industry and we are standing in its way. it is shameful. it is wrong and it must stop today. if people want to hide, they will have a hard time. so i want everybody to hear clearly, this is not a time to hide, not a time to sit down. not a time to play games. it is a time to stand up. we already have enough votes to pass this. we have 45. every single republican, none of them were on the floor right now but every single republican in this chamber is a cosponsor of the bill and i'm going to ask unanimous consent. so think very carefully before anyone of you object. because you were all cosponsors of the bill. so just think hard on it before

you do it. >> i think you've touched on so many things i agree so whole heartedly. our good friend from montana the nose a thing or two about energy. i think on the environment, you touched on that. a lot of people believe that people that come from energy states for throwing caution to the wind on of our mental issues. there's no one in his body onto the side of the aisle the desolate the best and cleanest environment for themselves and their children and families and future generations. i think this pipeline has passed every hurdle that the environmental community rightfully so put out to make sure that will we are protecting army. try and find a balance between the environment and the economics if you will, the economy. it's a widely important to i don't know if there's any environmental impact study standing in a way that would prevent this. >> i agree and i think he is

correct and the senator from montana knows this as well. the senator from montana also has an issue of asking to explain in just a moment. he knows it better than i do about private property rights. responded your question, senator from virginia, west virginia about the environment, that's what is so exciting about this project, so compelling for us to move forward. because not only did the international study that was done was said it is in or international interest to trade with the best and most friendly trading partner, closest to us that enjoys the same high quality standard of life that we do, and even higher environmental standards, but the environmental study that came and conducted by the president's own administration. this wasn't done by previous environmental. this is president obama's own

administration, came back and said, concluded this is the safest way to move this and the most environmentally friendly way to move it. and that is the record. so you're right. not only does have compelling economic arguments. it has compelling environmental arguments from the perspective. and i'd like to ask the senator if i could from montana the people to explain the very important language that is in the hoeven-landrieu bill is cosponsored by every single republican in this chamber about the link you negotiate on private property rights. because this is a very important rentable for many republicans but also for many democrats, particularly in louisiana where we have a lot of private property. and west virginia, you have a lot of private property. montana, you all have some, a lot of private but some public

land. senator answer the question force if you would? >> i would love to. >> senator from montana. >> thank you, senator landrieu and senator manchin. i've got a few things like us and we'll get to that very, very quickly but mr. president, since this is the first time we've been on the floor since the election, i think what the american people told us they're frustrated with the way things are working in washington. enough political games. they want lawmakers to compromise and get things done. they told us they wanted a stronger economy with good paying jobs. it shouldn't take an election to get this through but it did. so nationwide including my state of montana it is fair to say that unemployment is down. it's also fair to say wages are not what they need to be. too many americans and too many montanans are struggling to make ends meet. the keystone xl pipeline can help address some of those

issues. but now have another attempt to block consideration of this bipartisan bill written by senator landrieu and senator hoeven. the votes are there. we know that. if there's one way we can create good paying jobs or not it is by proving building a pipeline. it will tell the american public washington is ready to turn the page. it will tell them we heard them, their voices matter and that washington is reacting appropriately. building the problem will strengthen our economy and our infrastructure. first according to the state department building the pipeline will create 16,000 jobs, support another 26,000. those are jobs that will help working-class americans provide for their families. secondly the pipeline will include an on ramp for oil in the bakken region of want to, north dakota, let more energy go to the marketplace which is where it needs to go. with production in the bakken continued to boom we need more options to get that american oil

what needs to be, the xl pipeline is that option. third, shipping i pipeline is the safest way. the safety the american families and communities must come first. building the pipeline means more business with candidate, our friends to the north. and less business with the middle east, folks who don't like us. our country continues to be involved in conflicts in that volatile middle east but continue to do more business with our neighbors to the north as opposed to the countries that don't share our worldview, can help cut off the funds to those who work against us. i think the keystone pipeline is a big step toward creating that energy security. the pipeline must be built right. i'm going to get to the point senator landrieu talk about. it must be constructed with respect to private property rights. we cannot have foreign corporations using eminent domain to run roughshod over the fields of reform and montana, a business owner in nebraska or over sacred tribal lands.

so the respect for private property rights is in the landrieu-hoeven bill. it is not in the hospital. it is a critical component and has to be an otherwise we're making huge mistake. this pipeline must also be built to the highest safety standards. there can be no corners to leaks and spills don't make anybody money. they are unacceptable so the most modern safety systems must be employed, including double pipe if necessary. that is a fundamental this between senator landrieu and open bill. what they drafted in house personally done, the good work we've done in the senate. the house bill contains no protection for land owners, none, zip. the house bill said good luck, land owners, your subject to eminent domain by foreign corporations. you have no spill prevention protections. the landrieu-hoeven bill

protects rogue america, protects private property rights. senator lantos been working on this effort for years. this bill will give the pipeline the senate seal of approval and it will send a signal to the americans that congress working together could in good jobs, supporting our economy. and went able to make responsible decisions. is this -- i will continue to push make sure the oil shipped through the pipeline stays in america. i for the arguments on all sides. north americans oil should state in north america. it will make our country or and she secure, lead to cheaper energy, more informal for homes and businesses, working families. that will lead to more good manufacturing jobs in this country because we will be able to recruit because of our energy costs, recruitment manufacturing base back your country that we gave up some 20 or 30 years ago. mr. president there a lot of reasons to approve the keystone pipeline. it will create good paying manufacturing jobs that will

support our middle class and we need to support our middle class. it will make us more energy secure and it will strengthen our transportation and infrastructure system. but america needs a sign, a reason to trust in congress watch as a whole. approving the pipeline with new protections in respect of private property rights is that sun. i am tired of the gridlock. i'm tired of kicking the can down the road. i didn't come here to delay and bush were problems to the future. i came here to work for common sense solutions that we can activate and move this country forward today. the keystone xl pipeline is one of those solutions. passing this bill and building the pipeline is one of those very, very important things we need to do for our infrastructure, for our energy security, for the country as hell but i encourage my colleagues to support and help us rebuild our trust of the market people. without i will turn it back to the good senator from west virginia, senator manchin.

