Skip to main content

tv   Washington Journal  CSPAN  May 9, 2015 7:00am-10:01am EDT

7:00 am
nd the advanced placement u.s. government test. washington journal is next. host: good morning. it is saturday, may 9 2015 today on c-span and c-span radio. we will be live from the th conservative gatheringg in south carolina. we are coming off the news that the justice department has launched a wide-ranging probe of the baltimore police department. i investigation will seek to determine if the department has a history of discrimination and could put the police force under scrutiny for years to come. this morning, we are opening the
7:01 am
phones to get your reaction from that news and to hear how you think loretta lynch has handled this first challenge during her short time as the head of the justice department. democrats can call in at (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 745-8002. a special line for baltimore residents this morning, that number, (202) 748-8003. you can also catch up with us on social media. on twitter, facebook, or e-mail us at a very good saturday morning to you. we begin this weekend coming off the news yesterday, announced by t loretta lynch, that the justice department will start a civil rights probe of the baltimore police department. here is the headline from "washington post" this morning -- baltimore police to face
7:02 am
federal investigation. here is a bit from loretta lynch is press conference yesterday here in washington, d.c. [video clip] loretta lynch: today the department of justice is opening an investigation as to whether the baltimore police department has engaged in a pattern of discrimination. this investigation will be in immediately and will focus on allegations that baltimore police officers used excessive force, conducted unlawful searches six, seizures, and arrests. host: we turn now to william yeomans, former deputy attorney general, joining us by phone. good morning, how are you? guest: i am fine. host: talk us through. what goes through a pattern and practice investigation by the justice department. without was the term that the -- that was the terms of the
7:03 am
attorney general kept using yesterday. guest: this will be a broad investigation into how the arts more police department operates. it is distinct from a criminal investigation. a criminal investigation into the death of freddie gray goes on separately. this will be a separate investigation, conducted by federal investigators out of the department justice, primarily from the special litigation division of the civil rights division. what they will do is look at the issues that the attorney general described yesterday, starting with the use of force by the baltimore police department. and whether they used excessive force, whether there was a pattern. they will also look at whether the police department has engaged in a pattern of unconstitutional stops and searches and seizures. then it will also look at whether the government has engaged in any this commendatory policing, whether police
7:04 am
officers have unjustifiably targeted african-americans in baltimore for police activity. in order to do that, they will have to look at a lot of evidence from a lot of different corners. they will look at documentation from the police department that describes arrests and encounters. they will like statistics on who has been stopped and who has been arrested, and whether there are patterns that tell a story. they will also talk to police officers to the extent that the police department cooperates with the investigation. they will talk to people who happen -- who have been engage in encounters with the police. it will talk to attorneys, public defenders, community groups, and will talk generally to the citizensry. it will be very broad and comprehensive. it will take some time to get it done. host: that is the question.
7:05 am
well be expecting? what is the average amount of time for these types of investigations? on the end, could someone be fired on this, what is the possible range of outcomes? guest: smart investigators never put a time limit on investigation. we can get some sense -- for instance, the department just did a similar investigation in ferguson, following the killing of michael brown. that investigation took roughly seven months, from the time it was initiated to when the report was issued. the report is just a step along the way. if you take into account the fact that ferguson is a very small police department, with 53 police officers, and baltimore has over 3000 police officers, you can imagine that this investigation will take considerably longer than ferguson.
7:06 am
we're talking many months, it could be well over a year. host: and potential outcomes? what is the range of outcomes that the justice department could impose? guest: of course, it depends a what they find. what they could certainly impose our new -- are new rules, new policies governing stops and seizures. they can identify whether there aisis racially discriminatory policing. i would assume that any brevity would include competence of new training of police officers. they would also probably infpose new ways to supervise police officers. they will probably work on training police officers in a more community-oriented form of policing that will help police
7:07 am
and the community reestablish the trust that is necessary for the department to be effective. as far as individuals losing their jobs, certainly that can happen, but that probably will not be the most significant outcome. host: william yeomans, you're the former deputy attorney general. what do you think this means for loretta lynch coming as one of her first major actions as attorney general? guest: obviously very significant. the nation is watching. the events of baltimore have focus the nation's attention to the city of baltimore. i think so far, i have been very impressed with the way she has handled it. she has come up with a very balanced approach. she is sensitive i think to the concerns of police officers, yet understands the need to protect people civil rights.
7:08 am
it will be a challenge for her to maintain that balance. if this investigation goes on, and as problems are discovered, there will inevitably be some pushback from the police department. there will be some push from the community people who would like an even stronger pro-civil rights investigation. this is a balance she has to find. one thing that is important now is that this has become an investigation into whether or not the baltimore police department has finally that the law. previously, there was a collaborative reform effort going on between the time and baltimore that was not about identifying violations with the law but helping with technical assistance and policy. this is now investigation into whether or not the law has been broken. that will give the attorney general a firm basis going forward. host: we always appreciate your insight.
7:09 am
thank you for your time on a saturday morning. guest: my pleasure. host: our folder open for thes e first 45 minutes to get your reaction from the announcement yesterday. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 745-8002. a special life are baltimore residents this morning, (202) 748-8003. your reaction to the announcement of the civil rights probe and your thoughts on attorney general loretta lynch this being her first major action since taking that pose, how do you think she is handling it? a few reactions they came in yesterday in the wake of the announcement -- "washington post" recognizing that the baltimore is police union issued a statement welcoming the review. but in a sign of the tension between police and city leaders
7:10 am
the union also encourage the justice department to expand its review to focus on the mayor. rawlings blake issued her own statement that she was pleased by the justice department's decision. just some of the reaction in the wake of that announcement yesterday. we would especially like to hear from baltimore residents, we have a special line for them. maxine is up first from new york, new york, line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead, ma'am. caller: i listened to a little bit of what she had to say when i got home from work, but i will tell you, there was a cop that was murdered recently by a young man that was young too. host: you're site but then your police officer who was killed? caller: the funeral was just yesterday. i want to say to you, i'm not condoning this, but what was
7:11 am
that young guy supposed to do when he saw in the headlines that white cops are killing young like male struggle what was he supposed to do? if he didn't have a gun, was he going to take off and run and risk getting murdered himself by a cop? or was he going to take out his gun and shoot first? i'm not condoning it, it is wrong, but you know, two young men -- both of their young lives are over. i feel bad for it, but what was the young black man supposed to do? host: maxine, are you saying that you think there will be more violence that police officers will be seeing? caller: let me tell you, i got on twitter and was reading what people say. already, since we got this president, everything is so racist now. host: that is maxine. are you still there? caller: yes i am.
7:12 am
i've just afraid that things will get worse. host: dee is up next from california. line for independents. good morning. caller: thank you. i just do not understand what is happening to our country. you know, i grew up in los angeles. i was taught to respect my teachers, my family, etc.. i keep watching were these people run away from the police. if you are in a sense something -- innocent of something don't run away. the justice department launches a broad investigation of the baltimore police. we have seen so much on race division in this country between ferguson and baltimore. gee, baltimore has been
7:13 am
controlled by the democratic party for -- what is a? 35 or 40 years? what is wrong with us? when will we take responsibility for ourselves? ourselves. if you are not breaking the law -- i am 73, and i have never been arrested for anything. i'm not worried about the police. the police have a horrific job. in any profession, i don't care if it is a doctor, a teacher -- we have teachers who have sexually abused children. we have people in the ministry that have sexually abused children, but that does not mean everybody is bad. i am so afraid of the future of this country because of the lack of personal responsibility and accountability. host: a few tweets that have
7:14 am
come in on this topic of the civil rights probe, announced by the justice department. marie writes, do criminals have a civil right to commit crimes? carol wrightson, lynch will further alienate the chasm between the police and her justice department. let's go to steve on the line for democrats in bethesda maryland. caller: i'm very impressed by loretta lynch. she is one of the best civil servants i have come across in many years. i watch all of her testimony. it is outrageous that she was held up for five months. i think she is in an outstanding person to be attorney general of the united states. number two, the history of race relations in this country, social inequities, and lack of opportunity is so deep.
7:15 am
it has been going on for so long. for someone, as this lady just said, she does not understand -- she has never been arrested she is 73 years old, she is white. how myopic is that? i am not condoning any brutality, but all the brutality that african-americans have had to suffer for so many generations is unbelievable. both parties are involved in this. it is not just the democratic issue. there was a war on poverty, it words for quite a while -- it worked for quite a while, but now poverty is increasing. what one thing have republicans ever done to reduce poverty in this country? the only republican to ever talk ked about this liwas. jack
7:16 am
kemp. look at the current candidates. rand paul has made some good sounds, but seems to be backing away from his libertarian traditions in recent months. it is terribly discouraging. i can understand the outrage that people have been feeling for so many generations. host: steve that current crop of republican candidates, many of them will be at the south carolina freedom summit. we will be taking our viewers live there after today's program on the "washington journal." you can also catch it on c-span radio. it is being sponsored by citizens united and south carolina congressman jeff duncan . for more on the justice department probe that was launched yesterday, the justice department released a fact sheet noting that the beginning of the obama administration, the civil rights division open 22
7:17 am
investigations. the first five fiscal years of the administration, the department open twice as many investigations as were open in the previous five fiscal years. there are currently nine open investigations, including in ferguson, missouri. the department has concluded five investigations without finding any violations, including the austin department synnex. tonya is up next on the line for independents. what do you think to go caller: good morning. we have a president, president obama, that one snitches in his administration. the police want stitches in
7:18 am
their departments. these police departments, they are the same ones that don't want no one to have unions, but they have their unions. quite frankly, their unions are hateful, and a lot of times the media sound so hateful towards black people. i think that if the police were made to pay some of the civil fines, then they would think twice too. it is terrible that black people -- they have so many laws now. they have a law for everything just for talking to black people. there are more crimes on these college universities and nobody is patrolling these universities, and these university people, they keep their mouth shut. they do not tell the police when they get raped and have drugs
7:19 am
in there. i worked in a hospital in new york. we had drugs in there. people used to get arrested in the hospital for doing drugs. you target an area, and harass them night and day, and abuse them, no. no one will like you. host: tonya from west virginia. jackson is up next from maryland, line for democrats. caller: good morning. i favor the lynch investigation. i live in a suburb of baltimore, just outside baltimore. when you consider that the maryland state police was found to be engaged in corruption, in the form of profiling african-americans, when you consider that corruption -oriented police possible
7:20 am
rights, i think the investigation should be even wider, and include the maryland judiciary. host: jackson, how do you think loretta lynch has handled herself in her first couple of days week on the job? caller: i have actually had an opportunity to see much of her performance on the job. i can't really say. host: she did hold that news conference yesterday in which he announced this investigation. here is a limit more from that news conference in which he notes that the justice department has been successful in some of these other civil rights probe said they have launched in other police departments. here is a bit from that event. [video clip] loretta lynch: our goal is to work with the community, public officials, and law enforcement alike to create a stronger better baltimore. the department just the civil rights division has conducted dozens of these pattern of practice investigations today. we have seen from our work in
7:21 am
jurisdictions across the country, communities that have gone through this process are experiencing improved policing practices and increased trust between the police and the community. in fact, i urge other cities to study our past recommendations and see whether they can be applied to their own communities. ultimately, this process is meant to ensure that officers are being provided with the tools that they need, including training, policy guidance, and equipment to be more effective partner with civilians, and strengthen the public safety. host: we are getting our viewers reactions to that announcement from the attorney general yesterday. we also want to hear what you think of loretta lynch and the first major towns that she is facing on the job. let's go to bob in connecticut. line for republicans. good morning. caller: i am wondering why we have to have this investigation. we have a black mayor, black chief of police, large number of
7:22 am
black officers on the police force. we have terrorist cells throughout the country, from what i hear. every state has one, and possibly more. they are doing training and terrorist preparations. we are looking around chasing ghosts. i think we ought to get out and spend our resources where they will protect the people more effectively. thanks. host: jackson is up next in birmingham, alabama. line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. i was calling to approve of what loretta lynch did. i think it is something that should be done in wake of everything that happened. i just why does say that it is a read this what is happening to black men and young black men young black women. now they are reaching into age 40 and 50 men.
