tv Washington Journal CSPAN November 17, 2015 7:00am-10:01am EST
internet safer and more secure. our guest >> this is the washington journal. the flag for u.s. capitol continues to bet half-staff because of events in paris. home security secretary jeh johnson and james comey will brief the members at 5:30 this afternoon. more than half of the governors in the united states and they will not taken refugees. policybecause of federal , they may not have much say in the matter. yesterday, the current policy
offered against isis saying the ground operation would be a mistake. our first 45 minutes, your thoughts on if an aggressive military operation against isis is needed. perhaps you agree with the president that it will be a mistake and perhaps you don't. (202) 748-8001 for democrats. (202) 748-8000 republicans. (202) 748-8002 for independents. if you want to post on our twitter page it is here. if you want to send us e-mail on the matter. to we're talking to reporters about issues and amongst than the current u.s. policy of the united states saying on monday he ruled out sending more ground troops to fight the islamic state. it was that press conference that the president pushed back
against the calls for the u.s. to broadly rethink its strategy against extremist groups. that would be a mistake according to president obama. >> whether it is mosul, raka, or ramadi, and temporarily clear out isil. at because we would see repetition of what we have seen before which is if you do not have local populations committed arenclusive governance who pushing back against ideological extremes, then they resurface. unless, we are prepared to have
a permanent occupation of these countries. let's assume that we were to send 50,000 troops to syria, what happens when there is it terror attack generated from yemen? to send troops there, or libya? or if there's a terrorist network operating anywhere else in north africa or southeast asia. part of the president's statement from yesterday calling more ground troops a mistake. we went to get your thoughts on that statement. we will start this morning with john in new jersey. on the democrats line. what do you think of the president's statement yesterday? >> we're going to have to go in sooner or later. i say going with overwhelming force in every country.
join up and hit these guys hard fast it out wherever they strike we hit them hard and fast overwhelming force. every time they hit we just wipe them out, that is all you can do. >> do you think an overwhelming force will take care of the situation overall or would we have to revisit the issue? >> probably. it's pretty much like the crusades. if you have to go and you cannot do it with 25,000 because these guys hide in houses and run into the mountains. you have to use overwhelming force with every country. you hit them with it. if they strike somewhere else you hit them there. ohio.en is in eastlake >> i think that it is come to
the point it is unfortunate they had to go through this because it didn't seem like we really had worldwide interest in a american until now, this big superpower maybe somebody new to bring it to its knees, but now we have the rest of the world or at least the western -- rest of western civilization. the presidentith is trying to say, but at the same time i cite -- i see these isis people, anywhere from 18 to 40. these groups of people, no matter how much obama says it is going to attract more foreign fighters, i don't believe so. i believe you a large group of fighters that see the world and these powerful countries are impenetrable. it will not keep these young
people from using modern electronics to try to bring larger countries to their knees. it is almost a youthful intent. group,this is a powerful but they are very young and these people have minds, these people are smart, i call them daemonic kids, it is almost like a worldwide street gang. staying out of there is not going to interest them. them oh going to tell the united states is such a wonderful country, they want to leave us alone. obama is wrong. there are a lot of points that obama makes and i agree with. i am not anti-obama and i do believe that we are at a point where his thoughts are not penetrable. we may have to impeach the guy. host: that is allen from ohio. he mentions the use of ohio in the world street -- wall street journal and how they teach their followers about technology.
the islamic state is among the most technologically sophisticated extremist groups. it includes an eight minute video that discusses the surveillance capabilities of hostile governments. in lansing, north carolina. caller: we don't need to bring people over here, and bring more 9/11 deals in this country. we do not need to bring in here because everything is set up. let putin take care of them, we go aheadn and and support him and he will go in there and tire them up.
we are going to have to put new people to take care of us from the bottom to the top. host: the president and vladimir putin meeting on sunday in that event. this reporting with them at about half an hour on the sidelines. it was their first conversation since the paris attacks and a weekend agreement on trying to forge a diplomatic resolution. they agree to support a cease-fire for live the yuan led negotiations between the regime and opposition forces. ryan is in annapolis, maryland. caller: good morning. thing i wanted to talk about and, for a lot of people i think when we think about what we want to do in response to this stuff it is easy to start talking about sending troops and bombing
and doing certain things but we are retried that, and it didn't work. what we have to realize is the best weapons we have in an ideological war don't shoot bullets or bombs. the best thing we have going for our country is our own values and beliefs. when our words and actions are lined that us when we are at our best and strongest. our worse is when we give in to fear and hate mongering and start letting those emotions drive our decisions. even if they make us feel at they are productive, they really don't solve the root problem. the president talked about it yesterday. if it doesn't get at the root problem but unfortunately it will just be counterproductive. that we haveu say
to live our values practically, what do you mean you go -- mean? >> i see a lot of hate for the refugees and islamophobia, that is not what good guys do. we stand up for people that don't have rights or freedoms. that's what makes us proud to be american. superman wasn't a hero because he only helped certain people he helped innocent people that spend the narrative of what we think a hero is all about. then we start to say we will turn our backs on people that need help or we will not help you because you are this kind of person, or we will only help these people, that to me is a departure from what i think we stand for. it may not make us feel comfortable but the minute we start to skew from our values that is an opportunity right there for someone to seize on that opportunity when we are not
living our values and that is where we will lose the war. president calling increased ground troops to fight isis a mistake. the front pages this morning talk about the french president asking for more powers to destroy isis. here's a talk about that and other related issues is ida of the world service. she is a report of that organization good morning. what is president aland asking for specifically from the french parliament? >> he assessing for them to extend the state of emergency. he's asking for more money to invest in security and armed forces.
what does he think that will help them be able to do? reallyi think he is short-term terms of pollution. he is trying to intensify the war against isis and to just tighten the security grip in the country by arresting more people and watching what people are doing. like what george bush did after 9/11. host: do you have a sense that the french parliament will give him these powers? guest: it is difficult to assess what they will do. where alle one time politicians seem to agree. he's coming from a socialist president who are usually more keen to defend civil rights and so on, and at times they all kind of agree on the same thing
that they need to watch people moreclosely and deploy money into doing that. >> talk about what the french president is doing reaching out to allies, particularly the united states, where do we stand as far as a group effort? >> aland said he was planning to speak to president obama and president putin. i'm not sure what he is planning what they realize is that intelligence services have not been able to connect the dots each country has some kind of information about his attackers and how they work together maybe they would of been able to plot the attacks. boy -- host: france's intelligence services touted as one of the best in the world.
his are any effort to increase or expand intelligence gathering in the country? guest: they already have maybe 10,000 people on this list of people being watched, but too many are listed as potential threats and they are just too overwhelmed and people are , the constantly thinking about long-term solutions about white french people are killing french people and how can you solve the problems? that there are reports french president is headed to the united states. do you hear that as well? guest: yes. i don't know more about that. is there a sense of normalcy within the streets? people going back to it day-to-day life since this happened last week?
guest: what i noticed while i was interviewing a lot of people is i did not hear people who were angry, they were mostly sad trying to make sense of what happened. on friday night people were really coming together. taxis were driving people for free. today the parisian culture is not too paranoid and they do not get scared that easily. so there is this cloud of sadness, the people are going on with their lives, going out and bars are full of people. on.ink life goes i'd it is a reporter joining us from paris, france. we are continuing on with your calls yesterday about increased
ground troops against isis and the president calls it a mistake. hello.m georgia, caller: pedro, i think we need aggressive with what is happening overseas and what really scares me are refugees coming in. butsick pathetic tour them i think we need a strong leader which is why i'm spending six to eight hours a day working for ted cruz. he would be a strong leader and would take a strong stand and i think we would be a much safer country. i am really scared about what is happening with these refugees coming in. they don't have any good waste of that them. you know what happened in paris and it could happen here. i think we ought to really be careful on taking in any refugees from syria. from west bloomfield,
michigan, this is titus on the independent line. caller: thank you, good morning. all these people claim they are why is it americans have to go die whenever terrorists kill people. they want americans to go die. we have a president obama who is not panicking. if we keep electing these warmongers, america will be in perpetual war. in kenya the attack and kill iraq, so why should american people go and die for anywhere something happens. they blame obama. we should be very cautious. the world should be very grateful that they have this black man president of the united states who has common
sense. that is titus in michigan, a couple of people saying this is robert and he has learned from experience. carol off of twitter says i don't believe obama when he says it won't work and doesn't listen. james is up next in pensacola, florida. a question for you, since world war ii, what have we accomplished? and i ametnam marine very angry at most of these people that have never been there or had to put their bodies in a body bag and fight. i am repeating myself. what have we accomplished? it seems like people who have not been there always want to put troops on the ground. my question to these
politicians, democrat and republican,'s and your sons with her. even daughters because the military accepts females. send your family over there and see what your attitude would be. host: do you think this type of warfare is different from other wars? caller: the war is a war, sir. somebody, another , if you pay attention in our country 30 and younger, we lost most of them. what is the age of most of those guys and isis, are they all guys are young people? as a society i am talking about the whole planet, for some reason our 30 and young people, we have lost them. not all of them but more than we
needed. that concerns me because i talked to young people in that age group, and they tell me, old white far it's like you don't do what you say you are going to do and that concerns me. sending troops over there will not accomplish anything. >> let's continue on with john in virginia on the republican line. >> when it comes to the war over there, i am not i wore strategist and i don't have solutions but i can tell you that what we are doing isn't working, you have speeches from our president happening friday morning how we have secured and taken back territory and later that evening you have these terror attacks. i hear the callers calling and saying this goes against our values to keep these refugees out. i think our values are being threatened and the only way to eliminate that is to not invite
these people who you cannot that. they have no way of documenting or researching or proving, and it has been proven by the attacks right after obama's speech how we are safe and have can find them and then france gets attacked, there is the way they can that who these people are or what they are capable of doing. haspresident yesterday talked about how the current efforts against isis must not be perceived as a war against islam to my here is that statement. pres. obama: did agree that anyone would equate the terrible actions that took place in paris , those kindsislam of stereotypes are counterproductive. they are counterproductive and wrong. lead to greater recruitment in the terrorist
organizations overtime if this acomes somehow defined as muslim problem as opposed to a terrorist problem. trenton missouri on the independent line, robert is up next. listening toe been this. we don't need those people over here. those people leaving their country and too cowardly to stand and fight are nothing but a bunch of bums, yellow bellied they talk about this thing in france, but what about 9/11 when our towers fell, how many americans ran and fled in date for help?