>> let me just say the senator from montana and all those -- that's quite a few of us on this bill for a reason. it's about the opportunity and jobs that we have. it doesn't have an environmental detriment to our country and it's been proven. with all this, what is the hangup? why can't we get this vote. we're hoping to get by tomorrow at the latest. i can only tell you that the job, a thousand american companies that are providing the goods that takes to build this thing, this pipeline, i've got a chance in west virginia, we are doing an awful lot of work right now because we come from and energy state that doesn't awful lot of support work for any type of insurance the country and around the world. the bottom line is the viewpoint of a secure nation, you've got to control of your own destiny. this gives us control but we don't have.

gives us the ability to say listen, we might not have to go around the world engaging different conflicts we see going on right now on the security of the nation i think is the most important thing that the keystone helps us be more secure. the greatest trading partner we have. candidate is the best and largest trading partner for 35 states out of 50. number one. people take jobs on the world trying to develop the market here or there. when it comes right down to it 35 states the number one trading partner is candidate. canada is working with this but i know there's pressure from around the world for this to go somewhere else. if we have the best partner, the best ally we've ever had and could imagine working with us to develop this product, the whole world seems to need and want, we need it america. why not have control? i for also why should we bring the oil into america and all the

heavy lifting when they will ship it somewhere else? the difference is when you have come its supply and demand. when you have control of the supply, when you have displayed in your own backyard and there might be demand much of a need also within our country, that tissue a good hand to play. that's what we are saying. why would we let any of these advantages be turned to a disadvantage? the only thing i can do is hopefully that we can get this vote. i would tell my good friends on the site of the of, my colleagues on the republican side, this would be the best judge we have to move the ball forward, the best gesture they can make coming off of the changes of the ship we had in tuesday's election, but before speaking, there wants to work. the senator from montana here's the same in montana. mr. president, you the same in new mexico. we want you to do something, work. we will not agree all the time. just try. we had a football game we played the other day.

played tcu. we are ahead. we should've won the game going into the last of the fourth quarter. for summaries the playcalling wasn't as aggressive as it has been for the first three and a quarter to we sat on the ball and got beat trenton. 31-30. this is the first chance to show we can work together. we heard you loud and clear but we're willing to take a vote. we know our environment will be protected. we know we can find a balance between environment and the economy. we know that we can raise thousands of jobs. put millions of dollars into the economy. that's what we do know. there would be people who don't support it. give us a reason to vote for something we think will help america and help our states individually. that's what we're asking for. that's what the good senator from louisiana has been fighting for since the day i die.

curbing on the energy committee chairman has made a difference from my standpoint looking at oil and energy policy. most important thing she's done. how do we keep the training of america secure and out of trouble spots in the world? i appreciate your efforts on this but i look forward to working with her on this. she knows i support, endorse the bill, i'm a cosponsor and i will proudly vote for this piece of legislation as soon as we can get it on the floor. >> i see that the senator from north dakota has arrived, and i of course, she wants to speak and can do this beautifully because this pipeline comes through her state as i said. but you want to just respond to do things, state the senate -- thank the senator from west virginia. i part my colleagues from california say this often, and she said in committee. she says it on the floor.

even if she and i are on opposite sides of this particular debate we've worked together on some important legislator country. i have such respect for her leadership on the restore act which was an amazing piece of environmental legislation for our gulf coast states. and without her leadership it would not have happened. i've heard her say over and over and over again, elections have consequences. this one does. him just like they all do. one of the consequences like this election is that a clear path for keystone has been opened up. the reporters following this legislation exactly what i'm talking about. a path for passage has been cleared. and in my view, that will never

ever be clear than it is today. now, in order for the path to stay clear, and it is crystal clear today, politics has to be satisfied. gamesmanship has to set aside, and we must come together to do what is right for the country, for the american people, and devote. there are strong feelings, i know, against this bill. there has been for many years. but the overwhelming majority of his body, 60 plus members have indicated support for this legislation. and senate bill from the perspective that you heard for private property rights, for clarity, for simplicity is far

superior to the house bill that has been passed. the house with her agile. very agile. they can do lots of things quickly that the senate can't do. so the house may decide to take the language of this bill, pass it, called something of. i understand that. i don't know if that's what they will do but there is a clear path for victory in keystone. whoever's name is on the bill does not matter to me. as long as it gets done. i want to say that again. the name on the bill does not matter to me as long as this gets done. and it needs to get done right now. not in january, not in february, not in march. it doesn't need to be combined with anything else. it needs to get done on its own

because it standing alone, it will go to the president's desk stand alone. and then i believe the president will have to make an important decision. i'm hoping he will sign it. but if he doesn't, that's the process. i hope you will and i will be urging him to do so. because his administration, his state department, his epa and his transportation department has urged him to support the piece of legislation for the strength of our economy, a single to our allies, the drink than america and abroad. -- to strengthen america and abroad. we have a job to do in the senate. he has a job to do and the house has a job to do. but if everybody would stop playing games with this bill and think about what the american people said on election day, and stop trying to push one

philosophy or one person ahead of the other, we can get this done. now, my name is not even first on this bill. senator hoeven's name is first. it is a hope in hell. kindly sponsored because i'm democratic spots because i'm the chair of the energy committee. i will be until january 2. and if my voters in effect i will be here for six more years. that's why my name is on the bill because i chair the committee. but if they want to take my name off, put someone else's name on them pass it, so be it. i didn't come here to see my name in lights. i came here to create jobs for my state and for this country, and i believe i've done an excellent job in the 18 years that i've been here with the very difficult circumstances could and will continue should the voters wanted to. but today we need to talk about the keystone pipeline. and nobody can speak better

