tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN October 30, 2013 6:00pm-8:01pm EDT
outstanding nominee with broad support across the political spectrum. there is no question she's well qualified to serve on the bench and would serve with distincti distinction. i urge my colleagues to give her a chance with an up-or-down vo vote. she does not deserve to have her nomination filibustered. if there is anyone who can step forward and question this nominee's qualification, they should do so. they haven't to date. some of my republican colleagues have accused the president of trying to -- quote -- pack the d.c. circuit by making nominations to fill the outstanding vacancies in that court. this argument is simply not credible. filling vacancies for existing judgeships is not court packing. these judgeships are authorized by law, and it's incumbent upon the president to nominate qualified candidates to fill that. others across the aisle have
argued the d.c. circuit doesn't have a high enough caseload. there just aren't enough cases there to justify a full complement of 11 judges. i would note the same republican senators did not make that argument in 2005 when the senate confirmed janice rogers brown and thomas griffith to the tenth and 11th judgeships on the d.c. circuit. mr. president, i ask for order in the senate, please. the presiding officer: the chamber will be in order. mr. durbin: back in 2005 when the senate concurred with the tenth and 11th judgeships in the d.c. circuit, they were the choices on the republican side of the aisle. even though these confirmations which we approved reduced the court's workload to fewer cases per active judge than what we see as president obama sends his nominees to the senate. on april 5, the judicial conference of the united states, which is led by chief justice john roberts, made its federal judgeship recommendations for the 113th congress.
the judicial conference is nonpartisan, and according to a letter -- to its letter, its recommendations reflect the judgeship needs of the federal judiciary. the judicial conference did not recommend stripping any judgeships from the d.c. circuit, so this argument on the other side of the aisle is not supported by the supreme court and the supreme court justice and this committee. my republican colleagues like to argue about workload statistics when it comes to the d.c. circuit, but according to the post fact checker glenn kessler whom i have come to know -- quote -- "the voluminous and detailed statistics on the appeals courts allows each side to pick and choose the stats that support their position." now, republicans may claim the d.c. circuit's workload is too light, but mr. kessler in "the washington post" points out that by some metrics the d.c. circuit -- quote -- "could very well be in first place when it comes to workload. i also note that one of my
republican colleagues came to the floor today and explained his opposition to miss millett's nomination. he cited a letter the senate judiciary democrat sent in 2006 seeking a hearing postponement on peter kiesler nominated to fill the 11th seat on the d.c. circuit. i'd like to point out this letter dealt with filling the 11th seat on the d.c. circuit. miss millett is seeking the ninth seat. i also want to point out the senate had already voted to confirm a nominee to be the 11th judge on that circuit, thomas griffith just one year before this 2006 letter. i voted for mr. griffith on the floor. the bottom line is that these judicial vacancies currently exist. it's the president's job to nominate qualified men and women to change them and there is no question that the president's nominee for this position, patricia millett, is one of the most well qualified persons that he could have found to fill this important position. no one comes forward to
criticize her background and her resume because, frankly, it's hard to find a nominee with any stronger credentials for the federal bench. let's not play political games with this important nomination nor with people like patricia millett who put their names forward, have gone through this process, waited for us politicians to work our will on the floor. she deserves a vote, an up-or-down vote. and without objection, i'd like to have consent to enter into the record the letter from illinois lawyers supporting patricia millett for the u.s. circuit court of appeals for the d.c. circuit as well as a personal letter of october 24 from former u.s. attorney for the northern district, patrick fitzgerald of chicago. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. durbin: mr. president, i yield the floor. mrs. shaheen: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: i rise to join my colleague from illinois, senator durbin, to support patricia
millett in her appointment to the d.c. court of appeals. as he said so eloquently, ms. millett has brought bipartisan support, extensive litigation experience and she would make an outstanding addition to the d.c. circuit court of appeals. after graduating with honors from the university much illinois and -- university of illinois and harvard law schools, miss millett clerked at the united states court of appeals. she then spent 15 years at the department of justice, including 11 years as assistant to the solicitor general in both the republican and democratic administrations. again, i think it's important to point out she has support on both sides of the aisle. miss millett has argued 32 cases before the supreme court as well as dozens of others at the circuit court level, and she currently manages her law firm's supreme court and national appellate practice. she was unanimously rated well qualified by the american bar association's standing committee on the federal judiciary, and that is their highest rating.
in addition to her professional work, miss millett is very active in her community. she has been a literacy tutor for over 20 years, and she volunteers through her church at homeless shelters. miss millett has strong support across the political spectrum. again as senator durbin pointed out, she has been endorsed by seven former solicitors general of the united states, three former republican attorneys general, law enforcement groups and civil rights groups. she also has tremendous support from retired members of the military and groups representing military families. in addition to being a highly qualified nominee, miss millett will fill one of three current vacancies on the 11-member d.c. circuit court. as -- again, as senator durbin pointed out, the d.c. circuit is considered the second most important court in our nation. it is critical that it be fully staffed with qualified judges.
