court. can you imagine national security matter that we are going to basically take a timeout to deal with the case of an arm the federal judiciary with who knows how long the delay might be? the urgent intelligent for the foreign intelligence court becoming a means for section 703 through a series of legal delays and one actor who disagreed with the foreign intelligence surveillance court's determination have the ability to stop what's already a constitutional local program in its tracks. this is a radical departure from an amicus of the court.

going to court proceedings, the front of the court is there to provide expertise and get right, not to come up the process to become an adversary. as i noted, a key to section 702 professionals timely actionable intelligence to keep america safe spinning the role the amicus to turn them into an adversary would hamper the program and i believe make it or less useful. the house is ready have a thoughtful debate about this topic and i believe profitability that expands dissipation and reasonable productive way without shutting down the process. number three -- there will be no

impact sectional to expires tonight midnight because of the directives will replace it. like many misconceptions, this is based on truth. early this month the surveillance for renewed the annual 702 certification processor april 2025. as i mentioned before intelligence workers includes three articles, like judges regularly sign off on procedures under section 702 and found them to be lawful and constitutional and they have certified process through 2025 but that does not mean the programs continued for another year and tonight midnight some communications service providers.

cooperating with the u.s. government not what happened in 2008 the predecessor to section : to protect america lapse. attorney general director of national intelligence wrote about the impact of the lapse and said voters delayed refused compliance with the request to initiate new surveillance and other surveillance targets pursuant to the protect america act but ultimately led to degraded intelligence capability. none of these merit-based countries are going to cooperate in the thing of a bicycle provides a requirement that they

do so and big productions with. the department of justice could go to court and compel companies to continue to cooperate from the litigation and related to the laser. i believe without 702, there is no way these companies will be required to or be willing to cooperate in the couldn't be a more dangerous time devoted to the test. direct array of national intelligence, all of the members of the intelligence community leaders have set the number of just facing america has never been greater, certainly not since world war ii. the terrace proxies attacking israel and continuing its assault on ukraine and china is doing instability in the middle east.

underpin the ability to predict and respond to each of the threats and we would be flying blind without 70200. 702 misinformation runs rampant but here are the facts. 702 comprises fourth amendment in section 702 is invaluable because it gives timely actionable intelligence, warrant requirements with dramatic expansion would undercut that capability and less sectionals to his extended of today, our intelligence give abilities will take a hit, no question about that. we cannot count on communication providers to keep providing information until expiration.

there's a lot on the line today and congress cannot, in good conscious deprived of america's dedicated intelligence professionals of the authority they need to continue to keep our country safe. section 702 of the surveillance act is vital to national security and must be extended as reformed and the house bill. i yield to the floor.

war and raised cities and towns and strengthening commerce and trade. they forced them to leave preventing artists. aid workers and delivery.

this may bring unprecedented levels of starvation. according to the united nations, more than 50000 people reported killed with an additional ten been 15000 and one time alone. 25 million including 14 million children need humanitarian assistance in basic materials like food, water and clothing. sudan is one of the worst crisis the world has seen for decades. without pressure under siege millions of civilians controlled by the saf. people have no access to aid and international community has no

plans to protect them should they announce full-scale assault. when the senate foreign relations committee says just come back from, he gave us a first-hand account of the hunger, violence. in foreign relations many without the eminence. this week the center for human rights released the report including aggressive his committee genocide. the evidence is clear and overwhelming, we must take action now. at this military conference in paris, an additional $100 million in aid to respond to the conflict.

the largest donor to date. we need all to do more. i am pleased the supplemental including $9 million in additional humanitarian aid all the humanitarian aid would go to help. despite the appropriations committee and some parts of the usa, as much as 10%. we need to expand, not shrink.

we should not have to choose between starving sudanese. between helping patients or the ukrainians. every life is precious and every day delayed matters. we're still debating to understand that. there's so many reasons why you need to pass this. i hope you will get to us as soon as possible. it is difficult and the ammunitions and support they need against russia, it's important for the indo pacific

and essential for humanitarian aid in the supplemental. russia is relentlessly calming the energy sector. lloyd alston has said ukraine survival is in danger. security situation is worse. the humanitarian situation worse. they are twice only in the past 15 years, thousands of civilians will be next unless we act. prevention efforts have a good track record record. we prevented three out of four congress passed the appropriation bill. america's in our values. the global community depends upon our leadership.

archdiocese of nancy we don't stand by when people are starving. we have the capacity and we need to act and show we live by our failures. the two sides to sit down and negotiate peace. we got to stop the war on traction. the outside country support choosing side to adding to the civil war taking place but in the meantime must allow humanitarian access throughout the country. as we work the one-year anniversary of the conflict, i want to say to the international community, the biden administration door is we need to act now. we need others to step up their

money where their mouth are now. we need to support countless refugees should now. we need diplomatic talks to end warren sudan to resume now. it's time to set a date and finally to my colleagues in the house, you need to act now has to supplemental appropriation bill we sent to you in mid-february and provide a lifeline to millions of sudanese whose lives are on the line. we must not stand by idly and watch them perish. i urge all to act with urgency i would suggest the absence of a quorum.

our adversaries, those individuals who intend to do our nation harm. it's been great debate and great discussion among the members in this body. everyone in agreement that there have been unbelievable abuses by the fbi. access to important intelligence. the underlying bill for which there is broad support punishes the fbi, criminalizes abuses and limits and restricts fbi's

access to foreign intelligence and guardrails to punish fbi it was also an agreement is the protection of americans similar to. you have to have a warrant and absolute constitutional protection of americans data. in the statute where americans data becomes at risk. it's not about lying on our adversaries, the debate is about a warrant requirement and an amendment offered by candy biggs and jayapal. this largely drafted by senator wyden cosponsored by elizabeth warren would, for the first time in history, provide constitutional rights to our adversaries. it would provide constitutional rights to our enemies, no courts, no law has ever come out

of this body that would provide constitutional rights for our adversaries. we spy on hezbollah, hamas, we spy on the ayatollah, we spy on the communist party of china. this bill provides constitutional protection to communicate people in the united states to recruit them for the purposes copy buys and doing espionage. the 9/11 perpetrators were in the united states mitigating with al qaeda. we made a grave mistake that we are not signed and we didn't see who they were communicating with in the united states. we changed the last and got to see the extent to which they were recruiting people to do us harm if this amendment passes, this will help will cause additional production to recruit in the united states and the communist party book

coproductions and no increased production of constitutional protections for americans in their data. the only data that would be protected data located in al qaeda's inbox communist chinese. how is that they become protected? this would require you have to a warrant to look into communist chinese party data for the recruitment efforts they are doing in the united states. he would have to have evidence of a crime occurring to get that which means we will be wind but at the moment this becomes law, who will be blind and unable to look at what hezbollah is doing in the united states, hamas and the communist party. no additional protections for americans. americans still hopeful cause additional protection of their own data. let me give an example under the

amendment. we are spying on hamas going to people in the united states sent e-mails what one says happy birthday and one says give for the bomb making process. when those two e-mails will thomas, right now we see them. if you said before they too, said we see it, not a threat to the united states. you sent an e-mail that says thank you for the bomb making classes, we intercept the e-mail, read and find out who it is and when we come here to find that person to arrest them and make certain they don't harm americans, we have to go to court to get a warrant. there already is a warrant requirement for the protection of americans and people in the united states. if you have to have a want to look at the e-mails sent to, happy birthday to thank you for the bomb making classes, you have no evidence of a crime, the ability to read these two e-mails, we will go.

the fbi abuses have been extraordinary and searching of foreign data. we need to punish them, this underlying bill punishes the fbi. we should not punish americans, we should not make our nations less safe by the constitutional protections of hamas giving protections. i've talked to members on the floor and they say this amendment is about protecting americans in the united states. it's not. already protected by the constitution says nobody on his counselor who would argue you do not need a want to look at americans data in the united states. this amendment, and i encourage everyone to pick it up and read it, applies to the data we collect and spy on hamas, has a lot and chinese communist party. to give them a want, give them constitutional protections means they are open for business. the day after this assess and we

got one from a communist chinese party because recruit the united states on our industry and university hamas and hezbollah a complete pass, who will be blind as they try to recruit people in the united states. currently we keep america safe by lying on our adversaries. do not give our adversaries constitutional protection. with that, i reserve. >> thank you. i yield my time. >> arise in support of this legislation, let me is against is determined that, section 702 is our single most important intelligence authority. our single most important intelligence authority. we use it everyday to protect the nations from rents ranging from china and russia terrorist plots, mental traffickers and much more.

it cannot be allowed to expire. it's also true the 702 program requires central form. we done this before and we are doing it in this bill. i would make critical points are, arguably be our most scrutinized overseeing intelligence authority, it's proven i will say this twice, every single year and has been 2009 federal judges crawl all over this program looking for constitutional violations, looking for violations of law and since 2009, they have recertified this program is overseen by commerce, the chairman and i see problems with the program, is overseen by the attorney general, the most scrutinized intelligence collection program we have. the bill before the house is a product serious oversight resulting in preserving 702

while putting in place for the 50 significant reforms in preventing misuse. those misuses detailed which by the way, down to 90%, this would qualify those reforms would require fbi continue to follow those rules. the reforms to 702. among many proposals, by the biden administration and others to ensure compliance, the bill would ban to conduct and find evidence of a crime and cut by 90% the number of fbi personnel that could include clarity. we will consider several amendments to the bill, most of which i will support. however, i am opposed to the big

home and it had misguided proposal that undermines our national security. i understand the instinct is no way to collect intelligence without having some americans on the other side. this bill was in place protection to make sure abuses of the past don't continue into the future and i would add i understand the concern. federal judges crawl over this program every year end not one federal judge, not one has found constitutional issues. the president the liberties oversight board proposal warrant much less extreme than the one in the biggs amendment. the oversight board and this proposal proposed that only in the event an inquiry, about 2% would a warrant be required.

in this moment it will not work, you don't take that from me, talk to anybody in the government uses this program. we do know if it's about something that is a contingency until he noticed in the information. this would make us far less, whose the ability terrorist plots no because it was constitutionally required but said this week expensive farm in

my side of the aisle the president extraordinary style in which he reiterates the damage done by the seven. a lot of what we do here, consequences telecopier immediately. we can only ability of the government for data will be known and why what happened happened and the consequences will be known soon and accountability will be visited. i resume the balance of my time. >> underlying bill, bipartisan product and the intelligence

committee when we realize the four years ago the abuses taking place within our intelligence system and renew we had to act and that had to be reforms in terminal liability when people in their agencies are doing the wrong thing. that wasn't in place and for the last two and a half years we have worked on this in a bipartisan way, not just for the intelligence committee but the whole body we opened up to the entire body. republicans, democrats, regardless of what committee you are on it would work together to craft a very good bill. this isn't just an intelligence committee bill. a house of representatives bill. let's hope we have. this ensures american civil liberties union are secure and we have intelligence collection we need to safeguard from

foreign threats. the constitution assess provide for our defense. that is what we are trying to work against foreign and domestic, that is what we are trying to do so to set the record straight. it's already in statute and wants us required of us in the time the united states government investigate u.s. person under section 702. a warrant is not required eight weary. find out what might need for probable cause to get a warrant. now the amendment wants to put a warrant on the query and time is of the essence. but, i want to know why talking about you, mr. speaker.

let's see if anyone else is talking about you and i want to find out if they are planning to assassinate you. i shouldn't need he wants. i shouldn't need a want to find out. working with someone in the united states are americans but if we want to investigate that person, yes for what we do. there's a lot of information out there. american civil liberties union are not being harmed. so a hypothetical example, american citizens about in a database, some say government can obtain e-mail and text and phone call, that is not true. let us not true you can do a

query to see if anyone else is talking about this person and not just anyone else anywhere but before and after for foreign terrorist information you already have a look can you imagine if you're looking -- >> twenty seconds remaining. >> i want to say what's true and what's not true. a theory is not investigating u.s. citizens. in many pieces, is acting on behalf of the u.s., keep them safe at night look back. >> gentlemen reserves, from netiquette is recognized. >> it is my glitch to yield two minutes the longest serving

member of the house intelligence committee other, a member is my republican colleagues regularly might me, unchallengeable as he came to this is addition to fight for civil liberties, i yield two minutes nancy pelosi. >> thank you. i think the gentleman for yielding and for leadership of intelligence committee and i think our members of the intelligence for their important work on both sides of the aisle. i know it's a place of bipartisanship. as indicated, i came to this committee in the early 90s and my purpose was to protect civil liberties as protected national security of our country. two purposes, want to stop weapons, nuclear weapons make sure to protect. in the course of time, i have

had legislation less than what i would have liked but advanced the cause. they have put forth a clear idea about why 702 is important. i just want to say, in the early 90s, i became ranking member of the committee and for 20 years a gang of eight in terms of receiving intelligence up until last year. for that whole time is about what it means to the liberties of the american people. a bill we brought to former president bush this president that addressed concerns, didn't go all the way and in this legislation, there scores of provisions that strengthen our

facebook liberty. some of them, improving on existing faucet, some new provisions in the law to protect civil liberties of the american people. for this amendment seriously undermining our ability to protect national security i urge our colleagues to vote against. i'll have the time right now but i'll tell you how we can happen saved from 9/11 to have the additional warrants. i urge a no vote, i guess on the bill and yield back the balance of my time.

find an impartial jury given that the defendant is a former president?

