they shop, therefore when they work. we're not in the business of doing that. they are. i don't hear anyone complaining about the grocery stores discount car because you get a discount. you are willing to do. we have not shared with the american people what do you get through this program? you get the safety and security of knowing that we are doing everything we possibly can to identify terrorist to stop it before it happens. madam president, we are here today with the choice. whether we're going to reauthorize this program that has been effective with the same conditions that the president has in place. has to go to a judge and with important controls on privacy by professionals with or whether we will roll it back to the telecoms. make no mistake about it.

the compromise legislation roses back to the same thing we were doing. whether you let it expire or whether you reauthorize it those are the choices because this compromise bill actually forces it back to telecom cumbersome time-consuming, and front with privacy issues. it it is my choice to continue the program because the program is worked. the nsa has a total of 16 people who have the authority to look at the state 's. i i bet there would be more than 16 people and every telecom company that are authorized to search data. let me suggest to my colleagues this if there argument is valid then they should be on the floor with a similar bill eliminating

the tsa's. i tsa. i am not sure that anyone invades my privacy anymore than the tsa process. they look at my luggage, luggage, in some cases stop me, in some cases and check me. i'm not sure there is any more blatant privacy concern that far but they are not on here suggesting we get rid of the tsa because they know the public understands the safety that tsa provides aviation. we have not been out here sharing with the american people's mind has been so long since there has been an attack. we were lucky this week in garland, texas, lucky. forty some texas law enforcement officers happen to be at a museum and everyone there was carrying.

we won't be lucky every time i remind my colleagues in the public in the same way that i sil went on the social media networks and said don't think that you have got this in your rearview mirror. over 70 terrorists we have in america 15 states and it's a matter of time before it happens. why in the world would we think about rolling back the tools that are the only tools that put us post 911 versus pre- 911? 's the threat is greater today domestically and around the world than it has ever been and the argument that we will be concerned with his mother we do away with tools that have been effective for the law enforcement to protect america. mdm. pres., i would suggest that we reauthorize this bill for five and a half years as his end that we

make the same commitment to the american people we do when we reauthorize and fund no matter where you do. we will keep america safe. they will not let it back to where we are susceptible to another 9/11. 911. with that i would like to turn to senator got and ask him whether he agrees with the collection of telephone call data not raising any reasonable expectations of privacy in the 4th. >> i thank the sen. from north carolina and appreciate his work in the majority leader's work. i have been working with them all along. i would say the answer to your question is no. the program does not collect or survey of phone calls. does not even include -- it

does not even include personally identifiable nation. i have i have spent hours with the intelligence officers and fbi agents responsible for administering these programs, not merely the general counsel's counsel directors, the men and women who administer them themselves and i have i have asked them what they think poses a greater risk to privacy, the discount grocery cart like the senator from north carolina mentioned with the fact that e-commerce websites have their name and address to a credit card number of purchase history. to a person every one of those at them said a greater threat to their privacy are those commercial marketing practices, not this program. the program the program has been approved 40 times by 15 different independent federal judges based on 36 years of spring court president and has been approved by two presidents of both parties.

a present of all wanted and the program tomorrow he could, but he is not because the program is lawful, faithful to the constitution smothered with safeguards against abuse and needed to fight the rising terrorist threat that we face today. in fact greater than they were and that is not my opinion but testimony of this administration senior intelligence officials. illustrate the metastasis of al qaeda's. larger and more spread out than their predecessors and more technological and operationally savvy developing new nonmetallic bonds recruiting westerners and using the internet to spread their hatred and publish how-to manuals. of course, there is the islamic state. cut the heads of americans torturing and murdering christians and other religious minorities and sadistically burned people live.

some have returned to their home countries, some have remained becoming more radicalized and ready to inflict harm against americans. we don't have to look any further than this last week went to islamic state jihadists decided to open fire in taxes. press reports press reports indicate one of the attackers was in contact with the islamic state supporter. illustrates why this program is so important. it helps close the gap between foreign and thought to have intelligence gathering. this is the catholic to our failure to stop. it also open-source reports. as a member of the intelligence committee i receive regular briefings on such threats. i invite my colleagues to receive these briefings that

they doubt that the walls are at the door or even in our country. and this highlights one challenge of our debate's two most of the information is classified. the intelligence community has been accommodating and providing classified briefings. the issue is getting members to attend or to go visit with the agencies. members are not willfully of the threat that america faces. under consideration in the house and proposed that the senate is a so-called usa freedom act which we will eliminate the central intelligence that this program collects. proponents of the proclaimer provides alternative ways with the intelligence community to obtain critical information needed to stop terrorist attacks and that it does not mise counterterror efforts. this is wrong. the alternatives do not come close to offering the capabilities that now enable us to protect americans.

one alternative is to have fun companies retain control of call data and provide the say only the data. this is not technologically feasible. the request of the presence on director of national intelligence they examine the proposal and experts conclude that the technology does not currently exist that would enable a system spread among different carriers to replace the capabilities of the current nsa program. any such system would create gaping holes in our ability -- to fund has to restore the data often times much shorter periods than nothing requires any longer. the current program stores data for five years which allows them to discover potential terrorist links. system that keeps data with multiple carriers who store their data for shorter and

different time frames is close to useless and discovering terrorist network sleeper cells many of which lie in wait for years. second, the system that tries to search multiple carriers and they collect and unify responses is cumbersome and time-consuming. the loss of valuable minutes, hours, days may mean the difference between stopping an attack or seeing it succeed. third, succeed. third, the data stored from companies other than the nsa is more vulnerable to hackers who would seek to abuse the data. fourth,. fourth, the costs are known in the american people will bear the other as taxpayers or consumers. first, to those people who say this is technologically feasible, we can easily executed this is the federal government that brought you healthcare .gov.

a 2nd alternative is to pay a third-party contractor to store data. this is untested and unworkable. the the proposal would also require indefinite strains of taxpayer dollars to fund. a private entity may be subject to civil litigation as it may hold and to have information relative which would expose american data to judicial proceedings with no connection to national security and without the security of privacy protections in place today. third, a knew organization will create the need for heavy security, top-secret clearances for employees and strong congressional oversight. as more resources are devoted but we would end up with is a reconstituted nsa program with an additional cost to taxpayers and greater threats to privacy. as i mentioned kemal take the opportunity to go and visit the men and women. i can tell you all they are

fine americans with the highest character. i spent hours with a small number of men and women at fort meade who are allowed to search the state of the retirement asked. i would ask how many of the critics of the program have done this? examine in detail how these men and women search the state of. an independent federal court regularly approves the nsa authority to collect and store the data in the 1st place. for these men and women to look at the data it must go through a multi a multi step process that includes approval by four different entities at the nsa numerous attorneys the department of justice and is very same judges who said on the court. even if a request is granted not just anyone can access the data. access is limited to the small group of men and women and to prevent abuse of the

program in retrospect searches of the data are automatically recorded and regularly audited by the inspector general and department of justice with strict penalties for anyone found to have committed any abuse. moreover myself and other members participate in these reviews. this is a robust and layered set of protections for americans their privacy, and these protections would not exist under the proposed usa freedom act. there are also protections that almost definitely will not be adopted by the private telecom providers. these multiple safeguards are aligned today. these programs have a sterling record with no verified instance of intentional abuse. and in conclusion, in the