they are just a bunch of yellow bellied cowards that won't fight for their country and that is what they want than they deserve what they get. host: here is robert. >> i want to say that my heart goes out to these poor people. i want to help them as soon as possible. the true reason for the motive stems from the fact that france supported palestine as an waspendent state, france yahoo!harshly by bb10 that if they would proceed with that vote to acknowledge palestinian statehood there would be dire consequences. the people behind that paris attacker also behind 9/11.
unit to go any further than our so-called buddies in a place called israel will stop these are the people behind this. do not have them and fall for them promoting islamophobia. the syrians are not the people behind it. the people behind it are the zionists tried to get us to go to war against places like yemen, libya and beirut. thank you so much. host: let's hear from karen in oklahoma. say, he just to wants to kick the can down the road and until some other president has to tend to this quagmire that he has to tend to. they come over here with no money or jobs, how are we going oftend tens of thousands people when we cannot even tend to our own.
house, peoplebig in hollywood have big houses, let them take them. host: so what is the best strategy? >> i don't think we need to send more people in their, why are we going to give up our guys? we cannot keep taking them in here come a we need to attend to american people. the government's number one job is to keep our people safe and not president obama to act like he is god because he is not. we are scared out here and his number one job is to keep us safe so do something. host: we will continue on with your calls, this story from the new york times is based from florence, colorado. the prison system doesn't want guantanamo detainees. lives here aer service that unabomber and the boston marathon bomber and tens of thousands of other inmates
from the infamous to the secure seal behind thick walls and razor fences. as president obama prepares to put forward the long-awaited prison -- plans for closing the prison at guantanamo bay it puts several prisons in uproar at the detaineesy that those could become their town's newest inmates. the story continues and says that many residents say they feel safe. they do not what the notoriety of how the guantanamo detainees, tourists rely -- reliant county recently lost out on an effort to attract a call center and a recent sexing scandal at a nearby canyon city scared way businesses looking to relocate. if you go to the pages of the wall street journal talks about cubans interested in coming to the united states and new mexico saying the change they consider most eminent is a change to the
fast track, that their compatriots have a joint for generations. the so-called revisions of the cuban adjustment act allowed migrants fleeing the island who made landfall to apply for asylum and all but certainly put in a green card in only a year. >> john is up next in maryland. listen, for the president to put more ground troops over there, that is what they want to manyn, because of how people over there have been affected by our drone program, that is number one. and a rack. that the american people forgot about. -- and iraq that the american people forgot about. there is so much we have done to that part of the world that the american people are not even in
fort -- informed of and the government not telling them. for them to put ground troops over there, they would love that. would grow beyond human imagination just to kill american troops. you think the best strategy is the one we currently employ. caller: what we need is, like thingrman color, one america is supposed to stand for is a nation of laws. on the nuremberg trials, they set a standard for not just one group of people but the whole world that commits crimes against humanity. we have nations that commit all kinds of crimes against humanity and investigate itself and find itself and is sent over and over again. america does not have any real legal oras far as morality anywhere in that part of the world because of our
hypocrisy of letting nations do what they want to do, investigate themselves and find themselves innocent. when people who are abuse try to come to the united nations to get justice, we get america, france, england, and germany block everybody's opportunity to get justice. host: let's hear from brian in maryland. caller: you guys are missing the point. france brought this stuff on themselves with their multicultural, open border society. they bought -- brought all of this on with their liberal agenda allowing to arabs to come in and have their own little zone, now they want to do that here. you last posted make some laws, we have border laws. you are not supposed to come into our country illegally. we have a president who doesn't abide by the law but we don't do anything with him. this president is a muslim. he agrees with this point of
view. the american people need to wake up and take these muslims, and the mosque, and burn them to the ground. host: we will hear from more calls, president obama is saying ground troops second fight isis being a mistake. we want to get your thoughts on that. the wall street journal takes a look at a source of concern, especially because of its connection to paris saying there is another reason why terrorists might gravitate to brussels. a thriving market of illegal weapons. reputation.a molenbeek to the
neighborhood had grown into a help of jihadist networks because of the north african population which made it easy to hide. other residents kept quiet for fear of being a bad muslim. i'm convinced the citizens at first did not notice the gravity of the problem. from texas. this is kathy. caller: i am a little confused. first barack obama is tone deaf. he doesn't what us fighting over there and they brought the fight here before george bush could even think of what to do with our country. thereonce us not to go but he is bringing the fight here. does that make sense? all these people want help, please help us we have nowhere to go? many to fight in their own countries but do not bring them here. these people are our enemy and none of them should come here, thank you.
from albert in chicago, illinois, you are next on our line for democrats. quick: i had to bring comments to make. the first was in response to the woman from oklahoma who says she doesn't feel safe and once the president to keep her safe, in case she hasn't noticed her hasn't been a major attack on u.s. soil since he has been in office. is, isis isomment an idea and it is an idea that is spreading, it's even spreading here. you are not going to bomb an idea. paris was in originated by a belgium man. are you going to bomb belgium? cannot do that. that is my comment.
host: if you go to the front and talk aboutay the states and governors at these states saying in part they will not take syrian refugees. the front page of usa today said 24 states at the time of its printing. joining us to talk about the states have a phillips of the washington post is an international political reporter, talk about the number. states and the latest was governor brian sandoval in nevada who came out with a letter to president obama saying he wanted more reassurances on security and the betting process for these refugees. but that is a comment we have heard from a vast majority of the governor's, plenty of them are conditional and they say we would be willing to look at this if we had more assurances of the vetting process.
host: you have legal ground to stand on? >> that are have much legal ground to stand on. as many people have pointed out, immigration is clearly within the federal purview and states do not have the ability to block people from moving around the country and coming into the country, but i will say when you talk to the nonprofits and ngos that help the government resettled these refugees they do work with localities to find these people homes and resettle them in schools. that cooperation is necessary. it is something that without it, they can work around it, it certainly makes things more tricky and difficult. >> the governors who say they do not want to take in syria and
refugees, are they mainly republicans, or are the democrats included? >> the vast majority are republicans. the first democrat was the new hampshire governor who is also running for a senate seat and challenging a very conservative senator, kelly i don't. ayote.y i doty -- kelly otherst majority of republican governors benefit politically. some of them have issued noncommittal statements suggesting that they plan to work with the obama administration to make sure security is adequate, but they haven't said they oppose refugees. i think we will continue to see democrats sitting on the sidelines because it is not a particular winner for them. host: could this become a presidential theme, is congress
going to be called to act on this situation? >> i think it is a factor of the fact that we have a presidential election going on that we are seeing a lot of this groundswell. three of the republican governors on that list are running for president. chris christie, bobby jindal and john kasich. accident.t by for is an important moment the republican base to draw contrast with president obama. the issue of isis and national security is front and center right now. these governors and other presidential candidates are trying to make the case that they have an alternative strategy to whatever president obama is doing to combat isis. abby is the washington post national political supporter talking about governors refusing to take in refugees.
back to your calls, the democrats line, good morning. caller: i just wanted to say two things, i am an immigrant myself but when i wanted to come here they checked my background. i am not an asylum seeker am a i i myself,legally and who, middle eastern immigrant i disagree with mass immigration .r the syrian refugees some of the background should be checked before they come to this country. host: what country are you from? caller: i am iranian. host: talk about the background process. how many months to to take and what kind of questions were you asked? ton i applied for a visa
them for months or six months to issue me a visa. , the job offere reasonsad for other they did the check for me so they asked what i was doing and iran things like reasons that, i have military experience. questions, they also wanted references. they contacted my friends to see who i am really, if i am really who i am claiming. clifton, new jersey and the independent line. caller: thank you for listening to me. as far as ground troops go i don't they we should go in under this administration.
i would also like to comment on the refugees. i live in an area where there is a large population of muslims. syriany haircut by a refugee and i asked him what you go to canada and they could tell you dollar for dollar why they came here with government support. they don't really assimilate with the american culture. my wife has three a cares in the area and they treat women like garbage. they respect a man, but they do not respect a woman. see the kidsme, i joining in with american culture thinkerything else, but i that before we make a decision on refugees, maybe the people should vote, it is our country. sue governor christie
saying he would not take in syrian refugees you would agree? caller: i would at this point. host: the tear from susan in arizona. caller: i have a question. i saw the map had up about how many refugees came into each state. how many in washington, d.c.? host: the map is at the new york times website and that is where we got it. i don't have it handy but go ahead with your thought or comment. , all thesecomment is refugees i saw were men at first, a couple months ago. there were not hardly any women or kids a note because of yesterday there is a lot more women and kids because we have all the men here. can't we do background checks? can we protect them and let them come here? but keep track of them. that is all you have to do. i know that america has a big heart and we care and it is set
but there has to be something that we can do. we have hundred 58 of us -- we have 158 of us here in arizona and we have done had riots. if we can have them understand the american way if we want to put a flag up, let us put a flag up. host: the arts section from the new york times this morning has a story taking a look at the french national anthem. attacks thee paris song can be heard that has echoed around the world, and expression of solidarity with the people of france and with outrage. but the ubiquity of the song reflects something else to the way it resonates around the world and with a few other national anthems to. it was the french resident yesterday that led the parliament and the singing of
by france 24 yesterday. is up next, good morning of a democrat line. >> white is this country trying to bring other people in here when they are not taking care of their own people? let every country take care of their own. the what to give people raises who need it for social security and yet you're going to bring 70 else and give them taxpayer money? think america. vote these politicians out letting this happen. sayingpresident obama ground troops to fight isis is a mistake and we are asking people to give their thoughts on that. my comment on letting the refugees in is this. there are thousands of people and we don't have any pictures jack the the hon or
ripper but we know there will be one or two coming in and we will say come on in and we will figure out who they were later on. just unbelievable. i cannot believe this man. i am 80 years old i've lived under several presidents and i have voted democrat several times, starting with jack kennedy and president johnson. you cannot be these people calling in saying it is american liberty, that is not in the constitution the let immigrants home youthat we need a just cannot do it. not troops on the ground but i if i would not
blow them into the stone age. host: let's take one more call. >> thank you for taking my call. points,y i have two they have over 500,000 fighters and growing. the more we kill the more they recruit and grow. you cannot kill them all. islamnnot wage a war on because you have more people who follow that faith around the world than any other faith. millions and indonesia. to set up ann is island or someplace far off the coast of our country or even a when thererth africa is a large swath of land where they can have the land and the surrounded and you can play -- pay the country that takes them and with no other people around them and have a refuge for a year or two bank until we can
fix it. but do not have them go to any specific country. if they come in this area at all they should be on an island somewhere where they don't have to worry about that one half of 1% who can be radicalized. 10,000 people who come at least five will be just like that depressing group who committed the crime in paris. >> to legislators joining us today to talk about among other things issues concerning isis. we will start with rob bishop a member of the armed services committee. later on we will be joined by bonnie watson coleman member of the homeland security committee. the first what to you know about the landmark cases series. the program looks at several supreme court cases of import. this last one look at the 1962
supreme court decision liberating -- limiting president truman's power to seize the steel mill. but the clip of president truman speaking to the nation april 8, 1952 as he makes the case for taking over the steel mill. >> the most people don't realize it the steel industry has never been so profitable as it is today, at least not since the profiteering days of world war i. and yet in the face of these facts, steel companies are now that they ought to have a price increase of $12 per ton, giving them a profit of $26 or $27 per ton. that is the most outrageous thing i ever heard of. they not only what to raise their prices they were to double their money on the deal. you may think this deal doesn't affect you, you may think it is
just a matter between the government and a few greedy companies, but it isn't. outrageous prices that the steel industry once we would scuttle the whole press control program and that comes close to home. program inwatch this the 1952 constitutional showdown between president truman the steel industry and the supreme court. it is available anytime on our website. >> a signature feature of c-span2's book tv is our coverage of book fairs and festivals with nonfiction author talks, interviews and fewer colin segments. coming up they will be live from the 32nd annual miami book fair. the coverage starts saturday and authors include representative lewis.
