quorum call:

the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. durbin: i ask consent the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i ask the senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations, calendar number 670, 673, 674, 675, 676, 677, 678, and all nominations on the secretary's desk in the air force, army, marine corps and navy, the nominations be confirmed en bloc, the motions to reconsider be made and laid on the table with no intervening action or debate, that no further motions be in order to any of the nominations, that any related statements be printed in the record, that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate resume legislative session. i ask the rules committee be discharged from further consideration of senate joint resolution 32 and the senate proceed to its consideration.

the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate joint resolution 32 providing for the reappointment of john w. mccarter of the board of regents of the smithsonian institution. the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent the joint resolution be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be made and laid on the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of senate joint resolution 378 submitted earlier today by myself and senator coats. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 378 condemning illegal russian aggression in ukraine. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. durbin: i ask the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be made and laid on the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to consider of the following resolutions en bloc, senate resolution 378, 380 and 381. the presiding officer: without objection the senate proceeds to their consideration en bloc. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles, the motions to reconsider be made and laid on the table en bloc with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i understand there are two bills at the desk. i ask for their first reading en bloc. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the titles of the bills for the first time. the clerk: s. 2110 to amend tiemghts titles 18 and 19 of the social security act and so forth and for other purposes. h.r. 4152, an act to provide for the costs of loan guarantees for ukraine. mr. durbin: i ask for a second reading en bloc and i object to my own request en bloc.

the presiding officer: objection is heard. the bills will be read for a second time 0 on the next legislative day. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate complete its business it adjourn until 9:30, wednesday, march 14, the journal of proceedings be approved to date be approved to date and the time for the two leaders reserved for use later in the day, following any leader remarks, the senate be in a period of morning business until 10:30 a.m. with senators permitted to speak therein for ten minutes each and the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees with the majority controlling the first half, the republicans controlling the final half, that at 10:30 a.m. the senate proceed to executive session as provided under the previous order. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: madam president, before the final statement here i would like to give a special thanks to those clerks, pages,

capitol police, doorkeepers around many others for the extras extra work they put in during the early morning hours, as the senate went virtually all night, and i know that it was a sacrifice personally to them and to their families. we appreciate their continued service to the united states senate and they have our gratitude for sticking through this long ordeal and being part of the history of this senate, an institution which we all are proud to be part of. at 10:30 a.m. there will be a series of up to six roll call votes on confirmation of mchugh, parker and raskin nominations, upon disposition of the raskin nomination sentence will begin consideration of s. 1086, the childcare and development block grant redevelopment bill. if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the the presiding officer: the

>> the chairman of senate intelligence committee, dianne feinstein spoke on the senate floor this morning from a lovely and strong allegations against the cia regarding a senate report on cia detention and interrogation. or stena peterson is a congressional correspondent with "the wall street journal" joining us by phone, what were the allegations that dianne finds an alleged against the cia? >> jacobin senator feinstein tuesday morning give a lot of details beach in some of the allegations she made against the cia was that the agency surged senate computers and networks that contained cia documents in a secure location. the documents were provided by the cia and some of them were obtained through a search function that the cia had provided to intelligence committee staffers working on a report. the sort of -- my thing that another feinstein said this

morning with the cia had then come back without notifying the senate staffers has search their computers on their network. she had senator feinstein had at question shortly after she learned this about why they had gone ahead and search their computers and documents without notifying down and she hadn't heard back as july. >> the sub headline to your story says she alleges it may have violated the separation of powers. what action is dianne feinstein seeking from the justice department? >> well, she has asked for an apology from the cia. separately, there have been calls to have this matter investigated by the justice department, both looking into whether the cia acted wrongly and two other senate staffers acted improperly. there have been some allegations that they may have committed crimes by obtaining these documents issued vigorously defended stennett gaffers in her

speech saying that they acted while it and the law and ehrlich looking for documents provided by the cia. one thing worth noting here is a little bit tricky, but the senate staffers were reviewing a mountain of documents pertaining to the cia's secret detention program. in the course of looking through those documents, i believe their 6.2 million come a day came across an internal cia review of the matter conducted under then director leon panetta. the question of how they obtained this document is the heart of the dispute. it was through the search function because they had no way to navigate the 6 million documents, 69 pages of documents that came across this. >> coincidentally, the head of the cia, director john brennan was seeking in washington this morning, an event c-span

covered. but was his initial reaction to the coverage? >> the cia had not hacked into these computers and there could be nothing further from the truth. senator feinstein said she stood behind her comments. there's a little bit of a discrepancy there. >> how senate democratic leaders, republican leaders reacted to dianne feinstein's allegation? >> it was unusual to hear her criticize the cia. everyone said no because she's a longtime long-time defender of the intelligence community. democrats quickly embrace positions and supported her. many are troubled by the potential constitutional issues and maintain separation of powers. the republican side has been a little broader range. some of the republicans on the intelligence community did not initially embrace her position. saxby chambliss, top republican on the committee said that he and senator feinstein had

disagreements over the facts. other republicans such as senator john mccain have said they wouldn't second-guess or in some sort of independent committee may be needed to help investigate the issue. >> christina peterson covers congress for "the wall street journal." follow her reporting online test ibj. thanks for the update. >> thank you. five. >> good morning. over the past week, there have been numerous press articles are about the intelligence community oversight review of the interrogation program of the cia. specifically, press attention has focused on the cia's intrusion and search of the senate select committee's computers as well as the committee's acquisition of a certain internal cia document known as the panetta review. i rise today to set the record

straight and provide a full accounting of the facts and history. let me say up front that i come to the senate floor we let in only. since january 15, 2014, when i was informed of the cia's search of this committee is network, i've been trying to resolve this dispute and indiscreet and respectful way. i have not commented in the honesty media requests for additional information on this matter. however, the increasing amount of inaccurate information circulating now cannot be allowed to stand unanswered. the origin of this study, the cia's detention and interrogation program began operations in 2002 though it was not until set member 2006 in the intelligence committee other than the chairman and the vice chairmen were breached.

in fact, we were briefed by then cia director hayden only hours before president bush disclosed the program to the public. a little more than a year later on december 6, 2007, in the times article reviewed the troubling facts. the cia had destroyed videotapes of some of the cia's first interrogation using so-called enhanced techniques. we learned that this destruction was over the objection of president bush's white house count will and the director of national intelligence. after we read about the tapes of the destruction in the newspapers, director hayden briefed the senate intelligence committee. he assured us that this was not destruction of evidence.