about this than the senator from north dakota. because her state, and want to line is out before she speaks, because she was traveling and she might not have heard all of, might not have heard what all three leaders said when they came to the floor is that all three of them said, senator reid, senator cornyn and so do mcconnell said their number one goal was to break gridlock and they wanted to start now. and the second goal was to expand middle-class job opportunities and create wealth in america. i'm hoping the senator from the state that has created the most wealth in the shortest period of time of any state in the union might express to the rest of us actually have happened and why she thinks this keystone pipeline and other pipelines, because she and i agree this is just the first of several that

were going to have to lay down to make america a super energy power. you don't become a super energy power by just we shouldn't it. you become a super energy power by putting in the infrastructure that makes it possible. even kids in second grade understand this. you have to put up the windmill. you have to put up the solar panel. you have to put in the pipeline. you have to put in the highways. so the senator from north dakota it was a very sparsely populated state understands the issue of this infrastructure i think that if in any senator in this body. so i'm going to ask her if she would just respond to that and maybe elaborate on the question, how did you state it so wealthy in the last few years? maybe because the rest of us, and my state is doing well. i'm not here complaining.

my state is doing beautifully. our unemployment in south louisiana is 3%. we are blessed because we are an energy state. we are proud of it and we are creating jobs hand over fist. but there are places like detroit. there are places in ohio. there are places in pennsylvania and new york in a new mexico and in other places where people are unemployed, begging for work, willing to work. and three leaders came to the fore and said it's time to break gridlock. is a project i can do. i would like to hope, see them sometime before the close of business the. with senator expound on that? >> mr. president, i stand with my great college and a great champion of this energy renaissance, probably the greatest champion of the energy renaissance. i want to talk first about the

election. i think that all of us have had some time now to reflect. i think the clearest message that this entire body as well as the entire united states congress, the close message that we received is that stop fighting, did you work done. i don't think it could've been any clearer. so we have an opportunity today to demonstrate that we got the message. not in a partisan way but in a bipartisan way, in a nonpartisan way to say we heard you loud and clear. time to do the job we are sent here to do. and that is to move legislation that moves this country forward. senator landrieu has expounded on the great opportunity of this energy renaissance, not just for this country but for the entire world. and so let's start with what's happening in north dakota. we have had an explosion of oil

and gas production. in fact, we've rapidly moved to the second place in this country in gas and oil production. actual oil production to we produce oil from oil shale. what does that mean? that means nothing if you can't move the oil. it means nothing if you can't get this product to the refinery and the product to market. you can produce all the oil you want, and part of what we need to address as we look at in energy infrastructure is how we move energy products. today in america, actually in canada, how w we're moving the start is by rail. that has created tremendous stress on our agricultural infrastructure. it has created stress on manufacturers who need to use those rails to haul their finished product. it's created tremendous stress for the railroad.

avec life of the business? you bet. has had opened up new markets for the production in my state? you bet. but the bottom line is the best way that we know how to move oil and with this product is in a pipe. that is essential to building this. why is it important? let's start first with the fact that we know that you we now are moving towards north american energy self-sufficiency. i don't use, a lot of people talk about america, that's great school but if we include our friends to the north, the people that i grew up with, the people that i know, i've been up to the oil sands. i've been all over alberta, all over saskatchewan. i know that this is a very friendly country that continues to have the longest contiguous border, that there's never been a conflict. we celebrate that in north dakota with a start, which is a lovely park which is on both

sides of the border where you can easily cross because we celebrate the. these are our friends. if we're going to continue to build out its energy renaissance in north america, we better be prepared to move this. okay, so we all know that some of the opposition to this has very little to do with a pipeline. it has to do with a concern about the increase availability fossil fuels. well, i'm telling you this is still an economy that runs on fossil fuels. we have done tremendous work with fuel efficiency. we've done tremendous work with energy efficiency but we're going to continue to use gasoline in our cars, continue to use diesel in our headache within. continue to use this product. who do want to buy this product from? i would just ask, if the american people have, it just any american person would you rather buy this product from venezuela or would you rather buy this product from our

friends to the north? i'm pretty clear and pretty sure what the answer is going to be. so let's talk about why the united states at a time when we are seeing a global slow down in economic progress for many of the other countries throughout the world, what is the united states seeming to go further? why we producing and generating more wealth in our country than other places? i would take this because of this energy renaissance. because we're doing something no one else is doing the we are producing our own oil and gas, developing techniques that get this over and gas out of the ground and we're taking that as a raw material which is providing a renaissance not just in the oil area but also in natural gas. we have a real opportunity, but all of that goes away if we don't move the product. if we don't figure out a way to

make sure that our product gets to market. i'm going to talk a little bit also about what this development in our country means to the world. when we are confronting great challenges in dealing with russia, confronting great challenges in looking at what's happening in the mideast, confronting all these challenges throughout the world. and we know that we can not only deploy our efforts comes to managing efforts, our efforts by supporting through air strikes, some of the work that's been done on the ground but perhaps the single most important thing that we can do is help provide oil and gas to europe and to those countries that are dependent on people, or on countries that are not our friends. and so we look at opportunities today. we know those opportunities are in the energy renaissance.

