Rush Limbaugh Program - August 2, 2007, Thursday, Hour #1

All Episodes

Previous Next

Aug. 2, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program

36:26

August 2, 2007, Thursday, Hour #1

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
	Well, thank you, Johnny Donovan.
	I know the worst moment in radio is turning the radio on on this, your favorite radio station, and hearing anyone other than Rush Limbaugh.
	I'm in the same boat as a regular Rush listener.
	Happy 19th anniversary to all the folks here on the program, and what a pleasure it is to be here, starting out the 20th year of excellence in broadcasting with the good news that though Rush is at a super secret location as we speak, he will be back here in this chair tomorrow.
	That's the good news.
	We're here at the Northern Command, high atop the EIB building in Midtown Manhattan, where somehow it appears to me the view is just much clearer than anywhere else within the sound of my voice.
	I am coming to you from this, the East Coast campus of the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies, where there is never a final exam, but we are tested every day.
	Paul W. Smith, and it is a pleasure and a privilege at a time, unfortunately, when we have such bad news coming our way from the Minneapolis-St. Paul area, that interstate highway bridge in downtown Minneapolis, right in the heart of rush hour traffic yesterday collapsing.
	As the governor put it there, this is a catastrophe of historic proportions for Minnesota.
	Don't have actual numbers yet because nobody does.
	Although they can tell you there are four confirmed dead and 30 missing in this bridge collapse, they just don't know.
	Sadly, when something like this happens, an eight-lane bridge, Interstate 35W, part of the major artery between Minneapolis and St. Paul, under repairs, not believed to that there, there was somebody who said there was a guy on a jackhammer.
	Imagine being that guy on the jackhammer.
	He didn't make the bridge collapse, trust me, but it's a terrible thought.
	You're sitting there working on a bridge and it collapses while you're there and you see all that has happened to a bridge that's not old by bridge standards, 1967.
	That's not an old bridge.
	It collapsed in three sections, about a thousand feet long, apparently.
	And that was supported by some steel that kind of a they were very proud of the way they built this bridge because it didn't mess up traffic at the time.
	Ship traffic and all of that, it wouldn't slow things down.
	Commerce wouldn't slow commerce down, which is a good thing, but they're going to be taking a look at this and coming up with some things that are going to probably bother a lot of people.
	First of all, to hear that the bridge was listed as structurally impaired.
	Now, we've been told by the folks in the know involved in this sort of thing that structurally impaired doesn't mean you shouldn't use the bridge.
	And in fact, they point out there are 70 to 80,000 bridges across these United States that are, in fact, listed as structurally impaired.
	There's only one classification below that, and it's functionally obsolete.
	There are about 70,000 bridges across the U.S. that are said to be functionally obsolete.
	These are 2006 figures.
	And you have to ask yourself, folks, what you expect of your government and what you don't.
	And while we spend a lot of time arguing about whether Republicans get it or don't get it for not accepting a YouTube offer to be questioned by a snowman, we're falling apart.
	I'm not saying the sky is falling, the sky is falling, but the infrastructure all across this great land, this fruited plain, the infrastructure of our roads, of our bridges, of our water mains are in big trouble.
	Trillions of dollars of work necessary on these items.
	And we hardly ever talk about it until something like this happens.
	And by the way, luckily, something like this doesn't happen very often.
	You'll hear lots of statistics and figures about bridge collapses.
	What you won't hear is that most of them happened while they were being built or after a ship runs into them or something, an accident.
	Bridges just collapsing, like this one appears to have done, are very rare.
	Thank goodness.
	But they may start to.
	This may become less rare because of the infrastructure and the problems we have.
	One of the problems we have is, as we say, what do we expect of our government, we should know that our government's very involved in protecting us with bridges.
	Let me read this to you that the guys just gave me.
	By the way, what a privilege and a pleasure always it is to be here on this program with the executive producer Cookie Gleason, chief of staff, H.R. Kit Carson, and engineer Mike Maimon.
	They have provided me with this little nugget.
	It just came in regarding bridge conditions.
	Because I said, wait a minute, we have a structurally impaired or we have a functionally obsolete.
	These are designations, classifications for the bridges in our wonderful country.
	Well, listen to this.
	Try to make sense of this as I read this to you.
	The Federal Highway Administration, FHWA, has adopted as the performance measure for bridge condition the percent of total deck area that is on deficient bridges on the NHS and the percent of total deck area that is on deficient bridges off the NHS.