as detailed records of the interrogations existed on paper in the form of cia operational tables describing detention conditions in the day-to-day cia interrogation. the cia director stated that these tables were quote, a more than adequate representation, end quote, of what would have been on the destroyed tapes. director hayden offered at that time, during senator jay rockefeller's chairmanship of the committee, to allow members source.reviewed the sensitive cia operational tables. that videotapes have been, that the videotapes have been destroyed. chairman rockefeller sent to committee staffers out to the cia on nights and weekends to review thousands of these

cables, which took many months. by the time the two staffers completed their review into the cia's early interrogation in early 2009, i have become chairman of the committee and presidential, had been sworn into office. the resulting staff report was chilling. the interrogations and conditions of confinement at the cia detention site were far different and far more harsh than the way the cia had described them to us. as a result of the staff's initial report, i proposed and then vice-chairman and agreed in the committee overwhelmingly approved that the committee can do an expansive and full review of the cia's detention and interrogation program. on march 5th, 2009, the

committee voted 14 to one to initiate a comprehensive review of the cia detention and interrogation program. immediately, we sent a request for documents to all relevant executive branch agencies. chiefly among them, the cia. the committee's preference was for the cia to turn over all responsive documents to the committee's office has had it done in previous committee investigations. director amanda are posed an alternative arrangement to provide literally millions of pages of operational cables, internal e-mails, memos and other documents pursuant to a committee document request at a secure location in northern virginia. we agree that insisted on several conditions and protections to ensure the integrity of this congressional

investigation. per an exchange of letters in 2009, then vice-chairman bond, then director panetta and i agreed and an exchange of letters that the cia was to provide a standalone computer system, end quote, with a quote, not work drive, segregated from cia networks, and quote. for the committee that would only be accessed by information, technology personnel at the cia who would quote, not be permitted to share information from the system with other cia personnel except as otherwise authorized by the committee. it was this computer network that notwithstanding our agreement with director panetta was searched by the cia this

past january and once before, which i will later describe. in addition to demanding that the documents produced for the committee be reviewed at a cia facility, the cia also insisted on conduct in a multilayered review of every responsive documents before providing the document to the committee. this was to ensure the cia did not mistakenly provide documents unrelated to the cia's detention and interrogation program. or provide documents that the president could potentially be covered by executive privilege. what we viewed this as an assist. race can turn that it would delay our best occasion, the cia hired a cleanup outside contractors who otherwise would not have had access to these

documents to read multiple times each of the 6.2 million pages of documents produced before providing them to fully clear committee staff conduct in the committee's oversight work. this proved to be a slow and very expensive process. the cia started making documents available electronically to the committee staff that the cia facility in mid-2009. the number of pages ran quick way to the thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands and then into the millions. they documents provide it came without any index, without any organizational structure. it was a true document dump that are committee staff have to go through and make sense of.

in order to piece together the story of the cia's detention and interrogation program, the committee staff did two things that will be important as they go on. first, they asked the cia to provide an electronic search tool so they could locate specific relevant documents for their search among the cia produced documents. just like you would use a search tool on the internet to locate information. second, when the staff found documents that was particularly important or that may be referenced in our final report, they would often print or make a copy of the file on their computers so they could easily find it again. there are thousands of such documents in the committee secure spaces at the cia

facility. now prior removal of documents by cia. in early 2010, and the cia was continuing to provide documents and the committee staff was gaining familiarity with the information it had rad received. in may of 2010, the committee staff know best that the documents had been provided for the committee's that had been provided for the committee's review were no longer accessible staff approached the cia personnel at the off-site location who initially denied the documents had been removed. cia personnel then blamed information technology personnel who were almost all contractors

for removing the documents themselves without directions or authority. and then, the cia stated that the removal of the document was ordered by the white house. when the committee approached the white house, the white house denied giving the cia any such order. after a series of meetings, i learned that on two occasions, cia personnel electronic be removed committee access to cia documents after providing them to the committee. this included roughly 870 documents or pages of documents that were removed in february february 2010. and secondly, roughly another 50 that were removed in mid-may 2010. this was done without the knowledge or approval of committee members or staff and

in violation of our written agreement. further, this type of behavior would not have been possible had the cia allowed the committee to conduct a review of documents. the senate. in short, this was the exact sort of cia interference in our investigation that we sought to avoid at the outset. i went up to the white house to raise the issue with that then white house counsel. in may 2010, he recognized the severity of the situation in the grave implications of executive branch personnel interfering with an official congressional and that's occasion. the matter was resolved with a renewed commitment from the white house counsel and the cia that there would be no further unauthorized access to the

committee's network or removal of access to cia documents already provided to the committee. on may 17, 2010, the cia then direct your other players apologized on behalf of the cia for removing the document and not as far as i was concerned that the incident aside. this event was separate from the dock events provided that were part of the internal panetta review, which occurred later in which i will describe next. at some point in 2010, committee staff searching the documents that have been made available sound draft versions of what is now called the internal panetta review. we believe these documents were

written by cia now to summarize and analyze the materials that had been provided to the committee for its review. the panetta review documents were no more highly classified than other information we had was viewed for investigation. in fact, the documents appeared based on the same information already provided to the committee. what was unique and interesting about the internal document was not the classification level, but rather their analysis and acknowledgment is significant cia wrongdoing. to be clear, the committee staff did not hack into cia computers to obtain these documents as has been suggested in the press. the documents were identified using the search tool provided by the cia to search the

documents provided to the committee. we have no way to determine who made the internal panetta review document available to committee. further, we don't know whether the documents were provided intentionally by the cia, unintentionally by the cia or intentionally by a whistleblower. in fact, we know that over the years, on multiple occasions, the staff have asked the cia about documents made available for our investigation. a time to cia had simply been unaware that the specific documents were provided to the committee. and while this is alarming, it is also an fortune to note that more than 6.2 million pages of documents have been provided. this is simply a massive amount

of record. as i described earlier, as part of a standard process for reviewing records, the committee staff printed copies of the internal panetta review and made electronic copies of the computers at the facility. the staff did not rely on these internal panetta reviewed documents and drafting the final 6300 page committees that he. but it was significant that the internal panetta review had documented at least some of the very same troubling matters already uncovered by the committee staff, which is not surprising in that they were looking at the same information. very sick claim in the press and elsewhere that the markings on these documents should have

caused the staff to stop reading them and turn them over to the cia. i reject that claim completely. as with many other documents provided to the committee at the cia facility, some of the internal panetta reviewed documents contained markings indicating that they were delivered at, end quote and/or quote privilege, and vote. this was not especially noteworthy. in fact, cia has provided thousands of internal documents to include cia legal guidance and talking points prepared for the cia director, some of which were marked as being deliberative for privileged. moreover, the cia has officially provided such documents to the committee here in the senate. in fact, the cia's official

june 27, 2013 response to the committee's study, which director branden delivered to me personally is labeled quote, deliberative process privilege document, and quote. we have discussed this with the senate legal counsel who has confirmed that congress does not recognize these claims of privilege when it comes to documents provided to congress for our oversight duties. these were documents provided by the executive ranch pursuant to an unauthorized congressional oversight investigation. so we believe we have every right to review and keep the documents. also claims than the price that cannot internal review documents, having been created in 2009 and 2010 were outside

the date range of the committee's document request for the terms of the committee study. this too is inaccurate. the committee's document requests were not limited. in fact, as i've previously announced announced, the committee's daddy includes significant information on the may 2011 osama bin laden operations, which obviously posed dated the detention and interrogation program. at some time, after the committee staff identified and reviewed the internal panetta review document, access to the vast majority of them was removed by the cia. we believe this happened in 2010, but we have no way of knowing the specifics, nor do we know why the documents were removed. the staff is focused on