wake of the traders snowdon disclosures sen. chap was sent feinstein in feinstein showed great leadership and they came together to defend these programs as both legal and effective. senator feinstein when she was chair of the intelligence community wrote that and this program would substantially increase the risk of another catastrophic attack. that is a proposition with which i wholeheartedly agree i i now see in my colleague from the judiciary committee on the floor himself a former us attorney. i i wonder if he agrees that this program is both constitutional and does not differ in substantial ways from the traditional tools that prosecutors can use against criminals while also providing adequate safeguards to american privacy. >> thank you, senator cardin that is an important question. i would like to thank you for volunteering to serve to protect the security of our country and the middle east

and dangerous areas. we do need to protect the national security. we lost almost 3000 people on 911. the the nation came together. i was a member of the senate judiciary committee at the time command we evaluated what to do. we worked together in a bipartisan way and in a virtually unanimous agreement with past the patriot act to try to help us be more effective. and what i have to tell you as we were facing and many people were shocked to see the improper obstacles that were placed in the way of our fbi and other agents as they fought to try to figure out how to identify and capture people who wanted to do harm to america. it was stunning. there was a wall between the cia wasted the foreign intelligence. they cannot say to the fbi

we have intelligence that this person might be a terrorist's. that wall was eliminated on a totally unanimous vote and we did other things and an overwhelming bipartisan way. as a person is been 15 years as a prosecutor, i would say that there is nothing in this act that alters the fundamental principles of what powers investigators have to investigate crime in america. a county attorney can issue a subpoena from any county in america and does everyday by the hundreds of thousands subpoenas the phone companies for telephone toll records. and those toll records have a name and address and phone numbers

called and how many minutes. what is maintained in the system basically is just numbers. all right. not only can a county attorney who is a lawyer but a drug enforcement agent: irs agent can issue an administrative subpoena for on the basis of there permission of their toll records regarding john doe relevant to the investigation of conducting and can get this information it's done by law and there is a written document but that's the way it's done every day in america. it does not have to have a court order to get those records. were talking about hundreds of thousands of subpoenas for telephone toll records. every every murder case for virtually every robbery case every big drug case the prosecutor was to use those records to show the connection between the criminals. it is extremely valuable for

a jury this is a part of daily law practice. they have to have a court order before they can obtain a telephone toll records contrary to everything that happens every day in america going further the law requires. apparently this bill would go even further. it is not necessary. you do not get the communications. the person may be a terrorist. who they may have called.

i mean, this is real life. and i think i have a couple hundred queries. i think that i think that is awfully low. one reason is am sure we have such a burden. so i would say colleagues let's don't overreact on this. please let's don't overreact former attorney general me casey on former federal judge himself had just really pushed back on this and believes the wrong kind of thing for us to be doing. to impose such a burden on the nsa as a price of simply running a number through database that includes neither the content of calls or even the identity of the colors the pres. said this

stuff may be dispensed with only in nature emergency as if events unfolds on musical score with a crescendo to tell us when at your emergency is at hand. talking about the additional requirements. one more thing. this is the way the system works and has worked for the last 50 or 40 years. they issued a subpoena to the local phone company has these telephone toll records, the same thing you get in the mail in response to the subpoena they send these documents. they maintain these records. now the computer systems are more sophisticated. numbers or by the tens of millions of almost billions of calls. and so they are reducing the number that they are maintaining and their computer command the subpoenas i believe senator

cottons set 18 months. maybe they wipe out all these records. an investigation into terrorism they want to go back five years. the government, they download the records, they maintained in a secure system and are accessible just like they had been before but with less information than the local police get when they issue a subpoena. i think the chair. i believe this would be a big mistake. >> i thank my colleagues. madam president, i ask unanimous consent for five additional minutes on the majority side and five additional minutes to the minority side. >> is there objection? without objection. >> madam president, i am curious to hear what my colleague sen. rubio has to

say and whether he is in agreement with what we have said on the floor to this time. >> i think my colleagues have made excellent points and outlining all the details of how this program works. let me back up and.out why we're even have this debate of the fact that it is expiring because the perception has been created including my political figures the serve in this chamber that the united states government is listening to your phone calls are going through your bills as a matter of course. that is absolutely categorically false. the next time a politician, sen., congressman, talking head, whatever it talking head, whatever it may be stands up and said the us government is listening to your phone calls are going through your phone records they are lying. it just is not true except for some isolated instances in the hundreds of individuals for whom there is reasonable suspicion that they could have wasted terrorism.

those of us in this culture and our society are often accused of having a short attention span. we forget the less than a year ago russian separatists shot down a commercial airliner armed by the russians. forget it was not long ago that aside was using chemical weapons to slaughter people in syria. the world moves on. what we should not forget is what happened here. a number of cinema moments in american history that people remember, when president kennedy was assassinated. everyone members where they were and what they were doing on the morning of the 11th of september of the year 2001 when the world trade center was attacked. here is the truth. this program had existed before it is quite possible that we would have known that the hijacker was living in san diego and making phone calls to an al qaeda safe house in yemen.

there is no guarantee no way we can go back in time and prove it but there is a probability we a probability we could have and the probability that american lives would have been saved. this program works as follows if we believe in individual, the intelligence agencies of the united states believe there is an individual involved in terrorist activity and that individual might be communicating with people as part of a plot they have to get an order that allows them access to the phone bill and the farm bill tells you when they call, what number they call and how long the call took why does that matter? if i no the subject x is an individual involved in terrorism, of terrorism, of course you want to know who there calling. it will be of interest the cost of pizza out of the local pharmacy but you will be interested in calls overseas or to other people because they could be part of the plot. that is why this is such a

valuable tool. my colleagues have pointed out, if the irs wants your phone bill they just have to issue a subpoena. virtually any agency of the american government. if you are involved in a proceeding in civil litigation they can get a subpoena. as part of the record. the intelligence agencies have to go through a number of hoops and hurdles. and that is fine. these are powerful agencies. i will further add that the people raising hysteria, what is the problem we are solving? there is not one single documented case. not one single basis is an example of how this program is being abused. show me the story, give me the name. show us who this individual is that is going out there and seizing the phone

records of americans improperly. there is not one example, not one, and if there is that individual should be prosecuted, fired command put in jail. the solution the solution is not to give her the program at a time when we know that the risks of homegrown violent extremism is the highest it has ever been. we used to be worried about a former coming to the united states in carrying out an attack. then we were worried about an american going to product back. now we're worried about people that may never leave radicalized online. this is not a theoretical threat. just last weekend to individuals inspired by isis tried to carry out an attack in the state of texas. one day -- i i hope i'm wrong, but there will be an attack that is successful in the 1st question that everyone's mouth will be why didn't we no? the answer better not be because this congress failed to authorize the program. these people are not playing

games. they don't they don't go on his website and say the things they say for purposes of -- this is a serious threat. >> i thank my colleagues for their participation. thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for the accommodation and will conclude by saying in the very near future this congress will be presented to choices to reauthorize a program that a program that works or to roll back our tools to pre- 911. i don't believe that is what the american people want and i don't believe it's were members of congress want. i urge my colleagues to become educated on what this program is, what it does and how effective it has been implemented. i yield the floor. >> i think my colleagues have made an excellent.in outlining the details of how this program works.