the court handles important terrorism and detention cases, it hears a large volume of complex issues involving administrative actions of the federal government, and the d.c. circuit is also considered the most important civilian court for members of the armed services and veterans. former d.c. circuit chief judge patricia wald noted -- quote -- "the d.c. circuit hears the most complex, time-consuming, labyrinthine disputes over regulations with the greatest impact on american -- ordinary americans' lives. clean air and water regulations, nuclear plant safety, health care reform issues, insider trading and more. the senate should have the opportunity to vote up or down on all of president obama's nominees to this important court. it is way past time we took action on this nomination. i urge my colleagues to support the millett nomination and yield
mr. reid: mr. president, i ask consent that the quorum call be terminated. officer without objection, so ordered. mr. reid: i now ask consent that as if in executive session, the nomination of rhea sun suh of colorado to be assistant secretary fo for fish and wildle sent to the president on october 30, 2013, be referred jointly to the committee on energy and natural sources and the committee on environment and public works. officer without objection, so ordered. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to s. 1561. calendar number 228.
the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 228, s. 1561, a bill to amend the public health service act to improve provisions relating to the sanctuary system for surplus chimpanzees. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? the presidinwithout objection. mr. reid: i ask that the committee-reported substitute amendment be agreed to, the bill as amended be read a third time, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. reid: i now ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to h.r. 3109. the presiding officer: clrt. the clerk will report. the clerk: an act to provide for the continued performance of the functions of the united states parole commission and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, so ordered. mr. reid: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the bill be read three times, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. reid: mr. president, i ask
permission to proceed to s. res. 278. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 27, designating october 2013 as school bus safety month. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, so ordered. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to h. con. res. 62. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h. con. res. 62, providing for a conditional adjournment of the house of representatives. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, so ordered. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. reid: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it agirn until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow morning and that following the prayer and pledge,
the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be aproved to date, the time be reserved for the two leaders later in the day, 2308ing any leader remarks, the snroot toed to executive session to consider the watt nomination with the time until 12 noon equally divided. at noon, senator-elect booke boe sworn n following the swearing in of senator-elect booker, that time he will be a senator, there will be two minutes of debate equally divide you had and controlled prior to a vote on the watt nomination. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. reid: first roll call vote will be at approximately 12:10 p.m. tomorrow on melvin l. watt. if floss further business to come before the senate, i ask come before the senate, i ask
>> a firm believer what they call the unauthorized biography. now, unauthorized does not mean untrue. any that you are doing it without the cooperation and blessing of your subject. and i do believe it's a legitimate, wonderful way to cover history, especially public figures that have spent many, many years and millions of dollars creating their own image. and so, i think it is valuable sometimes to go behind that. so usually, i am the one who is trying to get behind that and tell you what is going on.
magazine, mole hunt, an accessory port of soviet spies, tips set up one of the most self-destructive investigations in fbi history. this being, as far as we know one of the first mole hunts within the fbi agency. when did this happen? how did it come about? >> guest: well, it was the first mole hunt and it is in the current october of the sony and. i broke that story. i heard about it. it was very secret. the fbi still won't talk about it. but here's what happened, in 1962, a long time ago, a russian spy, kgb agent officer in new york city walked into the fbi building in manhattan and volunteered his services. he said he was discontent. his talents were being recognized. a familiar story when people come over and offer to work for
the united states. the fbi people said well, what you're taking a big chance to walk into our building here on 69th street because you might have been seen, you know, some doubt no doubt some of your people and our building. he said no, our people are all up meeting at this moment with your guy. i was telling the fbi that the russians had a mole inside the fbi and the russians called him. well, the fbi immediately launched a mole hunt to try and find trans eyes. because they didn't know his real name they called him on sub, which stands for unknowns subject. so it began and went on, turned the fbi inside out for several -- a couple decades anyway and went on for at least three decades and started looking for this guy.
>> host: again, dear it began? >> guest: 1962. >> host: was he ever caught, he or she? >> guest: that's a very interesting tori. it was a key. the question gets to the issue of whether or not the russian, whose name was alexander lott was code-named fedora. the question us as to whether or not he was telling the truth or just trying to upset the fbi and have been chasing mirrors, chasing rainbows as the old irish song says. but the belief was there really was a mole. there were 500 people in the new york office they really cannot. about half the people in the office because any one of them could have been the mole and was
he caught. in the 1980s, an analyst for the fbi named robert king began to get some information and collect came back to new york for the second time. and through krulak, they began to hear -- fedora krulak was the man who tipped off the fbi that on sub dick, your guide dick was there. they began hearing two things. popkin found out first about the man had retired and lived in queens new york, a borough of plans for many fbi and government people live because rents are lower than manhattan. i'm sure you're aware of that. the second piece of information very important was his name began with the letter g. well, king and other fbi people began looking to see if they could find anyone who would retire.