reviewing the tens of thousands of new documents that continue to ride on a regular basis. our work continued until december 2012 when the intelligence committee approved a 6300 page committees study of the cia's detention and interrogation program and sent the executive report to the executive branch for comment. the cia provided its response to this study on june 27, 2013. cia or branden has stated the cia officially agrees with some of our studies, that has been reported the cia disagrees and disputes import parts of it and this is important. some of these important parts that the cia now dispute in our committees study are clearly

acknowledged in the cia's on internal panetta review. to say the least, this is puzzling. how can the cia's official response to ours daddy stand factually in conflict with the own internal review. now, after noting the disparity between the official cia bonds to the committee study and the internal panetta review, the committee staff securely transported a printed portion of the draft internal matter review from the committee securer brunette the cia of these facility to the secure committee spaces in the senate office tilting. let me be clear about this. i mentioned earlier the exchange

of letters that senator barna 900 direct your panetta in 2009 over the handling of information for this review. the letters sent out a process whereby the committee would provide pacific cia documents to cia reviewers before bringing them back to our secure offices here on capitol hill. they cia review was designed specifically to make sure that committee documents available to all staff and members did not include certain kinds of information. most import money, the turning of nonsupervisory cia personnel and the name says specific countries in which the cia operated tension side. we had agreed up front that our report didn't need to include this information and so we

agreed to recap it for materials leaving the cia's facility. keeping with the spirit of the agreement, the portion of the internal panetta review at the heart building in our state has been rejected. it does not contain names have not supervisory cia personnel for information identifying detention center locations. in other words, our staff did just what the cia personnel would have done had they reviewed the document. there are several reasons why the draft summary of the panetta review was brought to our secure spaces at the hart building. let me list them. one, the significant that the internal review given disparities between it and the june 23rd team cia response to

the committee study, the internal panetta review summary now at the committee office is an especially significant document as it cooperates critical information in the committee 6300 page study that the cia's official response either objects do, denies, minimizes or ignores. unlike the official response, these panetta reviewed documents work in agreement with the committee's findings. that is what makes them so significant and important to protect. when the internal panetta reviewed documents disappeared from the committee's computer

system comment is suggested once again that the cia had removed documents already provided to the committee in violation of cia agreement and white house assurances that the cia would cease such a duties. as i have detailed, the cia has previously withheld and destroyed information about its detention and interrogation program, including its decision in 2005 to destroy interrogation videotapes over the objections of the bush white house and the director of national intelligence. based on the above, there was a need to preserve and protect the internal panetta review and the committees on secure spaces. now, the relocation of the internal panetta review was

lawful and handled in its specification. the relocation of a document in the committee's possession from the cia facilities to secure committee offices on capitol hill. as i mentioned before, the document was handled and transported in a manner consistent with this classification, which acted appropriately and remain secure with restricted access in committee spaces. now, to january 15, 2014 meeting with director john brennan. emily 2013, i requested in writing that the cia provided a final and complete version of the internal panetta review to the committee as opposed to the partial document the committee currently possesses. in december, during and up in

committee hearing, senator mark udall at good this request. in early january, 2014, the cia informed the committee it would not provide the internal panetta review to the committee. citing the document. in january 15, 2014, cia director brennan requested an emergency meeting to inform me advice chairman chambliss that without prior notification or approval, cia personnel had conducted a search. that was john brennan's word of the committee computers at the off-site facility. this search involved not only a search of documents provided by the committee by the cia, but

also a search of the standalone and walled off committee network drives containing the committee's own internal work product and communication. according to brennan, the computer search was conducted in response to indications that some members of the committee staff minority have access to the internal panetta review. the cia did not ask the committee or staff if the committee had access to the internal review or how he obtained it. instead, the cia just went in search to the committee's computers. the cia has still not ask the committee any question about how the committee acquires the panetta review. in place of asking any questions, the cia's unauthorized search of the committee can was followed via

an allegation, which we now have seen repeated anonymously in the press. that the committee staff that somehow obtained the document through unauthorized or criminal means, perhaps to include hacking into the cia computer not works. as i have described, this is not true. the document was made available to the staff at the off-site facility and it was located using the cia provided search tool, running a query of the information provided to the committee pursuant to its investigation. director brennan stated that the cia search has determined that the committee staff had copies of the internal panetta review on the committee staff shared drive and had access them numerous times.

he indicated at the meeting that he was going to order further forensic investigation of the committee network to learn more about activities of the committee's oversight staff. two days after the meeting on january 17, i wrote a letter to direct her brennan objecting to any further cia investigation due to the separation of power to constitutional issues at the search raise. i followed this with a second letter at january 23rd to the director, asking 12 specific questions about the cia's actions. questions that the cia has refused to third. some of the questions in my letter related to the full scope of the cia search of our computer networks. other questions related to unauthorized and can acted the

search and what legal basis the cia claimed david authority to conduct the search. again, the cia has not provided answers to any of my questions. my letter also laid out my concerns about the legal and can't do to small implications of the cia's actions. based on what director brennan has informed us, i have grave concerns that the cia's search may well have violated the separation of powers principle embodied in the united states constitution, including the speech and debate clause. it may have undermined the cause to touche no framework essential to effective conventional oversight of intelligence that committees or any other government function. i've asked for an apology and a recognition that this cia search

of computers used by its oversight committee was inappropriate. i have received neither. besides the constitutional implication, the cia's search may also have violated the fourth amendment. the computer fraud and abuse act as well as executive order 120003, which pray this cia from can acting domestic searches or surveillance. days after the meeting with director brennan, the cia inspector general, and david buckley learned of the cia search and begin on the best dictation into cia sent two duties. i have been informed that mr. buckley has referred the matter to the department of justice given the possibility of a criminal violation by cia personnel. let me note because the cia has refused to her the questions in

my january 23rd letter the cia inspector general is ongoing, i have limited information about it aptly what the cia did in conducting its search. weeks later, i was also told that after the inspector general reviewed the cia set dvd to the department of justice, excuse me, referred the cia's activity to the department of justice, the acting consul general of the cia filed a crimes report put the department of justice concerning the committee staff action. i have not been provided the specifics that these allegations or been told whether the departments have initiated a criminal investigation based on the allegations that the cia's acting general counsel.

as i mentioned before, our staff involved in this matter have the appropriate clearances, handle the sensitive material according to established procedures and is to protect classified information were provided access to the panetta review by the cia south. as a result, there is no legitimate reason to allege to the justice department that senate staff may have committed a crime. by view, the acting counsel general's referral as a potential effort to intimidate this staff and i am not taking it lightly. i should note that for most if not all of the cia's detention and interrogation program, that now acting general counsel was a lawyer in the cia's counterterrorism center.

the unit within which the cia managed and carried out this program. permit 2004 until the official termination of the detention and interrogation program in january 2009, he was the unit's chief lawyer. he is mentioned by name more than 1600 times the nurse betty and now this individual is sending a crimes report to the department of justice on the actions of congressional staff, the same congressional staffer researched and drafted a report that detailed how cia officers, including the act and general counsel himself provided inaccurate information to the department of justice about the program. mr. president, let me say this. all senators rely on their staff to be a rise in years and to carry out our duties.