>> should him normal circumstances, and impartial juror even more difficult and high-profile case and even more difficult than that is the next president but we seen the process work in a way it should. slowly and methodically went through the process so far we have 12, we have to get the alternate but they will empower the jury and it might going to monday in very short order. >> can you explain what it really means for the jury to be impartial or at least the looks for impartial jurors? it can't be that you don't know who the defendant is. >> that's right so i will start by explaining what it's not. it does not mean juror who

doesn't know about the case, it doesn't mean juror who has no opinion about the case. to the contrary. what it means is a juror, notwithstanding any bias, any pre-disposition, prior judgment about the case and nonetheless aside judgments and render fair and impartial voting so let us be impartial juror, what the court is looking for and to be honest, the 100 or so the jury trial by probably more, if i came across the for hearing anything about that case, it immediately would not put them on the panel so they do know about the case and ask opinions but the key is whether they can put the opinions aside and follow the instructions of the judge and render a fair and

impartial product. >> binding that jury, is there anything to new york? >> that's a great question. every state, they each have a different customs in court rules and laws with the panel so new york is unique in the sense of the state but it pulls within one of the dominant models of jury selection so unwanted of the spectrum, you have states that have one for, the court gets cleared and the lawyers get the question, each juror and pretty unlimited time period, such things like that and that takes a long time.

the private trust is one of the box you get full robust questioning section on the other end of the spectrum where the judge maintains all questions, they may begin to ask a question or two but that's about it. one of the federal systems, new york is hybrid. new york while it is not completely judge dominated, the lawyers to get to ask questions, each a full panel that they don't get each and every juror so they are able a week and a day or so and not going to

longer period. >> for this case and manhattan, there are two reasons a juror can be dismissed. >> for cause they are unable to serve anyone who doesn't have a job and spend two months on a jury, a person's also not be able to pay mortgage or rent or utility bills and etc. that's called hardship. that is a determination a judge can and will release a juror. maybe someone has a significant

back ailment cannot sit for five hours straight or another medical infirmity that prohibits the from paying attention and close attention, if you cannot hear very well and hearing aids don't work in is another form of hardship. another cause is a person who says i am unable to render the verdict maybe someone says i have use about mr. trump and the government and the state of new york but i only cannot follow the instructions of the judge that it will be anyway.

and that category you have people with religious objections. some people comment and say i can't do this because i have a more traditional teachings are i cannot judge your asking me for judgment. in the challenges from the jury of the jurors and eligible to provide their and i don't like that person is at their discretion of the lawyer.

they said i glanced looks honest. you got no basis for and the juror all the panel. the wants to go on forever case, once the member is reached, a juror is qualified. this is why toward the end of the process it goes the because there aren't any challenges left

and very difficult sometimes to make out. >> we will start taking your calls like you can call and now you got a question about jury selection and manhattan case harvard university. the pundits (202)748-8002. want to ask you. there came to criminal field, what you think about that but. >> it doesn't surprise me a bit. locum is you don't want lawyers in the jury. why is that? oftentimes lawyers might dominate the discussions because the other jurors might prefer it

to them because they have legal knowledge. another reason sometimes lawyers may not listen to the instructions the court because they think they arty know what the rules are. they understand what's behind an objection in the sort of information that speaks to a list but the lawyer might consider buttigieg may not sitter. the rule of thumb is no lawyers but that is most lawyers, they are subject to objections. they may be helpful because there might be a case with certain technical aspects that a lawyer can guide in the direction of your. other times it is a gun healing.

to give an example is ago, before i became professor, i tried a case and no lawyers on the jury but there was one lawyer, a graduate with berkeley law school and for themselves. i thought i think i can deal with this person, this person will give my land a fair shot. sometimes you are right, sometimes wrong but this is an example of this proxy lawyers used to make determinations about how a juror like votes of thing about those lawyers both sides thought the lawyer could be advantageous. >> i want to make sure your snow we have a line set aside for

anybody that had experience as a juror. call us (202)748-8003. you can use the same line for us will go to the calls now. wingfield, indiana. >> your post proved my.explaining about jurors. when jurors get disqualified because of a statement they made the cannot or they appear to have some bias toward the defendant, they should be recused. i think the same thing what applied to the judge with some of the past dealings with the trump and charges he's overseen.

i think it appears from what we see on tv and statement that the judge has made and given his past financial donations to the biden election campaign, the involvement with his daughter based on his promise of disqualifying the juror, i think the judge and alvin bragg should be disqualified as well. >> let's get a response. >> first, good to hear from a fellow hoosier, i was born and raised in gary, indiana. thank you for the call. the rules with respect to recusal are different judges so recusal for our judges and disqualification. the service and dismissal for cause of a juror.

the rules are very different, president trump and his team filed recusal motions for the judge that was denied but the color makes good points about the notion of recusal that exists on two registers, whether a judge has an actual conflict such that they should be recused or whether the judge has an appearance of a conflict such that a reasonable person in the public doesn't have faith in the integrity of the system, piece of things judge considered when making his ruling. the law says you can't control what your adult children do so that is not a factor. judges are part of the political

system. mr. reed: i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the clerk: ms. baldwin.

>> jonathan is next. good morning. good morning. i have been reading a lot of your beds lately and doing more research about you and your clients you been able to represent will be your last : to represent -- the only reason you didn't because you were not provided so how you feel about that one? >> a little bit outside of the topic but yes, i represented them. i believe deeply and profoundly in fifth amendment rights i started as a public defender and believe everybody deserves a right to a lawyer and incompetent effective lawyer and it is up to lawyers like me

represent clients deem unpopular as our duty to make the system work. we fail to do this and we will see the protections you, me and our post enjoy will be targeted because lawyers are not elder fighting for the rights of the low-end least among us, these are very important. we have rights like the miranda warning because someone decided to represent miranda, by all accounts was not the greatest guy in the world when a lawyer stood up and represented him in this case. because of that, we have sections that protect us from the overreach of the state. ...

not the greatest guy in the world. a lawyer stood up and represented him nonetheless in his case. because of that, we have protections that protect us from the overreach of the state. >> michael has been a juror in illinois. -- independent line. good morning's. >> good morning to you and your guests. i have been onto juries. one is terrible trials. not unlike this one that is coming up for trump. the other is a triple murder. the interesting thing in my comment and where like your guests to comment on, the system

in a lot of respects is flawed. they ask questions. they are always on pressure to get this. in panel a jury. i don't think they took a particularly long time to do it. it only goes to my point. the system is really flawed. they are going to have other things to do. it does not pay much money. they are expected to sit in judgment of someone. this is a very technical case as was the civil case that i sat on involving the liquor license. the criteria for transferring

things. i think that that is what this will be. another jury highly technical case. there will be a lot of problems for the jury in absorbing this and then coming to a fair conclusion. that is my comment. >> is the jury system and perfect? answer? yes. there are problems. there is a tension between expediency on the one hand and choosing a fair and impartial jury on the other hand. most instances, justice are interested in quickly and paneling a jury and often times defense counsel interested in slowing the process down in order to ensure that there is a fair jury. it is an imperfect system.

yes, there is an old saying that our criminal legal system is the worst system in the world except for all the others. it does a good job relative to systems around the world, but there are ways that we can improve it and i agree with your caller on that. second, he was a four-person for the jury twice. what they would want on both sides. someone measured, someone fair. notwithstanding some of the issues that are adherent in this jury selection process. i have a lot of faith in the jury system. i think that they are smart, i think that they are fair. most importantly i think they try to do the right thing.

something about walking into the courtroom and the salinity of the setting in the grandeur of the setting that people come in and they are in some ways transported back to the 19th century. they are part of a very long and very important system. they come in their mind sent ships because of the setting in and of itself. someone stands up and says having business before this honorable court draw nigh and be heard. all of a sudden they really are transported through space, time and history and become part of this somewhat ancient system of dispensing justice. my point in all of that is jurors come to take this very, very seriously.

in my experience, all the jury trials i have tried, for the most part, jurors do take it very seriously and try very hard to make it fair. is it perfect? no. nothing is fair. we have a lot to be proud of with respect to the jury system. >> jurors not being paid very much. what is typical in that sense and you have any specifics about that case? >> i don't know. each state pays differently. it is not a lot. it is not a livable wage. you cannot pay your bills with what you get. you can probably pay for lunch and parking, that sort of thing, but it is really minimal. i hate to try to ventura number because i just forget what most states are doing now, but it is

low. it is not like you can pay your rent with it. it is not a replacement for your job. whatever you are earning on your job. because of that, this is one of the problems that we have to solve. a lot of working class people cannot afford to be on a jury. many black and brown people that do not have significant means simply cannot afford to be on a jury. who can afford it and whose jobs will pay them regardless of whether they are sitting on a jury and government workers. teachers, bus drivers because the state continues to pay your salary while you are on the jury >> let's try to get another call in. independent.

go ahead. >> go ahead. >> good morning. my name is stephen. i am also a trial lawyer in new york. i have a comment and a question for the professor. i agree with you, professor and responding to the caller who questioned whether our system is the best. i think that there is no other way because when you compare it to other countries in the world, where they have no jurors, but the government for very partial bias justice making decisions, that is much worse. my second comment is a question. you mentioned that you pick a juror in a case when you were a public defender in washington, d.c. who were birkenstocks presuming as a public defender you thought that that person would be liberal. you did not give a response as to whether you and the other

lawyer were satisfied. i am wondering if that juror divide your expectations that she would be liberal in favor of your client who you are defending. >> absolutely. great question. as the caller knows, who is a fellow trial lawyer, we only tell stories about cases we win. that juror was very good. they ended up being the foreperson of the jury and we have a good result there. what i will say and as the caller knows, this is a tricky calculus when you are making these sorts of inferential leaps based on small cues about the jury. often times, we are dead wrong and that juror turns out to be the worst possible juror for you or, you know, you spin this

beautiful theory throughout the case and you win the case and you go back and you talk to the jury after the trial and they found from your client on some other reason that you did not think that they would. so, you never know. it is an atmosphere of imperfect information and lawyers do their best to try to manage this imperfect information in a limited time and make judgments that are beneficial for their client. >> really quick, we will get suzanne in massachusetts. independent. >> yes. good morning. thank you for having me. my question is, i was just wondering, is the judge in the case being bias? he said there is a gag order on mr. trump only that the other people can go out and talk about it to the media and so on and so forth. i was just wondering, is that a concern or is that normal to do that? >> professor come up very

quickly. >> normal if one party begins to speak in a way that is inappropriate and contrary to the rules of the court the court can issue a gag order. the prosecutor starts doing it the judge will issue. >> harvard university law professor, thank you so much for joining us. >> thank you expiring at midnight if the legislation is not passed. on the other side of the capital , the house will be in session on saturday to vote on a series of coordinated measures that will provide funds to ukraine, israel and taiwan. watch live coverage of those votes on c-span.

if we want to get it done. so, for the information of my colleagues, membership plan to be here over the weekend, if necessary to work on both. the house is scheduled to take

up the supplemental tomorrow. it would deliver critical aid for ukraine, israel, indo pacific and humanitarian assistance. we will see how things go in the lower chamber over the next day or so. i hope that the house gets this legislation passed without further delays the if the house meant that they supplemental package, then it will move expeditiously to send it to the president's desk. the president has said if congress passes the supplemental , he will find it. i hope that the house gets it's done very soon. delay on this national security funding has cost america and cost our allies dearly. i met yesterday with ukrainian prime minister who told me just how difficult the war has become for ukrainian fighters who are now running out of ammo and air defenses and other basic needs. he told me that if america does not stand with ukraine, we will

lose the war. simple as that. in a few months the house has set, in the few months at the house has set on the supplemental funding, the war has clearly turned and rushes favor. the army has grown larger and they enjoy support from nations like north korea, iran and china putin has long that that sooner or later american support for ukraine will wane. he has said once a go on russian tv that "the free stuff from america is eventually going to run out." we dare not prove him right. because if he sees that the united states will not stop him and ukraine, he will keep going. on the other side of the world, the chinese communist party may look at america's if we will similarly show in the indo pacific. imagine the kind of signal america inaction was sent to a friend in japan and in the

philippine imagine what it would say to the people of taiwan. that is not a world we want to live in fear protecting democracy is not for the faint of heart sometimes it requires us to make difficult choices. but that is what precisely the american people sent us here to deal. i hope that we can finish the job very, very soon. yesterday i shared that one of the most important chip manufacturers in the united states and the world is receiving over $6 billion from my chips in science law to help build to in central new york and one in idaho. this is a monumental step forward for syracuse, upstate new york and for the country. this is one of the largest single color direct investment ever for upstate new york. we have had a number of chips funding announcements recently, but this is the very first one specifically for memory chips which will become especially important as technologies like

ai boost demand for these chips. best of all, this award will lead to 15,000 good paying jobs and will help reach the goal of investing well over $100 billion plus to make advanced memory chips here in the united states. so, i will say it again because it is truly good news. with the chips in science law every rebuilding upstate new york with good paying middle-class jobs. one microchip at a time. we are rebuilding not just new york, but communities from ohio to texas to arizona and beyond and the benefits in those states will spread as subcontractors and other suppliers around the country are called upon. most importantly, the investment made will mean lower costs for american consumers in the long run. less vulnerable to some by chain disruptions like the one we saw

encoded which sent prices skyrocketing on all sorts of electronic devices. by bringing chip production back here to the u.s., we can avoid this in the future. this is precisely what i envisioned when i led the way on chips in science. bipartisan members in the senate and with the president secretary armando. let me think president biden and the secretary for helping me make these investments possible. with their vision and leadership , we are bringing manufacturing back to the u.s. we are revitalizing middle-class families. we are giving communities that have been left behind a second chance with investments, new jobs, new opportunity. it took a lot of convincing and persistence. but, today we are starting to see why that effort was worth it one announcement at a time, america is securing its place as a leader in a global. i yield the floor.

