Face the Nation transcripts August 18, 2013: Graham, Speier, Kelly, Goodlatte & Scott
(CBS News) Below is a transcript of "Face the Nation" on August 18, 2013, hosted by CBS News' Bob Schieffer. Guests include: CBS News correspondent Charlie D'Agata, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., Reps. Jackie Speier, D-Calif., Bob Goodlatte, R-Va. and Bobby Scott, D-Va., and New York Police Commissioner Ray Kelly. Plus, a panel with Amy Walter, Bobby Ghosh and Kevin Madden.
BOB SCHIEFFER: And, good morning again. Well, the situation in Egypt is no better today. Since the military crackdown on pro-Morsi forces began on Wednesday, more than eight hundred have been killed. At least, a thousand people are wounded. There is no end in sight. We're going to begin this morning with CBS News correspondent Charlie D'Agata who is in Cairo. Charlie, bring us up to date. What's the latest?
CHARLIE D'AGATA (CBS News Correspondent): Well, Bob, we're expecting more demonstrations today and they're bracing for it here. But what we're seeing is really two worlds emerging. It's like two different versions. The story that you're seeing there in the outside world and what you're seeing here in Egypt and on Egyptian television. Now, we've just come back from the foreign ministry and we were handed these photos that show Muslim Brotherhood members and supporters using live ammunition against security forces. And it reads under the banner--Egypt Fights Terrorism. And what they're trying to suggest is that we're getting it wrong, that this is security forces that are fighting against terrorist groups. And they have to do this in-- in order to crush this-- this threat of terror. But it's not what we've seen. There may be supporters that had guns but largely what we saw, especially on Friday, the last big demonstration, where unarmed civilians going straight into the line of fire. We could hear the gunfire and then we just saw them come back on the backs of motorcycles and they've been shot in the-- in the head, in the neck, in the chest, essentially, shot to kill. That doesn't mean that armed civilians aren't fighting it out. They are. Another big concern now is that the government has said that they are proposing a ban on the Muslim Brotherhood and that's just going to cause more anger. There are hundreds of people that have been arrested and they will be charged, we're told, with murder and terrorism.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, Charlie, I guess this is a question no one can really answer, but how does this end? I mean how long does this thing go on?
CHARLIE D'AGATA: I think the real question here, and we may see it this afternoon, is how much steam does the Muslim Brotherhood still have? I mean their leadership has been arrested. They've been decimated. They know that whenever they do come to these areas, these protests, they will come under fire. The-- the military has said as much. So if we see large gatherings today and over the course of the next few days, like the Muslim Brotherhood intend to do, it will show you that there is a force and they will face the line of fire. Otherwise, it will show you that the military-led government has clearly got the upper hand.
BOB SCHIEFFER: All right. Well, Charlie, thank you so much and-- and be very careful.
CHARLIE D'AGATA: Thank you.
BOB SCHIEFFER: And joining us now Senator Lindsey Graham. He is just back from Cairo where he and Senator John McCain met with both sides. He's in Clemson, South Carolina, this morning. Senator Graham, this has been a while since I've seen any pictures like this. And now we are seeing and you heard Charlie talk about the-- the Egyptian generals who are trying to say this is the--
SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM (Armed Services Committee/R-South Carolina): Right.
BOB SCHIEFFER: --war against terrorists. And the fact is the head of al Qaeda's brother, that's Mister Zawahiri has been arrested now and we're told he was planning to bring in armed groups to oppose the generals. I mean isn't this just make it even more complicated in trying to figure out what we ought to do and-- and who we ought to be supporting here?
SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM: In a way, yes. But in a way, no. I mean we can't-- after 2011, we sided with the protesters against Mubarak. There's no going back for our country to supporting strongman dictatorships. The Muslim Brotherhood corrupted their mandate. They won the election. The Egyptian people are not terrorists. They got a majority of the vote. But after a year of governing, they drove people away and this coup--and it was a coup--had-- has a lot of popular support. But where are we headed? We're headed for Algeria. The Brotherhood will go underground, al Qaeda will come to their aid, and you are going to have an armed insurgency, not protesters, on your hands in the next six-- sixty days or ninety days and we are going to have a failed state in Egypt and we are going to have to suspend our aid because we can't support the reaction of the military. Even though, the Brotherhood overplaying their hand started this, we can't support what the military is doing in response.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, we don't want to encourage government to-- to come to power there that has--
SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM: Right.
BOB SCHIEFFER: --al Qaeda-- al Qaeda elements in it, do we? I mean and if we cut off that aid--
SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM: No.
BOB SCHIEFFER: --doesn't that just help that?
SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM: Bob, al Qaeda is never going to win at the ballot box. If there was a new election, the Brotherhood would get beat. They would be marginalized by the Egyptian people. The army is making these people martyrs. You're looking at Algeria where the opposition becomes an armed insurgency. The best way to solve this problem is to write a new constitution where everybody has a say and have new elections. If you had new elections, the Brotherhood would get creamed at the ballot box, but they are going to be a very formidable force on the streets. They're going to get aligned with al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is going to come uninvited into Egypt and you're going to have a failed state. That means gas prices go up for us, the Suez Canal gets compromised and Egypt becomes a staging area for terrorist acts against Israel. This is an absolute disaster in the making.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, you've been very critical of the President. What would you do? You say you would cut off this aid, but beyond that, what would you do?
SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM: Yes. I would tell the generals that we're going to suspend all aid until you allow a democratic transition and the aid is just a symbol for the relationship. It's not that much money. What would happen if we cut off the aid is that Western tourism ends in Egypt for the foreseeable future for as far as the eye can see. Western investment comes to a standstill. Egypt becomes a beggar client state of the Sunni Gulf Arab-- Arab Gulf states. Egypt's future is really damned and I'd make that point clear. It's just not about the aid, it's about the relationship. We're the strongest nation on Earth. Everybody that sides with us tends to do better than people that we oppose, so I would play to the best interest of the military. Stop this before it gets out of hand. We can't support where you're taking Egypt, not tell the Brotherhood, forget about the condition of Morsi being put back in as President before you have a new dialog. I would be firm with the military and the Brotherhood. We do have a lot of influence. If American business stops investing in Egypt and American tourists stop going to Egypt, their economy is going to be in ruins. There's a lot at stake here for us and them. If you had a winner-loser list from a failed state in Egypt, the Egyptian people and the American people would be on the loser list. We need to avoid that.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, you were there. You and Senator McCain talked to leaders--
SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM: Yeah.
BOB SCHIEFFER: --on both sides, you talked to General al-Sissi.
SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM: Mm-Hm.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Do you think he is actually running things now?
SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM: Absolutely. You know I saw a man very conflicted. He's having people whisper in his ear from the Sunni Gulf states, even Israel, "Crush the Brotherhood." If you think you can take twenty-five or thirty percent of the population and put them all in jail and kill them, you're making a mistake. That is Algeria. And we've sent mixed signals. John McCain and I called it a coup because that's exactly what it is but we wanted time to restart. When Senator-- Secretary Kerry said that the military was restoring democracy, they took that the wrong way. When they started jailing all the leaders of the former government that was a signal to me that they weren't interested into a transition, they were not trying to restore order, they were trying to grab power and somebody needs to look al-Sissi in the eye and say you are going to destroy Egypt, you are going to doom your country to a beggar state, you're going to create an insurgency for generations to come. Turn around, General, before it's too late. You're a better man than that.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Let me shift and just ask you about something that happened back here in Washington. Defense Secretary Hagel issued some new rules for dealing with sexual assault cases in the military. He's giving commanders the ability to transfer those accused of committing sexual assault to other units. He's also bringing a military lawyer into the process.
SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM: Right.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Some of your colleagues and, one, we'll talk to in just a minute, Congresswoman Jackie Speier said these are just baby steps and are not nearly what needs to be done. Are you satisfied with what the government's done on this very serious problem?
SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM: Bob, I've been a military lawyer for over thirty years and the idea of taking the power away from the commander to regulate the unit and impose discipline and give it to a military lawyer is not the right move. You can't solve any problem in the military without commander involvement. The steps that we're taking in the military are unprecedented. I wish we had a system like this in South Carolina where every victim had a lawyer. The culture in the military needs to change. It's unacceptable. Women are going through way too much harassment. Our commanders need to be held more accountable not less. But these steps of improving how you report a sexual assault, providing a lawyer for the victim to make sure they feel they can go through the system, having systems outside the command reporting chain to report a sexual assault I think are corrective actions that need to be made. Taking this out of the military justice system I think is the wrong move.
BOB SCHIEFFER: All right. Well, Senator, we want to thank you for being with us this morning.
SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM: Thank you.
BOB SCHIEFFER: And we do want to go now to Congresswoman Jackie Speier of California. She's also a member of the House Armed Services Committee. She's joining us this morning from San Francisco. Well, you heard what Senator Graham said, Congresswoman, and I know you have already said that what the Pentagon is planning to do. What they're trying to do here are simply baby steps. So what-- what will you do and what do you think ought to be done here?
REPUBLICAN JACKIE SPEIER (Armed Services Committee/D-California): Well, Bob, the real problem is that twenty-six thousand men and women who serve our country are assaulted each and every year. Only three thousand of them report it. And of that, less than ten percent are actually convicted. So the problem is is that the command structure doesn't work. It hasn't worked for twenty-five years. These proposals by Secretary Hagel are baby steps. They're good but they're not best practices and they're really repackaging what has been wrong in the system for all these years. When you have a general who is now being court-martialed for this kind of conduct, when you have sexual assault prevention officers who have been charged with unlawful conduct, you're speaking about the heart of the system not working properly. When you speak to the victim survivors, when you-- when you walk away from having those kinds of conversations with young men and women who wanted to serve their country and now whose lives are in turmoil because they have been discharged with a personality disorder because they were raped or sexually assaulted, this system is wrong. Now, to Lindsey Graham's point, the Senator is-- is right to the point. We don't want to take it out of the system. We want to keep it in the military system but let the prosecutors decide whether or not to charge these potential assailants. Right now the assailants in the military are going scot-free. They are not being charged and they, as a result, are allowed to prey on more victims.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, you and Senator Gillibrand have both led this effort to try to get some kind of reforms, but what the people in the military say is that the commander has to be involved to maintain the chain of command. That's the way the military has always worked in the past. What exactly would you and Senator Gillibrand do? You would-- what would you do on this?