the staff members at the intelligence committee are dedicated professionals who are motivated to do what is best for our nation. the staff members working on this study in this report have devoted years of their lives to it, waiting for the horrible details of the cia program that never, never, never should have existed. they have worked long hours and produced a report unprecedented in its comprehensive attention to detail in the history of the senate. they are now being threatened with legal jeopardy, just as the final revisions to the reporter being made so that parts of it can read declassified and released to the american people. mr. president, i thought that i needed to come to the floor today to correct the public record and to give the american people the facts about what the dedicated committees that have

been working so hard for the last several years as part of the committee from this occasion. i also want to reiterate to my colleagues by a desire to have all updates to the committee report completed this month and approved for declassification. we're not going to stall. i intend to move to have the findings, conclusions and executive summary of the report sent to the president for declassification and release to the american people. the white house and indicated publicly and to me personally that he supports declassification and release. if the senate can be classified reports, we will be able to ensure that an un-american, brutal program that detention and interrogation will never again be considered or permitted.

mr. president, the recent action today it just laid out make this a defining moment for the oversight of the intelligence committee. how congress and how this'll be with all to show whether the intelligence committee can be affected in monitoring and investigating our nation intelligence at committees or rather our work can be worded by those we oversee. i believe it is critical that the committee in the senate reaffirmed our oversight role in our independent under the constitution of the united states. mr. president, i thank you for your patience and i yield the floor. >> senator from vermont. >> mr. president of all the distinguished senator from california is on the floor, i would tell to the sheriff had the privilege of serving this body now my 40th year. i have heard dozens of speeches

on this floor. i cannot think of any speech by any member of either party s. import as the one the senator from california just gave, which he is saying is if we are going to protect the separation of powers and the concept of congressional oversight, and then she a stake in the right steps to do that. i think the very first that i cast in this body is for the church committee, which went into the excesses that the cia and others of our agent these beard everything from assassinations to spying on those protesting the war in vietnam. within chairman john tanis was

berating for proposing this committee, saying he could find out what he wanted to find out, they didn't want to know everything. i stand behind george hayes when he took a picture in my first caucus. there is pressure on us junior members and i was the most junior member at the time not to go for the church committee. senator mike mansfield told me i senator bond still did others that the senate is bigger than any one another. we, go. if we do not stand up for the protection of the church and powers and our ability to oversight, especially when conduct tests have been in all likelihood criminal conduct by part of a government agency, then what do we stand for?

.. us, 100 senators, men and women, both parties. she has spoken to our conscience now let's stand up for this country. let's stand up as united states senators should and as the senators should and as the nothing can be further from the truth. >> over the past 67 years we have had a great fortune to play a role in helping keep this country and -- country great and its people say. while we are exceptionally proud of the work we do, we have not been a perfect organization. far from it. we have made mistakes.

more than a few. we have tried mightily to learn from them and to take corrective actions whenever and wherever. it is no secret that many of the things that the agency has done over the years, things that it was asked to do, that it was directed to do it alone had the authority and responsibility to do remain subjects of intense scrutiny, debate, and controversy. their rendition, detention, and interrogation program of nearly a decade ago is case in point. now, there have been many things written and set including, i understand this morning about the program, some facts and some protection. these remarks have addressed the views and actions related to the senate from a committee report on the rbi program. one detect a separate entity to say two things. first, my cia colleagues and i believe strongly in the necessity of effective, strong, and bipartisan congressional

oversight. we are a far better organization because of congressional oversight. as long as i am the director of cl two whenever i can to be responsive to the elected representatives of the american people. our congressional overseers ask as tough questions, hold our feet to the fire and work every day to ensure that american taxpayer dollars are being spent effectively and efficiently to keep our country strong. most important, their work to ensure that the cia and other intelligence organizations are carrying out their responsibilities and activities faithfully and in full accordance with the law. but don't always agree with them, and we frequently have what i would call spirited and sporty discussions. i believe we are fulfilling our pasts respective responsibilities. second, the cia has more than enough current challenge is on display which is live far more than any other institutional government the cia wants to put their rendition, detention, and

interrogation factor of its history behind it. the agency's detention facilities and long been closed. president obama officially ended the program five years ago by which time the cia had already ceased its interrogation activities. over the past decade there have been numerous internal and external reviews of the program, and the cfa is taken steps to address the shortcomings and the problems, and performance deficiencies that became evident in those reviews. now they have conducted an extensive review of that program, that they have devoted considerable resources of a loss of years. ca has tried to work as collaborative lee as possible with the committee on this report. it will continue to do self, and i have talked extensively with chairman feinstein and vice chairman chambliss about the report and the way forward. the cia agrees with many of the findings in the report and we disagree with others. we have a knowledge that learned from the program shortcomings

and have taken corrective measures to prevent such mistakes from happening again. we also owe it to the women and men who faithfully did their duty in executing this program to try to make sure that any historical record of it is a balanced and accurate one. we have worked closer with the committee to resolve outstanding issues and look forward to working with the committee to submit any portion of its report to us for classification review. even as we have learned from the past we must also be able to put the past behind us that we can devote our full attention to the challenges ahead. i arrived at the cia in 1980 fresh at the graduate school and was sworn in as a gs9 officer, never believing in my wildest dreams that one day i would have the honor and privilege of lee in a courageous, dedicated command exceptionally talented women and men of the seaway to read now i get down to the main lobby of our headquarters once a month to the immensity of the office to our newest employees. i am struck by the quality of these women and men.

many speak several languages. some already have successful careers in the private sector and to give something back to the country. for all of them this moment is the culmination of years of hard work and you can see the enthusiasm in their eyes. l.a. focused, confident, and eager to make a difference. as i watch them raise their right hands i feel an extraordinary sense of obligation to these officers. we have chosen the profession filled with great rewards but also steep challenges and sometimes grave danger prepare them for it. from day one wanted to understand that they are joining more than an organization. the adjoining a tradition of service and sacrifice on like any other in government. for this reason i always administered the oath of office in front of our memorial wall. there are 100 stars -- 107 stars on the wall. each one represents an agency hero who made the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of our nation. i emphasize that we all have

responsibilities to remember the officers and sacrifice is represented by the stars and to carry on their work in a way that would make them proud. i am sharing this with you because it underscores a profound commitment to the nation a service. for more than six decades the women and men in the cna have devoted themselves to protecting our nation and advancing american interests around the globe. the contributions often go unrecognized, but there be no doubt that cia officers are in such a to the strength and security of our republic. thank you know it for taking your questions. >> thank you all very much. thank you, director. we're going to have a conversation here and then bring the audience and first of all the topic of the morning which you have addressed. he said that you want to get the interrogation, detention practices behind you.

but senator feinstein today said she did this reluctantly but has been dealing with privately trying to resolve this is january and only went public today because of the referral from the inspector general cia to justice because a lawyer in the cna had referred a crime report separately accusing the senate of going in improperly into cia computers. her claim in this scathing speech was hacked into the senate intelligence committee to thwart an investigation by the committee into those past practices. she also alleges that the panera error report was very similar to this and conclusions about the past practices but that you who were involved in that era and the cia concurrently was trying

to thwart the full review of the harshness of the detention and interrogation practices. >> well, first of all, we are not in any way, shape, or form trying to thwart this reports progression or release. we want this behind us. i know that they have determined to put forward in days with them extensively. we believe there are factual errors. as far as the allegations of hacking, nothing could be further from the truth. that is beyond the scope of reason. >> she said that they are potentially illegal and unconstitutional breaches.