including a life colin with the wall street journal columnist and author peggy noonan who talks about her book the time of our lives. lewis. including ajudith miller joins k about her book the story, and newsman ted koppel on his book, lights out, nation unprepared surviving the aftermath. on sunday, speak with the author's life. on --p.j. o rourke takes takes your calls. then joy and read will take -- then joy ann reid will take your calls. miami onive from c-span2's book tv. be sure to call and tweet us your questions on twitter. >> washington journal continues. host: the first guest of the morning is rob ship of utah. he serves on the armed services committee.
events inf with paris, could you give your sense of the events and what it means for the united states going forward. guest: first of all it means we have a great deal of for morse and sympathy for what took place there and empathy for what they are going through. it also means that our policy toward isis is a failure and we need to change. the status quo is not going to be acceptable. it means that we need to be vigilant about what could happen here at the same time and i also think it means that some of our priorities are out of step. that we need a viable defense position and we need to make sure we spend that money on military defense and manpower. there needs to be a change in what we are doing. host: a change that the current congress is willing to make? guest: i hope so. i think the house has signaled that very clearly and the
administration needs to get on board. host: today, the house is supposed to be briefed by a vote from -- by both jeh johnson and the fbi director. what are you interested in learning from them? theory is that this may happen in the united states. so we will be looking inwardly. is, besidestells me sequestration, this administration had four major cuts in military spending as well as downdraft and manpower needs. that has to be changed desperately. where looking to the future that tells us the path we have been on is that the path we should be on. we need to change and that is the message that needs to come out of this. host: when it comes to the foreign efforts of isis, would you become trouble with more ground troops? guest: yeah. the question is, how many boots on the ground constitutes boots
on the ground? we already have ground troops. how many more is necessary? i don't know. a simple air campaign will not be effective. it needs to be supplemented in some way and it needs the united states to take a leading role for the first time in trying to organize the willing who are willing to go and do something. past ishave done in the not working. we need a rebooting of our priorities. host: suspending in the military is part of that in your thinking. guest: if you don't have a strong military you cannot use the military as a solution. but more importantly you cannot have a strong foreign policy. that is where we are putting ourselves in a disadvantage. clearly we have lowered our military stata center abilities. that has an impact on our foreign policy ability. >> one of the issues that has been brought before this congress is the authorization.
oryou think that will happen is necessary? >> it will help only to identify what our strategy is at that unify this country on a specific strategy, that would be helpful. >> are guesses rob bishop, a republican from utah, the chairman of the natural resources committee here to talk about other things related to democrats. 748-8000 (202) 748-8001 the republicans. (202) 748-8002 for independents. before we go to calls, the president specifically calling increased ground troops a mistake. would you think of that statement? >> that is what you have to define how many troops on the ground is troops on the ground. we already have troops on the ground so the question is at what level does he want. he has to give the definition of what is boots on the ground before i can determine if it is a mistake or not.
>> the first call comes from john in tampa. >> i agree with the representative in that we need a lot of boots on the ground, but they should not be american boots on the ground they should come from the rich gulf states like saudi arabia and the united -- united arab emirates, egypt and turkey. even let a ran work with us to destroy isil. on thed a lot of boots ground but not american boots on the ground. i agree with representative and bernie sanders. >> putting the and bernie sanders in the same category is unique. i agree with what he is talking about. what the united states is to do is taking a leading role and try to organize those willing to be part of the solution. because it obviously does not affect just the united states. it affects the entire western world and the middle east as well. a leading force and
an organizing force. >> from charles in woodbridge, virginia, the republican line, you are next up. >> just a couple of comments, i agree with john, i don't think boots on the ground should be the u.s., but this is obvious solutions. we should've spent our time getting a coalition of gulf states together because they are by and large run by sunnis. isis is a sunni organization. but in less you can get the locals on board it will go on forever. we will never be able to step this out. it is a world problem but it is primarily a middle eastern problem and it is feeding off into everything else. the second point is about the syrian refugees.
i don't understand like a situation where you have a war-torn country that the war is going to end. at some point these people should go home but they don't. it becomes a immigration policy versus a refugee situation. i agree with the quote on c-span the other day that we ought to work with saudi arabia to set up a compound in the desert. pump hundreds of millions of dollars into it and support these people and give them food and clothing and shelter until we can send them back to their country, because they will be new to get things back to normal in the first place. guest: we can do a lot of things in retrospect of what we ought to have done. and he makes of valid point as we do with shia and sunni issues and factions. for example, when we did the iranian deal, it was the west and the united states without any kind of sunni
representation. if they had been part of the negotiations we would've taken a propaganda tool away from isis. involving those is the appropriate thing to do. but unites states has to take an active leading role in involving those countries and an active leading role in involving the western hemisphere and the european allies as well. this is not a time to lead from behind. this is a time when the united states has to leave forward or we will continue to make the same mistakes we made in the past that we can know clearly see in retrospect. we need a more forward-looking approach. saying thatovernors on the face they want to refuse syrian refugees but your governor says that your state will still accept them. what do you think about the response of your governor. they are staying the same policy. saying is governor is
before we accept refugees we need to have a plan that can fully vet who these people are and so we know the backgrounds. once that takes place it will be a lot easier. there will be a higher comfort level of some kind of humanitarian haven. admit that the governors who are complaining so we do not have that program and i think that is true. we have to make sure we're getting those who are legitimately in need of a haven for refuge and not those who are going to be sleeper cells. host: what do you think about governor herbert is your decision? guest: i fully support my governor at all times, especially on television. >> steve on the democrat line, hello. go ahead. caller: a couple points.
the past person the republican i didn't much agree what he was saying that the sunnis and stuff, that area of the world has been at war amongst themselves since back in the days of the spice trade. they have been doing this for thousands of years between themselves. no military on earth will ever defeat their religious ideology. even though some of these people today are big-time crazy nuts. but you are not going to defeat a point of view. you can't change that. you kill more and more is going to join. you will never kill them all. the second thing i want to say is that it is past time that congress does a full in-depth, comprehensive investigation of the invasion of iraq and bring george w. bush, dick cheney, don
rumsfeld, and condoleezza rice to the hearings and investigations, along with the key components of the eight different primary intelligence agencies that the united states operates so they can give their factual information so american people can know what is going on. guest: he makes an interesting point here at once again, what we need is to make sure we have a strategy of how to go forward, not necessarily looking back at the mistakes we have done in the past. there are a whole lot of mistakes by everybody to go around. viewer on twitter, what is the long-term strategy? guest: good question. host: what would you advise? guest: that is another good question too. let's face it, we have
downgraded not only our military capacity, but our military goal. we used to have our overall strategy of a two front conflict. no longer. now, we have one front, and being able to assist in the second. that means we have changed what we can do. we have to advocate, and then we can go forward with foreign policy. good,l never have a long-term strategy, until you have an increase in spending and research and development. host: there is a story talking about the heightened security around the capital. what has your office heard about security? guest: to be honest, this is secure area.
i have not seen them a difference, but i only came in on sunday night, so who knows. host: alabama is next, iris. gooder: my comment is -- morning, first of all. menve seen a lot of able refugees coming in. why can't we set up a cap somewhere, and let them put their boots on and go over there and fight for their own country? guest: that is an option. host: darrell, cleveland, ohio. caller: i wanted to make to quit points. first, i absolutely agree with the congressman when he says .merica needs to lead that seems to be the problem. president obama does not want to lead in the situation. it is like the last thing he wants to talk about, this terrorist situation. he would rather talk on climate
change, or something else. the truth of the matter is if we have to put troops on the ground, then that is what we have to do. that is what a leader does. he does not just look at the polls, he does the hard things that need to be done. we are dealing with an enemy bordernts to disrupt the throughout the world, and kill everybody that does not believe like they do. maybe america has to do the hard things. we cannot always defer to the international community. that is what president obama does too much, defer to the international community. sometimes, you have to lead. president obama is supposed to be the internet president. where is all the propaganda against isis? you see isis on the internet, on twitter, facebook. i just heard, they did a
graduation of new recruits and afghanistan. they just send them back, relax, and live it up. disrupt everything they are doing. guest: i agree with what you are saying. i appreciate what you are saying. i don't want to sound like a broken record, but let me go back to it. in some respects, if we are theing about boots on ground, or not putting boots on the ground, if you are going to cut the manpower limits that we have in this country -- we have the smallest army since world war ii, the smallest air force in the history of this country, if you are going to reduce the number of those with uniforms, it you cannot increase the number of boots on the ground. we have to make sure we are on
the path to reverse what we have done to reduce our capacity in the past. the propaganda war, i understand , i agree with you. i think the united states is playing a good game as far as the propaganda is, but we have to back it up. host: playing a good game, how so? guest: i don't think we're doing poorly in that regard, but we have to back it up. when we don't have a military that can do what we say it can do, it makes our propaganda and the. host: our guest, rob bishop, and on theof utah, land and water conservation fund. what is that? guest: land and water
conservation fund is a program 5-6 decadesated ago. when it was first established, 60% of it was to go to state, local governments, and tries so they could come up with programs. that has been diminished. it needs to be boosted up. if we are going to reauthorize the land and water conservation fund, i need to make sure it does something really good to help people. the first thing is boost up what we originally intended for the stateside program, and making sure the money that is going right now and to federal acquisition of land has some money to go with it. we have asked what they have spent, they cannot do that.