	This statistic is calculated based on the total deck area of deficient bridges, whether structurally deficient or functionally obsolete, divided by the total deck area for all bridges.
	All ranges of average daily traffic, ADT, are included in the calculation.
	However, separate and specific performance goals have been set for NHS and non-NHS bridges for performance planning purposes.
	This chapter focuses on the physical conditions of all bridges.
	Chapter 12 examines bridge conditions on the NHS in more detail.
	It goes on and on.
	And it really shouldn't be that complicated.
	The total number of structurally deficient bridges in 2004, 77,796, which accounted for 9.7% of the total deck area on all bridges, which is truly a very small number out of all the bridges.
	However, it's a really, really big number if you're on one of those bridges and it collapses.
	That number becomes huge.
	Way bigger than 9.7%.
	And we have to start pointing out to the people who come up with all of this and all of their numbers and all of their figures, and God bless them for being able to do it.
	But the fact is, we don't live like that.
	If I'm on a really, really bad bridge in Duluth, it doesn't really matter if somebody's on a really, really good bridge in Arkansas.
	I don't rest assured that our government, individually and as a whole, is taking good care of us.
	This thing goes on to say the number of functionally obsolete bridges in 2004 was 80,632, which accounted for approximately 17.4% of the total deck area.
	When combined, the total number of structurally deficient and functionally obsolete bridges for 2004 was 158,428 and accounted for 27.1% of the total deck area.
	It goes on, it goes on, it goes on.
	The point is this: there are some real issues in this country that we need to deal with.
	Whether the Republicans spend time on YouTube being questioned by a snowman probably is way, way down the list.
	Whether man somehow or another truly is affecting the environment is way, way down the list.
	Whether we're doing a good job educating our kids is buried in there somewhere and talked about all the time, and yet no one seems to really be doing anything about it.
	And when there's a circumstance or a situation where we're giving away our secrets to our enemies, but we refuse to give our own intelligence community the tools they need,
	apparently that's just not sexy enough to get the cameras to show up right there, right now in Washington, where they're arguing about this and maybe not fixing the problem.
	Maybe not saying, all right, we're not going to politicize the security of our nation.
	We're going to do what we know has to be done.
	And yet, because the Democrats don't like the Attorney General, Attorney General Gonzalez, and you know from listening to this program, I thought I'd never be asked back.
	I'm not a big fan because I thought I'm afraid he made some really small-time lawyer mistakes back with the firing of the prosecutors when all he had to say was they serve at the pleasure of the President of the United States and the President wants to make a change.
	And had he said that and only that, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in.
	But because he opened the door and said too much, they find contradictions.
	All of us would contradict ourselves if we went back over a period of time looking at notes and things that were logged and not logged.
	But the point is, so I kind of came down on him the last time I was here because those were simple mistakes.
	But the point now is that doesn't give the Democratic Party and the Democrats and our elected officials sent to Washington to work for us this free pass to forget about security and say things like, well, we're not going to give this guy, this Attorney General, that kind of authority.
	So they have diverted off the substance of what is important in this issue of national security to just take another opportunity to bash the Attorney General.
	So on this program today, we'll do a lot of different things.
	We'll talk, of course, we look forward to talking with you at 1-800-282-2882.
	That's 1-800-282-2882, or you can go to rushlimbaugh.com.
	And we will talk with a number of people that we enjoy speaking with.
	Newt Gingrich, a little later in the program, because he's just always interesting to talk with about a variety of issues.
	He has strong thoughts and opinions.
	But we will start this hour off in just a moment with United States Representative Peter Hoekstra.
	He's the top Republican on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
	And he's right there in Washington and on the floor and in the heart in the middle of this battle with Congress voting to give terrorists U.S. intelligence and refusing to allow our intelligence to listen to the terrorists.
	He's got the very latest details on where we are on this.
	You'll note that once the Congressman started sounding the alarm, once the PM Wall Street Journal, it's the P.M. Wall Street Journal, the pre-Murdoch Wall Street Journal.
	Once the PM Wall Street Journal came out in their editorial saying, you know, what in the world is going on here?
	We have a problem here, the wiretap debacle from last week.
	All of a sudden, some Democrats are saying, well, boy, we're going to look bad.
	Boy, boy, if there's another terrorist attack, it's where we're going to look bad.
	We're going to get to that and more with Congressman Pete Hoekstra up next.
	Again, our number is 1-800-282-2882.
	This is the Rush Limbaugh program.
	I'm Paul W. Smith.
	Paul W. Smith in for Rush Limbaugh.