didn't find anybody. no match. then king realizes that the story explains that when you translate something into the really, the russian alphabet, english alphabet and then translated back again, you might get a different letter. so he found, but do they not retranslate a ration, he found out -- he found a match, somebody who lived in queens, had retired and in fact had been eased out because of a drinking problem and other medical issues. and it was believed he was the one. he denied it. he was visited several times by fbi agents, by the analyst themselves and he denied it. one of the fbi agents believe that denial in one did not. there were other interesting aspects to this because the man & co. luken, who now is in this country and with a top
counterintelligence of the kgb, now lives here. in his memoir, wrote that he and that his people in new york to visit this man in queens because they hope to get more information from him. collude and told me that the man said hey, i heard he gave you guys all that i know. don't bother me anymore. >> host: is he still alive, and the unsolved dick? >> guest: i don't know. >> host: what does the di say about your story, an exclusive report and said the smithsonian about the fbi's first mole hunt? >> guest: even i quote by name a dozen former fbi agents who were involved in this are aware of it and certainly knew all about dick, even though i quote a stoop on the record, the fbi's official comment was we have no
comment to move all confirmed there was such a case. >> host: nor deny a? >> guest: they won't comment whether there is such a case. they don't deny it. >> host: you've been covering these agencies for many years. what do you make of that, of the fbi's response? >> guest: the fbi's response is they are still sensitive about the fact they were penetrated for the first time or said they believe and they don't want to focus attention on it. so it was more of a pr comment than anything else because you have all of these guys telling me all about the case, which was in the story. >> host: our guest this morning, david rice, contributor to the most recent estonian magazine about the first mole hunt within the fbi history. that's on the magazine this morning as we continue our series here in the "washington journal." david rice as many of you know, authored several intelligent books are the most recent, tiger trap, america's secret spyware
or china spy, the inside story. co-author of the invisible government, the intelligence agencies and others. so before we get to phone calls here and encourage our viewers to start daily and now, talk about what happened when the fbi learned of a mole, giving secrets to the russians at the time. what did that trigger? >> guest: well, it triggered a mole hunt. an interesting nuance here is that when mr. krulak fedora came in and volunteered his services to the fbi, one thing he was sure a quiz that he wasn't talking to the mole because all of our guys are on the street meeting with your guy eyes. he was reassured about that. the fbi launched an intensive mole hunt that went on for
several decades and two people will put in charge of it, who were senior people and very trusted and they knew those two fellas were not the mole. they began looking at the background of other people. one interesting story that i love is the man named jim nolan, who later became a deputy assistant director of the fbi, with the young agent in new york looking for a place to live. hard to find. he wanted to make a phone call about an apartment. he went down to the garage, where there was a pay phone. mr. hoover did not allow you to use your own phone on your desk to make personal calls. he goes down to the garage. >> they were also catch. he wrote in the story as well. >> guest: you just got my story. the point is to is to go down to the payphone, starts to pick up in the asia and the asia and the 10 says don't use that one. meaning that one was tapped.
so we started thinking well. >> host: even the payphone. >> guest: lost that one has topped of the others are tapped. >> host: not as it triggered the mole hunt within the fbi for several years, for several decades. >> guest: it was the russians whacking anything it got a problem. >> host: looks good charles. hi, charles. >> caller: i am calling because there is a book written and sold in bookstores publicly, a bestseller about robert and, an fbi agent who was in information technology specialists. >> host: i wrote that book. it's called spy. >> caller: you're talking about robert hanssen. i'm talking about robert hanssen. >> caller: so this mole hunt story today is about the same man? >> guest: no, it was about the first mole hunt in the fbi which
are disclosed in the smithsonian magazine. because prior to this time there had been no mole discovered or known. and then there is a man named richard miller who is serving a sentence of life at any rate and a man named earl pitts who was sentenced to 27 years and robert hanssen who was sentenced to life in prison, which is where he is right now. what i was writing about in the smithsonian was the very first mole hunt. >> caller: so, is there any concern with the first mole that you wrote about? and is it possible this indicates there may be other people giving secrets to american enemies and the fbi? >> guest: it's always possible. if you're the counterintelligence business, which the fbi of course is a big
counterintelligence division, they always have to suspect that there may be some internal problem. the cia is the same thing. so sure, there's always a continuing concern. not so much anymore about the first mole hunt on sub dick. it's a continuing concern and that's why both agencies have important counterintelligence functions. >> host: could happen today but haven't been in the 1960s? >> guest: sure it could happen today. the russians still have a spy agency. now it's pressure, not the soviet union. it's called the svr. they just changed the initials basically. from kgb to svr. actually, they do some spine, but they are more internal. it's actually a separate organization from the fsb.