what they did with it, there is no accountability. plus, they are using that money for eminent domain. to go for end-users and forcefully is totally inappropriate. i would like to increase this fund, but if we do that, we have to make sure it goes to programs that actually do something good, and help people. i have heard some people, say, let's authorize it finally, well, not until there are some reforms. we will start this process of how can we use this money to actually help people and our recreation activities, instead of putting it in a blind fund. host: can you give an example? guest: it purchases areas like
parks, recreation areas. , areasand conveyances where we can put money aside to have open space, recreation opportunities. all those things can be used. it must come from the stateside program, not just expanding parks, for which most of this money is set apart. one of the settings as well is that there are special interest groups that see this as a deep pocket for their own fund so they can make a profit, and back intooul the profit the organization. host: the legislation that you have, what specific what you like to see changed? is thewhat we would do
allocation. a minimum of 45% goes to the state programs so we boost up what is happening on the local level. every state that has federal land, they don't generate revenue but use a portion of these services. the money coming from offshore royalties, oil and gas specifically, but it is an aging workforce, so we do not have employees that are americans that will take those jobs. they are looking overseas. put money in education. people say we're trying to subsidize the oil and gas industry, no. we're trying to have people get good jobs. backlog a $19 billion restoration.
there is a litany of things we can do, each to solve a specific problem. whatever weo say, appropriate, we will put allocations in their to actually help people, especially on the stateside program. rob bishop joining us to talk about efforts on land conservation. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. .202) 745-8002 for independents once the fund purchase land, does it come under federal protection after that? guest: it depends. fromnes that are coming the state program, we are not going to take all of that way. we will reduce it down to put the emphasis on the state .rogram
look, we own one third of america already, the federal government. why we need more money to do it does not make much sense. that is why it is rather put more money into maintaining what we already have, before going out and expanding it. again, robuest, bishop, is joining us. jean from maine is next up on the republican line. go ahead. caller: hello. .hank you for c-span i called in to talk about the former subject, the syrian problem. as far as what you're talking anyway, i-- well,
feel the president is acting very cautiously because syria potential he could be the beginning of a terrible, huge confrontation. re.sia is in their maybe vladimir-- putin and obama are not in touch, but people are in touch with other, and we do not know what they are up against. isis is all over. right now, it would probably be like herding cats to take them out. host: got you, caller. guest: the russians move and where we created a vacuum. that has to be part of our equation looking forward. could invite the russians to come on some water
conservation trips, and they could be happier. host: you are on, go ahead. caller: thank you for c-span. i also wanted to switch gears back to the first topic. i have two questions. i've been wanting to know for a while, since the attack last friday because there is talk of surveillance and intercepting wonder why, and i the french did not have any idea that this was going to happen? my second question is i have also often wondered why the passports of these people that go to syria cannot just be taken away, so they cannot get back into the country in which they left to go back to do evil things. what edward snowden left the
country, his passport was second, anda nano he did not do anything close to this. i'm wondering why passwords cannot be taken from people? those are two very good questions, i wish i had an answer. i don't have an answer. i don't know about the chatter, white was not picked up. same thing on the passport. of course it can be done. indiana,in in republican line. is -- sinceuestion you defense the government a lot, and this program like water conservation, land, stuff like that, why can't the united states, instead of funding one big organization, which is the government, why can't tax dollars go to individual states like i thought it was supposed to be? i'm only 34.
why can't the money stay in the state, and then you don't have one person trying to look over 50 states, you have each individual state looking after it self. light whyshed some the funding has to be federal funding, why can't we quit funding stuff that we know people take from, but we can't prove? guest: i agree with your premise, and would like to move direction. the money produced is a fourth federal source of revenue. what i'm trying to do is do exactly what you are talking about, take the federal source and send it back to the states so the state can manage it in a way that meets their particular needs. we meeto move it so
what the original intent was. that is why a blind reauthorization would be fruitless. we need to make sure there is accountability and those who can manage it have the opportunity to do so. the money collected by the federal government, i want to make sure we reallocated so they can make decisions for themselves. it is important that people have the ability to recreate, and there is a reason for open space. i'm not opposed by that. what i'm opposed to is it being controlled by washington. host: there is a group known as the western values project. they put out a television ad specifically targeting you and these reform efforts. i want to show you the ad. [video clip] >> there are many controversial issues in washington.
the land and water fund is not one of them. it has protected thousands of parks. hundreds of democrats and republicans in congress support it but rob bishop, who has received $280,000 from big oil is blocking the fund. tell rob bishop to get out of the way. .org. westernvalues guest: that is a terrible for the vacation of what the issue actually is. the issue is are we going to use this to blindly put a bunch of money in there that we will then have the interior department the four street apartment spend without accountability? they do not know what they spent . or, will you make this program do something of value, something good? that is what we are trying to do. the bit about the money i have i don't knowhem --
how that is relevant, but it is cute. host: is it true? guest: probably. but, the opposition will throw whatever they can at this and see what will stick. host: how much support you have from democrats and republicans? committee knows exactly what we are trying to do. the nice thing is the states no well.l -- know as we are introducing a discussion draft, which simply means i will not rambis down anyone's throat, we will talk about this, and see where we can make allocations. i want to make sure it does something, and does something good. my problem is i think the administration is thinking small. i want them to think they can about how we can move this country forward, and do something really good.
if we are going to do anything at all, let's do it the right way. that is what i'm trying to do. if some groups don't like it -- just like i said, you can buy land and sell it at a nice profit, using these funds -- that is not the proper role of government. here is charles, virginia for our guests, rob bishop of utah. he is on the republican line. go ahead. caller: i would like to ask a couple of questions about syria. it is about our soldiers and boots being put on the ground. i don't think we should. , if he president obama had some help from congress, they could work together and get this done. seen with i've ever republicans if they want to go to war. they always look at the money,
where this money is going to these people. they have businesses that they give to their friends, and they are the ones that are benefiting by the war, not the people. poor, theythat are have to fight these wars. not the rich people. not these congressmen's kids. not the senators. i think obama is doing a great job. thank you. guest: i appreciate the comment. i think that is what i was saying at the very beginning, if we are going to go to war, make sure we are prepared. we have not been doing that over the last decade. we have become less prepared. that has to change. host: democrats line, this is lynn from utah. you are on. go ahead. like my fellow ans to look at a website
see howote smart to much money rob bishop has taken from the oil companies. he says he has taken $280,000, it is probably a lot more than that. he calls it cute. it is not cute. it is destroying our open space because he is the one who is not doing good things. he says he wants to do good things -- good things were being ,one with land and conservation and he is trying to destroy it so he can continue to please mobile companies. that is all he has ever done. utahansunday my fellow will wake up and vote him out. aest: i take it you are not supporter of me. unfortunately, your city is no longer in my district, i apologize for that.
60% was supposed to go to the states, that fund has been limited to 16%. instead of actually creating recreational opportunities for which this fund was established, we recently giving it for a slush fund that is unaccountable. -- right now, it is not working, it is being abused. i want to make sure this program solves problems, not just continues the status quo. if i'm wrong doing that, i'm sorry. we should be doing that. if you are going to renew this program, for heaven sakes, reform it in some way so the funds go back to where they were originally supposed to be. host: stevie asking if it is offshore or on land, and with so much oil now available, why the demand? hast: the united states
become an energy leader. if we are going to become a permanent leader so we can tell opec what to do, you have to develop offshore and on federal lands. easier? know, about the same. that is a source of energy for the future. also, if you actually develop, especially in the west, if i want to generate enough money so i can ask a have a good education system, then all of a sudden, i need the development sources to do this. my kids desperately need that kind of help and support. yes, we need this kind of development going forward.
want to go into an education system so we can give kids scholarships and not looking abroad for the workforce. host: specifically, what is the obama administration doing to onshore andling offshore? that can allow permits be litigated in spreading out the approaches and authorization. actually, they have retarded our efforts to develop these sources . as far as expansion, the administration has not been helpful host. host: democrats line, grady caller:.
caller:my concern is about politicizing every issue that we have. every time we have an issue, we politicize it to gain points. that is dangerous for america. i heard that france did not support george w. bush much. happened inomething another country, all of a sudden , america is not doing enough to help that particular country. that is wrong. this,ou talk about building up the armed forces, money,ne of them costs you need more people, more equipment. you cannot balance the budget, raising all these armies. i was there during the cold war. you get a bigger stick, i will get a bigger stick, everybody wants a bigger stick.
everybody says, why? those people were right there in bed. why did they not know about it? happen in america, the first thing, they ask, why did the president not know? guest: let me get on the soapbox for a second. first off, i agree in part. if you have the military, you have to make sure it is funded properly. not only did we need to balance the budget, and have military it is not only difficult, but it has to be done. on politicizing every issue -- there was a time in the late 1800s that we had a mindset that we could separate administration from politics.