>> the appropriate authorities right now both inside the cia as well as outside are looking at what is -- with csa officers as well as staff members do. i defer to them to determine whether or not there was any violation of law or principal. i refer the matter to myself to this the way inspector general to make sure that he was able to look honestly and objectively. when the facts come out on this i think a lot of people who are planning that there has been this tremendous buying, monitoring, and packing will be proven wrong. >> you said at your confirmation hearing you wanted to restore the trust between the cia and the overseers in the senate. this is a pretty major gulf. if it is proven that the cia did do this would you feel that you had to step down? >> i the authorities will review

this appropriately. i will deal with the facts as uncovered in the appropriate manner. i encourage members of the setback to take the time, to make sure that they don't overstate what they claim and what they probably believed to be the truth. we have worked with the committee of the course of many years. this review was done at a facility with the cia had the responsibility to make sure that they had the computer or were about to carry out their responsibility. so if there was any inappropriate actions that were taken related to that review of the by the sale of the staff by will be the first one to say we need to get to the bottom of it. he is the one who can.

>> malaysia air and the investigation. a lot of people have been shocked that two years after passports were stolen and reported stolen that people using stolen passports weather are not distilled board airlines . permit stolen passports to be used so commonly around the world. >> when you think about the number of people get on a plane somewhere around the world on a daily basis the numbers are in the hundreds of thousands. since 9/11 there have been tremendous strides made, not only in terms of threats but individuals who are trying to carry out attacks to include stolen passports they're looking carefully at what went wrong if these individuals got on the planned. why they were not aware of it. i think all of us have to make sure that we are doing everything possible.

it is close to 13 years since 9/11. the memories, the tragedy have receded. this is not the time to relax. we know that there are terrorist groups that are still determined to carry out attacks including against and especially against. >> as a been shattered that would indicate any kind? >> i think there is lot of speculation right now. some grim responsibility. we are looking at it very carefully. working with the fbi and others. clearly it is still a mystery. we can find out where that aircraft is. we might have an agenda to do some forensic analysis. >> and what is the state of al qaeda in malaysia in the 90's?

it were very active. >> al qaeda which ride before 9/11 earlier in saddam. throughout africa and southeast asia. there are a number of areas in southeast asia where 9/11 has tried -- al qaeda has tried to develop contacts themselves and put in place the infrastructure. logistics' support. so there has never been a place in the glow byrd al qaeda says that there were not going to seek some type of presence al qaeda has had an historical presence. but even more recently. >> more about allegations that the cia surge congressional

computers tomorrow morning on washington journal. then a republican congressman from virginia robert whitman at the post to opposed pentagon spending cuts. we will talk with steven levy about nsa surveillance and what it means for american companies. google, facebook, microsoft. washington journal is live every morning. and right now you're on c-span2 a conversation from this morning's washington journal about and as a liquor edwards nome. >> former in as a contractor a feared -- appeared via video. the american civil liberties union.

this event was about the technology world and how it is changed in the wake of the actions of that were snowdon. how did you set up and hang out? >> as i said in my remarks at the event yesterday, the irony that we were using a global product to communicate with snowden about spying was not lost on me. but the fact is there are not a lot of easy to use secure communication tools. we really had to make it difficult choice between a tool that would better protect information where he was, tools that were easy to use and would work. we ultimately went with the google tool. we had to layer on additional protections to make sure that his location was private. >> interesting conversation yesterday, and we will be bringing our viewers bits of that conversation drop the segment. we are also opening of phones

the aclu. first, it's good to the subject of was debating yesterday. hell of the actions of edwards known, what is it time for an immense security in the time since there were first made? >> the companies to whom we entrust our private dated, global, facebook, yahoo, many of them have not done the best job in securing our customers information. what that is meant for years if you sat down at a coffee shop, using the wi-fi connections, the information was horrible. anyone sitting at the same coffee shop or cross the road ahead in your account because these companies are not using the most basic forms of security google started doing that by january 2010, but has taken many of the other big companies a long time to get your. in the case of gotten, yahoo just finally turned security on in january of this year directly

as a result of a front-page story in the "washington post" revealing that the nsa partner was collecting orders of magnitude more data about customers than any other internet company that because the services used more, but simply because the did the worst of securing the customer information. what you think he was a patriot or a trader, there should not be any debate. how it becomes better. >> and hal it is change the relationship between the customers and how they view the companies whose products they're using. >> sure. we live in an interesting world right now. we get some many of these fantastic services for free. if you compare what we get from internet companies you probably

pay your wireless carrier for your $50 a month. you pay your cable company anywhere between $4,200. yet you get those fantastic easy to use robust e-mail or social networking services entirely free. there is no such thing as a free lunch. the mill services and social networking services there's a line with the users. figuring out what makes this tech. and i think in the wake of the snow and disclosures consumers really need to reevaluate their relationship with the companies to him they are interesting than most private information. kugel really does know an awful lot about you. when you're sick before you go to the doctor, when you're unhappy in your relationship before you tell your spouse, if you're having suicidal thoughts

because your typing as things in the search engine. they really have our best interest in mind. >> want to show our viewers. we should note that the video feed itself and the video is a little bit choppy due to some of the connection that we were talking about on house know and was able to speak at the conference at south by southwest in austin. here's a bit of what he had to say. >> when you think about what has happened with the nsa over the last decade, the result has been in adversarial the internet, global free fire zone, nothing that we ever ask. it is not what we want. something to protect against. what we think about the policy, the proactive communication, the

policy response that leads -- needs to occur, a technical response. and it is the bankers a kimberly make sure. the nsa, not just the u.s. this is a global issue. there are setting fire to the future of the internet. the people who are in this room now. >> at lord snowdon they're talking about the tech responds and also the need for a policy response you're not far from capitol hill, what would be your recommendations for a policy response to these issues? >> we have been backing

legislation that would rein in some of what the nsa has time which would also strengthen the oversight of the court. we should also understand the vast majority of what the nsa does is not covered. really isn't something that the congress gets briefed on. most of what the nsa does takes place outside of the united states, outside of our borders. in what the nsa does that they don't have to check in with the court's. i think that is something that even in the last eight months even though there has been a broader debate among many americans don't quite understand that much of what the nsa does the los the polices itself. >> you describe some of those actions as cyber sabotage. >> one of the big stories that came out in the last eight months was one that was put up by the new york times and the guardian, an nsa program called bull run.

the nsa has been collaborating with u.s. technology companies to weaken the security of the products the sell to consumers. the issue here really is, you know, in the 1940's when the u.s. government was breaking the encryption used by the german government, the enigma machine, at that point there were special encryption technologies used by governments. today that is not really the case. there are really that many. today consumers, government, but that doesn't good guys all use the same technology. there are no drug dealers sell phones. lawyers, doctors, journalists, human-rights activists and criminals will use the same technology. what that means is for an essay have the capability to spy on the truly worst of the worst, the people they need to be targeting the also necessarily need to have the capability is buy up people who are doing nothing wrong, obeying the law,

people just going about their daily lives and to have a reasonable expectation of privacy. what that means is the nsa has been trying to make it easier to have access to all of these computers. the way they have done that is by either inserting with the help of these companies into their products or when they find vulnerabilities it until the companies but quietly exploit them. >> a senior policy analyst at the american civil liberties union. talk about what your work consists of. >> we work at the intersection of privacy, civil liberties, technology. a very large organization that speaks to protect civil liberties of all kinds, but i work in the team that protect digital civil liberties and free-speech. i personally work on surveillance issues. i did a ph.d., finished about a year-and-a-half ago which was focused on figuring out the role that telephone and internet companies play.

