..of people outside of the united states want to hurt us. there is something left out of their that i have a strong feeling, based upon meetings that several of us had with the president last week at the white house, but the president is going to be very strong in support of what we call the 215 program, but not necessarily the way it is right now. the president did make clear , but he was very usong in his statements to about the importance of metadata. host: about collecting it. muchhey collect it, how

they collect, does that same place? caller: i believe that would be unchanged. the question is where is it going to be stored and what access would we have to it? when you have concerns about privacy and government, they are legitimate because the government has abuse on privacy. you see it through the irs and conservative organizations. that is not even intelligence. the other -- when you have targ et and the other one -- host: the security breach at target. there's another one. i forgot the name of the. organizations know more about what we do them what the government knows about us. peter baker and charlie savage report that president obama will not endorse leaving

bulk data in the custody of telecommunications form -- firms. can you explain this a little bit? the national security letters were not something that was given to the review committee to make recommendations on. i am surprised they made those recommendations. we have had the fbi before our committee and we have had a about what, if we follow the directions of the review committee, and evidently, the president agrees with the fbi director, it would inhibit our opportunity to go after terrorist. it may put more requirements on going after terrorists then you would before a grand jury for a common criminal in the united states. what was the other point? will not require core

permission for security letters. he will not endorse leaving bulk data in the custody of telecommunication firms. guest: i don't know why he is making that recommendation. we all want to wait until the president makes his statement before we react to it. that gets back to some of the concerns that i said that i have. that would target being breached and everything and 70 million people in america having some of divulgedancial stuff to other people and be used for fraudulent purposes. more privacyhat is concerns they are then the government controls the. host: more from the new york times. instead of taking bold data out of government hands, mr. obama will leave it in place for now and ask lawmakers to weigh in.

what will you say? we should of started off the conversation with what i am going to say. a are in the process in doing bipartisan way, this will have to be done in a bipartisan way. find a balance between the constitutional protection of , the number one responsibility of the federal government for national security -- you have to find the balance. there is a general agreement on more transparency and more oversight. beyond that, i don't know whether anyone knows exactly where you want to come out, except there are a few that think you ought to do away with the whole program and if you think there should never be any changes. host: are you on board with the legislation drafted by your chairman, patrick leahy and jim

sensenbrenner? i am not on any piece of legislation at this point, -- ise i have not found want to find the middle ground. even the middle ground can be controversial when you have extreme views over here and well thought out views over here. host: we cover the hearing yesterday with president obama. -- members of his task force that he put together. before we get to phone calls, let me move to the trillion dollar spending legislation. how do you plan to vote?

tost: i am probably going vote for it. i have not gone through the 1500 pages yet. host: will you? final bill comes out three days before you're going to vote. thisve been working on over a long period of time. not everything is new. are noto make sure there earmarks in it. if there are earmarks in, both political parties decided no more earmarks. not be any earmarks in it. that might be a reason to vote against it. if it stays within the budget adopted before christmas, that is voting for it. i better reserve judgment until you get through all parts of it. it is pretty much a fairly conservative budget. people in the house of representatives would say it

35 or 40 it spends billion more than what was in sequestration. let's get to phone calls. democratic caller, hi jeff. overwhelming is an evidence about the third tower on 9/11, it was brought down by a controlled demolition. since the rights of americans are being affected by the nsa program, we want to make sure we know everything about the event. would you be willing to review the building seven controlled demolition evidence with representatives of the building experts that are demanding a new investigation of its destruction? a group of folks that don't believe the investigation was adequate. guest: the answer is no. it is conclusive it was done by

terrorists. i have had people come to my town meeting as early as 2003 and 2004 and discusses with me. they brought big pictures in of andtowers going down someone who believes this and pointed to it and said, this is a fake. this is not aviation gas that is blowing up -- that is steaming up here. been pretty well investigated. host: cell, independent caller. my question is, i have seen you on the show a couple of times. one time you mentioned you were receiving 100% of your retirement pay. i would like to know, you mentioned that you and a partner were receiving farm subsidies. are these things true? guest: not retirement pay.

over 65 years of age and i pay into social security and i am drawing social security. not retirement. you cannot get retirement pay until i retire for congress -- from congress. i crop share with my son and i do receive farm payments as a result of that. the reason i crop share his ice or -- i share some of the risk and i am a farmer and i represent farmers in iowa. i could avoid the farm payments this way -- i could cash lent my farm, take the money, and not take before payment. i think it is better to farm 50-50 and sharon the operation and know what farming is -- share in the operation so i know what farming is. most of the payment you are talking about would be what we

call direct payments. there are three or four kinds of payments. the only one you get for sure is direct payments. you get that, regardless of price. the farm bill we are working on now will do away with direct payments and save $15 billion. there will be no direct payments to chuck or any other former. host: what is the likelihood of that getting past? orst: there is only three things that separate them. i think we will get a farm bill, i was hoping by the end of this week but i think it will be by the end of january. we are not in session next week. host: vancouver, washington, republican caller. caller: good morning to both of you. grassley, i have been a longtime supporter of you. i was wondering if you could

tell me what the prospects are of restoring the cost of living to the retired military people? all that was cut. i am glad that i was not on the conference that put that in the budget before christmas. it is very controversial. i would vote to restore that. up to do itwas put for new people going into the military, i would vote to change the retirement system but for people who joined under the idea that their compensation plan would include a certain retirement, i don't think it should be changed within the retirement plan. another thing that could affect , thei'm telling you

percentage of adjustment for military people should be the same as it is for social security, etc for other civil service retirement. with what weoblem call the consumer price index, overcompensating for inflation, that tends to give all of those categories, cost-of-living, a what thet more than actual cost of living would be according to consumer rights index. -- price index. if we would adjust that to follow what economists say is a more true designation of what inflation is, then it would affect all of those. from that standpoint, i would vote for changes like that. winston-will go to salem, north carolina, independent caller. morning to both of

you. as usual, thank you for the great job you and the rest of the c-span team do in keeping us informed. my question has to do with the so-called, i think it's called the black budget. it is the budget that is not available for public review. we hear a lot these days about the constitution and the founding fathers. is there something in the constitution that allows for this so-called black budget? when did it become part of the budgeting process? opinion on personal such a thing as a black budget that never gets discussed or presented on c-span and committee meetings, etc? guest: i think there should be a black budget. the black budget would only account for the part that is

used for intelligence, cia, some defense intelligence organizations. it is not a case that every member of congress does not know about it. people on the appropriations committee that deal with intelligence, people on the intelligence committee which is a standing committee authorizing committee, they know what is in it. i can be briefed on what is in it. sometimes we get that calledtion but it's black or secret or whatever you want to call it because you don't want your enemies to know what you are spending on intelligence because, from that figure, they might determine what you are doing in their particular country or what you are doing generally. you don't want your enemies to know what you know about them or how you go about getting information. it is directly connected to the

federal government's responsibility, number one responsibility of national security and protecting the american people and gathering intelligence on your potential enemies is one way of doing that. that is why it is relatively secret but not totally secret. it is not on c-span. that's about all i can say. host: is that so-called black budget including in this on the is spending bill? guest: don't know whether it asked this question or not but the total figure is pretty well public. not how it is divided up within that figure. it would be part of the money that is appropriated by congress. int: we will go to ray clinton, iowa, democratic caller. morning, i have two

questions for the senator. one has to do with the postal service. there is this ominous $5.5 billion they keep taxing the american people by taking it out of the post office. the post office has been operating at a surplus but because of this ridiculous offset pre-funding retiree, 75 oughtin advance that they to put on general motors, alcoa, john deer and every other takery in this country -- it off and let the post office operate. the other part is, host: i will leave it there and have the senator respond. guest: b until we get a postalill through both houses of congress, this issue will not be dealt with. it will be dealt with within that bill.