so how do we move this product? how do we send a signal that we're ready to take advantage both globally and domestically, take advantage of this production? take advantage of this renaissance in north america. we approve the keystone pipeline. a lot of people talk about what the keystone pipeline means to my state. it doesn't go to my state by the governor of montana make sure when he was providing the permits that there wasn't an on ramp. .. 100,000 barrels a day of north dakota crude will be able to be placed into the keystone pipeline, sent down to refineries into louisiana. and -- and that may sound like a lot. it's about 10% -- less than 10% of our current production. but for me, the keystone is so much more than just this particular pipeline. it is a national discussion about our failing energy

transportation infrastructure. that's what this is. and if we do not -- if we do not move this project forward, if we say no, what's the next thing? what's the next project that's what's the next project that's what is the next project? 822-mile pipeline in massachusetts that would provide huge stability for the northeast in terms of varity production? 22 miles could be a huge benefit to our friends in maine in terms of stabilizing their home heating costs this winter. but yeah, we fight the pipeline. the keystone huge advantage that we have in this country because we are in oil and gas producer and could potentially be an oil exporter provided at soft power across the world. what do we do? we turn our back on the infrastructure them is this

product. so we have got to do everything we can to get this approved. i want to turn just briefly to politics. you know, a lot of people come here and talk politics. i believe this is a place to talk policy and that is what i try and do. just for a moment, i want to talk about the respect we should have for voters. i want to talk about elections and elections have consequences. one of the things we can do to begin to restore the public's faith, the public faith in our democracy and the institution of the united states congress is do something bold to begin with. actually move legislation that the people have been waiting for for a long time and actually respond to concerns. they do we get the votes, maybe we don't. but take a vote. take a vote. get it done. show the american public that we

are willing to come to this body and breathing beings to a vote so they actually see us doing something. they actually get results. they pay a salary. we came here to vote. we came here to work. we came there to do something for the american public. we don't all agree. no doubt about that. we don't all agree. but the thing we should all agree on is that it is essential in terms of providing certainty to the american public, confidence the american public has in this body, that they see us on this for, not two months from now. not three months from now. not four months from now, but today, the first day we are back in session after an election. with pretty dire days for our side of the i/o. but a hard election it is essential that we send a message

that we got the message and we take a vote. i am so proud of my colleague from louisiana for coming back would arguably should should be back in her state doing a little campaigning. but she is back you're fighting for what she believes in what she's always believed in, which is the energy infrastructure that makes a difference for north america not just for states like mine, but all consumers of energy and i want to thank the senator from louisiana for your tremendous leadership on this and your willingness to basically come here and say i don't care who gets the credit. i don't care if you have my name on it or not. let's get the keystone pipeline approved. i want to make one final point and then i will close. if you've driven them out of the keystone pipeline, what you will see stockpile every so many

miles is thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars of typing, weeding. six years of reading. infrastructure that needs to go today. so when people say we could wait to take the bow, you are wrong. the sooner the better. the sooner we get this approved, the sooner we are going to see those resources deployed and we will not yet missed another construction season in the north country. so with that, mr. president, i yield the floor and expressed great gratitude for the opportunity to speak. >> mr. president. >> senator from louisiana. >> another senator from tennessee is on the floor. if i could just say two or three minutes of live agreed to go back and ordered to conclude a little bit in this debate we had appeared first of all, i'm going to remain on the floor and speak after the senator from tennessee. i'm going to put the list of

republican cosponsors of s. 2280 the date they became cosponsors on every single member including the senator from tennessee is a cosponsor of the holden landrieu bill pending on the senate calendar asked 2280. >> without objection. >> i also want to put into the record the 35 plus -- very powerful organizations that range from business to labor to manufacturers that has been a strong and powerful and local coalition for over five years in their effort to bring us together. they've come together. the question is whether the members of congress can come together. it is not often that you see the laborers, pipefitters, toilet makers and building trades altogether sitting down at the chamber of commerce, that they

should manage to find common ground and america will be best served when the members of this body in the house to the same. i also want to put into the record to show his statements and his sister rested to those on the other side better wavering or not share, not the other side republican, but the other side of this issue are wavering. i want to put into the record that the environmental review process has been connected over five and a half years. the review process has been slow. five studies have been conduct it as required by law are complete. i want to repeat that. besides environmental studies that are required by law have been conduct. they are completed and this goes into the record.

in addition -- >> without objection. >> in addition, the only other requirement was to the state department and i want to put this into the record. the bottom line is the last study from the state department finds there will be no significant impact on the environment from the keystone xl project. i want to put that into the record. >> without objection. >> to pass today is crystal clear. today it is crystal clear. there is no guarantee that next week or next month or by the republicans take the majority that the path will be as clear as it is today. let us not miss this opportunity. let's get our work done on the keystone xl pipeline, an important project for this country, send a message that we

have heard the voters and show that trust begins today with on their behalf and i yield the floor. >> summa by senator landrieu had to say yesterday on the senate floor late yesterday she did get unanimous consent. reader read has said that the keystone xl pipeline for next week. they will also take up a bill that will overhaul the government surveillance powers. meanwhile today the senate will travel back in 2:15 eastern. live coverage as they take up a couple confirmation votes for district court nominees and also a vote on limiting debate on a house passed bill that reauthorizes a federal program helping low-income families to pay for childcare.

>> senator reid has appointed elizabeth warren of massachusetts as a liaison on the democratic policy issues and also some more this afternoon that amy klobuchar of minnesota will have a leadership position with senate democrats. so we are expecting to hear from them shortly here before the cameras. again at 2:00 eastern, the republicans will be speaking to reporters coming out. so we will have this live. once we see senator reid and the other democratic leaders coming out, we will have a life for you. waiting for just a bit. in fact, paul king of the "washington post" reports about the length of time democrats have been deliberating in the senate. they have been in the old senate chamber, by the way, while republicans met in the mansfield room. senate democrats not requesting

3.5 hour mark in postelection huddle. it always provokes long meetings. republicans finished in two hours. democrats started this morning. they are made in at 9:00 a.m. eastern and republicans at 9:30. a bit of a way. we will be back live once the democratic leader comes out. in the meantime, we are going to bring you to a conversation. we will stay here live and see if we can get the leadership to come out here on c-span2. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> outside the u.s. senate outside the u.s. senate chamber company i had a quarter as we wait to hear from democratic leadership of "the wall street journal" to reading that senate democrats have been leading for three hours 40 minutes so far in first man since election. elizabeth warren emerges future while comment. she walked by a few minutes so it was appointed a leadership position by senator harry reid.

frank thorp of nbc also to retain that senator warner walks by and won't comment on her new leadership post and says we are still meeting. we hope to hear from republicans that will be speaking to reporters at 2:00 p.m. eastern. we will have that live. >> i had arrived late at night on the september 11th morning. i arrived in my home in los angeles. i woke up at 6:00 a.m. tuesday in the second airplane hitting the twin tower lies. i was traumatized because that is when i'm ill this is not a one airplane accident. so i ran to the phone and i called people in egypt.

i wanted them to comfort me. especially after i learned that mohammed isaiah, the leader of the 19 terrorists fled from cairo, in the same city i came from. i called around 80 people and they all said the same thing come even though some of them don't know the other. they said how dare you say this was done by arabs or muslims? .you know this is a huge conspiracy? the jewish did it. i hung up the phone. i suddenly felt i cannot relate to my culture of origin anymore. this is a very hard feeling. when you can't relate to how the

people the were brought up with, they don't see it as it should be.