that gets kind of complicated. but they have a set up like we do. they have an external service like the cia and internal service, basically internal to the fbi. >> host: mario and bridgeport, connecticut. >> caller: okay, i had a comment and a question. my commonest first, there is a book by timothy called enemies, a history of the fbi that came out in 2012. the pulitzer prize-winning author. in it, they discuss the moles and may also discuss things such as how leading up to 9/11, the fbi was criminally negligent because the things that occurred on august 17, 2001. that's not what i want to talk about. what i want to talk about is the fact that the nsa surveillance has been going on further than the bush era.
it's been going back to late jay edgar hoover when the eavesdrop on martin luther king jr. and they blackmailed him. i think it's kind of like synonymous with what's going on with mark kell. i was wondering if he could speak i'm not. thank you. >> guest: i don't know what your question is. but the nsa which didn't exist until 1952 by the way, the nsa has, according to the revelations of that we are now seeing from edward snowden has gone on to what anyone realize beyond the wiretapping of angela merkel's personal cell phone. it's hard to believe a terrorist would call her up and say i'm a terrorist and just that i would let you know we are going to blow up a building. doesn't sound very likely that they should be doing that. at least that's my opinion.
>> host: what do you make of the revolution's overall but the work the nsa is doing and how that either helps or contributes to what the work at the fbi and the cia do? >> guest: well, the fbi is an important agency obviously. it seemed to miss revelations that they've gone beyond what anyone suspected they could be doing. i personally don't think the correction of what they call metadata, which is like every phone call, you know, is not overheard. that seems to me to be going on what his message very. if they have a bad guy, they can go to the foreign intelligence surveillance court and put on for a warrant and they'll get a warrant in almost every case. to wiretap that person. they don't need to know that i was talking to my brother or my and, you know, on the phone and i call that person. that's pretty suspicious.
intelligence capabilities and to help people really understand exactly what that means. the fbi are pretty busy people. they have a lot of stuff going on. it helps them and it helps us. >> guest: as i said a moment ago, the idea that they are going to help the fbi by logging every phone call made by every american, which they did in which they do as far as they know and still doing it, i don't see how that is helping the fbi. and i think it is almost the nsa saying that we are doing this because we can and not because it is necessary. >> host: we have a call from phil. >> caller: good morning.
in regards to espionage, i am wondering if you have ever run into him or knew of his work, no knowing if you know the book or not. >> i definitely know the book. but i have not met him. >> host: do you have a follow-up? >> caller: the book was i chose freedom and it was a fascinating tale of living in the united states and being pursued by the kgb. >> host: what about the history between russia and the united states and spying on each other and why are you interested in it and what do you make of this exclusive report in the smithsonian magazine? >> i think that it shows us that it's never going to go away and what i find so interesting is the relationship especially the
united states media and pretending that doesn't happen and the infiltration of the state department and other departments and they are still being denied. >> guest: the media certainly doesn't pretend that it never happens. >> host: we will move on and if you could speak about the history here, the first mulholland against a 1962 according to your story. what is happening at this time between russia and the united states and will how prevalent is it a russian spying on the united states. >> the cold war was fought largely by the intelligence agencies and a lot of it was out
of sight and the cia is principally -- it was principally the war between the cia and the russians cheat director and they are not located in the famous burzynski square in downtown moscow. i was the first western reporter allowed in and i spent an evening interviewing an important general they are and was quite interesting because and when i asked about the future, it was just before it the collapse of the soviet union. the war in chechnya came after that, and he also spoke perfect
english although he never lived in this country or an english-speaking country. and that was somewhat impressive in that war went on and it was very difficult for the american cia people because the russian people and of the american people stepped foot outside, six kgb guys follow him so it was very difficult to have those means, but nevertheless they managed it. in other cases are very old-fashioned to mark things with a hiding place to pick up
documents and sometimes they turn away some of the volunteers who really had good information. they were really faced with us. there were good people that were turned away for several occasions. but still the cia managed to recruit some very effective people who, 10 of them are executed due to all the changes with the cia and others went to prison because of it and they were paid or promised $4.6 million by the kgb for this information. and it was an expensive and constantly very active byword. >> doesn't continue today? >> guest: yes, it does continue today although the initials have changed but not the war. >> host: what about the tactics
we were just talking about? >> guest: the tactics have changed somewhat. they still use these old-fashioned methods, but they are also using computer technology now in ways that they can hide messages in some of that technology was used by the illegals that were arrested in 2010 and some of them live ordinary suburban lives and other places and for all they knew, they were ordinary americans, but they were russian spies. >> so the stories that we heard and read about, one or some of the main ideas from that. >> the most famous name was
chapman, who aside from giving a medal became a sort of penthouse model of a russian equivalent of playboy or penthouse, i shouldn't be talking about the smithsonian, but and she was posing as a real estate agent and living in new york will as i have heard about this, that is how ram. >> host: we have another call. >> caller: yet come i would like to ask if he has any knowledge about training on the marine bases? >> host: why do you ask, robert? >> well, i am just curious for
security reasons. >> host: hueneme security reasons? >> caller: we have no reason to train russian troops in our own states. >> guest: i have no knowledge of that. >> host: we have another call. >> caller: thank you for taking my call. and hopefully you can give some remarks. and i was wondering if you are familiar with the word whistleblower. he has so much knowledge about this surveillance in all of this