two years ago, the senate passed a bill. chairmancarper of the committee is willing to pass a bill again. i don't know when it will come up in the senate but i hope it does come up. i had a chance to vote for that bill two years ago. it is much more comprehensive than the thing you brought up but it includes what you brought up. it did not ever get through the house of representatives. i would have to ask senator reed when he will let it come up in the united states senate but i think the committee is willing to move forward on it. host: the trillion dollar spending bill includes provisions on the postal service . it says that postal delivery must continue on saturdays. the postal service would like to discontinue saturday service in order to save some money. guest: i believe it's a good thing to put that in the

appropriation bill. should not beery decided by itself or it it should be decided in a comprehensive postal reform bill. that is something that senator carper's bill deals with. this is just a delay until september 30 that the postal service will not go ahead until we get a bill passed. host: here is an e-mail -- guest: the reason it is not in the appropriations bill is because it is a separate item on the floor of the united states senate. host: it sounds like the two sides cannot agree on extension

of on employment benefits. guest: they can agree on the extension but they cannot agree had to pay for it. -- how to pay for it. i think there needs to be 60 votes to pass a three-month extension but how do you pay for it? there is also a procedural problem. senator reid has been running the united states senate so in the last year, he only allowed for republican amendments to come up. there is 45 of us and only four amendments can come up. we are also trying to get an agreement that we can offer some republican amendments. the senate is supposed to be a deliberative a-day, not run by one person. the house of representatives is run by the rule committee but we have a one-person rules committee in the united states senate and it is senator reid and it is not supposed to be that way. if you read james madison and the federalist papers, the senate is supposed to be a deliberative body not supposed to be run by one person and big

run by the majority -- and the run by the majority. host: when the congress returns at the end of january, do you think this issue gets resolved? guest: i think it could be resolved this week ar if there pay forreement how to it. not every republican is offering amendments. we are asking for something like three or four amendments. we won't necessarily get them adopted but we want to discuss important things. they won't let us discuss. host: are they related to employment benefits? guest: under the rules of the eenate, you can have non-german amendments as long as you don't accept post-cloture then everything has to be germane. the senate was meant to be able to discuss anything at any time. that's what you call a deliberative body.

host: we will hear from paul in tennessee next, republican caller. caller: good morning, i want to thank you for taking my call. call.ed 30 days to mr. grassley, it is a pleasure to speak with you. a poor district in tennessee. i see children that i know are hungry at night. shame the way the country treats era vets and these children. about thoseologize callers about 9/11. it seems there is a certain portion of our country that would -- that forgets we were attacked and there are families that went through a lot of pain

and are still going through it today over that incident. i want to apologize to you. my question is, sir, this administration is the most corrupt, violent administration that i have ever seen in my life. i am republican to the core but i don't have any confidence in the congress at all. they let him run a side show up there. they make a mockery of our constitution and the people who fought and died for it. why don't we just bring our troops to the house because they don't have any rights here. how does the congress just let this man get by with going around congress so many times? we send billions of dollars to countries that hate us. here in america, we have starving kids and it's not right. it was about checks and balances in the government, that

question. we can pass laws to overrule him but they are not going to go through a democrat-controlled united states senate. the house of representatives has passed several bills over rolling some of things the president did or even trying to help the president in the case where he didn't eat legal thing -- and i legal thing like delay in the employer mandate in obamacare. the republicans in the house of representatives passed something to legalize that. it will not be brought up in the senate. example ofas a good where i think the president is going to be checked on his abuse of authority when he made recess appointments to the national labor relations board. there was a case -- there is a case before the supreme court that i think they will say that the president acted in an unconstitutional manner about

one year ago. there is a case in district court now -- you mentioned fast and furious -- the house of representatives has tried to overrule the president on that by a citation against holder but when you have a contempt citation and he does not honor it, you have to go to court so when the district court in d.c. but there is a case trying to loosen those papers up that the president has stonewalled us from getting to find out all the truth about fast and furious. there are ways of doing it but they don't happen overnight. host: we solicited comments on our facebook page last night for you for your appearance this morning. i think it refers to the extension of on employment benefits. 2008, 2009, and went

11, they were paid for. previous toen times that that they have not been paid for and one time since then they have not been paid for. i think the only answer i can give surely is the difference between the $17 trillion national debt and a $12 trillion national debt. host: jared in michigan, independent caller. caller: good morning, senator grassley, thank you for your service. my question is on unemployment. if you give on employment for six months or something like that, could you taper that to where the first payment they get will be as much money as they are going to debt and start tapering off after that? all they are doing is waiting for the last week before going looking for a job.

syria, we are giving them $380 million for humanitarian efforts. those people are trying to get back to the camps, to the refugee camps and are being fired upon and there is no way we can guarantee that our money and the rest of the world's gety will be able to provisions to those people. guest: you have to remember that a lot of the humanitarian aid to syrians does not necessarily go to the geographical area we call syria. there is a lot of syrians in .urkey and jordan mostly those countries where humanitarian aid is going. it does not have any trouble getting their. the portion that goes to people within syria vs the others, i

cannot give you figure but not all humanitarian aid would be in jeopardy. asked,first question you i think you get more to a point of tapering off. i don't take disagreement with your suggestion but i think it is more of a case of having unemployment for another three months or not or it will it be paid for or not? that is the issue. if i were going to make any reform of unemployment compensation, we have had too many people -- i'm giving this to you ad hoc - i don't have statistics but people who are employers in my state of iowa have said i offered a job to so and so and they said i just. my unemployment renewed so i'm not going to take a job right now. the you are offered a job, law implies that you take that job but you don't have to. there is no enforcement of it.

greater enforcement would be a better reform than what you suggested. james inwill go to mobile, alabama, democratic caller. hey, senator, i appreciate the fire you have in your gut and i hope you don't stop. it is nice to your straightforward talk from our leaders. regard to unemployment -- a lot of people, myself included, need job of one sort or another and would be glad to pay somebody at least minimum wage if there was a way that there was a database that we could contact these people and if they maybe that isit,

what you are insinuating. maybe there should be some reform on that. i had withomments regard to the affordable care by, little sisters of the poor and contraceptives -- i don't think any of us know where this whole mess is going to crumble. i am an independent. i don't think we know where any of this will end up. what if a jehovah's witness owned a hobby lobby? should they be able to demand that none of the people who work for them receive blood? they don't receive blood. i worked in health care 20 years.

for the largest health care institution in the country. what a faith healer or someone who prays over a person -- they are entitled to their religious idea ---- i think the by the way, at ascension health, we all have luke ross/blue shield and i don't know any of the women i work with who ever had a problem not getting contraceptives or whatever. you mentioned various segments of religious belief. i don't think i want to comment on the separate ones but i think you have to take a fairly purist view on the first amendment, freedom of religion. i have some sympathy for what the sisters of the poor or whatever it is out there in

colorado for what they are trying to accomplish. that would be settled by the courts, i think. theuld make more clear religious exemptions within the obama care if i got a chance to vote on that. host: back to the unemployment benefits -- here is a tweet -- how low do you have to go with unemployment that you don't do it?

maybe the people on facebook and e-mailing you think we are talking about no unemployment. we are talking about every state since the 19 ernie's have had to have 26 weeks of unemployment. -- since the 1930s. we are talking about maybe once every 10 years, things get so bad that the federal government extends it for a. of time. we used only extended for 13 weeks which brought up from 26 up to 39 weeks. maybe once it got up to 50 weeks or something. years last three or four since the recession was so long and unemployment states ohio, -- stage so high, it came to 99 weeks. high that itso came to 99 weeks. sometimes unemployment extension maintains unemployment at a high level, so say some analysts. people tend to not go to work until employment is running out.