>> here on c-span two us through a tear from democratic leadership, i bring you part of a discussion with the privacy and civil liberties oversight board. the agency and the executive branch recommended by the 9/11 commission talked yesterday about issues including privacy. they hurt in the late attorney for microsoft as well as the chair from georgia tech. we will show you what we can until we hear comments from senate democratic leadership shortly. >> jim dempsey will be moderating this panel. >> thank you, mr. chairman. good morning again to members. particularly, good morning to our second panel. the title of our panelists privacy interest in the counterterrorism context and the impact of technology. i have no opening statement of my own, so we can go straight to the opening statements by witnesses. i will introduce each of them in

turn. we will go right down the row, which happens also to be alphabetical order. i remind the witnesses that we would ask them to keep their opening remarks to seven minutes. there is a timekeeper, which he might not have seen, but in the front row here come of rené, who will be holding up a yellow card for your two minute warning and then a red card for time is up there after a round of questioning by the board members then began the possibility of questions submitted by members of the congress. staff members throughout the audience had little index cards. so with during the course of the panel a question occurs to you, raise your hand and someone will bring you over a three by five. our first speaker or a member of this panel is any anton.

she is professor and chair of the school of international computing at georgia tech university. she has a phd in computer science and is one of the countries leading experts on issues that the intersection of technology and policy. so annie, please. >> thank you. good morning. let's try that again. good morning and thank you for the opportunity to testify. we are in an ever-changing world where terrorists and criminals are getting smarter and more sophisticated. their techniques are surpassing our ability to protect our nation. i mean strong technical protections for civil liberties is a counterterrorism weapon. today i focus primarily on three

technology considerations. first, strong encryption is an essential technology for fighting terrorism. second, de-identification, while not perfect, may be a reasonable approach given a thorough risk analysis. and third, improve privacy threat modeling is critical for counterterrorism. our national cyberinfrastructure must be resilient from foreign powers, terrorists and criminals. requiring government and commercial products, stockpiling exploits and weakening softer security standards are all proud of his that our nation's cybersecurity can posture and make it easier for attackers to infiltrate systems for various purposes. the latest apple and google phone field and by default. both companies are configuring encryption such that they cannot decrypt the information for

anyone, including law-enforcement. these measures have been sharply criticized by the director of the fbi and the attorney general. as a technologist, apply security best practices, such as encryption by default will yield a system that can better withstand intrusion into my list service attacks. as well as limit access to candidates and authorize users. requiring companies to provide law enforcement or national security hurts both individual privacy in our nation's overall security. moreover, the security benefits are questionable at best because sophisticated terrorists and criminals will simply use international products for more secure, less convenient alternatives. technology and policy scholars are actively debating the merit of the identification and anonymous patient techniques. the issue is critical because

the privacy rules only apply to identifiable data. technology scholars emphasize that there is no way to not not semantically prove and anonymize data set. that cannot be identified. in contrast, privacy scholars believe it provides real protections to most of the people, most of the time. consider that the lock on your door at home are pretty good, but not good enough to keep a determined intruder at bay. that is the idea behind modernization. there are some cases heard is critical to detect a person's identity. for example, victims of domestic abuse me to ensure their location is protected and cannot be rewritten in a fight by their abuser. however, in many settings if we applied a fact do but not perfect identification procedures, overall privacy protection may be more useful.

in such cases, it should not be the enemy of the good. you might consider how to determine a practice when agencies should have technic goal, versus effective but not perfect the identification may address the bulk of arrests. finally, threat modeling is critical for counterterrorism and we must improve it to achieve two goals. first, we must develop privacy oriented threat models, most techniques have been developed entirely in a security context with little privacy. the latter is crucial given the rise of data analytics. second as the nation we do not want insiders leaking state secrets to foreign journalists to become a common way to influence other policy decisions and debates.

insiders with access sensitive informatiinformati on must be considered a potential threat simply because of the extreme damage that a leak could do. either a direct costs by providing enemies are in direct costs in respect to public relations or a version of good rottweiler mix risk analysis feasible for any organization. in closing, the technologist scholar, i believe we should encourage strong encryption by default, use practical de-identification type ologies now rather than wait for theoretical redistributions and expand threat modeling to include privacy and security as well. in addition, add salt mention the importance of having technologist in the room. i can't help but note that the review group did not have a technologist, which we will appreciate all you are doing, but again, there is a technologist on the road. having them on the panel is

important, but would like to work technologists actually involved in the decision-making. and so i would like to thank the civil liberties and privacy board for its commitment to finding ways for the government to protect privacy and also for meeting our critical security elimination as well. >> thank you for your testimony. we actually a technologist in the factor bro and we have a technologist outside as well. >> will breakaway here on c-span two come and take you outside to the senate for majority leader harry reid. [inaudible conversations] imac >> i always try to start my meetings on time. the meeting this morning started at 9:00 and we just finished. it was a very forgot they have come a very construct a meeting.