>> in the past 16 years, federal law enforcement and intelligence professionals have used section 702 of the foreign intelligence surveillance act to identify and minimize foreign threat to u.s. national security. carefully targeted authorities established back in 2008 an essential tool for staying and staff ahead of non-u.s. persons who seek to harm the american people. but unless the senate acts today , those authorities will and tonight. our friends in the house understood the threat on a bipartisan basis. they spent months working to

craft sensible reforms to guard against future abuses, made changes to adapt the program to meet the demands of new technologies and took top votes against amendment that may sound good, but what actually kill a program. the house deserves credit for reforming and reauthorizing this essential authority. now, the senate's choice is clear. we could pass the houses reform bill or given delayed our political reality, we can essentially do the program to go dark past the house reform bill or give free reign to foreign intelligence operatives and terrorists to target america.

now, over the past few days in a number of our colleagues have drawn some puzzling conclusions about the house passed bill that would allow us to section 702 from lapsing. we have heard that overdue reforms for this portion of the statute up-to-date with modern communications technology amount to a massive new note to surveilled innocent u.s. citizens. we have heard that if the house passed reauthorization became law the coffee shops public internet could become a vector for collection of america's sensitive person, personal data. of course, the facts of the case are crystal clear. as i pointed out earlier this week, the federal court is tasked with overseeing the appropriate use of section 702

authorities had already ruled that the fear mongering of that new threat to u.s. citizens privacy. it was completely unfounded. yesterday, we even heard the democratic whip suggests a lapse in authority would not really mean going dark, even though they expire at midnight. this is absurd. big tech conglomerates do not provide these critical communications to the u.s. government because they want to, they do so because the law compels them to. when that compulsion disappears who are they going to listen to. their customers or the fbi asking nicely? once section 702 expires, companies will stop complying.

it will be up to the government to play a slow and painstaking game of lacrimal and court against an army of the most sophisticated lawyers in the country. and in the meantime, actionable intelligence will pass us right by. this is not a hypothetical. following a similar lapse in authority during the bush administration, attorney general observed providers "delayed or refused compliance with our request to initiate new surveillance of terrorist and other foreign intelligence target under existing directives he went on that this led directly to degraded intelligence capability. on the march, iran and its

proxies are pushing the middle east to the brink of war. russian spies are reportedly applauding sabotage against u.s. military target suspected terrorist are exploring this crisis at our southern border. this is not the time to voluntarily degrade our ability to protect the american people. this is not the time for arguments about issues to this legislation addresses head on. today, the power rests with the senate. this is the end of the line. no one coming to relieve us of our duty. just like a real world consequence america will face of the house fails to pass the national security supplemental. it will be serious consequences if the senate fails to do it job

today. the stage of such an outcome are great. the authorities in question today have quite literally been the defense against what would be national security disasters. the year after section 702 was enacted, it was used to foil an active plot to bomb the subway in new york. as our colleague senator cornyn explained yesterday, section 702 is behind 70% of the intelligence community surveillance of the cartels. synthetic narcotic operations last year. the threats to american security are flashing red. our adversaries are as intense as ever on solving chaos and violence. and a boat to send this critical legislation back to the house

today is a vote to make their job easier. the senate must not let section 702 go dark. on another matter, democratic colleagues like to complain about judge shopping. of course, the real complaint is regular americans are exceeding in deposing liberal policies in court. we know this because when it comes to real life judge shopping, our friends on the other side of the aisle don't seem to be particularly bothered i recently introduced a bill that would stop the actual practice of judge shopping that is improperly steering a case to a judge or trying to block do not assign judges to a case because a litigant does not like them. the language was based on an egregious and unethical pattern

of conduct undertaken by two liberal advocacy groups in alabama. it seems that the far left consumer financial protection bureau is and on the judge shopping game. recently sued in texas over the credit card late fee rule after a whole lot of procedural wrangling. the case ended up before the fifth circuit which ruled in favor of the rules challengers two-one. the cfpb did not like that. just days after losing the agency filed a letter with the clerk of the court alleging to have suddenly discovered that large credit card issuers have a financial stake in the litigation. they did not raise this when the case began. only afterward did they decide

to take this with the fact that the judge that ruled against them had a son whose education savings account include a handful of shares and citigroup. urged on by an army of arabella advisors the cfpb argued that even though the case before judge did not involve citigroup, he had to recuse himself encase it affected the value of that stock. in other words, after judge ruled against them, the cfpb identified bag new parties of interest to ensnare the judge through his son's college savings account. what a tangled web they weave at the cf pd. to its credit, the judicial conference code of conduct committee did not do this.

not required to recuse himself but in case anyone is wondering, this is what judge shopping looks like. wait for ruling against you and then argue late for sweeping recusal rules designed to target the judge you don't like and remove him. under my shop act, this kind of behavior could result in severe discipline for lawyers who engage in it. if any of our democratic colleagues are interested in actually solving the problem of judge shopping, i hope that they will join me. just waiting for senator to come to the floor to speak the

members or continuing work on an extension of the foreign intelligence surveillance act which allows for warrantless tracking of noncitizens out right in the united states. the current authorization will expire at midnight if the legislation is not passed. on the other side of the capital , the house will be on session on saturday for foreign aid measures that will provide funds to ukraine, israel in taiwan. watch live coverage on those boats on c-span

the underlying bill of which there is broad support punishes the fbi. it criminalizes the fbi's abuses it limits and restricts the access to foreign intelligence and it further puts guardrails to punish the fbi. what is also in agreement here on this house floor is the protection of american civil. you have to have a warrant and there is absolute constitutional protection of americans data. no one in this statute, there is no place in the statute where americans data comes at risk. the debate is about a warrant requirement in about an amendment that has been offered

by andy biggs. this amendment largely drafted by senator why did and cosponsored by elizabeth warren wood, for the first time in history provide controversial rights to our adversaries. constitutional rights to our enemies know court, no law has ever come out of this body that would provide constitutional rights to our adversaries. we spy on hezbollah, we spy on hamas, we spy on the ayatollah, we spy on the communist party of china. this bill provides them constitutional protections to communicate with people in the united states to recruit them for the purposes of being terrorists, for being spies and for doing espionage. the 9/11 perpetrators were in the united states and they were communicating with al qaeda. at that time they made a great

mistake. we did not see who they were communicating within the united states. we change that and we began to spy on al qaeda and we got to see the extent to which they were recruiting people in the united states to do us harm. if this amendment passes, al qaeda will have full constitutional protections to recruit in the united states the communist party will left full constitutional protections and there will be no increase protection of constitutional protections for americans and their data. the only data that would become protected is data that is located in al qaeda's inbox and the communist chinese inbox. now, how is that that they become protected? this amendment would require that you have to have a warrant to look into communist chinese party data for the recruitment efforts that they are doing within the united states. you would have to have evidence of a crime that is occurring in order to get that warrant. we will be blind.

if this becomes law, we will be blind and unable to look at what hezbollah is doing in the united states. what hamas is doing in the united states. what the communist party is doing in the united states. there is no additional protections in this amendment for americans. americans still have full constitutional protection of their own data. let me give you an example of how this works. we are spying on hamas. two people in the united states send e-mails. one says happy birthday and one says thank you for making, for the bomb making classes. when those two e-mails go to hamas, right now, we see that the if you said happy birthday and we see it, that doesn't matter. it is not a threat to the united states. if you send an e-mail saying thank you for the bomb making classes we intercept that e-mail we read it, find out who it is and then we come here to go find a person to arrest them to make

certain that they don't harm americans, we have to go to court to get a warrant. if you have to have a warrant to look at the two e-mails that are sent to hamas, happy birthday and thank you for the bomb making classes, you have no evidence of a crime. noel of -- ability to read these e-mails. we will go dark, we will go blind. the fbi abuses have been extraordinary in their searches for foreign data. we need to punish them. this underlying bill punishes the fbi. we should not punish americans. we should not make our nation less safe by giving constitutional protections to hamas. giving constitutional protections to the communist chinese party. they say this amendment it is not. it is already protected by the constitution. there is nobody on this house

floor that would argue that you do not need a warrant to look at americans data in the united states. this amendment, and i encourage everyone to pick it up and read it, applies to the data that we collected and spying on hamas, has blocked the chinese communist party, to give them a warrant, to give them constitutional protections means they are open for business. the day after this passes and we go blind chinese communist party has a complete pass, students to spy on our universities. they have a complete pass. we will be blind as they tried to recruit people for terrorist attacks in the united states. currently, we keep america safe by spying on our adversaries. do not give our adversaries constitutional protection. with that, i reserve. >> the gentleman from connecticut is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. >> mr. speaker, i rise in support of this legislation.

let me emphasize that as the chairman said section zero zero two is most important intelligence authority. our single most important intelligence authority. we use it every day to protect the nation from threats ranging from china and russia to terrorist plots to fentanyl traffickers and much more. it cannot be allowed to expire. it is also true that the 702 program requires substantial reform. we have done this before and we are doing it in this bill. i would also make a critical point here is that this is arguably our most heavily scrutinized and overseen intelligence authority. it is approved and i will say this twice, every single year and has been since 2009 by federal judges. federal judges who crawl all over this program looking for constitutional violations, looking for violations of law

and since 2009 they have recertified this program. it is also overseen by the congress, the chairman and i see problems with the program. it is overseen inside by the attorney general. it is the most scrutinized intelligence program that we have. the bill before the house today is the product of very serious oversight resulting in a base text that preserves the site while putting in place more than 50 significant reforms aims at preventing its misuse. those misuses that were detailed and that the chairman referred to, which, by the way, down to the tune of 90%. this bill would codify those reforms and require that the fbi continue to follow those rules. this legislation contains the most significant reforms 2702 ever. among many other proposals this bill will continue the progress already made that i referred to by the biden administration and others to ensure compliance. the bill would ban queries to

find evidence of a crime and cut by 90%, 90% the number of fbi personnel. that is what we give up if we do not pass this bill. however, opposed to an extreme and misguided proposal that seriously undermines our national security. i understand that instinct. there is no way to collect intelligence on foreign e-mails and text without having some americans on thebo other side of this. this bill puts in place ed refor, mostly fake and where they're not fake, they're woefully inadequate, but it expands fisa surveillance beyond where it has existed in the past. in fact, resa authorizes the

largest expansion of surveillance on u.s. domestic soil since the passage of the patriot act. egregious fourth amendment violations against u.s. citizens will increase dramatically if this bill is passed in a law as it stands,000. -- as it stands now. there is one thing standing between that bill becoming law and that -- between where that bill stands now and where that bill could be soon if we enact it without amendment, and that's the united states senate. under article 1, section 7, the same bill has to pass both houses before it can be presented to the president for signature, veto or acquiescence. resa would allow the government to compel a huge range of ordinary u.s. businesses and

individuals and other organizations exempting only an honest workmen of entities, including libraries, hotels, and restaurants, to assist the united states government into is spying on american citizens. currently the government conduction fisa 702 with ecsp's. historically the definition of an ecsp included those entities to direct access of americans' communication, google, microsoft, verizon, et cetera. this would allow the government to provide surveillance from any provider who has access to equipment on which communications are routed and

stored. this would include a huge number of businesses that include wifi to their customers and would have access to routers and communications equipment. this provision is a result of the intelligence community's ire being told by the foreign intelligence surveillance act court, or fisk, that this does not have to comply with fisa-compelled disclosure. house members claim this is a narrow fix to allow the government to compel information from a single service provider, just one. now, yesterday right here on the senate floor, my friend and colleague, the distinguished senior senator from the state of virginia and the chairman of the intelligence oversight committee in the senate spoke about this now infamous turner amendment.

