Transcripts

text | pdf |

---

SPEAKER 1: Cloudy tomorrow. Chance of rain again in the morning then more likely in the afternoon. Highs in the lower 70s. And more rain coming in on Wednesday with cooler temperatures. Highs in the upper 50s. Chance of rain, 60% through the next couple of days. Dries out on Thursday, mid-60s. Mostly sunny on Friday, highs in the upper 60s. 70 now.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

STEVEN JOHN: This is MPR News Presents with a live update from the state capital just ahead. We'll also feature Democratic Congressman Tim Walz speaking about the debate over the use of drones. Who decides how and where unmanned aerial drones are used? Walz says it's crucial that Congress weigh in on national security and civil liberties concerns. The use of drones on and off the battlefield coming up after the latest news.

LAKSHMI SINGH: From NPR News in Washington, I'm Lakshmi Singh. Oklahoma authorities are confirming a second death from a tornado that tore through a mobile home park yesterday. It was one of several suspected twisters to strike the central US in storms that also generated hail, heavy rain, and floods. Michael Cross of member station KOSU in Oklahoma City says hundreds of homes and businesses were damaged or destroyed.

MICHAEL CROSS: The National Weather Service expects the storms to pop up along the I-44 corridor, which splits Oklahoma diagonally from the northeast corner down to the southwest. Meteorologist Ryan Barnes says the atmosphere is adding the perfect ingredients for storms to start around the Oklahoma City metro area.

RYAN BARNES: There's going to be a cold front that stalls across the area becoming a stationary front along the I-44 corridor, and a very low pressure that's going to be sitting near the metro and just southwest of the metro.

MICHAEL CROSS: Tornadoes on Sunday threw a tractor trailer off an overpass near Shawnee and destroyed a trailer park, killing one man and injuring more than 20 across the state. Oklahoma Governor, Mary Fallin, has declared a state of emergency for 16 counties hit hard by Sunday's storms. For NPR News, I'm Michael Cross in Oklahoma City.

LAKSHMI SINGH: Yahoo is acquiring online blogging forum, Tumblr, for just over a billion dollars cash. It's being widely described as a bold move by CEO Marissa Mayer to breathe new life into the struggling internet giant. Responding to concerns that Tumblr could become more corporate, Mayer told analysts today that she promises to do her best to, in her words, not screw it up.

But some industry observers have their doubts. Zachary Reiss-Davis, Infotech Analyst for Forrester Research, says Yahoo faces one big problem, Tumblr is not yet profitable.

ZACHARY REISS-DAVIS: Yahoo has a big challenge ahead of it because it needs to figure out how to keep the current Tumblr user base while at the same time adding monetization with ads and premium features, and that's going to be a really difficult balancing act.

LAKSHMI SINGH: Tumblr's founder will remain in control. Two car bombs exploded today in the southern Russian region of Dagestan, killing, at least, two people. NPR's Corey Flintoff reports the blast occurred in a city that was visited last year by Boston bombing suspect, Tamerlan Tsarnaev.

COREY FLINTOFF: Investigators probing the Boston Marathon bombings are trying to find out whether Tsarnaev had contact with Islamist insurgents who've been fighting the Russian government in Dagestan. Police in the capital city, Makhachkala, say one car bomb went off without hurting anyone, but the second detonated after emergency personnel had reached the scene.

Violence between police and rebels takes lives nearly every week in Dagestan, which marks Russia's southernmost border. And the parents of the Boston bombing suspects currently live in the republic. Corey Flintoff, NPR News, Moscow.

LAKSHMI SINGH: Dow is up 12 points. This is NPR.

SPEAKER 2: Support for news comes from the Ford Foundation, working with visionaries on the front lines of social change worldwide at fordfoundation.org.

STEVEN JOHN: From Minnesota Public Radio news, I'm Steven John. The storm system that spawned a deadly tornado outbreak in the nation's midsection over the weekend brought strong winds and heavy rains to parts of Minnesota. Trees were uprooted, roads were flooded, and some structural damage was reported in Southeastern Minnesota yesterday.

Some schools were delayed this morning because of flooding, including LeRoy-Ostrander and Southland public schools. In Mower County, part of Jellystone Campground was flooded with campers surrounded by water. Both the House and Senate have gaveled to order for this last day of the regular legislative session.

Over the weekend, the Minnesota House passed a DFL-backed bill that increases taxes by $2 billion. The measure raises income taxes on top earners. It also increases cigarette taxes and applies the sales tax to some business services. The money raised will erase the state's budget deficit and be spent on schools, colleges, nursing homes, and property tax relief.

Republicans called the bill a job killer, but DFL Representative, Tina Liebling, of Rochester said the bill will actually create jobs. Liebling says that's because it includes money to help her city handle a proposed expansion by the Mayo Clinic.

TINA LIEBLING: So, members, this is a tax bill that has more jobs in it than any bill I've seen in this house in the nine years I've been here.

STEVEN JOHN: The Senate still has to pass the tax bill, a number of other items await votes before tonight's midnight deadline. Passengers aboard a Jefferson Lines bus headed from Minneapolis to Montana escaped unharmed when the bus caught fire in northwestern North Dakota. The flames engulfed the bus near Williston last night. A Jefferson Lines spokesman says 20 people on board got off safely, though the bus likely is destroyed. There's no word on what caused the fire.

Flood watch continuing for the northeast, central, and southeastern parts of the state this evening for some, perhaps, more rain on saturated soils. This is Minnesota Public Radio news.

SPEAKER 3: Support for this program comes from the applied doctor of business administration degree program at Metropolitan State University's College of Management. There is an information session May 23 to learn more. Details at metrostate.edu/dba.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

STEVEN JOHN: Welcome to MPR News Presents, I'm Steven John. Still to come this hour, we're going to go live to the State Capitol and get a report on the last day of the regular legislative session, so stay tuned for that.

In the meantime, we're going to serve up a recent question and answer, our featured speaker is first district Congressman Tim Walz. He spoke about the controversy over drones. And let's move on to that now with the first district Congressman speaking about military strategy, US foreign policy. And it was held at the University of Minnesota recently.

