many have repeatedly called upon the administration to stop all of the operation for that reason. we now have a broader reason for ending all cooperation with the export agency of russia. to take steps for the income and provide some with the most effective ways that we have of demonstrating our condemnation of russian action by force of arms. let me explain my amendment. it does three things. first of prohibits the united states government from doing any business with this russian agency by prohibiting future contracts and canceling past contracts. it is true that the recent national defense authorization act also includes similar language but that act includes a waiver authority in another

provision that the defense department has been using in order to buy russian helicopters for afghanistan. this practice has been met without the action and was objectionable in it again and became more objectionable as the russians continue to supply bashar al-assad and based upon what they have done in crimea, it should be entirely unacceptable. also, i just learned this morning that president hamid karzai announced his support for the russian annexation of crimea and approval of russian actions, which makes her purchase of russian weapons even more outrageous. after all that we have done to support him and the afghans with the u.s. tax dollars and the lives and injuries to the coalition soldiers and after all we've done over a decade of time

president karzai reaches out and publicly supports the russian actions. contrary to ours. this is a nation and its beyond believe the president karzai can support countries like syria and venezuela. his support the russian action when we are there trying to save his hide not only with our tax dollars but with our soldiers lives. so my amendment takes away this one we put a complete and to the business dealings with the russians. he will have to buy his russian helicopters with his own money and not ours. and second i propose that this amendment will prohibit contracts with anyone that

cooperate with the design and manufacture or military equipment. other types of business dealings for nonmilitary activities would not be affected but we are going after the military exports many would go to some of our sworn enemies. including deducting from our foreign assistance programs any amounts that a foreign state recipient stands on russian weapons through these exports. these deductions will be made from an economic support fund and security assistance accounts that would not affect other aid programs. the president would be authorized to program such funds elsewhere subject to congressional notification. if the usaid recipient is tempted to use some of our money to buy russian weapons, they

need to know that they will deduct that amount from our assistance program and they can buy russian weapons on their own dime and not our dime. taken together i believe these proposals would be a useful addition to the ukraine eight act and give it the additional teeth that it means. this amendment would harm the russian economy and prestige and glenn raccoon standing in the way. whether it's my amendment, any other amendment of what we will be debating. we miss and especially the energy portion of the economy. with glenn raccoon standing in the world. this amendment will serve as a concrete and immediate response to the illegal invasion perpetrator perpetrated by the

russian federation and i urge the of majority leader and colleagues to support it. with that, you'll the floor. >> i rise today to support the ukraine assistance package that will be on the floor later this evening and i want to thank the leadership of senator menendez and the great work that he has put into this bill. i was proud to help put this together along with senator johnson and senator mccain and many others who are part of our debate in the one relations committee. i come to the lord as i am sure others have and will over the course of the day to talk about the vital importance of a big bipartisan vote in favor of this legislation this evening. having just come from the ukraine come i was there this last week with a number of my colleagues and was my second trip in the last three months and i can tell you that they are waiting a very strong signal of

support and will send a message that we are going to stand together with our ukrainian brothers and sisters as they engage in this epic title for their independence and their freedom and for their sovereignty. i will not belabor the underlying details of the bill, but the three components of the legislation are all equally important to the ukraine and we have heard support for all three of these as we were there over this last weekend. first and foremost, clearly we must deliver on our promise of economic aid. there's a billion dollars in loan guarantees that are contingent upon the signing of a new agreement with the imf and it will also leverage about $50 billion in funds from europe. even before this crisis precipitated by crimea, the

economy was incredibly fragile. and this has been doing nothing but further the country. one that they can believe in and bring an end to the corruption, which has been rife throughout the ukrainian government over the past decade. but this new government will be undermined by an economic crisis that will occur, guaranteed, unless the united states steps up and provides assistance. but we can't do it alone. that is why the second component of this bill would allow the united states to agree to a set of imf reforms that would dramatically increase the amount of funding that the imf has to provide the country in crisis like the ukraine. every other member has signed onto these are performs it's up

to the united states largely due to the transients of this body that the united states stands on the sidelines and some people have categorized the component of this bill as superfluous as a political add-on that couldn't be are there from the truth. we were meeting with ukrainian officials last week and who specifically asked if we pass these reforms because they know that the only way they get an assistance package that is in the neighborhood is through the imf. but it would be much more likely to be able to provide that if the u.s. steps up and agrees to these reforms. and then we need to send a strong message that there are consequences for their actions and by giving the president the authorization to move forward in a broad range of sanctions, we will show that he was wrong when he calculated that this would come out little to no cost to

russia. but i want to talk for just a minute about what this really tells us about the status of russia in the region in the world and i'm sure my other colleagues will come and talk about the importance of actions and how they may change the calculus that has been made in russia and moscow today. but i have watched the media portray the events of the last couple of weeks as some sign of russians during. this isn't a sign of russians during but of russian weakness. glenn raccoon has designs for reestablishing some sense of the old soviet empire by reasserting control over what he calls the here and abroad, the former soviet republics and soviet states. his dream of reestablishing this

empire fell apart the day that the president fled. and as vladimir putin tried to re-create that empire under the guise of something called a customs union, he knew that he couldn't do it without the second biggest country in europe bordering on russia and ukraine. and his invasion was really a panicked reaction to this new reality. one now oriented towards the european union. and so i think it's important to understand the position that he's in. he has made a mass for the international community to try to clean up his invasion of crimea. but crimea represents 2 million people in a country of 45 million. 90% of the ukraine is a government that does sign and