first and foremost, senator warner admitted in that context even he thinks the amendment could have been better drafted. this is, of course, putting it very mildly and euphemistically. instead of voting on correcting that language, language that could have drastic implications for the privacy and fourth amendment rights of american citizens, and grave implications forusinses and other organizations in america. rely on promises from the intelligence community agencies. they will not abuse this new expansion of their authority. how does that sound to you as an american citizen? to anyone within the sound of my voice. do you feel good about hearing that when you hear from one of

the intelligence gathering body, you can trust us, it is broad enough and loopholes that you could draif an airbus -- drive an airbus through it, but trust us, we won't treat it that way. is that a good idea? i think not. the entire premise of the constitution, not just the fourth amendment, but the constitution itself is trust but verify. it's we're not angels, we don't have access to angels to run our government, so we don't rely on rules, we don't rely on faith in governments. faith is for different -- different beings, that is for those who are not occupying the halls of the government. as a federal lawmaker who has been lied to repeatedly throughout the years by various

elements within our government, including some people from the department of justice and the fbi on the abuse of these authorities, the same authorities that we're talking about here, forgive me if i'm not willing to take the word of the intelligence complunt. we have -- community. we have a responsibility to americans of every political stripe in every part of the country to protect them by getting this language right. by getting it right before it becomes law, not after when all we could say is, oh, we're sorry, or more likely, members who support that could do is help them cover it up. that's not right. my esteemed colleague has either been confused by the intelligence community or he like the department of justice would like to confuse you as to what this expansion of authority means and what it does. they're suggestingthat we're

off -- suggesting that we're offended by the expansion merely because it would target more individuals. that is not the problem. not at all. the problem is that this amendment is so broadly worded that it could subject any kind of service provider, even providing services such as cleaning services or plumbing services to participate in the secret compelled disclosure process on which section 702 of fisa relies. now, we're not concerned with new targets resulting from this legis legislation, as they seem to be suggesting quite mistakenly, but rather with the government conscripting any and every kind of service provider into its compelled exposure scheme. if doj wants to override the

decisions of the fiscs through an amendment, it must be done through an amendment tailored to that task. unfortunately, the turner amendment is about as well t tailored as a muumuu or better said a tent, meaning there's no tailoring at all, they just threw it all in there, like prego spaghetti sauce, this is said to contain whatever they wants it to contain. again, senator warner yesterday acknowledged this language was poorly drafted. but instead of taking this as an opportunities to amend it, to fix it, so it did what it was purported to be intended to do, and to go no further than that, and to incur no additional grave risk of further meddling, of creating problematic situations for law-abiding americans ever everywhere, they suggest that this will be a problem for two

years, and then we can fix it. or that it won't be a problem for the next two years, because we can have faith and trust they won't abuse it, then we can fix it for real. in fact, he's willing to work with anyone who thinks it's a problem to fix it anytime. just not now. doesn't want to fix it now. if the job is worth doing, it's worth doing it right now, the first time, not just so we don't have to go back and correct it later, but so that it doesn't create problems between now and two years from now, when he proposes we address it for real. it's worth doing right today, because the stakes are high. there's no reason not to fix this now. and a lot of reasons it will be problematic if we don't. now, let's talk about the statutory deadline for fisa

collection for a minute. the administration acknowledges that under the law it can and will continue to conduct fisa 702 surveillance collection, even if 702 temporarily lapses while we debate this. that's because the fisa court has approved certification within the last week or so that allows the government to continue 702 collection until april 2025, and there's a provision of fisa that you might say sort of grandfathers in fisa court certifications, even if the law itself expires. meaning the fisa 702 collection program can continue in its entirety without exception, until april 10 or 11, 2025, even if fisa 702 temporarily lapses between now and then, because all that matters was that fisa

702 was active, intact, not having lapsed as of the moment on april 11, just over a week ago, when the latest certification was issued by the fisc. now, notably, mr. president, the administration does not deny this. what it's saying instead is that companies will bring legal challenges, and that they might refuse to comply with the government's directives to turn over communications. what i'd like to know, mr. president, so, what's their evidence for this? the fact that a few companies briefly refused, briefly, to cooperate with the government back in 2008, when the predecessor to section 702, the protect american act, expired. here's the problem with that argument -- those companies, back in 2008, challenged this and they lost in court. the fisa court ruled in 2008

that surveillance could continue, despite expiration of the law, and that the companies had to comply. so this legal issue was itself settled on those terms 16 years ago. not only that, mr. president, but much more to the point here, congress has actually made the law even stronger, on clear, even more direct since then. stronger on the government side since then, the fisa amendments act includes language that wasn't in the protect america act, saying that the fisa court's approval remains valid, notwithstanding any other provision of the law, including the sunset. you see, that language was added for the first time in december of 2018, in the same legislation that fisa 702 was reauthorized until 2023, until december of 2023, when we extended the

effective date of fisa 702 back in december of 2023, extending it until tonight at midnight, that language was reuped, it was enacted again. so that same language is intact. there is absolutely no ambiguity here. so it's absurd what they're saying, really. why would company risk fines of $250,000 a day to make a legal argument that the finesa court rejected 16 -- that the fisa court rejected 16 years ago? this is not a valid reason for us in the united states senate to rush to enact laws as deeply flawed and detrimental to american civil liberties as this one. all i'm asking for, mr. president, is votes on amendment. we have a reasonable list of nine amendments offered by a bipartisan group of senators, reflecting almost every point along the ideological continuum of the senate. if chairman warner and senator

schumer would just stop blocking these votes, we could finish consideration of fisa today. we could wrap this up today. the problem is they know the american people agree with us on these amendments. they know a lot of these are really, really popular. they agree with reforming this program to stop the warrantless surveillance of themselves, of the american people. and so, certain members of the united states senate are somehow afraid that these votes must not be considered lest they pass, because they are really afraid of what would happen if or when they did pass. think about that for a minute. they don't want us to cast votes on something, not in spite of their lack of popularity but because of their popularity. that should concern us all.

mr. president, i'm going to try to move these things forward. let's see if we can resolve this. i'd love to be able to resolve this tonight, get it done tonight, get it over to the house of representatives, which is still here, still in town, and it's really convenient, mr. president, because as they set this up a couple centuries ago, we both work in the same building. they're just down the hall. i'll personally walk it down there to them, if that would help. i ask unanimous consent, mr. president, that the motion to proceed -- i will hold on to that for a moment and i will continue. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks to an additional up to 15 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lee: so, if that really is the concern, that is the concern

that i'm hearing from some colleagues, a number of colleagues on both sides of the political aisle have been telling me, as i've been talking about the need to vote on amendments, what a number of them are saying is we can't do this, because if we do it it's going to expire, and if it expires even momentarily, it's going to be armageddon, dogs and cats living together on the streets, stuffer out of the -- stuff out of the book of revelations, chaos and pandemonium. if that's the case, let's get it done now. but it's not the case. fisa 702 collection is not going to end. and if these same companies that objected in 2008 and lost when the law was much less in the government's favor than it is now, will remember what happened, then all they have to do is read, doesn't take a rocket scientist to read the

language passed in 2018 and again in december of 2023, to make clear that that collection may, and indeed will, continue in the spirit of moving this forward, getting it done tonight, i ask unanimous consent that the motion to proceed to h.r. 7888 be agreed to. i ask further that the following amendments be the only amendments in order -- lee number 1840, paul number 1829, marshall number 1834, wyden number 1820, hirono number 1831, merkley number 1822, paul number 1828, durbin amendment number 1832, and paul amendment number 1833. further, that the senate vote on the above amendments in the order listed with the paul amendments, 1828 and 1829, and merkley amendment 1822, subject

to 60 affirmative votes required for adoption. that upon disposition of the paul amendment, on 1833, the bill be read a third time and that the senate vote on passage of h.r. 7888 as amendment, if amended, with 60 affirmative votes required for passage, and with two minutes for debate equally divided prior to each vote. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. warner: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. mr. warner: mr. president, reserving the right to object. i appreciate my friend, the gentleman from utah's strong feelings on this bill. he's been consistent repeatedly. i differ greatly. i believe 702 is one of the critical aspects of our national security regime. literally 60% of information that appears in the president's daily brief is obtained from section 702. i disagree with the gentleman in terms that we have seen prior to

2008, when the preceding bill expired for a brief period of time, there are entities that said we no longer have to participate with the government. i think that is a risk that we cannot afford to take with the vast array of challenges our nation faces around the world. i'd also point out, i know some of my colleagues it's not been enough, but the senate fisa bill, the house fisa bill has 56 separate reforms in it. as a matter of fact, through processes that have already at least publicly partially in process, we've seen the fbi's noncompliance rate on their own queries of 702 drop from about 30% noncompliant to less than 1%. reforms that make sure there are no further batch queries, there's not the kind of effort where people can simply have the right to query a 702 database

without showing a reason. making sure as well, as considerityics point out -- critics point out, that should an american, an elected official or religious figure or journalist, a whole extra set of reforms put there as well. i believe we need to proceed on this. i know both sides are negotiating in good faith. i think those negotiations need to continue. and therefore, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. lee: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: i appreciate the thoughtful words that have been presented by my friend and colleague, the distinguished senator from virginia, who also chairs the senate's intelligence oversight committee. it's unfortunate that he's unwilling to have these amendments even considered, especially unfortunate because it appears to be predicated on the risk of fisa 702 lapsing. now, unless we do something on

this in the meantime, it is going to lapse, at least for a period. time. as i made clear a moment ago, the language we adopted in 2018 and that we reuped in december of last year, 2023, makes abundantly clear that fisa 702 collection can continue unabated through april of 2025, based on the recertification by the foreign intelligence surveillance court. that's continued for one year, following the certification, as long as fisa 702 was still intact and nonexpired as of the moment of the certification, which it was. but even if that were not the case, if what we're worried about here is the clock, look, i've drafted, and i can't speak for anyone other than myself,

but i've drafted and would gladly accept, if that really is the concern, a short-term extension of fisa 702, if by doing so that would make the difference between us being able to consider these amendments, vote on them, and send it back to the house of representatives, without doing so under the threat of this amorphous and unsubstarchated fear -- unsubstantiated fear that fisa 702 collection is going to go dark, which of course it's not. look, once again, we do find ourselves at the mercy of senate democratic leadership, with the majority leader in particular acting as the door keeper of the senate. only allowing access to the floor to senators who wish to offer their amendments and only if those amendments are amendments that the majority leader knows he can defeat.

he's so determined to stop amendments that he's willing to stop the quick passage of this amendment. many of risa's advocates want to see it passed before midnight today in ex-chaplaining for just votes on nine amendments,ious votes, not guaranteed outputs. just votes commensurate with what the rules of the senate allow. germane amendments set at a simple majority threshold. it's really not too much to ask. but senator schumer and the chairman of the senate select committee on intelligence wouldn't take the deal. why? well, part of it is the time issue that i mentioned that an entity no less right wing than "the new york times" just

earlier this week pointed out that argument really doesn't hold water. and if it does, i'm happy to agree to a time agreement to extend it. the only other reason i can think of is there is a a fear on the part of those who want risa to pass in exactly the form that the house of representatives enacted it. . they're freyed that some of these amendments might actually pass. now, six of these amendments are germane to the bill. yeah, they could pass with a simple majority vote. that's exactly why some in this chamber won't allow these amendments to be voted on. they don't want reforms to the bill. they'd rather let the bill expire instead of letting the senate do its work and amend the bill in a manner consistent with the express desires and indeed the demands from many quarters among the electorate. right, left, east and west, north and south.