and he should have a lot to talk about when it comes to history and i wish he could tell us why it seems like you can go on youtube and you have more disclosure and accountability and a lot more amounting to any of the public outcry whether it's news media or radio or whatever. and they thought there was a conspiracy with john f. kennedy and the corruption between the fbi and j. edgar hoover and the leading of the cia cabinet member there at the same time going on. and he was trying to break down a secret organization in secrecy going on and he was in the background and the next thing you know, the man was a feature
of our history with. >> guest: i only have my personal opinion, but my personal opinion is that there was no conspiracy. i know that is not a popular opinion with some people, but i have looked into it and there is an isn't information reporting i have read other books on the subject than i thought it was pretty persuasive. and so that is just my personal opinion that we may never know the truth, but on the face of it it appears that it is what the majority of people think that there was a lone assassin. >> host: let's go back to your piece in the smithsonian and how did you come across this story? >> guest: i cannot talk about that. i came across it because a source obviously in the
intelligence business whispered to me about it and i was able to confirm that such a thing had actually happened and i was able to get all of the details because i know a lot of people who are in this business and have retired from the business and they know me and i think that they trust my ability to try to get the facts unvarnished and to try to write a very straight story and i don't have any ax to grind. and because that is my approach and i am very careful, i think that is why people talk to me. >> host: how long did it take from discovering this to actually putting it into print? >> guest: i have to go back and look. but i believe it took the better part of a year. >> host: to confirm it and get the research? >> guest: yes, the research and writing and my editor worked
very closely with me and there is a large process involved. first you get the story and then you have to include this in the book. but you never know, i have written 14 of them. [laughter] >> host: exclusive report in the october edition deals with the first ever more funds within the fbi and the mole hunt by david wise, it tips off one of the most interesting investigations and fbi history. we have a democratic caller area. >> caller: hello. thank you for taking my call. and i have just a couple of comments and maybe a question for the gentle man. one is -- can you hear me? >> host: yes, we hear you. >> caller: one is about the
marine security guard and the embassy abroad. during that time i ran into a program where we had put people in foreign countries like czechoslovakia, bulgaria, and they spoke the language and they were living as citizens of the country and collecting intelligence. >> host: would you like to disclose the name of the codename again? >> caller: i want to say it was [inaudible] , but i'm not positive on that. anyway, so that has been going on for years and we have been collecting intelligence from our embassies and on top of everyone else's embassies as well. and we have an entire staff and
i don't know if that's true or not, but anyway, we had them coming in for debriefings all the time from the warsaw pact countries and they were very informative and the other thing i'm not is that we have been doing this and we had the ability to listen when i was with the agency and i went with the agency in 1973. that we have the ability to listen to windows and walls and that is why we had to turn the cbn to the moscow industry and what was supposedly a secure room. this means that republicans in
any particular people apparently come up like obama is saying things like this is outrageous and things like that, angela merkel, things like that. >> host: okay, what do you make of those comments? >> guest: they are very interesting comments. certainly the fact that they have to take precautions and it ties in with what i said earlier that very difficult for us to operate by the kgb and so yes, all of that is very interesting. this includes the idea that you have, you could be correct, i don't know. >> host: we have another call. >> caller: hello, thank you very much.
[inaudible] when it comes to schapiro being involved with nuclear united states, the fbi won't release a single file of the investigation and it seems as though there is a pattern of not allowing americans to review the investigations to see whether they were bona fide and actually hold of the entire network and it just goes on and on. >> host: were defined not? >> caller: that was published on the information clearinghouse on internet website, a blog for unpopular news. >> guest: it's interesting, i have not heard that for
instance, i don't know if what you are saying and there's a lot of information out there and not all of it is accurate. this may be -- i just have no knowledge of it. >> host: what do you make of the nsa tapping phone of government leaders? >> guest: the white house as qualified about by the little and the president is generally aware what the nsa was doing but he never specifically said that he knew about angela merkel or other allied leaders. you know, that is probably true. and of course, some will say, why didn't he know. so you cannot win with that kind
of catch-22 position that the government is in right now. they never expected to have these revelations all over the place. but to me it kind of means that there is almost an end of secrecy and first you have the wiki leaks and now you have edward snowden who has caused this international uproar. it makes you wonder whether the government can really preserve some of the secrets because there are young people who have other ideas and are willing to take the risk of putting them out. it's a very interesting and relatively new development. some secrets should be kept. but it is always a question of degree. right now it looks as though the nsa was doing too much. but they have to do something. and there always has to be a balance between security and freedom. we could live in a police state
where the government do everything from but i don't think any of us want that. so there has to be a balance between what the government needs to do to protect us and our own freedom and liberties and rights. which happen to be guaranteed in a thing called the constitution of the united states. >> host: is grimaldi journalist or an activist? >> guest: you have asked him. he made no secret that he has a point of view which means that he is an activist. also he was writing for the guardian which is a paper in england that has done some very good work creating transparency on this issue is and some believe he is leaving to work on a new venture with the gentleman who started ebay.