association agreement with the european union and russia's economy is going to have this occupation or broad-based set of international sanctions in the world community and i would agree with my colleague he said we shouldn't just be talking about removing russia from the g8, but we should take them out of the g-8 and make it completely clear that they do not have a place at the international table along with the united states, france, germany, england, if they behave in this way. so we are debating today will give the president and the government tools with which to try to address and perhaps end this crisis. but it's important to remember that it's not about reestablishing the cold war. but the world is oriented a long-term times, nothing that has to do with who is working

with united states or russia. this panicked invasion will occupy rightly the display of russia's we position in the region in this world after the failure of their puppet government to survive. lastly, president, i just want to talk about the broader history working in the past and looking to the future that we may miss when we concentrate on hour by hour basis on the crisis at hand. having had the opportunity to visit a few times in the past several months, i've had the opportunity to learn a little bit about the history of the plays and the people and there is a wonderful area called the church of saint sophia that is beautiful and stunning and it was billed by the greatest

leader that he presided over an empire that was at the time that was one of the hubs of trading on the eurasian continent. it took goods from the east and transported them to the west. scandinavian countries and transported them down to the mediterranean. everything ran through the territory and it speaks to the ukraine's past and also to its future and they had been set up with a false choice within the crisis of the last several months. join the european union or stay aligned with russia. it has historically stood at the crossroads not a season last but east and west and north and south and that is the ukraine's past and also going to be the ukraine's future and we tried to deal today with a russia run by

a leader whose foreign policy seems dictated by a desire to poke a stick in the eye of the united states, i often think that this also means acknowledging that russia's future ultimately in this type of era is about immigration with europe and the west as well. frankly that was the direction that russia was heading until they took power. that conversation about how we realize that alternate paradigm is a conversation or another day. but when the senator and i went to them in december and stood up on the stage speaking to a million ukrainians would come down to protest the current government, they were there to talk about one concept with dignity about europe and

corruption and for some it was about the violence. but for most people who wanted to store dignity to their lives and the ability to choose for themselves what the future is. that is why we are here to support the ukraine. no country, including the russian federation were germany to dictate to the ukrainians whether future should be. that is why in the wake of this invasion and years of economic manipulation from russia we are going to extend a firm hand to ukrainians with an assistance package and a message of economic consequences to russia. world in which we have envisioned ultimately is one not only where the ukraine gets to go back to its historical roots east and west, but one in which russia realizes that their economic salvation lies not in

setting up a new cold war but fully integrating themselves and their economy and their political institutions but only with countries in the ukraine and eu, but beyond to the american shores as well. and that is the future. but that reality will never exist for the young nation of ukraine unless it survives this moment. and send a strong message this evening that this body stands without for this young nation of the ukraine by supporting the package before us and i yield the lord. >> i would urge my colleagues to not only vote on this particular measure, but both to pass as soon as possible the bill is before the united states senate that was reported out before we

went into recess by the senate foreign relations committee in a vote of 14 to four. obviously it is intended to be an opening response to the russian aggression in the ukraine, specifically now occupying an absorbing crimea into russia with an act of aggression, the likes of which has not been seen in a long time. in addition to that additional pressures are being put on as we speak to the ukrainian government of raising the price of gas by canceling the special price discounts and oil deliveries are slow.

border crossings for the delivery of trade have been close in the dirty tricks go on and on from the old kgb colonel vladimir putin. this act is relatively mild and will provide loan guarantees which are badly needed now. the ukrainian economy is now even under greater pressure and greater difficulty of any actions that have been taken by vladimir putin. and it would stabilize the economy of just the beginning with a strong signal for this fledgling ukrainian democracy. the imf reforms are somewhat controversial by some of my colleagues.

but the imf reforms are not the reason why this legislation is before us. the reason why the legislation is before us is because vladimir putin is absorbing crimea and russia. and i predicted that when ukrainian government became a government of the people that he would do exactly that because of clutter prudence you of the need to have the basis on the black sea in order to have access to the mediterranean. without his russian empire that would be threatened. right now president of the united states is in europe and i hope that he is leading in

europe rather than just consulting in europe and by the way there would not be a military excursion in the ukraine and i had never heard about were used in regards to military action. the most important thing is to pass legislation as soon as possible in front of other less important issues later on watching us as we vote today as to whether or not we will come to theirs and take some small munchers to punish vladimir putin. we get hung up for another week or another how many hours because of our failure to act we

have, it sends the wrong signal to we also need to and military assistance to this country and help them defend themselves and russian troops are massed on the border of the eastern ukraine area as we speak i don't know whether or not he will go into the eastern ukraine but i did predict that he would go into crimea. now i believe that he is watching carefully of the west led by the united states of america as to how we are going to assist in the ukraine and prevent or make the cost of further encroachment into the ukrainian territory we have a myriad of nations and we should be giving them weapons that they need defend themselves. i am talking about defensive weapon mode and it's shameful for us not to do something.

so i would talk about my colleague from illinois who i was privileged to travel to the ukraine with. a man who understands these issues as well or better than anyone in this body that represents thousands of ukrainian americans who i know that he has met with bitter deeply concerned and i would be glad to yield. >> i would just like to say to the chair that it's an honor to join my colleagues in this world rowan trip to the ukraine to spare two full days, meeting with every waiter and every level of government there. since their concern over the pending referendum of the crimea and what russia would do next and he and i stand together in a bipartisan fashion as quickly as

possible. i was on the phone with the ambassador and we were talking about the situation and i said we would that we would like to go on and say bordered on the people in the ukraine are watching what we are doing and watching what congress and the united states is going to do and there's differences between us and the parties and there comes a moment and it always has, at least in the past, where we decide that we are going to band together as a nation. particularly when it comes to issues of foreign policy in this resolution does not address every issue that you raised your. but it certainly addresses some key issues that both of us agree on. we both voted for this in the senate foreign relations committee and we want to see this with the sooner the better. i would like to salute my colleague were 183 colleagues