six years ago i was really focusing on that because i think people did not understand it. they had this idea that the fbi would to show up outside your house and listen to your phone calls. they did not realize it typically involves a little bit of help from verizon or at&t. what i try and do, what my team does is focus on the civil liberties as they intersect between the government attempts to monitor us and the civil liberties community attempt to push back. >> you worked on some of these issues inside and outside the government. talk about your work if the ftc. >> between 2009 and 2010i worked for the federal trade commission which is the primary regulator of all my privacy. the ftc are the good guys. they are not spying on people. there are no black helicopters there. the ftc has this huge task of releasing privacy validation on the internet facebook, twitter,

space, and it was a really fun opportunity. unfortunately the ftc does not have much in the way of resources. i do believe the government can play a significant and positive role and the protection of both security and privacy online. just, you know, it is upsetting when you realize that there -- the ftc has this tiny budget. this $10 billion agency of the road working secretly to subvert . >> have you ever talked to endorse the before? >> we have been providing legal advice to him for some time after he became known. we have had communications. obviously setting up an international video chat is not very easy. particularly when someone is in russia. took some coordination to get

this going. >> are there for their chance planned? >> i can't talk about that for now. as i am sure you can imagine, if you were organizing in the then you would want to have the most attention when it's announced. >> we are talking with chris. he is here to answer your questions and take your comments of some of these issues. on stage as edward snowden was the video chatting in that event at south by southwest. we will start with david calling in from beach with ohio on our line for democrats. good morning. >> good morning ted c-span and the wonderful so you always have. here is my question. a comment and question. according to the fcc doctrine the airwaves belong to the public. i believe that to be true. i was brought up on that. therefore you can monitor police, firemen, except to

because the data is going over the airwaves. now, 34 years ago when the cell phones cannot people were monitoring other peoples of phone calls with some type of scanner that you could buy at radio shack. so my comment is, what is the big deal? the second question is if you have the old fashion landline from at&t that goes over cable, are you more secure? and is that outside the realm of of court and the jurisdiction of a local court instead? >> a couple of questions. >> that was a fantastic question. i am surprised that was the first oregon. let me say that ourself funds are not as safe as you might think they are. the gentleman who called in was exactly right. in the 90's there was a scandal when a florida couple listen to the telephone calls of newt gingrich and several junior

republican officials who were then calling on analog wireless phones. the security got a little bit better when removed from analog to digital, but unfortunately the phones are not very secure. and for about 20 years u.s. intelligence, law enforcement, military have purchased equipment that has enabled and despite on cell phones without the help of the company. they send signals through the wall of your house and are able to trick her from attending over data. sounds like something from a sci-fi movie, but it is a technology that is widely used. the technology in question is called a stingray. unfortunately 20 years ago this was technology that was expensive and only available to law enforcement. today anyone can buy it themselves on-line. there are website to sell the technology. you can build one yourself. in so ourself phone calls are not safe from malicious third

parties. you can imagine how many government agencies there are from other governments present in washington d.c. sicking the spy on the phone calls the politicians and journalists. you can imagine that in new york people won despite on the phone calls of investment bankers and ceos to figure what is happening, we need to have a secure telephone network, and we don't have one right now. we need to have a debate is a country about the security of our telephone system. unfortunately we are not having this debate because our government is also exploiting vulnerabilities, taking advantage of the lack of security. pyjamas other point, landline phone sarin not that much more secure. they cannot be spied on with this kind of equipment, but the police and other agencies can still go to a court and get a warrant. not a recommendation for people, to look into applications that provide secure, and cryptic communication. even something as simple as

skype or face time that is built into apple i/o s mobile operating system would provide a significant enhancement of security over regular wireless phone. if you really want to have a secure call that is difficult to intercept look into a service like silence circle. an application mostly available and at stores that can let you make in cryptic calls. both sides of the call need to have this kind of technology. >> of the big companies that are out there. at&t. the smaller technology companies know how the nsa uses the data or know what the vulnerabilities are? what is the difference between the big companies in the smaller companies? >> the big companies, once you broach the -- to a decent size the government source coming to your regularly. you're a small company the first time the government shows of the door is probably a pretty terrifying experience.

you don't really know rules. a company has a team of people, a dedicated team that does nothing but respond to a sorel's requests. the case of the phone company this team maybe two or 300 people large. these companies are receiving a pretty substantial number of requests. the small companies, this is an uncharted area for them. even if the government has not yet shown up, that does not mean that the government is not watching their users information there are just many other ways for them to get it. >> jack in manchester, new hampshire. you are on. argue with us? he might have stepped away from his home. we will go to randy wedding in taxes on our line. good morning. >> caller: good morning. sixty minutes at a program last sunday on how these three

applications and others, they can monitor you through applications. and then we all know what the pitcher in next, so the government and business is being able to attract americans. but when one american wants to track politicians -- they want to burn them at the stake. it just seems pretty ironic to me that they want to be able to track all americans nc what you're doing, where you're doing it. but when an american citizen was to track a politician or a group of politicians they want to burn him at the stake. i had one other question, occasionally during the day -- for comment. occasionally during the day i watched c-span of the house. always seems like there is one senator talking to an empty room , all the seats behind him are vacant. can you tell me -- in this was talking about immigration and our health care, too hot topics.

where are all these senators and congressmen that? is an empty room. something as important as that you would think there would show up to hear what each one has to say. >> thank you for the comment from texas. talking to you and other folks watching and their colleagues also. did you want to make any comments? the ability to -- house citizens are tracked verses lawmakers. >> i do want to acknowledge this 60 minute special that he mentioned, fantastic. focused on a segment of the industry call data brokers. these are companies to build gigantic databases of information about consumers. these are not the company's you interact with, not the drugstore or supermarket or internet company, companies is lindsay had never heard it build gigantic databases and then sell the information for pennies on

the dollar. they are largely unregulated. the information they have is either sensitive or incorrect or in many cases both sensitive and incorrect. and i think americans should reasonably be concerned about the existence of these gigantic files of data. of course these companies carry the information themselves. they're work with partners. these companies also include companies to do questionnaires the answer at the supermarket. they include companies that collect data through warranty cards. there are many, many opportunities throughout the day when you might fill out a form that provides a permission about who you are and what you are interested in and my want to buy that altman the makes his way into this underground ecosystem. i really think that americans should be concerned about this out of control data a broker at. >> host: laura asks, high that tech companies fighting back or rolling over?