let me back up and.out why we're having this debate other than the fact that it is expiring because the perception is been created's that the united states government is listening to your phone calls are going through your bills. that is absolutely categorically false. false. the next time any politician senator congressman, talking head, whatever it may be stands up and says the us government is listening to your phone calls are going to your records, they are lying. just is not true except for some very isolated instances in the hundreds of individuals for whom there is reasonable suspicion. those of us in this culture and our society are often accused of having a short attention span. we forget we forget less than a year ago russian separatists shot down a commercial airliner armed by the russians, maybe even the russians themselves. we forget it was not long ago that aside was using chemical weapons to slaughter people in syria. the world moves on.

we should not forget is what happened here. a number of seminal moments in american history that people remember, when president kennedy was assassinated commend everyone remembers where they were and what they were doing on the morning of the world trade center was attacked. here is the truth. if this program had existed it is quite possible that we would have known the hijacker was living in san diego and making phone calls to an al qaeda safe house in yemen. no guarantee would have known no way we can go back in time prove it, but there is a probability that we could have and therefore there was a probability that american lives could have been saved. this program works as follows.

if we believe in individual meeting meaning the intelligence agencies believe there is an individual involved in terrorist activity .. an order that allows them access to their phone bill, and the phone bill boskly tells us when they called, what number they called and how long the call took. why does that matter? because if i know that subject "x" san individual involved in terrorism, of course you want to know who they are calling. you won't be as interested in the calls to pizzaer hut or the local pharmacy, but you would be interested in calls overseas or calls to other people because they could be part of the plot as well. that's why this is such a valuable tool. and my colleagues have already pointed out if the i.r.s. wants your phone if the irs wants your phone bill bill, they just have that issue a subpoena. virtually any agency of the government and in fact if you're involved in a receiving and civil litigation and they want access to your phone bill because it's relevant to the

case they can just get a subpoena. part of the record. the intelligence agency actually has to go through a number of hoops and hurdles and that's fine, that's appropriate because these are powerful agencies. i would further add that the people that are raising this problem we are solving. there's not one single document a case not one single documented case. there's not one single case that has been brought to us as an example of how this program is being a bruised. show me the stories, give me the names. show us who is this individual that is going out there and seizing the phone records of americans improperly. there wasn't one example of that not one and if there is that individual should be prosecuted and put in jail. the solution is not to get rid of a program at a time when we know that the risk of homegrown violent extremism is the highest it has ever been. we used to be worried about a foreigner coming to die states

in carrying out an attack than we were worried about american traveling abroad in coming back in carrying out an attack. now we are worried about people that are radicalized on line and carry out an attack. this is not a theoretical threat threat. just last weekend to individuals inspired by isis tried to carry out an attack in the state of texas. one day i hope i'm wrong but one day there will be an attack and the first question out of everyone's mouth is going to be why didn't we know about it? and the answer better not be because his congress failed to authorize a program that might have helped us know about it. these people are not playing games. they don't go on these web sites to say the things they say for purposes of aggrandizing. this is a serious threat am i hope we reauthorize this bill. >> madam president i thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for their accommodation and i would conclude by saying this. in the very near future this

congress will be presented to choices, to reauthorize the program that works or to roll back the tools to pre-9/11. i do believe that is what the american people want and i'll believe that is what members of congress want. i urge my colleagues to become educated on what this program is what it does and more importantly how it affected it has been implemented. i yield the floor. >> a federal appeals court has instructed the national security agencies bulk collection the phone records. if the three-judge panel unanimously ruled it's not authorized by the patriot act and exceeds the scope of what congress authorized into law. the court did not address the constitutionality of the program or whether people's privacy rights have been violated. the court finds the program is not allowed. we will show you now last year's oral argument from the case. it was an hour and 45 minutes.

>> please be seated everyone. >> good morning. we are about to proceed here the case of american civil liberties union versus clapper. this case apparently is such sufficient interest that is being broadcast. i don't know who is going to watch it if anyone but to the extent that it's going to be watched by people who will art lawyers and aren't familiar with appellate argument i thought i would say one thing about what is not likely to be seen here. this case is about the both data collection program operated by the national security agency. what viewers are about to see is not a debate on the merits of that program whether it's a good

thing or a bad thing. that is for two reasons. one is a matter of substance. the issues before us start with legal issues about whether this has the jurisdiction to resolve any or all of the questions raised by the plaintiffs and as they continue the questions raised by the plaintiffs are not about whether the program is a good thing or a bad thing but about whether it's been authorized or perhaps forbidden by specific statutory provisions in congress and provisions of the constitution of the united states. it's also not a debate as a matter of reform. the procedure here is going to involve voters making arguments and are likely to be interrupted and asked a lot of questions by the judges. that is not because we are rude or because we don't want them to make their case and an uninterrupted manner. they have already had the

opportunity to present in writing their positions in a non-interrupted manner. this is to some degree our time to ask questions of the lawyers to codify the points they are making and the implications of those points to perhaps raise issues that haven't been addressed by the parties and to give each side the opportunity and indeed the obligation to not just say their best points but to respond to the best winds of the other side. so it's not going to be a free ranging ranging debate wherever but he gets to say anything they want about these programs. it's going to be much more primitive than not. so i don't know whether that was useful or not. you are are lawyers and you are to know what's going to happen. you may proceed. >> thank you your honor.

good morning and may it please the court. every day the nsa collects records of the phonecalls made -- >> i'm going to as reciter recommend to interrupt you at the outset. there are essentially questions of fact and my kind of find it difficult to approach this argument without understanding that. one is that as i read them and i did read them in some cases more than once, it's not clear to me whether e-mails are covered by this program are not. it's a big secret as to whether they are not that i don't know sitting here whether i can get ahold of all of my mistresses and do it by e-mail because the government can't watch. i am sure my wife is watching this program. but i'm terribly serious about

the question of insofar as we allow to know you are loved to know our e-mails covered in to what extent is the first question. >> e-mails are not covered by this program. this program is solely concerned with records of phonecalls made by americans every day. we have had operated programs in the past with similar interpretations that allow us to collect the same information for e-mail but that is not what this case concerns. >> okay so we cannot take into account one way or the other whether somebody can say and lord knows i mean this very seriously, say to a co-conspirator of some sort don't use the phone anymore anyhow. >> i'd think the court can take that into account when it considers the interpretation of the word.

i think the court can take it into account when it considers the wrath of the government's interpretation of the fifth and fourth amendment jurisprudence. >> is your position that the government is correct here than congress has authorized the same sort of -- with respect to rewards bank records in the country? >> that's exactly right. inspection to 15 permits local election than bulk collection would be permitted not just for phone records but for any records notches under section 215 but under every run-of-the-mill subpoena statute in notches in the context of terrorism investigations but the context of investigations of essentially any crime involving more than one person. >> let me ask this. each remains in the possession of telephone companies and tens of hundreds of subpoenas to get the same.