REPUBLICAN JACKIE SPEIER: We would keep it in the military but take that decision-making away from the commander who would-- has no legal training and put it into the hands of a prosecutor to evaluate whether or not the case should be charged. When you have the ability right now under the Uniform Code of Military Justice to have a general overturn a court-martial, where there has been a conviction for sexual assault, we have a code that doesn't work and it is rigged on the-- in favor of the assailant, not the victim. So by taking it out of the chain of command, keeping it in the military, by creating a separate office or allowing the prosecutor to make the decision will have a huge salutary effect and be consistent with what other countries like the U.K., Australia, Israel have done and done very effectively.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Let me ask you about something else before I let you go. The Washington Post reported last week that the National Security Agency often broke the rules on secrecy, that there were more violations that went-- than we had known about. How seriously do you take these stories? You know some of the committee chairs say, well, really, they're-- they're doing everything, there's proper oversight, they are already saying that some of these errors that they've admitted to were inadvertent, they were human error. Where do you see this going?
REPUBLICAN JACKIE SPEIER: I think what we're going to see happen is that there's going to be much more robust oversight over the NSA. There is failed oversight right now. And the fact that there is all this activity going on that we don't know about and they spoon-feed to the intelligence committees of both houses what they want to tell them. And for any of us to say that we know what's going on in the NSA I would find very suspect. I think we've got to provide whistleblower protection to those who serve in the intelligence community so there is somewhere they can go to report misdeeds without being subject to criminal prosecution.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Do you think that Edward Snowden was a whistleblower. He's being called everything from a traitor to a defector because he leaked some of this information.
REPUBLICAN JACKIE SPEIER: I think that the jury is still out on whether he's a traitor or a whistleblower. But I do think he has highlighted some extraordinary misdeeds and I-- I do think that we've got to create an avenue so that persons within the military, persons within the intelligence community and defense contractors can be able to report misdeeds without being subject to criminal prosecution.
BOB SCHIEFFER: All right. Well, thank you so much, Congresswoman.
REPUBLICAN JACKIE SPEIER: My pleasure.
BOB SCHIEFFER: And we'll be back in one minute. We'll talk to New York Police Commissioner Ray Kelly about New York York's stop-and-frisk law and a federal judge's ruling that it amounts to racial profiling.
(ANNOUNCEMENTS)
BOB SCHIEFFER: Last week a federal judge in a ruling that could have an impact on police procedure all across the country ruled that New York City Police Department's stop, question, and frisk policy violated the constitutional rights of minorities in the city.
Joining us now to talk about it the New York Police Department commissioner Ray Kelly. Commissioner, I noted that your reaction, you said that you found the judge's ruling offensive for one thing. Are you going to change anything that you're doing now while this is on appeal?
RAY KELLY (New York City Police Commissioner): Well, we're moving forward. State Mayor Bloomberg has directed that. But the judge in this case has indicted the entire police department, almost thirty-six thousand police officers, for racial profiling based on what we believe is very flimsy information, flimsy evidence. The plaintiff's expert looked at 4.4 million stops and out of that number of stops over a ten-year period, the expert working for the plaintiff found six percent to be unjustified. The judge in the case looked at nineteen stops and they could have been any stops that the plaintiff chose. She found that ten of the nineteen stops were constitutionally acceptable. So we believe that the formula that was used which uses census data is fundamentally flawed. We believe--
BOB SCHIEFFER: What-- what let me just ask you. What exactly, for people that are not familiar with this, what exactly are you talking about when you talk about stop and frisk? What does that mean?
RAY KELLY: You're talking about the common law right and, indeed, now it's statutory for police officers, their ability to stop someone in the public place who they have reasonable suspicion may be committing a crime, is about to commit a crime, or has committed a crime. Now, this has been codified throughout the United States. It's been supported by Supreme Court decision Terry v. Ohio and, indeed, it is a practice throughout America.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, when the judge says you're stopping more minorities--that's basically what she's saying--how-- what do you say in response to that?