>> host: we have ryan from north carolina as an independent caller. >> caller: yet, i have been listening to you saying you are not sure that other countries have been doing the same thing. but really my question is when you look at this, is a more practical than the new age of the nsa doing spying or is it more practical to have troops on the ground. i feel like it's more more relevant and crafted information with boots on the ground, that it is more expansive and -- what is the term? it is very broad when you do the wiretapping in which one is more relevant. >> guest: it is tempting to think that the illegals are a better way to go and i already have said that i don't believe in the collection of the metadata in this country and we have other mechanisms to wiretap
people through legal mechanisms under the law. but the problem with the illegals is that there were 10 of them here and that was an unusual number and usually them russians would have wanted to illegals in this country. anything that they must have released on all kinds of stuff, but there is no evidence that they did so. living in montclair, new jersey, where were there not too many national security secrets, i don't think there are a lot of secrets. so it's tempting to think that this is the solution. but there is no evidence in this case that they came up with anything that we are talking about. >> host: we have an individual that wants to know how you feel about outsourcing of security, edward snowden, for instance,
would be be better served if security services were in-house. >> i think the jury is out on that. contractors are hired because they don't have enough work to do this in-house. but we have seen now that the company doing this was overburdened and one woman had to cover eight people per day and if you've ever driven around los angeles, that is not easy to do. so the people doing the vetting, obvious in the case of edward snowden, he slipped through the cracks. so there may be a tendency to use contractors to vet the contractors and that is what happened in this case. and so i think it is a tempting idea to get outside people and i don't know that it's working very well. >> host: we are talking with
david wise who wrote an exclusive addition. the agency was tipped off back in 1962 in what david wise calls the most destructive investigation in fbi history. we have an independent call. >> caller: good morning. i'm very curious with the thousands of witnesses that have come out, providing empirical evidence proving that the 9/11 commission is more fiction than fact and am wondering why so many public figures, why so many have not come out and demanded a new investigation because this is not opinion. it is scientific fact that we are being lied to. >> host: have you looked at all into the intelligence gathering their? >> guest: yes, i read this
mission report and there are some flaws in it, which i have written about. and i think on the whole the fact that it was so close to the event that they did a fairly good job. and no one has convinced me with the lies are particularly and there was clear coordination between the cia and the fbi and there is always more to be said. >> host: what surprised you when you were writing the story for the smithsonian magazine? when he first got the tip, it took you over a year when you were doing the research on confirming the details. but what surprised you along the way? >> guest: actually what surprised me is the willingness of so many very fine former fbi
officers and officials and agents to talk to me about it. many of these people are people that i knew and people that i knew well and i was not so surprised that they would trust me to talk to them. there were some that i make cold calls to and i said, okay, i'm doing this, but others probably have not heard of it, and i think it was the passage of time and the feeling that it is okay to talk about this and it goes back to 1962 and it went on into the 70s and 80s and what surprised me was the willingness of people to try to tell this even to admit there was such a thing. >> host: you call it a self destructive investigation. why is that?
>> i would agree that there is a lot of people particularly where the more hunt was centered, obviously, who felt that we were being distracted from their jobs >> host: it is the smithsonian magazine edition for october, read more and it is called more hunt. >> tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern, a replay of captain sebelius in her testimony today before the house energy and commerce committee. including covers of the new law provides. you're on c-span2, also at 8:00 p.m., coming up with a panel that was formed two and the government shutdown and
raise the debt ceiling. it is due to report its recommendations in december. >> next, david cameron defends the uk's intelligence gathering program in light of recent allegations that the united states spent on several countries, including france and spain and germany and he also spoke about unemployment in britain. this is half an hour. >> there are over a million results and those who are investing in training young people. we were told that the government has programs that would be typical of a million jobs. isn't it time for us to understand and apologize.
[cheers] [cheers] >> the british economy is on the mend. we see unemployment coming down. the numbers are going up and they are very great and forecasted to be almost three times as far as german and frankly the leader of the opposition said we would lose a million jobs. he was absolutely wrong and told that he was wrong. [cheers] [cheers] >> having listened to the hearing as of yesterday, what is the difference and can the prime minister tell us what is the difference tween his product, and can i just say that his role
and there is no noise required. >> mr. speaker, can the prime minister tell us about the energy company? >> not a word of apology and they have done it wrong and they can't bear to live with it. [cheers] remap the question must be heard in the answers must be heard however long it takes in some people need to get used to the fact that that is what the public would like to determine. >> there is more competition to drive profit and prices down. and what we have learned, mr. speaker, in the last week is this competition should include switching and he said that i will tell the prime minister,
telling people that the answer has reached the end we found out that he switched it. [cheers] [applause] >> he went for one of these ensures insurance companies. and he comes here every week and attacks tory politics and he adopts tory politics to help his own family. [cheers] [applause] >> the only thing they need to do is to switch the prime minister and that is what we need to do. >> as the unofficial spokesman, maybe you can answer the question that they could not answer yesterday.
