tv Washington Journal CSPAN February 27, 2016 12:15am-12:45am EST
can voice our opinion. >> on fridays at washington journal, we talked to congressman doug collins, republican of of georgia. topics included the fbi's lawsuit against apple, the supreme court vacancy, the 2016 presidential 16 presidential race. this is 30 minutes. >> doug collins, member of the judiciary committee in the house, you have a big hearing coming up next week on apple encryption and the fbi. where do you currently stand on that issue? >> guest: i think this is going to become a defining issue in the next little bit. we've had a classified hearing the judiciary. i don't -- i think we can be a slippery slope. i think apple is fighting book, i think they should be fighting back because
word is a start and where does it stop. i think the question is not just a one off. it's not just simply saying can apple give me this phone adjust this information but where do we really start stop the conversation. it doesn't need to be handled in a court but it doesn't need to be between the department of justice and apple. we need to solve it on capitol hill in congress on what this issue is and how we are looking best to protect the country. i served in iraq, bent over see, i understand the terrorist threat that we are in. also there is very much a concern here that the government is forcing someone to do something, not to stop something, essentially they're saying you will give us away in. almost like saying there's a skeleton key for everybody's house. a measure that's where we want to go here. is there a balance?
yes. but yes. but it does not to be struck in the courts. it needs to be on capitol hill. >> host: fbi director spoke on capitol hill yesterday and i want to to respond to his argument. >> this case in all cases are very important but there's a broader policy question that is far larger than any individual case that we have to grapple with. first i think the answer would best come from a technical expert and a good lawyer, i am neither of those. i will i will take a shot at it. i do think it is potentially, whatever the judges decision in california is, sure it will be appealed the matter how it ends up. i think it will be instructive for other courts and there will be other cases that involve the same kind of phone in the same operating system. what the experts have told me is the combination, here's where i'm going to get out of my death, of the 5c in this particular operating system is unusual and
it is unlikely to be a trailblazer because of technology being the limiting principle. a decision by the judge weighing in brooklyn right now all of those will guide how other courts handle similar requests. >> guest: i think the reason i have the concern i have. there talk about a judge in california, judge in new york, and from and from other areas. do we really want to take an issue in which most people carry the iphone or data phone, no matter the manufacture. do we want to leave that up to multiple jurisdictions of how we man to that question. in this case they make a compelling case and it's one fun of a dead terrorist and say we're going to take this one fall. but if you get court order for them to do that without phone what is court order for the next thing they want to do? that's the concern we need to look into. and that's exactly why i disagree with the fbi director here why believe intentions are good but i have a healthy skepticism on the privacy aspect
specially with national security interest is the reason we need to make an exception here. >> host: this is from the hill this morning. how's how's conservative leaders want to break the spending deal. it seems to be quite a bit of talk about a budget resolution and whether not the republicans can pass one. >> guest: it will be an interesting time. i for one voted against the deal that raised, we have to get up to priority spending. something i talked about since i've been elected. we are not in not into prior to spending. we simply are looking at ideas and we have to manufacture, we have 80% of our budget we don't touch with it, this medicare, medicaid, it's driving the smaller percentage of our discretionary spending. we've done a good job with discretionary spending levels.
the depths have come down, it's not where i wanted to be. the question is now are we going to make a conscious decision that many republicans voted against in october to do this. now we are saying is this way we want to go forward. i think it is going to be hard lift. >> host: how is paul ryan doing in your view. >> i think he's doing what he said he was going to do. he has been working with individuals, with different members, what he make a decision i would've made no. but he never said he would. we now have members who were openly critical of previous speakers who serve on the committee. anyone who thinks the speakers the same as last, just look at some of the things that happen in the inclusive nature, i serve all on the -- i think were seen better debate. >> host: yesterday in the new york times was an article about the house and about paul ryan. i don't know if you've sought.