[inaudible] we don't challenge the government's ability records from the telephone companies or any other companies. >> but are you saying because the government, because there have a number of the fbi or whatever organization comes and says we have a number that the party asked for. we want to phone companies to apply this number across the dataset assuming it's the dataset, the same dataset that the government currently has. i'm asking is he your position is a constitutional or unconstitutional? >> it would be constitutional for the government to issue a targeted demand for limited set of data as it has always done.

what is unconstitutional about this program are several things. first is the government is collecting in bulk everything at the outset in a way that has never been permitted either as a statutory matter or a constitutional matter and second once the government has that information in its possession at runs queries on that data but her principle complaint is about the government's collection of that information. >> but that raises what i said was going to be my second question and that is there appears -- this case was brought was being done less than a week after the disclosure of the program if i'm not mistaken and there has been a certain amount of water under the bridge since. and what we refer to technically as -- that is to say the government's brief they mention three things. one if i remember two degrees of

separation rather than three and also having to get the fisa court's approval to the court entering a query at least that's my understanding is the second thing that has been done already. in the third thing is this notion that they are going to go back. they haven't yet but they are going to go back to congress and they are going to say no more we don't want to do this anymore. we want to keep all this information in the hands of the service providers and instead of being able to query them in one way or another and i gather it's not a simple thing to do but we are going to take this out of the hands of the government and out of the data that will no longer be sitting there in the hands of the government and will be put back where it started and will be queried from their. if that was done if congress were to pass into law would

essentially end the controversy here? i mean there is kind of a technical question as to what you're standing might be if they did that. leaving that aside i would have thought that if they did with the president said in march they were going to do you would have embraced it and said yeah that's why we started this. i can't apologize but i think senator aiken 40 some odd years ago said to withdraw. >> we would love it if the government and of the ball collection of phone records and if the government did that and purged or her records from the database as a currently has that would resolve a think everything that's been put in place put it issue but that that is not the current state of affairs. and i think it would be maybe

unwise to expect congress or were then asked to act in that way. there were two bills won before the house in one before the senate that have differences that happened to reconcile those differences and there are only a handful of days left in the legislative session of this term. >> i understand there are other things. >> right and i should say it's ongoing on a daily basis and even if congress acts in several months we are entitled to remedy today's violations that continue and are ongoing. so if i may i will return where i began with a statute which is a think and narrowed the ground for decision. we essentially have two decisions under section 215. >> the government insists that we don't have jurisdiction to reach statutory issues because congress has precluded

implicitly what would normally be our jurisdiction under the nsa procedure act. and i assume you are going to address that. >> i'm going to address that. the government has a wrong for a number of reasons. first the apa creates a strong injunctive claims challenging illegal agency conduct in that presumption can only be overcome. if there is clear and convincing evidence that congress intended to preclude the injunctive claims such as the one we have here and there simply isn't that evidence. the government appoints first to section 2712 of the communications act but that statute or its terms is preclusive has claimed within his purview. section 215 is simply not within the purview of section 2712. applies to several unrelated subchapters of fisa and not the government intends that it applied in a textual manner to

our argument here. the government also argues that section 215 itself implicitly precludes their claims. the dispute court has made clear time and again the congress's providing for a call affection for one class of defendants does not in and of itself deprive other plaintiffs of the other action. there were the case that presumption review under the epa is justice scalia said in sackett versus epa would not be much of her presumption at all. instead the question turns on one of congressional intent, what the congress intended when it enacted 215? i think the legislative record is clear. congress enacted the recipient review procedures up to 15 after a district court in the southern district court of new york had invalidated the national security statute because it failed to provide a clear avenue for review were recipients of national security letters. congress fix that problem in 2006 and similarly provided the same legislation a review for

recipient section 215 orders but it made no provision at all and spoke not all about review. >> perhaps the purse either would make clear as to how we are going to deal with the red light after 12 minutes i should say. we will go on as long as we find it valuable to go on. >> i should warn you i went on the c-span web site. that's how technical i am and with the purpose of seeing what's c-span stands for which i would have be happy to share with you another time but i found out that they would assess here they have set aside two hours for this. so we will go on. go ahead. >> thank you. i think what i'm saying is that

the legislative history of section 215 make clear there are specific review procedures. the question whether congress wanted it target the 215 orders to have available statutory review. in that context where the legislative intent cannot be discerned the default -- default rule of the epa provides for injunctive relief. >> and then with respect to the government makes an argument further that no one would anticipate a lawsuit like this one brought by someone whose records were commanded because the intent was people in your position would never know this was going on. does that mean congress didn't face this kind of lawsuit? >> no and this is the point at which we disagree with the government. congress clearly provided for the possibility that targets up to 15 orders would learn about

those orders. it they contemplated that recipients would have a right to challenge the gag orders imposed upon their ability to tell the customers about the orders and they might in due course tell the customers. i think congress clearly contemplated that target that it did not then go on to preclude whatever claims that might have wanted to preclude. i think congress simply had no view on the matter. >> recipients which is the service companies and not individuals whose records were being collected. >> i'm talking about the gag orders imposed on recipients of 215. those recipients can challenge this gag order provisions. >> a person whose records were at issue learned it. >> that's exactly right and there's something bizarre about the government's argument. it gives congress the intent to provide this court for a narrower path of decision.

government contends their constitutional claims are precluded and there's no question this court will have to have the least resolve our constitutional claims of the only claim of preclusion is the narrow ground for decision would not be available. i think it's a strange intent to attribute congress and it's not really a coherent theory offered by the government on why congress would have wanted to preclude their statutory claim knowing full well that our constitutional one preceded it read. >> congress essentially gave that talk at the time. i'm not sure that necessarily would change but when you are talking about the statute congress did press the issue of the recipient. is there anything to suggest that congress at the time that they were dealing with the recipient thought of possibly having the ability to -- the

statute? >> i don't think there's anything in the legislative history and that i think is fatal to the government's claim because in that situation where there's no intent one way or the other the background rule of the apa controlled it and it's important to point out that when congress amended section 2152 at review procedures it has the government its view of the necessity of those procedures in the government went to congress and said we seek as a statutory matter that there is already an avenue for judicial review for recipients of these orders. that was their position in the litigation over the national security statute and that was also the position in congress. they said they don't think that clarification of the law is necessary that we say it does no harm. it clarifies the issue under judicial review that the government told the district court was available to recipients of these orders so congress is addressing that narrow problem of it being essentially unconstitutional or

congress not to have provided ready judicial review for recipients. >> with respect to the secrecy point is that if congress didn't imagine that this thing was ever likely to happen on the argument that they should have foreseen this possibility in some circumstances but if they think about this at all then you went to codas we are not looking for evidence of the legislative intent to create a right to judicial review. your position is that that's is that started under the apa and less there is evidence of a judicial intent of intention to preclude a judicial review. >> the presumption created by the apa the way that your honor use it is the way the supreme court had articulated it time and again and that's the government's burden in this case to show by clear and convincing

evidence that congress intended to preclude our claims not our burden to demonstrate that congress intended to create them them. if i may as well move on to her statutory claim. as i said before her first claim is that section 215 simply does not apply. in the very same statute that congress enacted section 215 in 2001 it added a provision to big historic medications that are giving the government from acquiring phone numbers. he created exceptions to that provision that section 215 is not on the list of those exceptions. that is critical because under settled principles of statutory construction that specific rotation in the historic communications act supersedes the general granted authority under section 215 and indeed in the past the government agreed with that very principle. when they were confronted by a

senator who worried that the privacy protections might yield to section 215 the department of justice assured that senator that the privacy protections in the act would not yield that they tromped and affect the general authority of section 215. and they agreed with the related proposition which is that the exception in the act are exclusive. it is not for the government to refer additional statutes already created by congress to the background rule the privacy established by the historic medications that. that is the government's official decision to be made in a memo in 20092 the fbi concerning the scope of the statute. >> if we agreed with you about this proposition about the historic communications act that unless you are also writing about the meaning of relevance that this would be something of a victory for you or a transient