they don't make an effort to do it. that's not saying that people are lazy but it does say that government has an impact. public policy has an impact on people's behavior. how long do you carry that on? also, there is a feeling we should be spending more time on retraining and helping people get jobs. if you really want to improve the unemployment, you've got to get people jobs and get this economy turned around. this is the longest period. we call this a recession but the unemployment has been as much as in the great depression. host: on a lighter note, can i ask you about social media? you are a prolific tweeter.

people have made a lot of the fact that you send them out themselves -- you send them out yourself. guest: i also have many misspellings. host: how do you think it has changed your ability to communicate? with folks outside of washington. guest: in a general way, there is not a political view that cannot be expressed by anybody in this country as opposed to 20 years ago when all the major networks controlled 80% of the political views, or a few newspapers. now anybody can express views. in a democracy, a purchase authority -- a participatory democracy, that is very good. the more interaction you get between government and our people is going to strengthen our system. it has givenhand, people with extreme views an opportunity to say things that maybe are not accurate.

there is a lot of misinformation that gets out there. people will have to be very discriminating, more so than they were 20 years of go reading a newspaper and things like that. , i believe, to make the grassroots of america more divided between conservatives and progressives. that has shown up in the congress of the united states. you may wonder why congress's ideologically divided. you used to have conservative and moderate democrats and conservative and moderate republicans and now you have republicans and democrats and that is a reflection of the grassroots that comes from not only from social media but from all the talk shows and all of the cable television shows you have better ideologically divided. y in whitehall, montana, independent color. caller: thank you both.

i have a question concerning the social security income cap. would the senator please explain it? i understand he is getting social security now. thank you very much. guest: you are asking why i have to turn in 85% of by social security for income tax which probably gets my social security down to about 40% of what i would normally get if i had an income of $132,000 per year. compromise, to save social security, it was overlished that people $32,000 per year income, relatively higher income people and today, 32,000 is not high income but in 1984, it was more so -- you would report 40% of income.

and clinton tax increases of 1993, that was raised from 40- 85,000. that income that comes in from the tax on the social security that you report goes into the social security trust fund. it is the only non-payroll tax money that goes into the social security fund. it does supplement and make more stable social security. it is a tax and it's a tax on people that are successful like everything else. it tends to make social security more progressive than it originally was. int: we will go to helena pennsylvania, democratic caller. caller: with all due respect, i am upset with your party. what are you going to do for the poor? i am sick and tired of hearing about what happened years ago with the founding fathers in the

constitution. you all have not done anything. you only criticize our president who wants to help us. what is your party going to do about the unemployment that the people need? what about health care, that is the law? why don't you help fix it? you talk about voter suppression and keeping certain people from voting. why don't you fix that? raise the tax on the rich. i am sick of you talking about this man and what he is not doing. you all have not done anything. guest: i don't think i have mentioned anything critical about president obama. even one time, i complemented him for help he is approaching the nsa problem. host: she was referring to the republican party. guest: i thought she said she is upset with me. host: she is upset with the republican party. what: i would not propose

she should do to the democrat party. that is something to work at within the party. we will have to work out our differences within the republican party. without a doubt, we have the ability of representing the middle class better than the democrats do. the democrats get their success by dividing america. between rich and lower income. americans are americans. americans are americans first. they are not rich first. they are not poor first. they are not middle class first. they are americans. what we have to do that i don't think this lady recognizes is pull together, not divide as her questions tend to imply division in america. we should not from of class warfare. we should pull together in america. we've got plenty of problems that we have to solve together.

host: ralph in north carolina, democratic caller. caller: yes, good morning. to say to mr. grassley -- why is it that it seems like rich republicans are treating this president -- [inaudible] host: you are breaking up. you are treating him different than the previous administration. you did not have a problem with fast and furious under the last administration but now it is a problem. it angered me deeply as an thatcan to look up and see the confederate flag in front of the white house. you keep talking about what he is not doing. i don't see you offering anything in place of obamacare or the affordable care act. you keep talking and you are

sending a lot of money overseas that could be spent here. hear about to yourself, you have not done nothing. guest: everything that this caller has found fault with is nothing more than an expression of freedom of speech under the constitution. everything he has found fault with his individuals and he named three or four examples. person, through resources or through their own personal activity or their own demonstrations are exercising the right to freedom of speech like he did. he mentioned fast and furious. guest: do you understand he was wrong on that? that was under the obama administration. he is referring to a previous one in the bush administration not called fast and very us.

it was called something else. compared to 2000 guns that this administration wanted sold to the drug dealers in mexico and not following them, there was a small number of guns that were actually followed and there was not any murder committed by the guns that went under the previous program. we had american border patrol agent killed by the guns that went out under this. fast and furious is an obama administration program. host: from "the washington post," the spending bill includes a provision that would restrict the justice and homeland security departments -- guest: those are all things that

congress has asked for information from the administration on. they have refused to give it to us. congress does not only pass laws and appropriate money. have a constitutional responsibility under the principle of checks and balances to make sure that the executive wrench of government faithfully execute the laws. when somebody is under fast imperious and is going to gun dealers in arizona and saying we want you to violate the law and that is notlegally, faithfully executing the law. we are entitled to that information. the president stonewalled us on that and the president, on january 21, 2009 said that he was going to be the most transparent organization --

transparent administration in the history of the country. he is probably not any worse than bush was or reagan was as far as oversight but based upon his own ends mark of being the most transparent and the history of the country, he is the most stonewalling president we have had. said that, i could not say that but he said he was going to be the most transparent. host: by not getting that information, then the appropriators have put leg and they're saying you cannot use the funding for certain programs? guest: it is something we have learned from fast and furious and benghazi. host: guest: in other words, they are saying -- they are using that language so the executive branch cannot do something? that is in the principle of

checks and balances. we pass laws and we think the administration, under those laws, issue regulations or maybe take some action that is not according to the law. then you put a rider in an appropriation bill saying that none of the money in this appropriation bill can be used. that when a farming operation of under 10 employees, osha cannot go to that farm and regulate it. he recently said farmers plant their crops, bring their crops in from the field, we cannot do anything about that. where you store your grain or dry your grain and bring it out of the field, that is not part of the farming operation. they say we can regulate that. they issued regulations. that farmersto say that drive their grain that that is not part of the farming operation. if you only have two employees,

they will regulate it. they found people in the breast and a fine people in iowa. they realized how ridiculous that was on the backed up. it is a perfect example of eurocrats not knowing anything about farming trying to regulate it and at the same time, it's an expression of how washington is an island surrounded by reality. is the response that republicans are making to the obama ad ministration, issuing executive orders, legislating -- here is a quotation from the president. he says he will continue down this road. guest: that's what he did at the supreme court yesterday when he violated the constitution and appointed people. thatupreme court will rule it is unconstitutional. he overstepped his bounds. he can do whatever he wants to? he will do some things that are

not constitutional and will do some things that we disagree with. a lot of the stuff in this appropriations bill to something some low level bureaucrat did. it may be just a little worse under this president but whether you have a republican president or democratic president, they are always violating the constitution. maybe i should not say violating but they often violate laws that congress passes and doing things the law does not allow. it is not just an obama problem. it is just more of a problem under him. senate is currently in recess subject to the call of the chair while democrats meet with the president at the white house on the legislative agenda for the coming year. live coverage of the u.s. senate when members return here on c-span2. the senate working on a bill that makes changes to a 2012 federal flood national hurricane insurance law.