the decisions of people making decisions without any input -- the concept, but does not work that way. politics is where local people have a chance to get their voice heard. if you separate those two out we have an administrative side with politics having nothing to do with that, he have the administration over here, there's nothing you can do about it. what we really should be doing two oneg to marry those more time so people have some kind of role and say and what administrative decisions are made. unfortunately, we do not do that right now. that is one of the things, long-term, i would like to move towards. right now, it is very limited. theou do not like what interior department does, what do you do? you need a voice, that is where politics come in. if you think things are over
politicize, good. we need to increase that for the right of ordinary people to have their voices heard. host: a person on twitter makes militaryion of the saying, another is enough, our roads and bridges are falling apart. guest: find. .- fine if you want a foreign policy that is effective, you have to back it up with something. the bottom line is if you do not have an effective military, you will not be able to have an effective foreign policy. make a choice. host: the member of the armed services committee, chairman of national resources committee, of utah.p, coming up, we will continue our discussions, not only about paris, but other issues with bonnie watson coleman, member of committee.d security later on, we will continue with
about becoming the first female four-star admiral in the navy. she also discusses leading the admiralto capture phillips, who was captured by somali pirates. >> a few days on the job, captain phillips was kidnapped. it was our job, as a task force, to get him back safely. that was a challenge. q&a.nday night on c-span's c-span has the best access to congress. watch live coverage of the house on c-span and the senate on c-span two. listen live anytime on a c-span radio app.
get best access by following c-span and are capitol hill reporter on twitter. radio,th c-span, c-span and c-span.org for your best access to congress. >> "washington journal" continues. bonnieur next guest is watson coleman, democrat of new jersey. good morning. guest: thanks for having me. host: i want to start with the events in paris. what does it mean for homeland security here? guest: homeland security here has been very diligent. we have an incredible system ettingwe are betting -- v anyone trying to get here. all of the refugees go through a process vetting
including fbi, department of defense, departments eight. we are constantly in contact with even local government, local government enforcement. we are very vigilant, and very concerned, and make sure that the people who are trying to get here go through a process that is almost unprecedented. it has been something that has been an hensing and growing over the last couple of years. tragic friday in paris where our hearts go out to the people that were affected, both families and individuals who lost lives. the terror and fear associated with the experience. we know that this country has hasn on its key zinc use -- q's.on its p's and
we are always on the ground, in the cyber security, in the intelligence field making sure that our americans are safe. host: you talk about your confidence in the vetting program. this is as several governors, more than 20 say they will not taken syrian refugees, including the governor of new jersey. guest: i think there is a lot of emotional reaction to what is taking place in paris. i think the our states, our governors, including the governor of new jersey, will get to be reassured that individuals that are coming across our borders, they are going through biometrics, all kinds of identifying, andriy identifying entifying.d
we have to balance our reaction to what we see and who we are. there are people who are leaving syria because they had the beencuted -- have persecuted, some are violently ill, there are affordable women and children, and we are a country that has been open to accepting immigrants because we know they can make our country even better. this is a country of immigrants. we are the greatest nation in the world because of that diversity. host: if you want to ask questions of our guest, (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. .202) 745-8002 for independents a briefing is set for today with secretarynd security and the fbi director. what are you interested in learning about from them, when
it comes to paris, but also when it comes to homeland security? guest: we have had other briefings, since january, several classified reasonings -- briefings on where we are. sure they will give us the update, tell us about the and ofce interaction and sharing information with france. they will talk to us about this country reaching out and building better coalitions, stronger coalitions. we are to russian now. we have a common purpose. that purpose is peace. this is not our issue. this is not france's issue. this is a global issue. we need to have a globalized response to it. host: is the current response, specifically towards isis, and appropriate one?
guest: i agree with the president that this is not something we should be putting boots on the ground. ?hat are we going to do as he said, so, we let our boots on the ground in this situation, what happens if there is another situation and we have another country -- to be put boots on the ground there? a war when wed to en have boots on the ground. i think we are smart and strategic and how we are approaching this, and recognizing that anybody is foldable -- vulnerable. look at what happened with the russian plane. i think we're bringing more parties, recognizing that they are threatened by this. host: our first call for you comes from philadelphia. this is debbie on the democrats line. caller: good morning to all.
representative, i have been watching you -- a powerful, powerful lady. continue to fight for the people. don't care about whether or not you are reelected. that is one of the problems. just fight for the people. my position is this. since folks want boots on the ground, i would like you to propose legislation that the ze soicians give their sid they can put boots on the ground and fight. i heard president obama yesterday, when he visited walter reed hospital. that makes all the difference in the world, and we want to put boots on the ground. are you ready to put your loved ones in harm's way? that is what i want to know. again, kudos to you. i have been watching you for
years from philadelphia, i think you do a great job representing new jersey. guest: you are reacting to me being a public servant has been very positive. with regard to boots on the ground, i think that all of congress wants peace. i really believe this is a nonpartisan issue that, at the end of the day, we want everyone to be safe. we debatel that as this issue, and i'm sure we will debate it, that we are looking forpeaceful means, strategic application of our resources in such a way that we do not h have boots on the ground. host: here is john, virginia,
independent line. caller: my question is why can we not send more humanitarian to stop the incoming of the refugees because they do not have food and water over there and assad is not willing to help them with that. seen as a leader in the humanitarian effort, and that would prevent people -- make less people want to join isis to fight us. bombing of syria is not the best way to deal with isis. raidwe have to do is there in tell. we sorrow when they were bombing gaza, it was like 80% civilian
casualties. tel.ave to have better in tel host: we will let the guest respond. guest: i want to thank you for the question because you hit a number of important points. number one, humanitarian aid is deathly important. to the extent that we are able , i'm certain we are committed to that. accepting refugees who are fleeing violence, who are scared for their lives and families, that is the ultimate humanitarian aid we can provide to other people. it has been provided in the past. it is not something we should our responsibility towards. with regard to whether or not bombing, from afar, is the way el go, as opposed to int and communication, i think
sharing more communication, building more coalitions, all of these things are very important to ultimately be able to push back and destroy isis. i believe we are very, very and whoto be strategic is being targeted. the israeliike palestinian situation, isis has not necessarily, to my knowledge, then infiltrating hospitals, schools, neighborhoods. we kind of know there are places where they are holed up. we are finding ways to remove them from strongholds that they have had. all things we will have to try to put together to use to destroy this kind of evil force that we have. host: you said with the debate
coming in congress over this issue, a headline in "the los angeles times," says paul ryan is under pressure to stop funding for syrian refugees. it sort of carries on what their mantra has been about immigration. of course, we will have this discussion. of course, there will be strategic uses of rules and regulations to try to get at this. at the end of the day, i believe we have to stand strong. that is not the answer to the problem. the answer to the problem is not to deny people who need refuge, who are legitimate refugees coming into our country. refugee,ot say, i am a can i get here? they go through an incredible process that involves multiple
, and sometimes the process takes over a year. we are not taking this lightly. we have a responsibility to be a world leader in humanitarian aid . that is who we are. that is why we are who we are. we need to be able to push back on it. having said that, i'm certain we will have some very robust discussions on these issues. host: texas, thomas, republican line. caller: i was just wondering, 200 europeans were killed. every day, we had a mass shooting at her school's -- has nobody said, let's save our kids? 200 deaths in america is like, what? one weekend? they are killing our kids every damn day.
guest: thank you, thomas. i appreciate that. i agree 100% that we need to be vigilant and diligent in this country. we may not have jihadists creating these murderous events emmanuel ander ma other places like schools were innocent churchgoing people, people at mosques or temples are being killed. i do believe we have a domestic appreciation of this kind of terrorism, and we have agencies working with local law enforcement, working with locals, and working with governments and state governments to identify, and intercede and prevent some of these things happening.