victory for you? in other words one of your arguments about the relevance issue is that if we interpret relevance broadly in section 215 is the government wants to do than the government could get the same kind of record out of the di administrative subpoenas for example. that kind of request is covered as an exception of the historic communications act. >> not exactly in part because the communications act limits the records the government can acquire. for example it could only acquire the originating phone numbers the receiving phone number and information about the juror -- under the administrative subpoenas but they couldn't acquire things like the identifying device number of the device making a

phonecall. they couldn't acquire the chunk identifier which is something they acquire under the verizon order here but you are correct that they would still have the broad interpretation of relevance available to them and that is their argument on the government's theory they could use any one use any one of the militants traded subpoena statute including the national statute to require all of these records in bulk and notable is the fact that none of those other statutes includes the sorts of protections the government relies on an section 215. in other words they could rely on the national statute to acquire the same records in bulk without minimization procedures they point to a saving the collection from validation. without limitations that impose. >> maybe they will see that unconstitutional because it's only those minimization type or seizures in the court order procedures and so on in section 215 in your

constitutional argument and it would be interesting to hear what they say about that. >> there is one other argument i will quickly mention under a statutory argument which is the grid of our statutory claim before proceeding with the constitution and that argument is that the core problem with the government's theory of section 215 is that it labels everything relevant on the premise that some tiny portion of everything -- >> i don't mean to interrupt your statement of that great i think we know what that argument is. it reminds me of justice doer who said everything is classified, nothing is classified but everything is relevant than relevance simply drops out and doesn't exist. but a more technical question i guess is well the statute says

that the government can apply an order requiring production of any tangible things etc.. the question of relevance doesn't come there in terms of the organization. it comes later when it requires that the application to the fisa court include a statement of facts showing there are reasonable grounds to believe the tangible things are relevant to an authorized investigation. it do i have that right so far? and i'm wondering it would be much easier for me but the authorization said an order requiring the production of relevant tangible things rather than putting it down later in the papers through the fisa court. the reason i find this troubling

or confusing is it is after all the administrative procedure act and presumably the administrative receipt or act, what we are talking about is the fbi and the nsa and i'm wondering whether by putting this down the question of relevance down in terms of what must be shown to the fisa court we are not being asked not to review what the fbi and the nsa did but that they are being asked to review what the fisa court did and the fisa court is certainly not an agency under the aca. now i don't know what the question makes sense but i wonder when you bring in relevance and i understand

everything that is relevant is very troublesome at least but if we say that is wrong that everything is relevant is wrong in the fisa court is wrong by saying that everything was irrelevant irrelevant was fined r. we been reviewing what an administrative agency has done before reviewing what the fisa court has done and is the letter have the power and is certainly up to the aca. do we have the power to review what the fisa court has done? >> i think the quick answer is where acting for the former and not the latter but even in the latter i think it would be appropriate. i will note there are any number of surveillance statutes that are structured in that way that provide authority at the outset

to set set up the limitations. i don't think that's a novel that section 215. it's the same for example and section 81a under fisa and the general grant of authority at of a all said and i know your honor is familiar with section 772. but -- >> we are not as familiar as we should have been. >> to get to your precise question we are challenging agency conduct paid we are challenging the government's daily collection of our records. we are not asking this court to overturn and we are not asking this court to set aside the order. reacting for an injunction against the continued collection by the government. that is the deep wood in place without saying anything to fisk at all only with an instruction to the government. i think that is what our challenges and it's probably

understood as a challenge under the apa. even if that were not true and if you characterize her challenge i don't think i would change matters. the government itself of the supreme court in opposing an original petition filed their that was challenging the verizon order said the appropriate avenue for belief in the district court case such as the one we are litigating and are in the pilon. the government itself noted that it's true additional court action may not achieve precisely the same relief seide case mainly the fisk order that the plaintiffs would be entitled to receive an active remedy namely an injunction against illegal agency conduct. >> what happens if there are now two district courts which have come to opposite conclusions

within a week and a half of each other. and they did it on the constitutional basis. supposing we were to refer and the d.c. circuit to do firstly you have one circuit that says it's unconstitutional. here's an injunction and the other one says we are certainly not going to give you an injunction. where does that leave the fbi? have a lot to get records in d.c. and not in new york and where would that leave us? >> the government would seek a stay from the d.c. circuit if they were not successful in seeking that stay -- >> would have to be the supreme court they would deal with it. >> i think the supreme court likely would permit a stay pending its resolution. if i may have all turned to the

constitutional. >> supposing we completely in order to avoid this sort of circumstance and we can get into this later but might we not say we agree with you but there's other litigation going on. we want the supreme court to take the ball and we are very much concerned. if we are wrong and somebody blows up a subway train does it make sense for us to say okay here are the views and then wait until the d.c. circuit speaks so the supreme court has an opportunity to speak before actually making in order and injunction. >> i think it would be relevant and under the court's authority. we haven't taken a position on that and we would be happy to if and when that happens.

>> that would be within our power to do. >> yes. i will now proceed to the constitution. our claim under the fourth amendment is quite straightforward. it's that the government bulk collection of our call records intrudes upon a reasonable expectation of privacy. the government primary defense of course is that this was decided in 1979 when the supreme court issued smith versus maryland. that's simply not the case. >> say we agree or entertain the argument that quantity is quality here and the nature of the program is different than what was issued. isn't there still quite a bit to the government's argument that even in this context there is not really much of an expectation of privacy in these records? for example if you look at --

the whole thing for government could find out. the government could if it shows if someone looked into it from this metadata could determine for example it's likely that someone was hiv-positive or it's likely that someone has had an abortion. couldn't verizon find out those things? couldn't verizon go into the records that it has and make the same kind of search and determine the same kind of privacy information and use it for purely commercial purposes not remotely as important to anyone as the reason the government seeks to use the data to do. just because they might be able to make money by selling a list of people that verizon claims have reasonably developed an unwanted pregnancy and they could sell that to abortion

firms or an antiabortion group to send information to those people. >> i don't know but they could as a matter of our contractual relationship with verizon. i don't think their contract or bites for unregulated access to our call records. that is a matter of fact the only action that verizon has to tour records is likely computerized collection of those records. it's a bit ironic that the government claims that the computerized collection of those wreckers extinguishes an expectation of privacy but it's computerized collection of those records -- >> do you know something about your contract with for ricin that i know about in mind? is there something in there that says they can't use the call records for anything but that?