it is a sad commentary on where we stand in the democratic process today a today. now, some might say that we can't pass these amendments because that would send it back to the house and then the house would have to repass it. but isn't that how the lawmaking process is supposed to work? i mean, that's exactly how article i, section 7, contemplates it. it was never meant to be super easy to pass legislation through a bicameral legislature and that is fin fact what we have. and aren't we supposed to vote on amendments to improve the bill, to see whether or not the house will take the modifications rather than just assuming, as if we were adopting some sort of house legislative chamber doctrine of infallibility that what they wrote must be treated as if it were carved into stone and that

we can't touch it. that's nonsense. that's not how this works. it's never how it was intended to work. certainly should not be how it works in this circumstance and not with a bill like this where americans at every point along the ideological continuum have concerns about this. now, there are a number of us in this chamber who feel this way. i have very good friends on the other side of the aisle with whom i frequently disagree on a wide variety of other issues but with whom i agree closely on this issue. we're reflective of our constituencies and of the american people generally. and the house is actually in session this weekend, here in the same building, still in session. so it's standing by ready to actually take up our amended bill whenever we can get it passed. but senator schumer and senator warner are preventing us from

performing one of our most basic duties. we've got one 0 or two members who are acting as doorkeepers to the senate. and meanwhile the other 98 members or so are being prevented from even having our improvements to the bill considered. many of these, if not most of them, are pretty widely bipartisan. so this sort of thing when it happens renders us something of a legislative rubber stamp. it's not something that we aspire to. so, look, like i say, it's unfortunate that we couldn't come to an agreement on this. ing so i -- so i just ask the question, if the clock is really the enemy here, why not just extend it? i stand ready and willing,

speaking for myself, to extend the clock whether it's for a few days or a week or -- so that we can have time to consider it. i'm willing to do that a we won't do that, then maybe we're not really hearing the real reason for the opposition.

we are joined ronald sullivan a clinical professor of law, director of harvard university. welcome to the program. >> thank you so much. >> we have 12 jurors in the manhattan case. how difficult is it to find an impartial jury given that the defendant is a former president? >> well in a normal circumstances difficult to find an impartial juror and even more difficult in a high-profile case. even more difficult than that the next president but we have

seen the process work in a way which the court slowly and methodically went the -- the billboard door process and so far we have 12 and we have to get the alternates that they will impanel a jury in all likelihood today. it might lead into monday but in very short order we will have the jury. >> can you explain what does it really mean for the jury to be impartial or it least to look for an impartial jurors because in this case obviously he can't be that you don't know who the defendant is. >> that's right. i will start the explanation i explain what is not in an impartial juror does not mean the juror who doesn't know about the case. it doesn't mean a juror who has no opinion about the case. to the contrary what an impartial jury means is a juror who notwithstanding any biases,

any predisposition, any prior judgment about the case can nonetheless put aside their judgments and render a fair and impartial verdict. that's the impartial juror and that's what the court looks for and frankly to be honest i've taken 100 or so cases to jury trial and if i came across a juror in a high-profile case who had heard anything about this case i'd be suspicious that juror immediately wouldn't be on the panel so jurors didn't do no publication they do have opinions but the key is whether they can put those opinions aside, follow the instructions of the judge and render a fair and impartial verdict. >> talk about the process itself a finding that jury and ceding that jury and is there anything unique to new york since its new

york state court? >> is a great question. every state is different. they each have different customs and different court rules, different laws with respect to a panel and the jury. new york is unique in the sense that it's an independent state that it falls within one of the dominant models of jury selection. on one and of the spectrum we have states that is what is called one juror in the box and that means the court gets cleared and the lawyers get to question each juror for an pretty unlimited time period. some states are like that and that takes a long time. i have tried to aaron hernandez case years ago and it took a month to try the jury. there was one juror in the box with the full voir dire a really robust question session.

on the other end of the spectrum there are courts where the judge maintains all questions. lawyers may be get to ask a question or two but that's about it. that's the federal system but some states are like that. new york is a hybrid. in new york while it's not completely judge dominated the lawyers do get to ask questions. they get a half an hour each to a full panel but they don't get the sword of one-on-one or each and every juror. so because of that they are able to pick a jury in a week or a week and a day or so and not going to a much longer period. >> in this case for the specific case in manhattan there are two reasons that juror can be dismissed. one is for cause and one is

preemptory. can you explain it and how it works? >> absolutely. to pause it means the the juror is unable to either serve or provide a fair and impartial verdict so the first one, a juror is not able to serve. maybe someone has a job that doesn't pay when you are serving on the jury and that person simply cannot afford to spend two months on the jury. that person will lose their spouse or not be able to pay mortgage or rent it or won't be able to pay utility bills etc.. that's called a hardship and it's a cause determination that the judge can and will release a juror. maybe someone has a significant back ailment and cannot sit for five hours straight throughout the day or some other medical affirmative that prohibits them from paying attention, close

attention and maybe cannot hear very well and hearing aids don't work. that's another form of hardship. the other thing category of for cause is a person who says i am unable to render a fair and impartial verdict. why? maybe someone says i have such deep and abiding views about mr. trump for such deep and abiding views about the government, about the state of new york, that i simply cannot follow the instructions of the judge. i'm predisposed one way or the other and i'm going to do that anyway. that person is excused as well. in that category you also have people with religious objections. some people based on their religious training, they come in and say look, i can't do this

because my biblical or other traditional teachings are that i cannot judge and you're asking me to sit in judgment of another and that violates my religion. those folks are to miss -- dismissed for cause. that's one category for cause and you have preemptory challenge is preemptory challenges are challenges that take off from the jury otherwise eligible jurors. you are eligible and you can provide a fair and impartial verdict but there's something about you that one of the lawyer said i don't like that person. preemptory challenges are at the discretion of the lawyers. they can be for almost any reason. it can't be because of a person's race ethnicity or gender. there's a supreme court case that's its progeny says that you

cannot do that but for almost any other reason that person looks funny. he gave me a side eye glance. he looks dishonest. you have no basis for it but to the lawyer or to the client he looks dishonest so a lawyer can exercise a periphery strike a kick that juror off. here's the key here, there are a limited number of periphery challenges. if there weren't a could go on forever and you'd never come up with the jury said they had 10 each in this case and once that number is reached at the juror is qualified in that juror stays. this is why you should get toward the end of the process it goes really quickly because there simply aren't any periphery charges left and for cause is difficult sometimes to make out. >> we will start taking your calls you can call in now if you have a question about jury selection in the manhattan case

with dr. ronald sullivan at harvard university republicans to harvard university republicans (202)748-8001, independents (202)748-8002 and republicans 202-74-8800 -- it does surprise me a bit. the rule of some in jury selection is that you don't want lawyers in your jury. why is that? oftentimes lawyers might dominate jury discussion because the other jurors might differ to them because they have legal knowledge. that's one reason and another reason is that sometimes lawyers may not listen to the instructions of the court because they think they are due know what the rules are.

they think they understand what's behind an objection and the sort of information that a lawyer speaks to elicit that doesn't, the lawyer might consider those things that a judge says do not consider. as with most rules at him they are subject to exceptions. sometimes you think a lawyer may be helpful because you might have a case that has certain technical aspects that you think a lawyer can guide the jury and the direction of your clients. other times it's a gut feeling so just to give you an example, years ago before he came a -- became a professor i was the public defender the d.c. public defender service. i tried a homicide case and i learned like most lawyers coming

up with no lawyers on the jury but there was one lawyer who seemed to say the right things and that lawyer was recent graduate of berkeley law school and she wore birkenstocks to court. i thought, you know what i think i can deal with this person. this person will give my client a fair shot. sometimes you are right. sometimes you are wrong but buts is an example of the sort of proxies that lawyers use to make determinations about how the juror might vote. there was something about those two lawyers at both sides thought the lawyer could be advantageous to them. >> i want to make sure viewers know we have aligned set aside for anybody that has had experience as a juror. you can follow us on (202)748-8003 and use that same line protecting us. we will go to the calls now.

the republican is up first in greenfield indiana. >> yes, your host proved my point explaining about jurors. when jurors get disqualified because of some statement that they made that they cannot or they appear to have some bias towards the defendant, they should be recused. i think the same thing would apply also to the judge was some of the statements and past dealings with the trump and the charges that he is overseeing. i think it appears from what we see on tv and some of the statements that the judge has made and given his past

financial donations to the biden election campaign, the involvement with his daughter based on this premise about disqualifying the juror. i think the judge in alvin bragg should be disqualified as well. >> let's get a response. go ahead. >> so first it's always good to hear from a fellow hoosier. i was born and raised in gary indiana so thank you for the call. the rules with respect to recusal are in fact different for judges so recusal for judges and disqualifications for the prosecutor and dismissal for cause for a juror. the rules are very different. president trump and his team filed recusal motions for the judge that was denied, but the caller makes a very good point

about the notion of recusal, that it exists on two registers for a judge. whether a judge has an actual conflict such that she should be recused or whether a judge has the appearance of conflict such that the reason the person of the public doesn't have faith in the integrity of the system. these are all the things that judge marshawn consisted -- considered when making his ruling. the law says you can't control what your children do so that's not a factor in his analysis. judges are part of the political system so they can make donations. they are not required to be independent politically but the law presumes that judges are going to put aside any

predispositions based on political affiliation otherwise we just couldn't have judges are we captive redesign the system where we have mandated that the judges remain apolitical but you can see the problem the case of florida as a trump appointed judge and you can't say just because you were appointed by president trump and you are a republican you cannot fit on this case. it would just cause chaos in the system. we have a system designed right now to take that into account and presumes that judges can behave appropriately and less end until the level of the conflict rises to a particular level which is not in this case. >> jonathan is next from southport maine, and independent. good morning. >> good morning. i am a big fan of your work. just doing a bit more research

on you when your clients that you ever presented over the years i've realized you were called up to represent mr. harvey weinstein and the only reason you can do that is because you were a provider so how do you feel about that one? >> a little bit outside of the topic but yes i representative mr. weinstein. i believe deeply and profoundly and fifth amendment rights in council. i started my career as a public defender and i believe that everybody deserves a right to a lawyer and a right to a competent and effective lawyer. and it's up to lawyers like me to be quite frank to represent clients who many are unpopular because that's our duty as a lawyer in order to make the system work. if we fail to do this then we will see the protections that you and me and host in joy.

we will be derogated because lawyers are not out there fighting for the rights of the low in the least among us. these are very important. we have rights like the miranda warning. someone decided to represent mr. and. >> guest: miranda who by all accounts was not the greatest guy in the world for the lawyer stood up and representative him nonetheless in his case and because of that we have protections that protect us from the overreach of the state. >> michael has been a juror from plainfield, illinois on the independent line. good morning. >> good morning to you and your guest. i have been on two juries. one was a civil trial, like the

one that's coming up for trump and the other was a triple murder. i was elected form and each time but the interesting thing in my comment and what i would like your guest to comment on is the system in a lot of respects in my opinion is flawed because bordeaux or for your dyer they are in empanelled language area. i don't think it took a long time to do it and if they are still in the process today, it only goes to my point. the system is flawed. people will be under pressure when they are on that jury. they are going to have other things to do. it doesn't pay much money and they are expected to sit in judgment of someone and this is

a very technical case as well as the civil case that i sat on. it was involving a liquor license believe it or not and it was incredibly complicated as to the criteria for transferring things. i think that that's what this is going to be, another highly technical case and there is going to be a lot of problems for the jury in absorbing this and coming to a fair conclusion. that's my comment. >> what do you think professor? >> so, is the jury system and the jury selection system in perfect? the answer is yes it is. there are problems that continue to exist, a tension between expediency on the one hand in choosing a fair and impartial jury on the other hand. in most instances judges are in -- interested in impaneling a

jury and oftentimes on the criminal size side's defense council is interested in slowing the process down in order to ensure that there is a fair jury. it is an imperfect system. yes there's an old saying that our criminal legal system is the worst system in the world. except for all the others. so it does a good job relative to systems around the world but there are ways that we can improve it and i agree with your caller on that. second, that you were a four-person on the jury twice shows me that that's exactly the kind of juror that both sides want. someone measured in someone's there are some notwithstanding some of the issues better inherent in our jury selection process, i have a lot of faith in the jury system.

i think that they are smart and i think that they are fair and most importantly i think that they try to do the right thing. there is something about walking into that courtroom and this solemnity of the setting and the grandeur of the setting that people come in and they are in some ways transported back to the 19th century and feel as though they are part of the very long and very important system. they come in and their mindset shifts because of this setting in and of itself. someone stands up and says oea drawing nigh and be heard. they talk like that, draw nigh and be heard. they really are transported through space time in history and become part of somewhat aged

system of dispensing justice. my point is jurors take this very very seriously. all the jury trials that i've tried for the most part jurors take it very seriously and try their hardest to be fair. is it perfect? no, nothing is perfect. is there room for improvement? a yes but we have a lot to be proud of with respect to the jury system >> and it was mentioned jurors aren't paid much and you have specifics about the manhattan case? >> i don't know. each state pays differently but it is not a lot. it's not a livable wage. it doesn't take, you can't pay your bills with what you get.