7:23 am
it is so ironic, don't you think? every time it happens, it is a white policeman against a black and. that is something to look at itself. there is more behind it between just the policing. when they get into a position if they do not follow the rules, they should be fired. they should be fired and not have the police union to stand up and approve of what they are doing. it is wrong. it is real wrong. racial profiling is wrong. host: can i ask you what we have your the phone, the caller before pointed out that there is a large number of african-american officers on the baltimore police force. three of the officers that were charged in the list of charges of the six that were charged are african-american. do you think it makes a difference in the baltimore police to harden -- police department, the number of african-american police officers? caller: i do not think it makes a difference because black
7:24 am
policeman do not know the real reason why white policeman are doing because they will not tell them what they are doing. i'm saying there is something more to why a white cop do it. black ops seem to just -- black cops seem to just follow and will not say what is wrong. they are subject to the same qualifying -- same profiling by a white man. it doesn't matter who is over the police force. you could have an all-white police force, and if they are doing the right thing, we would appreciate it. it does not have to be black on black to roll black people. white people, you need to do the right thing. we respect of policeman that is doing the right thing because we are law abiding people. host: don is up next and
7:25 am
cookeville, tennessee, line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning. it has been a while since i have been on here. i want to give mr. ledger try. she seems articulate and intelligent. it may be a chance to change the name of her agency to the "department of justice," instead of the "departing of justice," under eric holder. she may be on a witchhunt, and the witches may be those calling for the investigation. i will give this lady a chance. i am a white guy, i do not have a problem saying that. i used to be in the grocery business, i had a black lady manager that i would take a bullet for. she had her job -- to go round
7:26 am
to competitive stores and do price comparisons. she would always grab a white guy to go with her because we went into some less than hospitable areas. she took us so that the brothers would not bother her. i would just like people to think about this for a minute. i thank you for the time to get on here. you have a good weekend. host: we are talking about the announcement -- the civil rights investigation of the art moore police department this morning. your reaction to how loretta lynch is so far handling the spirit she was -- handling this. she was sworn into her position on april 27. here is the headline from "the baltimore sun" in the wake of the criminal charges against
7:27 am
those officers in the freddie gray case. "and 29 years, i have gone through some bad times, but i have never seen it this bad," said lieutenant butler president of the vanguard justice society, a group for blood baltimore police officers. officers feel as though the state's attorney will hang them out to dry. selloff versus said in interviews that they are concerned crime could spike. corey is up next, line for democrats. good morning. caller: it is more than a race issue to me. if someone does something wrong, they should be punished. as far as to harass someone just to boost an economy, that is what we have -- that is where we have a terrible problem. we are already on the lower income class level. it is really -- there is no kind
7:28 am
of means of balancing it out. in other words it is not about a color. i am mixed with every race. black, white, indian. i know my history. if people want to talk about this one instance, someone stood up to law enforcement agency, when we know law enforcement agencies kill people, have harmed people, so they have a psychiatric issue. i am a man speaking from experience. i'm not really fascinated with money. money is not such a huge obligation of my happiness, joy,
7:29 am
and success. the thing about it -- i have been poison in jail, went to the hospital, i had poison in my stomach. host: that was corey in mississippi, talking about his experiences. we want to hear from our viewers this morning about the justice department's civil rights probe that was announced yesterday. you can keep calling in. as we said before, after today show, we will be heading to the south carolina freedom summit. here is an article in the "washington examiner," the headline, the gop cattle call rumbles through south carolina. david drucker joins us by phone
7:30 am
to discuss the south carolina freedom summit. who will be there today? guest: most of the candidates will be there. not all of them. most of the contenders, whether announced or not, will have a few minutes on stage, 10 to 15 minutes. some will talk to the media afterwards. it is really, in a sense, the beginning of the campaign in south carolina. it is the third primary, the first in the south, so it is a big deal for the republican party. host: who has the most to gain and the most to lose today? guest: i don't think you have to look at it like to have something to gain today. it is so early in the process. it is just candidates, one after the other, going up on the stage. it is at stake, which is the region south carolina where you have the conservatives of the conservatives, it is a very red state.
7:31 am
the activists here are very dialed in. they are people you want to connect with. if you do very well, you have a chance to excite people who will do a lot of the work for you down here. it is not like you are dealing with most of the voters. you have a broad spectrum of voters in south carolina. there is not really a make or break quality to this. there is an opportunity to probably connect with boots on the ground in a way that would help you down the line. host: some of the big names bobby jindal, governor of louisiana, senator ted cruz, lindsey graham, former texas governor, rick perry. the whole list of events is on the freedom summit website. who will not be there? guest: jeb bush, for one. he is giving a commencement at liberty university. rand paul, senator from kentucky
7:32 am
. he is another. i know i'm leaving somebody out. those two were the most notable to me because i know that they have -- they are going to both compete for south carolina. host: what are we to read into them skipping this event? guest: i would not read into much. there is always that and forth over schedule. jeb bush was in south carolina one week ago. it is not like he is ignoring south carolina. in an insiders game -- insider's game, clearly you want everyone there but no one is really
7:33 am
going to remember who was here and who wasn't. it is just a good opportunity at the very beginning of the campaign for people -- you know an important part of south carolina to measure the candidates. host: the third part of your story, i have your story here in front of me, former arkansas governor mike huckabee. guest: thank you. he has a family commitment that is legitimate. host: you talk about the organizers of this event. jeff duncan is one of the names at the top of the event. guest: i would look at senator tim scott. jim demint, who is now head of the heritage foundation, he has the ability to influence the big
7:34 am
insiders and the establishment down here, and the activists the tea party activists. if there is an heir to demand, it is senator tim scott. if there's going to be a tea maker -- team maker, that would be tim scott. host: thank you for your time. we have about 10 minutes left in this first segment of "washington journal." we are talking about the civil rights probe from the justice department into the baltimore police department. here is the headline from "new york times" this morning -- baltimore case is full of conflicts, lawyers for officers contend.
7:35 am
we want to hear from our viewers this morning, both about the civil rights probe, your thoughts also on how loretta lynch has handled her early days on the job. tom is in florida, line for republicans. good morning. caller: good morning. what i would like to say, what i think of this lynch -- miss lynch is that she is well-qualified, but i hope she looks at both sides. not just the police, but the mayor. i ask a call to address the first color, maxine. she asked a rhetorical question about what the young man should have done. i tell you what, he should have walked up, said, i have a gun, done some time, and the cop would have still been alive. that is just the way it is. i hope she is not another eric holder that jumps to
7:36 am
conclusions. that is all i have to say. thank you. host: that caller talking again about the shooting death of officer brian moore who died this week, a member of the nypd. bert is up next from maryland line for independents. i'm sorry, he is on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to say that i welcome the investigation, no matter who the department, the head of the department of justice is. marilyn has had a long time, longtime of erratic problems with policing. i remember when they had no tolerance. i used to work in evening shift at a hospital. i was standing at the bus stop, plenty of lady standing at the bus stop, hospital workers, and an unmarked policeman in
7:37 am
plainclothes -- if you gave a completeaint, they would say report me. it does not matter if it policeman is black or white. if you bust him, there will be problems. yes, black children should be scared. host: how far is your city from baltimore? caller: it is baltimore. you name different little places. it is like let's say -- it is not like baltimore county. it is in baltimore. it is like a little community in baltimore. host: you mentioned the zero tolerance policing under the former mayor and governor martin o'malley has that changed in recent years? there was an effort to move away
7:38 am
from zero-tolerance policing after his time. caller: no. that has gotten worse. if a black man -- several black men that i've talked to, i hear them complaining about the same thing. if they do not have id, they are putting me down, arresting me. you cannot walk the street without id. suppose you do not have id, what will you do? it is a known fear. i think it is relevant to these young men to be fearing them. there is this no tolerance authority that they use. to tell on them is another story. i have had trouble in my family myself. i was actually afraid to talk to internal affairs because i'm wondering, will they do the same thing? host: i thought you were done.
7:39 am
this debate over zero-tolerance policing is something that is happening in new york as well what is known as broken windows policing. we will be joined the some "washington journal -- joint ed next on "washington journal" by bernard kerik former new york city police commissioner. on twitter, edwin says, police departments across the nation should launch internal investigations. peter is up next and am very connecticut, line for independents. caller: it is actually keith not here. host: go ahead. caller: i just want to say, i do not have a problem with our new attorney general. however, i do not believe is civil rights probe is the way to go, i do not think this is a civil rights issue.
7:40 am
the media likes to portray this as a civil rights issue because they like to portray the minorities as being attacked by the police, but it is not a racial issue. it is an issue that crosses all racial lines. they are shooting dogs left and right in this country and they are not focusing on that. they are focusing on the black and white issues. as we know, it is black officers against lack people as well. white officers against white people as well. it is too much of a militarization of the police force. they need to get their mentality right and remember that we are all here together. this is all a community. host: keith and them, connecticut. we will take a few more calls on the topic. first, we want to know that the events yesterday in washington d.c. to mark the 70th anniversary of ve day.
7:41 am
there was a plane show above the national mall. here is a "washington post" story, wrapping up the event. they know that it was an aged fleet, almost as old as the men watching. on friday, before coliform -- before a colorful crowd, they brought back the sights and sounds of world war ii. they know that it was the anniversary of the end of the war in europe. there, you're seeing some pictures from yesterday of some of those planes. "the arsenal of democracy," as it was called, flying over the national mall. you can see those events in our
7:42 am
archive. i want to get to a few more of your calls on this question, we asked about the civil rights probe of the baltimore police. james is in grand rapids michigan, line for democrats. good morning. caller: am i on? host: yes, james. caller: first of all, i would like to say that i do agree with the justice department's investigation of the baltimore police department because they have had a pattern of abuse from writing in the paddy wagon -- riding in the paddy wagon to paying off almost $5 million. there have been times will be have sought the police's help and they have turned around to assault those who called the police. say a 15-year-old gets his bike stolen.