it would delay the rate increases for another four years. democratic senator mary landrieu of louisiana spoke about the proposal earlier today. this is 20 minutes. i came to the floor this morning to talk about a important piece of legislation we have very deep and very genuine bipartisan support for and that is the flood insurance provisions, the homeowner affordability act which will correct some of the more egregious provisions of a bill that passed a year and a half ago called bigger waters. the bill, bigger waters, that was passed named for the two members of the house that lead that effort, were well intentioned. in fact, i've had many wonderful conversations with maxine waters, the absolutely distinguished congresswoman from

california whose name carries that bill. and she had wonderful intentions because california, like louisiana, depends on a program that is sustainable, affordable, but she even recognized and has been so gracious in her time to come to louisiana and say, you know, we intended for this to fix the problem. ly admit we made it worth and the way that fema has interpreted some of the things we have done has made it worse, and the fact federal government continues despite our efforts to recognize levies people have built. she agrees to help lead our effort to reform a bill that she and congresswoman judy passed a year and a half ago. i want to start by commending the leadership. in the house, the leadership is being lead by congresswoman waters, and congressman grimm,

and there are chairman of standing committees that are working with them as we speak to figure out how to move forward in the house. but in the senate, we have been working so well together despite all of the commotion and adversarial positions on other issues. we have put together a very excellent coalition of about 200 organizations, and i'm going read the names in just a minute -- 200 organizations that have been working with us to fashion a reform bill that meets these objectives. madam president, you have spoken on the floor of the senate now at least a half dozen times. i have listened to you speak on the floor, so you don't -- you know all of this. i was going to say, you said it even better than i can. the provisions that are in our reform bill for flood insurance

meet important goals. first of all, it's affordable to the middle class people that are required to have it. that's the most important thing about flood insurance is affordable to the people required to have it. yes, there are some very wealthy families that live in mansions, on beaches that are required to have it. they will have no problem paying a substantial premium. but there are millions of middle class families, many of them in louisiana, that don't live anywhere near the water and they must certainly do not live in mansions on the beach. they live in middle class, blue collar, working neighborhoods far from lakes, you know, a distance from rivers, and nowhere near the ocean. that have found themselves caught up in paying premiums they can't afford. if we don't fix this, the premiums coming in to the

program will be less and less. people will be defaultings on homes. banks and communities will take a downward economic spiral and the program itself will collapse. now we can't have this program collapse. so even though our critics say, this has been in the newspaper, they say that we're trying to saddle taxpayers with a huge debt. nothing could be further from the truth. we're trying to save taxpayers from a big bailout by reforming a program that needs to be reformed and fixed so that middle class people can afford it, banks can operate well with it. home builders can build homes with it. real doors can sell the home with the program. which they aren't able to do now. everybody can get back to work, anxiety can be reduced, and give it some time to figure out how to reach those two important

goals. the taxpayers don't have to bail us out, and homeowners and businesses can afford. is that too much to ask? i don't think so! and happifully, happifully, senator men then does and iter isaacson who, really, veteran leaders of the senate, have put a good bill together and we're ready to vote. we're ready to vote, madam president. we can vote actually right now if we could just get a few things -- a few things looked at. i would like to talk about what those few things are. publicly so people can start working them out. because i think the more things that are transparent around here, the better we all are. things that are done in secret -- it's usually problematic. so let me say, from the many people following this, that the base bill is still basically in

the order that everyone understands it to be printed. it's been visible, public for weeks now. that bill that is the basic essence of the comprises worked out by senator men then does and senator isaacson and senator merkley's extraordinary leadership as a subcommittee chair, that is the base bill. there are amendments that people want to offer happy my they're all related to flood, and to my knowledge, and senator isaacson has worked through this as i have and senator menendez, there's a haggen provision about ease you requirements we think we should vote on, and we're not sure how that vote will turn out but we're happy to vote on it. there is a blunt amendment that the national home builders have suggested that we have an amendment on, and we could vote on that as well. there is a amendment in the

works. some of these amendments have been filed and language. some are just in theory form. there's an amendment that would adjust the rate increases in the underlying bill. we can vote on that. there's one from rhode island. it would require fema to conduct a study on offering community-based flood insurance policy. my notes say there is broad support for that. there's a co burn amendment, which is an alternative to the narab, that amendment will probably not receive the votes required, but we're happy to talk about his amendment and have him offer it. there is a merkley amendment that will subject -- and the policy holders to be

place insurance policies and other -- technical amendment. and there's also a rubio/nelson amendment being discussed. now, those are the only amendments that we know about. so if there's anybody else that has an amendment on floods, that would like that tosser or have it considered, the next couple of hours would be the last opportunity to get those amendments in. now i know everybody is busy. everybody has lots to do. i have cleared my calendar. i had meetings, clear the calendar to do this today. it's very important that we not just get so busy with other things that we leave this place and not get this done. so we're working on transparently, openly, so there are no games to be played by either side here response again, i want to repeat, there is a hagueen amendment pending, not

pending but that we know of, a rubio/nelson, a reid of rhode island, a coburn, merkley, a blubt, and toomey who was on the floor the senator from pennsylvania indicated he wants to offer a substitute to what we're proposing. as far as -- i'm not the manager of this bill. it's not my authority to make these definitive statements. senator me then does and senator isaacson will ultimately decide the strategy, but as far as it, because we've been working very hard together to move this bill to final passage here, as far as as i understand it, these are the only amendments that people would like to offer, and there doesn't seem to be any objection to offering them. in addition, if people want 51 votes or if they want 60 votes, we're very open to that as well, and we can pass the bill with 51 votes. we can pass the bill with 60

votes. so we're open. [laughter] , you know, because that's the game that is played here. you say, well, we want 60 no we want 51 or 50. we can take it in any arrhythmia tick. you want 51 we'll deliver it. if you want 60, we can deliver 60 votes. we have done the homework on this bill. working with coalitions, homeowners, and businesses from south dakota, north dakota, to new jersey and new york to mississippi, louisiana, and california and oregon. there is no agreement -- well, there is some disagreement but there's not enough disagreement to overcome the great coalition that has been put together here, which was evidenced by extraordinary press conference a couple of dais ago where we had had almost 20 senators showed up or their staff was represented saying we're ready to go. my message on the floor today -- if i have --

i don't know how many more minutes i have -- >> senator has used 12 minutes. >> okay. i would like another five unanimous consent. >> without objection. >> what was evidenced earlier, and the coalition knows this, is that there is broad consensus. there are a few senators that want to vote against this bill, there are a few senators that want to offer amendments. fine. let the record show these amendments could be offered. these amendments germane to this bill, and any that would come to us -- you know, if had the next, you know, hour or so that are germane to this bill we can take these amendments and have a 51 vote, a 60 requirement vote, and final passage on 51 or 60. let's just get this done. there should be no confusion at

all about this. .. this. that's a good sign for us this a, that there really is only one side to this story and this is the side. i'm trying to be as fair aches. i have named the -- i'm trying to be as fair as i can. i have named the people that have amendments. we, the democrats, have said we have no objection to you offering those amendments. if you want 51 votes, if you want 60 votes, just let us know. coalition can hold against any amendments that would try to gut this bill. and we will let people know what those amendments are and who's offered them. because we think that this is absolutely the right thing to do for the country, for our states that we're representing and for that we're representing and for for our states that we are representing, and for the taxpayer.

and just give us a little time to work together to figure out how to strengthen the national flood insurance program without bankrupting 5 million families. because if we don't stop this train that is already left the station, we have to stop it, reverse it, and put it back in the train barn. and it is going down the tracks pretty fast. this is not a good place to be. as i said, we probably should never have passed this bill, but it was put in a conference committee report that was commendable. and some provisions of it were indecipherable at the time. that is a little strong a word, but there were not understood. as the bill got red and implemented, people started realizing, oh, my gosh, what have we done.