i was so impressed with every senator. i don't know how many spoke, but i would say -- how many quick >> 28. >> said 28 senators spoke and it was very, very good. today we are going to expand our leadership. we are going to do things a little different, just a different approach. the one thing that came out of the caucus without any second guessing is that we have to continue fighting for the middle class. speech after speech after speech. i would be hard-pressed to think three of the 28 bit didn't talk about the middle class. the middle class is what is concerning to every one of my senators. they are not getting a fair shot. we are going to do everything we

can in the 114 congress to make sure the middle class of this great country of ours has a fair shot at succeeding. we are going to have a new dcc chair, jon tester of montana. john is a very plain man. he is a farmer who has taken an extremely incredible difficult races. in a very swing state. amy klobuchar, part of the expanded leadership. i don't know anyone that tries harder to work across party lines than she does. in fact, she is one of the top senators in any legislative body, whether you are in the house or the senate, if you want to get something done on a bipartisan basis, talk to

klobuchar. elizabeth warren. somebody asked me on the way in here. elizabeth warren will be part of the new leadership here what to expect her to do? i expect her to be elizabeth ward. we have to take a few questions. >> senator reid, what message do you believe voters are sending to you? is it beyond what you have done -- [inaudible] >> i believe that if we look at voter patterns that we saw in this incredibly difficult election is the people that should have voted that didn't vote are people who needed a reason to vote and we have to create an atmosphere but the middle class feels that we are fighting for them. we have a number of brilliant statements in our caucus. sherrod brown, maria cantwell, a number of others who taught about how important it was that we do something to let those

people know that we are for them. >> we will let you know we will continue to cover this briefing live over on our companion network on the c-span. who will be back here on c-span2 at the republican briefing at 2:00 p.m. eastern. we'll take you back to our conversation on privacy from yesterday. a reminder of the senate gabbling and not to 15:00 eastern. >> i elaborate that i'm a written testimony. in my mind, the single biggest reason to resist the privacy model that relies on postelection restrictions as the disparate impact that model might have on vulnerable communities. again, and they use restriction model you collect everything and protect privacy by banning harmful use of the data after it's been collected. the problem is there is a sickly what i call a moral lag in the way we treat data. what i mean by that is we in society are often very slow to realize a particular user data

is harmful, especially when it involves data over a shed ethnic minorities, lgbt people and those who lack power. the two most prominent examples about the department of defense or formally the department of war. during world war ii, japanese american reveal detailed information about themselves and their families. they volunteered the information under a statutory promise from the federal government the data would remain confidential. this is a huge restriction. what happened as you know when a team for two, congress with the provisions in the department for use detailed census data to monitor and relocate japanese american internment camps. after world war ii, a similar story unfolded for servicemembers they were prohibited from serving then they turned over to chaplin, physicians. routinely and even after "don't ask, don't tell," the military use that confidentially collected data to out and

dishonorably discharge lgbt servicemembers. now, today with the benefit of hindsight, we recognize these events are discrimination. but at the time to picture with less clear for a lot of people in that took a long time to change. the census only acknowledged the full extent of wartime sharing of census data in 2007. congress seven. congress only repealed the ban openly serving gay and lesbian servicemembers. so let me be clear. my point is not to cast aspersions on the department of defense. rather my point is that all of us as a society are consistently slow to recognize what is a harmful use of data when it comes to vulnerable communities. it often takes us decades to figure that out. far too often in today's discrimination was yesterday's national security measure. what this means for data and privacy as we can not solely rely on use restrictions. what this means is that

collection matters and that the simplest and most powerful way to protect privacy is to limit data collection, particularly from government. i urge you to continue to protect back or right. thank you. >> thank you very much. our next witness is my can see who is a chief privacy counselor at microsoft, where he has been for 16 and a half years, really at the epicenter of the evolution of technology and privacy. mike. >> thank you. thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today on this important discussion. i come to this discussion from the perspective of the rising on managing privacy and related issues in the dirt. i have done that for nearly two decades. first as an associate here in the firm annecy mentioned for the last 16 plus years of microsoft. at microsoft, we approach the issue of privacy from a core

belief that privacy is an essential value to us and to our customers with strong commitment to privacy because he recognized the customer trust and cause services. our customers serving the visual consumers to large enterprises will not use our products and services unless they trust them, unless they trust that their private day will remain private. we seek to build that trust with our customers to return to robust set of policies and standards. these policies and standards guide to reduce business and how we design products and services in the way that protects customer privacy. these standards are based on the fair information practice, which we agree remains relevant today. including transparency about how the data we collect and how we use it, minimization with regard to the data collected and how long it is retained, choice of a collection and use of data, strong security to ensure this data is protect it and accountability to ensure we are living up to our commitments.

the standards are not just a rule, but we hope our follow. the processes we use to operate our business. for example, they are built into the tools used in our software development lifecycle and checkpoints that prevented product service from shipping without a privacy sign off. some have taken what is often referred to as privacy by design approach to how we operate the company and how we develop and run our services. this is supported by mature privacy programs including dedicated personnel as privacy expertise to sit them both centralized roles and throughout the business. the program includes management response and escalation processes. further, we've developed and deployed comprehensive role-based training for engineers, sales and marketing personnel as well as h.r., customer service and other roles that touch and handle personal data in our program to the executive level accountability

for privacy compliance. but that investment and privacy in the trust we worked to build is undermined if those customers believe that government can't have that data appeared concerned about data collected by the private sector could foster private services. when those concerns are focused on the access to data by the u.s. government, that lack of trust becomes focused on u.s. companies. that is why we've been vocal for the need for surveillance reform in the united states. there have been positive steps in this regard in the last year, but more needs to be done. but they does several things the u.s. government should do to help restore the trust of the damages pilasters revelations. first, both data collection programs. we have been clear that we have not received any orders for data collection and we strongly feel surveillance should be focused on specific targets rather than a collection of data related to