could he explain why host cell prices have hardly moved since a year ago and retail prices are rising by around 10%. we need both competition and switching is part of the competition. and the companies that he switched to had this to say about this. they set a policy like this is potentially problematic for an independent provider and it could put me under and that is his politics not listening but having less choice and competition and higher prices and it's the same old labor. [cheers] [cheers] >> i will explain something quite simple. most energy companies don't want this. and most consumers do.
i mean, we should call them. [cheers] [cheers] >> in opposition he says that there is a problem between host cell and resell prices and he goes on to say that the first thing you have to do is give the regulator the key and the order that those reductions are made. and that is what we would do. >> mr. speaker, it has gone from rambo to bambi in four short years. who was it that gave us this? there were almost 20 companies and we ended up with this.
but now they talk about a price freeze and they have been boasting for a price rise. that is right, a target that everyone accepts and yes, if he wants it for you, why didn't he just voted in this way. >> it is just so hard to keep up with this prime minister, is a net? because this is what he was saying in january. believe it or not, he was boasting and i kid you not and he said that it was many times the size of what it replaced. he said the bigger the better and here is the problem. on competition, here is the problem. here is the problem.
that is exactly what the energy companies want. alone inquiry, taking this problem down. and reviewing the report and telling people to pay their bills this winter. we want the competition to start straight away and that is our policy. [cheers] [cheers] >> and he has to answer because this is what the former energy spokesman said and you should listen to this. he said this and i am troubled by the consequences and the amendment will raise the cost of living in conflict with the price freeze and that is it from the labour party and the part of
the laws and the fact is that the whole country can see that he is a one trick pony and he has run out of room. [cheers] [applause] >> if he wants to talk about what people are saying. now, we are trying to recover some semblance and officials of well-being. >> we are also talking about what people are saying. it demanded he put in charge of the climate change committee says that his figures are false and that is what he says. instead of having interview, he has an opportunity to do something for the public next week and he has an energy bill and so instead of sitting on his hands, he can amend that bill
now. >> because it is not a price freeze. [cheers] [cheers] >> the fact is that he is hiding behind this policy because he can't can talk about the economy because it's going and he can talk about unemployment because of the following. and he can't talk about the deficit because he has nothing else to say and he's a weak leader with no ideas. [cheers] >> this prime minister has two weeks to stand up for the energy policy. nothing less than a price freeze will do. because this is the only way that we can deal with the energy company and its the time that he started acting like a prime minister, standing up for consumers and stop acting like a pr man.
>> he is too weak to stand up and admit his economic failures and trying to direct this agency and too weak to stand up on this. >> order. recover your composure, man. >> lettuce just examine what has happened this week. it is part of this, telling everyone to go ahead. and what have they done? to put it another way, britain deserves better than that lotte. [cheers] [applause] [cheers] [applause]
>> there are three kinds in the public sector. that those who made this kind of prediction would not be able to create as many private jobs to go on to admit that they've got it wrong. >> they should admit that they got it wrong and let let us just remember, you're not going to be able to replace the jobs in the private sector. the fact is that we have 1 million more people employed in our country than 1 million more private-sector jobs. >> i am grateful, mr. speaker.
because the prime minister believes that the crisis shouldn't have anything to do with the fact that he cut 6000 nurses. we are seeing 4000 more individuals, including over 5000 more doctors and that is the case that we have seen and just imagine if we had listened to labor and we believe in hhs and we have invested in it. >> mr. speaker, real business is important with a 10% increase in sales. this is evidence that the plan is working and they've got it wrong. [cheers]
>> we have to take that decision, unemployment is falling, and the number of people working is rising we have 400,000 more businesses in the country and we have to listen to the lost decade of growth and we would have higher debt and the same labor. >> thank you, mr. speaker. in a recent survey, 75% of people said they switched their heating the heating off on one or more occasions last winter. does the prime minister expect this number to go up or down this winter? >> fuel poverty, under this government, we have maintained it and we have increased the cold-weather payment and we have increased the benefit that the poorest families in our country and that is the action we have
taken and we can afford to do that because we have taken sensible decisions on the economy. >> a few days ago i launched the business case and we need to get a rollings dopp. we have this situation and we just have 9 miles in 13 years and it's an absolutely pathetic record. what i will end this and we need to make this agreement and make this important infrastructure. and what an important spectacle we have seen this week. one minute airport and then they are against it and i am just
considering the office and in his words, he needed to turn the heating on this like it's a little bit nicer. how many of my constituents are reporting this. >> we are understanding that prices would go up beforehand and afterwards and they don't control gas prices and that is what everyone knows it is a con. >> it is four years later and he is running in the record numbers have new economic terms and there are a lot of people that
are worth a chance. [cheers] [cheers] >> i join my friend in the way that he is contributing to our economy. we do see 400,000 that are up and running in our country and of course the labour party doesn't want to do about this. [cheers] [cheers] and it garners more visitors and it turns our country around. [cheers] [applause] >> mr. speaker, there is something new in my constituency and it has been as a roof result of public money. it is a two bedroom flat with 720,000 pounds is the price.