you can probably pay for lunch and parking in that sort of thing but it is really minimal. i to try to venture a number because i forget what most states are doing now but it's low. it's not like you can pay your rent with it. it's not a replacement for your job whatever you were earning at your job and because of that and this is one of the problems we have to solve, because of that a lot of working class people cannot afford to be on the jury. many black and brown people who don't have significant mean simply can't afford to be on the jury so that's one of the areas we have to work with. jurors tend to be, particularly these professional folks who can afford it who have jobs and they have are paid whether or not they are sitting in the jury and

government workers teachers the state continues to pay your salary while you are on the jury. so let's get another call in stephen in new york and append it, go ahead. >> hi can you hear me? >> yes, go ahead. my name is david and i'm also trial lawyer in new york and i have a comment in a question for the professor. one, i agree with you professor in responding to the caller who questions whether our system is the best. i think there's no other way because when you compared to other countries in the world that you intimated where they have no jurors but in fact the government are very partial by a judge making the decision that much worse but my second comment is a the question. you mentioned that you picked a juror who is a lawyer in a case

i guess when you were in washington d.c. who wore wore birkenstocks and presuming as a public defender you thought that person would be liberal but you didn't give a response as to whether you were the other lawyer were satisfied and i'm wondering if that juror defied your expectations if he or she would be liberal in favor of your client who you are defending. could you comment on that? thank you. >> absolutely. a great question. as the caller knows who is a fellow trial lawyer we only -- cases that we win so that juror was very good. nature ended up to be the four-person of the jury and we got a good result there. what i will say and as the caller knows this is a calculus when you are making these sorts of inferential leads based on small points about the jury.

oftentimes we are dead wrong and that jurist turns out to be the worst possible juror for you or you have this beautiful ferry throughout the case in you when the case and you go back and talk to the jury after the trial and they found for your client on some other tangential reason that you didn't think they would. so you never know. it's an atmosphere of imperfect information and lawyers do their best to try to manage the imperfect information and a limited timeframe to make judgments that are beneficial for their clients. >> really quick we will get to them and hannah and message ages, an independent. >> yes, thank you and good morning a good morning mr. sullivan. my question, which is wondering is the judge in the case being biased because he said there's a gag order on mr. trump and the

other people can go out and talk about it to the media and so on and so forth. i was just wondering is that a concern of ours that normal? >> professor very quickly. >> normal if one party begins to speak in a way that's inappropriate and contrary to the rules of the court to the court can issue a gag order. the prosecutor starts doing it the judge will issue a gag order for the prosecutors said professor ronald sullivan harvard university law professor thank you so much for joining us. >> thank you.

the house fisa reauthorization bill has a lot of problems, more problems than a math book. not only are the bills reported performs mostly fake and whether or not they care woefully

inadequate, but the bill itself actually expands fisa. it expands fisa surveillance beyond what's existed in the past. in fact fisa authorizes the largest expansion of surveillance on u.s. domestic soil since the passage of the patriot act. fourth amendment violation against u.s. citizens will increase dramatically if this bill is passed into law as it stands now. fortunately there is one thing standing between that bill becoming law in between where that will stands now and where the bill could be soon if we and acted without an amendment and that's the united states senate. under article i, section 7 the

same bill passed a path -- passed both houses before it can be presented to the president for signature acquiescence. it would allow the government to compel a huge range of ordinary u.s. businesses and individuals and other organizations attempting an assortment of entities including hotels libraries and restaurants to assist united states government in spying on american citizens. currently the government conducts fisa 702 surveillance with the assistance are what are known as electronic service providers. historically this definition of such an entity of an ecs be includes those entities with direct access to american communications. think for example google or

microsoft verizon etc.. this provision would allow the government to compel more surveillance assistance from any provider of any service that have access to equipment in which medication is routed and stored. this would include the huge number of u.s. businesses that provide wi-fi to their customers and therefore has access to routers and the communications equipment. apparently this provision as a result of the intelligence community being told by the foreign intelligence court or as fisk as is sometimes described data cloud computing did not under existing law has two -- have to comply with fisa disclosures. foremost senator warner admitted in that context it claims it was a narrow fix to that even he thinks the amendment could have been bettee allow the government to compel information from a single implications for the privacy and provider. the 4th amendment rights of

just american citizens and grave implications for all kinds of businesses and other organizations in america they'd rather pass a faulty broadus can be language passed by the house and then rely on the public for the intelligence community agencies that they will not abuse this new expansion of their authority. how does that sound to you as an american citizen? anyone within the sound of my voice do you really feel good about agreeing to that when you hear from one of our intelligence gathering bodies hey you can trust us. sure the language is broad enough that the there are holes in it that you could drive a mack truck and airbus in 737 air 80 through it side-by-side but trust us we won't treated that way. is that a good idea of? i think not. in fact the entire premise not

just the 4th amendment but as the constitution itself trust but verify. we are not angels. they don't have access to angels angels to run our government so we rely on rules. we don't rely on placings date and government which is reserved for different thing than those occupying the halls of united states government. whether in the intelligence agencies or otherwise. as a federal lawmaker who has been lied to repeatedly throughout the years on various elements within our government including some from the department of justice and the fbi on the abuse of the authorities that very same authority that we are talking about here. forgive me if i'm not willing to take the word of the intelligence community. we have a responsibility to our constituents and voters

everywhere and everyone to protect them by getting this language right, by getting it right before it becomes law, not after. when all we can say is oh we or sorry or more likely members who support that will help them covered up. that's not right in second my college is confused by the protestations of the passion he'd like to confuse you as to what this expansion of authority actually means and what it does. they are suggesting we are offended by this expansion because it would allow them to target more individuals. that is not the problem. not at all. the problem is rather that this amendment is so broadly worded that it could subject a service provider, even when providing services such as cleaning

services or plumbing services to participate in the compel disclosure process on which section 702 relies. we are not concerned with new targets resulting from this legislation as they seem to be suggesting quite mistakenly but rather with the government conscripting any and every kind of service provider into a compelled disclosure scheme. if doj wants to override the decisions through an amendment it must be done through an amendment tailored to his precisely that pass. the turner amendment is about as well tailored as a muumuu or better said a tent meaning there's no tailoring at all. they just threw it all in there like prato spaghetti sauce that

said to contain whatever they want it to contain. senator warner yesterday acknowledged that language poorly drafted and to take an opportunity to fix fix it or amd to what it was intended to do and to go no further than that and to incur no additional further meddling a of problematic situations for law-abiding americans everywhere it suggests that this will be a problem for two years and then we can fix fix it. that it won't be a problem for the next two years and we can have faith and trust that they will not abuse it and then we can fix fix it for real. the fact that they are willing to work with anyone who thinks it's a problem to fix fix it in

time, just not now. if the job is worth doing is worth doing it right now, the first time not just that we don't have to go back and correct it later but so that it doesn't create problems between now and two years from now when he proposes will we address it. it's worth doing today. the stakes are high. there's no reason not to fix fit now and a lot of reasons why it will be problematic if we don't. let's talk about the statutory deadline for the fisa collection program for the administration acknowledges that under the law we can and will continue to conduct fisa 702 surveillance even if 702 temporary lapses while we debate this. that's because the fisa court is approved for certification within the last week or so that

allows the government to continue 702 collections until april of 2025. there's a provision of fisa that you might say grandfather then vital for certification even if the law itself expires. meaning the 702 collection program can continue in its entirety without exception until april 10 or 11th of 2025 even if fisa 702 temporarily lapses between now and then. because all that matters is that fisa 702 was active and in fact not having lapsed as of a month on april 11, just over a week ago when the latest certification was issued by the desk. notably mr. president the administration does not do my best. what it says instead and status companies will bring legal

challenges and they might refuse to comply with the government's directives to turn over communications. i'd just like to know mr. president boyd is there evidence for this? the fact that a few companies briefly refused to cooperate with the government back in 2008 when the predecessor in section 702 that protects american acts expired. here's the problem with that argument. those companies back in 2008 challenge this and they lost in court. the fisa court ruled in 2008 that surveillance could continue despiteite the expiration of alg the companies have to comply. this legal issue was itself settled on those terms 16 years ago. not only that mr. president but much more to the point congress has made the law even stronger

even clearer and even more direct since then. on the government side the fisa amendment act whose language that wasn't in the protect america act saying that the fisa court approval remains valid notwithstanding any other provision of the law including the sunset. that language was added for the first time in december of 2018 and the same legislation that fisa 702 was reauthorized until 2023 until december of 2023 when we extended the effective date of fisa 702 that can december of 2023 extending it until tonight. that language was re-upped. it was enacted again so that same language is intact. there's no ambiguity here. so it's what they are saying

really. why would companies respond to $250,000 a day to make a legal argument that the fisa court rejected years ago. it's simply not a valid reason for us the united states and the united states senate to rush to enact laws that are deeply flawed and detrimental to americans civil liberties as this one. all i'm asking for mr. president is a vote on amendment. we have a reasonable list of amendments offered by a bipartisan group of senators reflecting almost every point along the ideological continuum. chairman warner and senator schumer would just stop blocking those votes we could finish consideration the fisa today. we could wrap this up today. the problem is they know the american people, a lot of these are really popular. they agree with performing this

program warrant was surveillance of the american people. and so certain members have been the united states senate are somehow afraid that these votes must not be considered or passed because they are afraid of what would happen if and when they did pass. think about that for a minute. they don't want us to cast votes on something not in spite of their lack of popularity but because of their popularity. that should concern us all. so to that end mr. president i'm going to try to move these things forward. let's see if we can resolve it. i'd love to be able to resolve it and get it done tonight given over to the house of representatives which is still here and still in town and its convenient mr. president because as they set this up a couple of

centuries ago we both work in the same building. they are just down the hall. i will personally walk a to them. i ask unanimous consent is to present the motion perceived -- the motion is received and i will hold onto that and i will continue mr. president i ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks for additional 15 minutes. >> without objection. >> if that really is the concern that the concern that i'm hearing from a number of colleagues on both sides of the political aisle as were talking about the need to vote on the amendment. what a number of them are saying is we can't do this because if we do it it's going to expire

and if it is expires even momentarily will be armageddon in the streets. that's right out of the book of revelations and would cause pandemonium. but it's not the case but fisa 702 collection is not going in and the same companies that objective in 2008 and lost for the law was much less than the government's favor than it is now we will remember what happened. all they had to do, doesn't take a rocket scientist to read it to make clear that collection day and indeed will continue. in the spirit of moving this forward and getting it done tonight i ask unanimous consent the motion to proceed to h.r. h.r. 7888 be agreed to. i ask further that the following amendment be the only amendment

in order. lee number 1840, paul number 1829, marshall number 1834, wide number 1820 hirono number 1831 merkley number 1822, paul number 1828 durbin amendment 1832 in paul amendment number 1833. further that the senate vote on the above amendment in the order listed with the paul amendment 1828 and 1829 in berkeley amendment 1822 subject to 60 affirmative votes required for adoption that upon disposition of the paul amendment on 1833 the bill be read a third time in the senate vote on passage of h.r. 7888 as amended and is amended with 60 affirmative votes required for passage and with two minutes for debate equally divided prior to each vote.