this is not going to work. they are right. so i am going to stay in the floor this morning. if anyone from the republican side wants to come down, anyone, anyone, and get -- disagree with what i have presented our challenge what i presented, please do because i want this to be a very open process. there is nothing for us to hide from. and that is what a democracy is about. there are some people that want to vote against our bill. fine. go ahead and vote against it. we have the votes to pass it. sixty, as i said. we may even have more. if we don't, all i can say is, we have tried our level best. we just don't have the votes to correct it. i don't think that is the case. so i am not going to allow the smoke that is around here and the confusion and all of the hot

air to confuse the coalition that has worked too hard. they need to hear my voice very clearly, which is why i am here. there is clarity. there is no opposition of the democratic side to this bill. we are waiting for a few clarifications from the republican side. we hope to get those, and the democrats that to have amendments, the only democrats that have amendments that i know of our senator hayden, center read from rhode island and center in berkeley. we have no objection on the democratic side to this bill, and only three members that have amendment's command we are happy test here those amendments. they are not really controversial. somebody might find a problem with them. fine, but they don't get the

bill. there is no problem with the bill. it is the republican side that we are waiting for clarity. again, i know how busy everyone is. i know the senator from pennsylvania is working hard on the -- he was just your speaking about it on the unemployment insurance. i know that's an important issue to the people he represents and louisiana. if he could get a little time to work on this amendment that we think he was offered whenever he can, we're happy to have the men it will vote on it. decide on when and how what the numbers, 51 are 60. what i believe, let me to speak for myself, it does not matter. we have the votes to not allow -- if the intention is to get the bill, the bill will not be gutted. if the intention is to help us strengthen the bill, it is a

possibility. but people are desperate, desperate to get an answer from carson now. should have done this for months ago before these increases, as correct house are being collected now from people that have bills that they were paying $500 a year. now they're paying 5,000. pay the insurance. it's a hardship on people. we to stop that. figure this out. i will ask for another one minute. i think have extended my time already. another one minute. thank you. we have -- we delay this fix too long. many to go ahead and take care of it. i'm going to stay on the floor this morning. i will periodically bring everyone up today. let me just close with reminding people, with reminding people

what we're talking about. these are the new flood maps and the united states that are either in effect, purple, proposed, and green, were these flood maps and yellow. there's another state that is exempt from what i am speaking about. the amazing thing is to see this cluster in pennsylvania, everyone thinks about this as texas, florida, louisiana issue. when you see the inland states as well being affected by flood maps that have never been issued before being issued without the data because the matter is not have the science or technology or resources to do this correctly yet, the affordability study has not even been done, and they just did not do it even though they were asked. we need to put this train back in the station. it is not ready for prime time

ran out in a way that race may have, no one is opposed to that. people can afford them, people can be notified. and other things to be taken into consideration. billions of dollars building them. you would like them to be recognized. even have to pay 15,000 a year because you have already paid for the levy. you don't pay twice. taxpayers should not have to pay three times. they're happy to pay their fair share. it is not fair and is not shared. it has got to be, you know, push back, not completely repealed, but delayed which is what our bill does until we can fix it. madam president, i will stay down here. if someone else comes to the floor, that's fine and i will talk again about this because it is really important.

it's an important bill for the country. this bill is almost as important, the whole appropriations bill, don't get me wrong, but for the 5 million people that are getting ready to lose their homes, it is really important to them. it is important for us. as i seem to be any real serious objection to work hard. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. >> the senate remains in recess at this time subject to the call of the chair. democratic members have been meeting with the president at the white house today on the legislative agenda for the coming year. that is the reason for the recess. live coverage of the u.s. senate when members return here on c-span2. on tuesday, senate republicans blocked a bill to extend unemployment benefits which expired in december citing concerns with the process for how the bill was being handled on the senate floor.

this morning the democratic leader and wet, and harry reid and dick darman laid out their thoughts on the bill negotiations. republican leader mitch mcconnell responded. this is about ten minutes. >> if the senate republican filibuster is holding up the unemployment benefits for over 1 million americans -- >> it is actually now up to about one-and-a-half million. >> again, addressing the majority leader through the chair. the refusal of the senate republicans to allow us to votes on the extension of unemployment benefits is denying, on average, about $300 a week to about one and a half million americans, is that a pact? >> that is true, mr. president. >> i would like to ask the majority leader this question. is it not true that the initial complaint of the senate republicans was that this

payment of unemployment benefits was not paid for? >> that is true. >> is it also true that the democrats came up with a bid for that would have paid for the and employe benefits as they're public is requested? >> it was originally discovered by paul ryan. >> i like to ask the majority leader, after the democrats came up with the pay for the first demand of the senate republicans , did this and republicans joyous and calling this measure for passage? >> may my friend repeat the question? >> after we came up with the page for which the senate republicans insisted on did they stop the senate republican filibuster of the unemployment benefits and allow us to move forward? >> no. >> i would like to ask the majority leader, it was my understanding that the center republicans came up with a new demand, and the demand was that they be allowed to offer amendments, unemployment

insurance benefits package before they would draft there's a republican filibuster that was stopping unplug benefits from one half million americans. >> that is true. the senator and i. >> i would like to ask the majority leader this question. is it not true yesterday that in response to this republican demand that you offered a unanimous consent request which would have given, in fact, up ted ten amendments on the side of the aisle, democrats and republicans to this measure and that the democrats did not specify what the amendments would be, that it was really the decision of republicans to offer those amendments. did the senate majority leader offer that to the senate republicans so that they would stop their filibuster of unemployment benefits?

>> the answer is yes. in addition to that they would be available on each side, if they wanted, side by side to as we call them. that could be a total of ten amendments. >> the senate democrats provided it. the senate republicans still refuse to stop the filibuster. this and republicans insisted on amendments. we offered up to ten amendments on the side. to the senate majority leader say after offering that unanimous consent, the republicans agree to a stop their filibuster of unemployment benefits. >> i just said they did not. >> i would ask the majority leader at this point in time, what are we waiting for. they're decision to stop providing unemployment benefits. >> i have no idea. >> s.a. to the senate majority

leader, is strikes me as unfair, if not grow that we are holding 1 million unemployed americans hostage to this continued political negotiation where each day the republicans come up with a new demand before they will stop their senate-republican filibuster. i would ask the senator from nevada, our majority leader, does he believe that a majority of the members of the united states senate would vote for the extension of unemployment benefits to these one-and-a-half million americans if the senate republicans would drop their filibuster. >> the man from nevada is not allowed. my republican colleagues denigrates, political peril.

>> call the roll. [roll call] >> the quorum call being dismissed without objection. >> let me just say in response to the colloquy that we just heard, it used to be this system , the majority leader's you that as he put it, if you don't want to fight fires, don't become a firefighter, and if you don't want to cast tough votes, don't come to the senate. obviously those days have changed. what really has happened over the last week is a refusal to have an open amendment process. the refusal to treat both sides the same. the final proposal required all

the amendments to get 60 votes with final passage only 51. still it does not restore the senate to the way that it formally functioned. any member of the senate ought to be able to have a fair chance to get his or her amendment adopted. that is the ladies to be around here. before the majority leader decided to dictate everything everyone does. and so what we are seeking is fundamental fairness and on this particular bill and open amendment process, an opportunity to pay for it the majority leader, they might actually pass, might actually enjoy bipartisan support. so we get back to that bill if anyone had any doubt that democrats wanted to see the unemployment insurance bill fail, i think we just had those doubts erased yesterday is the

latest example of senate democrats putting politics or policy in this case doubly tragic because this time they're putting politics over struggling families who deserve some certainty from congress. look. is a secret that our democratic friends plan to spend the you're exploiting folks who are still struggling in this economy for political gain. they have been telling reporters that for weeks. this is no secret. but that does not make it any less disturbing. it's still wrong. some want to be talking about something other than obamacare too. the possibility of agreement was so close or more than a million people are stuck in the middle is just simply outrageous.