>> we need to build more housing in our country, and that is why we are reforming the system, which we opposed, that is why we have introduced us, and we have put extra money, which they opposed and as a result, housing has become less affordable. [cheers] [cheers] >> hundreds of millions of people have been lifted out of poverty globally. as people have increased their energy demands as well. if we are to have sustainable and long-term energy, the chancellor held this with the chinese initiative and it is crucial and i do believe that it's a very important step in
this includes long into the future and the people that impose foreign investment and so by getting this end, it means that we can build hospitals and schools and modernize our country. [cheers] >> does the prime minister believed that the bill was undervalued? [cheers] >> we are losing billions in the whole country is far better off in the private sector. and they said that we needed
this and they said that we needed private management, and i agree. >> there are 4000 new businesses. >> now they are down over 30%. >> this is absolutely right. they would have to make these difficult reductions in the public center and honestly that leads to the reduction of production of some public sector jobs and we need a strong private sector recovery and overall there are 1 million more people employed in our country.
>> we are stopping exploitation on this part [inaudible] and especially we have been reassured that he would resist to even follow the protection and what i want to see is more jobs in this country. [cheers] [cheers] and plus, we hope that we can have a word to say that we need to have a proper inquiry into what happens.
>> we have another speaker, raising living standards from a workforce which is highly skilled. then we have this program that is running out of money and the prime minister, will he join me with this agency to really build and gain the skills we need. >> we are collapsing in so many of our economies and i said exactly the same thing. what this government, that is now putting the money into see that expansion.
>> two thirds of the energy bills are established under this government. >> these were put in place by the party. and this is something that they want to put on every single person in the country and we do that and we took it off the bill. gerri sure matt. >> will the prime minister join with me in congratulating the work voice as well as manufacturers across the country to ensure that production has been up by 10% over the last year.
[cheers] [cheers] >> again, they don't want to hear good news about manufacturing. the fact is that this country should be congratulating workforce of toyota and land rover and others as well. these companies are leading the re-industrialization of our country and that includes more jobs and apprenticeships and more skills. all things welcome under this government. >> thank you for your conduct yesterday, which gives some examples of racism and discrimination during the election campaign and this includes the human rights and equality commission who want a
part of this so that the next general election can be a battle of ideas on what rotates with discrimination. >> i will study the report, because if there is anything that we can do to make sure that we keep this, then certainly we should do so. >> thank you, mr. speaker. >> the 8 million is being spent and manchester has been taken in half. but it is also vital an absolutely outrageous and challenging, with jobs and investment.
>> let me remind the chancellor of what he said about these charges. nowhere is the consensus more consensual than on our infrastructure. we have to delay the vital decisions and allowing short-term politics to get in the way. and by his own words he is found guilty, rather than looking after the national interest. >> especially with what is going
on, it is leading to hope. [cheers] especially allowing my constituents and everyone in this country to be a part of this. >> what we want is a service that is much more focused on getting results and also making sure that we give people services in terms of rehabilitation from the moment that they need this. twenty-six minutes past 12:00 p.m. and the labour party has nothing to say or offer. [cheers] [cheers] >> they are embarrassed with production after production. >> okay, the question from the honorable member. >> okay, i welcome the 3.7% with
my constituency and that is one of the biggest problems and this will get moving. >> i know that my honorable friends close my attention to this issue and i certainly pay tribute to all those who help children with special needs and in those who need to make sure that they get the help that they need. [cheers] [cheers]
>> the government contract is failing to tackle high levels of unemployment. [cheers] >> what we have seen that the contract is thousands of young people making our work experience help. it has been more successful and that is why we see this coming down so rapidly in our country. there is far more to do to get young people into work and the fact that we have over 1.5 apprenticeships is a sign about how we care about getting young people back to work. >> we are looking at what the president has to say and i will
repeat it again. we are always listening to what other countries have to say about these issues and i believe that in britain we have a good way to secure the services and having it overseen by a parliamentary committee and having the work examined and ensuring that they act under a proper legal basis. and that we can be proud of the people that are working and overseeing it. >> especially with what we are seeing in the world. [cheers]
[cheers] >> what i would say to the honorable gentleman in terms of energy security. then in 13 years, they never built a singular single nuclear processor. and boy did they talk about it but they never actually got it done. [cheers] [cheers] >> including chinese and foreign investment, i think we should welcome these and we can use the schools and hospitals. >> this includes my constituents, and we are not constricted here. it is something that we have to ensure changes for today and that includes the energy here in the united