lost their lives, demonstrating against the former government and asking for change and i will tell him that our experience together visiting that country with a nation of eight senators i hope sends a strong message that there is bipartisan support for the ukraine and we will not tolerate aggression at the expense of best. >> i asked permission to engage in colloquy with the senator from illinois. i would ask my friend isn't it true that the people of the ukraine are watching in a way that is hard for us to understand here before an empty chamber, but more importantly whether we act and act quickly enough signals to them they be not military aggression the borders have been close in the price of the energy has been

raised in blender or putin is putting on more pressure on them and they look to us. isn't it a fact they weren't quite understand we go another several days because of some additional issue that really does not affect whether we come to their assistance or not? i would ask my rent a. >> i would respond that i couldn't agree more. it was significant when the new prime minister in the ukraine when scheduling his first trip outside the country. washington dc. houdini was? the president and the leaders of that together with him with the senate foreign relations committee and he came here because he wanted to bring the message to what he feared would happen if the aggression went forward and he wanted us to bring a message to the world and how could we explain about the

survival and it is important for us to move into move quickly and i would say to this editor from arizona that he understands us as well as better than most and many of us come from countries who were once under the soviets and we know what it took to give the independence some democracy. he's fighting to save a soviet franchise. when you can't win hearts and minds of neighboring nations he uses masked gunmen and troops and barb wire and energy extortion and that is how he works. he is not winning this battle but he saying that this is the only way i can keep my friends in line and the united states and i hope other civilized nations will join us in saying that that is unacceptable and i think the senator and i agree

that now is the time to act on the senate. >> i know the presence of them on the floor whom i want to thank for the rapid leadership in getting this legislation by the overwhelming committee on a bipartisan basis and he's waiting to speak in just one more comment that i would have from illinois. and isn't it true that they don't quite understand why we have not acted more rapidly in the face of aggression what is his incredible acquisition which the russian government or indeed when they gave up the nuclear

inventory which have been nice to determine waiting and i won't ask her rest in except urge my colleagues but haven't overwhelming vote to move to this legislation and get it done as quickly as possible. >> an individual from the senate foreign relations committee has the duration of any legislation according to this support for the integrity and democracy of the ukraine and the original request comes from my colleague standing or and this includes bob menendez on the senate foreign relations committee. >> without objection. >> madame president, let me think my two colleagues were distinguished members of the

foreign relations committee and they have the type of bipartisan spirit that i think is very important in general, and certainly in foreign relations as well and they both have added greatly to the legislation that has come out that we are considering for the floor. last week some of my colleagues in this chamber were sanctioned by vladimir putin standing up for freedom, standing up for their democratic aspirations in the sovereignty of the ukraine as i said in brussels from this weekend, if i had been sanctioned for those reasons, by all means and i would urge all of my colleagues to be supportive of the legislation and sanctioned at the end of the

day standing up for what they are all about what it means beyond. we look around the world we realized that every so often we face a political juncture with upheaval and change what russian leadership to a pre-1991 posture and we are at such a juncture right now. seems to view the pre-1991 soviet union's expansion authoritarianism is the present-day goal. and this includes new and independent states is a departure from the expansionist aspirations. this includes those military authorities and economic resources and this includes the parochial interests at any cost.

.. asheeassad. in iran, the ink of the joint plan of action was barely dry. they plan to build a new nuclear plant all steps that only aid iran in pursuit of nuclear weapons while diminishing the sanctions that force that country to the negotiating table in the first place. in the first place. while diminishing the sanctions a that force the country to negotiate in the first place. it's no surprise that putin and his cronies have already threatened to derail syria and iran talks if their countries don't stop --

don't step back from punishing rushers for its annexation of the ukraine. in geneva as the p5+1 talks with iran continue we can only hope that the crisis in ukraine will not have a ripple effect in russia's position or participation but in my view mr. putin has miscalculated. he has reignited a dangerous pre-1991 soviet style game of russian roulette with the international community and we cannot blink. that is why we pass this legislation in committee. in a package for ukraine that provide stabilization support for planning upcoming elections aid for stolen access and expand security cooperation and holds moscow accountable for its aggressive stance against ukraine.

it provides for loan guarantees consistent with a billion dollars during the administrations reasons aids in mirrors the house legislation. second it ensures that the obama administration can assist the ukrainian government to identify secure and recover assets linked to the corruption by victor yanukovych or current ukrainian government officials. third he authorizes $50 million for democracy governance and civil society assistance and $100 million for enhanced security cooperation for the ukraine and other states in central and eastern europe. for that mandates sanctions complementing the president's recent executive order against ukrainians and russians alike responsible and human service rights against protesters and those responsible for undermining the stability sovereignty and territorial integrity of the ukraine as well

as opposing sanctions and russian individuals complicit or responsible for significant corruption in the ukraine. fifth it allows the magician too broadly sanctioned corrupt russian officials and go after putin's allies and cronies who are engaged in massive corruption to the detriment of the russian people. finally it provides needed reforms participation in the international monetary fund which would allow the united states to leverage significant support for the imf for ukraine today and for similar unforeseen crises that are to come in the future. it is the imf is leading the effort to stabilize ukraine's fragile economy and essential task if there's to be any chance of reaching a peaceful political solution to the standoff with russia. congressional ratification of the 2010 imf reforms would increase imf emergency funding to the ukraine by up to 60% and

it would provide an additional $6 billion for longer-term support setting an important marker for other donors such as the e.u. in the world ain't. failure to approve the reforms on the other hand would undermine those the imf and the international standing of the united states. some countries are happy to see u.s. global influence diminish feeling to approve the forms weakens the united states and emboldens our competitors. the imf is strengthened at no cost to u.s. finances grandpas. the united states retains its executive ward seat and sole veto power at no net cost since the 63 billion-dollar increase in u.s. quota is fully offset by an equivalent decrease to a separate emergency facility. other countries however put a new amount for increasing power.