	I am the morning man at News Talk 760, WJR, the great voice of the Great Lakes from the Golden Tower of the Fisher Building in Detroit, a proud carrier of this very program, just like here on this, your favorite radio station.
	Happy to be with you.
	And Rush will be back tomorrow.
	He's at a super secret location, but he will be back here, and in fact, at the Northern Command tomorrow, right where he belongs.
	United States Representative Pete Hoekstra, top Republican on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, started sounding the alarm about some loopholes in FISA and some bills that had to be brought up today, 30-year-old technology, and he's here to tell us the very, very latest.
	Congressman, welcome to the Rush Limbaugh program.
	This is Paul W. Smith.
	Hi.
	Hey, Paul W. Good to be with you.
	Nice to have you with us.
	I am taking it.
	You're right there as it's happening.
	That's exactly right.
	We're continuing negotiations to fill this really ugly loophole.
	You know, we're at heightened security risk.
	There's a new al-Qaeda video out today talking about the White House burning and these kinds of things.
	And we continue in the circumstances where if you want to listen to Osama bin Laden in Pakistan on his cell phone, if he ever gets on one, we'd have to get a court order to do that.
	And the problem is now with a law that's almost 30 years to the day old, the technology has so changed.
	And because of the way phone service works now, this whole thing about international calls and domestic calls is all turned upside down because it's possible for two people to be making an international call from one place outside of the United States to another place outside of the United States, and you correct me if I'm wrong, Congressman, that might actually pass through domestically the United States to get to those two different international locations.
	And we're not supposed to be able to listen to those now without going to the court and getting permission.
	Communications has changed so much in 30 years.
	We've gone through from old copper wire and microwaves to fiber optics.
	And fiber optics changed the way the world and the way the world communicates.
	Communications that used to go by a copper wire from one point A to point B may now.
	You may be talking to one part of Spain, talking to another part of Spain, and that call may go through the United States because they can get there quicker and cheaper than that.
	So when Jay Rockefeller says any proposal without the review of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court is simply unacceptable, that is, that the Attorney General Gonzalez would have to get court approval before eavesdropping on suspected foreign terrorists overseas.
	That seems ludicrous, doesn't it?
	Well, put yourself in the boots of our soldiers in Iraq.
	They go in, they go in, they capture an al-Qaeda stronghold.
	They pick up what we call pocket litter, indications as to phone numbers or various communications methods.
	And they say, yes, this is going to give us an insight as to where some other bad guys are, people who are planting IEDs and things along it, people trying to kill us.
	They get that information.
	They give it to their commander.
	They give it to their intelligence unit.
	Their intelligence unit says, yeah, we're going to do everything we can to get a court order in Washington, D.C., as quick as we can to start listening to these phone calls.
	As a soldier, you'd say, excuse me?
	These people are trying to kill me.
	What are we doing here?
	And let me point out, and I don't know how much of this I can say, and you'll tell us, Congressman, it seems to me this is not just some hypothetical.
	There's a very specific story coming out, an AP story, I believe, that's coming out today or tomorrow that's going to talk about a very real situation where we really needed to move fast to protect some soldiers on the ground, a life and death situation, and there was some concern and some holding back because they were concerned about contacting the courts and getting permission.
	Yeah, about the only thing I can say on, you know, who knows what the media is going to say today, tomorrow, or any day, what I can tell you, this is not theory.
	This is real-life situations where people's lives here in the U.S. or our soldiers' lives overseas depend on getting access to communications in real time, not in two days, four days, or whatever it takes to, you know, what does it mean to get a quarter?
	It means you have to get the information that gives you probable cause that convinces a judge that this person overseas can reasonably be expected to be planning to do bad things to America or American soldiers.
	And part of this, Congressman, and I'll give you more time in just a moment to finish your thought on this, but part of it seems to me to be another opportunity, they think, to go after the top law enforcement officer of the United States to go after the Attorney General Gonzalez.
	Well, the Democrats know that they can't win this on the merits of the argument.
	I mean, for a year and a half after this program became public, they said, FISA works, FISA works, it doesn't need to change.
	The president ought to put this program under FISA.
	The president put the program under FISA, and now we find out we have these huge gaps.
	The president was right all along.
	The Democrats were wrong.
	I want you to finish that thought, and I want our listeners to join in at 1-800-282-2882 on the Rush Limbaugh program.
	Thank you, Johnny Donovan, keeping you on top of what's happening every hour of every day, including these three hours of broadcast excellence with America's anchorman Rush Limbaugh on this, your favorite radio station.