RAY KELLY: Well, we went to the RAND Corporation in 2006 and we asked this question, how do you determine whether or not there's racial profiling going on? They said that the appropriate formula to use, if you will, is the description of victims of violent crime of the perpetrators of violent crime. And I can assure you our stops certainly comport with that. It's also ironic here that the New York City Police Department is the most diverse police department certainly in the United States, but probably in the country. We have police officers born in eighty-eight countries. Our police officer rank is majority-minority. And on last eight police academy classes we have had graduates born in fifty or more countries. So we are, as I say, very much diverse and we look like the city that we police. Now, the--
BOB SCHIEFFER: The-- no, go ahead.
RAY KELLY: --the losers in this, if this case is allowed to stand, are people who live in minority communities. Ninety-seven percent of the shooting victims in New York City last year were people of color--black or Latino. In the Bloomberg administration years will say the eleven years--full years of Mayor Bloomberg's term--if you compare those eleven years to the previous eleven years, there's been seven thousand three hundred and sixty-three fuller murders-- less murders, fewer murders. So if history is any guide, clearly, those lives saved are largely the lives of-- of people of color. And we're saving lives, that's what we're engaged in. We just had a-- Center for Disease Control study come out that said New York City has the lowest ratio of teenagers carrying guns than any city in-- in America.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Do you plan-- are you going to do anything different? I mean, one thing she said was she wants some officers to carry body cameras so that these stops can be recorded. Are you planning to do that?
RAY KELLY: Well, we are going to, obviously, apply for a stay and appeal will go forward. But the-- the body camera issue opens up certainly more questions than answers. When do you have the cameras on? When do you turn them off? Do you have it on during a domestic dispute? Do you have it on when somebody comes to give you confidential information? All of these issues have to be answered. We have, as I say, a little over thirty-five thousand uniformed police officers. The only place that this has been implemented is cities that are much, much smaller than the NYPD. So there's a lot of questions here. Obviously, we're-- we're open to meaningful, worthwhile recommendations and suggestions. There is a monitor that we-- coming in if this case is allowed to stand and that monitor will have to make a lot of decisions as to the implementation of-- of this pilot program.
BOB SCHIEFFER: One final question on something entirely different. Reports here in Washington are that you are one of those being considered as a replacement for Homeland Security Chief Janet Napolitano. Has anybody talked to you about that?
RAY KELLY: Well, the President made a-- a statement--very flattering statement--when he was asked a question about me, specifically, but I'm not going to comment any further. I've spent some time in Washington. I know it's wise to keep my mouth shut at this time.
BOB SCHIEFFER: All right. Well, thank you so much, Commissioner. Enjoy.
RAY KELLY: Thank you, Bob.
BOB SCHIEFFER: We'll be back with some personal thoughts in just a minute.
(ANNOUNCEMENTS)
BOB SCHIEFFER: Gerald Ford's press secretary was former NBC News correspondent Ron Nessen and when Nessen left his White House job he wrote a book called, It Sure Looks Different from the Inside. I ran across the book the other day and my first thought was too bad that title is already taken, it would have been perfect for President Obama's White House memoir. Scott Wilson wrote in the Washington Post Candidate Obama promised to implement a foreign policy different in both tone and substance from that of his predecessor. A policy based on openness, the rule of law, and the promotion of democratic values, especially in the Middle East. But since coming to office, he has found a new appreciation for the need for secrecy, the controversial drone program which critics call illegal, and the difficulty of closing the prison at Guantanamo. When Egypt's generals toppled the country's first elected president, United States didn't do much, probably, because there was not much we could do, so much for promoting democratic values. The President is learning what those before him have learned. Things that seem easily done in a campaign can be more complicated and difficult when the campaign is over. I've covered eight Presidents. Not one of them ever told me the job was easier than he thought it would be. The more I think of it, maybe it sure looks different from the inside is the perfect title for any presidential memoir except, maybe, George Washington's. And for the record I didn't personally interview him.
Back in a minute.
(ANNOUNCEMENTS)
BOB SCHIEFFER: Some of our stations are leaving us now. For most of you, we'll be back with a lot more of FACE THE NATION with the House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte and a member of the Judiciary Committee, Bobby Scott.
Plus, our analysis panel. Stay with us.
(ANNOUNCEMENTS)
BOB SCHIEFFER: And welcome back to FACE THE NATION. Joining us now to talk more about that stop, question, and frisk policy and a whole lot more include-- including the National Security Agency and what's going on there, two key members of the House Judiciary Committee, the Chairman Bob Goodlatte and Democrat Bobby Scott. Both of whom happen to be from-- from Virginia. So we're glad to have both of you here today. Congressman Scott, let me just ask you, I want to get your reaction to what you just heard Ray Kelly say. He strongly defends the stop and frisk policy.
REPRESENTATIVE BOBBY SCOTT (Judiciary Committee/D-Virginia): Well, I was surprised that anybody would defend it. As applied it's very discriminatory and it only applies-- overwhelmingly, applies to minority areas. Most of the people that are told to get up against the wall and get stopped and frisked are innocent. There's no probable cause, not even any articulable suspicion about doing any good. If you tried that in some other communities, they'd be outraged and they're just rightfully outraged in the minority community about this.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Cong-- Chairman.