the fact is it's a pure win for the united states. we will pay we will paper that printed in 15 million-dollar budget impact of the bill with real cuts from funds underperforming or no longer needed. given the imf helps to stabilize countries often precluding future needs for military action the relatively minor cost will pay back many times over and this is not a partisan issue. presidents reagan, clinton and both presidents bush backed legislation to increase imf resources and present rating called the imf quote the lynchpin from the international financial system. these efforts combined sent a message to the world that the -- of crimea will not stand. let me close by saying we are in a dangerous moment of history with dangerous consequences in the world is watching. if the west does not act what will china say when it's looking at its territorial desires in the south china sea? what will iran save when we are

negotiating in vienna about nuclear weapons? what will others in the world say north korea has on a greater skill is still in play? all of them will be looking to the west and well we do or not do in making a decision about russia's brazen increment into the ukraine. they will be asking what can i get away with? the fact is as a matter of principle ukrainian sovereignty cannot be violated for simply looking westward and embracing ideals rooted in freedom. these ideas must always remain first and foremost an ostrich -- our strategic response to international events. when i was in brussels last week and go in the german marshall fund is said the broader question that faces us is this. can a united transit reddick vision and our collective commitment to bold actions in the century match the vision and

the commitment of those who created the international institutions which brought peace and prosperity to millions the last century. i believe that if we live, leave and govern guided by shared values and united by our common concerns we can lead the world in this transformational moment in history and prevent further russian aggression from taking us back to what was that 1991 world. that's the choice before us madam president. i urge my colleagues -- colleagues to strongly support the cloture motion so we can work to a statement that will do exactly that. >> you will the senator yield for a question? >> the senator from arizona. spare think it's very clear that vladimir putin has amassed forces in eastern border of russia in eastern ukraine and right now he is calculating as to whether to move their door

into muldova where the transnistria is occupy by russian troops. also there is pressure on the baltic countries that is being exerted as we speak. a lot of it in defense of russian speaking people. if we don't send this message now with this package in a bipartisan and strong manner vladimir putin will be encouraged encourageencouraged to enact further acts of aggression against crimea and in the region and i would ask my colleague if he doesn't agree with that assessment. >> i think the senator is spot on. right now putin is looking at whether or not he proceeds in eastern ukraine. he is looking at transnistria and muldova. he is calculating and he is calculating what are the costs,

what will the united states and the european union do? from my perspective president putin only understand strength and that strength is either in the military context which of course no one is speaking about at this moment or an economic one and that is why this package is so incredibly important because it takes every single dimension that the distinguished senator help us in the committee on. it aids the ukraine up front with a guarantee, sanctions several elements of that elements of the russian hierarchy for engaging in corrupting the country, the ukraine and at the same time invading territorial integrity. it prepares assistance for that collection that is supposed to take place in me that is critical to be fair, open and transparent and at the same time provides for the greater resources through the imf so all

of these elements are critical and also includes a very clear statement about greater defense cooperation which is also critically important. these are all the elements of sending a strong message is putin has calculated what will be the cost and if the cost isn't high enough he may very well proceed into eastern ukraine or those parts of muldova and that is a message or an action that we can knell of ford and the actions that others will look at across the world as they mentioned that they will calculate the west is not willing to take the actions necessary to stop my designs. if that is the case then i think we are in a world of hurt across the globe. >> i think the chairman for his eloquent statement. i yield the floor. >> madam president i yield the floor.

next senator richard blumenthal talks about making changes to the fisa court and the need to protect national security and safeguard individual privacy. the connecticut democrat spoken to questions in an event hosted by the constitution project in philadelphia. >> ladies and gentlemen welcome to the national constitution center.

the national constitutional center for those of you that have been here before now is the only institution in america chartered by congress to disseminate information about the u.s. constitution on a nonpartisan basis. and as part of our inspiring mission we are a beautiful museum of we the people a center for civic education and america's town hall one place in the country where citizens can come to you the best arguments on all sides of the constitutconstitut ional debates that are riveting the country and make up your own minds. we have had a spectacular series of programs recently. last week alan dershowitz debated nero feldman on whether the person has the custer's authority to target and kill -- and today we are gathered to discuss one of the most important and complicated and necessary debate questions

confronting the country today.as reform but the foreign intelligence surveillance court. foreign intelligence surveillance court as we will here's responsible for authorizing secret warrants to collect data outside of the ordinary criminal justice process in the service of national security and we will discuss the arguments for and against reforming it. to do so we are proud to partner with the constitution project based in washington d.c.. the constitution project is a great organization. it brings together all sides from the political spectrum to make decisions about constitution and legal reform. it is my great leisure now to introduce the senior counsel for the constitution project catherine stern who will make some introductory words and introduce our honored guest speaker senator rich and --

richard blumenthal. catherine stern. [applause] >> thank you jeff for that generous welcome and many thanks to the staff of the national constitutional center for working so hard to help us put on this event at the museum of we the people. we are going to try to do something very difficult here today, something maybe even impossible which is not to balance national security and civil liberties. i'm talking about being both entertaining and accurate about the foreign intelligence surveillance court. we are going to be trying to be frank and open and at the same time deal with it with a tough questions. helping americans understand what is at stake when our constitution is at risk is the core mission of the constitution project. our organization brings together policy experts, government officials and legal practitioners from across the political spectrum to foster consensus-based solutions to some of the most difficult

constitutional challenges of our time. one of the most pressing of those challenges how to continue our tradition of individual privacy in the digital age. a time when the government's capacity as well as private industry's capacity for surveillance of our citizens is massively increasing and the technologies for collecting information are far outpacing the laws that protect us. jeff rosen has taken up many fascinating aspects of this problem in his books and essays so we are thrilled to be here with him and with representatives from all three branches of government and from our wonderful community of advocates for government transparency oversight. to shed some light on the institution that is at the center of the nsa surveillance controversy. i want to thank our distinguished panelists were bringing their expertise and delightfully diverse points of view to this debate but before we hear from them it is my honor to introduce united states senator from connecticut richard blumenthal.

