at least some of the secret opinions should be published so there is a reasonable trance parent debate of what's going on. >> in fact i didn't anticipate there would be this massive data collection by the nsa and by in

effect the government. i think senator merkley's on the right track. there's two issues here. this is what i think is important to make the distinction. one is if the government's going to be having this massive data bank of your telephone calls and mine and your e-mails and mine, that's not a particularized focus of the investigation. there's no reason it has to be secret. that should be disclosed by the administration and slould be debated in public and people should make a decision about the trade-off. that's something i think should be in public and discussed. also some of these opinions, if we don't see what the opinions are, we have no clue as to what's going on. in fact, i think there should be much more openless. the other point is when there's a particular investigation focused on an individual because there's probable cause to thing they may be up to something bad, that has to be secret and we have to maintain that in order for them to have a shot at being successful, but that's the distinction that's not being made now between an oversized

policy and a particular investigation. >> congressman welsh, you talk a lot about oversight. but what do you think congress should do legislatively to address some of the ongoing concerns that we're seeing with the overwhelming oversight or overwhelming issues with the prism program and in essay, the surveillance more generally? is it the repeal of the patriot act or fisa steps? what do you suggest? >> i suggest the mercury approach to tighten up that 'approach in the patriot act but i think the prospect's success are limited. in fact, i think this is a role that is much more suited to us is oversight. i mean why is it that this policy of data collection should be secret? you know, there's a lot of americans that support that. you know, if it's a private company that's getting all this information, they have a duty of

disclosure, so i think disclosure would allow us to have that debate. another thing that's a concern to me is a lot of these demands are going to be driven by the corporations. booz allen hamilton has basically one cliechblt there's going to be an interest on the part of companies to drive up expense. in fact, i think with disclosure you're going have beater debate about what it is financially and education wise and i think the american people would be pretty reasonable. >> congressman, some of the defense of programs like prism is that congress has been briefed on this, and, in fact, we're getting reports that many congressional reports did not feel they were sufficiently briefed on the programmes. >> well, i didn't get briefed, not that i know of. if somebody said it at a passing

glance, it went right by me. but there's a more important question. shouldn't the american people be briefed? it's their money, their privacy. and if i'm a member of congress and i get briefed, then i'm prohibited from sharing what i learned with the people i represent so i'm muzzled. in fact, the american people themselves are the ones who have to be involved. and, again, this is where i just don't understand why we don't disclose what these approaches are that we're taking when it has to do with a comprehensive gathering of data and it does not in any way threaten a specific investigation. that's where you've got to step aside and let the law enforcement do its job secretly the way they want to do it. >> some peel talk about when we disclose the methods that then does not compromise the decision ones but the program. what do you think of that argument? >> i think it's kind of bogus.

just think about it. if the nsa has all of your telephone calls and mine and all of your e-mails and mine and we know that's true for every american, how is that -- to the terrorist, that is -- that doesn't get to the specifics of what they're going to do or how they're going do it. it tends to be self-serving. let's give americans the credit that they can make appropriate decisions about repeating consideration of privacy and security. you know, people do support the government taking appropriate steps for security and they do support letting law enforcement and security entities the do thank job when it's focused a specific individual or terrorist threat. but the blanket access to everything we do, if that's what's proposed, they should disclose that with the american people in advance. >> congressman thank you for spending time with us.

we know it's a busy day where you had votes, the senate looking into testimony and we understand it will be down on the house for -- house side for a closed hearing tomorrow. thanks for making time with us. >> thank you. >> absolutely. now back here in new york we're watching those two window washers we mentioned stuck on a building in midtown. firefighters working to free them. we will keep you updated. stay with us on that and much more. time for the "your biz" entrepreneurs of the week. new moms realized they didn't have a good place to take their babies in new york city. so with their husbands they opened apple seeds, a clean unique place based in manhattan. it has since expanded globally. for more, watch "your business" sunday mornings at 7:30 on msnbc. ♪ i' 'm a hard, hard ♪ worker every day. ♪ i' ♪ i'm a hard, hard worker and i'm working every day. ♪ ♪ i'm a hard, hard worker and i'm saving all my pay. ♪