>> is there objection? >> mr. president. >> the senator from virginia. >> reserving the right to object wishing my friend the john fahey does strong feeling on this film he's been consistent repeatedly i differ greatly. i believe 702 is one of the critical aspects of our national security regime nearly 60%. it appeared in the present daily brief obtained from 702 and again i disagree with the gentleman is well in terms of what had seen prior to 2008 in the preceding bill expired for a time. there are entities that said we no longer have to -- i think that's a risk we cannot afford to take with a vast array of challenges our nation faces around the world. i also point out and i know some

of my colleagues the senate fisa bill the house fisa bill passed the reform bill in his matter-of-fact it is partially in process producing the fbi's noncompliance rate on their own queries of 702 drop from 30% noncompliance to less than 1%. we have reforms that will make sure there are no further effort where people can simply have the right to query is 702 database without making sure as well as clinics have pointed out should an official at a religious figure a whole extra set of reforms -- believe we need to proceed on this and post sides are negotiating in good faith. i think those negotiations need

to continue and therefore i object. >> object and is heard. mr. president? >> the senator from utah. >> i appreciate the thoughtful words presented by my friend in college the distinguished senator from virginia who often chairs the senate intelligence oversight committee. it's unfortunate he's unwilling to have these amendments to be considered especially unfortunate because it appears to be predicated on their risk of fisa 702 and unless we do something on this in the meantime it is going to lapse for a period of time. i made clear modicum of the language we adopted in 2018 and that we have freed up in december of last year in and 2023 makes abundantly clear that fisa 702 collections can

continue unabated. april of 2025 based on every certification of the court surveillance act that believe on april 11. that's allowed to continue for one year following the certification and as long as fisa 702 was still intact and non-expired as of the moment of the certification which it was. even if that were not the case, if what we are worried about here is the clock and they can't speak for anyone other than myself but drafted and would gladly accept if that really is the concern a short-term extension of fisa 702 if by doing so that would make the difference between us being able to consider these amendments, vote on them and send it back to the house of representatives

without doing so under the threat of this amorphous and unsubstantiated fear that fisa 702 will go witch of courses not. once again we do find ourselves at the mercy of the senate democratic leadership with the majority leader in particular acting as the doorkeeper of the senate allowing access to the senators who wish to offer their amendment and only if those amendments are amendments that the majority leader knows he can defeat. he so determined to block amendments he is willing to obstruct the quick passage of this bill. if offered this bit of the consideration of the restoration bill passed by the house which many of its advocates desperately wanting pass before midnight today. in exchange for a vote on the amendment just vote not

guaranteed outcomes but vote commensurate with an consistent with once the rules of the senate allow. this nongermane abandonment and 60 germane amendments with a simple majority threshold. that's not too much to ask that senator schumer is the chairman of the senate select committee on intelligence wouldn't take the deal. why? well part of it is a time issue that i mentioned that an entity no less than "the new york times" earlier this week pointed out that argument really doesn't hold water and if it does i'm happy to agree to extend it. the only other reason i can think of is the fear on the part of those who wanted to pass in exactly the form to the house of representatives enacted it. they are afraid some of these

amendments might actually pass. six of these amendments are germane to the bill so they could pass with a simple majority vote and that's exactly why some in this chamber won't allow these amendments to be voted on. they don't want reforms to the bill. they'd rather let the bill expire instead of letting the senate do its work and amend the bill in a manner consistent with the expressed desire in indeed the demand among the electorate. left, right, east and west, north and south. the sad commentary on clear we stand in the democratic process today. some might say that we can't pass these amendments because that would set up after the house house and the house would have to repass it but the is that how the lawmaking trusses this is supposed to work wax

article i section 7 contemplates it but it's never meant to be super easy to pass legislation provides camera will play and are we supposed to vote on amendments not just for show but to improve the bill to see whether or not the house will take it up rather than just assuming as if we were adopting some sort of house legislative chamber doctrine of infallibility that what they wrote must be treated as if it were carved into stone and that we can't touch it. that's nonsense. that's not how this works and it's never how was intended to work certainly should not be how it works in this circumstance and not with a bill like this where americans at every point along the ideological continuum have concerns about it.

there are a number of us in this chamber who feel this way. i had good friends on the other side of the aisle with whom i frequently disagree with on a wide variety of issues but with whom i agree closely on this issue that's reflective of our constituency and that the american people at generally in the house is in session this weekend here in the same building still in session though it's standing by ready to take up our amended bill whenever we can get it passed. senator schumer and senator warner are preventing us from performing one of our most basic duties. we have one or two members who are acting as doorkeepers to the senate. meanwhile the other 98 members are being prevented from even having our improvements to the

bill considered and many of these if not most of them are pretty widely bipartisan. so this sort of thing when it happens renders something of a legislative rubber stamp. it's not something we aspire to. like i say it's unfortunate we couldn't come to an agreement on this. i just asked the question if the clock is really the enemy here why not just extended? i stand ready and willing for myself to extend the clock whether it's for a few days or a week so that we can have time to consider it. i'm willing to do that. if we won't do that then maybe we aren't hearing the real

reason of opposition. thank you mr. president.

currently debating the authorization or reauthorization of section 702 of the foreign intelligence surveillance act. i have called this the most important lot that most americans have never heard of but it is essential and essential tool for all intelligence community to protect the american people

against the whole upgrade of threats as i will try to explain but it is somewhat complicated which means it's important to make sure that we interest and what the facts are and to dispel in a myths or misconceptions about what exactly we are asking the senate to vote on. unless the senate takes action soon section 702 of the foreign intelligence surveillance act will expire at midnight tonight. if that happens the united states will lose access to valuable intelligence that's needed by our intelligence community to keep america safe. our country's top intelligence figures -- officials have shared a number of success stories that demonstrate the far-reaching value of this authority but the best i can tell there is broad

bipartisan can distance about the value of section 702 that i've heard no one stand up and say we should just let the authority lapse. and that's for good reason but you haven't heard that argument. section 702 acquired information to combat terrorism disrupt drug trafficking for its iraq attacks and prevent our adversaries from trafficking in weapons of mass destruction and much more. officials of also issued warnings that in this possible terms about what is 702 laps would do to our security, fbi director chris wray said allowing 702 to expire would be pulled back an act of unilateral disarmament in the face of the chinese communist party. ".

so the stakes are dreamy high and i'm glad the republican republican-led house passed a strong 702 reform bill last week. this is not a clean reputation of the existing bill. this is a reform

and i'm glad the republican republican-led house passed a

strong 702 reform bill last week. this is not a clean reputation of the existing bill. this is a reform bill which corrects many of the problems that we have experience with section 02 applications including some abuse by fbi officials and others designed to prevent that inadvertent abuse and to hold people who abuse that authority accountable. and to those who say well this reform bill has provisions that they can be likewise abused by somebody who is intent on violating the law i say there is no law that can prevent people from lying cheating and stealing, and afterwards we can do our best to try to pass a law that protects the american

people both in their privacy and the national security but no one argues that we can prevent all abuses. we could go a long way in this bill does it to close up the opportunities to do that and to hope people accountable who abuse the law by exposing them potentially to long prison sentences. this legislation increases transparency is a set for misuse and strengthens accountability within the fbi. as congress has debated this law i have seen a lot of confusion and occasionally even some misinformation about this authority and the reforms being discussed. as the senate prepares to vote on this bill i think it's absolutely critical that we clear up a few of the most common misconceptions about section 702. the first myths i want to

address is 702 is unconstitutional because it allows widespread surveillance of american citizens without going to court and getting a warrant, establishing probable cause. i've heard some people say under this law the intelligence community can spy on american people. nothing is further from the truth. section 7 of two cannot be used to target any u.s. citizen weather on american soil or elsewhere in the world. it is specifically aimed at foreign actors overseas that could pose a threat to the united states. we all acknowledge that any investigation into any american citizen requires a warrant to establish a probable cause issued by a judge, and impartial

judge. it's our basic protections under the 4th amendment. this contrast is not about targeting americans in the united states but rather foreigners overseas and even if the foreigners in the united states section 702 would not allow their collection. they would need a warrant. the law contains robust safeguards to protect the privacy of u.s. persons in the house passed bill includes even more provisions designed to strengthen those protections. this first myths stems from perhaps a misunderstanding about what is called incidental collection of u.s. persons data. when i use the term u.s. persons him including american citizens and legal permanent residents. that's why the generic term u.s. persons rather than u.s. citizens is used. for example of an american is texting with a foreign terrorist who is the target of 702

collections both sides of that conversation, that text would be available. other text e-mails and communications would remain untouched and would require a warrant issued by the foreign intelligence surveillance court. and many courts examine the constitutionality of this incidental collection for the second circuit the 9th circuit the 10th circuit have all looked at it and said it does not violate the 4th amendment. the eastern district of new york has as well as has the foreign intelligence surveillance court. i might just pause there for a moment and remind people that the foreign intelligence surveillance court is a court created by congress composed of three federal judges, article iii judges appointed by

the chief justice that review these practices and procedures on a regular basis. so you have three levels of oversight of these important tools. you have that the agency level you have internal rules and regulations. you have the senate and the house intelligence committee on which i have the privilege of serving that conducts oversight in that he had the foreign intelligence surveillance court. to make sure this balance between security and privacy are protected. and every court that looked at this issue the court is determined that seven at two complies with the 4th amendment and so far as incidental collection is concerned. section 702 does not authorize spying on the american people. it reminds me of the saying by mark twain.

mark poinsettia lie and travel around the world in the time it takes for truth to put on its shoes. and unfortunately some of these things get on social media people begin to believe them because they see it repeated even though it's not true. this is a carefully crafted law designed to balance national security imperatives with individual privacy lights. myth number two congress could strengthen privacy protections and preserve 702 by adding a warrant requirement. this requires a bit of an explanation but i've mentioned it text between a foreign target and an american citizen and the incidental collection that is the communication between those two they would be revealed by 702. then it's added to a database that can then be queried or explored by subsequent actions

by intelligence agencies including the fbi. some would say and despite the fact that no court has held that incidental selection is unconstitutional or violates the 4th amendment before the fbi or any part of the intelligence community wants to look at that lawfully collected data it's got to go to court and get a warrant. again this would require the government to show probable cause that some crime, maybe espionage, maybe some other crime has been committed. all of the officials that serve in positions of responsibility in making sure that this capacity continues safely and respecting the rights of privacy as far as the security of our country has said that adding a warrant requirement to look at

information that you have lawfully collected would decimate the effectiveness of section 702. this is unlike the traditional criminal investigation where warrants are issued based on probable cause because of criminal activity. intelligence gathering is unique because it involves monitoring foreign actors to detect and prevent threats before they occur. in other words regular law enforcement is going to try to stop criminal acts before they occur. unfortunately we are relegated to investigating and prosecuting crimes after they occur. that's the criminal context. intelligence gathering is very different because it's designed to prevent actions from occurring in the first place.

like the 3000 americans that were killed on 9/11 when al qaeda targeted the world trade center and the pentagon. as director wray has said the technology environment where a foreign threat after can move to mew -- new of accounts and infrastructure in a matter of hours if not minutes section 702 provides the agility we need to stay ahead. requiring a warrant for every inquiry into lawfully collected information in the 702 database with significantly hinder the ability to respond to emerging threats and again this is looking at information that every court that has looked at it is said its lawfully collected under the 4th amendment. our intelligence community would be held to an impossible standard on the nationality and

location of every single person in a foreign land and maybe talking to before they could make any targeting decisions. the senate has an amendment that would hold that no person and that would include the entire intelligence community may access information of a covered person except in limited circumstances. the covered person is broadly defined would include incidental communication of a u.s. person something which is already lawfully collected but the truth is this amendment would hamper the 702 program in dangerous ways. if an amendment containing this language passes the cia or the nsa would be unable to monitor hamas or isis terrorists abroad unless and until they can determine that national identities and physical locations of everyone that they

may be talking to texting or e-mailing them it's an impossible burden. the senate is expected to vote on an amendment to the house that injects a different type of hurdle than 702 process that would be similarly confining and limiting in terms of its effectiveness for this amendment would dramatically expand the role of an amicus. and the love we talk about amicus cure i friends of the court and that's where amicus is. that's an outside person coming in basically to provide legal advice or briefing to court to help the court make a decision in their art exists in amicus provision in the current law so the foreign intelligence surveillance court needs additional expertise or advise on a complex matter. you can ask for that.

but this amount would do would impose an amicus support to virtually every foreign intelligence act title i matter in place again unworkable burdens on the foreign intelligence surveillance court and on the intelligence community seeking access to that information. what that means in practical terms is that we will get locked down in court proceedings and not just in front of the foreign intelligence surveillance court. this amendment would allow an appeal of a foreign intelligence surveillance court's decision to presumably all the way to the supreme court. can you imagine in a time-sensitive national security matter that we will take a timeout so they can appeal the case up and down, up and down the federal judiciary and the

supreme court with who knows how long the delay might be? the urgent intelligent request before the surveillance board would become a means to gut sections 702 through series of legal delays and affect one actor who disagreed with the foreign intelligence surveillance court's determination would have the ability to stop what is already a constitutional and lawful program in its tracks. this is a radical departure from the role of an amicus or friend of the court in normal court proceedings. friend of the court the amicus cure i is there to provide expertise and help the court get it right not to gum up the process. to become an adversary. as i noted at july the is the key to section 702 but he gives her intelligence professionals timely and actual intelligence

to keep americans safe expanding the role of the amicus to turn them into an adversary to this process would hamper the program and i believe make it far less useful. the house has had a broad debate about this topic and i believe drafting a bill that expands participation in a reasonable and productive way without shutting down the process. finally myth number three there will be no impact if it expires tonight at midnight because other directives will replace it. like many misconceptions this is based on a grain of truth. earlier this month the foreign intelligence surveillance report renewed the annual 702 certification procedure process or a bowl of 2025.