senator blumenthal has a long record of serving our country and the state of connecticut as a u.s. attorney for connecticut as a state representative and state senator and a five term attorney general. it's my understanding at the very day after the world learned about the nsa's secret program to collect and analyze all americans phonecall records senator blumenthal began working on legislation we will hear about today, conference of effort with broad bipartisan support to bring more public knowledge in an civil rights representation to the workings of the foreign intelligence surveillance court. the fisa court representations representations -- i'm sorry the fisa court has been proving for surveillance programs behind closed doors. in hearings were only the executive branch's interests are represented. senator blumenthal is proposed empowering a special advocate with the power and responsibility to ensure the

public's privacy rights are enforced. we are delighted he could join us today to tell us more about this important effort. it's my great leisure to introduce senator richard blumenthal. [applause] >> thank you so much catherine and jeff and thank you for having me here today. when jeff was introducing the constitution project and gets by partition mission the story of al smith one-time governor the state of new york, some of you as certain age may still remember him as i do and the story is told that he went to sing sing the penitentiary in new york to give a speech one evening and he was accustomed to beginning his speeches by saying my fellow democrats. he wasn't sure that every inmate at the penitentiary was a democrat so we have a fallback

line which was to say my friends but again he wasn't sure that every prisoner was a friend so he had one last line which is to say i'm glad to see so many of you here tonight. [laughter] so i'm glad to see so many of you here republican or democrat or independent. this issue really is one that should ring us together or divide us without regard to party or partisan differences. i am very grateful for the opportunity to be with you today and to talk a little bit about this very difficult issue, difficult to be both entertaining and accurate but by comparison to what the gentleman did down the street here relatively manageable even if challenging. you may recall that about a week ago one of my colleagues

senators dianne feinstein and -- feinstein spoke on the senate floor to lay out a series of very alarming allegations that put the country literally on the cusp of a constitutional crisis. in a very cogent powerful speech senator feinstein described her belief that the cia has circumvented the senate intelligence committee's oversight efforts in a number of ways by stonewalling the committees attempts to obtain certain documents certain committee computers to monitor staff activities surreptitiously seizing material and most disturbingly accusing the committee staff of criminal misconduct in an effort to intimidate them. we are very early in the investigation. there may be actually several investigations underway, at least one by the department of justice and i am reaching no

conclusions here as to what the merits are of her allegations but certainly been such allegations are made by someone of senator feinstein's stature, especially someone who's been so supported by the intelligence committee, they have to be regarded as credible and significant. they allege facts and potential violations of law that have to be addressed. certainly the looming issue concerns not only the violation but also how the rule of law is really imposed on the intelligence community which operates in secret and sometimes has shown that it seeks to operate above the law. looming ahead is the broader question of whether the intelligence community which has been afforded so much deference

over the past decade can operate within the apparatus of accountability that apportions power between the branches of government as the founders sought to do and more generally you have to ask how much unchecked and unmonitored intelligence activity can be consistent with the rule of law. those questions very simply cannot the delayed in part because of the urgency to maintain our constitutional values and impart because a lot of the key statutes expire on june 1, 2015. when you are asked will there be legislation, yes there almost certainly will be legislation or a serious attempt and a bipartisan attempt to reach legislation because the statutey statutes expire on june and, 2015.

the rule of law as we know particularly here has been the bedrock rentable of american democracy. the lone star of our public and living under the rule of law means there are certain lines that cannot be crossed as much as a guarantee of safety mike d. attractive. we are not willing to pursue it if it involves abridging certain rights. in fact under the fourth amendment you are prohibited from pursuing it. wholesale sacrifice of liberty and prosperity and dignity. police can't search houses on a kant -- hunch. as i know for. as an opera by law enforcement stays there is a procedure to obtain warrants before there is a search as maybe the cia might have done through the fbi before its search the committee files if indeed it did so and government agents can simply listen to our conversation on the phone because they believe

there may be something threatening. arbitrary unconstrained governmental invasion of privacy was a reason that the gentleman literally down the street got together to rebel and to write the declaration of independence and part of the reason secret courts operating in secret like the star chamber which was an anathema to them. i submit respectfully should be an anathema -- anathema to us today. the fisa court is such a court making secret law through secret proceedings in many respects having an impact on our lives that is unknown to most americans but has huge consequences for the future of our nation. part of my frustration i will tell you right up front is the lack of attention to these

issues on the part of the american public. the scene so of truce and technical, difficult to comprehend and yet they are so consequential for our nation. our current system with that secret court is the result of the committee commonly known as the church committee named after senator church which was formed in 1975 with hearings that revealed how the cia secretly opened america's mail ,-com,-com ma engaged in campaigns of surveillance and harassment designed to discredit vietnam war opponents and journalisjournalis ts and even bugged martin luther king's hotel room among other activities. in response to these findings congress passed the foreign intelligence surveillance act which we know as fisa in 1978. fisa allows for domestic electronic surveillance when the government can show probable

cause for an individual, that an individual or organization as a foreign power or agent of a foreign power and those are quotes from the statute. fisa also created a two-tiered court system composed of what we now as the fisa court, the foreign intelligence surveillance court and appellate court, the fisa court of review. these courts are where the government has to make its argument for surveillance or for collection of information. the question really now is how should the fisa court be reformed if you agree that it should the in a way that makes it more robust, more capable of protecting individual rights and liberties and of course this task is challenging because the nature of surveillance and communication has changed

dramatically just in the last two or three decades. you know again going to the founders of our democracy who've met in this very town not far from here the idea of the telephone would have been unimaginable at the internet was unimaginable to us a short time ago and the dramatic explosion of means of information and communication would have been certainly unimaginable to the original writers of the fisa act of 1975. there is a task of reform and i believe we have to address it. again the act will expire and certain key elements will end in june of next year and we have an opportunity and an obligation to address these issues. all of you know that the fisa court hears arguments from only one side.