you're absolutely right. we seem to be giving much more coverage to what is happening in paris which is an absolute tragedy, but we also had a tragedy in kenya days before that. we need to be aware, as a country, of all of these tragedies that take place. we need to be supportive, and understand the implications of all of these things going on. we need to be able to support the positions and leaderships to identify the solution, whether mental illness here, or ideological alignment with racism here, or jihadist, or so-called religious ideology around the world. that the united
states of america is applying as much intelligence, and resources, as we can. we are continuing to improve our informationse and gathering. host: from twitter, how confident are you that the background check will suffice? guest: having had some classified briefings and unclassified reasonings, there are multiple agencies involved in vetting every applicant that comes into this country. they are taking biometrics, looking at arrest records, any kind of criminal record, and
doing, i think, a very good job. there is always a risk of who comes into the country. mistakes can be made, by believe we have a pretty good record. host: here is pennsylvania, joan. caller: thank you, and thank you for c-span. am worried about the number and the pictures that you see of what looks like able-bodied young men coming into europe, and moving their way across. you mentioned specifically very ng immigrants vetti and doing biometrics. what i know about biometrics, they only work if you have something to measure them follicles.e hair if there is no database, and
these young men are coming across, and they have nothing to go against, and they are coming without papers or passports, you don't even know if they are giving you the right name. if they give you a made-up name and that does not match anything, you do not know who they are. that is my real problem. i don't care what your biometrics are if there is nothing in another system to measure it against. i'm becoming concerned about the use of the term, "boots on the ground." of two marines. they are not a pair of boots. they are flesh and blood that we are sending overseas into harms way. and seven of referring to them people., these are vtween that and a
etting process, in which i have zero confidence, could you at least address the process and some more specifics about biometrics? that would be helpful. thank you. guest: first of all, let me address the last issue first. you are absolutely right, we need to talk about the fact that it is not boots on the ground that we are sending into harm's way, it is husbands, brothers, cousins, sons, daughters, mothers, wives, and these are human beings. we need to ensure that we are putting as few people as possible in harms way. you are right. you need to have a sample in order to measure it against something, but there are other things that are accessed during this process. wherever the person is coming from, whether or not there's any kind of criminal history, whether or not there are any
connections, what has been that person's history, to the extent that we can get it. less thaning thing is 2% of the refugees seeking to come here are men, unattached men. the population that we are ofling with is a population people who have been persecuted , who had serious illnesses, and our mother and children, which are the priority here. host: california, independent line. caller: i would like to follow up about the last caller. i listen to the head of the fbi, the current one, and the former c-spannt fbi director on
, and other places, talking here.bringing refugees you know, these people having to leave their country. i totally agree that we will not be able to vet them adequately because there is no information. in paris, one of the attackers, i think they said they had 8-10 different passports on them, forgeries. vet, we cannotven track people who are here on tracksays, and we do not them, and they overstay. fbi is right now tracking
about a hundred 50-900 cases and the fbi director said it takes .4/7, every day host: got you. guest: i appreciate that question. i recognize your comes in. these are challenges. aboutk, even as we's beat enhancements to this process, some of which are classified, and we cannot talk about it, but you said something very interesting that the fbi is currently tracking some 800 cells. it means that we do have good intelligence on the ground and the our intelligence is bringing us closer to who could possibly be a threat to us. i think that there is a wrong impression that this process to
into theirfugee country is happening quickly. we do not have the porous borders that they do in europe and the free-flowing between the borders. the united states has friends in the south and friends in the north. we are working cooperatively. not only with them, but even with our partners across the ocean, into europe, and other places. i think bringing together more countries who recognize the collective threat that this isis bear, theirto well-being, in the middle east, brings a greater degree of information and willingness to share. host: republican line, carol. caller: thank you for taking my
call. i was happy to hear some of the previous callers who actually had the same questions that i ttingecause i feel like ve refugees is a mystery. there are no specifics. i would also like to know, if a refugee does not pass, what is done to them? where are they sent back to? i have not heard anything about that. leaderser subject, throughout our country, and the world, should be ashamed of themselves and the way they have stepped back and allowed isis to continue their terror of christians and the free world, as we saw last weekend in paris. dospecial operations troops not do the job. ped onbombs drop various locations do not do the
job. this idea that the men and women of the military should not be boots on the ground, or should not be put in harms way, this is what they do. the military is there, and people in the military chose to be there, and this is what they do. they protect the citizens of the united states. that is their job. host: thank you. guest: thank you very much for that question, carol. i'm not sure where an applicant goes if he or she has an application which is denied, and here she is not able to come into the united states. i can only tell you that the person is not permitted to come into the united states. i believe that the president has been speaking most recently about intensifying efforts as it relates to airstrikes. i do agree with the president that we cannot put our men and
women in harm's way with no way of winning the war and no way of getting out. we have already done that. by ourld be informed past experiences. we went into iraq, into afghanistan, and what has happened? are we better there for having gone in the way we did? i don't think so. i think, working with our partners across this world, working with our law enforcement , working with our military across this world is what is going to signal the difference and the termination of isil's efforts. host: our guest is representative body was coleman tts coleman.s go you have been selected to serve on the committee of infants
lives, what is that? hoping that really with this new beginning with our new speaker that we would actually have a new beginning with regards to this. host: it stemmed from issues of planned parenthood? guest: it stemmed from republican interpretation of problems with planned parenthood that have not been validated through any of the many, many committee meetings that they have had. this really is nothing more than a continuation of the attack on women's rights and the right to , and the negative impact that this will have on the access to health care. host: the representative of the committee boat and op-ed. she says, the focus of our investigation will be to review medical procedures of abortion providers and business practices
of procurement organizations as well the relationship that exists between the two entities. not one cent of taxpayer money should be going to fund big abortion businesses. guest: i think she has spoken to everything we already no. we know that title x funds are not being used for abortion unless it is the case of a rape, or insect. we know that planned parenthood was not involved in the selling butetal tissue for profit it had been engaged in the of -- if it had been engaged in the availability, it was for health research purposes. we know this is an attack on a woman's right to have access to planned parenthood, to be able to plan families, and have access to contraception. we know this.
we know what planned parenthood does. we know what it does not do. we know that planned parenthood torole with regard termination of pregnancy is very minor, very small. we artie know that. you know why we know that? we know that because they help quite of few on these issues. they tried to break it down, break it down, and get planned parenthood to agree to things that are not true. they are relying on these ridiculous videos that have been unmercifully edited. we did not even bring that individual in and check his veracity. host: those videos change the conversation on this topic? providehose videos another opportunity to attack a woman's right to choose. i've only been a congresswoman
since january, and monthly, if not more, there is some attachment to some piece of legislation designed to limit a woman's right to make decisions regarding her health care. this is ridiculous. nono one elected us to do this. us to move forward with politics that will enhance our economy. if you want to deal with a woman, deal with the right to be paid the same that a man is being paid. income disparity is an issue. they sent us there to ensure that there is no discrimination in applying for work and living your life and being who you are. they send us their to build highways and protect us with bridges and to ensure that public transportation, things of that nature, are efficient and effective. they did not send us their to continue to take away something
that the supreme court has decided that other laws have usided -- they did not send their to have a continued assault on women's health care. does this committee have subpoena powers? is that how it will differ? guest: i am not sure the breadth of this committee. if we have theen power to call it into a meeting. committee this i would simply not deal with it. this is not a winning issue for them. host: you wrote an op-ed to this point. it is called, letting go. guest: let it go. let it go, let's move forward. let's talk about more access to health care, not limited. let's talk about economic
opportunities and pay equity. let's talk about voting rights. let's talk about moving the country forward. host: has there been a first meeting set up for this? guest: no. host: any indication on when they will start? guest: not yet. host: on the democrat line, go ahead. caller: i agree with everything that she has said. not invading,e these are refugees, mostly women and children. is, there may be subject but that is anywhere you go. is, it irritates me to death that these republicans skew the numbers of people that do not want to go into these other countries.
76% do not want to go into these countries. and yet the republicans say that last iurity of -- checked, the majority was 51%. there is a large number who do not want military on the ground. spouse of a 22 year veteran. it is totally ludicrous that we should put our men in danger. the special forces are the best in the world. host: thanks, caller. guest: the special forces are indeed the best in the world. you come from a very important state. i believe you are right on the spot with your position. make sure that your people represent to understand you. host: from clayton, louisiana. on the independent line.
missr: i would like to ask coleman a question. i don't understand why she keeps saying, there may be mistakes. that just leaves her a way out if something happened that was really bad. and on planned parenthood, i don't understand why they care about destroying lives. that is just five minutes of a woman spreading her legs. i mean, come on. host: you can respond if you wish. sure what he is referring to when i said, there may be mistakes. there may always be a mistake when a human is involved. but the question is whether or not we have a system set up to prevent that. with regard to planned
parenthood, i think the question for all of us is, does a woman have a right to choose. a right to choose what to do with her reproductive options? -- what does parent does planned parenthood do in terms of providing health care options to the underserved and the marginally -- the marginal people who would otherwise not have access? doy do breast exams, they std testing. exams andl kinds of provide contraception so that we don't have unwanted regnant see. this is a -- don't have unwanted pregnancy. care system.lth mohammed in washington, d.c., the republican line. caller: good morning. i want to thank representative
respect to her safety as we taken refugees. i have a question with the vetting process. my understanding is that the marathon bombers came from a refugee family. the bomber's mother has not had the most synthetic view to the bombing. are there any specific lessons the government has learned from the vetting process of dzhokhar tsarnaev? i would appreciate any specific lessons learned. thank you. guest: i'm not sure i can answer that question specifically. i can say a couple of things that i have learned through the briefings. ant is that there is enhanced vetting process that relates to new refugees, trying to come into the country.
there areaware that cells that are being watched right now by the fbi. and i have been informed that we a multiagency cooperation interaction and information sharing with regards to people of interest. we are not perfect and things could happen from time to john, i do believe that we have been vigilant and diligent and lessit has resulted in terrifying a very experience, like what we have had in paris and on 9/11. but i really can't go into the specifics. in terms of what that means to the additional intelligence and
counterintelligence and information sharing. host: we are here with representative bonnie watson coleman. you are on with our guest. go ahead. caller: hi, how are you? i am from delaware and i can see new jersey from my house. governor markell wants to let refugees into delaware and in smyrna, we absolutely do not. i am a democrat but i am switching parties now to the republicans because they are making more sense. this is not milk and cookie time, this is not naptime. this is a time to be very careful. couldwas wondering if you ask governor christie what he thinks about the situation? because i'm pretty sure i know what his answer will be. what do you think about that? guest: first of all, i hope that
you will see over the next couple of days, even weeks, just how intense and strategic and comprehensive the vetting process is. and how safe our states and communities will be. when those refugees are given thisssion to come here -- country does not take that responsibility lightly. so while i know that there has emotional,eral, and reaction to what we experienced in paris, i believe that we need to rely on the agencies that have our best interests and our safety and security in mind. i believe they have been doing a very good job. i think if i asked the governor of the state of new jersey why he took the position he takes, i think he would say because it his position on a
national stage. host: john, from new york. you are next up. go ahead. caller: good morning. i am a former marine. while i was deployed, i used -- they used men and women and children in their tactics. how do you know they won't be doing that assess? guest: good morning. i don't know if you are referring to isis or another jihadist entity, but i think the enhanced intensity is putting us in a better position and i would think that it is putting us in a andtion to respond, react affirmatively act with more data at hand. host: richmond, virginia. chucky, thank you for holding
on. good morning. caller: good morning. yes, i am talking about what obama said and whether it is the truth. woulde the issue in paris still happen if we had troops because isis has spread through europe. ground troops in syria is not going to stop that. far as refugees coming to america, i believe there should be none. i agree with the republicans on that issue. there should be a safe haven in the middle east for those refugees and not ring them to america. but i believe what obama is doing, as far as the other countries involved, i believe in that as we handle the isis situation. your: thank you for thoughts on this and for your
idea about a safe haven in the middle east. that is an interesting concept right now, given the turmoil in the middle east. but i think we have to remember that we are a nation of immigrants. and that if we have a process that is keeping us safe and secure and we recognize that immigrants helps to make this country great and the diversity of the population has made us -- thisunderstanding represents our value system. cautious in saying that we will not accept refugees into the united states of america. because refugees have been here from early early on. says "wetwitter, -- need to go slowly. take babies and the elderly. other countries closer to syria should also take them in." guest: no question. ill,ing with the very
those who have been persecuted or threatened with persecution and willman -- and women and children. host: up next, on our republican line. good morning. caller: i called in for a different reason. i don't understand representative coleman. she wants -- she went from refugees to abortions. number one, i want to know how many of orson's she has had. -- i want to know how many abortions she has had. number one, where the hell are men -- youowing huge can see them on the borders of france and europe -- we are allowing them to come in and infiltrate.
we had a problem in the adirondacks. host: ok. guest: um. i am not a pro abortionist. i just believe a woman has a right to choose. and that decision is between a doctor and the patient. and that decision has been upheld in the supreme court and in legislation. so hopefully that answers your question with regards to where i am at without. -- to where i am at with that. i want to deal with your question of the able-bodied men, they represent less than 2% of the people coming into this country. process, the application process, it is long,
complicated, complex and comprehensive. bonnieepresentative watson coleman, thank you for your time this morning. guest: thank you for having me. next, we get a chance to talk to policy experts. up next is patrick traynor on the safety of the internet. we will pick up that conversation when we return. ♪ >> sunday on queuing day -- on q
and a. >> i am the first woman to reach the rank of four stars in the u.s. navy. i had only been a three-star for four months when i was traveling through town and he asked to see me and i presumed it was about the next job i was going to. and that is when he talked to me about, we are looking at you for being another star. here are a couple of opportunities where we think you would do well and benefit the navy. admiral michelle howard talks about becoming the first female four-star admiral in the history of the navy. she also discusses leading the navy's mission to rescue captain phillips who was kidnapped by somali politics -- somali pirates.