>> i don't know precisely what they can and can't do with the records. there are statutes that regulate what telecommunications companies can do with customers records. >> the communications at says they couldn't say to abortion providers are pro-life organizations here are all the phone records. search and see if you can find people who might be interested in your service. well anyway the point is verizon has all of this information mentally has the computer capacity to if it chose. >> they indeed would at the computer capacity. i don't know whether they have the authority. i think it turns on the question of what the congressional statute is regulating. i forget the long form of the name but see pmi customer proprietary network information there are regulations that protect that information which includes our call records.

i don't know the exact context but i don't think it turns on the question. i think this is another way of stating the third-party records question and i don't think that has been on an and off switch and the way you are suggesting. information is shared with the party and the person who is reflecting that information nonetheless is recognized to have an expectation of privacy. all of our content phonecalls are routed through verizon communication. the con tax over calls are strongly protected by the fourth amendment and they are protected by federal statute. no one has ever suggested that verizon's ability to listen to the content of our communications extinguishes our expectation of privacy. the same is true of our e-mail. our e-mail is routinely stored on the servers of third parties.

i think courts are just now beginning to grapple with that question in the sixth circuit in a case that despite the possibility that google might read your e-mail because the information is stored on the third-party server congress nonetheless has an expectation of privacy. >> but there are many irons in this case. one of them and maybe it makes no legal constitution but it's a little strange that the ones through the guardian and others disclosed the existence of this program we no longer had a reasonable expectation of privacy. we were told we don't have any privacy and i would like you and expect you to respond to that. i thought about the question but

i wish you would focus on smith versus maryland. talk to me about in this case the word reasonable is actually in the fourth amendment. talk to me about how we figure out the three of us figure out what's reasonable and what is unreasonable. >> and if i may or will it briefly address your first question. which is now escaping me. the supreme court has recognized there's annulment of circularity expectations of privacy can be defined if congress so chooses through a statute that permits bulk collection but its guard against the possibility by analyzing a normal question which is whether people tend to be reasonable and expecting

privacy. i think you see that question being addressed in cases like jones and cases like wright both of which recognize even though there's the capacity for greater intrusion into our personal privacy by companies and by the government giving digitization of information that doesn't fundamentally alter the relationship between the citizen of this country and the government. >> is the statutory issue at all relevant to the constitutional issue? in other words, suppose this case came to us. as a constitutional question after congress had engaged in a full-scale debate as to whether to authorize explicitly exactly this program and they did explicitly authorize this program and i could further hypothesize they did it a few months before an election and after an election in which this

was an issue. the same congressmen who voted for this were returned to office office. does that make any difference to our estimation of what is a reasonable expectation of privacy? >> i think it would be relevant but it cannot be -- the supreme court has noted again that the circularity of the catch test is not to be turned into a one-way ratchet for government intrusion into privacy. >> i'm wondering also whether that means even if there were some bar tour considering the statutory question whether the program was authorized whether we found that this was a detour that was not authorized by any explicit legislation of congress and was in fact prohibited by some position of congress that is part of addressing whether this was constitutional or not

that such an unauthorized executive branch would stand on that rent and shakier constitutional grounds and an intrusion on privacy. without necessarily concluding that it would be unreasonable the same program to operate if it had clear congressional authorization. >> i suppose that's right although i don't think anything in our argument turns -- >> your constitutional argument leads to the conclusion that even if congress authorized the program is still unconstitutional. i realize that is your position. >> i see your suggestion. that could be an element of the reasonableness of the expectation of privacy. the fact that the executive intrusion has not been

authorized by congress has not been one that liberated. >> there was a real debate in the democratic division of government that led to read out this program. >> that's right but i think of anything the current debate is ongoing suggest the congress is not comfortable and they president himself is now recognized bulk collection creates an intolerable risk of abuse. i think that may think that may be a good segue and getting back to your question. i think it's always about the intrusiveness of the government against its rationale for doing so. i don't think the court needs to get to conducting that balance. the fact that the government search proceeds without individualized -- without

satisfying a warrant or probable cause in the constitution is sufficient for us in the fourth amendment. >> smith has continuing married and i guess my first question were the numbers dialed and people didn't have an expectation of privacy. let's assume with regard to the program, is it your contention that would be unconstitutional for them to collect just that information in bulk? >> just information issued? >> yes. >> it would be unconstitutional. technology directed at an individual suspected of a crime over three days. >> that is an issue because maybe to the extent of old that was being captured which is the

number style are you saying that because the government is involved in other words for seven years that is unconstitutional? >> i think in 1979 the state of maryland has investigated not that the targeted use of of the pin registered but created a database that every phonecall received in the government coffers think the supreme court understood that case stands for different proposition. i wager would have found that collection unconstitutional. so it's that program but we are challenging and i think it would be unconstitutional although it's more intrusive here for a number of different reasons. >> how do we go about looking at this stuff than worrying about it?

how do we go about knowing without any fact-finding at all and i'm afraid i keep looking and wondering if we are having on camera proceedings but i'm wondering how without any fact-finding at all can we begin to know and figure out by district court or trial court presumably how can we begin to know whether this is reasonable or not? how can i begin to know whether you know because of the way the world is today which is different than the way it was a week ago and different than the way it was a year ago when it started june the 13th. how can we without fact-finding come up with some reasonable determination? >> i don't think fact-finding is necessary.

the party has reached the issue and even the president now believes that the government can accomplish serving this program without all collection. >> he sent his lawyers here to say -- >> i think he is awaiting a legislative solution. the president and interim i suppose -- >> for the most part the president thinks it's necessary to continue operating this program and is constitutional to do so. he might or for some other way doing it but the government is here to say that they think this is presumably essential but at least a reasonable thing. >> our view is not that the president has conceded constitutionality of statutes but the government has conceded that there are alternative

significantly less intrusive means. >> fair enough and one would hope that does surely sound like a rational way to proceed. it started out with that question but supposing because of the legislative -- as judge lynch spelled out the possibilities that politically won't fly and we are stuck with what we have got. that is to say the whole country is stock and either we say this is unreasonable or it's a violation of the fourth amendment or we conclude it's reasonable under the circumstances given both the nature of the threat and what has to be done in the control of the threat read how do we do that? >> if i can make a few points.

the first point is one i tried to make earlier which i don't think the court has to get to reasonable mentality. the government is entitled to a free floating reasonableness of the ken demonstrate that the warrant of operable cause of the amendment is -- and cannot for the simple reason that there is record evidence there is now a national consensus that government can accomplish in interest through individualized applications. >> that wouldn't ordinarily require probable cause for a warrant. in other words this alternative procedure we are envisioning and the president is envisioning is verizon's record and i think if you had a reasonable suspicion that some reason the government wanted to look at some persons phone record they do that all the time by issuing a subpoena or perhaps a national security

letter or something of that sort without trouble but cause and without warrant. and the argument is that is not fourth amendment either not fourth amendment smith bee maryland or if it is it's a reasonable one. >> that's right. if we are correct that is the fourth amendment then the question becomes for purposes of the central needs doctrine the first question becomes whether the government could accomplish its interest or targeted demands. if i could it is not entitled to forgo the requirement of the constitution. they don't think he could target demands to engage in bulk collection but even the government has conceded that it could use targeted demand to accomplish in interest here. it uses a phone number to query its databases. they could use it to query -- >> i'm questioning isn't what you are saying reasonable in the

sink for a? what they are doing now in terms of all collection is a possible alternative perhaps a reasonable thing to do or an unreasonable thing to do. i don't know why were the requirement comes into play. >> i suppose at least in this case the question of credibility seemed to collapse with the question of reasonableness but under the special means off for the first question is whether dispensing with their requirement is practicable or not. here we don't think it is. even if it were practical for the government to acquire these records in an individualized fashion we would think the program is unreasonable for the simple reason that it's the most intrusive mean