REPRESENTATIVE BOB GOODLATTE (Judiciary Committee Chairman): Well, I think that it's very important to look at whether it does, indeed, violate the civil liberties. The lower court judge found that to be the case. It now goes on to a higher court. No question it's been effective in reducing crime in New York City, but you've got to protect civil liberties at the same time. So it's certainly appropriate to review it.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Let's talk about the National Security Agency. Now, another big disclosure in the Washington Post where the Agency admits that they have intruded on some people's privacy but they say it's inadvertent. We have the chairs of both the House and the Senate Intelligence Committee saying basically that they believe there is strong oversight. They are-- they're not sure that the agency to kind of short-- put it in short sentences--has really done anything wrong on purpose. But they admit that some mistakes have been made. Do you feel that privacy has been invaded, Mister Chairman?
REPRESENTATIVE BOB GOODLATTE: Well, I think that we need to have much stronger oversight to determine whether or not that indeed is the case. When this was made known based on the leaks of Edward Snowden, the Judiciary Committee conducted a briefing--a classified briefing--for all of the members of the House. It was very clear then that many of them did not know about these programs or how they worked, including the former chairman of the committee Jim Sensenbrenner who was the chairman when these laws were written and myself. Obviously, some members were aware of this, but most were not. So it's important, I think, that we delve into this much more deeply. Since then we've held a public hearing on this. We brought that same panel that was involved with the classified briefing plus a panel that included civil libertarian experts. And now when we return in September we intend to hold another hearing, a classified hearing so we can dig deeply into the questions about how much this costs, what evidence-- information is being gathered and how these programs need to be changed to comply with the law.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Congressman, some members have actually said they thought that the-- the committees, the-- that have oversight on this have not been forthcoming to-- to members. That they have withheld some things like audits and things. The committee chairs deny that. But do you think that you've been getting the right kind of information on this?
REPRESENTATIVE BOBBY SCOTT: Well, part of the problem is that what they say they're entitled to. And you can't believe all of the leaks. I mean just because something has been leaked doesn't mean it's actually true. But getting all of the phone calls from all Americans in the United States under the guise of information relevant to an ongoing investigation involving foreign intelligence gets all phone calls. Well, that's to-- to me a real stretch. But the key--
BOB SCHIEFFER: But it's not the phone calls, it's-- it's the phone numbers.
REPRESENTATIVE BOBBY SCOTT: Well, yeah. And then they say it was just the numbers but it doesn't take much of an operation to put names on the numbers that-- you can go on the internet and start connecting names and numbers. But the question is, after you've gotten it, what do you do with it? There was a Supreme Court case a few weeks ago on DNA, that said that if you get-- if you're charged with a sex crime they got your DNA and they find out it's not you, they can keep the DNA and what's the first thing they are going to do, they're going to run it through the database to see if you've committed a crime. Now, they went up to you and said "Give me some DNA. We want to see if you've committed a crime." That would be legally laughable. But once they've got it, they can do with it what they want. Now they said they get all these phone records but they only query the information judiciously. Well, there is no-- I-- I can't find anything in the code that limits what they can do with that information, particularly in criminal investigations. And-- and so they say, well, they're not doing it. Well, I want to rephrase Ronald Reagan and say we should trust but codify. Put it in a code what they can do because they have virtually unlimited. And-- and then they said they-- they have promised us they're not using it for-- for criminal investigations. There's a leak, I don't know if it's true or not, that some of this information that they've gotten has been tipped off from the NSA. It has been sent over to the FBI. They, according to the leak, will invest-- will-- will use that leak to bust somebody. When they get the infor-- they tell the FBI to kind of fabricate some probable cause so it looks like it didn't from the NSA. They don't tell in response to queries from defense lawyers, they don't turn over the fact that it was an NSA situation, which-- which raises all kinds of questions. So we-- we-- we don't-- we don't know. But the question-- the real question is what can you do with the information after you've gotten it? And it seems that we've been told one thing, what they do, and that kind of fuzzyfies what the process is that they use and what the law restricts--
BOB SCHIEFFER: So what-- and what needs to be done here?
REPRESENTATIVE BOBBY SCOTT: Well-- well, one--
BOB SCHIEFFER: How serious a danger is this and what needs to be done?
REPRESENTATIVE BOBBY SCOTT: Well-- well, Bob, if you limit this discussion and you limit the use of what you get to terrorism you'd be having a different discussion than what you've got now.