7:43 am
instead of calling the cops, he would rather go get a gun and handle it himself, mainly because he has no faith in the police department. also, the police are always talking about -- we need stitches however, you will have six police officers around when one officer is violating a person's rights, i.e. either beating him, kicking him trumping up false charges on him, and those other six officer standing around, why don't they start snitching? host: let's go to stephen in south carolina, line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. i do not what the american people would do without you. i think this investigation is a bit of a distraction, a red herring, if you will, to distract inner-city black voters
7:44 am
in poor neighborhoods from the utter failure of the great society policies and programs instituted by lyndon johnson back in the 60's. this camp to better the lot of poor people has a going on for 50 years and it has not worked. they have not moved forward one inch. as long as these voters continue to vote 90% for democrats, it is possible to keep putting a democrat in the white house. if inner-city black people start to ask, why are we so badly governed by these municipal governments that have been in democrat's hands for decades, then they might start voting republican and it would be impossible for democrats to elect the president. host: that was stephen, unless
7:45 am
color for this segment of "washington journal. go up next, we will be joined by former new york city police commissioner and convicted felon, bernard kerik. later, mark mazzetti joins us to talk about the u.s. drone policy and the controversy it caused in naming three undercover cia operatives. first, president obama talked about trade on friday. "the new york times" story noting that he lashed out at critics in his own party. here is a bit from the present -- president's statements yesterday. [video clip] president obama: there have been a lot of critics about change it -- about trade deals generally and the transpacific
7:46 am
partnership. specifically, they are my friends coming from iparty. -- from imy party. on every progressive issue, they are right there with me. then, on this one, they are like working on me -- whiooping on me. [laughter] i tell you what, i ran my last election, and the only reason i do something is because i think it is good for american workers, the american people, and the economy. [applause] i do not have any other rationale for doing what i do's than i think it is the best thing for american people. on this issue, on trade i actually think that some of my dearest friends are wrong. they are just wrong. here is why. first of all, they say that this trade agreement will cost american jobs and they are
7:47 am
really basing this on some past experience, what happened in the 1990's, in the last 20 years, when there was a lot of outsourcing going on. you know what, pass trade agreements did not reflect our values or do enough to protect american workers. that is why we are designing a different type of trade deal. the truth is the company is the only care about low wages, they have already moved. they do not need new trade deals to move. they have already outsourced and relocated in search of low wages. what this trade agreement would do is open the doors to the higher skilled, higher wage jobs of the future. jobs we excel at. >> "washington journal" continues be a g. host: we are joined now by
7:48 am
bernard kerik, who recently released a book, including on his three years behind bars. who do you identify with most, the police, or those in prison? guest: look, i spent 35 years in law enforcement, so i understand the law enforcement community well. i have been a cop, drug agent, a warden. iran rikers island for six years, at the time, one of the most violent jail systems in the country. i also ran the nypd. i'm very familiar with the law enforcement community. i also either fortunately or unfortunately, had the distinction of being through -- having gone through this law enforcement career, but also spent three years in a federal corrections institution. host: let's start with your
7:49 am
police experience. i want to talk about your reaction to the justice department probe yesterday, and whether or not these kinds of prose looking up police forces across the country are effective? guest: i think, often times they are needed. in this case, the mayor of baltimore requested the department of justice come in and look at the agency. i can't say whether it is something that is really needed or not. that is the mayor's discretion the mariyor's call. i know loretta lynch, i have known her for years, and i hope in this case she will be fair and impartial. and look at it the vestry can -- the best she can. keep in mind, the baltimore police department has an enormous ly difficult job.
7:50 am
if you look at what has happened since april 27 two today, there have been i think 40 shootings. this is two weeks. i think it is 40 shootings and a number of homicides, just over the past several days. there is a crime epidemic in baltimore. rampant crime. somebody has to do something about it and that is up to the men and women in the baltimore police department. they have a difficult job to do. a dangerous job to do. i think that has to be taken into consideration when you do the study like this that will be done by the justice department. host: especially since the unrest in baltimore, there has been a renewed debate over zero-tolerance policing, "broken windows policing" as it is known in new york. where do you stand on zero-tolerance policing? guest: i stand by the record of
7:51 am
new york city. go back to 1990. when we had 2400 homicides in new york, when rudy giuliani came in in 1994 and implemented the concept program and mechanisms by which we address crime on a daily basis versus quarterly or biannually, look at biannual reports, we started to reduce crime. host: can you explain the philosophy of broken windows policing quickly for us? guest: there are two things. one you want to clean up society in general. i spoke about this last night at a book event that i was at. somebody questioned whether we should be pushing these programs or not. i put the question to the crowd. most of them were honed owners -- homeowners an apartment owners in new york.
7:52 am
i said, if you woke up this morning, and you found someone urinating and your hallway would you like it? would you be ok with the? if you put an enormous amount of money into building a building or buildings or building your house, whatever the case may be, and you woke up tomorrow, and you found that somebody graffitied the entire side of the building, is that ok? no, it is not ok. you want a better society. you want to live in a better environment. you pay property taxes. you pay taxes to live in nice communities, well, keep them nice. people need to be held accountable for doing things that they should not do. i am for those programs. number two, the concept program the mapping program, the crime mapping program that was instituted in new york city that was into doing baltimore, that was instituted in l.a. those programs initially reduce crime by substantial numbers.
7:53 am
in new york city, you have to remember, this is the minority community specifically, we have reduced violent crime bite 80% to -- by 80% to 85%. the biggest benefactors to these programs are the minority community. but, i get that there are problems -- look, i get that there are problems. what, do not lose sight of the reality of what the police department has done for the minority community, especially in new york. host: our lines are split up a little bit differently this segment. members of law-enforcement can call in at (202) 748-8000. if you have experience in the prison system, you can call in at (202) 748-8001. all others, the number is (202) 745-8002. we will get your phone calls in just a second.
7:54 am
you mentioned the book event that you were at last night. the book is "from jailer to jail , my journey from correction and police commissioner to inmate. why did you write this book? guest: in 2004, i was nominated by george bush to take over the department of homeland security. i had to back out when i had to admit that i paid a nanny without paying taxes on her. she was in the country illegally. i withdrew my name from consideration. that started a five-year torturous journey of state and federal investigations. i eventually pled guilty to an ethics charge in new york city. i was told at the time that the investigation was concluded and there would be no further action immediately after i pled guilty
7:55 am
to pay the $220,000 fine. then, the federal government came in and started another investigation, based around the same issues. eventually in 2009, i pled guilty to eight felony counts, primarily the has to do with my nanny, my kids nanny and some apartment renovations and i have had done. i was sentenced to 48 months in federal prison and i served three years and 11 days. host: a viewer from twitter wants to know if you served in general populations or have special accommodations. guest: for most of the time, i spent in total about two and a half months, close to three months, in solitary y confinement. in minimum-security camp, i was with everyone else.
7:56 am
who is your book for? those in prison or those out of prison? guest: honestly, i wrote the book to educate the american public on the flaws and failures that i see in the system. keep in mind, i have been in this business for 35 years. no one, in the history of this country, with my background, my spirits, more importantly, my successes in jail and prison management, no one has ever lived on the inside as an inmate. through this process, be it the investigator process, being targeted by the government, going through the investigative process, going through the court process, and then being inside as a federal prisoner, i have seen things that no one in my position has ever seen. i think that there are flaws and failures that are hurting american society that are costing the american taxpayers billions of dollars over the
7:57 am
reported cost of incarceration. i think we are also creating a permanent underclass of american citizens the no one has really paid attention to or focused on until i started talking about it. host: we will work our way through some of those concerns over the next 30 to 35 minutes or so. we would like you to your calls. harvard is calling from connecticut and has experience in the prison system. you are on with bernard kerik. caller: no, i have not had experience in the prison system, i have had the experience of being married to a police officer. when they said, if you have experience -- host: go ahead, barbara. caller: my husband, when he became a police officer, back in his 20's, we are in our 60's now , he told me quite a few things that police do to people who are
7:58 am
arrested. i think that what happens is they are not getting the proper training. they think that once they get the uniform on, they think it gives them carte blanche to treat people anyway they want because it gives them a false sense of power. they do not realize that they are abusing that power more and more. it is not for that. it is to keep law and order, yes. it is not to take advantage of the public. i do not think that they are being taught psychologically that type of training when they are hiring these people. i do not understand what they are teaching them. just putting them out there with a gun and saying, do whatever you want to because you got this uniform on. no, they have to be taught. some people are not police
7:59 am
material. host: thank you for the call. i want to let bernard kerik respond. guest: a couple of things. what happened 40 years ago in police departments around the country with regard to hiring, training is a far cry different from what happens today. i know that because i came on the job 30-35 years ago. it is extremely different. today, in the new york city police department, i think the basic recruit class is seven months. psychological classes, police science classes. use of force classes. verbal judo classes. there are a thousand different things that these men and women learned today that they never learned before. if there is one thing -- don't get me wrong -- in every police class i, in your city has the
8:00 am
biggest police academy graduation. it was 2200, i think 2250 that graduated. our graduation was held in madison square garden. i can assure you, you will have people in every class that go out on this power trip or this ego trip once they get their shields and gun, and they go out on the street. it is really up to the first line supervisors, the mentors to the training officers to stay on top of these kids to make sure they are doing the right thing. i can assure you, the training that went on 25, 30, 40 years ago is a far cry different than what happens today. host: as we noted earlier, a sad day yesterday in your old department, then your police department, the funeral for officer brian moore he died on monday, two days after he was
8:01 am
shot in queens. yesterday was his funeral mass. here is a picture of the officers, thousands of officers coming out for his mass. we're talking to bernard kerik former new york city police commissioner. gerald is up next, a member of law enforcement. caller: good morning. i retired quite a few years ago. i was with the detroit police department for 25 years. i can tell you -- exactly what serverpico said, tempers are good, another percentage is bad. it is so true. most of the police i knew were bad, but 80% will not say anything about the 10%. so, you have 10% running while
8:02 am
doing all kinds of things, and the 10% that are good heyday, and 80% just look the other way. host: bernard kerik guest:? guest:look, people can go back and forth with different opinions. i used to say that 10% of the police department did really good work, maybe 10%. you have a big number that is average, and a small fraction that basically, they take the job because they are looking for job security, or whatever it may be. really, i think those numbers have sort of change to today. you have to want the job as a law enforcement officer. it is a job that is a thankless job. look at the public criticism today of the men and women in
8:03 am
police departments, love was agencies, correction agencies around the country that are based on a fraction of incidents. when you think of what bill brennan said yesterday. -- though bill branton said yesterday -- there are tens of millions of interactions with police and the community yearly. we have taken 10 incidents and broadbrushed the entire police agency as racist, targeting minorities, you name it. i think you have to take each one of these events, take them in context, look at them individually, let the justice system take its course. we rush to a judge, especially
8:04 am
at the community level. i understand, people are upset. they get upset. they want things done. now. justice does not work like that. it has to be a grand jury investigation, maybe a federal civil rights investigation. let the investigations take place before you go out there and come into these protests that so far, just about every peaceful protest we have seen announced, turns into something where they are burning down a community. look at this damage. damage to really good people in baltimore. what happened over the last two weeks or so, three weeks. it is horrible. people lost their livelihoods, the businesses, their entire live is gone as a result of the looting and lawlessness that went on after the so-called
8:05 am
peaceful protests. host: we are talking police reform and prison reform as well. bernard kerik is the author of a new book called "from jailer to jailed." jason is waiting from illinois. caller: good morning. i watched you the other night and am surprised to see you on here. i like what you are doing. real quick, what happened to me is i in the doing some time for driving without a license. i got caught up in a small county here in illinois and i ended up -- the second time driving without a license -- ended up in the prison system. i started out with minimum and made it up to maximum. you know how it is in there. sometimes you fight your way to maximum.
8:06 am
it's my fault. do the crime, do the time. i like what you are doing, but i wanted to ask you -- and i know how the prison system works there is no corrections to it -- i do know there are some great prison guards. some people that are very humane. currently, i am studying law. i'm kind of doing the same think you are doing -- i will get to my question. i told myself, i will go help these people, people who do not deserve to be there. people who fight against the system, against this money making system. anyway, what are your top three changes that you would make? host: bernard kerik? guest: first of all i think there are many flaws and failures in the criminal justice system.