ordinary illegal activities and communications. recommendations of the board under section 215 are encouraging us are the comments of the president and we urge the administration to bend the existing pro-program and the urge congress to enact prohibitions by such orders in the future. second, we should do more to increase transparency. transparency is a key element to any probe or import protecting privacy to facilitate the accountability and enable public debate about policy and programs. here to we've seen positive developments. the government has declassified more information about surveillance programs and the work of the fisa court. additionally, a company filed lawsuits against the u.s. government arguing we have a legal and constitutional right to disclose or detailed information about the demands we have received under u.s. national security laws. earlier this year we came to an agreement with the government enabling us to publish aggregated data about the fisa orders and national security letters we have received is a

good step to help foster better understanding of the type of blame as such orders as service providers. we believe there can and should need more detailed reporting permitted. third, we support reform despite how the court operates. in order to foster surveillance programs and government access to data, they are balanced against privacy and other individual rights. surveillance activities must be subject to additional oversight. we need a continued increase in the transparency of the fisa court proceedings and rulings, but effective judicial review requires the true adversarial process were more than one side is heard. we urge congress to act on fisa reform. fourth, government should provide assurances that it will not attend to hack into data centers. in the air since the "washington post" reported in alleged hacking maybe an essay of cables running between data centers are some of our competitors, does not yet been a public commitment

by the government that it will not obtain data by hacking internet companies. we believe the constitution requires the government seeking information within the rule of law and to authorize government access, taken steps to prevent by increasing use of encryption against networks and services. nevertheless, we and others will continue to have ever been assurances. yet, although focused mainly on the u.s. government and many subsequent debates and opus on the privacy rights of u.s. persons, we must recognize the global issue. as we seek to sell products and services around the world, discussions that focused exclusively on the fundamental rights are not enough. many people around the world to view privacy it is a fundamental human right at the very real concern about whether and how government can act with the data appeared in that regard, we appreciate the steps president obama not to generate should knowledge the need to address

protections by non-us citizens. along those lines of one law-enforcement context would challenge the federal court seeking customer e-mails to contacts and hope for data center. or the recall for government to come together to create a new international legal framework that allows processes to cross-border data access and supplement existing levels. none of this should be taken to suggest that we don't value and appreciate the absolutely critical work by one person and security agencies do everyday to keep us all safe. in fact, we work closely with the u.s. and other governments to help fight cybercrimes and other threats to assure the agencies have the tools and information they need to protect us from terrorism and other threats to her safety and security in the news to be a balance between safety and the personal freedom that people around the world, especially law-abiding citizens and institutions enjoy. this balance is rarely an easy one.

as chief justice roberts recognized recently in the case of riley v. tell a foreigner, privacy comes at a cost. the unanimous of vision make privacy is an inherent alley that must be protect it. others not always a perfect analogy between protecting privacy in the air come along for the national security context, we in the private sector regularly do with questions strike in the right balance between privacy and other needs. in each of these contacts of technology evolved, we need to continually reevaluate the proved useful striking or maybe not balanced maybe not balance, the fair information principles continue to be relevant today. >> mike, could you wrap it up quick >> iowan mayor. >> super, thanks. >> will come back to some of those issues in the questions. our final witness or member of this panel is hot enough re, chief security architect at nvidia companies that build

high-performance computer systems. hardy is safer target for -- cryptographer in computer science. thank you. please proceed. >> thank you for the opportunity for testifying today. i am here as a technology as to, as a bully or in silicon valley we say i am not a lawyer rule applies. our concern is about building systems that are buildable and creating rules that are enforceable. i wish to provide some technology background to the panel and the conversation. from our perspective, security is based to system a harmony is to music, providing security as a foundation of establishing rules of privacy is our model. we build systems that are enabled and are able to enforce

rules and not is the context of security as we see it. security is one of the intersections between technology and civil liberties and we do with issues such as trias an adversary assistance. this is how we build and design our systems. our role used to be simpler. sometimes i provide examples of that simple world. you remember those essay wall phone. a time when the phones were actually doing just that. they were phones. some of these devices were statements of class. you've all remember this, right? this was a phone. i worked in this company. one of my favorites in the collection.

this used to send and receive even text messages. some of these -- this was her personal digital assistant. i have some other -- gap, there used to be a company that existed. this is one of the darlings of the valley. so these -- this was also a very important device. this is from the time that the world was very simple and rebuilt systems with very basic games. this was per thomas friedman when i start down and i quote here, to write the world is flat, facebook didn't exist. the cloud was still in the sky. 4g was a parking place.

linked in with the prison. applications were what you sent to college and skype was a typo. so june 29, 2007, the iphone was introduced. the world changed. the world for us, technologists changed probably for everybody else in the room. non-technologists and technologists alike also changing in dealing with devices that are not as simple as that we used to carry. so that is part of the problem from my perspective. i'm interested in ramifications of the changes in this technology as the subject you're talking about. that is only 7.5 years. only 7.5 years ago. i don't believe there's any other event in the history in the short amount time as ravaged

and gone through everything and is going to change everything such as our foundation of our society. in the old and pre-2007 world, we said the site you cannot enumerate all of the attacks. cryptography is a known statement and a faith-based explosion, meaning they cannot define a secure state of assistance. it was difficult back then during these devices. it has just become worse. the guarantees, we do not know anything about her future, but a couple of things i could guarantee rate here is that things would only get faster. we are going to build a better faster. they are going to become smaller, a lot smaller. they are going to become cheaper and these devices are going to become a lot more abundant. some of them would no longer care about building lives that

are usable for a long period of time. it's a lot more economic to build devices that are basically throwaway devices. that is the concept they are following. they are becoming more connected. everything is becoming more connect it. things such as iot or as i call them, gangster net. everything is becoming very talkative. all of these devices are very chatty. they talk a lot. see you guys all have phones, smartphones in your pocket from the time i started, which was about five minutes straight now until now, each one of those devices without you even touching them has transmitted, sent and received the data. this abundance of information that is happening without you interact team and we've heard a

lot of things about data is only accumulating. it is not going away. we are generatingeneratin g more data than we can manage our fathom. 100 hours of video -- 100 hours of video is uploaded on youtube and youtube is not the only recipient of this service. other companies also have the services. 100 hours of video are uploaded to youtube every single minute. every single minute. so we are building systems to manage and compartmentalize, define and create and work with these data. this data as we have heard in the two panels are not going away. they are not disappearing. in the new world, maintaining security is even harder.