making pawns out of these people stuck in the middle of this political gain. here is the larger issue. here we are in the sixth year of this administration, and he -- and we are still talking about emergency unemployment benefits six years into the obama administration after all the stimulus bill and all the other big government solutions that we were told would help little guy, still looking at record long-term unemployment. we are still looking at hundreds of thousands of able-bodied men and women, basically giving up on finding work in this economy. last month alone in just one month one report i saw even suggested about half of our nation's counties have yet to return to their pre recession economic output. have the counties in america. bottom line, the obama economy just is not working.

the middle class americans. democrats tell us again and again and again that their policies will help people who are struggling. yet we always seem to end up in the very same situation, debating whether or not to provide more emergency help instead of talking about how to provide a long-term solution and a stable economy that does not require permanent, permanent life support from washington. what is needed here is a fundamental course correction. what is needed is for our colleagues to finally, finally acknowledged what has failed and then actually work with us on the underlying problem. that is what republicans are saying in this debate. we are saying is, how about actually trying to create jobs for a change. that will be the president's challenge today when he speaks in north carolina. we hear he my layout ideas to get the private sector moving again.

that is the case then maybe he will be taking a step in the right direction, a step away from big government policies that have failed so many americans for so many years. because if he is truly serious about getting the economy back on track and creating jobs he would do more than just talk about job creation or bipartisanship today. heat will actually work with us a real bipartisan solutions to get there. there are simple ways. republican controlled house is sent over a number of bills that will give a boost to jobs and to our economy. acustar would be for democrats who run the senate to take up that for immediate consideration. work with us to start over with real bipartisan reforms which he

called for a true bipartisan tax reform, suggest destruction of the keystone pipeline. in through lunch with pet sitter republicans, if you will remember this, we came to a large, the president said he would make a decision on the keystone pipeline last year. sometime during 2013. apparently that was in the same category, if you have your policy in the like you can keep it. if you have your doctor and you like it, you can keep it. i make a decision on the keystone pipeline by the end of 2013. well, we are still waiting. he could actually deliver on one of the brightest spots of his economic agenda, trade. that means, instead of allowing the u.s. to a line behind our trading partners the president could find a way to bring his party on board with a bipartisan bill introduced last week it would get the administration

back in the game of helping american workers with increased exports. suggest a few of the many areas where we can work together to get some good things done for the american people. serious in his speech sunday. another distraction from the plant -- pain of obamacare and the obama economy. well, that is not going to help. it will cause families to get back on their feet. all it would do is continuous cycle of economic pain that the president needs to work with republicans to stop. >> the senate is still in recess subject to the call of the chair while democrats have been meeting with the president at the white house on the

legislative agenda for the coming year. we do expect the senate to resume today session this evening. when they do, once live coverage here on c-span2. tuesday senator dianne feinstein , the chair of the intelligence committee spoke on the senate floor about preventing a nuclear arms and ron, the iranian nuclear deal, and sanctions calling for the senate to allow negotiations to work before instituting more sanctions. this is 25 minutes. >> thank you, madam president. i come to the floor this evening to discuss an issue of national security. that is how to prevent a nuclear arms and ron. i was thinking about our troubled history and whether more sanctions at this time make sense for our national security interest, and i ask these questions of myself, can, in fact, the country like iran change? is it possible for an isolated

regime to rejoin the community of nations and change its behavior after several decades? must a country and its people be held captive because of the behavior of previous leaders in earlier times. so look backing on history. i was a young girl during world war ii. i remember when imperial japan killed millions in southeast asia and particularly china during its brutal wars of expansion. today japan is a peaceful democracy and one of the nation's strongest allies in asia. i remember when hitler and the german third reich committed unspeakable atrocities across europe, including the murder of 6 million jewish citizens. charity is now a close ally, a leader in the european union, an institution created to insure the war never again occur in

your. i remember general franco of spain, which was so diplomatically and economically isolated that it was actually barred from the united nations until 1955. spain is now a close partner of the united states and a fully democratic member of the european union. the former yugoslavia to monday about, and south africa have all experienced tremendous change in recent decades. independent states have emerged from the painful dissolution of yugoslavia. vietnam has opened itself to the international community but still have much progress to make. south africa has shared apartheid and it emerged as an increasingly stable nation and a much divided continent. so i believe changed countries

can change. this capacity to change also applies to the pursuit of nuclear weapons. at one time sweden, south korea, and argentina each pursued nuclear weapons. following world war ii sweden pursued nuclear weapons to deter foreign attacks. it mastered nuclear technology and built and tested components for nuclear weapons. it may have even obtained enough nuclear material to build the bomb. but in 1970 it signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty , and it ended its nuclear weapons program. in the early 1970's south korea actively sought a nuclear device. the united states heavily pressured south korea not to go nuclear, and in april of 1975

south korea signed the non-proliferation treaty and halted its nuclear weapons activity. throughout the 1980's, when it was ruled by a military junta with an egregious human rights record, argentina had a covert nuclear weapons program. it build uranium production enrichment and reprocessing facilities. and it attempted to develop nuclear capable ballistic missiles before abandoning its with their weapons program and ratifying the in pg in 1995. so the question comes, is iran willing to change its best behavior and abandon its pursuit of a nuclear weapon. it may well be. it is the job of diplomacy to push for that change.

i believe there are positive signs that iran is interested in such a change. i would like to explain my reasons. the election was a surprise to many longtime observers of iran because he campaigned in support of repairing the relationship with the west and iran. since his inauguration he has tried to do exactly that. for the first time since the iranian revolution, the leaders of our country have been in direct communication with each other. where once direct contact, even betweesenior officials were rare, now secretary of state and undersecretary of state are a near constant contact with their iranian counterparts. those conversations produced to

the historic geneva agreement which goes into effect in six days on january the 20th. kent it will honey also promised to increase nuclear transparency , and he has delivered on that as well. even before the geneva interim agreement was reached, the iran slowed uranium enrichment and construction for the iraqi heavy water reactor, maybe for technical reasons, maybe not, but its load. iran also really engaged with the iaea to resolve questions surrounding its nuclear activities. what has been achieved in geneva , the interim six month agreement reached between the -- plus one countries, and that includes countries like the

united states, china, russia, the u.k., france, germany. disagreement freezes the iranian nuclear program in place while a comprehensive agreement is bigger seated in the next six months. this agreement caps the iranian stockpile of enriched uranium at 5%. it stops the production of a 40 percent enriched uranium. it requires the neutralization of the iran stockpile of 20 percent of uranium. it prevents iran from installing additional centrifuges or operating its most advanced since regis. it prohibits it from stockpiling excess centrifuges and calls all significant work of the iraqi heavy water reactor and prevents iran from constructing a plutonium reprocessing facility.

most importantly, the interim agreement, the most intrusive international inspection regime ever come international inspectors were independently verified whether not they're complying with the interim agreement. for the first time the international atomic energy agency inspectors will have uninterrupted access to the iran enrichment facility, centrifuge production plan, the centrifuge assembly facilities and the iran uranium mine and mill. finally, iran is required to declare all planned, the new nuclear facility. in exchange that -- plus one negotiators offered sanctions released limited to 7 billion.

an aspect of the interim agreement that has been criticized, and i want to talk about that for a moment. here are the facts on that sanctions release which in my view does not materially alter the abiding sanctions that have devastated the iranian economy. the 4 billion of its own money. 45 billion a month. iran will not have access to about 100 billion chap by sanctions abroad. for perspective the total estimated sanctions released is valued at approximately only 1% of the iranian economy.

hardly a significant amount. i would like to take a moment to detail what is not in the interim agreement. first of it does not enable iran to our right to enrich. the united states does not recognize such a right for the five non-nuclear weapons state that currently average program. they do have a right to peaceful nuclear energy if npt. the agreement does not anyway unrivaled our core oil and financial sanctions. others have argued the suspension of any sanctions will unravel the entire section breezy and which is false.