>> guest: you know, over the last eight months we have seen the tech companies push back in some ways. so at a high level the company's have worked to secure the connection between their customers and the companies' respective computers. what that means is they have made it more difficult for the nsa or any other intelligence agency to spy on their customers without their knowledge or consent. >> host: an example. >> guest: we learned just a couple of weeks ago that british intelligence agency jaycee hq have been spying on the web can conversations of younger users. to yahoo users with the web can having either insensitive or intimate conversation. and because the communications were not private because there were not been corrected they met that they could literally just grab them. and other companies have really

been locking that down. that does not mean that the nsa can never get the permission. means they now have to go directly instead of being able to get it from at&t over rise in or comcast for one of the companies that handles and a data. what these companies have not done is stop the government totally from spying on their users. the reason for that is that doable and facebook and microsoft are advertising companies. the entire business model is built around collecting private data about individuals, putting it in one place, running some complex algorithms on a to try and figure out. these companies were to keep less data which would mean that the government -- there would be less data for the government to then get, that would require the companies radically shift their business model. it is difficult to be in the business of providing ads can also be in the business of providing privacy and services to users. these companies still have not made the leap. and really what it is going to

take is charging the users. i don't think facebook is quite ready to start asking for money. >> you think that is what it will eventually come to? >> if we want these companies to protect their customers' information, if we want facebook to put users' interests first and people are going to have to pay for it. we should understand that facebook has a lot of engineers. good will as tens of thousands of engineers. that is not free. and so google has to make money somehow. right now the way that they make money is by collecting as much private data as possible and squeeze in the value add of it. if we want them to protect that data the many to provide them with an alternative revenue stream which is likely going to come in the form of people paying for services. people pay for fell service, newspapers. i think consumers can pay $2 a month for e-mail. $5 a year.

i mean, the companies are not making a thousand dollars per year. they're making very small sums of money. multiplied by hundreds of millions of users. i think people really do need to reevaluate their relationship they have. if you're not paying for the product where is the money actually coming from? >> host: interesting to hear from our viewers on a specific topic. phone lines are open. the american celebrities union. a senior analyst. let's go to jerry waiting in louisville, kentucky on our line for independence. good morning. >> caller: thank you, c-span. i have a couple of statements i would like to make. first of all. information, the whistle-blower comment that was made. basically these other comments. it's okay to beat you have to be

crazy. a different concept of money with privacy and security. there's also talk. so there are some issues that play out. somebody who wants to do wrong. now somebody that wants to -- what's being done now is making it harder to find those who want to do wrong. what is being done now holding back security? a thin line of privacy and security. >> i mean, i think many americans in the past eight months of been told what the nsa is doing is monitoring really bad people. and i think that story is

starting to fall apart. that german chancellor, we don't believe that she is a terrorist, but we are spying on her phone calls nonetheless. we are still spine on the phone calls over close of baez's even now that the president has promised to stop listening tour calls. and the fact is that a vast amount of the intelligence collection that happens is being done by the nsa is not focused on terrorism. focus on affirmation that may be of some strategic use to the united states government and its negotiations. and that is okay, but let's at least have an honest debate. let's at least acknowledge much of what the nsa is collecting is not related to terrorism but is in fact just making it easier for the u.s. government to do his job. >> defend the essay on this topic and said that the time that the nsa stop the attack with a time that they exceed, we don't hear about those times as much. what would your response be? >> i'm not disputing the fact

that the nsa signals intelligence collection for terrorism or national security. and issues of public safety. what i am also making the claim -- and i think a reasonable one, to the signals intelligence collection that takes place has nothing in all to do with terrorism, nothing else to do was buying the country's like north korea that we see is true security threats and is, in many ways, more about his giving the u.s. government and edge in its discussions and negotiations with friendly and neutral trading partners. i am not saying that is right or wrong, but at least let's have that debate. we have created a massive surveillance state, created a surveillance state that was the privacy of every american at risk and vacuums up the permission about hundreds of millions of people around the world who are doing nothing wrong. and if we are not doing that solely in the name of terrorism it is much tougher to justify. i think that the american people

have been told one thing while, in fact, the nsa is doing something very different. >> and your point, the proposal paying for some of these services, ron whites in on her twitter feet, if you're paying for your part of the product, not a customer. also i do not feel safe using technologies from large corporations. we are talking with the american civil liberties union here to take your comments and questions and talk about his appearance yesterday alongside edwards noted at the south by southwest festival in austin. let's go to bill in tulsa, okla. on our line for independence. good morning. >> thank you. i wonder how your guest feels about the question of the protection of personal identities and whether this security for the identities is more importance the privacy

issues he meant the victim of identity theft, have some insight on that. i don't know how secure my phone line this compresses the can pick it out of the phone book and on know if it's still available. they can transfer your dial tone to their control and charge -- cause all kinds of problems. >> yes. a very serious threat. let me just offered this perspective. if the number of murders in baltimore next year went up by 100 percent you would imagine that the chief of police in baltimore would be fired. there would be some accountability. if the number of identity that the tax, the number of the identities that are stolen increases this year by 100 percent there is no one who will be fired.

we have a massive epidemic of cyber security attacks and theft of credit card numbers, user names, passwords, other information that could be used to steal identities. yet there is no one at the government who at the end of the day is responsible for this kind of information, no one at the government will be held accountable. although this topic of cyber security is constantly coming up in discussions in washington d.c., no one really wants the responsibility. everyone wants the responsibility and money and power that goes along with the, critical infrastructure like power companies and the grid. when it comes to the average person at home who is having information to of either having information or their bank accounts details being stolen, there is no one out there to help them, no one who will be held responsible when things go wrong. as a result we have incident after incident where tens if not hundreds of millions of credit

cards stolen, you know, by criminals. we need to prioritize computer security as a country. a supermarket should not have 50 million credit card stolen. the most valuable thing that the supermarket should have is a list of about. right now every retailer has a database of credit card numbers that they are ill-equipped to protect. >> talking about the information that company's share. there needs to be legislation requiring an often rule for sharing a people's information. it should not be -- they should not be able to share by the fall >> i think that we definitely need legislation that would tighten up the data broker industry you know, the data brokers have a lot of lobbying power. this is an issue that has largely gone below the radar. in congressional committees have sought to propose legislation in

this area it has been vigorously lobbied against by those who stand to lose. look, this is an industry that is out of control. there have been some brave leaders in congress like senator ed markey who has called for this industry to be reined in, but it is going to take more for that to happen. i encourage every american who is listening to look on my. with the search engines and look for information about how to opt out of data brokers. it will take half an hour to print out and sign a form for every individual data broker. not easy. if you know why information in the database, you want them to the will to pay $0.10 to figure out everywhere you have lived heated take the steps to get yourself out of these databases. >> much of these conversations are the result of disclosures by former nsa contractor. and since those leaks have been considered by some the most

wanted man by the american government. he was asked -- talked about yesterday at south by southwest about the impact of his efforts and whether he would do it again here is what he had to say. >> lasorda's single-handedly changed the government cannot tell them what to do and sort of overwrite what -- what i'm going to do so that they could make a decision, further incentive what we should be doing. and the results of these regulations, and the government, and the government never said any single one of these stories, the government in a more secure

place, more secure communication have a better sort of civic interaction as a result of understanding what is being done in our name and what is being done. and so when it comes to -- the answer is absolutely yes. regardless of what happens to me this is something. to support the constitution. i followed the constitution was violated on a massive scale. the interpretation has not changed. [applause] thank you. the interpretation of the constitution had been changed from no unreasonable search and seizure to in the seizure is fine, just don't search it.