i thank you for your argument and we do have time for her bottle. we will probably need more than two minutes at the rate we are going. >> thank you your honor. made please the court. stuart delery for the government. this case concerns an intelligence program considered and approved by all three branches of government. it didn't cause production to the security agency of bulk collected metadata pursuant to orders the foreign intelligence surveillance court under provision of fisa that has been twice reauthorized without change after congress was briefed about this very program. >> you are starting off by saying it was approved by all three branches of government that you don't want us to address whether was authorized by one of them? >> if you're referring to the statutory inclusion argument yes we think that was a choice that congress made in specifying a

very detailed provision for applications and approval of those applications by this fisc and a detailed review scheme following that allowing for challenge by providers and ultimately reviewed by the review court and ultimately to the supreme court as appropriate for the supreme court has locked in cases where government has established clear lease is supplied forms are limited party for judicial review that provision that process is exhaustive. >> to address some very specific facts of the judicial review program fare that suggested it was re-double to assume that congress had included review by other parties. they set out a friday of factors and looked at those factors and

concluded with respect to that program that conclusion was reasonable inference. i'm not sure that those factors come out the same way here. you are laying heavily on the generalization argue that any time congress authorizes judicial review by one person you must have intended to preclude judicial review at the best of any other person? >> respectfully your honor don't think we are relying just on the generalization and obvious to the court the court as maker that inquiries need to be based on the structure of the statutory scheme at issue here. if you look at that structure what was alluded to in the first part of the argument there is no provision for challenge by third parties of these orders because as a matter of course the expectation was at that time the third parties including people other than recipients of the orders would not know about

them. >> is that enough to assume that congress intended to per bid the review by such a third party if the third-party didn't find out? in other words i understand the idea that if we are asking that congress contemplate this kind of lawsuit do they implicitly authorize this kind of lawsuit that he could argument to say of course not, they imagined this sort of thing would happen because it could never happen. but if there is a presumption that judicial review is available and the question is to congress pacific and 10 to prohibit judicial review to be of particular people and the answer is these people wouldn't be around that you lose? >> i've a couple of answers to that your honor. the first is listing the category of people who challenge the orders was a deliberate choice reflected in the legislative history.

and i think other discussions but certainly the amendment rejected her pose district court challenges to 215 orders. the key tradition that was not addressed in the first part of the argument that section 1861 as part of 215 which has an order issued pursuant to the procedure by fisc shall remain in full effect. the that quote create pleasantly modified or set aside pursuant to the procedures that are specified in this section. think that is the clear textual statement by congress that when these fisc orders issued they should be set aside only to the process that the court and the congress have specified there. and a preclusion here makes perfect sense given the structure of this section which provides for applications by the government to an article

precourt established for the purpose of reviewing foreign intelligence applications. >> i guess one did so maybe we should ask them but the secret is who they were. we can assume so i was due. would they ever challenge one of these orders? they are immune to any claims by their customers that they violated any rights in response to one of these requests. what do they have it in saying any thing? ..

>> >> the government's position appears to be if that's the way you want to look at it

to test consistency with the constitution but not if it is consistent with section 215. >> it is a consequence of the supreme court doctrine as compared to what the court has said about what is required for a court to view congress for constitutional claims it is a higher standard. >> is there any role to constitutional avoidance? you are asking us, requiring us to decide a question of constitutional law to decide with the government is precluded from doing this

while on the other hand, to except the argument that says they have no constitutional privacy rights because surely the same argument, the same third party argument has the same relevance that applies to big records and credit cards. >> therefore are elements of the same argument. >> but with the third-party argued - - argument? >> it is limited to the non content record date of the court made a point there are other cases like miller vs. miller dealing with financial records dealing with other types of information and. the key points under the

relevance test under the statute the court has made clear the totality of the circumstances. >>, isn't it at least as relevant if you have a reasonable suspicion used his credit card last week to buy fertilizer to find added he called his gm on his horizon cellphone? it is easy to find out his other colleagues clearly there is relevance in this sense that you talk about if you had him and wanted to get his precise credit-card records is there any question you could get that? so what and that says you could collect in advance

essentially to make it easier and quicker to make the increase to find out what the guy is set to why doesn't apply to credit-card records? >> your honor is correct seeking that type of information to ask those questions of counterterrorism goes by law-enforcement every day and those are important elements or a set of tools to pursue counterterrorism. here we talk about relevance and it is tied to the nature of the records collected to put that question aside to

talk about information by telecommunications companies that they maintain for their own business purposes. >> look at the government's use of medical data the records in this case it makes clear that the purpose of the mobile collection is to allow for the use of the analytic tools is the nature of the day dash that is interconnected and standardized to make connections and one that is not ordinary criminal investigations for who perpetrated the crime to be

forward-looking of purpose is to detect a and disrupt future plots before an attack can be made. >> bugbane records seem to me it is that same sort of information. so with their bank records there could be some limitations but couldn't day abrogate those records to see that methodology? >> that is a question that is relevant to with that type of collection is authorized but here it is important they had examined

the type of data to establish it is collected into a database in the way the nsa does it. even if it is very valuable for law-enforcement may not have the same benefits from aggregation based on standardized formats. so the answer here is not necessarily the same. >> is the idea that telephone records are for all providers so that of light they ink record their more susceptible to a collection?

so we have this guy is phone-number. so who he talks to i take it you can serve a subpoena for all the people that he talks to to get that information. in to be completely mistaken bet it is time consuming so have it all to do whatever you need to do to translate those horizon nor sprint records is fell 0.at that makes this official? isn't that obviously true?

with bank records it is by subpoena or collect everything there is to know about everybody in one day get government cloud and then what you look at but i just don't understand the argument that makes them so valuable that the same arguments don't apply to every record of every american everywhere. >> i would like to come back to the minimization which i do think is critical to understand to be appropriate but you are correct with

your general description of the collection of the data. if that is vintage is it allows for standardization iran that is necessary i adducing phone records by their nature are standardized to allow for rapid identification of connections. that is the purpose of the program. the purpose is to identify from a known person from a terrorist organization who that person is is in contact with.

and those analytical tools to make those connections is at the core of this program. >> some of us have done that criminal investigation to know how it is to trace connections to be done with targeted subpoenas for crabbing done it to tell you case by case but surely it is done by targeted subpoena to a least minimize the efficiency and convenience and speed. >> that is an element and other aspects reflected in the record is then indeed

across carriers were people communicate with different carriers and an touche ago they historical repository because the government does not know which of the of data as a connection to a known terrorist so only with you identify them. >> also if the phone company keeps all the records i think the judge was suggesting what the president suggested by legislation that problem could be solved to require to keep the information it indefinitely.

going back to constitutional avoidance you are asking us to decide something that is extraordinary without requiring if it ever could be allowed under the constitution without addressing whether the congress has really thought about this to put aside the issue it is a little hard for me to imagines that someone said you could have the order like the grand jury subpoena to get stuff that nobody ever of magic and before. but it is up a little hard to imagine but to make a showing of relevance means that all kinds of records he

think they really are not relevant to the investigation right now. but they become relevant to a query at that point. why do we think the congress thought that using this language of 215? >> congress was briefed about this very program that it extended without change. en lead details are reflected in the brief. it is the application. >> i wonder how valid the ratification argument is dealing with secret lot. but the notion is to deal with something that is public therefore to ratify again and pick and inflects public will.