ensuring that does not happen. two days after the interim agreement was reached the united states sells with the oil services country over sanctions violations. the sylmar was more than 250 million. it was the largest against a foreign firm outside of the banking industry. on december 12th the administration announced the expansion of iranian entities subject to sanctions. these entities either helped tehran evade sanctions or provided support to the nuclear program. on january 7th the administration halted the transfer of two boeing airplane engines from turkey to run. through these actions the obama administration has made it abundantly clear the united

states would continue -- >> the senate is back. we take you live to capitol hill and the u.s. senate on c-span2.e long liability and so forth and be it further resolved that the house agree to the amendment of the senate with an amendment. mr. reid: i move to concur on the house amendment to the senate amendment to h.r. 3547. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: the the senator from nevada mr. reid moves to concur on the house amendment to the senate amendment to h.r. 3547. mr. reid: i have a cloture motion at the desk i ask to be reported. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: cloture motion. we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the motion to proceed to concur in the house amendment to the senate amendment to h.r. 3547 the space launch liability extension act, an omnibus appropriations act for fiscal year 2014 signed by 17 senators

as follows. mr. reid: with the chair's permission i ask the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i move to concur on the house amendment to the senate amendment to h.r. 3547 with an amendment. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: the senator from nevada mr. reid moves to concur on the house amendment to the senate amendment to h.r. 3547 with an amendment numbered 2655. the presiding officer: ro*eup i ask for -- mr. reid: i ask for the yeas and nays on my motion. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. mr. reid: i have an amendment, mr. president, which i believe is at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from nevada, mr. reid, proposes an amendment numbered 2656 to amendment number 2655. mr. reid: i move to refer the house message with respect to h.r. 3547 with instructions. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from nevada mr. reid moves to refer

the house message on h.r. 3547 to the committee on appropriations with instructions being amendment number 2657. mr. reid: i ask for the yeas and nays on my motion. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. mr. reid: i have an amendment with instructions. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from nevada mr. reid proposes an amendment numbered 2658 to the instructions of the motion to refer h.r. 3547. mr. reid: i ask for the yeas and nays on that amendment. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. mr. reid: i have a second-degree amendment. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from nevada mr. reid proposes an amendment numbered 2659 to amendment number 2658. mr. reid: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate now proceed to a period of morning business with senators allowed to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i've been told there is a bill at the desk and is it

due for first reading? the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bill for the first time. the clerk: s. 1931, a bill to provide for extension of certain unemployment benefits and for other purposes. mr. reid: i now ask for second reading in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule 14 but then object to my own request. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the bill will be read for the second time on the next legislative day. mr. reid: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow morning january 16. following the proeurp the morning hour deemed expired, the journal of proceedings journal of approved tor date. following leader remarks the senate resume consideration of the house message to accompany h.r. 3547, the vehicle for the omnibus appropriations bill. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, a few minutes ago i filed cloture on the house message to accompany

the omnibus bill. under the rule the vote will be friday morning. i've had a number of requests to see if that can be moved forward, and i'm waiting to see if we can get consent to do that. mr. president, we also have had a lot of activity on the floor today regarding flood insurance. on our side senator landrieu has worked extremely hard with others but she's been the lead person on this. on the other side the republicans have had senator isakson of georgia working extremely hard on this, and i hope that we can move forward on this. we're going to move forward on it one way or the other because if we're not able to get an agreement to move forward on it, the situation to have some amendments and move forward which we've agreed to, then we'll file cloture on it and it's a shame we'd have to do that on a totally bipartisan bill, but it's how things work around here sometimes. mr. president, if there is no further to come before the senate, and i believe there is, i ask that it adjourn under the previous order.

the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until journal". tomorrow.>> "washingn

continues. tomorrow.>> "washingn hiff is with us. the front page of "the new york times," there is the story about what the president is expected to say on friday when he talks about reforms to the nsa. they write -- guest: i hope he goes beyond that expectation when it comes to the bulk metadata program where the government obtains these vast quantities of domestic call records. i hope you will embrace a reform that will have the

telecommunications carriers keep their own records. it does not go that far, i'm not sure what it will do. some of the proposals in congress which favor the status quo merely prohibit that program for doing things it does not do anyway. i hope that is not where the president is heading. i would like to see a reform along the lines of his own task force. it would either have the provid >> which would either have the providers hold on to the records or a third party, and i think the third party option is not a good one, so i hope you will raise that particular. the government, when there is reason to believe the number is connected to with and it would go to the provider. that is more protective of privacy and still gets us the affirmation you need any timely way to prevent any attacks on the homeland. >> well, the report that the president is expecting too, for now, leave the bulk data in the

government's hands because he wants lawmakers to weigh in. u.s. legislation. what would york deal with on that? >> the president, meeting last week indicating he would like to have the congress be an active partner, and i think they should be, but we have not demonstrated much ability to get things done. the omnibus spending bill was a nice exception. my bill would effectuate that task force, the records of the providers in said before going through the providers seeking the connections with a number that it would go through the fis a court and get approval. alas there were an emergency, exit circumstances exception where we go straight to the providers can get the information and the court decides that it was not proper request it would be. that is what my bill would do and is consistent with what the task force recommended. >> the public advocate in the roles of they would play. a former judge has weighed in

and says if you put a public advocate person on this court it was slow everything down. >> i would with all due respect think that was a bit of a red herring argument because what the judge was positing there was if we had an advocate in every case before with everyone, i don't think anyone is suggesting that. the we are suggesting is that in these cases where the court, asked not to act like a criminal court that gets a request for a search warrant, but whether asks , an entire program, in those circumstances, programmatic requests, requests that raise novel constitutional issues, those circumstances, we should have an advocate there to say the government is urging that we had this massive data program. why can't it be done this way. why can't those records stay with the providers to test the

government's assumptions in give the judges the benefit of hearing other views. >> what else you want to hear from the president on friday? >> i think that a lot of the large american companies that do business overseas have the threat to their business model. but like to hear how the president feels we can address and restore confidence that foreign countries and people living in those countries can do business with american companies and other privacy will be respected. i don't think that he will announce in a legally enforceable right to privacy such that if we're doing the kind of surveillance that we need to to protect the country, surveiling, you know, what al qaeda is doing, that was some help create a right to privacy, i do think he will who announce some policy objectives. how we will task our community and what we do to protect privacy, people not only at home

and around the world. >> coming up next, part of our spotlight magazine series, a reporter for pq weekly had a cover story of other potential deals that could happen this year. on that list is in as a reform. >> is certainly, you know, is right for resolution. this is the kind of thing where the president is exactly right. the american people should help make the decision on where to draw the line between privacy and security. there are cases where we can't do both completely in cases were there is a trade-off. a pretty good example where we can much better protect privacy but there's a cost because we will get the information quite as readily as we would if we had not had all the data. there is a bit of a trade-off in the president was the american people to weigh in on that. at the same time i think the administration should do as much as a can without putting all of its eggs in a fairly

dysfunctional legislative basket which is what we are right now. >> front page of the new york times this morning. another story about nsa. the nsa has implanted software in nearly 100,000 computers around the world that allows the u.s. to conduct surveillance on machines and create hidden a digital highway for launching cyber attacks. this offer has been used frequently since 2008. has it been successful. what can you tell us? >> what i can, really anything, this is just his cells like yet another snowden disclosure. intel h'm decide what can be classified, my hands are pretty well tonight. i can say this speaking generically, what we want the u.s. government to place software devices in. computers? well, you can see situations where we have a major chinese

cyber problem where the chinese government and the armies of hackers hacking into american companies, steal trade secrets. if we can keep an eye on what they do, that would be worthwhile. if we can keep an eye on what our adversaries in north korea and, iran, or elsewhere are doing, that would be worthwhile. that is something and not sure i can discuss. >> is this use within the united states of american computers? >> that, you know, i think, unless they're is a connection between a particular american terrorist cell the answer has to be no. that would have to be approved by a court. maybe, you know, very special circumstances where there is probable cause to believe that someone is working in new york to bomb times square, for example, and we have enough of permission to surveil them, to go into their computer to do

surreptitious searches all under court supervision. that might happen, but in terms of the broad program or supervised program or the nsc freelancing by putting devices or suffer in computers here in the united states, i just can't see that happening. >> has it been successful? >> again, i cannot comment on those allegations. i can say that the communities are pretty good at designing what our enemies are doing and how they're trying to attack us. we have blind spots, but we should want the intelligence community to do that kind of work. we have to make sure that we are gathering the right data to protect us and protecting the privacy of our people and now we're not violating any provision of our constitution. we should not want it tells it said. the not doing what they need to protect the country.