8:07 am
i put a lot of people in prison, people who did bad things -- cop killers, terrorists, people i seized tons of cocaine from. then, i went to prison. i met young men many of them, ironically out of baltimore. 18 years old, 19 years old, 20 years old, sentenced to 50 years in prison for low-level offenses. things that in the state system would be a misdemeanor. something other than personal professional annihilation. these kids sentenced to 10, 50 years in prison. i met fishermen who caught too many fish. a guy who sold wahhales on ebay. federal prison.
8:08 am
i came to realize quickly that we are putting people in prison for ethical violations, for regulatory violations, for civil violations. not bad people. good people that made mistakes. the result is we are completely destroying their lives. once they are a convicted felon they are part of a permanent underclass of american citizens. there are two classes in this country. they are now reaching in the millions. that is a convicted felon. there rights -- their rights are diminished significantly. i do not care what they do once they do their time and pay their so-called debt to society, which
8:09 am
in reality is never paid. that debt is never paid because you are punished a turn only you are punished for life. the reality is you create a second-class citizen. they cannot find a job, they cannot rent an apartment. there is nothing they can do. and they can never get rid of that conviction, ever. they can come out and be a model citizen. it can be an angel. i have had people convicted of some felony 40-45 years ago, and it is still having a negative impact on them today, and they are model citizens, have not done anything wrong for 40-45 years. a guy who is 60-65 years old he is still diminished in society as a result of that conviction. that is one of the biggest problems, i think. host: some stats on the federal inmate population as of march. close to 200-9000 total inmates.
8:10 am
about 95,000 on drug offenses. you can see the chart here from the bureau of prisons. kerry is up next and has also had experience in the prison system. kerry is in louisiana. caller: good morning, america. everyone there. please do not cut me off, i have some very important things to say. the drug war needs to be ended. before they passed the drug laws, there were no murderous drug gangs.
8:11 am
when the prohibition of alcohol when in, the crime rate went up. they repealed the law, the murder rate went down and it broke up all of the murderous alcohol gangs. 40 years ago, nixon made the drug law. another thing, my stepfather was a state parole officer. he told me, i saw it was my own two eyes, prison guards dealing drugs, some of them making more money dealing drugs than they do in their pay check. guest: first one, let me talk about officers. for the most part, correctional officers in the united states of america have one of the most difficult jobs in the country. keep in mind, and i can talk about rikers specifically. we had housing areas that have
8:12 am
102 200 inmates in -- 100-200 inmates, high-security inmates and you have one guy who walks in those grounds. he did not have a weapon, mace, and nightstick -- a nightstick. he is on his own among a group of really violent people. correctional officers have a really tough job. for the most part, they do their job the way they are supposed to. there are people out there that may fly lead the laws. a eventually, they get caught. every single one of them. it is pretty you do them to get caught. they are stupid if they want to violate the law because every inmate in an institution knows that if there is an officer doing something wrong and you can prove it, or give that to a prosecutor, it will benefit you
8:13 am
and help you get out of prison, in most cases. i can assure you that they will flip, turn on you. the one thing that i saw in the federal system that i was bothered by -- you know, when you were sentenced to prison that was your punishment. you were sentenced to prison and the pride of your freedom. the deprivation of freedom in my opinion is more profound to an american citizen is that anything you can imagine. at the end of the day, their correctional officers out there who think it is their job to punish you, mentally physically, degrade you, demoralize you, demean you. that is not their job. it is not supposed to be. you know, that is a result of training. the first line of supervision. those are the things that i have seen. people out there doing bad things -- either people out
8:14 am
there doing bad things? yes, but they will get caught. host: from twitter, a viewer wants to know what your view is on privatizing prisons. guest: i have to tell you, i'm not big on prison privatization at all for a couple of reasons. one, the requirements that many of these companies want, they want a specific time length of contract, maybe a 20 year contract. there is something else that they want that i have found absolutely fascinating. that is they want the government -- the city or county or state -- they want them to guarantee them a percentage rate of occupancy. this is not a hotel service. when iran reconciling, there is no way i could -- i ran rikers island, there is no way i could
8:15 am
sign a contract, save for 20 years, and sign over the prison system and guarantee a 90% occupancy rate. i would have to make sure that every inmate that stayed in the system stayed as long as possible, they every rate did not get the incentivized good time, as they are supposed to be by law, or the city or state laws. there is no way i could guarantee that. no one can guarantee you a population on the busy -- population occupancy rate. the one thing i would agree with with privatization is minimum-security prisons. i would have no problem with under two conditions. one, that they could do it cheaper than the government agency, and two, more importantly, that they could commit to programs and implement
8:16 am
programs that actually prove to me, the agency head, that they would reduce -- they would guarantee whoever goes through their facility will not come back into the system. that being said, other than that, i'm not really for privatization. host: let's go to our, new mexico, david has been waiting period. caller: good morning. i have two comments that i would like to make. one on prison reform -- and maybe this has been touched on a bit -- and that is as far as prison reform, it would be made so much easier if we could let go of all of those prisoners who have been in their -- re -- some for
8:17 am
being victims of circumstance or some for smalltime drugs like marijuana, and that sort of thing. as far as police reform, police reform could be made so much better if officers could understand in the beginning of their training that they were hired to that job. they were not elected. you know, they would be much better off if they kept that in mind. we would not have such bad police officers. host: david from albuquerque, new mexico, thank you for the call. bernard kerik, your thoughts? guest: listen, everyone has a right to their own opinion. i think police officers today know that they are not elected. they know they are hired. there is a norm is -- an and norm is hiring process.
8:18 am
through the international association of police, a lot of these standards, the hiring standards is sort of standard across the board. they have to go through an enormous vetting process. they know they are hired. they know they can be fired. i have to tell you, a lot of what we are seeing today, the problems in policing, i think a lot of it is either one training or two -- either one, training or two, first line supervisors. they are the ones who oversee the cops, they have the first 10 hand contact with officers. if they see something stupid or wrong, or hear about it, it is up to the first line supervisors to put a foot in there behind
8:19 am
and get them back on a straight line. i think that is where a lot of the fault lies if there are problems. host: let's hear from a member of love enforcement, walter is waiting in florida. caller: hello. yes, i would like to make a comment that as a corrections officer, i have a lot of responsibility to take care of inmates' needs and wants and determine which is more important, their needs and wants or my supervisors' needs and wants. it is a very difficult job. i take it absolutely very seriously. i do not believe in these morons that bring tobacco and drugs that deserve the job. they should be taken out stripped of their retirement, they should be inmates themselves. it is appalling to know that it is rampant. host: to understand, are you
8:20 am
talking about corrections officers that themselves bring these things to the inmates? caller: i do not know how this stuff is getting in there. it is all over the place. i'm sick of it. it is very dangerous for me. they have this cartel system going on. there are fights all the time over it and who hasn't and who is not giving it up. i'm sure mr. bernard has probably witnessed all the stuff that i'm talking about. it sickens me as a professional that they are getting away with it. visitors bringing it in and stuff like that, it is horrible. the previous caller talked about the increase from prohibition and the one drug, i happen to agree with him. these wars that we have declared have made things worse. host: bernard kerik, your thoughts, especially as the commissioner for the city corrections?
8:21 am
guest: walters comments on these officers bringing things then, corrections officers bringing in anything that they are not supposed to dangerous every other co in the institution. i ran a number of these investigations. i had 13,000 officers and annual admissions was around 33,000 in 16 different facilities. i lost a lot of corrections officers. a corrections officer brings an inmate food, someone would look at it and say, it is just food. once he brings them in food, the inmate knows he has already violated the rules and laws. he can go back and use that as an extortion to get the officer to bring him in something else. food leads to drugs drugs leads to weapons, weapons leads to
8:22 am
someone inside getting hurt, a co getting her, or an escape or whatever it may be. any co that brings in anything that they should not to the facility, endangers everyone. they should be fired. they should not be on the job at all. host: let's head to south dakota, shirley is waiting. caller: thank you for taking my call. what would our country be like if we did not have the policeman out there? actually when i go out and drive and i see a highway patrolman or cop, the first thing i do is look to make sure i am driving the right speed limit. they did her -- they deture a lot this, and that is what we need.
8:23 am
if we did not have them, what in the world would our country be like? i appreciate all of the? -- i appreciate all of them. thank you. guest: let me go back to new york city. prior to the renaissance and the change, back in the mid-1990's, think about what new york city was like, prior to rudy giuliani taking over. we had the highest homicide rate in the country. number one. number two, towards him was at its lowest -- towardsourism was at its lowest. for every person we dropped -- percent we dropped, tourism increase home values increase. who benefited from the
8:24 am
reductions in crime? primarily, the minority communities. brownsville, but sky thatbedstuy. back then, community leaders were calling more cops, we need more aggressive cops, more aggressive programs. i have to tell you something, in the aftermath of the two cost that were killed back in december i went that way these cops were killed, and ran into some community leaders that were there 15 years ago when i was police commissioner. they are still there and still want more cops. a lot of the people that comment , complaint, scream and yell about the police enforcement where what is going on in
8:25 am
communities, they are not from that community. a lot of them. especially the people that come in and create these protests that turn into riots that destroyed communities, a lot of them are instigators that come in from outside. the bottom line is if you live in a community, you want that community to be safe. you do not want to fear going out at night, you do not want to fear getting shot, getting bob you do not want someone urinating in your hallway, or tearing down your apartment or building, unless you are an animal. you do not want to live like that. at the end of the day, you want the police there. don't get me wrong. either police out there doing things they shouldn't do? yes. if there are, you deal with them. do not broad brush entire police service and say they are all corrupt and all races, when in
8:26 am
fact, they are benefiting the community. it does not matter what color the community is, they are there to protect and serve the people. host: mark is in fort lauderdale, florida. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for the show. i think it is very interesting. it is good to see the guest on the television acknowledging that the prison system is not all that nice of a place to be. it kind of reminds me -- when this kind of thing happens to a person themselves, that is when they tend to find out. like the governor of ohio portman, republicans are against gay marriage, yet mr. portman's son is gay, so he is for gay marriage.