REPRESENTATIVE BOB GOODLATTE: I think we need to have a very careful examination of this. I think that the trust of the American people in their government is what's at stake here. I met with the President recently, told him just that. There has been, in my opinion, not a good leadership here in terms of making the American people feel good about an intelligence organization which is necessary for the national security of the country at the same time protecting American civil liberties as the law is intended to do. So we need to have the classified briefing. We then are going to be seeing legislation introduced in our committee. I have absolutely no doubt about that. And we will then undertake that. Some of the things that are suggested are to make it clear that the law, Section 215, does not allow the government to gather large sums of data like they do. Also, we need to have more transparency in the FISA court system. Decisions are being made there not just on individual cases but on broader-based policy matters that are not being reviewed outside of the court and not readily available to the public or even most members of Congress. I had members of Congress complain to me about their inability to see some of those court decisions and I think that public's confidence can only be restored by making the system as transparent as possible given that it is an intelligence gathering operation. We're going to set out to do that in the Judiciary Committee.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Let me shift to immigration. Do either of you think there's going to be an immigration reform bill of substance during this session? I know you have a new approach you're talking about but what do you think chances are of getting something passed this time around?
REPRESENTATIVE BOB GOODLATTE: I think that there are good possibilities that we can reform what is a broken immigration system. We are a nation of immigrants. There's not a person watching your program who's a U.S. citizen who can't go back a few generations and find somebody who came to this country to better their lives for themselves and their family. We're also a nation of laws and we're not seeing the enforcement of our current immigration law. So enforcement has to take place first. And we have passed--
BOB SCHIEFFER: But you have to find out and figure out something to do with these eleven million people that are already here. Well, what are you going to do with them?
REPRESENTATIVE BOB GOODLATTE: Well, first, I think you have to assure that there's not going to be another wave of illegal immigration. That was the big criticism of the 1986 law. They gave an easy pathway to citizenship to nearly three million people. And then they said we are going to secure the border. We're going to have employer sanctions and so on and all of that has been very lightly enforced and in some instances not at all enforced by not just this President but by a series of Presidents. So you have got to again restore the trust in the American people by saying that the law is going to be enforced. And we need new laws on employment verification, on entry-exit visa system, on allowing state and local law enforcement to have a clear statutorily defined role, so that no one person, no one President can decide that I'm going to enforce the law or not going to enforce the law. It needs to have more trust. Then you are going to need legal immigration reforms and then, finally, we need to find the appropriate legal status for people who are not here.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Congressman, I'll give you the last word. Do you think there's a chance any of this can happen?
REPRESENTATIVE BOBBY SCOTT: I think Bob has outlined the-- the-- the agreement. It has to be comprehensive. You have to secure the borders, deal with the people that are here, and then deal with the people coming in on a rational basis. The bill that covered all those basis passed the Senate with almost seventy votes. We can do the same thing but I don't think you can do it piecemeal because people have different interests. Everybody's-- an overwhelming portion are willing to go with a comprehensive package but doing it piecemeal would be problematic.
REPRESENTATIVE BOB GOODLATTE: Step by step approach is the way to do it with enforcement coming first. And it's important to note that that Senate bill has the same flaws as the 1986 law. It gives a legal status and then it says we're going to do all of these enforcement measures after we give the legal status. And it has what I call a special pathway to citizenship, which people who have for generations lawfully immigrated to the United States do not get but if you came into the country illegally or overstayed your visa and are here illegally today you get something that those people don't have. That's wrong.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, I hope the two of you can figure it out.
REPRESENTATIVE BOB GOODLATTE: We're going to work together.
BOB SCHIEFFER: We'll see what happens. I'm glad to hear that.
We'll be back in a minute.
(ANNOUNCEMENTS)
BOB SCHIEFFER: Back now with our panel. Amy Walter is the national editor of the Cook Political Report. Kevin Madden was the top strategist for the Romney campaign. He's now a CNN political commentator. Bobby Ghosh is the TIME international editor. I think we need to start with Egypt, Bobby. I don't see any good news here.
BOBBY GHOSH (TIME): No, there is not. It's- and it's-- and it's getting worse, you know, depending on what numbers you believe, anywhere between a thousand and fifteen thousand people were killed-- thousand and fifteen hundred people were killed in Egypt last week. That's more than were-- were killed in Iraq. And that's really saying something.
BOB SCHIEFFER: What can or should the United States be doing here?
BOBBY GHOSH: I think time has come to suspend the aid. U.S. aid, as other people have said and you said earlier in the show that, it's a-- it's a very small carrot, a billion and a half dollars doesn't amount to very much these days. But removing it is a very big stick because it's--it's not just symbolic. If the U.S. freezes aid, international donors freeze aid. The EU very likely will follow. As Senator Graham said earlier, tourism dries up, foreign investors pull out. So we have-- that's leverage and that leverage is the only thing left now that the-- that the President can use and I think time has come for it to use.
BOB SCHIEFFER: I think we should not forget how that aid came to be. And it was part of the Camp David Accords. And what the Camp David Accords did, I mean, basically, I mean, Egypt said we'll recognize Israel.
BOBBY GHOSH: Yes.
BOB SCHIEFFER: They had been the main threat to Israel's security. If we take that aid away and somebody like the head of al Qaeda's brother comes into power in Egypt, what is that going to do for the security of Israel?