interestingly as i mentioned the foreign intelligence surveillance court which includes three article iii judges a lifetime tenured judges regularly sign off on the practices and procedures under section 702 and found to be and unconstitutional. and they have certified the current process for april of 2025. that does not mean the program can continue uninterrupted for another year. in the event of a lapse tonight at midnight some communication to service providers full stop cooperate in what the united states government. that's exactly what happened in 2008 when the predecessor called to protect the america act reef we lapse. the attorney general and the director of national intelligence wrote to congress about the impact of a short-term lapse. they said quote providers

refusing compliance with the request would initiate new surveillance of terrorists and other foreign intelligence surveillance targets under existing directives issued under pursuant to the protect america act and ultimately directly to degraded intelligence capability end quote. some of these american based companies will cooperate with the intelligence community unless they have a place to provide some a requirement that they do so and the legal protection to go along with that. even though the department of justice can move to compel the company to continue to cooperate under current certification litigation inevitably and i believe without 702 there is no way these companies will be

required or be willing to cooperate. there couldn't be a more dangerous time to put this to the test. director wray and director of the national intelligence director burns all of the members of the intelligence community and leaders have said the number of threats facing america has never been greater certainly not since world war ii. it's terrorist proxies of iran are tacking and russian's are continuing on assault on ukraine and china is fueling instability in the middle east. section 70 to underpin their ability to predict and respond to each of these threats and we would be flying blind without 702. the 702 misinformation runs rampant but here are the facts. 702 complies with the 4th amendment. every court is considered the matter and is reached that

conclusion. section 702 is invaluable because of united states is given timely and actual intelligence for the warrant requirement for an amicus expansion would undercut that capability. .. congress cannot in good conscience deprive america's dedicated intelligence professionals of the authority they need to continue to keep our country safe. section 702 of the foreign and valence act is vital to our national security. must be extended as reformed in

the house built. just waiting for a senator to come to the floor to speak for today members are work on extension of foreign intelligence surveillance act which allows for warrantless tracking of noncitizens outside of the united states for the current authorization will expire at midnight if the legislation is not passed on the other side of the capitol of the house of his session on sgt but on the series of foreign aid measures that will provide funds to ukraine, israel and taiwan. watch live coverage of those votes on c-span.

the retaliatory strike by israel on my run. we are an open forum for the next 15 minutes or so. the numbers on your skin or republicans 202-748-8001. democrats two 202-748-8000. independence 202-748-8002. we will hear from democrats -- hi don. >> caller: good morning. >> host: go ahead. >> caller: my god, i think there is a lot of things that we

americans don't remember. number one, over 200,000 ukrainians were slaughtered by putin with his missile. number two, we had ukraine in military serving side-by-side with our troops in iraq and afghanistan. we have three democracies that are being tortured ukraine, israel, and taiwan. and i think the republicans are doing a disk saver by disenfranchising three -- 4 million ukrainians that are

going to vote mostly democratic because the republicans are dropping the ball will end support for it ukraine, israel, and taiwan. i want to end this by saying i have been a 57 year great republican voter ever since i got out of the service. and i will be thinking twice on whether to vote in this next election. thank you. spill it all right, it dawned bright and cocoa, florida online for democrats. >> caller: good morning everybody. i've been listening today i'm getting very upset. vietnam marine the part i cannot believe the republicans want to sell out ukraine they go into

nato we ought to be at least nice about it. just send republicans over too fight. let their sons and daughters diet while the democrats go get them boys. as far as the lady who said biden is a week, that's true, maybe. but we surely no trump is a coward. it has been proven my sister had bones for the same time he did. she gets out foot is on he can't he was sick coward and alive. that's all got to say. >> is going phil duffy, penn pennsylvania on the line for independence good gordon good morning. >> caller: hi, think of taking my call this my quick comment or two prior to people in the call the gentleman from south carolina when you had the guests

on gave a good summary of how things work in the government and the united states. it might comment today there's going to be too and there's a lot of people talking about ukraine. a lot of people don't do history work on ukraine. and kind of look at ukraine going back to world war ii, how they were sympathizers with the nazi regime. the atrocities they do with the jewish and world war ii. one of the worst world war ii atrocities that were there. they also have a military group serving with ukraine. the key sympathizer group that still honors nazi -ism. my last comment is going to be that i would like to know what this porta thing is.

everyone has comments. mine is that all the money in the united states give to the south american countries from mexico, to venezuela, et cetera, et cetera. who is watchdog is a watching or the money is going? all of the people leaving the south american countries and say they are being threatened or so forth like that are poor people. no rich people are coming to wealthy people are coming. i cannot quite put a button on it. why are all the poor coming and what is the money is not going to the infrastructure for each country? education, medical, jobs, et cetera. we consciously keep giving money to them. someone has to seriously come up from this country, own up to it why don't we stop giving them money are not giving them as much if we are not getting then

where is the benefit? >> let's go to the republican you are on the air. kirk's good morning and greetings everyone. my comment has a joke i did a little bit of research i was kind of curious about the breakdown of the current aid to ukraine for i went online looking for an unbiased as i could find i ended up on the keel institute. that's an interesting number second break them down really quickly though. most of the aid the european nations 90% the eight appears to be going towards humanitarian concerns were only 10% of the aid coming out of the european nation is going to ukraine as military assistance. the niceties aid 90% of coming for the eight states as military

aid as opposed to the 10% give or take 5%. 10% aid the humanitarian that tt the message is given. this in my opinion plays into putin's think this is that u.s. in situ war. >> you instituted war? certainly you do not think the u.s. started the war, is that what you mean by instituted? >> know this place into putin is saying because united states is finding most of the military, 90% of the military they are engaging with, that u.s. is interfering with russia. so i would like to see the european nations actually giving their claims, giving all of the support they need to do a flip that around 39 cents is giving 10% of that military aid and 90%

of the financial aid if that is what they needed. the military weapons are already in europe right now that they need to support ukraine. >> what you think that would do if you were to flip that? it is the same amount of money i am assuming. but will that do? do you think i would end the war? would that cause putin to stop his aggression? or what you think it would do? polluted with -- the european nations 90% of their military going against russia not just 10% the military going against russia. cooks in the breakdown on the instituted said pensions were parts of the 90% humanitarian aid being given by the european

nation. i wondered about that in writing because it did not break it down. so, are wages that the ukrainian workers would have been making in ukraine now that they are in other nations rather than being a burden on the economies of those in nation, is that keeping it keepingthe wages of the ukran workers going so they are not a financial burden to the countries that they are escaping to? independent good morning. >> hello, good morning. the world is on fire from the sudan, to burma, to ukraine, to israel. their large% of the population currently engaged in the war we

have a choice to stand or retreat in the face of hypocrisy. >> one james good morning. >> caller: how's it going, ma'am? >> host: going all right, james, how about you? i just want people to know people need to stop fighting and stop killing and stop giving away everything we have been trying to help each other. i am a firm believer you should clean your own backyard before you try to clean somebody else's yard. i mean, i always go like you should take care of yourself. my dad passed on in his last words for me, look out for

number one. to heck with everyone else in. sue went right james today's the fourth day of the trump criminal trial in manhattan. yesterday at this at former president trump said when he talked to reporters after spending the day in court. >> i am supposed to be in a north carolina, south carolina. i'm supposed to be at all the different places campaigning but i've been here all day on a trial that's really an unfair trial. from legal experts at the wall street journal editorial from legal experts saying how this is not a case. the case is ridiculous it's another when the case is

ridiculous. all of these stories are. [inaudible] and he falsifies them. he is the one. take a look at all of these that you see here. all of them. indicting trump is nonsense. everybody is outraged. >> also what happened yesterday kerri kennedy who is rfk

junior's daughter spoke up for the family at an event in philadelphia. here is a portion of her remarks. >> we want to make crystal clear our feelings that the best way forward for america is to reelect joe biden and harris to four more years. [applause] [cheering] four more years, four more years, four more years, four more years. >> and president biden has been a champion for all of the rights and freedoms like my father and uncle stood for. that is why nearly every single grandchild of joe and rose kennedy support joe biden. [applause]

that's right, the kennedy family endorses joe biden for president. [cheering] 's lewandowski daughter of robert kennedy. that was from yesterday it will take a call online for democrats pittsburg, california tom good morning. >> good morning and thank you for taking my call. i do not even know where to begin. i do not want to say people are ignorant, but if they say all these terrorists are coming from south of the border than the people south of the board most of them aren't looking for a political asylum. i like to set something really clear. i'm middle eastern terrorists

are not going to try to enter through mexico am going to catch a flight, flight into canada and come across a border that way i have nobody stopping me. so people thinking terrorists will come from south of the bride do not know where they get this idea from. yes, we do have a problem with the drug cartel. a wall is not going to stop them either. i've got news for you the cartel is so entrenched they actually have tunnels under the wall anyway. so we won't even know that. >> what do you say to the concept they were about 300 people that were on the terror watch list that crosses on the border? >> we are on the watch list and print their terrace on the watchlist and the come across the border. where they apprehended are they're being watched? what kind of a terrorist are we

talking about? >> i do not know the details. cooks of up to patrician bronx, new york. democrat good morning, patricia per. >> hi, good morning. first time caller. >> thank you. i am calling i'm a fan of c-span i'm listening to people calling in about cleaning your own backyard, what is america doing and these of the countries? do you know if they are doing? protecting you who are sleeping at night on the covers you go to not a care in the world. guess what, we fight them over there so they don't come over here. that is why they are doing that. that is why they are paid by the government. that is why. they're protecting you while you walk down your street safely and

don't worry about bombs dropping on your head. that is why picnics got it, patricia. and just waiting for senator to come to the floor to speak. to date members are continued work on extension of the foreign intelligence surveillance act allows for a warrantless tracking of noncitizens outside the united states. the current pfizer authorization will expire at midnight at the legislation is not passed. on the other side of the capitol of the house will be in session on saturday to vote on a series of foreign aid measures that will provide funds to ukraine, israel and taiwan. watch live coverage of those votes on c-span.

some of the new, exciting earth science emissions we have coming out. today i have with the senior nasa administrator bill nelson, karen st. germain for earth's and sciences and tom waggoner associate director for earth action within our earth sciences division. so come as they mention we have exciting things to discuss with you today. will announce new airborne science missions. will announce new elements in earth science strategy as well as a new visualization from our pace mission planted aerosol

clout and ecosystem for a socket get him to administrator nelson to give a slow but more information about what will here today. >> you know we are a climate agency and addition to being a space agency, aeronautical agency. that is because we have these two dozen instruments and satellites on orbit that look at the earth. look at it and bring as data, real-time. within a matter of seconds that it takes the transmission from the satellites back to earth, we have all put together this information center to try to bring this information to the public. not only in a physical structure such as here at nasa headquarters.

also at one of the smithsonian institutions. but we bring it virtually as well to people. up to the minute real-time data on what is happening to the earth as seen by our spacecraft. we are trying to bring the understanding that this is a precious, precious planets. smoke run our star called the son, we can see from space we can see what happened to theirs. when i flew in space 38 years ago, even with the naked eye i could see the effects on earth coming across in brazil. i could see the color contrast in the upper amazon region where

they were cutting down the trees and in the same window of the spacecraft i can look to the east to the mouth of the amazon river i can see the result of the extra silt that was flowing hundreds of miles out into the atlantic. as a nation of madagascar after southeast corner. when the rains came there were not any roots to hold the topsoil. all the topsoil was running down the rivers in space looking down on madagascar art you could see the result of that so easily. coming out of the river since the bright blue waters of the indian ocean. one of the effects that happen to meet personal i became more of an environmentalist money went into space.

today on the occasion of earth day coming up we have a couple major announcements. we are going to show you and our experts are going to tell you about a new spacecraft we put up called pace that is showing us all of the plankton and the waters of planet earth. you are going to see some of the phytoplankton all stirred up by the current. you are going to see in one case, there it is. that is the tip of africa. look at all the phytoplankton that hugs the coast until you get to the very southern tip and low and behold that's the confluence of two oceans.

the indian ocean to the east. the atlantic, to the west. when they meet the waters swirl. it's caught up in that swirl. and by the way is it any wonder at the tip of africa it's a place there's a concentration of great white sharks. and also, or whales. and i think you can see or real-time from pace our instrument in space. what that is. pace is also looking at aerosols. that is one announcement. we've got another announcement today and it is is it earth venture program that will fund six new airborne missions.

doctors st. germain is going to into the detail but i can just tell you on the north slope of alaska the arctic coastal changes one. what about what happens when we get these wildfires that we have had? and all of that smoke goes up and creates clouds. clouds created by fire. what about the urban air pollution? and we sometimes, if you go to a place in other parts of the world you do not even want to breathe. you certainly do not want to go outside unless you've got a mask. which, i've been wearing a recently but jogging in washington d.c. because there is so much a pollen here and you can hear in my voice right now. we also from our airborne

platforms out drought and rainfall are shaping land but what about glacial ice? i will never forget 15 years ago into greenland. went up on that glacier and i could see the glacier as the scientists were telling us how it was moving. and it was coming into the sea. and that agricultural omissions can we take our instruments in space with regard to agriculture very seriously. we can tell them what that moisture content of your soil put what you ought to be planted. -plan for the drought that is coming. how much water you want to reserve? what kind of crop ought you planted on this soil with this moisture content?

that is all part of what we are going to announce today. thanks. >> thank you. as you can see we have a lot of exciting things to talk about today. karen, i wanted to get to you. earlier this year we lost our pace mission. last week we got to see those exciting images and we have a new