8:27 am
in this case, mr. kerik, who i am sure spent his entire career as a policeman, he is saying let's load up the time on the offenders. when it happened to him, he found god and realize that is not such a just system after all. host: is that an accurate discussion of what happened? guest: no, it is not finding god. here is the reality. as a police commissioner overseeing a correctional system, you are there to do a job. you are there to enforce the law. i have no problem with the people i put in prison. i put that people in prison for a long time, some for life. i do not have a problem with it. here is what i have a problem with, you take a commercial
8:28 am
fisherman who can't too many fish, that is a regulatory issue, it is not a crime, it is not supposed to be. you take someone like that and put them in prison, the six people who worked on their boat, they lose their jobs. the guy lost his company. he lost his license. his wife lost her job because he lost his. he caught too many fish. that is the breaking of the law. why wasn't he find? -- fined? take his fish. do something without turning him into a criminal. this guy worked from the time he was 19 years old until he was 55. he never had a problem with the law ever. we turn this guy into a criminal. we're doing this by the thousands. hunters go hunting and killed
8:29 am
the wrong animal without the right permit or with the wrong ammunition or on the wrong time and we turn them into convicted felons. we're locking up way too many people for things that do not need prison to pay for their mistakes. number one. number two, mentally ill and people with addiction, we put them in prison, instead of getting them the treatment that they need. they do not get the treatment that they need. we stick them in prison. we have programs, so-called programs, for people in prison that will benefit them. i want to touch on this before the show is over. for people that think that prison is rehabilitative, let me tell you about the federal system and where i was. they have adult continuing education classes. they are supposed to benefit society, reduce recidivism. i can promise you, checks
8:30 am
checkers quilting does nothing for recidivism. more importantly, you could teach someone how to be a master realtor but the reality is that guywe have guys convicted of tax fraud teaching taxes. it will not benefit that guy on the outside. host: there has been some candidates on the 2016 presidential trail who have already touched on criminal justice reform. is there anybody right now that gets it, in your mind? guest: i have met with just about every member of the judiciary on both sides of the aisle. their councils or staff over the last year when you have. -- year and a half. rand paul, cory booker, senator
8:31 am
clinton come out the other day talking about criminal justice reform. rand paul, i will tell you knows the system, the criminal justice system inside and out. i sat with him personally for about an hour and a half. he knows the issues, he knows what has to be done. there is a bipartisan effort -- mike lee is another one pushing for criminal justice reform. there's a bunch of these senators and congressmen that are looking at it now. it has to be, going into the 2016 election, one of the top five domestic issues on the next president's plate because we cannot sustain this economically. we cannot sustain at the way it is we are creating a second class citizen in this country and it's destroying the country. host: we appreciate your time.
8:32 am
guest: thank you. host: up next, we will be joined by mark mazzetti to talk about his recent story on u.s. drone policy and the controversy could cost on naming three undercover cia officers. it's our annual cram for the exam segment. we will quiz high school students from around the country preparing for next week's exams. first come on newsmakers, we were joined by sander levin, the top democrat on house ways and means committee. we talked about the trade bills making their way through congress. [video clip] >> let me also mention mexico and vietnam. mexico competes with us. their workers make 1/5 the amount that is earned in the united states of america. we have to make sure that mexico essentially lives up to the basic standards that we wrote
8:33 am
into the agreement. the language is important. the reality is also important and today, the reality in mexico and vietnam, the workers do not have their basic rights. >> next week, on tuesday, the senate is going to take their first test boat on the fast-track bill . senate democrats have been clamoring to put those together in one package. the trade adjustment assistance that democrats want, fast-track which the white house supports. what do you think about putting all those trade bills together in one package? does that make it a tip difficult vote for democrats? >> in the end, each of the four
8:34 am
has to be evaluated on its own and voted on its own. i don't want ta to be used as a sweetener on tpa and fast-track. fast-track has to stand on its own and so this trade adjustment assistance. we need to get expanded trade right. that is the key point. i've helped author trade bills in the past. this is an example of a very important built where we haven't -- they haven't gotten it right at this point on many of the issues i mentioned and others. that's what this is really all about. getting it right. host: drone is a national security correspondent -- mark mazzetti is a national security correspondent who wrote the
8:35 am
story that has attracted quite a bit of attention because it included the names of three undercover cia operators -- officers per what was your story about and why did you publish the names? guest: we did the story right after president obama announced the deaths of two western hostages in pakistan. it happened in january but they determined they we had died in the cia drone strike. it was the first time in a while that there had been a real period of public scrutiny about this still classified program. two years after president obama said he would make it more transparent and more public. there were these questions about , would this be the end of the program or the cia's involvement in the program?
8:36 am
the purpose of the story was actually to show just how deep the well of support for the program was in washington. in part because congress, in particular the senate and house intelligence communities this committees continue to support the cia postural and. -- cia's involvement. they have convinced senior members of congress. it was also this question of what is the accountability and what is the real oversight to this program? we decided that the three senior people who are at headquarters who have a responsibility for the program, we should name them in the paper. their names have been out in the media in some places.
8:37 am
the times has not used at their full names before but we decided it was time to do it. host: these are three officers not currently in the field. they are at langley. what reason did the administration give you? guest: they said that their cover has not yet been lifted. and we come up cia, have the rights and you the media don't have the right to name them just because they are not in the field anymore. our executive editor has spoken about this. there were a few reasons why we did it. our case is the cia is running a war. it is still a secret war. the people who are running this legal program which is maybe a covert action but it's anything but a secret in public, are the equivalent of generals.
8:38 am
generals and american warfare are named and are accountable to the public. as an intelligence reporter, i no dozens of people undercover. it doesn't mean i name them. since these people are not in the field, they have ascended to leadership positions over this legal program, there was an accountability factor here. the other reason is there is a change -- i have spoken over the years to a number of cia officials who said once you've gotten into this job, the head of the directorate operations, the top -- the head of the clandestine service, it was expected and it was required that you were going to have your
8:39 am
cover lifted because you are now a senior representative of the agency, a public agent. people said that was part of the job. they wanted the job, they had to have their cover lifted. using the last two people in that position served without having their cover lifted. the question is, why? one of the officials has been named in public in various media settings. george tenet called him greg v. we thought it was time that we should stop playing this game. host: if you have questions or comments about the drone program or about this story in the new york times decision to publish these names, mark mazzetti is with us for the next 40 minutes or so. democrats, 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001.
8:40 am
independents, 202-748-8002. he has been covering national security for the new york times since april of 2006. staff writer for the los angeles times before that. during the war in iraq in 2003 spent two months embedded with the first marine expeditionary force and was a reporter in baghdad. recently wrote the book "the way of the night." are you in a better position than the administration to say how harmful or how dangerous it would be to these three individuals if you actually named their names? guest: the administration made the case about -- you are putting people in danger. we take these claims very, very seriously. before we read stories, it's the administration who says don't run this story, we ask why and
8:41 am
they say there is going to be harm to this individual, we take it seriously and have to judge that. in this case, the agency does often make the case that anytime we use a name, even when they are not undercover, you might put that person in danger. we have to take that very seriously. at the same time, there are people who have served in the same job who have involved in the same actions, specifically drone strikes, who were not undercover in those jobs who are out in public today. we have to test that a little bit against the fact that there's a lot of people who are out and about in public today who are public individuals who don't consider themselves in great security risk. host: how often does it happen that the administration comes to you and says don't publish a name? is there a process by which they do this with newspapers? guest: there's any number of
8:42 am
reasons why an agency might come to us and say don't publish a story or don't publish aspects of based work. if that happens frequently, more frequently than it used to. we take these requests seriously. there is a bit of a process. if i'm writing the story and they ask me, it has to go up our chain in the times where our bureau chief gets involved. usually, our executive editor also weighs in. there is a bit of an escalation on the side of the government. they will have more and more senior people in government contact more and more senior people at the paper. you will get the sense of how seriously they are taking and by the level of person they put on the phone with our executive editor. host: some pushback after the story came out from the general counsel for the office of the director of national intelligence.
8:43 am
he was quoted in the national security blog about some of his concerns at a recent conference. he said "if you read the story come and yet in the scum's pacific names of the individuals was completely gratuitous and unnecessary." -- if you read it the the story you get the specific names. guest: you could have made some of the same points without naming the names. as i said earlier, this question of transparency and accountability is essential to this program. the president had just come out and said there was this great mistake made in this program. and yet, two years ago, he
8:44 am
talked about how it needed to be more transparent and accountable. our point was also, not just to name names, but we had to talk about how one individual had been effective lobbying on capitol hill for the program. he had developed a good for with dianne feinstein -- repor with dianne feinstein. it was his advocacy that led both democrats and republicans to embrace the program. he was a central figure to the story. it was important in order to get this issue of transparency and oversight that we named him. host: mark mazzetti from the new york times. he is taking your calls and questions. tim in fort wayne, indiana. line for democrats. caller: morning.
8:45 am
mark reported that there were 467 drone terrorist attacks in the middle east. how many were reported in 2014? does the cia still deal in drugs? guest: on the question of the drones, the number of strikes in 2012 is actually to hide based on what i know in terms of the actual numbers that have been tracked by different outside organizations. host: we can show the chart included in your story. the drone strikes in pakistan over the years. guest: there's no question the number, the rate of drone strikes has declined to mckinley. it was peeking around 2009. -- has declined significantly. the end of george bush's presidency began with escalation
8:46 am
of the program president obama continued to that. 2009, 2010 is we saw that peak. host: "woodrow's have become our front-line defense -- drones have become our front-line defense." this story that appeared in the new york times this we. lawrence is up next in san francisco, california. line for democrats. caller: congratulations to you on your position and your embeddedness and worked on. i'm a retired he was green, so i appreciate your viewpoint and i understand you have a new book. -- i'm a retired marine. i know i will google your name and the book will pop up i'm sure you've talked to mr. james
8:47 am
rice . he has written extensively on issues relative to the onslaught of new terrorism and the previous -- the way of the night. thank you so much, sir. i would like to hear anything you have to say and congratulations on your present status and future within your times. guest: jim is a colleague of mine friend of mine. i have worked with him for many years. his case is very well known. the question of whether he was to name a source of his or what has been alleged to be a source of his in a book he wrote went to trial. that individual was put to trial and sentenced. this case has been one of many during this time and really
8:48 am
shown what -- something i focused on. how this warfare, secret warfare has been proliferated. so much of what the united states has done, it really is work, still done in a covert manner. whether it's in pakistan or africa or yemen. it is our job in the media to shed some light on that. that is going to be a source of friction and tension and a daily source of friction and tension. the case is a symbol of that. host: some tension with your story. if you want to talk about that or the drone program in general mark mazzetti is our expert.
8:49 am
the caller gave you a great chance to talk about your book as well. what is the book about? guest: the book is an attempt to tell us much of the story, the history of the secret war in the post-9/11 period. the contours of what we know about iraq and afghanistan are fairly known at this point. what has happened in pakistan, what has happened in africa in yemen is less well-known. that's as much of a history as the post-9/11 period as iraq and afghanistan. i talk about how these covert operations have turned the cia into a paramilitary organization. for the military, it's the special operation troops. they have expanded their intelligence gathering. the cia has become more like the pentagon and the pentagon has become more like the cia. there has been this blurring of
8:50 am
the lines between soldier and spice. -- spy. we will see fewer of the worst that we saw in iraq and afghanistan, the big, large ground campaigns. an increase in these shadow wars. that's why i wrote the book. some of what's going on now is still playing out. this question of what should be the cia's role. should they be involved in a lethal program that is not a secret anymore? this is something our editor got about our story -- the cia's role has changed. they are not just going overseas, gathering intelligence. they are involved in a military program. by that fact, they are going to understand that they will get written more -- written about
8:51 am
more and the people who run the program will get written about more. the rules are changing. host: dawn on twitter writes "i oppose the western program. please don't out the agents." mary in connecticut. democrat. caller: i'm not going to discuss the drones. i would like to know how mark has researched the tray general tray patraeus -- prior to his conviction on the felony counts, hadn't he been meeting with netanyahu several times in the middle east? guest: i have not written about the investigation.
8:52 am
i don't know about the meetings with netanyahu. he was recently -- had a plea deal and was given probation. certainly, this raised a lot of concerns and criticism that he got off easy when other people who have been charged with leaking information go to jail. that has been yet another case that has been thrown into the mix, the use of classified information, how government officials meet with outsiders about it. host: kathy in ohio. line for independents. caller: good morning. i was wondering if mark could speak about when the drone program started and what the rules are for the government flying drones in our country. guest: good question.