it operates in secret. there are arguments from only one side namely the government. the essential change i have proposed is that there be a truly adversarial process as a litigator but really as a lawyer anyone here who has been through the legal training and you don't even need that training to understand, just the kitchen table is a good forum to comprehend it, the airing of debate happens best when different sides are presented and judges generally agreed. she benefited as us to judge by hearing both sides and often missed an argument if it wasn't presented. a judge's nightmare is a defendant representing himself and judges will insist on appointing the counsel for

defendant here she is underrepresented as a prosecuto. i dreaded defendants representing themselves because the issues could not be aired and debated and considered sufficiently without an advocate. the supreme court agreed in gideon v. grain white where in effect he disagreed with judgment carries the trial judge in mr. gideon's case who said that he had given every opportunity to mr. gideon to represent himself, to air his arguments and he had tried to be sympathetic to those arguments. the court said he needs a lawyer

and he got a lawyer and the result was different with a the lawyer then it was the first time around. there is a lot practical experience that confirms this idea the adversarial process works better when it hears from both sides and judges reach better decisions when they hear both sides. last summer in one of his first comments on the meta-data collection revealed by the stone stone -- dolan tapes president obama believes the fisa court would in effect from the addition of a civil liberties advocate. he was somewhat vague at the time but i took it as confirmation that he agreed that there should be a special advocate or an adversarial process more robust than what we have now.

the form of advocate he has endorsed a thing can be improved and i thank him for his very thoughtful attention to this issue but i think that the advocate can be made more effective if we in effect give it a certain forum. as i see it the special advocate must for example be able to proactively request participation in fisa court proceedings and to engage the fisa court of review appellate process for significant legal decisions. that would be a real reform, not just a cosmetic tweak to the current process. giving his power to the advocate herself rather than leaving it entirely in the hands of the court to invite an advocate on occasion when the court thinks it's important is very important. we have heard from the privacy and civil liberties board that

at least some of the judges on the fisa court believe they already have the power to call upon third parties for alternative views that they have never exercised that power. giving them the option of a choice is an effect if -- ineffective in my view. the structure requires the applicant to make decisions about when the opposing view should be presented and that is also why i believe the advocate should be it permanent position with an established in the staff not an occasional on-call observer status that the court hears only when it chooses to do so. my proposal would grant the advocate many powers of any counsel us cert factual and legal arguments presented to the court and take cases through the process much as appointed public defenders do. they are available whether not

the judge thinks the defendant needs a lawyer when the defendant needs a lawyer and a special advocate, something called a constitutional advocate ,-com,-com ma would have the responsibility to protect our rights whether or not the court thought it was necessary in that case. because courts may not appreciate the importance of issues when they arise as a very distinguished jurists said. my proposal would bar the advocate from delaying or undercutting the fisa process. very important it requires the advocate and her staff to obtain appropriate security clearances and maintain confidentiality just as any other member of the fisa bar would have to do and it allows the fisa court to grant a warrant without necessarily the participation of that advocate before the proceeding.

the challenge could be brought after the warrant ended after the surveillance is initiated if there is an exigent circumstance that justifies the warrant being granted. much has now happened in every day life of the criminal law across america where the u.s. attorney does what i did for years and countless others have done. go to the judge sometimes in the middle of the night and have the legitimacy tested afterward but here of course there is no way of many of the targets of the warrants testing testing its ley because they don't even know it's happening and they won't know it's happening without there being a case in court resulting from or prosecution or some other proceeding. so the idea is that adversarial

argument improves the process and protects our right and accountability results from it as well. accountability also requires greater transparency. another aspect of my special advocate proposal would require the fisa court to disclose in release decisions to constitute a significant construction or interpretation of law, a significant construction or interpretation of law, like the metadata part which was never disclosed until the tapes indicated that this information is being collected. secret law affecting our constitutional rights again we should not tolerate unless there is a greater showing that

somehow our national security requires that and then for the period of time that is necessary. the releases of this information of the opinions and rulings the court could be redacted or summarized to protect classified details but the release of them and the adversarial process would accomplish a key goal and if you agree on nothing else here today, i think we can reach a consensus that confidence and trust has been eroded and needs to be restored. obviously the snowden tapes have played a significant role but the american public needs the assurance that the rule of law, the rule of law will be more than a phrase when it comes to intelligence gathering. the public trust also comes from

appearance and perception not just the reality, but balanced and unbiased court making these decisions. unlike other courts the judge's and the fisa court are appointed by the chief justice of the united states supreme court without any oversight or confirmation. they are all article iii judges so they have been confirmed by the senate as well as appointed by the president but not for this role. again without any disrespect and without a scintilla disrespect for the supreme court or the chief justice of the united states americans may hesitate to trust a court whose members are picked entirely by one man without any kind of review, none, no review whatsoever. the court picks by one man will