Before going to Congress in 2007, Tim Walz was a teacher at Mankato West High school and a coach. At the age of 17, he enlisted in the Army National Guard and retired 24 years later as a Command Sergeant Major. Tim Walz served overseas as part of Operation Enduring Freedom, and is the highest-ranking enlisted soldier ever to serve in Congress.

When back in Minnesota earlier this month, he was invited to speak at the University of Minnesota's Humphrey School of Public Affairs about Congressional oversight of the use of drones, moral authority around the world, and the conflicts between national security and civil liberties. Congressman Walz was interviewed by Professor Larry Jacobs, Director of the Center for the Study of Politics and Governance.

LARRY JACOBS: I think you have this unique perspective because you have been a soldier. And there are some very concrete issues here, and I appreciate the fact that the way you frame this is as, it's not a yes or a no.

We are faced, and maybe you'll disagree with this, but we are faced with a different kind of battle in which you've got individuals and groups who mean harm to the United States and our allies and to US soldiers, who work very effectively in civilian populations, engage in suicide operations that don't have state sponsors. So it's not a matter of just finding, who's the enemy, it's very difficult.

And we're faced with a situation in which, for a whole lot of reasons, the cost of civilian casualties in a battlefield situation is very costly to our missions. Does that strike you as an environment in which drones, whatever their limitations are, we're going to get into them, but in the battlefield, that drones have a particularly important role to play?

TIM WALZ: Well, I think they do. And I think a lot of you know that a lot of the drone program as you see it today was the brainchild of General McChrystal and his focus on counterinsurgency. I think they have-- and as I said, again, as a soldier, anything that provides an advantage at the time is something that you want. I do think they provide an incredible breakthrough in gathering data.

One of the things is, in decision making, any decision making, you want to gather all the data you possibly can. And they are an incredible data gathering tool that you can use. Again, though, just like so many things, it's what we do, then, with that tool or with that knowledge.

But certainly, this is hard for me. If we're going to send, whether you agree with the mission or not, but if it's a decision that's made, and, of course, that's a whole other topic on war powers, but if this nation sends military women and men into combat, I certainly want to make sure they're there with the best Kevlar vests, the best weaponry, and the best technology possible to keep them safe and complete their missions.

I guess the issue that comes up, and this is when we open it up to the questions is, is the moral usage of those drones as they're armed, and who makes the decision to free the weapon and to send it, how are we targeting those people? What are the checks and balances?

LARRY JACOBS: Well, let's get into those issues. And I invite people to submit questions, we'll get to them. Congressman, when you look at American law and international law, there's very strong grounds for the idea of self-defense and for each country taking action to prevent imminent threats to themselves and to other countries. You look in the UN charter, Section 51, Article 51, it's right there.

Here's the concern or some of the concerns that I think people are raising about the use of drones in other countries. One is that we're now starting to see drones used outside of active battlefields. And so the situation that you mentioned of you've got an American soldier, let's say, in Afghanistan, who is being supported by drones, now we're seeing situations in which drones are being used in Yemen, in Somalia, elsewhere.

We're seeing drones being used in parts of Pakistan where we don't have soldiers. And according to media reports, these drones are being used really to sort out disputes among different tribal groups and the government. So it's that mission creep, and that's part of-- it's one of the concerns that we seem to have drifted away from American law and international law.

TIM WALZ: Yeah. And I think the use of mission creep is exactly right, and I think it's almost inevitable. I think it's almost inevitable with an executive branch to move towards that. There are numerous examples on all sides of the political spectrum of where that's happened. That's why it makes it more critical than ever that Congress, by virtue of the American Public, be speaking out where their concerns are on this.

And I think people want a clear-cut definition. I think they want to know, who are we targeting? How many of them have been targeted? How are you making these? Now, some of these things are confidential information. Others have to be given to the American public or certainly to members of Congress to be able to make good decisions. And quite honestly, that is not happening. And most members of Congress, I think, are very uninformed about it.

And the thing I would mention about this that, while I do think we need to clarify it, we do need to operate, obviously, inside of international law as well as ethical and moral standards that our country has set. I think any time you talk conflict or using the military as a way to move our will, there are numerous other tools we can do that with. We can do it with our moral authority. We can do it with economics. We can do it with the sanctions, whatever it might be.

I think the thing to keep in mind here is that there is a real negative side in terms of, internationally, of the use of drones, of how people view us. And I think those need to be taken into consideration how you're using them and how you're seen. And I do think I am very, very uncomfortable as a member of Congress, and I think every member of Congress, I would hope they do, tries to protect the first branch of government, Article I, in its balanced role against the executive branch.

I think when we gave that up, which I believe we did to a certain degree after 9/11, we've been scrambling to get it back, but in our diminished role, we're having a hard time convincing the American public to give us that. And I think that void is what's allowing some of this to happen where we're not speaking to the clarity of it, how is this legal to use this here?

Because the easy answer, then, and in many cases I say this not, again, pejoratively, it may be true, is, all you have to tell the American public is that we prevented a terrorist attack by doing this, and that somehow justifies the use of it.

Now, I'll be the first to tell you, we need to do everything possible to prevent those attacks in any way, but the role where we're diminished, where the government itself is some trust issues in there, I think a lot of people are saying, how do we know that's true? How do we know that's the case? And that's dangerous.

LARRY JACOBS: You mentioned how drones and other sorts of weapons can be an asset to American troops in the field of combat, and that you support that. Are you concerned that drones may actually be increasing threats to American troops because of the backlash?

We've heard, for instance, that in Pakistan and in Yemen and in other countries where the US has used drones, it's stirred up so much virulent hatred for America that it's become a recruiting tool for extremist groups to then attack us and our forces.

TIM WALZ: I certainly think it's possible. The only thing I would say is that, a lot of these folks, they pretty much hate us anyway, and they pretty much have other reasons to do so. But I don't underestimate the civilian population that they're trying to recruit from, the impact that it has on them psychologically.