	And Rush will be back in the chair tomorrow here from the Northern Command, the East Coast campus of the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies, staying on top of that horrible tragedy, the Interstate Highway Bridge, downtown Minneapolis collapsing.
	At this point, we have at least four killed, 79 hurt, at least 50 cars plunged, 60 plus feet, 30, 20 to 30 now, they say, missing.
	20 to 30 people may be missing.
	It's impossible to say for sure that very close to the University of Minnesota, and a lot of people using that bridge.
	It was very crowded down to a couple of lanes because of work being done on the bridge.
	We'll continue to follow that story 24 hours a day as we also cover some of the other stories, things that are happening right now in Washington, D.C.
	And Congressman Pete Hoekstra is with us, top Republican on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
	You can join in if you have a question of the Congressman while we still have him at 1-800-282-2882.
	That's 1-800-282-2882 to be on the Rush Limbaugh program with Paul W. Smith and Congressman Pete Hookstra.
	Congressman, before we had to take the break, you were in the midst of finishing your thought and your concerns and what's happening on the floor right there right now in Washington.
	That's right.
	And we were talking about Attorney General Gonzalez.
	And what the Democrats know is they can't win this argument on the merits.
	And what they resort to is, well, let's attack the Attorney General.
	He's weakened.
	Let's make this an argument about whether we're going to give Attorney General Gonzalez the right to make these kinds of difficult decisions.
	It has nothing to do about Attorney General Gonzalez.
	We need to be able to listen in to foreign terrorists who are talking about foreign intelligence and they are overseas.
	That's as simple as it is.
	The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, FISA, about 30 years old.
	We're talking about fixing it at least a little bit before you guys go on break.
	Well, we have to fix it, but the track record of the Democrats in Congress since they've taken control is all they've done is weakened intelligence.
	Last week, they passed the last of the 9-11 recommendations.
	They said, wow, this is great.
	Now they passed the bad ideas that the Republicans threw out.
	One of those things is, you know, they've decided to give a dot to al-Qaeda, the Russians, and the Chinese.
	We are now going to declassify how much we spend on intelligence.
	I think that's a bad decision.
	They think it's a great decision.
	We're giving away our secrets to our enemies.
	It's none of their business, of course, what we're spending on intelligence.
	And we refuse to give our intelligence community the tools they need.
	As it stands, the special court must approve a warrant for investigators to intercept messages that are believed, but not proved to be between foreign suspects who are overseas.
	That's exactly right.
	And for 30 years, we've had in place a process that if we ever collect a U.S. person or a U.S. phone that's taken care of, the court has reviewed that process.
	They believe that all American civil liberties are protected through that process.
	What some now want to do is they want to extend to foreign terrorists to North Korea and China the same protections that we give American citizens.
	That's what this is about.
	All right.
	Well, let's see what our Rush Limbaugh audience has to say about this on the Rush Limbaugh program at 1-800-282-2882.
	That's 1-800-282-2882 or rushlimbaugh.com.
	I'm Paul W. Smith in for Rush, and Aaron is in Brownwood, Texas, and joining us.
	Aaron, say hello to Congressman Hookstra.
	How are you guys doing?
	Doing well.
	I've got a few comments, but on a more general level, you know, I have to say I kind of respect the process that's happening in Congress right now because I feel that, you know, if the Pfizer law was not serving the intelligence community well, and if Bush felt he needed to conduct a more thorough wiretapping, that's okay.
	But I think there's a process for that.
	You know, we have due process of law, and he needs to go to Congress and say, hey, guys, this is a tool I really need, and we can provide him with that tool.
	But if he keeps it secret, you know, that causes all sorts of problems that we don't need.
	Yeah.
	I'm glad you brought it up because I'll tell you how the program got started.
	You know, September 12, the day after 9-11, 2001, the President brought together his national security advisors, defense folks, and said, how do we find out what other threats are out there, how big this threat is, what other threats are there to the United States?
	And he turned on the Intel community and said, what can you do to get me more information?
	They came back with some more proposals that included, you know, enhanced surveillance of foreign terrorists.
	He said, that looks like a good idea.
	I got to make sure that this is America's program and it's not my program.
	He brought in the top leadership of the House and the Senate, the top members of both intelligence committees, and laid out for him what he thought America should do to keep America safe.
	They all signed off on it and said, this is good.
	And we don't want to take this to Congress to change or adjust the law right now, because if we do that, we'll bring this out in the public and we'll tell al-Qaeda exactly what we're doing and what our capabilities are and what our limitations are.