i'm going to sum it up and i will be incorrect but i hope i get it right. essentially paul ryan is trying to develop a conservative platform and use the house as the model, the senate is not it's more of a plane a little bit a small ball here. as the congress going to be relevant this year and the political debate? >> i wanted to be. i don't leave my kids and my wife back home and come here to go through the motions. i like the fact that we are looking at an agenda. election your politics from presidential or other kinds are going to affect our debate process. but you look at from a conservative perspective you take any major issue in this country over the last two or three years, the house has taken it up to do so many times we it to the senate but they want to
discuss the filibuster issue they would ask a question and here's what we passed on it. they said they went to the senate and they can get to the vote. the senate in an election year, we didn't catch up on anybody here. the american people people and you can see it in presidential race there simply saying fight for what matters, pfeiffer regulatory burdens, let's get up and go to work in my government be the government. we don't have those kind of conversations here and start moving those that i think were seen them discuss that. >> host: you originally quoted scott walker for president who are you supporting now.
>> guest: after scott walker left the race, we have ours coming up with that process i think ted cruz has a good message and we grew on a lot of things. marco rubio is a consolidated message i think. donald trump is presenting what a lot of people feel. i would like to see more specifics than is going to be great. at the same point in time he gives a voice to america which i think is concern to many in our field. i think the interesting part of this is you have folks who have built solid conservative resumes for many years in which we were in an environment which people i got so frustrated that they do not feel like those past accomplishments matter. >> host: representative doug collins is also reverend ed collins. you served served as
senior pastor at the chicopee baptist church. >> guest: it's outside of gainesville georgia. >> host: we have only 20 minutes left with our guest so we want to get your phone calls. a lot of topics, congressional, political whatever you want to talk to the congressman about. smitty in about. smitty and arizona on a republican mine. >> caller: hello c-span. i'm making use of my monthly call because i think i have something very important to say to the congressman. i know the congressman does not have all lot to do with picking the supreme court judge but the democrats are getting ready to viciously attack because they would not take up obama when he brings one up. what i think you need to do is make it simple for folks, tell them that tell them you are invoking the biden doctrine and the schumer doctrine on not picking a supreme court justice as a
president is finishing up his term. people can understand that it is the same thing that the democrats were doing six and ten years ago. now they want to accuse republicans of screwing up by not doing it. >> host: i think we got the point. >> guest: i think smitty and i agree it really highlights. the biden doctrine reflect something, we, on our side have you this president on a multitude of issues. in an election year why would we see anything less. i think that takes the element that biden and schumer talked about a political your appointment to a court in which we are now looking at is changing and would really change the landscape of the next 20-50 years. for me i think i support the senate. they're going going to hold up on this but i think they
need to look at how the political season is panning out. we'll see how it works out from here. i think the president should nominate someone. i think they'll be a clear distinction on what the democratic ministration is. >> host: you think he should nomination someone. >> guest: i i think he has to it's his own constitutional right to do so. >> host: st. paul minnesota, democrat. >> caller: what i would like to say is, we're talking about national defense with the phone. i also wonder why they're so much interest put on this particular phone, it's been on the news all this time, those
people are not just walking around with these phones in their pockets two or three months later. another thing if we're talking about national defense and we should be addressing more educated are young so that they can keep up with all of these high-tech weaponry's that we are building. if. if we are going to start aliens to only come in with her education, that is discrimination. we need to spend less on building bombs, iron bombs and put it into people who are going to operate these systems undo infrastructure with the pipes. i saw yesterday with the water pipes. that is national security. when security. when you do not have good water, your electrical grid is faulty, this is absolutely ridiculous. >> host: okay anthony a lot of topics on the table. >> guest: what's interesting is the interest in this phone is the very public case going on for a while. this is been discussed behind
classified hearings. been talking about the issue of encryption, it's not new, the the law-enforcement community have felt that this is something that is something they want to get fixed. the phone in this case becomes the focal point. so it's not just particularly this wonder what it may offer, i think the reason i and the reason i many others are skeptical in this case is that is not just this one. it's the precedent going forward. i don't don't think it's about apples brand or other issues, those are issues in the business the marketplace. the bigger question is privacy. holding that privacy and how we access information. we need to continue to grow our stem education as we continue to move forward. the phone thing here is the object if you would for the whole debate.