I think the sense of terror that comes with this-- and I think that's why people don't use the term drone. And whether it's a Hollywood version or the real version of what a predator can do, there's a real sense of, these things are terrifying instruments of war, as all are. But, yes, I do think that that's a legitimate concern, and I do think about it.

I think that's why the judicious use of them and the rule of law and the clarity of that we're doing, if we leave it as, we're not going to tell you what we're doing, Congress isn't going to provide oversight, it's just happening, that's going to breed this type of fear, frustration, and hatred that can come with that.

LARRY JACOBS: There was a set of stories that have started to come out about American allies and rivals preparing their own drone forces.

TIM WALZ: Yeah.

LARRY JACOBS: There was talk that China was seriously considering a drone strike against a drug runner in a neighboring country. Obviously, Russia has got its national security concerns. How well-positioned do you think America is to respond when we wake up some morning to read that China has used a drone missile against one of the Uyghur groups that I know you've studied because of your experience in China.

TIM WALZ: Well, I think it's inevitable that they will happen. The question is that I think we're very ill-prepared. Not on the technology side of things. We'll know their capability. We'll know what they'll be able to do. I think we're ill-prepared to deal with, of course, the ethical and moral implications of what's going to happen.

It is, to me, absolutely inevitable that there will be much more drone usage. And because you can go on the Apple Store and buy one, because you can ramp that technology up very quickly is any state or nonstate actor is going to be able to have access to these things very quickly. And so it sets that moral imperative of how these things are used.

And I know there's a school of thought out there that says drones should be viewed as nuclear weapons. They're never used. The thought of it is so deplorable that that's what we want to get to. The only thing I question about that is that I do think there are legitimate security uses. I think there are legitimate civilian uses of this. I just think we need to clarify that.

But, no, I think we're ill-prepared emotionally, ethically, morally to deal with what's going to happen. And that's why I say thank you for this conversation. We better get ready because it will happen. It is only inevitable.

LARRY JACOBS: So you've talked, I think, quite a bit about the need for greater transparency in Congress. Could you be a little more specific? We've got several questions here really asking what you can do and specifically what Congress can do to bring greater transparency to play a greater role in how the executive branch is--

TIM WALZ: Well, it's back to those, basically, the six means that we have at our disposal. It's going to be inevitable that the executive branch is going to lead on most foreign policies or these types of things. We can certainly ask for legislative directive on the use of drones, especially domestically, and we can ask internationally on this of how those things are going to be done, what are the mechanisms in place.

We can actually talk funding to a certain degree, but that's somewhat fungible when we actually don't know what the Pentagon's budget is or how they're using it. That's a bit of a problem if you don't know. So that's one thing.

The other thing we can do is, I think, this is where we shouldn't-- and, again, I'm frustrated with the diminished role of Congress, not because I'm in it, because I think skepticism of government is healthy. Cynicism is dangerous. We're at the cynicism stage in many cases, where we don't have the authority to bring up this conversation in a way, through hearings, that I think would highlight this.

And I think right now, that needs to happen. I wish we were-- if you're going to have the discussion, and I can't stress this enough, if you're going to have the discussion on Libya and hold hearings on it and things, why don't you hold it on the broader aspect of our intervention into the Middle East, what's our response to the Arab Spring going to be, and then include the issues of, how do we address issues like terrorism on the Arabian Peninsula and use of drones?

But we focused in on the narrowness of this of-- and this is where I have to be very honest about and be very clear that, if I'm going to criticize the previous administration for not being clear on their policies of carrying these things out, I'd better be prepared to be just as critical of the current administration in what they've done. And I have to be very honest with you, I don't think the policy has changed 1 inch between them. I think they're the same.

LARRY JACOBS: So a question from the audience, what can you do to bring greater transparency to the drone warfare policy and practices?

TIM WALZ: Well, I think being willing to talk publicly on this. And, of course, anytime you talk publicly on something, someone will misconstrue. Or not even misconstrue, they'll take something out and say, you're weak on security, you're not trying to protect Americans, or you're weak on protecting civil liberties.

I think members of Congress, one of the powers that you have is the office itself. It's not you. It's the Office of Congress has the ability to be a platform to facilitate discussions like this to go back and then to make the case. Now, I wished it were the case that there was more collaboration. One of those six ways we can influence foreign policy is through advice and consultation.

There is some listening on this, and I've seen this that the administration-- one example, strangely enough, it was over three years ago, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, led by Bob Casey at the time, asked if I would go on a trip and go with Senator Kaufman to Damascus us and ask Assad what the heck he was doing, basically, as they were leading up to this.

We had anticipations they were doing that, but the Assad administration had cut off our administration, kicked out the ambassador, limited all those, but he wanted to speak to the American public to try and make whatever-- we wanted to know what he was trying to do. So he was willing to accept a Congressman and a Senator to come in and ask him what was going on.

And so I think that one means that I come with the authority of the American public to be able to address some of those issues and make it the case and tell the administration. I mean, the polling numbers in this room and others would tell me Americans are concerned with how we employ this incredibly powerful and could-be-useful device, but could be an incredibly negative impact. And that's the responsibility of me to talk about it.

But I think many of you have known is, there's an aversion to talking about the difficult things. And I'll just tell you, I'm fiscally responsible. I'm going to build you a new road or whatever. That's the type of thing that members of Congress say because it appears to be short-term political benefit from it, other than doing what we're supposed to do, setting policy for the long term on the best implications for the United States. So I think doing those things are what you can do in the short run to build that momentum.

LARRY JACOBS: Another question from the audience. Do you believe the US should be going and intervening in Syria and perhaps using predator drones in that role?

TIM WALZ: Man, and this is very challenging. And, again, here's how the two branches work together. Just last week, we had a confidential briefing with Secretary Kerry and the CIA folks and some of the others about Syria and about what's happening. And I have an interest in this as being part of that.

Because what happened was the State Department couldn't get in. So when I came out of the meeting with Assad, an hour and a half meeting back in 2009, where I laid out our concerns of what was going on, what he was doing, aiding the rebels in Iraq, those were my friends from Minnesota who were serving there saying, you've got to quit doing this.

They asked me the minute I got out of there, who was with him, what did he say, what does he look like, and all that. I have deep concerns of looking at Syria for numerous cases. One is, the civilian loss here in the bordering on the genocide that can happen is deeply troubling.

And, again, the reason this-- you ask Americans, they're weary of war and rightfully so. They're weary of interventions. They're weary of those things. But at the heart of this, one of the things is we understand that we do stand as a beacon to try and get things right, and to try and make things right and to protect the innocent.

The situation with Syria, though, I think the American public needs to be very, very clear about is, Syria's air defense system, and this is no confidential secret, Syria's air defense system is one of the best in the world. This is not going to look like Iraq, if you will. It's going to look significantly different.

So the question we have to weigh is, is it in this nation's best interest, both from a security standpoint to engage in this? Is it in the best interest from our moral responsibility to protect the innocent to engage in this? And then we have to ask the real practical questions, can we do it, can it make a difference, and what's the best way to go?

At this point in time, I think the fear I have with the use of drones and that type of thing is, if we don't have a well-developed policy of what the end game looks like or how Syria fits into the broader picture, we, obviously, know Hezbollah says they're going to help, that's closely tied with Iran, that the situation in Syria engages the entire global community.

I would say at this point in time, anything unilateral, I'm very, very skeptical of. We've got to build an allegiance. Let's face it, Russia and China can exert incredible pressure if it's in their interest to fix some of these issues. And at this point in time-- and, yes, it pains me deeply the civilians that have been killed, it pains me deeply that the potential for chemical weapons, and we'll find out what happened with that.

But I do think it will pain this nation even more if we don't have a well-thought-out holistic plan of, how do we bring peace to the region, secure that, and move on? And at this point in time, if you think the predator drone is the magic bullet, that we can do it without putting troops on the ground or getting involved deeply, we can just send some of these things over and somebody can man them, that's the wrong way to approach it.

And that's where the drones can really get us into trouble of thinking that they're able to fix that when they can't because this is a broader diplomacy issue.

LARRY JACOBS: Thank you. I think you've really put your finger on the concern that a lot of people have about the deployment of drones abroad, which is, they are almost costless to Americans in situations where there's not a lot of public support at this point for military engagement. And so you've got this inclination to do something, but the costs of it on the ground, including to our allies, could be quite substantial, right?

TIM WALZ: That's correct.

LARRY JACOBS: And I think we're seeing some of that in Pakistan.

TIM WALZ: That's right. We have to be thoughtful when we say-- if you ask the American public, do they want to help civilian citizens in Syria, the vast majority do. People have good hearts and they want to do the right thing.

If you frame this and said, if we could help the Syrian civilians by sending in drone strikes, you might actually see a majority of people accept that, but that's not taking into consideration the peripheral and the negative costs of doing so and what it would do. And I think that's why we have to be very guarded. This is another tool of American power. It can either be used correctly or incorrectly.

And we've done it before, if you're going to solve these things in a vacuum, whether you think it's strictly military, strictly economic, strictly diplomacy, you've got to combine them in a more thoughtful manner. And I'm still an unabashed believer that if you've got moral authority on your side, you've got the world community on your side, building alliances is the surest, most secure way to bring these issues to a halt.

STEVEN JOHN: You're listening to first district Minnesota DFL Congressman Tim Walz speaking recently at the University of Minnesota's Humphrey School. The moderator is Professor Larry Jacobs.

This is MPR News Presents. Coming up, it's going to be another, well, half an hour of our conversation here. Congressman Walz is going to talk about the oversight role of Congress. He says Congress is greatly diminished and believes this is sad and dangerous for America. More in a moment.

TOM CRANN: On our Monday All Things Considered, more and more veterans are returning from war with chronic pain.

SPEAKER 4: I would give anything to be pain-free right now and not get that check every month, and just to live a normal life.

TOM CRANN: I'm Tom Crann. We'll hear their stories and all the day's news. Join me starting at 3:00.

STEVEN JOHN: It is 12:27 right now. Back to our featured speaker on MPR News Presents, first district Democratic Congressman Tim Walz. He has represented Southern Minnesota in Congress since 2007.

Before his election to the House of Representatives, Tim Walz was a teacher at Mankato West High School and a coach, and he served 24 years in the US Army National Guard. He spoke with Professor Larry Jacobs at the University of Minnesota.

LARRY JACOBS: Congressman, you've talked about the role that Congress can play. And yet, I've got some questions here, and I think others have shared this concern that Congress does not even perform the oversight role it's set up to perform.

And I think one of the best examples of this is the Intelligence Committee. We recently had a series of hearings related to John Brennan's nomination to be the CIA head. And during those hearings, it became clear that the administration would not even release the legal memorandum that support/justify the use of drones. And then the chair of the Senate committee, Senator Feinstein, publicly acknowledged she had only seen 2 of the 10. So here our oversight committees with responsibility in this area are in the dark.

TIM WALZ: That's right. I haven't seen them. I represent the people of Southern Minnesota, and I don't have those. And that's why I say on this is I am critical of this administration, but here's the issue. Precedence was set. Presidents don't like to let up on precedence, if you will.

And the diminished role of Congress is, you've got a lot of people that viewed that hearing and saw, this is another hearing like a birther hearing to make the president look bad. That is very unfortunate. It is very sad. It is dangerous, in my opinion.

And that's why I keep coming back to this, I get it that we have political ideological differences, but if we can't set those aside for a greater good that should cross between administrations, we're in big trouble.

And I have deep concerns. I'm telling you right now that if we don't fix the issue of empowering Congress to, at least, get on a footing of not equality, at least, having some status, the administration can just simply say, this is another witch hunt after us because they don't like our politics.

And that's not the case in this. I'm with Senator Feinstein on this, and I've been saying I am very uncomfortable now that we as your representatives and the American people are unsure of what our long-term usage of this is, how we're using them, who's being targeted to this, who's being killed.

And now what makes the news when it's a sensational story-- and there very well may be lots and lots of positive stories here, but not every one of these is going to be Jack Bauer that we figured it out, got him, and prevented the next attack. It's not going to work that way. And we as a nation have to be able to come together and say, what are we willing to risk on how this is done, and it is not happening.

So I'm telling you, the problems that Congress has-- it may be funny to make the joke that Congress's approval rating is lower than malaria or whatever it is this week, they say, but as I said, again, being skeptical of Congress is perfectly appropriate and where you should be, but totally dismissing it as an institution that is dysfunctional and not working, these are the problems that you then get, that there is no check on that executive power.

LARRY JACOBS: Yeah. And I think it's particularly disturbing because you've got Senator Feinstein, Democrat, in a Democratic majority Senate, with a Democratic president. And I think for some time we had had some kind of conversation about national security and the role of both branches of government in the conduct of foreign policy and national security that crossed party lines.

And now what we're seeing, and I think maybe you're referencing this, is a kind of partisan situationism. When it's a Democrat in office, the Republicans go whole hog and criticizing them, when there's a Republican in office, it's the Democrats who go wild, but you don't see either party raising persistent questions.

Here's another issue that was raised during the Brennan hearings, which was using the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance courts, which were set up to provide, on a secret basis, warrants for electronic surveillance, and to use that as a way to provide some kind of oversight, some kind of check so that the president was not going alone and saying, this person will be killed.

TIM WALZ: That's right.

LARRY JACOBS: Do you think the Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Act type of court could be a way to bring Congress, in this case, the judiciary, back into the process so the president's not going alone?

TIM WALZ: Yes, I do. And that's why I said the two things we're going to have is that, what do you do with the data, and the other is the usage, setting the limits on it and warrants on doing that. I believe there's going to be a need.

And this is the problem we have, as I said, with [? CIPSA ?] again. There are real cases that we need to protect this nation against cyber attacks, it's real, it's dangerous, it's going to have problems, but the public is convinced that we cannot do that without protecting their civil liberties.

The FISA court, with all its warts and everything, at least, had, you had to go and present this. And it was not overly burdensome. You could actually do it within 72 hours of the fact, after you needed-- if you needed to act and do a Jack Bauer type of situation, then do it, but come back and have the checks and balances on that. That is the way this system is supposed to work.

It does not, I think-- and they're going to make the case, some folks will, that it impinges upon their right to act immediately in the defense of the nation. I think we can make it that it does not do that with going-- the reach back on it, but making sure that there is someone else's eye on this. Because you're right, I am deeply concerned.

And, again, I got into and ran for Congress because it horrified me when my neighbor said, don't ask questions about Iraq. That's for the commanders to know, and it's just not patriotic. You're either with us or against us. Many of you in this room heard that. And it just struck me-- and I didn't know, as I said, again, deeply concerned with that that case, the case of the yellowcake from Niger, the uranium, and all of that, but we did not know. And look at the problems that implicated from that.

I would say that I think that's a great suggestion, and it's one that I would certainly advocate for something to have that checks and balances. And then the American public should, at least, rest a little easier. Now, obviously, if they don't trust the judicial system or they don't trust the court to do what it's supposed to do, that's another problem, but I think it's a great first step.

LARRY JACOBS: Some judges and legal thinkers have come out and said, do we really want judges making decisions on who's going to be on the kill list or not? Is there a way around that hurdle?

TIM WALZ: Well, you've got school teachers who are elected to make these decisions. You've got farmers. You've got the decision-- I certainly think there's a role for the judicial branch. And I would like to think, and granted, I don't live in a utopia here, that the judicial branch might be slightly more removed from the political bickering and minutia and things that we get into, that that might be a better way if we can relieve them from that.

I think the court system, we can make that work. And I think in the absence of an absolutely perfect system, our checks and balances amongst the three branches is the surest way to make sure we're striking that balance. We certainly probably won't be right in every case, but I think the chance of being wrong is diminished by having another set of eyes, another way of looking at it.

LARRY JACOBS: We are starting to see some pretty significant international efforts to challenge American use of drones and targeted assassinations.

One of the UN bodies has now put together a commission that's looking into it. The head of the commission, who's a very prominent British jurist, has come out pretty directly and said that he does not consider America to be abiding by international law because we're using drones far outside of the standards of imminent threat, self-defense, that we're targeting individuals, basically, at a convenience because we don't want to risk American lives to take action.

There's a possibility that by the fall, there will be a report brought to the United Nations General Assembly that would have very clear critical implications for American policy. Question from the audience. How can we say with a straight face to the world that the world must abide by international law when we refuse to abide by it ourselves?

TIM WALZ: Well, I think it's very difficult now. We don't have the data to be able to do that. So I think it's a legitimate point to make. That's the case of, if this jurist and whether their data is right and they do it correctly or whatever, if we don't have any ability to refute that, we end up trying to prove a negative then on it because it's just going to be accepted that that's the case.

That's where I think we run into trouble. That's why I think it's in our best interest, I actually think it's in the best interest of the drone manufacturers that we have a clear set of rules, a clear set of playing field to play by, and we make the case. There are going to be those that will criticize the United States in every way, but I'm telling you, this criticism is coming from friends, it's coming from allies, and it's coming from, to be very honest with you, members in this-- people in this room because you don't know what they're doing.

If you knew and it had a checks and balance and it was justified, we have every right to defend ourselves. We have every right to try and protect this nation from those types of things. But right now, none of us, I think, whether it's with a straight face or with any credibility, can make the case that, in every case, we're doing this in accordance with international law in that. And we very well may be, but we can't prove that.

And I make the argument that talking about how this was done and how the decisions were made and who we went after is not a state secret that would put us at risk. I would argue it would strengthen us and bring our allies to us and make the understanding that when America acts, it acts with a moral, ethical, and legal authority to do what it does.

Right now, if that question is out there, this damages all the good work we do. It damages all the international aid that we help people with. It damages all the relationships, and that's what, I think, is the ultimate goal. The ultimate goal is not to fly a drone to hit there. The ultimate goal is in our interest to bring a peaceful world that cooperates together. That's what we want to get to.

LARRY JACOBS: You've now been in Congress several terms, you're getting a good feel for how the place works. Imagine a situation in the fall when the United Nations Human Rights Council comes in with a report quite critical of the use of drones for the purposes that we're using them. How do you think Congress would respond to that? Would it be--

TIM WALZ: They will reject the United Nations as legitimate, and they will cut all funding again, probably, because it's probably-- and I say that with honesty as I see. I think that would be the response.

I would hope, though, that we as a democracy and people who are willing to be introspective and self-searching and trying to form a more perfect union, we would have that conversation before they had it, and we would create it before they did, and we would set our rules on it before they did.

Obviously, the United Nations can say what they want to say. The institution itself, it's the whole idea of global cooperation and how we're seen in this. Our strength comes and always has come from being seen as a good actor on the side of righteousness. If we are no longer seen in that light by a significant global population, whether it's justified or not, it puts our security at risk. So I think it would be in our best interest prior to that.

But I don't see Congress responding introspectively and, at least, having the courage to say, well, we'll look at your report, but we reject your methodology, reject what you said. This is not true. At this point what's very difficult for a member of Congress, I'm not in-- the data that we would need to make that strong case is not there. Certainly not there for the American Public.

LARRY JACOBS: Do you think that the administration should feel that there's the increasing scrutiny and blowback from the international community. President Obama famously talked on the Jon Stewart show about the need to create a legal infrastructure. That he and no other president should be able to just decide who's going to die and who's going to live.

And now they seem to be slow walking it in the second term. Do you think the fact that we're going to be facing, quite likely, growing international scrutiny and criticism will spur the administration to actually deliver on that, or do you think this is just rhetoric?

TIM WALZ: It may. I don't know what a second term president-- if this is a legacy issue, as you say, or what would happen there. I'm still convinced that the American public-- I'm still an eternal optimist, it's frustrating as it is, every once in a while, I go back and watch Lincoln again to remind myself it's been worse. It's been worse. We can get through this. We can do this. And I am optimistic about that.

I think it's equally important, and I think that international community asked you on this. But I think the credibility would come when the American public, both Democrat and Republican, come together and articulate and say, we have a concern. And I think that might be the saving grace in this, that civil libertarians on both sides of the political spectrum have met at the international date line of politics and agree upon this.

So you can get in Virginia, by the way-- since we're not doing this, by the way, 30 states have started to articulate these rules of usage data, warrants, and things like that. In Virginia, the two groups that spearheaded this and got it passed in the first, in the nation drone bill was the Virginia Tea Party Patriots and the ACLU.

They came around, they hit, and they were on that, and now they have usage policies in Virginia. So I think the pressure on the president would be greater domestically because it would start to maybe craft the potential of some bipartisan solutions, which I think he's pretty interested in as it comes to immigration, debt, things like that, that it might be a starting point of commonality.

So, for me, I think that's a more positive way to go. I think the international outcry, I don't know. Certainly won't affect Congress.

STEVEN JOHN: You're listening to first district Congressman Tim Walz speaking with political science professor Larry Jacobs earlier this month at the University of Minnesota on MPR News Presents.

LARRY JACOBS: Got a question here asking you to put your hat on as a member of the Veterans Affairs Committee. Do you think drones are changing the experience of soldiers in the battlefield and raising PTSD issues for those who are manning the drones?

TIM WALZ: Well, the issue of the manning of the drones, of course, came up with, at then time, Secretary of Defense, Panetta, putting the drone metal forward. And there was some outcry amongst those veterans in this room, some outcry amongst veterans about placing that medals priority above the Purple Heart and some things like that.

It did open up a really interesting-- the debate and something for us to look at is the warriors who might not directly be on the battlefield that are part of this. This has sprung up before and we've seen it before in the Air Force. You hear this about, especially in World War II, you saw the people who were loading the bombs.

While removed from the actual dropping of them and what happened there, they felt the connection to that. I certainly think any person involved with the horrible responsibility of fighting war in this nation's name, that there's certainly some concerns that I think they understand the implications of this. I think it's the same.

Again, while the technology is slightly different, it's probably not much different than that bomb loader or that bombardier who opened the door and dropped that bomb knowing on the ground something happened, or friends who manned machine guns in Vietnam and talked about, I knew I probably wasn't targeting all combatants, and that was-- so, yes, I think it's something we certainly understand.

And I hope it's a broader issue we've understood is, you don't go to war without lots and lots of implications, and many of them bad when you come back caring for the wounded, caring for these things.

And, again, this goes back to my point and one of the reasons I think I ran for Congress, I felt like the rush after September 11 was to not clarify all those implications at the time and what was going to happen and how we as a nation got there.

We have that chance now, especially with new technology of drone warfare to get that right. But, yes, the question is it's thoughtful, and, yes, I do think that's certainly a concern. History has proven that it is.

LARRY JACOBS: General McChrystal said, you can't kill your way to winning a war. How effective is drone policy in reducing the number of terrorists, or is it increasing the number of terrorists?

TIM WALZ: I don't know. I don't have empirical data to make that case. I think we're making the case that we're-- I mean, I think you could measure it on how many global attacks of terrorism there would be, whether that's a direct correlation to the use of drones, whether it's reduced.

I think we're in an institution of research. All the researchers sitting in this room would say, no. You're going to have a very difficult time making that case. I think it does go back for us to understand that. Because I keep coming back to this, again, it's not the tools of our diplomacy, whether they be war-fighting tools, economic, whatever, it's the outcome we're most concerned about.

So this question is very well-pointed. I certainly can't tell you that's the case. Now, the commanders and the folks who brief us tell us, yes, we're getting these guys. Yes, we're decimating them. Yes, we're weakening their ability to run attacks against the United States.

And when I get these briefings and look at the data, I certainly think I believe them, but it doesn't factor into the case of General McChrystal's point was, when you make a mistake and kill a civilian, you have now created 10 more enemies amongst his immediate family, 100 more against his extended family.

So when we were there, and this was at the early part before General McChrystal left, the first time I went to Afghanistan, I was in a convoy with folks loaded on top, flak jackets on, helmets, and we basically mowed everybody off the road. They just got to the side because they knew if they didn't, it was written on it that you would be shot if you didn't clear the road.

The last time I went with General McChrystal, we were not in a convoy, and we walked amongst the people. And his point was is that, if we're really here to tell them we're their friends to make them safer, we're going to have to make that case.

Now, the argument might be the drone is back to the days of the heavy convoy, scaring people, and it's not the soft hand of why we're here to do what we're trying to do, which is stabilize the area to create-- to shrink that vacuum for terrorism.

LARRY JACOBS: When Scott Shane from the New York Times was here, he told a story that The Times had covered of two individuals in Yemen who were not in the al-Qaeda group in Yemen, who were approached by two individuals who were in al-Qaeda. And they had a meeting, and at this meeting, all four of them were blown up from a drone strike.

This turns out not to be that unusual. It's not common, but it's not unusual for the information, the intelligence to be wrong, mistakes to be made, in this case, it caused significant blowback because in the village in this part of Yemen, now the United States was seen as attacking indiscriminately.

So I think the question that this audience member raises is whether the use of drones is imprecise enough and whether the military is policing itself and whether Congress needs to be playing a much more active role in scrutinizing what is actually going on.

TIM WALZ: Yes. And that's my point. We certainly do. I say this as an optimist to you, though, I have my questions with our diminished capacity to be able to-- and it comes with the trust of the public that we can do this. We certainly should be doing it.

This is the problem when one branch of government-- this was my problem with the unitary executive theory that Paul Wolfowitz and some others were advocating, that this is the problem you got into, that you had unhindered use of military power without the checks and balances.

And, again, it's not just because-- and there's certainly a group out there that says there's never a use for military power. There's a large number of people who understand it has to be used correctly. So I think the audience member brings up an incredibly valid point. And I have to tell you, it's just incredibly troubling because this comes back, again--

This is an age old question back of security versus civil liberties of the constitution's responsibility, but you watch how quickly people are willing to switch out of the mode. And certainly, the horrific incident in Boston and catching the people who were there, but there were people advocating instantly for the removal of all justice system procedures, protocols, and things like that.

And there's a great amount of criticism about Mirandizing Tsarnaev so soon of where it happened. I have deep concerns that the challenge to our democracy always comes when it's much harder to strike that balance between liberty and security. And the drones, the thing about them that I think is very-- it's the distance and the hands offness of it that makes it easier.

It's not so much different than a listening device, or a helicopter, or a satellite, or a camera in the corner, but it has that long reach in it. It has a psychological impact that cannot be-- and in this, General McChrystal's right that, in that case, the use of the drone counteracted all the other positive we were doing, and that's a negative.

LARRY JACOBS: You were talking about the coalition that formed in Virginia with regard to banning or regulating the use of drones in that state between the civil libertarians and the Tea Party groups.

TIM WALZ: Correct.

LARRY JACOBS: We've seen some Republicans and some Democrats in Congress seeming to raise some of the same sets of issues. Do you see any potential for Congress to come together on a basis that would allow the kind of oversight you've talked about, the kind of persistent demand that the administration be much more transparent, even on something as simple as just providing the legal justification for what it's doing? I can't imagine why they keep that secret. But do you see this coalition as possible or not?

TIM WALZ: Yes. I do think it's possible. And it's going to come and have to be-- it's going to have to be seen as that it's the purity of the issue here is at hand and it's not that attack. Because it's going to be-- you're going to need the Dianne Feinsteins, to be very honest. You're going to need the credibility that comes with someone like that.

And I don't know if Senator Paul is the right one or whatever, but that type of coalition asking for this is one that I think has potential. The problem that we have in the House right now is, if Chairman Issa brings up an investigation, all the Democrats roll their eyes at this, even though we have it.

So he would have the authority, and I would argue he has a responsibility, to call an oversight hearing on this very issue. It's going to probably have to be some rank-and-file members who aren't locked into the political ideology to come together and build that coalition.

LARRY JACOBS: Are you willing to help lead that coalition?

TIM WALZ: Absolutely. I said, I certainly can see myself there. And I do believe that the potential-- and this is where the true civil libertarians of the Tea Party side-- because I don't think they're that separate. I do think they met on that. I do think there's a potential there if it's with the idea that in three and a half years when this president is gone, no matter who it is, are you going to say the same thing to them or is it about this president?

And I think I feel strongly about this, and I think I've kept a consistency on this. I was critical of the Bush Administration on this policy. I'm critical of the Obama Administration on this policy. And I do think the potential is there. And I think the public should realize that's where the real change can come. That will start to make a difference if we can get there.

But, again, the public is going to be beyond skeptical. They're going to be cynical we can do that. But I think it's imperative we do. If you really care about American national security, you better address this issue because it's going to weaken our security in the long run if we don't do it, it's going to cause us problems.

So if you're coming at this point that you're a hawk on national security, which we all better be, it's one of our constitutional requirements, then you better address this thing and you better do it now.

LARRY JACOBS: I agree with you very strongly about that. I think sometimes there's a false trade-off between the Constitution and the strength of our country. And I think when we have the legislative, executive, and judicial branches moving in the same direction, we are a much stronger country.

TIM WALZ: Much stronger.

LARRY JACOBS: When you've got the presidents of different parties pursuing policies that are on the edge of international law or way beyond it, then we start seeing divisions in our country, we start seeing the international environment becoming much more hostile to us, and you start to lose the public.

TIM WALZ: You do.

LARRY JACOBS: That's a dangerous thing.

TIM WALZ: And they want solutions. And I got to be honest with you from-- this is just my thinking on it. From a political perspective for my Republican colleagues on this, if Chairman Issa held a hearing on drone usage on this, invited us in or whatever, he would get a lot of interest on this.