so as a citizen, i am very carefully following what is happening. the same board and to what is the ramification of the decisions we are making a mother that is enforceable, whether we could build systems that are enforcing these rules because right now, being a security professional and creating a doable and enforceable security is as unpopular as being an atheist in jerusalem. no one likes you, so i'm hoping we can come up with a system that is also buildable. lastly, i close my remarks and i am looking forward to the question that one more thing that i could guarantee is the attacks are going to increase and they are going to become simpler and easier to manage.

by one measure, the number of attacks in 2013 were 3 trillion, only affecting private information. on average, $27.3 per attack, about $100 billion of the cost of these attacks. since 2013, none of the target, home depot, linked in, none of that information, none of those attacks are included here. so what that come i close my remarks and i look forward to answering your questions. thank you. >> thank you here's who will now go to rebound of questioning. four members as well will be subject to time limits here. i think i have 20 minutes to each board member will have five minutes and still the possibility of questions from members of the audience. i wanted to build my first

question off of the point that i think hadi was making at the end there, which is bad there seems to be this inexorable trend forward with more sophisticated devices, collecting, generating, sharing, imaging autonomously, automatically disclosing more and more information and i think i will go to professor anton first and then maybe come back to professor hadi with that. looking at this phenomenon and the seeming mx durability of it. first on the technology design side and on the policy side. on the technology design side, what do you see as any potential

at all for limiting that growth, controlling the flow of that information? you talk to some extent about the possibility of technology protecting privacy. how does that square with this tremendous ongoing growth of information -- of information? >> thank you. so it was mentioned on the earlier panel, systems are getting more and more complex, which makes compliance more and more difficult as well. i really hope that we don't limit growth in limit the

ingenuity as new technologies that might have really great applications in the future and saw wonderful, really important problems. at the same token, there's a lot of work that has been done, and in how we design the internet devices such that consideration in all the possible inputs and engineers simply need better tools on how to do that. it is thinking about these things early on and not thinking about it as an after-the-fact. i think we want to secure the flow of information but not limit the flow of information. these are all things researchers are actively working on

>> i have written about private enhancing technology by design, but the same time, i just don't see it happening. >> when they put it this way. while i see it happening and i take the point that microsoft has incorporated privacy by design is the corporate concept, but there are these other hugely dominant trends that almost seem to be overwhelming. >> so within the context of counterterrorism, i think there's a lot of policy and laws in place. what an mentioned earlier what i'd like to see more technologists in the room, it's not just after-the-fact, but to be involved in forming the

policy because a lot of times the policy and law are written in such a way that what i would like to see is more technologists involved in the discussion of properly informing the decisions about laws that are going to be passed, policies we are going to adopt because we could write them in a way that makes it easier to comply with the law. >> do you have an example and i'm quite >> excuse may? >> you an example in mind quite >> i work a lot and has the. i had one phd student who's really working actively on what the change will be because when they finally make that decision, we will have very little time to implement such systems to make sure we are compliant. have we had more technologists

involved in that process, we would be able to more quickly adapt to quickly adapt our system then we would have a better community of practice if you will on how to establish those laws to make sure that only the right people or having access to the right information at the right time. and in compliance with law. >> just round that up, certainly you would agree that we would need both better, clearer laws as well as more mindful technology. it is not one or the other will solve this problem. >> absolutely renege both. >> i want to go to one point you didn't mention and talk about it now because it's very important. a lot of our constitutional privacy is based upon the concept of reasonable expectation of privacy. there's a lot of worry and legitimate concern there would

be these changes intact knowledge he and our expectations of privacy diminish. you talk about the fact that in fact what changes in technology you are expectations of privacy may actually be growing. >> that's exactly right. a point here is that task cuts both ways. usually when the court talks about caps in the society, everyone is surrounding to the ubiquitous caution of the data. but i think technology is helping people learn about what they think privacy is in the best example of this is location, technology and facial recognition technology. previously people had no occasion to develop an opinion to be developed, to be compiled in a profile. but suddenly, it is becoming radically cheaper to conduct

surveillance. so i think that in the same way as you only realize what you had when you start losing it. for the first time, a reasonable expectation of privacy in public is crystallizing in people's minds. and so, i would say ubiquitous surveillance is make in people say hey come you know what, maybe when i go to the grocery store or drag down the street or go to work i expect my colleagues at work to see me, the people i know where to see me, neighbors to see me, but i really don't expect anyone to know i met all of those places at all those times to matter where ago. i do think technology can expand those cases. >> over the past 16 or 16 years at microsoft, do you think it's fair that customers have become less interested unless concerned about privacy or expect more of microsoft when it comes to

privacy? >> i think they expect more. i agree that expectations of privacy in some ways have increased. they have certainly changed as technology evolves, you know, people learn about that. they were certainly did his sharing going on that people were not contemplated or accepted a number of years ago. that doesn't mean people don't care about privacy anymore. it is very clear to us that customers care about privacy now more than ever and you see that in the amount of resources and attend a&m focus we put on privacy, really is one of the top legal issues we are dealing with. it is one of the top customers we are dealing with. we hear every day from customers who have questions about how their data is being treated, how it is being protected, how it is used.

people's expectations of privacy are not fading away. >> by the way, just to put his sword as a mail in the cost and here, the government argues and there's obviously supreme court precedent to support it that a person surrenders his privacy rights when he disclosed this information to a third arty such as microsoft in the course of using services. but it seems to me or what you are saying that microsoft does not believe that if customers have surrendered their privacy rights when they abused the microsoft product for service and thereby microsoft is required information. microsoft does not believe that information have zero privacy interests. ..