inevitably be more homogeneous that is diverse ideologically as well as a background then one assembled by multiple sources and extensive research has in fact shown that judicial decision-making is negatively affected by homogeneity and that is why we have different kinds of people, different ethnic and religious and economic backgrounds serving on our court and the move toward greater diversity is one that i have sub ported passionately and aggressively and fortunately this president has done as well. that applies to ideological perspective as well. adversarial process and protection of liberties is best guaranteed by that diversity of viewpoint. that is why my proposal to reform the court focuses on its composition of a fisa judge

reform act authorizes the chief judge of each judicial district to appoint a member of the fisa court subject to review and approval by the chief justice. it's really up pretty modest change when you come right down to it. after all the rhetoric is stripped away it is a very modest change because we want to preserve the confidentiality of the court and we want to get my view state to judges who have already been confirmed the alternative of having them reconfirmed i think faces the danger of politicizing the process and i'm very sensitive to that concern. this reform though what ensure that the judges on the fisa court represent the broad range stream of judicial opinion and it is assigned to give greater diversity on the fisa courts

without undermining their independence from political reference. from congress or the president or anyone else. let me close by saying something that i think goes without saying. i have the deepest respect for our intelligence community. they are dedicated, patriotic able americans who serve sometimes in harm's way with great courage and they perform a vital mission for our country. i have two sons who have been in the military, what in the marine corps reserve serving in afghanistan. he is back now and he is in law school and another son who was a navy officer in training out on the west coast. i'm a member of the armed services committee as well as the veterans affairs committee. i know well and appreciate deeply the threats this country faces and the courage of men and

women in uniform and out of uniform were serve our diplomatic service as well as art military and the ways that benefit from the intelligence that is gathered by the agencies that too often we take for granted and too often we criticize unfairly. i'm sympathetic to the challenges they face and i want to make this system worthy of them. i want to make it the best it can be just as we expect them to be the best they can be. our intelligence community and our legal framework must be not only worthy of them but worthy of this place and of the constitution that it symbolizes. and the rights of privacy, speech, assembly that here today

we exemplified. i believe that it is possible and necessary to achieve those ends. i believe it decodes of my years in the courtroom not only as a prosecutor but as a defense attorney and my days in the legislature because our values and ideals don't disappear simply because of enemies like al qaeda. in fact really when you think about it the threat of al qaeda makes those values and ideals all the more important. it is what those brave men and women seek to up old when they put themselves in harm's way. it's the reason we are here today and by undercutting our undermining that we make the system unworthy of them.

those are high ideals and i know there is hard work to do to match the system with those ideals and your work today, your dedication to those ideals bringing us together are very much appreciated and i am personally thankful this opportunity to be here. thank you. [applause] i am happy to take a couple of questions. you have a really smart panel ahead so i'm not going to take too long. yes, sir. speak to questions first of all. first of all where is the fisa court? >> it's it's in washington d.c. if you're referring physically toward us. the judges come to washington d.c.. >> the second question is most americans can't tell you who was on "dancing with the stars" or who won the boys or who is on walking dead or any of that but can't tell you anything about the fisa court. do you view the mainstream media

as more of a distraction to keep being how should i say the public dumbed down? they are not interested in the fisa court. they are interested in what's going to be on tv or who has been eliminated from this game show or something like that. >> all of us bear a responsibility for the lack of public attention to important details like that one. who was on the court, where they come from. there have been some good journalism and good reporting on the fisa court that indicated the homogeneity of the deck one of the individuals. it's a matter of public record so i don't blame anyone in particular. i think it is a feeling that all of us have to address and one way to do it is through this kind of forum and that is why i think it's so important. >> i totally agree with you on

adversarial procedures are critical but in security issues this time is very critical and with the introduction of an advocate process. >> another good question and i may not have been clear about it but again no delay should result from this adversarial process. the challenge to a particular warrant could and probably would be done in a lot of instances after the warrant is granted. remember right now is a prosecutor i go to a judge in his office or i go to a grand jury behind closed doors. they grant me the power to search or surveilled whether it is a physical break-in for lack of a better term or physical entry or some kind of surveillance. and then bad acts by the government is tested.

the same principle would apply here. it could be completely in secret but the advocate, the constitutional or special advocate could and would challenge a ruling by the fisa court either before the court, after it made its decision or possibly on review and then the issue of for example is the broad collection of telephone numbers, all telephone numbers of every american, authorized by the statute? is there sufficient need for it that it would be justified? all of those legal intentions could be tested and argued to the adversarial process but in the meantime if there was a need for the government to be surveilling an individual planning some terrorist act,

that surveillance could go forward so your question is well taken. it is a point that has to be addressed and if that's not the way to do it some other way ought to be devised. i have no pride of authorship over any of the specifics. if someone has a better way to do it, i welcome it. i simply think that there ought to be an institutional place for the advocate to be on a full-time basis with the power to raise issues at some point that guarantees their rights as well as our superiority. >> thank you for being here senator. he mentioned snowden for whom some people see as the villain in some people see as a hero. what you think of allowing pay core, the fisa court to be open to third parties who have a desire to disclose what they believe is illegal government

activity and having the court rule whether or not that disclosure would he protected and if it were then that person would not be subject to criminal penalties? >> i think that is a separate set of issues that may need to be addressed. i want to see exactly how the system would operate. if there are complaints about lawbreaking effect was the blowing they could be brought to the fisa court through an advocate, special advocate of constitutional advocate. that may be the means to do so but the main purpose of this advocate really is to forestall violations of rights that later would be the subject of complaints by a whistleblower. in other words much better to prevent any questionable legal activity before it occurs than have it need to reason that a whistleblower comes forward. whistleblowing is a deeply

established and rightly esteemed tradition in our government as attorney general i didn't know first-hand -- came to know first-hand the importance of whistleblowers in protecting our rights and we need to guarantee that they are not subject to either retaliation or some other kind of bad action as a result of their blowing the whistle. i am referring to whistleblowing in general and nothing i say here should be intended or interpreted as condoning or proving what -- justice jackson says the constitution is not a suicide pact. one of the institutions is letting the sunshine in to do the cleansing.