♪ if i ever get some money put away, ♪ ♪ i'm going to take it all out and celebrate. ♪ ♪ i'm a hard, hard worker... ♪ membership rallied millions of us on small business saturday to make shopping small, huge. this is what membership is. this is what membership does. have hail damage to both their cars. ted ted is trying to get a hold of his insurance agent. maxwell is not. he's on geico.com setting up an appointment with an adjuster. ted is now on hold with his insurance company. maxwell is not and just confirmed a 5:30 time for tuesday. ted, is still waiting. yes! maxwell is out and about... with ted's now ex-girlfriend. wheeeee! whoo! later ted! online claims appointments. just a click away on geico.com. accomplishing even little things can become major victories. i'm phil mickelson, pro golfer. when i was diagnosed with psoriatic arthritis,

my rheumatologist prescribed enbrel for my pain and stiffness, and to help stop joint damage. [ male announcer ] enbrel may lower your ability to fight infections. serious, sometimes fatal events msnbc. in rculosis, lymphoma, other cancers, nervous system and blood disorders, and allergic reactions have occurred. before starting enbrel, your doctor should test you for tuberculosis and discuss whether you've been to a region where certain fungal infections are common. you should not start enbrel if you have an infection like the flu. tell your doctor if you're prone to infections, have cuts or sores, have had hepatitis b, have been treated for heart failure, or if you have symptoms such as persistent fever, bruising, bleeding, or paleness. since enbrel helped relieve my joint pain, it's the little things that mean the most. ask your rheumatologist if enbrel is right for you. [ doctor ] enbrel, the number one biologic medicine prescribed by rheumatologists. [ doctor ] enbrel, the number one biologic medicine every day we're working to and to keep our commitments. and we've made a big commitment to america. bp supports nearly 250,000 jobs here. through all of our energy operations,

we invest more in the u.s. than any other place in the world. in fact, we've invested over $55 billion here in the last five years - making bp america's largest energy investor. our commitment has never been stronger. msnbc.

the financial meltdown caught wall street and washington by surprise but as early as 2006 our next guest made waves by predicting that the security of the mortgage market would explode the entire economy. remember when that happened? now she's turning to a new end. people who are setting up shop in florida, california, and texas. the ores are actually suffering more and more from a housing bubble hangover which means simply the jobs may be i heading inland. here in the guest spot to tell us more is meredith whitney, ceo of the company meredith whitney. glad to have you. >> thank you for having me. you just did a great job of describing my book i don't need

to say anything. what was hot is no longer hot and what is hot is what wasn't hot, right? so at the -- 17 states i talk about not only have gas energy but they have low tax districts. so there's a lot more dry powder and they're starting off from a much better spot. you see, really actually not enough workers in these areas, and so whem pen people on the c are struggling to find jobs and more and more are falling into poverty they should look inland. there's a graduate opportunity here. >> so meredith, you just touched on it a little bit about unemployment and boy know the unemployment rate is still pretty high. it's even higher for youth and people of color generally and then there's also this wealth gap challenge that continues to perpetuate itself. so what should our elected officials be focusing on in this

day and age when they're focused scandal when we have this economy problem that affects all of us? >> it's so frustrating. the single highest correlation between else is employment. unemployment. so we have to -- there's a skills gap. we have to train people and educate people and do a better job with schools working with byes to provide a syllabus for something they want to hire for. you're seeing that in certain areas across country. north carolina did a great job with governor perdue. states need to aggressively train people for the right things. here's the sad reality. when states are out of whack from a budget perspective, they cut money everybody programs that should be essential like education and training and they preserve things that really are essential to some people but the point is, the states now doing well, it greats a pro cyclical environment. look how well wyoming has done. they're plowing money back into

infrastructure, education. that's why i think they're becoming more and more competitive. you see why certain states are getting less and let competitive because they don't have money to invest in the right things. >> meredith. i'm here in indiana, one of the states you talk about. i spent the morning with governor mike pence talking about the fiscal health of indiana. things that you talked about. loweringism tas, deregulating, incentivizing businesses like geico to come into indiana. and pouring money into infrastructure, education, what does indiana get that new york and california don't? >> oh, man. where do i begin. indiana in my book i talk about really i give the biggest shoutout to former governor daniels who did so many incredible things with political courage in terms of the privatization of the indiana toll road raised $4 billion that he could invest in creating jobs and paying down debt. indiana has aggressively gone after businesses. the tag line let's face it, you

find me fiscally attractive, indiana's tag line to attract businesses is cute. but they changing to the last state to become a right to work state. doing everything in their power to make the state as attractive and sustainable for long-term business investment. that creates jobs and spoils of riches because then it gets more tax revenues to invest back in education and all the right things. >> it's working >> wow. is it true that you can see the future? >> only when my crystal ball is you know. >> but she's not here. >> my crystal's ball not here. that was harmonious. thanks again for joining us. still ahead, final thoughts on the story of the hour, the week, the month. can you guess what we're talking about? (girl) what does that say? (guy) dive shop. (girl) diving lessons. (guy) we should totally do that.