	And of course, what we do is we realize now that that's up to the New York Times to do.
	That's right.
	Which is what they did in 2005.
	That's right.
	And all of a sudden, those Democratic leaders who were briefed on this program and had no problem with it started complaining, started saying that the president was breaking the law.
	Yeah, I think Nancy Pelosi was briefed five times in the first 12 to 14 months of this program.
	And congressional leaders every quarter were briefed on this program about how many calls we're listening to, the kind of information we're getting, the legality of the program.
	And I started getting briefed in on this in 2004.
	And immediately, the last question that was always presented to me, Congressman, is there any other information you need, and are you comfortable with what we are doing?
	And that was it.
	We were given the opportunity to object and reject the program that the president or that America was running to keep us safe.
	And until the New York Times came out with their story, it was always consistent.
	We need to do it, and we need to do this to keep us safe.
	And as the Wall Street Journal pointed out, the PM Wall Street Journal pointed out this past week, as a gesture of compromise in January, the president agreed to seek warrants under the FISA process.
	They went on to say it was an enormous mistake that has unilaterally disarmed one of our best intelligence weapons in the war on terror.
	Let's go to Mark in Chicago.
	This is the Rush Limbaugh Program.
	I'm Paul W. Smith, and we've got United States Representative Pete Hoekstra with us, the top Republican on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
	Mark?
	Gentlemen, thank you very much for taking my phone call.
	It's an extreme honor to talk to both of you.
	Thank you.
	Congressman, quick question is.
	I have one that's about my younger son is about, I think he's third or fourth week in Marine boot camp out in San Diego.
	And I've heard a lot of this, and I guess my concern is, and my direct question to you is my concern is as a military parent and a potential son that could be involved in some of these things overseas, it really frustrates me to see that sometimes they're not given all the proper tools of what they need to get this job done.
	I know that's a broad comment, but as a parent, and obviously you have probably a lot of military parents right now, not only in boot camp listening, but overseas with kids.
	What can we do to help with this with our senators and congressmen in Washington, D.C.?
	Well, I think you laid it out perfect.
	And, you know, thank your son for his service to our country.
	But this is not a theoretical debate.
	We have folks in Iraq, in Afghanistan, Pakistan, who are planning each and every day about how they can kill American troops.
	And we're saying that Democrats are saying before we give these troops the information that they need to keep themselves safe, I'm sorry.
	We've got to go to a court in a court in Washington, D.C., and get a warrant under probable cause that these are really bad people.
	And tell this to an 18, 19-year-old kid who's driving in a Humvee down the highway in Iraq tonight.
	And if we're not going to give them the tools to keep safe and to win this, then we ought to take them home.
	And maybe that's what the Democrats want to do.
	But while they're there, give them the tools to win and to be safe.
	I don't know how anybody could argue with this, but they are arguing it while we speak right there on the floor.
	And we're glad that you're there as our eyes and ears and letting us know what's happening.
	You have had some, wasn't it Hastings from Florida, who did say before they leave for the break, they're going to get this thing resolved.
	Well, they said they're going to do something.
	And in Washington language, something could be something really bad and usually is.
	We need to make sure that what we do is right and gets us the information we need to keep us safe at the homeland and our troops safe overseas.
	If you would, if you'd stay just a bit longer, because you mentioned at the start of our program some kind of new al-Qaeda propaganda ad headlined with wait for the big surprise, and it closes with the word soon, God willing.
	I'd like to hear more about that if I could, and I'm sure our listeners would as well.
	1-800-282-2882 is our number.
	I'm Paul W. Smith on what really is radio-free America.
	We don't need a fairness doctrine.
	We are the fairness doctrine on the Rush Schlimbaugh program.
	No, I don't mean the PM Wall Street Journal is better than the Post-Murdock Wall Street Journal.
	For all I know, from the business side, I'm hearing people say he's going to save the Wall Street Journal.
	I think the Wall Street Journal is one of the greatest newspapers ever.
	And I was, you know, the newspaper business is tough.
	So whatever they can do to stay around, because we need them.
	We need the Wall Street Journal to stick around.
	All right, let's wrap up here with the Congressman because we have Congressman Pete Hoekstra, the top Republican on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
	He's right there in Washington on the floor as they're arguing about the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act or FISA, the 1978 Act.
	And we need to get this thing resolved before they break.
	But you mentioned there are two things, two final things.
	One, the anti-terror bill.
	But first, what about this new propaganda campaign, the big surprise from Al-Qaeda?