8:53 am
the drones have been around for some time. the cia started using drones in the 90's as purely surveillance tools. around 2001, the military found a way to take the predator, a drone used only for spying and put a missile on it. this really changed things. it forced this debate about whether the cia should use this armed predator and go into afghanistan and try to kill osama bin laden. a debate about whether the cia should get back into this assassination business. that debate seems somewhat quaint now. hundreds and hundreds of drone strikes later. the first arms strikes were shortly after the september 11 attacks. the first strike was in yemen in
8:54 am
2002. pakistan has been the real laboratory for the armed drone program. the first armed drone strike in pakistan was 2004. there has been hundreds since. host: the bureau has tried to track the number of drone strikes in pakistan. they had 415 strikes from 2004-2015. almost 4000 people killed. the number of civilians killed somewhere between 423-962. leo is up next. bronx, new york. line for democrats. caller: good morning. my question is, you mentioned a few minutes ago about your book that the cia isn't doing
8:55 am
intelligence and military operations in the pentagon is doing military operations plus intelligence. my question is, how do you prevent duplication of work? when it comes to intelligence on both sides talking to each other , or are they functioning as silos? guest: great question. i do talk a lot about how there is this scramble after 9/11 on the part of the cia and the military to basically run this secret war. it did create a a lot of duplication of effort. donald rumsfeld was determined that the defense department be in charge not only in afghanistan but outside of declared war zones. that meant building of intelligence capabilities at the pentagon. this became a turf battle.
8:56 am
the question of what it's like today -- it's better, but you do use till death you do -- you do still see this duplication. why is there a cia run drone war and pentagon run drone war in hyemen? it does boggle the mind a little bit that there hasn't been an ability to merge the programs. host: are the rules of engagement different between the two? guest: another good question that is still hard to get at. exactly what the rules of engagement are. they are still classified. cia likes to say that the cia is better at this. they've been doing it for longer. they are more patient, they spent weeks and weeks around a
8:57 am
target determining a pattern before taking a strike. the joint special operations command, they do strikes without as good intelligence. their strikes have gone badly more often than the cia's. the biggest part of this lobbying campaign is going on on capitol hill where the cia has tried to say that they are better at this. host: deborah is up next in new jersey. line for independents. caller: i just wanted to get your feedback. i've been watching for many years. the only presidential candidate in 2012 that was even talking about the drones and the effects they have, targeted
8:58 am
assassinations that end up killing innocents, including children, and rescue people coming to the scene, the only person i recall making a very strong stance and putting this out in the public which has really influenced the media's coverage of this now and the administrations pull back on it and the congressional speaking of this issue was dr. ron paul from texas. i was wondering, in this 2016 president election, i would like to know if you know where some of these people stand. i know rand paul has spoken many times about the drones. we overrun ron paul gratitude for bringing this issue up. -- we owe ron paul gratitude. guest: i don't expect this to be
8:59 am
a contentious campaign issue. it may be a little bit on the democrat side. if bernie sanders start challenging hillary clinton on the issue, we are certain that hillary clinton is a strong supporter of the grant program that's drone program. -- supporter of the drone program. she spoke with some ambassador who had questions and concerns about the impact of the drone program and she stood up for the program. overall, we expect she is going to be a forceful defender of the program. you can see a bit of that on the democrat side. in a general election, you are not going to see drones as a major issue, just like it wasn't in 2012.
9:00 am
they would talk about hundreds of al qaeda operatives dying in pakistan, even though it would not be knowledge that it was drones that killed them and it was the cia doing it. this was part of the president's campaign platform. we are about to see a republican challenge president obama on that front. host: jerry is up next in springfield, michigan. line for democrats. caller: i listen to your program. do you believe that drones would be used here in america? guest: i get that question a lot. first of all, they are being used. police forces use surveillance drones as we speak.
9:01 am
the national guard uses them along the border. customs and border patrol. are we going to see armed drones in the future? i certainly see that happening. it's really a question of what are the rules, what are the technologies? drones are just another technology for killing people. just like a sniper. police forces use snipers in certain circumstances. i can see them using drones. that raises concerns for a lot of people. it's a question of how they are going to be used, what are the rules of engagement. it's a matter of time before we see a police force use an armed drone in a hostage situation where they would have in the past used a sniper. it is inevitable. that doesn't mean there are big predator drones -- they could be smaller. this is here to stay.
9:02 am
that's why having a conversation about this is important. host: you get to this point that the drone program has largely been immune to criticism unlike other cia programs like the torture program. why so much criticism for one and more trust on another? guest: something we were puzzled about, have been puzzled about. another reason why we thought it was important to put the names in the story. people involved in that program are now running the drone program. it was this puzzling situation where you saw dianne feinstein who made it -- stake her reputation on the challenging of cia's use of torture. and defended her staff putting
9:03 am
up this indictment of the program, saying this was a dark stain on our history. yet, many of the people involved in that program then transition into doing killing. we were wondering why there seems to have not been similar concerns. the lead of the story was how the staff of the intelligence community go over to the cia and watch videos of drone strikes. they use that as evidence that they have real oversight. they watch the videos, it's not like the torture program where everything was kept in secrecy. but when you scratch below the surface they are watching videos but they are not given the underlying intelligence about the strike, the internal cables about individual strikes
9:04 am
what is known about the aftermath. is this veneer of oversight. that's not to say that they are trying to get more -- the examiner branch still does hold the cards -- executive branch does still hold the cards. we need to challenge this proposition that the oversight of this program is vastly better than it was on the detention issue. host: pennsylvania. daniel is waiting on our line for independents. caller: talking about the hostages that were killed with a drone strike, the fbi were negotiating for the release of the hostages, at least one of them. the cia has a drone strike. wouldn't the fbi kno that the
9:05 am
people they were dealing withw -- know the people they were dealing with and that drone strikes should not be used? who actually were the people that they were targeting? was it the hostages? guest: they were not targeting the hostages. there is no evidence there was any deliberate attempt to kill them. since this story came out, there has been this question of where their negotiations. the officially was government policy is we don't negotiate with terrorists. we don't negotiate with al qaeda for ransom. the family did make some inquiries into possible negotiations and there have been reports that the fbi may have helped facilitate some of that.
9:06 am
it did appear that it was low level, they had attempted to do a ransom in the past, the person took their money and it had gone nowhere. i have heard no indication that there were ongoing negotiations. that the u.s. government knew where the hostages were, they were on the verge of being released. it was a legitimate case, they were in a compound, the cia had no idea they were there, they took the shot and afterwards they found out that the hostages had been in the compound. host: a few minutes left with mark mazzetti. we will put the phone lines on your screen. norm is waiting in michigan on our line for independents. caller: good morning, gentlemen. about the drones, yes, they are flying in the united states.
9:07 am
i watched closely the standoff -- they did some deep breathing. these guys have special ops retired -- they were getting intelligence information that was coming through and i was watching a video of them talking about this, doing the debriefing . they were talking about bringing in a drone strike there and they were very concerned about that. here is something i have not heard anybody talk about. if they were hitting people for america or any other country you would have sympathizers because there is always collateral damage. if this happened in this country where they were striking people and doing collateral damage,
9:08 am
children and women and so forth that would make me very angry and i would want to stand up against that. guest: on the question of who is doing the strikes, we are reaching an end of the period when the united states has a monopoly on this. a dozen countries are developing dress. i'm surprised you have not seen russia or china do a drone strike outside its borders to go after terrorists. i think we are going to see more cases where it is used around the world. it will raise these questions of is the united states going to be able to tell others not to do it after we doing it for so many years? host: do we give armed drones to our allies? guest: we give unarmed drones to our allies. we give some to the united arab emirates.
9:09 am
i think we have sold them to britain. host: surely for surveillance. guest: yes. and italy for surveillance. israel was the first country to develop armed drones. they have been in this business for longer than we have. i want to make one point -- it's us or the new york times -- it's not a question of liking it or not. plenty of officials say we would have a better time with this program if we made it less secret. if we did not have to have this shroud of secrecy and we could talk about it, we would be able to defend it better and not have this idea of 20 civilians killed , which has happened in pakistan
9:10 am
, even if that's not always the case. the secrecy handicaps program. we go back to this idea that two years ago, president obama gave a very big speech at the national defense university, one aspect was that this could not stay in the shadows forever. we need to be more transparent. since those two years, for various reasons, that has not happened. i do think it is not just the media's job, there needs to be a greater discussion about it and not just when these tragedies happen, that president obama announced a couple weeks ago. 30's be an ongoing discussion about it. -- there needs to be an ongoing discussion about it. host: a wrapup of his comments about your story. he also spoke at a sunlight foundation event yesterday on capitol hill that our viewers can check out on let's go to mike in maine.
9:11 am
for independents. caller: i read an article about the involvement of the institute for the study of war. my question is, are there such civilian organizations asserting their influence behind the scenes when it comes to drones? guest: it was an article in the washington post a couple years ago. that is a good question. there are certainly civilian organizations, think tanks and research institutions that deal with the cia, that have classified relationships with the cia on the issues of terrorism. the amount of advice they give and the symbiotic relationship between intelligence agencies and research institutions in washington or elsewhere is an interesting question.
9:12 am
it certainly exists, but a lot of the work they do is under classified contact. host: zach, good morning. caller: i have a couple comments. the death of those two hostages were very tragic. however, they were kind of necessary -- how much value our drone strikes as far as a strategic weapon of war as opposed to the tactical weapon of war? guest: that is the big question right now. there's been so many of them. you've gotten past the time when dry strikes were killing senior al qaeda officials, operatives who had been plotting attacks for years into lower and lower level people. even people understood and her
9:13 am
strikes, these cia -- they are based on pattern of behavior under force protection. it is a technical weapon now. it is not a strategic weapon. it is being used mostly for tactical gain in pakistan and afghanistan and other places. that doesn't mean it is not going after people who have plotted attacks against the united states, it's hard to know how far along those attacks are. what is the repercussion on what is the potential blowback? that is something we are trying to sort out. you cannot look at this or any weapon and say it is without cost and consequences. every weapon will have repercussions. we are still trying to sort through those. host: national security correspondent for the new york times.
9:14 am
the story we've been talking about -- the book, "the way of the knife." mark mazzetti, we appreciate your time. up next, our annual cram for the exam segment in which we will hear from and quiz high school students from around the country who are preparing for next week's advanced placement u.s. government exam. we will be right back. ♪
9:15 am
>> here is a look at our featured programs for this weekend on the c-span networks. this morning at 10:00 life from greenville, south carolina for the gop freedom summit. scott walker, ted cruz, carly fiorina, ben carson and marco rubio. on mother's day, members of america's first families remember first ladies. on c-span2, tonight at 10:00 on tvs afterwards, sexual assault in the u.s., focusing on the college town of missoula montana.
9:16 am
the first female four-star general talks about her life in the military career. on american history tv on c-span3, this afternoon on oral histories, remembering the liberation of nazi concentration camps with an interview of kurt cline who escaped the german persecution of jews by coming to the u.s., lost his parents in auschwitz and questioned hitler's personal driver. the 70th anniversary of the end of world war ii in europe with dignitaries and veterans commemorating the event at the world war ii memorial in washington, d.c. get our complete schedule at >> here are a few of the books we will be covering this spring. we will visit maryland for live coverage of the gaithersburg book festival with tom davis.