>> host: part of the debate last night in houston was about insurance, health insurance and interstate, if you are able to sell insurance over state lines. should that happen? spee2. >> guest: yes. >> host: why doesn't it? >> guest: mainly because of the insurance industry in the way it was set up to sell insurance and how it would deal with different markets. in georgia georgia we do with the private and state legislation and pass it to allow others to sell it. i think is part part of the conference a plan to be looked at. it's one thing to cross state lines we need a patient centered approach to deal with our healthcare system. we need the access and terminology that say here's what opening and expanding the markets. at the same time we get called up on the issues. would think movie forward is there some of us continue to
look at alternatives and how we can make it a more competitive market so we can a large and so people can get affordable health insurance. in my district which is very rule folks have access to healthcare issues, what were finding is even some who have a lawyer premium but they have a low monthly rate but then their co-pays and deductibles are out of reach. it's really a false promise. they they get a policy at they cannot afford to go through with the policy of the deductibles and co-pays are too high. >> .. k that is a step we can easily take. host: .. the representative reverend collins is also a lawyer. we have a call on the independent line from wisconsin. caller: good morning. you know, it is so interesting now about apple and the phone.
called the first 48, and authorities always get search warrant's to go through these people's phones, you know, suspects or whatever. ism not understanding why it so difficult to just do what they normally do. get a search warrant and go through these people's phones. you know, is this some kind of special phone that is exempt from the search warrants? i am just not understanding. frankly, as far as i am concerned, apple really said just go ahead and do with the do, becauseants to our privacy is already, you know, out the window. host: all right, we get the point. guest: if the phone was yours, would you want them to look into your phone just one time? i am not sure. the issue is not the process that law enforcement went through, it is the fact that the
encryption in the phone cannot be unlocked. apple does not have the "backdoor." that is what is being discussed. is there a way that they could go in under the encryption and get what is being asked for? it needs to be held up here in congress. what is the rights of companies and the balance of national security? that is what congress is supposed to be doing. he wrote question here is, again, maybe this phone is not attached to you, but the next question is, when is the next warrant going to be to your phone that is encrypted and you do not know it was there? host: we have a tweet -- i do not want your unhealthy state of georgia buying health insurance in iowa and forcing up my costs. guest: i appreciate accurate he is welcome to come down anytime
and visit the great state of georgia. host: jackson, tennessee, democrat line. doug,: yes, reverend congressman. my concern about the same-sex marriage case and the ruling of that, and if you really take a real look at that from the perspective of chief justice roberts saying it had nothing to do with the constitution. justice alito said dealing -- the question now is whether or not congress should actually deal with the rule of law. justice scalia pointed out that no social transformation without representation -- they questioned the constitutionality of that decision and also the fitness of the supreme court to deal with the rule of law.
so what really needs to take place is to address what is going on within the supreme thet itself, because until supreme court is in the position to actually address the rule of law, then they cannot carry out the responsibility of the supreme court. host: thank you. guest: he hits on something that a lot of people are concerned about and have been in many cases, the actual undertaking in the supreme court and the rules that have come out and then the balance between, which seems to state, andimes to a at times it takes the backdoor settlement. it is interesting. the reason why the next supreme court choice is a crucial in the history of our country, because it will determine on many issues how states and how they federal government interact with each other. he has hit on that sort of black box, if you would, of when they get together and decide their cases, what is being put into it
and what is not being put into it, who is having the arguments made, and it also of the damage in a moment ago. oning on court, ruling constitution, ruling on law, or is it ruling on preference? if you have multiple rulings out there, especially now witha 4-4 quart, they will hold. host: the syria cease-fire is supposed to take effect tonight. guest: we will see. i think the issue there is not only syria but the weak application from this administration, and we have now had russia come in, someone who served in iraq. we have isis leading over into iraq. ,e have the kurdish fighters which i think need to be armed and we need to help more and give them the tools they need to fight. there are concerns in the region