	What can you tell us about that coming out today?
	Well, it's just a continuation of all the chatter that is out there, you know, the different communications that we're intercepting that just led to the national intelligence estimate a couple of weeks ago that was released publicly that says al-Qaeda clearly wants to attack us again.
	The chatter is out there that is very similar to this kind of stuff and the levels that we hear prior to major attacks from al-Qaeda.
	You know, it's an inconvenient truth to John Edwards and those folks.
	Al-Qaeda is a real threat, and this is not a bumper sticker war.
	Right.
	Well, as we've found.
	The anti-terror bill, though, you guys had the 9-11 bill in 2004 where you felt like you threw out some of the bad stuff.
	This whole idea that this is a big victory is so hollow to me when you consider that 9-11 happened so long ago.
	And in fact, the 9-11 Commission gave their report and their recommendations like three years ago, and yet they're kind of ballyhooing the fact that they've got this anti-terror bill finally in effect, which is kind of ludicrous after all this time.
	But there's something you don't like about it still.
	Oh, that's right.
	The 9-11 Commission, for whatever reason, said the U.S. ought to declassify how much it spends on intelligence.
	And it's like, now, why would we want to tell the Russians, the Chinese, Al-Qaeda, or whatever how much we spend on intelligence?
	You know, intelligence is about collecting the dots and then connecting them.
	I'll tell you, telling our enemies how much we spend is one big dot that they no longer have to try to collect, but now they can start putting the pieces together that give them a better insight into our capabilities.
	It's nuts.
	It is nuts.
	I hope that things go well on the floor there.
	What would be the best thing, in your opinion, Congressman Hoekstra, that could come out of what's being argued on the floor as we speak regarding FISA and our ability to protect ourselves, our men and women, and our country from terrorists?
	It's very, very straightforward.
	Number one, make clear that when we target a foreign number, a foreign individual for surveillance, that the FISA court has no jurisdiction over that.
	The second thing is that for people who provide the services or whatever, that they are compelled to cooperate with our government.
	And thirdly, that if a U.S. citizen is ever collected or targeted, that that will be reviewed by the FISA court, that we make sure that we protect American civil liberties, but we don't give them to anybody else.
	And, Congressman, any problem with the fact that now these days with technology, two international calls going to each other or an international call going from one international location to another actually passes through domestic equipment being a problem or not?
	Well, that's why we say whenever we target a foreign collection point, you know, whatever type of communication it is, that the FISA court has no jurisdiction over us targeting foreigners, whether it's North Korea, al-Qaeda, China, Iran, or Syria.
	All right.
	Well, a pleasure having you on, especially while you're in the heart of all the activity, and it's nothing less than what the Rush Limbaugh Program listeners have expected.
	We appreciate your help.
	Hey, thanks for your time.
	Have a great day.
	You do the same.
	That's United States Representative Pete Hoekstra.
	He is the top Republican on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
	He's the guy who first started sounding the alarm on some of the loopholes and some of the problems and some of the updating that was needed on this 30-year-old FISA law.
	And the president finally stepped up.
	The PM Wall Street Journal, the pre-Murdoch Wall Street Journal.
	I have no idea if it'll be any different with Mr. Murdoch there.
	But the Wall Street Journal sounded the alarm last week.
	And finally, it looks like the Democrats are coming to the table and realizing that some things have to be done here.
	Now, a lot of people still very concerned, as you might guess, with the infrastructure of the United States and collapsing bridges, most specifically this horrific situation with the Interstate Highway Bridge downtown Minneapolis.
	It is a catastrophe of historic proportions for Minnesota, as their governor put it.
	And we'll talk a little bit more about that.
	You may have a thought or two from where you stand or sit at 1-800-282-2882.
	That's 1-800-282-2882.
	A little later, much later in the program, Newt Gingrich will be with us to talk about infrastructure, education, and many other issues.
	As we continue here on the Rush Limbaugh program, I'm Paul W. Smith.
	Oh, no, no, we're opening the phone lines all the way at 1-800-282-2882, 1-800-282-2882 about whatever's on your mind.
	I've got a lot on my mind.
	The overcoverage of tragedies that seems to happen now in our country, the overcoverage of non-stories like police chases and things like that.
	Some want to weigh in on the infrastructure of the country with the bridge collapse and other issues.
	The New York Times on our side?
	Well, don't get too excited.
	And my problem that I've had for years with so-called reality TV.
	Here on the Rush Limbaugh program, I'm Paul W. Smith.

▲