9:17 am
we will close out may at book expo america in new york city. on the first week in june, live from the chicago tribune lit fest with lawrence wright and your phone calls. that this spring on c-span2's book tv. >> "washington journal" continues. host: it's time once again to cram for the exam. the exam in question is the high school advanced placement u.s. government exam. a test that has been called the kentucky derby of civics tests. our guests to talk about the exams and answer the questions andrew conneen and daniel larsen . for those who aren't studying
9:18 am
today, why is this exam important? guest: for students, this is their derby. everyone is a winner. if they do well and they will come our democracy is strengthened. this is a test that is a rigorous test and will test their ability on multiple-choice questions, 60 mobile toys questions -- multiple-choice questions and 100 minutes to answer those for free response questions. -- four free response questions. host: andrew conneen, this is just days away. next tuesday is the test day. too late to try to read the entire textbook at this point. what would be your best advice for studying? guest: look back at the
9:19 am
constitution. look at examples of checks and balances. the test becomes about how the branches interact, how concepts emerge. for sure, go back and look at your checks and balances. host: the format of the testing how does it work? guest: multiple-choice, 60 multiple-choice questions with 45 minutes. read each question carefully. each prompt will have a cardinal work. gerrymandering, you know it something to do with redrawing the district. you will have 100 minutes to talk about free response questions. in those free response questions, it's not just going to be about congress. we encourage students to think through the 10 big topics of the course and try not to just think about them, but to -- those 10 topics are foundations federalism, public opinion
9:20 am
participation, political parties, interest groups, campaigns and elections, congress president -- incorporate them into all four free response questions. host: time management is very important. guest: for the 45 minute multiple-choice, you will be pressured. do not spend too long on any particular question. on the free response portion you will have plenty of time. 25 minutes per question. plenty of time to elaborate, to outline. be complete. you are trying to get college credit. host: let's go through the questions. which of the following gives state governments the most policy discretion? your possible answers are categorical grant, unfunded
9:21 am
mandate, block grants, funded mandates, matching grants. i have the answer. guest: a great question because it really asks students to define the word discretion. what does that mean? read very carefully. we were talking about federalism, talking about the united states government trying to impose its will on the states. ita grant would be an example of a caret. do what we want you to do. which kind of money do they prefer? states prefer that grant with discretionary authority. they have some choice. it is block grant. host: we are taking calls from high school students over the course of this segment. let's start with jaden from parker, colorado. good morning. caller: good morning.
9:22 am
i will to give a shout out to ms. gable. what does the containment doctrine do and how does it apply to the u.s. government? host: there will be a lot of shout outs. we are perfectly fine with that. guest: we talked about this being a high-tech dunk tank. containment doctrine is my kryptonite. guest: it brings me back to the cold war. this is not going to be ap u.s. history. there will be some u.s. history on this test. you need to know something like the civil rights act of 1964. when i hear containment, i think truman doctrine, i think that will not appear on this test. there is not a lot of foreign policy. guest: what will be on this test is the question about the president being a driver of foreign policy. as commander in chief, he makes
9:23 am
treaties, creates executive agreements and that will certainly be on the test. he drives foreign policy. there are some checks and balances. maybe not containment policy. that will be too historical. but certainly checks and balances. guest: use examples. if you have an opportunity to right of a presidential power, don't be afraid to use an example like containment policy in the 1940's. guest: the prize on today's segment is a hold hogan -- hold ulk hogan sign pocket constitution. guest: you never know who you will bump into. i am always armed with a pocket constitution. we bumped into the hulkster
9:24 am
yesterday. we asked him to sign his favorite part of the custody. he signed article seven. if a student calls in and can tell us what the article seven pertains to, they will be the big winner of the signed pocket constitution. guest: the caller who identifies the significance of article seven will walk away today with a signed pocket constitution from hul k hogan. host: ronnie from california is waiting on the line. in terms of presidential succession, who is next in line to be president after the vice president? the senate whip him of the first lady, the secretary of state the senate majority leader or the speaker of the house. your thoughts? caller: i would like to shout out ms. newman.
9:25 am
i would go with the vice president. host: after the vice president. caller: the speaker of the house. guest: you are set. keep studying. thanks, chris newman. guest: maybe they will answer the question -- maybe the student has to know the presidential succession act of 1947. after the speaker of the house secession goes into the president's cabinet. host: sierra in cedar park, texas. go ahead. caller: first of all, i want to give a shout out to mr. ordinaries class. that ms. thornberry's class. guest: this is a good question.
9:26 am
we want to thank those teachers out there because the types of lessons we receive on this show are a reflection of the great work of the teachers doing the classrooms -- were asking about specific rational acts. the specific congressional acts. that will not be the focus of this test. use them as much as you can by way of examples. examples can be hypothetical. as long as you are describing in the area that would be true about the -- don't get hung up on the exact name of the law. there are some laws we should recognize. the civil rights act of 1964 the voting rights act of 1965 come along with court cases as well. host: another question. let's quiz hanna from st. louis, missouri. good morning to you.
9:27 am
which of the following offices directly elected -- were directly elected? caller: [indiscernible] host: you are going in and out. we will try to get hanna back on the line. guest: i can answer that. and important lesson about how our government is changed and evil over time. when the constitution was first ratified, they were suspicious of public opinion. -- has changed and evolved over time. they only put we the people directly in an election to elect their house members. senators were not directly elected until much later.
9:28 am
clearly, this is a major theme of our government. they have given more and more power into the hands -- this is a debate between elitism and pluralism. pluralism is the idea that many people should compete over policy in america. when his country was founded leads thought they had the central role in that process. guest: they have democratized the process, but they are still not directly electing the president of the united states. the president is still indirectly elected through the electoral college. host: if one of our student's wants to answer that question of what article seven does, you can win a pocket constitution signed by kulhulk hogan. let's go to fiona in herndon, virginia. caller: i would like to give a
9:29 am
shout out to mr. miles. i have a question on what votes are needed in the senate and the house to make a bill a law. guest: in the house, it's a simple majority. 50% plus one. in the senate, more complicated. to ratify a treaty, you creep its majority in the senate. -- you need a 3/5 majority in the senate. you need a civil majority in the senate -- because of the filibuster, the threat of extended debate, you sometimes need 60 votes to kill a filibuster, that's called invoking cloture. you actually need 60 senators to support your idea in order to have the final vote. host: we are not getting to the
9:30 am
nuclear option, our wait? -- are we? guest: advice and consentthe idea that the senate would block lower-level judicial appointments for years. that has changed now. what has not changed is the ability to use the -- for confirmation. guest: you're on to something importantguest:, which is the test asking the difference between the formal and informal rules of the senate. we know the constitution says the senate of the united states has the authority to confirm presidential appointments, but the filibuster is a senate rule not a constitution rule. the rule of filibuster has been changed as to when you can and cannot use it. some called out the nuclear option.
9:31 am
can we change the rules of the senate, even though it is a role we have may be used for decades? will that be a political problem? that is when the test becomes critical. a constitutional requirement in the senate would talk about confirmations and holding impeachment trials. the informal senate rules would be rules like the filibuster. host: question from twitter. shut out to the second period for mr. patton. what are the powers of the house of representatives versus those of the senate. guest: we can talk constitutional rules or role differences. the difference with respect to the legislative process is the house has a rules committee that determines the length of the debate. it puts the house debate under strict rules. we can talk the difference between an open and closed rule, if you like. the senate, no rules committee.
9:32 am
those debates can go endlessly and some duty of the filibuster. they can invoke cloture. there are also constitutional differences. the house of representatives candidate impeachment the senate holds the trial. those are the differences i would focus on. guest: a key power of the house of representatives in the constitution is the power to start tax laws. the house has a ways and means committee, one of the most powerful committees in capitol hill because they address revenue. host: let's ask a question for our high school students. aldrich is calling from california. the question for you, for a public opinion poll to be scientifically legitimate, the sample must read a, extra-large, b, conducted by politicians c written, d homogeneous, or d
9:33 am
random. caller: the question does the answer is e. . guest: you're right. public opinion polls, if they are not random, we do not consider them valid. caller: i would like to give a shout out to the second period of -- and i would like to try for the pocket constitution. the seventh article is about ratification. guest: hulk hogan is known for his finishing moves, and the ratification of the constitution was the finishing move. they could write it but they could not be guaranteed to ratify it. hulk hogan, the article seven ratification. guest: let's make sure to finish the test, just like hulk hogan finishes a match. let's not be fatigued by the 100 minutes. do not just think it, inc. it -- ink it. host: stay on the line, we will
9:34 am
get your information to give you the hulk hogan signed pocket constitution. in the meantime, alexa has a question on twitter. which of the constitution amendment's we most likely to see on this test? #apgoveislove. guest: this was the discussion we had during breakfast. what are the numbers we have to remember. here are my favorites. in the delivery, the first amendment, the fourth amendment -- in the bill of rights the first, fourth, and 10th amendment. the tent is the reserve powers which attacked -- which protect state rights. the second constitutional convention we had as well, when we ratify the 14th amendment. how important that is to equal percent -- equal protection and due process of law.
9:35 am
of course we also think about the 15th, 19th, 26. these are the amendment i would focus on. host: can you name the amendments he did not list? [laughter] host: grands calling in from dayton, ohio. answer this question first. the process of drawing legislative districts is known as a the senses. b, reapportionment. see, gerrymandering. d, redistricting. or eat, representation. caller: the answer would lead gerrymandering. host: correct. your question? caller: first i would like to shout out mr. deiters. what court cases are we most likely to see that show examples of judicial activism? guest: i do not know if you will be asked about court cases that show judicial activism.
9:36 am
you may be asked about judicial decision-making and prudence, the difference between a loose interpretation of the cause of tuition used by more liberal justices in first a strict or in original interpretation of the constitution or -- constitution. round versus the board, the idea of the equal protection clause d segregating public schools that is always a big case. marbury versus madison, the case that gave the supreme court judicial review over the laws of congress. guest: i like gitlaw v. new york, one of the primary examples of selective incorporation. roe v. wade introducing privacy. the thing we want to be reminded about is this is not a partisan exam. you will not be asked to argue a political point. activism is often a debate. this will be a bipartisan
9:37 am
question where you are stating something that is true and is true for everybody. activism is one of those points we can define. we can define activism as a form of judicial prudence where a judge allows his own personal bias and experience to influence the court opinion, but we probably will not get into a debate as to whether this case or that case has activism. host: you talked about concepts, i am going to introduce three callers at once. they're are calling in from st. louis, missouri. caller: first of all, shout out to mr. truman's ap government class. our question is about logrolling and its significance. guest: it is a concept of a vote trading. the idea is if you're trying to get a big bill passed, a lot of times it helps to have quid pro quo, this for that.
9:38 am
if you add this writer sometimes you call them earmarks if you are that your mark, you will get more supportive votes. it is a great example to use. we tell students to be ready for synonyms. they may not use the word logrolling. maybe they will use a vote trading or reciprocity. be prepared for vocabulary and use context clues so it becomes a reading test. guest: i played this game, visa and them, and my fourth hour class. can you also say coursework -- when you talk about a new murder powers, can you talk expressed powers -- when you talk about enumerated powers, can you talk expressed powers. host: let's talk to different words students will encounter on the test and what they are supposed to do.