>> what is the difference with what the chinese it during a month that yet states is doing. >> with respect to that particular program, those allegations, i can say, the chinese are engaged in wholesale economic theft. not only they spot to find what we're doing militarily, what our intentions are, all we're doing in the taiwan straits. base by to steal secrets from boeing, northrop, raytheon, new technologies, manufacturing processes. we don't do that. that is wholesale economic espionage which is a very profound distinction. we expect the chinese to do what they can to learn about our military. but we draw the line when it comes to simply theft. they steal billions of dollars

worth of american intellectual property which puts us at our real economic disadvantage. >> calls. kathy in kingsport tennessee. hi. >> i. >> good morning. >> i wanted to ask, dr. william pepper has sent a letter to the department of commerce pointing of that the report run omitted important features of the building design which included the fire collapse. understanding why building seven really foul is crucially important to better understanding our current situation with 9/11, would you be willing to review that letter? >> i would be happy to review the letter. i have to say, i am not familiar with that correspondence or essentially what theory that correspondence puts forward. if the theory is that those planes did not bring the building down in the something else did to my cannot imagine what else that might have been.

now, i suppose it is possible that there were construction defects in the building referred to, and i am more than willing to look at the letter. i would be quite astounded if the collapse of that building was unrelated to the plane crashed. >> ryan, dallas texas, independent caller. >> on the midday, that scares me the most. there is all this compilation of americans, who they call. terrorists and drug dealers talking code. so, you know, they have the oral part of phone calls, necessary to begin with. the tracking, you can, from one subpoenaing you can tap millions of people. but the fbi under j. edgar hoover, what if another j. edgar hoover got ahold of this meditated. that is not hard to run with.

>> a couple of points commander think this is important to get across because there's a lot of confusion. the match the data we are talking about does not include content. the oral conversations you're talking about, that is not accumulated by the government. nonetheless, that contains a lot of affirmation. basically numbers. to those members of been in contact and sometimes to those numbers a been in contact with. you might say on the face of it it does not include subscriber information, so we don't know who is associated commend it does not include the content of those calls. what does it really tell us? well, testified just just a battle for the senate, it can tell us quite a lot. once you make the connection between a number and a person, then it tells you who they have been calling, when they have been calling, what numbers they have been calling. you can begin to paint a portrait with that match the data, and there it is that picture of potential abuse. part of what we have to do is

make sure not only that the current administration does not refuse permission but future administrations won't. and so i think the questions we have to ask ourselves on this program, like all, number one, is it constitutional, is effective, and if it is structured in a way that minimizes any unnecessary risk to our privacy, and i don't think we can make that third criteria with the program structured the way that it is which is why i have been recommending a restructuring program. >> according to the "washington post" yesterday the new america program did announce kick terrorism cases is that the united states and concluded that the bulk collection of phone records by the nsa has had no discernible impact on presenting acts of terrorism. >> you know, i have seen that report. i think it is a great analyst. look, i think the program has had a modest impact. i don't know that the new

america foundation would quarrel with that. some people have completed this program with the 702 program or other nsa efforts to say it has thwarted 50 potts or what not. it is only one tool. the question is, do we need that i don't think we do in its current form because i think we get most of the value out of it even if the companies hold on to their own data. it does provide useful information in some cases. the challenge in the reason why this is a balancing question is we don't know what's coming down the pike. if this were the one tool that happens to work in the one case it could stop something significant. it's actually worth it, but we don't know that that would be the case. the way i view it is, we do know that the risk to privacy is considerable by gathering millions and billions of domestic call records. if we do not need to do that it can still get most of the utility out of that tool, i think we should do it. >> we should note that you

reference the former deputy cia director, long time career intelligence gathering, national security for this government. he was part of president obama's taskforce and was put together to look at the nsa data collection program and what they're doing. testified yesterday. we covered it. go to c-span.org if you want to watch it there. for a file clerk. as the president's plan to provide clemency to mr. snowden? >> i don't think so. very hard for me to imagine that happening. a lot of the permission, only a fraction of which has been made public. as some of my colleagues and the intelligence community release the least -- recently released, the department of defense did an analysis of all the rest of the stuff that we think he has. others may have obtained, lot of it had nothing to do with the privacy of the american people but some of our military secrets

very hard to find any justification for that whatsoever except to do damage to the country. that is a pretty tough case for any kind of clemency. i have our time imagining that happening. >> s.c. release that information , though? >> we don't know. the newspapers have not published it. who has it been to has had access to it, knowingly or unknowingly, we don't know. why he would have taken it is a pretty important question. but the reality is that whenever his motives, we simply cannot have a system where anyone in the intelligence community can make unilateral decisions. i disagree with this policy. it just can't work that way. >> so in your legislation or any legislation that comes forth, will it address people like snowden, contractors that work in this government. what do you want to say? >> it will in the sense that it is already ongoing effort to

dramatically improve security within the agency so that you don't have people without a need to know having access to vast amounts of information so that in a particular system analysts like snowdon will be able to come on their own, access different systems where they can download information that they should not have access to and that they will have some kind of mechanism for red flag to go up when that happens. >> all right. grainfield, pennsylvania, republican caller. thank you for waiting. >> yes. dan. i feel like he, you know, did something where he brought forth the surveillance that was going on and that the people in power that were embarrassed by it wanted to see him punished and the boehner reality that guy did what he felt was right.

he is the root cause of all of this and perhaps he should be given a pass. better in our hands than in the russians. >> i appreciate that and know that there are many people do feel that way. again, i am not sure what his motivations were. like many people, made me have been a mixture in addition to having serious problems with privacy issues he may have also had problems with his employer or felt a lack of advancement in the agency, but whatever his motivations and notwithstanding the fact that it has kindled a very important debate, i simply don't think we can have a system where each individual in the intelligence community can make a decision on their own. i think that they will be better off. you take an oath when he joined the intelligence community. it is not for everyone. he did taken of which he is violating an adult think we can have a system, not withstanding, the importance of the debate.

it is faster and reforms have result with individuals making those decisions. i am also very troubled, as i said, buy a lot of the military information that has no privacy implications that tall but can do lesson may have already done as extraordinary harbor around the world. >> radio silence from c-span about who decided to build the largest in essays by facility in the world in utah. he was it? >> well, i don't know that there is anything i can comment on these heavy that. this is one of the challenges of the intelligence committee. you know, there are broad subjects, even when there are public reports that i am not allowed to confirm or deny and and not sure that i can say anything on the subjects i have to respectfully decline. >> another topic, the attack and the u.s. consulate in benghazi back in 2011.

your colleague in the senate, the chairwoman of the senate intelligence community acquitted in they have this paper with the headline yesterday that she rejects the new york times report, recent report on benghazi but said that there were no ties to al qaeda. ..you have been saying that for quite a while now. can you talk to us and explain how you know that al qaeda would we involved? guest: what have seen since the story came out and that was the story that said there was no link whatsoever in the attack -- whate are different in they are referring to when they say an al qaeda attack. if you're talking about an attack plan and plotted by corelle qaeda -- by core al qaeda, then they are probably correct. if you are talking about