>> again, that was edward snowdon appearing yesterday at the south by southwest festival in austin, texas. our guest was there on stage as well. what do you think happens to have were snowdon from here on out? >> that depends a lot on the u.s. government. i know that he wants to come back to the united states. he is an american citizen. he loves his country. there are some things that are out of his control right now. you know, he really wants to kick start a debate in this country. that debate has happened. the president has appointed to independent reviews that have recommended many sweeping changes. the president has even said that he will make some of those happen. you know, and bird wanted the public to be brought into the loop to find out what was being done in their name. i think, you know, in that regard he has been really successful.

that does not mean that our job is done. we now need to rein in the nsa and make sure that the foreign intelligence surveillance court started doing his job and stop issuing secret reinterpretations of the constitution behind closed doors. you know, we need to continue to shine light on this part of the government's activities which will take a lot of work and require vigilance from people on both sides of the aisle. >> just a few minutes left. here to talk about his appearance as today. let's go to joseph waiting in hershey, pennsylvania. good morning. >> good morning. chris, i have to apologize for my level of an expert knowledge on this subject. i wanted to ask you if you could somehow make clear the position of each of the political parties , both on the national defense aspects of this and the personal privacy aspects of

this. i have trouble understanding who to believe and to to be influenced by in their positions that they espouse. >> you know, that is such a good question. privacy in surveillance is one of these weird issues that does not really fit into the conditional political spectrum. instead of having something like gay-rights or abortion where you know where each party stands, surveillance is one that really brings in people from both sides. you have people like one of the most liberal members of the house and ron paul and rand paul both supporting the same kind of legislation. really what you have is a part of the democratic party and a part of the libertarian wing of the republican party who are pro privacy pro data security. then you have an element from both parties who are pro surveillance. you know, both the house and

senate intelligence committees of the nsa and knew about most of what the nsa was doing long before the rest of listed. the senate intelligence committee as chaired by dianne feinstein who is the senator from california but is super in love with the nsa. on the house side the chair is a republican. you know, this is not as simple an issue as is looking at the collar, blue or red, and saying give or bad on this issue. you really need to look to the website of your respective member of congress and figure out where they stand. you know, as a rule of thumb they are more to the left or to the right to more extreme remember is the more likely they are to be privacy and surveillance. we find people at the center who are pro surveillance a broad national security which is unfortunate, but that is where we are. >> some news on the nsa front, a daunting task awaits the hamel

and nsa chief. talking about some of the controversy surrounding the nsa, especially in the wake of edwards though the disclosures. goes on to note that the man chosen by mr. obama to navigate the bureaucratic political and public relations disaster is a vice admiral michael weiser's to and tuesday will face questions. likely to be accompanied by the thunderous applause that greeted mr. snowden and taxes yesterday. going on to note that it is m rogers particular bad luck that he is not appearing in front of the senate intelligence committee. it is -- he will also be the head of the united states cyber command, the pentagon cyber warfare unit appeared before the arm services committee today whose members include some of the agency's significant critics from democrats like senator mark udall who describes the agency's domestic surveillance as a violation of american principles to republicans like senator ted

crews who has taken the opposite view saying the federal government has not been effective enough monitoring these surveillance bad guys. if you want to read more on that story in today's new york times. we have time for a few more phone calls. a line for independence. morning. >> good morning. thank you for taking my call. question, i understand the significance of revealing them that the data system. can you explain for me where the lines are drawn with this man who says he swore an oath to the constitution, where the lines are drawn and revealing what is going on domestically verses revealing intel details internationally. it was, i believe, senator dianne feinstein who was concerned that this man had to develop keys to get into the higher incidence of the international intel as opposed to just having clear access to them at a data system that he

revealed. where do you draw the line in committing a crime versus being a whistle-blower? >> i think that at lord snowdon was really bothered by what he learned. i think the american people have been bothered by what they learned. the president in the wake of his disclosures said that he welcomed the debate, and that was the debate that did not happen until he went to the press. we should be clear about one thing. he is not published anything. but he techie is given to journalists to be what has been published as country journalists ultimately the people who made the final call about what would be published and what wouldn't be have all been journalists, journalists a typical check in with the u.s. government. if you look and see every story has been written, every slide that has been published and the typical things have been redacted, not by the government but the newspapers, the new york times, guardian, all of these

news outlets have voluntarily censored information from the slides that were provided by edwards know because they believed that there was not enough news ready material in that portion. it up they could tell the story about have the nsa was either violating civil liberties of privacy without revealing other sources for information about which targets are being surveiled. if we. the presses struck a good balance. snowdon took the right approach by saying this is a job that is to be done by the media. this is their role in our constitutional system. they are supposed to provide this check and balance against overuse of power. it is not my role. i am bothered by it and the fact of the intelligence committee knows this is taking place. above the by the fact that the court -- this time for the public to be brought in. about the right person to make

the call. that is something that the press is far better equipped to do. >> host: sylvia in el paso, texas. you are on with chris of the aclu sorry, we lost sylvia. we will go to mary in grand ledge, mich. on our line for independence. good morning. >> caller: good morning. i just want to say that i have always assumed since they passed the patriot act that there were listening on our phone calls. i mean, friends and i have jumped and said, hey, what sub. we always felt that as long as we were not terrorists and we're not doing anything wrong we didn't have anything to worry about. i still feel that way up until we started seeing the abuses by the executive branch against american citizens, average citizens who just wanted to become involved in the democratic process in our

country. and we see the abuses by the irs, the department of justice, the fbi against the small groups. so i believe that that is one of the reasons that the people of this country have really gotten up in arms about the nsa. we don't have any proof that the nsa has been targeting american citizens. we do have proof that the executive branch has been targeting citizens. so i think that is the biggest problem. and i think that we need to have a committee on all abuses of the executive branch. >> mary from michigan. clyde as well from the jersey online for democrats before we lose chris this morning. good morning. >> caller: good morning. the way i look at it, the gentleman and russia, went to russia, believe it is reason,

and away. so that is all i have to say. thank you. >> host: i will give you the last minute or so that we have for either of those two last dollars. >> guest: i would remind the color that snowdon did not want to get stuck in russian. he was transiting through moscow on his way to cuba. the u.s. revoked his passport. think there are many places you would rather be than stuck in russia during winter. most people don't want to be in russia. many americans would have good reason to not be in russia, particularly right now. you know, he was stuck. at think you would like to come back. he would like to a live in the united states again. he is not able to do that right now. for now he is doing what he can to make sure that there is this debate taking place. the fact we are sitting here in the studio this morning talking about in as a surveillance, i think it's a huge change that has happened as a result of

disclosures that simply would not have been here a year ago stealing as senior policy analyst piquancy his work at aclu doesn't work or follow him on twitter. we appreciate you joining us this morning. >> on c-span2 tonight a senate confirmation hearing for nsa director nominee mike rogers. homeland security director j. johnson followed by his senate committee hearing on the freedom of the affirmation that. ..