9:39 am
identify define, describe, explain, compared. guest: you are right. when you see on an frq critical words like described or identified, they should you up a task -- queue up a task. the lowest bar is identified. that is a definition. it could be a list. it would not involve a sentence, though i would always use a sentence. but then you see describe or explain. the threshold becomes higher when it is scored. identify is lower. describe or explain is higher. the rule of thumb i have is if i see describe or explain, i want to say what for? what four things can i say? i want to say it not once but say it again and give synonyms and explained thoroughly with an example.
9:40 am
identify, one statement is probably sufficient. explain it thoroughly. give examples. host: we have a lot of test prep on our website as well and we have helpful videos and one of the most popular videos is a test prep video. use twitter as well. we get a lot of questions via twitter. there are high school teachers who monitor the feed called # hsgovchat. i know some of them are meeting with students now, watching us. mr. fitz, mr. mauldin. shout out to those teachers who helped. mr. christensen who helped on #hsgovchat. host: this question from handout who writes, shout out to cause behind's mrs. serrao. what are the most important white house staff members we need to know?
9:41 am
guest: i love this question. it sets up one of the informal changes we see in how the government operates. back in the day, cap that secretaries were the most important advisers to the president, but in the last two years, cabinet secretaries though they have prominent titles and roles do not play a day role in advising the president to you that goes to the white house staff. executive office of the president is a cinnamon -- the synonym of that. this could be valerie jarrett who has been with obama not only every day in the white house but going back to the campaign trail. increasingly presidents rely on white house advisers because they are the most loyal. guest: this is another example of how presidents changed. we call the cabinet the team of rivals during lincoln's era. for obama we call it the teen of
9:42 am
names we do not even remember. we are a member of the political class the most because they are closest to the president. this makes the bureaucracy difficult. we have studied in the past, the white house bureaucracy is made up of the, but we now know the cabinet is weak with divided loyalties. it is the white house office that carries more and more power. host: it is time to get quizzed. sarah. who is responsible for presenting the oral argument for the government before the court. potential answers are a, the attorney general d, the president, see the majority leader, d, the president pro tem, or e, the -- general. caller: the attorney general? guest: this is a tough one and do not feel bad if this is tough for you. the test will include name
9:43 am
dropping questions. titles. they may talk committee chairs, the function and role of the attorney general. in this case, maybe an exterior -- an obscure title we have not focused on. it is not unusual to see it on the test. the official who argues the government's arguments would be the solicitor general. host: you had a question of your own? caller: can you explain the difference between the different clinical theories? guest: good question. guest: you're just arriving those hard questions which means you are going to be ready on tuesday. when i think of political theory, i think elitism versus pluralism. who should, is proportionately -- disproportionately, erect policy in america? -- direct policy in america? should we put policy and those higher educated or are financially more affluent, or should we trust the people at
9:44 am
large? allow them to organize into interest groups and have them compete? this is a political theory that goes to the core of our government. but also where should the power be? in the central location like washington, d.c. or be decentralized? we call that federalism. these are the political theories the test may focus on. guest: direct democracy versus representative democracy, that is one of my favorite theory questions. should they make policy through the referendum level at the state level or should we trust elected representatives to do that? that is a question that is fair game. host: we had up to michigan where jim is waiting. caller: good morning, sir. i am in 82-year-old senior watching c-span many times, and i would like to find out does
9:45 am
the state itself override the government's laws? i look at texas as being a country of its own. if it is possible or not, i would like your answer. guest: we are so glad you called in. as a lifelong learner, you can also prepare for the exam. are we not all students of government when it comes down to it. in federalism, it gets confusing. the 10th amendment has reserved powers to the state. but as hulk hogan himself signed it yesterday, article six talks about national supremacy. on the test, do not be surprised to see mccullough v. maryland, where the supreme court recognize article six that if there is a dispute between national and state government, the national government is supreme. host: it is unclear if jim will
9:46 am
take the test. we are talking to high school students in eastern and central time zones on (202) 748-8000. men time zones on (202) 748-8001 . hector is up from california. caller: i want to give a shout out to mrs. -- what is the question of the iron triangle? guest: i was hoping you would ask and i was hoping someone in california would ask. california is such a great example of the iran triangle -- iron triangle. especially the california beam shippers association. the iran triangle is an example -- the iron tirangle is an example of elitism. because maybe only the
9:47 am
california beam -- being shippers association care about the green beans. the fda says in title i of the food and drug act that there are seven varieties of green beans. in fact, they are whole, shoe string, cut, short cuts, diaganol cuts, diagonal short cuts and mixtures. those of the seven varieties of green beans packed in cans. according to the law, the cut of a green bean cannot be less of them 99 millimeters long. this is not a debate that c-span shows. this is not a debate that appears on the front page of the "new york times." this debate is so detailed and specific that only a few parties really care about it. you have an interest group, the california being shippers association, a lobbyist working
9:48 am
with a bureaucrat from the food and drug administration, someone from the bureaucracy, and also those parties are working with somebody from capitol hill from the legislative branch, probably a subcommittee member or staff member from the agricultural committee. three parties very small, detailed policies. it does not get a lot of public attention. but for the very small my new policies, that is where the iron triangle comes in. guest: i guess according to andy, government is beans. through beans we know the iron triangle. host: we also learn about wrestling today. our pocket constitution was signed by hulk hogan. that is why it is appropriate the twitter question comes from jakethesnake. shout out to mrs. ferrington's 2nd hour ap gove class.
9:49 am
what is the difference between pac and superpac? guest: in government, it is bellwether versus manny patio. let's get down to the pac's. the difference between a manny takeo and a manny super pacquiao is a super pac's formed to give hard money to candidates recommended by law. the loophole is evolved until we call a super pac a synonym that i use. a 527 group or a super pac is outside hard money regulations. this is an independent group not connected to the candidate that can raise unlimited moneys. not $25 here or $2500 their
9:50 am
regular bylaws, but maybe two hundred $50,000 here and $1 million layer. these super pac's raise money and that advocate for issues and causes and sometimes candidates. it is outside the regulatory process of the american government. host: this one just has a shout out to dr. hall's av government class. we will quiz this caller from a georgia. here is the question from an old test. which of the following resulted from a selective incorporation: little by little, the new constitution was ratified. little by little, the articles of confederation were changed. little by little slavery was abolished. little by little, presidency grew in power. or little by little, the bill of rights were applied to the states. caller: i think it is e, the
9:51 am
bill of rights apply to the states. host: you are correct. caller: i want to shout out this atkins class in georgia. i want to know the process of the budget. guest: the budget making process is a great example of checks and balances. all large part was shaped by the right to reform act of 1974 where it says that president can prepare a budget. he has a group of advisers called the office of management and budget that helps the president prepare the budget. but the budget is like any law. congress has to write the law make the law. at the end of the process -- congress also has to approve the budget. at the end of the process, the president has to sign the budget just like any law. guest: this is like an example of how you can use an example on the frq. we know that the branches of
9:52 am
government check and balance each other, but sometimes you put a period there. i was a put a semicolon. -- host: less than 10 minutes left for our cram for the exam 2015. we are talking about the kentucky derby of civics exams happening on tuesday, the ap government exam. brandon is in new jersey. good morning. caller: good morning. i want to give a shout out to mrs. scott. my question is could you explain the difference between layer cake federalism and marble cake federalism? guest: we love federalism and cake. maybe your class can have a cake on tuesday and make it a layer cake federalism that represents the old style of federalism where there are
9:53 am
distinct roles for the national or central government as opposed to the state or local government. it used to be very distinct. in the world of education, the national government never had a role at schools. it was all at state and local discretion. we have marble cake federalism now, largely because of the great depression and the crises and the growing role of the national government. the national and state government roles mixes. that could be an example of transportation, the different roads we drive on. education. it could also be with national security. the idea that the national government certainly plays a major role in national security, but state and local law enforcement can also play a role. guest: this is where you can practice this in a moment game -- beat synonym game. you could also see cooperative
9:54 am
federalism. do not get hung up on the words. what does cooperate mean. that is when the roles and responsibilities of government makes, just like a marble cake. host: lily from washington, time to get tested. what term describes an electoral system used by most states in which el toro college votes are awarded based on their winner of most of the state's popular votes. your answers are plurality caucus, single-member district, convention or majority area and democracy. what do you think? caller: i will go with d. host: the answer is -- guest: plurality. here is the example of the synonyms. plurality elections are also known as winner takes all. you do not have to win a majority of the vote to be elected to congress or to be
9:55 am
president. plurality is when you need to win the most votes, which is what happens. single-member district is also a synonym. when you have a single-member districts system, it typically promotes a two-party system. host: do you have a shadow or question? caller: shout out to mr. humans first. -- first period class. my question is the doctrine of -- guest: this is one of those questions where we are reminded it is about the words. stare decisis did not, in my dinner conversation but it will, up on tuesday. this is a latin phrase that speaks to the supreme court and how it works and how our legal system works. we are a nation of law and not men. our law system is not based on what you are i think but how the courts have decided over time. we call this president.
9:56 am
p-r-e-c-d-e-n-t. the latin phrase is starry to sizes, let the decision stand. when our supreme court decides they do not say how do we decide, they have to ask how has this court decided over the years? they must base their decisions -- the outcome of each supreme court case is based on previous president. that is stare decisis, one of the fundamentals of the legal system. host: let's do for callers now. -- four callers now. caller: we would like to make a shout out to ms. smith of the three b class. my question is what is the significance of pinker v. des moines and new jersery v. tll.
9:57 am
guest: pinker versus the morning was a 1960 case where the supreme court said public schools had to uphold the right to free speech and expression. but that was watered down in later cases where the supreme court said public schools can define if speech was disruptive to the educational process. the other case is a fourth amendment case. this is the question of when can school administrators, into a student's locker and search. do they need reasonable suspicion, a lower standard, or do they need a higher standard the way a police officer may need to search a vehicle on the street. in that case, the supreme court said public school administrators need the lower standard. host: we go to esther von waiting in new jersey.
9:58 am
good morning. your question or shout out? caller: shout out to dr. hollis's ap government class. my question is what is the difference between independent regulatory agencies and other bureaucratic agencies? guest: estevan, so glad you asked this. i was asking this myself at breakfast. this is a crucial distinction. as i would make the distinction between pancakes and bacon. bureaucracy is of the verb of our government. it is on the executive branch. if the president is a noun, who does the work of government? when the laws are passed and the president and forces them, it is the bureaucracy, but that is a vast group of more than 3 million federal employees across the country and world. you have the executive
9:59 am
department area these are cabinet officials and their departments. then you have the independent regulatory agency, created by congress to be nonpartisan. they're not supposed to be connected to the administration like the cabinet might be because the president appoints of the department chiefs. the independent regulatory agencies are given a specific function to regulate a specific area of our economy. you may have the epa or cia or fcc or scc, securities and exchange commission, given the task of regulating wall street. nonpartisan great abiding by the laws of the u.s. guest: the faa which regulates airlines or the sec which regulates broadcast or radio. their independent because the commissioners have fixed terms. they will not be fired because they make a controversial decision.
10:00 am
host: 60 seconds left. final tips? guest: continued to study. we have set a number of times. do not just think about it, ink about this is a vocabulary test. guest: make this more than a civics exam and course, make your interest in american government a civics lifestyle. host: teachers at at least events in high school in illinois good luck to students tuesday. that will be it for our show. we take our viewers live to the south carolina freedom summit area you can also listen to it on c-span radio. this is in greenville, south carolina. among the speakers are