BOBBY GHOSH: Well, for one thing, you're absolutely right. This was-- this was something that was part of Camp David. But Egypt, Israel, the entire Middle East has changed quite substantially since then. Egypt is no longer the pivot on which the Middle East turns, there are lots of other important countries. Israel is much better at protecting itself than it was at-- at-- at Camp David and has demonstrated over again. And nobody, not even the Muslim Brotherhood, wants to mess with Israel. They all acknowledge and accept. Morsi did almost immediately as he became President promised to observe the Peace Treaty because everybody in Egypt understands that you mess with Israel and your country is going to turn into rubble. I think-- I think our concern for Israel's security is it's good for us to be concerned about it but we shouldn't allow us to do what needs to be done to try and move the needle in that situation. Right now a billion and a half dollars is not moving the needle.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Amy, what can the President do just-- from a political standpoint and domestic politics back here?
AMY WALTER (The Cook Political Report): Well, I think the situation in Egypt is just another reminder of the-- the lack of influence that this President has right now. And it's sort of-- I guess the word is lame duckness right, both internationally and domestically. You know whether it is on trying to get Congress to work to his liking on immigration, on tax reform, on a grand bargain, those things seem really like they have just absolutely faded away. The summer was supposed to be the time we are going to hear from constituents about immigration. There was going to be a movement afoot to move the Tea Party forward on getting a lot of the President's agenda going forward. I think we've heard really the exact opposite from-- from what's been happening out there. So the President's job right now is he's going to come back from vacation, he's going to go on another bus tour around the country, which is going to once again, not move the needle at all. And what we saw, I thought, here today between the two members of Congress on immigration is where we were long before the President left for vacation. Republicans saying it has to be piecemeal, Democrats saying it has to be a comprehensive process, and we're kind of back to square one.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, you know, Kevin, you were-- you were with the Romney campaign, we saw how the Romney campaign totally underestimated the minority vote, their turnout. I don't think there's any question that immigration hurt Governor Romney's campaign and their position. Can Republicans-- can the Republican Party sustain as a major party if it doesn't come up with some kind of stance that is appealing to Hispanics? The fastest-growing population of the United States.
KEVIN MADDEN (CNN Political Commentator/Republican Strategist): No, no. That-- that's-- the math is not on our side if we don't do a better job at engaging Latino voters. And I think the-- the-- the-- the-- the big struggle within the Republican Party is whether or not immigration is going to be the issue that's going to then all of a sudden have Latino voters look at Republicans differently. It's not. But it is an important first step in the process. Republicans right now, on our position on immigration, isn't mostly defined by what it is that we're against or just border security. And I think what's key for the Republican Party--if we are going to grow our influence within that growing sector of the electorate--is talking about what an aspirational immigration system looks like, what a modernized immigration system looks like, how that's consistent with Republican values of both border security, but also how we want to grow our economy and how we want to become, again, a welcoming nation. And-- and also making sure that, that is something that-- that these voters know that we're for, and that it's part of a growing effort to reach out to these voters, not only on economics but on health care, on education. And, again, we're the party of reform and ideas and I think that was one of the reasons that we struggled with that sector of the electorate this time around.
AMY WALTER: Yeah. The Republicans have been a party of no for so long that nobody really knows what they stand for. They've never been-- there's not been a positive message.
KEVIN MADDEN: Well, we-- when we flourished, when've been a party of ideas and reform.
AMY WALTER: But it's been a long since--
KEVIN MADDEN: But I think what-- what happened was in 2010, the party again flourished at the polls because we were a party of no that had aligned itself with an electorate of no. But that was against spending. It was against--
AMY WALTER: Yeah.
KEVIN MADDEN: --growth of government. But, again, we have to look-- we-- everybody recognizes that we need immigration reform. We differ on the details, but we have to, again--
BOB SCHIEFFER: But now, there seems to be a difference in-- in Republicans at the national level and-- and members of Congress where, you know, national leaders say, look, we got to find something--
AMY WALTER: Right.
BOB SCHIEFFER: --that appeals to Hispanics--
KEVIN MADDEN: Yeah. That--
BOB SCHIEFFER: --if we're ever going to elect a Republican President, but you have local Congressmen who-- most of whom don't have Hispanics in their district. And they say, look, if I vote for immigration reform, all I'm going to do is get myself a primary opponent. This is not going to help me at all.
KEVIN MADDEN: Right. And-- and that I think is one-- one of the big problems that we-- we're going to have. And it's a challenge we have to overcome is only looking at the first five yards in front of us versus looking at the hundred yards and how do we get a touchdown, right? So, I think, that's something that you saw actually emerge from the RNC meeting this year I think-- that we just had in Boston recently. You have, essentially-- where our-- where is the Republican Party doing the best right now? We're doing the best with governors out in states. What are they focused on? They are focused on government reform, education reform. They're focused on spending, growing their local economy. So I think what you're going to have is a breakdown over the next two years over the-- the doers--which are these executives around the country, those that are interested in making public policy work. And then the thinkers, the ones that want to argue the theory of-- of-- of politics, the theory of ideology in Washington, DC. And that, I think is much more of a versus-- I think it's a-- it's a-- it's one of the-- the-- the partisan sort of battle lines that I think-- not partisan battle lines but one of the fault lines that's going to emerge as part of who we choose as a nominee in 2016.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Let's talk a little bit about the National Security Agency. I mean this thing, it becomes more complicated. Sometimes you don't know who to believe in all of this. Where do you see this going?