>> after a few days on the job, he was kidnapped. it was our job to get him back safely. and that was a surprise mission and a challenge. but we got him back. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific. q&a.span's >> c-span has the best access to congress. watch live access on c-span and c-span2. watch is online at c-span.org. listen anytime on our radio app. you can follow us on twitter. stay with c-span, c-span radio and c-span.org for your best access to congress. washington journal continues. day two of c-span's
sunshine state tour. we are visiting for florida universities this week. we are interviewing policy experts each morning on washington journal. we started yesterday at florida state university. other universities we will visit is the university of florida, and the university of miami. today, we will talk to patrick traynor with the university of florida. he is the codirector of internet security. we should let you know about florida state university. it is located in gainesville. it has 32,000 people enrolled and 16,000 plus in the graduate program. and if you calculate the tuition, it is $28,000 in state. it has a $1.5 billion endowment.
joining us now is patrick traynor with the institute of cyber security. he is a member of the computer department. good morning. guest: good morning. it is a pleasure to be here. security ise cyber a big topic, can you break it down for us? how would you define cyber security and what are the most pressing issues right now? guest: certainly. this seems to be a much simpler question a decade ago, when things were less cyber. but looking around today, it is hard to think of something that you might have in your home that doesn't have some kind of cyber component to it. everything from the power system that brings electricity to your house, to your computer or television, a camera and smart refrigerators.
your homect of certainly, if not now, within the next five years will be connected to the larger internet. capabilityansion of really brings tremendous aboutunity and concern what these devices are talking to and what they should be doing with that information that they are receiving. so there are a huge number of concerns facing us in cyber big ones ise of the the internet of things. things is thef idea that all of our devices, instead of just doing our jobs -- doing their jobs, are going to talk to other devices in your home or in the cloud, and get information so they can do their job that her. is goinghose devices to be somewhat limited in terms of the capabilities, but the fact that every device in your home may not be on the internet is certainly an item of great concern.
that is the first thing i will talk about. the next is the idea of cyber terrorism. much of our infrastructure from water to power is connected to the internet. there is concern that while the flexibility of sharing data and being able to control our , butstructure positively someone may be able to get into the infrastructure to create rate damage. host: professor, the first part of being so connected, can you give us a worst-case scenario of what might happen as far as a cyber issue? i know people understand getting there at a card stolen. but is there a case worth or -- is there a case worse than that? guest: certainly. i worry about things like
infiltration and spying on individual citizens. you have a smart tv in your home, that tv has a camera. and if that camera isn't protected, people may be using home andk inside your determine whether you are there or not there. what you are doing in the house. and that could be concerning from a physical security standpoint. so the advantage to having your credit card stolen is that the physical consequence is limited. accesssomeone is using to an increasingly set -- using increasingly the access to a set of issues in your home, that is of concern. and also, to extend into the , thecal infrastructure idea that someone could reach into the power grid and turn off wheresections of grid
electricity is being delivered is certainly problematic. the same thing with water. you can imagine that instead of sending clean water, someone might be able to contaminate water supplies. physical impact is becoming more possible. it is very important to consider. host: our guest is with us until the end of the show if you want to talk to him about internet (202) 748-8000 for the eastern time zone and (202) 748-8001 in the pacific and (202) 748-8002 if you want to tell your story. patrick traynor is on our c-span bus. abouto us a little bit
security that has to take place and there is software to keep us protected and yet we still keep hearing about instances of people getting information via computer. what is the connection between what we know we should do and what is actually done? guest: certainly. one thing that i don't think people understand is how complex software is. imagine if you are building a traditional building. you may have access to a blueprint and you can't touch and feel -- into can touch and feel how this is structured. software is more abstract, it is difficult to understand how pieces can stick together. tens ofe composed of millions of lines of code and it that no personed can possibly understand all of the complexities and the interplay.
we are making great progress in this space and we are developing techniques to help us write better software. but this is an incredibly complex thing, software security. and software will always be vulnerable in some fashion. so much of security will be risk mitigation and understanding what is the risk. and then developing techniques to deal with preventing the risks being exploited or dealing with those risks on the other side. let me give you an example of one thing i find encouraging. i know these conversations often end up being dismal and don't give people hope. one encouraging thing i've seen is the move towards the chip and signature on many credit cards. i am not saying that this technical solution is a cure
all, but what it does do is make it much more difficult for ameone who takes control of card reader or a point-of-sale unit at a place like home depot yourrget, from then taking credit card and using it again and again and again, as we have seen far too many times in recent memory. so the advantage is that it uses strong, mathematically proven techniques to protect your information. one of the potential downsides, and we see this in the united is that folks on the policy side understand that you can't just change the policy under the assumption that the technology is perfect. so with the chip and pin in the united kingdom, we have seen the reversal of the liability model. the assumption is that the technology is perfect and fraud is only possible by the user.
so i hope we don't see a shift , so thatity models consumers will ultimately be at risk if fraud -- or i should say when fraud does a cure. -- fraud does occur. hi, i wanted to incur -- i wanted to inquire, we have a smart tv. within the first time that we signed up for netflix, we were hacked. and it was all around within half an hour. we couldn't get back on the tv for about 3-4 days. route --nt a different app thing as we
contacted the server. and they said they would contact and see if there is any action or anything happening in the general area. we can report that to you. but that is basically all that is done. alarmed byery much that. we ended up going on a private app. go to this.ever also, recently, my health and they havecked a prompter on their call line when you call about your claim if you were a victim of being hacked. so everybody is being hacked. so i want to know about this , weor that has happened know these terrorists are their avenues to us.
what is out there that the u.s. can do for our citizens? what amount of money does it take? we have this technology and we are told over and over, but we need to defend our citizens. host: we will let our guest respond. go ahead. guest: thank you so much for the call. i will try to break down those issues when by one. in regards to your television, i have heard a number of cases when people say their television is compromised. so what i suggest in terms of the cyber security strategy is a mix of techniques. the first is financial. so that television you mentioned that was hacked, you could return that television to the
manufacturer or the store and look for a different unit. use your power of economics to solve that problem. way, many credit cards offer an extended warranty. you could use that through the credit cards to bring the television back and find another product. i highly recommend that you are speaking to your public representatives. these are the folks who can try to push for change. there is a movement afoot at the moment to look at software liability laws. and that is if you write software and you don't invest in good practices, you may be liable for damages caused by the software. an enormously complex issue and i don't want to try to simplify it further. but having that national thosesation about what responsibilities are for software vendors or hardware vendors, and what they go to the general public, that is
important. so i encourage you to use economic and your power as a voter to talk to your public officials. i highly recommend good security hygiene. that involves things like making sure you are doing updates on a regular basis. so the moment you get the television out of the box, you a software update. many televisions will try to update themselves before doing anything else. you want to ensure that other computers in the network are regularly updated. you want to run virus updates which are perfect but may make you less of a target. hopefully those things together answer your question. host: jeff in texas. go ahead. all of the cyber security, i can understand what you are saying.
they are trying to protect the water system and whatever. that nsa ares , i agree with donald trump in a sense. shut the borders down, bring the military to protect us here. why not just watch what you are worried about? why are americans being watched? iu say we have technology but don't have anything to hide. i have done in my life what i have done in my life. even with these smart tvs and cameras, eventually the nsa will use that as a stairway to do things. where does the word americans begin and end?
guest: thank you for your question. let me try to answer this in a couple different ways. the first is that it is one of the homes of our public that we have our privacy. that is very important. it is certainly worth revisiting for a national conversation. what does that mean at any given time? what do we decide is appropriate? one thing that most people don't understand about the nsa is that the amount of data that they have to process is massive. and i am not talking about data on u.s. citizens. i have no comment on that but the amount of data that they do that there possible are things not even that they see. your point that
i understand that your reality about not be willing to compromise on the security. we don't know how to deal with all of the data that is coming in. we don't know how to turn that into knowledge information. it is then a national conversation. i hope others continue to be engaged. host: lena from washington. good morning. caller: good morning. ynor, i appreciate you being on. a appreciate your concern about the issues with the water supply and the electricity grid. i think you are spot on at a don't understand why there is so when it comes to computers and technology.
we just go ahead and go with it. we think everything will turn out fine. there is a lot to be concerned about with everything being connected. i don't trust it, myself. know what a microsoft cloud is. i don't know who runs the cloud and i don't know why it should be trusted. i think our younger generation being raised with this in school are way more open to working with it and it is second nature to them because they are very educated in this. but i don't know how much they know about the trust with the powers that be, thinking about profit? and all of the stress that our world is dealing with right now. so, anyway, i think you for what
you are doing and i agree with you that there is a lot to be concerned about. and quickly, why would anybody want a car that can be driven without a person? to me, i don't see the importance of that. that,if you can add onto how do your students receive this idea of trust and how much information they put out there? go ahead. there was a lot of great stuff in the call. thank you for calling in. , i know thatng these cyber security discussions go negatively very quickly. but i want to remind everyone of the transformative power that technology has brought to our economy. it has created countless jobs and it really helps our nation set priorities for the entire world. so technology is very important.