over time the fisa cases would be reported? >> i think disclosure of rulings should be done when possible and when the rulings merit it regardless of time and become in a way that protecting classified information may be in effect summarizing rulings of the court so they could erase the other challenges. you can't know whether rights have been impinged in the world of electronic communication without the court in effect giving some indication that it's redundant. the fourth amendment was framed at a time when generally there were physical witnesses to the english soldiers breaking down the door and rummaging through a person's house or taking someone

into custody or some other violation of what the colonialists, the founders thought was their basic rights as englishmen. it wasn't that they have thought these rights were novel or original. they are the rights of people who live in a free country which they thought they did as citizens of the colonies of england. so they were just saying we want to protect the rights we think we have right now. those rights are no longer protected or impinged by if physical action. if you think of the electronic world and all that can be done invisibly and secretly and it is really mind-boggling. we need to match that challenge with a court that issues opinions when it can do so consistent with our security.

you wouldn't want the court saying we just authorized a surveillance on so-and-so do we think it's about to blow up a building or take over a plane or whatever. i'm really stating the obvious to all of you and even though these principles seem obvious they are much more difficult to enshrine in words. thank you. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen i want to thank senator blumenthal again for a speech that was thoughtful eloquent nonpartisan and in the best tradition of defending united states constitution. we are proud to have you at the national constitution center. >> thank you very much. [applause] >> let me invite the panel is to join me here in front of the room.

as they come up, i will and should use them because it's just such a superb group and you are going to be thrilled to hear the variety of their perspectives. we have coming first spike bowman -- please sit right here. the retired senior counsel for national security law and the intelligence issues group. next we have judged james robertson of former judge on the foreign intelligence surveillance court. he is a member of the constitutional projects liberty and security. we have alexander joel who is a civil liberties protection officer for the office of the director of national intelligence and finally we are thrilled to have intellect canterbury director of public policy for the project on

oversight. senator blumenthal has given us three concrete and extremely important proposals for reforming fisa court. for she said the congress had created special advocate. second the argued for greater transparency of the courts opinions and disclosure of their existence and third he called for a change in the way the members of the quarter appointed and said rather than the chief justice of the united states wanting all the members other judges are broader and more diverse appointments should be implicated. i want to debate and discuss each of those proposals i want to begin with judge robertson. judge robertson you not long ago did something that i can describe from her constitutional perspective that is quite principled and heroic. he resigned from the foreign intelligence surveillance court because you thought it was not acting consistently with

constitutional principles and historically there's a small and distinguished group of judges who resigned from their courts on grounds of constitutional principle and there would be judges during the pre-civil war at era who resigned because they didn't want fusion of slave was comparing the states precisely but you you're not a small company of judges who resigned on principle. tell us why you resigned from the foreign intelligence surveillance court and why you think senator women thought's. >> you just gave me lead to talk for the next hour. first of all jeff thank you for all the nice things he said. you have asked me exact a waiver signed from the fisa court. it wasn't because the fisa court was acting improperly. it was because the fisa court was in acting at all. i didn't -- i resigned while i

was still in article iii judge and i refuse to say anything about why i resigned for a long time and a lot of people thought that was quiet. well it wasn't quiet. it was because i was still a sitting judge and i thought it was improper for me to go public with my criticisms but now i am retired and i'm a civilian night and say whatever you want to say. i resigned because the bush administration and the nsa were conducting this kind of predecessor of the 215 program without ringing it to the fisa court. they bypassed the fisa court and it seemed to me that the fisa court was supposed to be acting on issues like this and for them to hold up the fisa court as the protector of our liberties and freedoms at the same time doing

an end run around the fisa court with this nsa program is seemed to me was to make the fisa would into something of a pretend operation and i refuse to go along with that and i resigned. i carefully did not try to solicit other judges to resign. i didn't think that was proper either and so that's the answer to your question of why i resigned. what i think of the senator's proposal i first of all, the nation not to be very grateful for senator blumenthal and his leadership and his focus and his interest in the subject. somebody from the audience mentioned that the country doesn't know much about and doesn't care much about this. it's important that the country know more about it and think more about it or talk or about it so it's wonderful we are

having this discussion. i disagree with the senator on a couple of details of his proposal and let me work backwards because the third proposal had to do with the way judges are selected. i frankly don't think there's anything wrong with the chief justice appointed them but if it makes people feel better to have them appointed by the chief judges of the circuits with the approval of the chief justice of the united states i agree with the senator that's a pretty minor change and if it makes people feel better that's fine. there are 12 circuits, 11th circuit judges and you would have to add one but that's a detail. with respect to the senator's proposal that there be more transparency to the rulings of the fisa court i think everybody agrees with that general

proposition. the problem is in the details because the whole snowden problem of course was that snowden revealed the capability for government has and it's hard to make decisions of the fisa court transparent without very nuanced declassification protocols which by the way under our system it is the executive branch of government which controls classification. congress doesn't do it. the courts don't do it. the executive branch does. that has been set in stone for a long time. so the executive branch would have to figure out what is classified and what is not classified and i am in principle. i am in favor favor of it and whack to have worked in there

asking the court to be more transparent and indeed in recent months in the last year the court seems to have been doing that. it's getting more transparent. the main point on which i disagree with the senator has to do with the establishment of an office called the office of public advocate. i don't think we need another office or another euro or permanent appointee of any kind. most of the work of the fisa court has to do with individual warrants just like ordinary everyday search warrants that are issued by courts all over the country. i don't know what the percentages but i would bet it's north of 90% of the work the fisa court does today. when i was on the fisa court, that's all we did.