about that, but we can begin to work. , this is notnot something we can bomb our way out of. there will be times we have to make the call that bombing works, but when you are dealing with three or four people they gather themselves in civilian groups, our country would never support a mass bombing of civilians and terrorists in the same place. the question is, how do we take groups from us and others in the arab world that have a direct impact on this and begin to solve it? we will see how long this cease-fire lasts, but i am not sure it will last very long. host: rochester, new york, independent line. caller: about the apple telephone controversy, what bothers me is whatever power the government gets, at some point, they always of use it. i was reading an article the other day about the u.s. 6000als secretly tracking cell phones. i am also tired of government trying to manipulate us and
making as constantly afraid. then these technologies go down to the local police level, and god knows what they are doing. guest: it is. and before people out there said to could care less about national security, i will remind them that i am still in the air force. a father that was a state trooper, too. balance, and good police work has always run up against the next technological problem. they have always found ways to do the work and do the job. are we getting into something much more difficult here with encryption that we never would have had 15 to 20 years ago even? yes. but the interesting thing here is, what is that next step? i have yet to have the fbi director, who says this is isolated and unique, every time i hear this is just the first step, on many of these issues
you see is liberally -- a slippery slope. host: you have the general counsel of apple coming to the hearing next week. who else? of thethe fbi director general counsel, and i think we have some other experts in the field. host: c-span will be covering that hearing. daniel is in baltimore, republican line. caller: hello, thank you for allowing me to be on. representative collins, thank you for your continued service. we are talking about the government. i think the american people, at least this american people, and i have served 24 years, and when we see the government not play the same game with themselves as they do us, it is kind of making us unhappy. hillary clinton as a good example. why 45% to 50% of the american people are supporting someone that has given up so many
classified documents -- you know , even one i do document, you are in trouble. another thing i would like to say real quickly is we have got five candidates out there, and it is kind of scary. guest: i want to go back to one thing you said. as someone who has been around classified information, and we get trained on it in the military all the time, the revelations of classified game.al, she runs her own hillary should suspend her presidential campaign viewed the fbi should get direct answers, and they should get this solved. for most of us that deal with this, i have gotten e-mail after e-mail from friends in the military, and they say there is no way you do not know that that is something that should not be on a nonsecure account. for her to continually say this
is no big deal and this is a witchhunt, that is doing a great disservice to this country and to those who properly work with our security and properly understand that there are positions that you have been interested with homage of handle information that has very few eyes upon it. frankly, she should stop what she is doing. being president may be her goal, but she owes it to the american people to answer for what she did. she needs to solve it now. host: baltimore, independent line. hello. wasi, -- hi, i was going to address the question to the congressman about hillary clinton, but you said it much more cogently than i could have. but i would like to make a wantingt about the fbi the information on the apple
iphone. agents hundreds of fbi to whatthe equivalent the brits had in world war ii, and when they want to get access to a complex code, if they cannot break it, we should just retire them all and save a whole lot of money and just ask apple to come up with that particular piece of information that they need out of that phone, if that is possible. if not, look, we have to have some downside risk. i am living in a free country. i am a world war ii veteran. i am 88. and i think i understand the problem. and i was so happy that the congressman is so cogent on this point. thank you. guest: it is not everyday i get
to talk to a world war ii veteran. thank you so much for your service and what you meant to our country. the question here is not -- again, so many times we want the bumper sticker answer in our world, the easy one. one-off,imply not a not something that you can get in a room and sold with one company. we have multiple companies who have encryption. i know some other tech industries are beginning to weigh in. know, i try is, you to keep things simple sometimes. and this is not a simple topic. it is like a children's book, if you give a mouse a cookie, next thing, they will want a glass of milk. in this case, you're dealing with millions of transactions and lives. host: part of the discussion , does itis phone is have to be a master key?
do you know? can they unlock just this phone? guest: according to apple, they cannot. they said it is not builds in. there have been interesting discussions from apple. when you start saying, if we could or if we did, then i am saying, ok, there may be a pathway to get into it. so that tells me, even if you gave it to -- somebody once said give it to apple and just let apple have it and give us only the information we want. but this is a dead terrorist, a dead phone. we can gety, well, this anyway. but what about the next alive person who may or may not be rightfully accused? then they will say, well, we just have one more. again, i understand security risks. bet is something that has to balanced. the question is, is there a