(girl ) yeah, right. (guy) i wannna catch a falcon! (girl) we should do that. (guy) i caught a falcon. (guy) you could eat a bug. let's do that. (guy) you know you're eating a bug. (girl) because of the legs. (guy vo) we got a subaru to take us new places. (girl) yeah, it's a hot spring. (guy) we should do that. (guy vo) it did. (man) how's that feel? (guy) fine. (girl) we shouldn't have done that. (guy) no. (announcer) love. it's what makes a subaru, a subaru. tens of thousands of dollars in hidden fees on their 401(k)s?! go to e-trade and roll over your old 401(k)s to a new e-trade retirement account. none of them charge annual fees and all of them offer low cost investments. e-trade. less for us. more for you.

when the news broke about the nsa's spying, the "huffington post" was quick to weigh in and ran this picture of president obama's face melting into the smug semifinal his predecessor president bush. that reaction is as simplistic as it is unoriginal. if you examine the law, not photo shopped bush's spying program was quite different. his administration started a secret program to wiretap people without warns, violated existing law and not authorized by new loss. the administration tried to keep that program secret from even its own lawyers who actually are supposed to approve all executive orders. that cover-up failed and those lawyers and the fbi director found out and threatened to resign en masse. when those leaks to "the new york times" in 2005 exposed the program, a judge on the fisa court did resign in protest. it was a big deal. now it's how congress responded

to bush in those days that set up the problems we've been talking about. the courts never ultimately ruled on the merits of bush's program. they found because no one could prove they were spied onned you the secret program, no one had the standing to sue. in an unusual move congress granted those corporations retroactive immunity. the big telephone companies and gun manufacturers are two of the only industries that have been granted such a special exemption. never having to go to court. congress pass ed severity amendments that were sold as tweaks to allow some flexibility for parts of that new program under bush to continue. but this time, there was going to be some legal check by the courts. many democrats said the new rules were too broad and could be abused. that's why ultimately 29 democrats in the senate voted against those fisa amendments in 2008, including reid, schumer, durbin and senators biden and kerry. many criticized senator obama at

the time for backing that bill. "the washington post" in fact called it his most substantive break with the democratic party's base since becoming the nominee. it was fine for congress to bring the program back under the law. that was a start. ultimately those an ems ended up undermining accountability. the big question was whether the changes might be exploited through decisions called secret law and open a door for mass surveillance without warrants. that's what senator merkley warned. >> there's decisions that may may confirm the plain language operates in a fashion that protects the fourth amendment or those interpretations of fisa may stand the statute on its head and open a door that may be open a slit be turned into a wide open gate. >> that's why the leak of the ruling is so significant. it proves for the first time that the gate was busted wide open. instead of one warrant for one search, there's now a, quote

unquote, warrant for millions of phone lines which is like having no warrant and that is like having no oversight. that is the nsa's current error, what this fight should be about. without oversight, the huge power of spying problems to be a huge temptation for abuse. we've heard a lot of talk about punishing any leaks that violate the law. that's understandable. but we need the same vigilance towards punishing other surveillance abuse to ensure people we're so ready to trust with our personal information have some accountability. right now, we're basically standing by as congress keeps expanding a massive often privately run surveillance industry with immunity from civil suits and very little oversight from the criminal courts. many people have said they trust the government to keep us safe. okay. but when it comes to the private corporations and military contractors that actually run the system, i'd like a model of trust but verify. that does it for us on "the cycle." it's all yours.

>> it's wednesday, june 12th. the secrets we keep but exactly how we keep them, that's now up for debate. ♪ >> this international man of histohi mystery. >> they've launched a manhunt. >> i'm 29 years old. >> he's a traitor. >> should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. >> people are against the country. i'm not. >> this guy is just imitating bush and thinks it will make me like him. >> he knows he's committing civil disobedience and knows he could get punished. >> that's a fear i'll live under for the rest of my life. >> how far we go with public safety versus how far we go on the other side. >> i welcome this debate. >> absolutely appropriate. it is entirely appropriate. he welcome a debate. >> it's a sign of maturity. >> you can see it on both sides. >> the o