BOBBY GHOSH: Well, the-- every-- every week there's a-- there's a new report that sort of completely-- that says that everything we knew before was-- was wrong or a great deal of what. I mean-- I mean, I-- I hate to quote Rumsfeld here, but this-- this has now become a case of unknown unknowns. And-- and that is a-- that is a real concern and-- and, you know, the-- the-- this argument that you can and should listen in on every conversation just-- just on the off chance that you might listen in on the-- catch the one that will lead to something is-- is deeply flawed, and this is not the first time we've come. We've been having this argument since the beginning of telephones, since the beginning of mail, practically. And it has never been true. And I don't see how and why it should be true now when the amounts of data are exponentially larger.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Is this a political issue? Do people care? I have people decided maybe privacy is not what it used to be.
AMY WALTER: I mean it-- it goes to a big-- the bigger question is who do they trust to have this information. We all know. Every time we go to the grocery store and scan our little, you know--
BOB SCHIEFFER: Sure.
AMY WALTER: --whatever reward thing, they know exactly what I eat everyday. They know when I come to the store. They-- people have a lot of-- they have information about me. It's a question about who you trust with that information. And right now it's that the-- the respect for government. It's as low as it's been in, if not, forever in a very, very long time. That's where it becomes a political issue and that's where this decentralization--
KEVIN MADDEN: Mm-Hm.
AMY WALTER: --that Kevin was talking about--about who do you want to have access to this information--a governor who you know is looking out for your best interests or this big entity, the government, that you don't really know what their motives will be and an incredibly polarized Washington that may use this for political purposes.
KEVIN MADDEN: Yeah.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Do you see this playing a role in the next presidential election or being--
KEVIN MADDEN: Well, I-- I-- I--
BOB SCHIEFFER: --or even in the one next year?
KEVIN MADDEN: --I think it will because, I think, you're going to have questions about where you stand on national security and the balance between security and privacy. What I found very interesting about this current debate is that it hasn't broken along the-- the usual traditional party lines here in Washington, DC. You have essentially bipartisan coalitions on both sides of the issue. I think that the-- the Chairman Goodlatte made a good point, though, that the key right now for both the President and the Congress, as they work through some of these changes is being able to restore the American public's confidence in these programs because the execution of it right now has been what I think has undermined a lot of people's confidence in it is that-- it's-- again, it's a big government entity that is inefficient and now they need to do a better job of showing that they are efficient that they're not-- they-- they're not abusing some of the powers that have been given to them.
AMY WALTER: But I will be very curious to see when a-- if a Republican President is elected in the next election, where the fault lines are going to go. What we've seen is that Democrats much more accepting of this than of this sort of policy than they were when Bush was President, Republicans much less accepting. So who the President is determines in many ways where people line up on whether they support or whether they're feeling sort of nervous or antagonistic about it.
BOB SCHIEFFER: We have a few seconds left. Who do you-- each of you think is going to be the nominee for the two parties next year?
KEVIN MADDEN: Oh, gosh--
AMY WALTER: Really.
KEVIN MADDEN: --that is tough.
AMY WALTER: I mean everybody has to be-- you want to say Hillary Clinton, you have to say Hillary Clinton on the Democratic side, although, I wouldn't want to label the front-runner this far ahead of time. It doesn't usually work out well for the front-runner. On the Republican side, I think Kevin is on to something. I think it's more likely we'll see a governor than we'll see a senator.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Will that be Chris Christie?
KEVIN MADDEN: I-- I think Chris Christie is one. You know there's always somebody that makes a splash in the party that nobody is talking about right now. I think the person to watch there is Governor Scott Walker--
AMY WALTER: Yeah.
KEVIN MADDEN: --out of Wisconsin.
BOB SCHIEFFER: All right. Well, thanks to all of you.
AMY WALTER: Thank you.
BOB SCHIEFFER: This has been a lot of fun. We'll be right back.
(ANNOUNCEMENTS)
BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, that is all the time we have for today. We hope you'll tune in tomorrow to CBS THIS MORNING for the latest on the situation in Egypt. I'll see you all next week on the CBS EVENING NEWS. And next Sunday, a very special broadcast on FACE THE NATION. We'll be talking about the fiftieth anniversary of Martin Luther King Junior's, "I have a dream," speech and the march on Washington. Our special guests will include former Secretary of State Colin Powell and the legendary civil rights advocate, the last living person who spoke along with Martin Luther King, Georgia Congressman John Lewis. He was there with him. He'll be with us next Sunday. We hope you'll join us. We'll see you then.