when i talk to my students, i often joke about what my father did at his desk before he had a computer. some of the older viewers will laugh at that notion. technology can be absolutely positive but we do have to focus on the trade-offs. and as someone who works in engineering, everything is about trade-offs. there is no technology that is just positive. to measure and balance the trade-offs. i talked to my students a lot about those issues and i challenge them to think about, when you go to a website and you -- forour information example, if you fill out a survey and it asks you, how much money do you make in a year? them, who do you think take that information? do you think it only belongs to
the person doing the survey? that question might be asking where you are in terms of the economic 1%, but i revealed to them that information is sold as part of a profile to sell advertisements. they have to be careful about the information that is out there. i heard another caller previously mentioned that you have to hide -- and i appreciate that, but i don't think people understand how complex the full picture of your data is and how much it can really say about you. who you things about are and what you do and what you do or don't believe in can be revealed by your habits online. so it is very important that we have this conversation and we are careful about how we do things online. let me offer you a concrete thing you can do. one thing i encourage my students to do is that when they are looking at their privacy and
they are trying to browse safely, i often encourage them to segregate their behaviors into the most sensitive and the less sensitive. -- inking or paying bills encourage them to use one type of browser for that. otherhen they are doing things, i encourage them to use a different browser. and for the highly sensitive, financial, and the less sositive, keep them separate the problems in one of them don't become problems in another. host: jim is joining us from winston, salem. caller: thank you very much. professor patrick traynor, thank you for bringing us to attention. i would appreciate a quick overview on how much you think the power grid -- or how
susceptible -- it is to a threat? thinkat priority do you the power companies and their related regulatory agencies, including homeland security, place on the cyber threat? are they taking the appropriate actions, in your opinion? what gravity do they give to this? thank you very much. guest: that is a great question. certainly it is one with nuanced answers. a power grid is clearly important. this is how we literally power the american economy, especially the digital economy. so the fallout from the power grid has a massive invocation. just as you said, the department of homeland security certainly rates the security of the power grid as a highest priority. they're working with
electricity providers throughout the nation and even into canada andry to develop a strategy technique. but more needs to be done. that is an active area of study at the university of florida. we are building a cyber digital testbed. will allow us to partner with howindustry to simulate power grids operate and then to simulate attacks on the grid and teach students how to defend against those attacks. we are developing technologies that will help and we are developing students who , whoo into the industry can go into the regulatory side, and help move this conversation forward area so you are absolutely right. homeland security is aware of this problem and it is one of their top priorities. and we here at the university of florida are doing our part to
make sure that there is a minimal damage. we are visiting for universities in florida and have an opportunity to talk to experts. university of florida is the stock today at patrick traynor works as a codirector for the institute of cyber security. talked to us about the notion of the homeland security. stories of the day, when it and the paris playstation, on a what is the larger implication of terrorism? especially with uses of these types of communication? guest: certainly. before, and this is critical for everyone to understand, nearly all technology is jewel use -- is
duel use. bring us to car to work or we can use a court to crash into a store. we need to be aware of the good and evil in technology. certainly, encryption is very important. single day,ery every time you check your e-mail or go to your bank. all of those things are protected from people who are trying to intercept communications, steal your money or medical records. these are the positive uses of encryption. i heard this story as well, about isil using lay stations. unfortunately, i don't have more details about this. is not unexpected that this is happening. there are certainly other ways agencies are able to
get around this problem. so i understand that often times, people who are being , the machine it can decrypt the communications for them and the intelligence agency can see the issue or the communication. these techniques are widely used. so encryption to talk to somebody who might be in the .etwork but the passing of the communication between two people, there are techniques that the agencies can use. i strongly advocate for the use of encryption and civil society. it is very important that citizens have the ability to speak freely to each other. and the vast majority of
encryption around the world certainly are for good. host: here is jerry from washington. go ahead. caller: i am very glad to have professor patrick traynor on. gators,alumnus from the way back. guest: go agers. -- go gators. memory in myrst jr. year was using one of the ibm computer games. we would compete with each other. it was primitive and simplified but it was neat to see, it was the first exposure for me area -- for me. i have a follow-up question with the playstation. encryptions -- i just
decided to say it in much simpler way. what percent of applications that people can buy or use on phones or cell phones or computers are encrypted without us knowing? or is it supposed to be publicized? i am assuming that is an advantage, competitively, for the users. the second thing is, when you are talking about preparing the , what should we be toing to students as information that we gain over computers,media or that we used to call in world
war ii days, the information coming over the public waves? seen three items in the news in the last weekend about electromagnetic policies. host: ok, thanks. guest: great to speak to an alumnus. thank you so much for calling in. isyour first question, it hard to say how many applications are using encryption technologies. but you run into them every day. if you check your e-mail, there is a good chance that you are using encryption to talk to the e-mail server. if you go to the bank websites, you are almost certainly using a strong encryption there. ,ur browser does give us a hint
there is usually a little lock in the corner that you can click on to learn details about the encryption. fromption is often hidden end-users. it is a complex issue and you may not understand it. that means that when we are not using encryption and users think it is there, it isn't. in the past, encryption was only used when you were using a login. and after you logged in, anyone on the network could see what you are doing. now that has gone away and facebook now encrypts everything that you do so your content is protected. but the idea of hiding the inscription -- hiding the encryption is claiming to be
secure but it offers no real reason for the claim. so do look for it. -- go to a site, news site. you won't see the lock. your bank'sto website and you will see the encryption working. on the other side, as far as the information that you put out it is certainly true that the things we talk about online are far different than the things we would talk about in the collective session even 10 years ago. some of those changes are societal and they will require other engineers to talk about recent events. but we do caution students about what people put up online. and one of them is that employers will often look to see
what people have posted. unless you want a piece of information to be associated with you for the rest of your life, because if you post on the internet, it will be stored somewhere, then don't do it. we have long conversations on a technical level in my courses that i teach here. host: here is gary from the shaken. you are on with our guest. caller: yes, hello. i wanted to know what to think about the government spying and then spying on everybody so much and about the internet. [indiscernible] i apologize, i had some
difficulty hearing the question. i believe it was about what my thoughts were on the government spying? my read on this goes directly to the constitution, to establish law and that we have a process in this country to have data discovery. this is long enshrined, although it back to justice brandeis about the legal process that needs to take place. that is a very important differentiator of our nation. so there is an active discussion right now and i certainly encourage you to take part in it by talking to the folks that represent you at the local, state and national level. about how you see the changes in technology either changing or adhering to laws that are currently written. so that is a really excellent to then and my advice is
active. talk to people. make sure that your opinion is heard. for the02) 748-8000 eastern time zone, (202) 748-8001 mountain and pacific time zone and (202) 748-8002 if you are a victim of cyber security. change edward snowden the conversation about what the government knows about our information? guest: this is a multifaceted issue and i will try to take the part as well as i can. everyone knows that edward snowden was a former contractor who before going into exile, took a large amount of data and has been releasing this data publicly. there are some who say that his actions are noble, and that his
revelation is important and are equivalent to whistleblowing. there are others who equate it to treating -- to treason. it is a nuanced issue. we have learned a lot about what --pened host 9/11 america what happened in host 9/11 america. i think we learned things from snowden about programs and who is being looked at. all of these things give us data as scientists and engineers. data is what allows me to develop an opinion about something. so it is really important to learn about the things that edward snowden released because they are out there and our adversaries could get them.
is this how we want our cyber security policy to look like? is this what we want the cyber security policy of our allies to look like? the government does do a lot of work with helping many nations establishing cyber security policies. this is very important work that we do. i was recently in the democratic republic of congo and i met with the state department, helping african nations developing policies to ensure internet freedoms. to ensure freedom that people enjoy in the physical world is replicated online. and that is an effort to ensure human rights around the world. so the edward snowden issue, it gives us data to ask ourselves about our domestic policies. and it tells us part of the story about the larger strategy.
i encourage people to get involved. host: glenn from florida. go ahead. caller: hello, professor. i like to preface this by saying that my daughter is a gator. we are very proud of her. i continue to find it more difficult to stay off the grid. wouldn old timer and i rather keep my life simple and live my life. and if you can't be the best at something then that means staying on top of all of the progress in technology, then you should go the other way. it bestld try to avoid you can. to staycoming so hard
off the grid without being -- still living in society but keeping your life simple so you are not constantly under attack. where is the balance? do we stand a chance at keeping it simple? and living a simple life? because it feels like we are getting pushed, pushed, pushed. it is becoming more difficult to just live. guest: a great question and .gain, go gators i'm glad to hear that your daughter is part of the excellent college of engineering here in florida. to disconnectt even when you want to. with the advent of this internet -- when ouring toasters, refrigerators, cars and homes are part of the information infrastructure, it
is becoming more complicated. a few years ago, i try to are just a cell phone without a camera which might seem a little strange. because i thought, why would i want a camera on my cell phone? it is becoming impossible for me to find a phone without one. so part of the solution is in your economic choices. supporting products that you think are less infringing on your rights. be it is more difficult to disconnected in our increasingly connected society. host: andy from wildwood, florida. we have just a few minutes. jump right in. yes, my daughter is there to.
what legislation can we support that will keep us from being spied upon? it sounds a lot like big brother. what legislation can we support? fantastic question. i think what you should do is talk to your local representative about crafting legislation. come and talk to folks at universities, like myself or in other parts of florida. about the kinds of things that will matter. it is easy to pass legislation that from a policy perspective seems attractive but from a technology perspective, it doesn't quite hopeless. .t has too many workarounds so the solution is going to be a cooperation between the general populace, technologists like myself and policymakers to decide what is the right step for society as a whole.
so that conversation is really important. traynor,fessor patrick what are the next issues that we have to contend with as a nation and in the world? guest: certainly. one of my most important areas is mobile devices and in particular, cellular. if you think that the attorney -- the internet is a big deal, it certainly is. but cell phones of over 6 billion users worldwide. and if you are an american girl -- an american girl -- an american company, and you want to expand, cellular mobile systems. extrad to be paying attention to that space and understanding the problems of the challenges of the rest of the world joins us on the internet. professor patrick traynor
from the university of florida. thank you for your time this morning. guest: my pleasure. thank you. host: we now go to the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's rooms, washington, d.c. november 17, 2015. i hereby appoint the honorable charles j. "chuck" flisheman ton act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, paul ryan, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 6, 2015, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour debate. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties