>> PRESSURE BUILDS TO KILL THE FLIBSTER.

ETHICAL QUESTIONS OVER A VACCINE PASSPORT.

AND DO WE NEED A SPECIFIC LAW TO TARGET DOMESTIC TERRORISM?

STAY TUNED.

"IVORY TOWER" IS NEXT.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ WELCOME TO "IVORY TOWER."

I'M DAVID CHANATRY FROM UTICA COLLEGE.

I'M JOINED BY BOB SPITZER FROM SUNY CORTLAND.

KRISTI ANDERSON FROM THE MAXWELL SCHOOL AT SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY, NINA MOORE FROM COLGATE UNIVERSITY, AND LUKE PERRY FROM UTICA COLLEGE.

THE WORD OF THE WEEK THIS WEEK IS FILIBUSTER.

MUCH OF PRESIDENT BIDEN'S LEGISLATIVE AGENDA MAY BE D.O.A.

IN THE SENATE UNLESS THE FILIBUSTER RULE IS CHANGED.

ON WEDNESDAY BIDEN SAID FOR THE FIRST TIME HE SUPPORTED GOING BACK TO THE OLD Mr. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON STYLE TALKING FILIBUSTER.

EARLIER MITCH McCONNELL THREATENED A SCORCHED EARTH SENATE IF DEMOCRATS WERE TO REPEAL THE RULE THAT REQUIRE 60 VOTES TO END DEBATE BEFORE A BILL CAN MOVE TO A VOTE.

SO NINA, SHOULD THE FILIBUSTER BE ELIMINATED?

>> I THINK THAT BEFORE WE START TALKING ABOUT MAKING ANY SORTS OF CHANGES TO THE FILIBUSTER, ESPECIALLY THE EXTREME STEP OF ELIMINATING IT, WE HAVE TO RECOGNIZE WHAT IS VALUABLE ABOUT THE FILIBUSTER.

IT GIVES THE MINORITY IN THE SENATE A SAY.

AND WHAT HAPPENS WITH RESPECT TO PROPOSED BILLS, BUT IT ALSO PROMOTES-- IT FOSTERS CAREFUL DELIBERATION, WHICH IS WHY THE SENATE IS KNOWN AS THE MOST DELIBERATEIVE ASSEMBLY IN THE WORLD.

SO THE REAL PROBLEM WITH THE FILIBUSTER IS REALLY ISN'T THE FILIBUSTER ITSELF BUT RATHER THE FACT THAT IT HAS BEEN ABUSED AND PARTICULARLY SINCE THE 92nd CONGRESS OF 1971.

AND THE OTHER THING IS WE ARE REALLY NOT EXPERIENCING ACTUAL FILIBUSTER, BUT RATHER VIRTUAL FILIBUSTERS SO THAT THOSE WHO ARE HOLDING UP LEGISLATION, ESSENTIALLY ENGAGING IN OBSTRUCTION, ARE NOT HAVING THEIR FEET HELD TO THE FIRE, AS WAS ONCE THE CASE, FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN STROM THURMOND IN 1957 WAS FORCED TO TALK 24 HOURS NON-STOP SO HE DIDN'T LOSE THE FLOOR.

THEN AGAIN IN 1964 ROBERT BYRD HAD TO DO SO FOR 14 HOURS STRAIGHT.

SO BIDEN'S IDEA OF BRINGING BACK THE OLD FASHIONED FILIBUSTER, WHEREBY OBSTRUCTIONISTS MUST TALK NON-STOP TO CONTINUE BLOCKING THE BILL.

BUT YOU DO OTHER THINGS, LIKE COMPEL THE ATTENDANCE OF OTHER SENATORS AND YOU BRING EVERYTHING ELSE TO A HALT.

OF COURSE THERE IS BLOWBACK, THERE IS A DOWNSIDE TO THAT, BUT AT LEAST YOU PRESERVE WHAT IS GOOD ABOUT THE FILIBUSTER.

>> OKAY.

SO LUKE, EL NINOA NINA THINKS THERE IS SOME GOOD WITH THE FILIBUSTER.

>> I THINK CONGRESSIONAL LEADERS HAVE IT BACKWARDS.

REMOVING THE FILIBUSTER FOR LEGISLATION MAKES SENSE BECAUSE THE SENATE IS INHERENTLY UNDEMOCRATIC.

IT HASN'T KEPT UP WITH THE ADVANCEMENT OF DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS IN AMERICAN SOCIETY.

IF YOU HAVE MAJORITY SUPPORT, LEGISLATION SHOULD PASS AS IT DOES IN NEARLY ALL DEMOCRACIES.

BUT WHERE I THINK IT IS VALUABLE IN THE DELIBERATION WITH WHAT NINA RAISED, IS NOMINEES.

I LIKE THE IDEA OF HAVING TO CLEAR A HIGHER THRESHOLD FOR NOMINEES, LIKE CLEARING FOR LIFETIME TIME APPOINTMENTS BUT THE REALITY IS THAT FILIBUSTERS ON NOMINATIONS HAVE BEEN REMOVED BUT THE LEGISLATIVE FILIBUSTER HAS REMAINED.

I THINK IT IS TIME FOR IT TO GO.

IF IT ISN'T GO NOW BECAUSE THERE ISN'T SUPPORT, THEM IT IS TIME TO CHANGE HOW IT IS IMPLEMENTED SO THAT PEOPLE HAVE TO PUT THEIR MONEY WHERE THEIR MOUTH IS AND HOLD THE FLOOR INDEFINITELY.

>> KRISTI GO AHEAD.

>> I WOULD JUST NOTE THAT RIGHT AT THIS MOMENT, THE DEMOCRATS REPRESENT MANY, MANY MORE PEOPLE THAN THE REPUBLICANS DO IN THE SENATE.

BUT THE SITUATION IS SUCH THAT THEY HAVE AN EVEN NUMBER OF SENATORS, AND THAT THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE IN THE COUNTRY SEEM TO BE QUITE SUPPORTIVE OF THE BIDEN AGENDA.

BUT HERE THEY ARE, THEY CAN'T DO A THING WHILE THE FILIBUSTER EXISTS.

AND I REALLY DON'T SEE THAT, AT THIS POINT, THE GOOD ASPECTS OF THE FILIBUSTER AS NINA DESCRIBES THEM, ARE IN OPERATION.

I MEAN THE FILIBUSTER HAS LONG BEEN USED TO STOP CIVIL RIGHTS LEGISLATION, TO SUPPRESS VOTING.

AND NOW, JUST TO ABSOLUTELY ELIMINATE THE ABILITY OF THE DEMOCRATS TO GET ANYTHING DONE.

SO WHEN GEORGE STEPHANOPOLIS ASKED BIDEN THE OTHER DAY, DO YOU THINK HAVE YOU COME TO THE POINT WHERE HAVE YOU TO CHOOSE BETWEEN THE FILIBUSTER AND YOUR AGENDA, BIDEN SAID YES AND I THINK THAT'S WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW.

>> BOB, IS THERE... GO AHEAD, BOB.

>> THAT'S OKAY.

THE FILIBUSTER IS AN ACCIDENTAL ANTIQUE.

THE DISCUSSION RIGHT NOW SEEMS TO BE TO MODIFY IT IN SOME WAY.

THE OTHERS HAVE REFERENCED THE IDEA OF A TALKING FILIBUSTER, MEANING YOU CAN'T JUST MAKE THE THREAT.

YOU HAVE TO COME TO THE FLOOR, HOLD THE FLOOR.

THERE IS ALSO THE IDEA OF REVERSING THE BURDEN OF HOW TO ESTABLISH A FILIBUSTER; THAT IS, INSTEAD OF MARSHALING 60 VOTES TO STOP IT, HAVE YOU TO MARSHAL 40 VOTES TO ESTABLISH IT INSTEAD, WHICH IS-- DOESN'T CHANGE THE ACTUAL CALCULATION, BUT IT PUTS A GREATER BURDEN ON THOSE WHO WANT TO HAVE A FILIBUSTER.

BUT THIS IS TINKERING AT THE MARGINS.

THERE IS NO GOOD ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF A FILIBUSTER, FRANKLY.

THE SENATE IS ALREADY A DELIBERATIVE AND COLLEGIAL BODY AND THE METEORIC RISE OF THE FILIBUSTER IS SYMPTOMATIC OF DYSFUNCTION, NOT LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION.

BACK IN THE 1930S, 40S, 50s, INTO THE 60s, YOU HAD ONE OR TWO CHLOE CLOTURE VOTES A YEAR, THE VOTE TO END THE FILIBUSTER.

AND IN THE PREVIOUS CONGRESS, 2019-20, THERE WERE 328 CLOTURE VOTES.

THE SENATE IS NEVER GOING TO RETURN TO A SITUATION WHERE IT ONLY DOES THIS ONCE OR TWICE A YEAR.

THAT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN IS THAT McCONNELL IS GOING TO STAND FOR ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING THAT BIDEN WANTS TO DO.

IT DOESN'T MATTER WHICH PARTY IS IN POWER.

FUNDAMENTALLY IT GIVES THE MINORITY PARTY THE POWER TO STOP EVERYTHING, ALL LEGISLATION AND IT SIMPLY HAS TO GO.

>> THE OTHER THING TO CONSIDER IS, BOB, YOU HAVE RIGHTLY POINTED OUT, THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT RULE 22, THE CLOTURE RULE BUT WHAT GIVES THAT RULE POWER IS THE ENTIRE SET OF SENATE RULES SO YOU CAN GET RID OF THE FILIBUSTER FOR LEGISLATION BUT WOULD YOU THEN NEED TO GET RID OF IT FOR POINTS OF ORDER, FOR THE WAY IN WHICH THE SENATE OPENS AND ADJOURNS, AND THE WHOLE MYRIAD OF THINGS THAT SOUTHERNERS WERE SUCCESSFUL IN USING.

SO, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, RULE 22 IS JUST THE START OF OVERHAULING THE FILIBUSTER.

AND ONCE YOU BEGIN TO UNDERMINE UNLIMITED DEBATE AND ALSO AN OPPORTUNITY FOR, AGAIN, MINORITY SENATORS TO OFFER AMENDMENTS, YOU HAVE FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGED THE NATURE OF THE SENATE AS IT WAS ORIGINALLY INTENDED TO BE THE NATIONAL BODY THAT WOULD SUPPLY WHAT MADISON CALLED THE WANT OF AN INSTITUTION, WHAT THEY DO NATIONAL... >> THE FILIBUSTER HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ORIGINAL INTENTION OF THE SENATE.

CAME ABOUT PURELY BY ACCIDENT AND TOOK SEVERAL DECADES INTO THE 1800s FOR THE MEMBERS TO REALIZE THAT THEY COULD ENGAGE IN THIS PROCESS OF FILIBUSTER.

>> OKAY.

NOW... >> THAT'S ACTUALLY NOT TRUE.

IT WAS ADOPTED IN 1917 AND UNTIL THEN IT WASN'T NECESSARY.

>> BOB, WE ARE GOING TO LEAVE THAT RIGHT THERE AND MOVE TO THE NEXT STORY.

PRESIDENT BIDEN SAID THE U.S. REACHED THE INITIAL GOAL OF 100 MILLION SHOTS OF COVID VACCINE BEING ADMINISTERED WITHIN THE FIRST 100 DAYS IN OFFICE.

ON AVERAGE, ABOUT 2.5 MILLION PEOPLE ARE GETTING VACCINATED EVERY DAY.

PEOPLE UNDERSTANDABLY ARE BEGINNING TO THINK ABOUT FINALLY GETTING OUT AND ABOUT, TRAVELING, GOING TO A SHOW OR BALL GAME.

SHOULD WE CONSIDER, KRISTI, A VACCINE PASSPORT, A DOCUMENT THAT ALLOWS PEOPLE TO GO AND BE OUT?

>> I AM DUBIOUS ABOUT IT.

MOST OF THE TALK ABOUT THIS HAS COME FROM EUROPE, WHERE COUNTRIES IN THE E.U.

ARE WANTING TO-- WHO DEPEND A LOT ON TOURISM, PARTICULARLY, ARE WANTING TO HAVE MORE FREE PASSAGE AMONG THESE COUNTRIES.

IF YOU LOOK AT ISRAEL, THEY'VE ACTUALLY SORT OF IMPLEMENTED THIS VACCINE PASSPORT BUSINESS, OR THERE IS A CARD THAT PEOPLE ARE SUPPOSED TO HAVE.

AND THAT MAKES ME ALSO A LITTLE SKEPTICAL.

THE HEALTH MINISTER THERE HAS THIS MANTRA, WHICH SAYS WHOEVER DOES NOT GET VACCINATED WILL BE LEFT BEHIND, WHICH I THOUGHT WAS A LITTLE DRACONIAN.

AND ALSO, AS THEY PROCEED AND, SO PLAN TO GIVE INDIVIDUAL DATA ABOUT INDIVIDUAL HEALTH DATA TO LOCAL OFFICIALS, THAT SEEMS TO BE PROBLEMATIC TO ME AND NOW IT RAISES THE ISSUE, FOR EXAMPLE, DO THEY ALLOW TEACHERS WHO ARE NOT VACCINATED TO TEACH AND SO ON AND SO FORTH.

I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, WE GET INTO A LOT OF ISSUES IF WE WERE TO HAVE A FEDERAL PASSPORT.

IT PROBABLY WOULDN'T BE A FEDERAL PASSPORT.

IT WOULD PROBABLY BE STATE ONES.

YOUNG PEOPLE WON'T HAVE THEM.

THE IDEA OF BUSINESSES DEMANDING PEOPLE'S HEALTH INFORMATION IS PROBLEMATIC TO ME.

AND I GIVES US A FALSE SENSE OF SECURITY.

WE DON'T KNOW AT THIS POINT, WHETHER AND HOW MUCH TO WHAT EXTENT PEOPLE WHO ARE VACCINATED CAN STILL TRANSMIT THE VIRUS.

SO I'M DUBIOUS ABOUT SOME OVERALL VACCINATION PASS OR CARD.

>> WELL, I DON'T THINK IT'S BEYOND THE PAIL.

IT DOES RAISE COMPLICATED ISSUES IN TERMS OF ACCESS TO INFORMATION, THE NATURE OF TRAVEL, THINGS LIKE THAT.

BUT THE WHOLE IDEA IS PRECISELY TO ALLOW PEOPLE, WHO HAVE BEEN VACCINATED, WHO MOTION A FAR LOWER RISK, THE CDC AND ANTHONY FAUCI HAVE MADE THAT PRETTY CLEAR IN THEIR RECENT STATEMENTS.

I MEAN CRITICS HAVE SAID IT ALLOWS ACCESS TO PEOPLE'S HEALTH RECORDS.

I DON'T SEE HOW THAT IS OR NEEDS TO BE THE CASE.

THE IDEA IS YOU WOULD HAVE AND IDENTIFICATION OR PAPER THAT SAYS YOU HAVE BEEN VACCINATED.

AND THAT WOULD THEREFORE OPEN CERTAIN KINDS OF DOORS FOR YOU THAT WOULD NOT OTHERWISE BE OPEN.

THE IDEA OF HEALTH-BASED TRAVEL RESTRICTIONS ALSO IS NOTHING NEW.

AND IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THAT THIS WOULD BE OF FINITE DURATION.

THE IDEA IS TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO TRAVEL AND GET THE ECONOMY MOVING AGAIN WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN ACTIVITIES LIKE TRAVEL, LIKE STAYING AT A HOTEL, PERHAPS SOMETHING LIKE ATTENDING AN INDOOR THEATRICAL EVENT WHERE CONTAGION WOULD BE A SERIOUS RISK.

THIS IS ALREADY IN PLACE IN ISRAEL, AS A MATTER OF FACT, AND KRISTI POINTS OUT THE NATIONS OF THE E.U.

ARE TALKING ABOUT THIS RIGHT NOW.

SO I'M KIND OF A LIMITED THUMB'S UP.

>> SO DOESN'T THIS OPEN UP AN ETHICAL CAN OF WORMS THOUGH?

WE DIVIDE THE WORLD BETWEEN THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN VACCINATED AND THOSE WHO HAVEN'T BEEN, LUKE?

>> CERTAINLY ETHICAL CONCERNS.

I WONDER ABOUT THE UTILITY OF INVESTING A LOT OF TIME AND RESOURCES IN SOME TYPE OF NATIONAL PASSPORT.

WE DON'T KNOW HOW LONG THESE VACCINES WILL LAST.

THE SCIENCE IS JUST STARTING TO COME IN ON THAT.

IT WILL TAKE TIME.

WE ARE OR DEALING WITH MUTATIONS AND VARIANTS OF THE VIRUS THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE ABLE TO BE STOPPED BY THE VACCINES.

IN TERMS OF THE ETHICAL PIECE, WE ARE MARGINALIZING AND STIGMATIZING PEOPLE ON THE BASIS OF HEALTH.

I'M MORE IN FAVOR OF THINKING ABOUT WAYS THAT THE GOVERNMENTS AND PRIVATE COMPANIES CAN REQUIRE PROOF OF VACCINATION, PARTICULARLY PRIVATE COMPANIES, OR VACCINATION ITSELF.

FOR INSTANCE, WHEN YOU GO TO AN AIRPORT, T.S.A.

EMPLOYEES ARE NOT REQUIRED TO BE VACCINATED SO EVEN IF THE TRAVELERS ARE, WHAT ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES THAT ARE INTERACTING WITH THEM AND THEIR BELONGINGS VERY CLOSELY.

SEEMS TO ME IT WOULD BE A BETTER USE OF TIME AND MONEY TO HAVE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO REQUIRE ALL THEIR EMPLOYEES TO BE VACCINATED AND GO FROM THERE.

>> I TAKE LUKE'S POINT VERY WELL.

I THINK THEY'RE ALL VERY STRONG AND GROUNDED.

AT THE SAME TIME, I WORRY HOW WE AS A COUNTRY, CAN REACH THE POINT OF HERD IMMUNITY WITHOUT SOME SORT OF VACCINE MANDATE, NOT ONLY WITH RESPECT TO WHAT DID YOU MENTION-- FLIGHTS AND SPORTING EVENTS, BUT ALSO IN NURSING HOMES AND MALLS AND SCHOOLS AND OTHER AREAS WHERE YOU HAVE PROBLEMS OF DENSITY.

I THINK A SECOND POINT TO CONSIDER IS THAT, GIVEN WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT THE COMMUNITIES THAT HAVE ALREADY INDICATED THAT THEY ARE NOT GOING TO TAKE OR GET THE VACCINE, THIS WILL ULTIMATELY HAVE A DISPROPORTIONAL IMPACT ON COMMUNITIES THAT ALREADY ARE NOT NECESSARILY AT THE TOP OF THE SOCIOECONOMIC LADDER SUCH AS THE 50% OF NON-COLLEGE WORKING CLASS WHITE MEN OF ROUGHLY 50% OF RURAL AREAS, 37% OF LATINOS WHO HAVE SAID THEY'RE NOT GOING TO GET THE VACCINE AS OF LAST WEEK THROUGH NPR'S SURVEY.

SO HOW DO YOU MANDATE VACCINES IN ANY WAY WITHOUT ALSO MITIGATING THE NEGATIVE REPERCUSSIONS FOR ALREADY MARGINALIZED GROUPS.

>> I WONDER IF WE MACHINE DATE A VACCINE, THAT'S GOING-- MANDATE A VACCINE, THAT'S GOING TO TURN IT INTO A PARTISAN ISSUE AND WE WILL HAVE PEOPLE REFUSING TO VACCINATED BECAUSE OF THAT WHICH HAS THE OPPOSITE EFFECT WHAT HAVE WE ARE AFTER.

>> A MANDATE IS A PROBLEMATIC FROM A NUMBER OF POINTS OF VIEW BUT THE ONE THING ABOUT THE VACCINE PASSPORT, IT IS AN INDUCEMENT FOR PEOPLE TO GET THE VACCINE.

THAT IN OF ITSELF IS A POSITIVE ASPECT.

>> A NEW REPORT FROM THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE SAYS THE THREAT FROM MILITIAS AND RACIALLY MOTIVATED VIOLENT EXTREMISTS IS RISING AND MORE VIOLENCE IS LIKELY THIS YEAR.

THIS DOVETAILS WITH EARLIER REPORTS FROM THE FBI AND DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY ABOUT DOMESTIC TERRORISM.

POLITICAL VIOLENCE IS GROWING, AND SO IS IT TIME NOW FOR A LAW THAT SPECIFICALLY TARGETS DOMESTIC TERRORISM?

BOB?

>> WELL, THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION HAS SYSTEMATICALLY DOWNPLAY THE DOMESTIC TERRORIST THREAT AND WE HAVE KNOWN FOR OVER 20 YEARS THERE HAVE BEEN FAR, FAR, FAR MORE INCIDENTS OF MASS VIOLENCE AND OTHER VIOLENCE THAT HAVE BEEN THE RESULT OF DOMESTIC TERRORISM THAN FROM INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM.

AND GIVEN THAT WE HAVE LAWS THAT FOCUS ALREADY ON PROSECUTION BASED ON COMING FROM INTERNATIONAL TERRORISTS.

GIVEN THAT WE HAVE RICO LAWS TO GO AFTER ORGANIZED CRIME, HATE CRIME LAWS AND BIAS CRIME LAWS THAT MAGNIFY PENALTIES FOR CRIMES THAT ARE FOUND TO HAVE A BIAS-RELATED COMPONENT, I THINK IT LOGICALLY FITS IN WITH THOSE.

YOU COULD ARGUE THAT WE DON'T NEED ANY OF THOSE KINDS OF LAWS.

THAT, YOU KNOW, IF VIOLENCE OCCURS, YOU GO AFTER THE PEOPLE WHO COMMIT THE VIOLENCE REGARDLESS OF THE MOTIVATION.

BUT GIVEN THIS KIND OF BUM OF BUNDLE OF LAWS THAT WE HAVE AND THE FACT THAT IT NEEDS A GREATER EMPHASIS.

THE GREATEST THREAT BY FAR, WITH RESPECT TO MASS VIOLENCE IS DOMESTIC TERRORISM, WE HAVE TO START GOING AFTER THESE PEOPLE MORE AGGRESSIVELY AND THIS WOULD BE A WAY TO DO IT.

>> ONE OF THE CONCERNS THAT I HAVE IS THAT WE ALREADY HAVE, BOB, IN THE U.S. CODE, THE MEANS BY WHICH THE FBI CAN ALREADY PROSECUTE AND INVESTIGATE DOMESTIC TERRORISM.

THE CONCERN IS IF YOU LOOK AT THE WAY THE FBI'S DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC TERRORISM READS NOW, AT LEAST ONE OF THOSE CRITERIA CAN APPLY TO ALMOST ANYTHING.

I'LL QUICKLY MENTION THE LANGUAGE IS ACTIVITIES THAT INVOLVE ACTS DANGEROUS TO HUMAN LIFE THAT ARE A VIOLATION OF THE CRIMINAL LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OR OF ANY STATE.

THAT PARTICULAR DEFINITION COULD BRING INTO THE PURVIEW OF THE FBI, DOMESTIC TERRORISM UNIT STREET GANGS IN LOS ANGELES AND CHICAGO AND PRETTY MUCH ANY CRIMINAL THAT TERRORIZES A VICTIM.

AND THE PROBLEM THERE IS THAT YOU WOULD EFFECTIVELY EQUATE THESE STREET GANGS WITH THE LARGER TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS SUCH AS AL-QAEDA, THE TALIBAN AND ALSO THE ISIS THAT WE KNOW HAS BEEN ESPECIALLY PROBLEMATIC.

AND SO, YOU KNOW, TO SORT OF HAVE THAT VERY LOOSE DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC TERRORISM, I THINK, BLURS THE LINES BETWEEN THOSE WHO ARE DOMESTIC TERRORISTS WHO COMMIT LOW LEVEL ACTS OF VIOLENCE OR PERIODIC AND, ON THE OTHER HAND, THOSE SUCH AS THE ORGANIZATIONS I MENTIONED, WHO ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR 20,000 DEATHS PER YEAR.

SO CLEARLY SOMETHING HAS TO BE DONE ABOUT THE INSURRECTIONISTS ON JANUARY 6, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT WE REALLY WANT TO OPEN UP DOMESTIC TERRORISM TO A MUCH BROADER SWATH OF AMERICAN SOCIETY.

>> I AGREE WITH BOB, THAT WE HAVE LAWS ON THE BOOKS DOLING WITH OR DEALING WITH TERRORISM, HATE CRIMES, ORGANIZED CRIME THH DOMESTIC TERRORISTS.

WE DON'T NEED MORE LAWS F. WE NEED A LESSON ABOUT HOW THAT IS A SLIPPERY SLOPE, WE CAN LOOK AT THE PATRIOT ACT WHICH WAS WELL INTENDED AND WE WERE WORRIED ABOUT THE INTERNATIONAL TERRORIST GROUPS BUT IT LED TO PROFILING AND SURVEILLANCE AND PERSECUTION OF MUSLIM AMERICANS AND ARAB AMERICANS AND OTHER GROUPS AND I THINK THAT THERE IS A DANGER IN KIND OF FIDDLING AROUND WITH THIS TOO MUCH.

I THINK THE LAWS ON THE BOOKS CAN BE USED TO, AND I'M NOT AN EXPERT AT ALL, TO PROSECUTE THE PEOPLE WHO WERE INVOLVED ON JANUARY 6 AND THE PEOPLE WHO ARE CONTINUING TO BE THREATENING TO DEMOCRACY AND DOMESTIC LIFE.

>> I WAS JUST GOING TO ASK, WE ARE IN THE DIGITAL AGE NOW, AND A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE COMMUNICATING WITH DIGITAL METHODS.

AND IT IS INTERESTING THAT FBI AGENT, FORMER FBI AGENT CLINT WATTS HAS DONE A LOT OF WORK IN THE ANTITERRORISM AREA AND SAID WE STILL HAVE AN ANALOGUE APPROACH TO SURVEILLING DOMESTIC TERRORISTS.

AND SO LUKE, WHERE DO YOU COME DOWN ON THIS?

DO WE NEED TO IMPLEMENT A NEW LAW?

>> I THINK AS NINA POINTED OUT, THERE ARE A LOT OF TOOLS AVAILABLE TO LAW ENFORCEMENT CURRENTLY.

THERE ARE 57 FEDERAL LAWS RELATED TO TERRORISM.

51 OF THOSE APPLY TO DOMESTIC TERRORISM.

SO THERE IS CERTAINLY A SUFFICIENT AMOUNT OF LAWS OUT THERE.

I'M NOT OPPOSED TO AN ADDITIONAL LAW ON DOMESTIC TERRORISM BUT I AM CONCERNED THAT THE CURRENT LIMITS ON HOW THIS IS APPROACHED STAY IN PLACE.

FOR INSTANCE, I DON'T THINK THERE SHOULD BE ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE OF CITIZENS WITHOUT A WARRANT.

I DON'T THINK THE FBI SHOULD WORK WITH THE CIA TO INVESTIGATE AMERICAN CITIZENS.

I DON'T THINK THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD DESIGNATE DOMESTIC TERRORIST GROUPS.

AND THESE THINGS ARE CURRENTLY PROHIBITED.

SO IF WE MOVE IN THE DIRECTION OF DOM TERRORISM LAW, I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO KEEP THE SAFEGUARDS IN PLACE.

>> YEAH, AND WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY EARLIER, IS THAT THE RICO LAWS WERE ORIGINALLY INTENDED TO MASSIVE CRIMINAL ORGANIZATIONS BUT EVENTUALLY WERE USED TO FIGHT AGAINST VERY SMALL SCALE, ONE WOULD ARGUE, INSIGNIFICANT ORGANIZATIONS AND COMMUNITIES THAT DON'T HAVE RESOURCES.

SO WE DO NEED TO THINK ABOUT WHAT ARE THE RAMIFICATIONS ON THE GROUND.

>> OKAY.

>> I WOULD JUST ADD THAT LAWS NEED TO BE WELL DRAWN IF THEY GO IN THIS AREA.

>> LET'S MOVE AHEAD TO OUR As AND Fs.

BOB YOUR F. >> I DON'T KNOW ABOUT YOU, BUT WHEN I HAVE A BAD DAY, I GO FOR A WALK.

I WATCH A MOVIE.

OR I COMPLAIN TO MY LONG SUFFERING WIFE.

NOW WHAT I DON'T DO IS PICK UP A GUN AND SHOOT EIGHT PEOPLE.

BUT THAT WAS THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF VAGHTING THE MASS SHOOTING IN GEORGIA THIS PAST WEEK; THAT THE SHOOTER HAD A "REALLY BAD DAY."

AN F TO THAT SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND HOW ABOUT GOLF INSTEAD?

>> KRISTI.

GIVING AN F TO SENATOR ROGER WICKER, A REPUBLICAN OF MISSISSIPPI WHO TWEETED POSITIVELY TO HIS CONSTITUENTS ABOUT THE FUNDS IN THE COVID RELIEF BILL THAT TARGET THE LOCAL BUSINESSES, ESPECIALLY RESTAURANTS.

HE SAID THIS WILL ENSURE SMALL BUSINESSES CAN SURVIVE THE PANDEMIC.

BUT OF COURSE HE DID NOT MENTION THAT, LIKE EVERY SINGLE REPUBLICAN, HE VOTED AGAINST THE RELIEF BILL.

>> NINA, YOUR F. >> FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER, SCIENTISTS HAVE DISCOVERED A WAY TO ENABLE MOUSE EMBRYOS TO GROW OUTSIDE OF MOTHER MOUSE OUTSIDE OF A LIVING WOMB.

AND INSTEAD, IN AN ARTIFICIAL WOMB.

I REALIZE THAT THIS IS GOING TO DO A LOT OF GOOD IN THE LONG RUN BUT I ALSO WORRY ABOUT THE MORAL AND ETHICAL IMPLICATIONS OF MECHANIZING SOMETHING AS SACRED AS THE WOMB.

>> LUKE YOUR F. >> MY F GOES TO THE 108 HOUSE REPRESENTATIVES WHO HAVE NOT BEEN VACCINATED FOR COVID DESPITE BEING TOLD TO BY CONGRESSIONAL HEALTH OFFICIALS AND FELLOW MEMBERS DYING.

A POOR EXAMPLE AND PROHIBITIVE TO THE HOUSE FULLY REOPENING.

>> OKAY.

LET'S MOVE TO THE As THEN.

BOB SPITZER.

>> I'M GIVING AN A TO A BILL PASSED BY SHOWPTS CALLED THE FOR THE PEOPLE ACT.

WHICH GOES TO THE SENATE THIS WEEK AND FILLED WITH MUCH NEEDED ELECTORAL REFORMS.

THE SENATE MUST ACT AND THEY NEED, THEY'RE GOING HAVE TO OVERCOME THE FILIBUSTER TO DO IT.

>> KRISTI.

>> AN A TO VIRGINIA GOLF, HE USED HIS EXECUTIVE POWER TO ORDER, TO RESTORE THE VOTING RIGHTS OF PEOPLE CONVICTED OF FELONIES WHO SERVED THEIR SENTENCES.

VIRGINIA IS ONE OF THE FEW STATES WHICH PERMANENTLY DISINGRAN CHIEZS PEOPLE CONVICTED OF FELONIES AND CAN ONLY HAVE THEIR RIGHTS RESTORED BY THE GOVERNOR AFTER LENGTHY PROCEED BUSH ADMINISTRATION.

HE IS MAKING IT VOTING RIGHTS THE NORM.

>> I'M GIVING AN A TO THE U.S. HOW MANY TIMES FOR VOTING HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TO CREATING A PATH FOR CITIZENSHIP FOR 2.5 MILLION UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS AND GRANT LEGAL STATUS TO A MILLION FARM WORKERS AND THEIR FAMILIES.

>> LUKE, YOUR A PLEASE.

>> MY A GOES TO THE NEW YORK STATE LEGISLATURE FOR REJECTING THE GOVERNOR'S EDUCATION BUDGET AND ADVOCATING FOR MORE RESOURCES.

A CHALLENGING YEAR FOR SCHOOL DISTRICTS.

>> OKAY.

THANK YOU FOR JOINING US THIS EVENING.

FOR COMMENTS, YOU CAN WRITE TO AT DRESS ON YOUR SCREEN.

AND IF YOU WANT TO WATCH THE SHOW AGAIN, YOU CAN DO SO ONLINE AT WCNY.ORG.

I'M DAVID CHANATRY.

AND FOR ALL OF US AT "IVORY TOWER."

HAVE A GOOD NIGHT.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