When he holds it on Benghazi, whether-- and let me be clear on this, when the facts come in or whatever, it's a horrific situation, it needs to be addressed or whatever, but it is certainly viewed as a partisan witch hunt type of thing, and he's not going to get the buy-in that they would get. I think they could do it.

And this is not to attack the president. It's to clarify their policies in the best interest of this nation and our security. And that's our responsibility. And I think what you would get out of this is, and this is-- I don't underestimate this, a few successes can build on themselves to a much broader way of doing things.

And I don't expect-- I don't see winning. This isn't about winning. This isn't a game. This isn't my team. It's not a football game or type of thing. I don't expect to convert my Republican colleagues to a way of thinking, but I do think we've got an awful lot of commonalities that we're choosing not to look at.

We care deeply about this. I've got colleagues I've worked with on veterans issues, our commonality is we're all veterans. We all care about it, Republican and Democrat. We're making some progress on this. This can fall into that same model.

LARRY JACOBS: Well, I want to wish you luck on that. Thank you very much for coming all the way up and joining us today. Thank you very much, Congressman.

TIM WALZ: Thanks, folks.

[APPLAUSE]

STEVEN JOHN: You've been listening to Minnesota first district Democratic Congressman, Tim Walz, speaking earlier this month at the University of Minnesota's Humphrey School. The moderator was Professor Larry Jacobs.

Congressman Walz was first elected in 2006. And before that, he served 24 years in the US Army National Guard, and was a high school social studies teacher and a coach. Tim Walz is the highest-ranking enlisted soldier ever to serve in Congress.

Now, to finish out this hour's edition of MPR News Presents, we're going to get an update on the goings on at the State Capitol, where lawmakers have less than 12 hours to wrap up the loose ends of the 2013 legislative session. Legislators and State Capitol reporters have been working day and night through the weekend, and joining us now from the MPR State Capitol Bureau is Tim Pugmire with the latest. Hi, Tim.

TIM PUGMIRE: Hi, Steven.

STEVEN JOHN: So many of the major tax and spending bills are on their way to the governor. Give us an update on the biggest items left to be debated and voted on.

TIM PUGMIRE: Well, the biggest item left for the Senate is the tax bill that the House passed early this morning. That bill raises $2 billion in new revenue to pay for the new spending in the budget. Primarily, a lot of that new spending in the education area, both higher education and K-12 education, which is really the centerpiece of the DFL agenda this session.

That bill included $475 million over the next two years in new spending for all-day kindergarten, early childhood education scholarships, and an increase in the basic per pupil funding formula for schools.

Also, the House has to resolve the state government finance bill, both the House and the Senate. The legacy bill is up in both chambers today, as well as an elections bill. The House has to resolve the lingering unionization bill for daycare workers and personal care assistants. That debate is going on now.

Also, a small bonding bill that the Senate passed last night to cover State Capitol renovations remains in play. And there is no resolution yet between the House and the Senate on a minimum wage increase.

STEVEN JOHN: Now, of any of those items that you just ticked off, anything there that could cause this session to go into extra innings, or are the Democrats just ruling that out completely?

TIM PUGMIRE: No. It looks like both the Democrats and Republicans have some agreement in place for a soft landing here once this daycare and PCA unionization bill is resolved. There is an agreement that they will wrap up this lengthy debate in the House sometime this afternoon and take a vote.

Then these other bills will get done in a timely fashion. Some may or may not make it. The bonding bill, the minimum wage increase remain unclear at this point whether they will make the cut by that midnight deadline.

STEVEN JOHN: Now, of course, Democrats control the House, Senate, governor's office. What are Republicans saying are their accomplishments this session given their minority status in Minnesota government?

TIM PUGMIRE: Well, I expect the Republicans are going to be pointing to their pushback against this unionization bill for one. Their blocking of that $800 million bonding bill in the House last Friday for another. Senate Republicans also managed to block an anti-bullying bill in the Senate last night from moving forward this session.

So, obviously, they don't have the votes to stop the DFL tax or spending bills, but those are the issues that will be central to their campaigns as they try to portray Democrats as overreachers, overspenders, and overtaxers. Democrats, though, are going to campaign on the fact that they were able to make investments in important areas and also balance the budget in a sound way that will continue into the next biennium.

STEVEN JOHN: All right. Thanks for all of your hard work as usual, Tim Pugmire.

TIM PUGMIRE: You're welcome, Steven.

STEVEN JOHN: That's Capitol reporter, Tim Pugmire. Today, following the goings on in Saint Paul on this the final day of the 2013 legislative session. Of course, as lawmakers scramble to finish their business before the midnight deadline, you can follow the action as it happens all day long online at mprnews.org. Find up-to-the-minute updates on our Capitol View blog, and at a special end-of-the-session live blog at mprnews.org.

JON MCTAGGART: I'm Jon McTaggart, President of Minnesota Public Radio. Strengthening communities has been part of our mission for more than 46 years, and over the last week, you brought that mission to life in new ways.

You helped us complete another important and successful member drive, and so many of you directed your thank you gift to help others in our communities. I am always humbled by your generosity, but I am never surprised. Thank you so much.

STEVEN JOHN: And thanks for tuning in. Minnesota Public Radio News, 91.1, KNOW Minneapolis-Saint Paul. Listen live with our free mobile apps available for Android and iPhone. Cloudy, 69 degrees in the Twin Cities. We had some showers pass through again here in the past hour. Maybe where you are now it's raining.

We do have a good chance of showers and thunderstorms for the afternoon for the metro, and there is a flash flood watch in effect through this evening due to all of the rain from the last few days saturating the soils and with the potential of some more, where we could see some localized high water. So be aware of that. Highs, mid-70s today. South winds at 10 to 15 miles an hour.

Tonight, a chance of mainly evening showers and thunderstorms with a low around 60 degrees. Still mostly cloudy tomorrow with the chance of showers and thunderstorms continuing. We're going to see a really unsettled atmospheric situation here, at least, for the first half of the week. So that potential for rain will continue off. And on 69 degrees now at--