i am not sure ratification carries as much baggage as you want it to until june june 2013. >> the reason it does is because we're not just talking about a resumption in the federal reporter somewhere. but the judiciary intelligence committee was briefed over time about the details the executive branch provided a briefing paper to be made available to all members and all senators that details that only the nature of the program but the relevance requirements

had been that consistent with the supreme court's president under the fourth amendment. and the statement said day highlights were made in connection with the 2011 reauthorization they call attention to the legal interpretation of section 215 with the importance of power was used in connection with this very program. finally the chairs made this material available offered briefings to all members and repeated the need for call it was being used. >> is getting later but i want to make sure understand your argument.

and if it is appropriate. >> i argue that congress understood section 215 to cover the program that we talk about. >> also thank by extending section 215 no way what is going on. >> so before anything to the of contrary would be a typical gratification with that analysis of that preclusion issue? that is from some

traditional opinion. >> you are relying on the original history. but to reauthorize the statute in the program was instituted and the wit to the process -- they went through the process but can you explain to the if i a member of congress in ordinary member but not a committee what was i told? not in the classified briefing about what was i told cove read this what memo did i get? >> i think there were some

from the chairs to the intelligence committees. but they identified information was provided by the executive branch and it was important for evaluation of reauthorization of this authority. >> than i had to figure out if it was worth it to me to do with or not? >> looking at those other issues with that legislation where the president signs it that has been accomplished to say you should go read something before you vote

that they approved what never was in there. >> but we have members who pointed to this very debate. >> they say listen in you bozos. but you better read it. >> but this goes beyond from the ordinary ratification. >> justice scalia does not seem to. you can take it up with him one day. [laughter] >> but with your position in

light of the nature with the debates of congress there are multiple coaches walking for word. >> we don't think this is authorized by congress if they think this is something that should be done to take care of all of these issues that if this is legislatively authorized. >> to save to this sorry don't use this then there is nothing then we don't have

the constitutional issue. >> this section into hundred 50th authority june of next year some action has to go one way or another. with data ongoing debates but the president said he supports achieving the national security goals without the government suggesting with the providers in the same statement to notes in order for that approach to be workable in the manner necessary legislation would be required so he thought it was important to continue this capability to continue

the reauthorization then it was reauthorize a second time. >> september 10th is the next date. >> september 12th is the current order reflected in the brief. i think i clarified that discussion earlier. then i will turn to the fourth amendment. the position is that under smith verses maryland.

>> let me tell you with what problem i have the of that not just that it is the old days but not just with the mosaic but doesn't dare come a time when the old-fashioned to recognize for a long time with admitted data of that sort is so detailed and extensive that's it is content divulging actions rather than not but the whole .11 is is something that you

already give out. is not as though you're listening which would be different. a course to become so sophisticated that unlike the register you are finding content is there any validity to that idea? >> will certainly this is one of the issues in the public debate with disclosures. first we are talking about the same type of information

with. >> but to that point they did to each piece of metal data analysis he said it is a third-party but doesn't it require based upon and the right to your privacy and to make that determination why do you have to go through that exercise? >> reflex talking about the type of information that it is the same type of call detail records in smith.

so the number calls and number received time and duration not talking about a name or address but it has changed so much one that it does not work. >> the next few points is the ability of metadata to reveal information was known at the time and in effect the power of the metadata the center at smith himself pointed out that concluded even though that expectation is, companies are assembling of mitt data -- metadata

with a list of calls at the end of the month did not give rise to protected fourth amendment interest. >> but if issues in the four rooms in the united states every day to say all the time that he could be on his cell phone that you should infer what day talk about. we don't have the context of the phone call but the insider of goldman sachs to talk to the trader. . .

and in light of the technology. i think that is critical to understand, you know understand, you know, in addition to it being only noncontent information about the telephone calls data can only be queried for counterterrorism purposes and then only if there is a reasonable articulable suspicion that the selection

term number for whatever is connected, associated with the specified foreign terrorist organization's. >> safeguards built into legislation. >> i don't think i don't think that is right, your honor. in 1861 subsection g requires minimization procedures because i think the text of the statute reflects it was understood that this tool can be used to obtain data that would relate to, you know, a number of number of us persons. and so the statute requires that the government propose an element of the program be robust minimization procedures. they have outstanding tale.

but but that there would be protections around the use and dissemination of the data. >> now that we have some experience with minimization procedures i presume it would be possible to spell out something and legislation of this program were going to be authorized by congress implicitly the said what makes sense and what didn't. after all, this judgment the attorney general has to specify and so far basically signing off on what the attorney general asks for. when it was made more restrictive that was because of the attorney general asking for it to be so. that is not a criticism of the court because they operate essentially an expert a context. no one is there saying here is what would be better all we think this is what the constitution requires. the government comes in and says, here is a list of things we think you should tell us to do.

the course is okay. those restrictions are approved. my concern about all of this is that, that you know it is harder to say we have this program we never misuse this data. we only use it for these purposes. that is not the same thing as the government not having that information sitting there where you know i don't know what mr. snowden could have done, maybe instead of linking the order he could have leaked the database. we don't know what happens when some inhabitants of the white house this one or another one have the unit and decide to let them have access to the database. these are realistic concerns about letting the government have this massive body of data without anything --

look. i'm sure look. i'm sure part of your answer has to be command it makes sense, whoever makes the rules they could be abused. if you tell the government they can do this, it has the technological pacitti's, they can get it anyway somehow to have all our phones and we would never know it. if they are bad guys these are restrictions but there are levels of restriction. you know it is one thing to have congress adopt a program and say this is what it is that we consider what needs to be done. and one that says, well, they can give what is relevant that they should be careful how they use it. then we infer from that this massive program. >> i think your honor the record on the enactment of section 215 and its extensions respectfully goes beyond the flood version that you just articulated. but i do think that the.about the national security area of the

political branches being charged with within a range drawing the lines about what steps are appropriate to accomplish national security needs something the supreme court has articulated in the 4th amendment context. purged the congress draw some of these lines almost -- am not sure that this is the phrase that was used for mobile because some of these questions are susceptible and effect to legislative fact-finding about what is appropriate what trade-offs are appropriate to meet the needs of national security. similarly in the mcquaid and cassidy cases this court in evaluating types of anti- terrorism or counterterrorism activities connected with the subways and fairies noted that again

record should be reluctant to wrest away from rest away from the political branches the choices about how these judgments should be made. >> very cautious about making the constitutional determination. >> which is why i think your honor should evaluate the program that we have. there is obviously a desire to ask questions about what might arise. given the supreme court has make clear the reasonableness tonight you do have smith and you do have the same type of information if you are reaching the constitutional issues we urge a focus on the program. >> you agree we have to reach the constitutional issues. >> yes. i was referring to your preclusion.which respectfully i think is a function of the regime that congress established. in the supreme court has also recognized that where that is the case, where

congress has not provided in apa for the action the consequence may be examination of the consequent -- constitution. that was the result. the court said the constitutional claim could be reached because there was not in apa cause of action available. >> the only way that we can achieve constitutional avoidance in this case is by ruling against you on something statutory. otherwise we are forced to get there anyway. >> again, our position is -- >> i prefer that you not rule against us. here us. here congress has not provided jurisdiction for the court to reach the statutory claims. and so therefore we are left with the constitutional argument whether you do it at the level of smith versus maryland and answers the

question about whether it is the 4th amendment search to get the records from the telephone companies in this context or if you go to the special needs inquiry and the reasonableness approach if you look at the program as a whole the fact that it is authorize that collection only upon the imposition of robust controls over when the data may be queried very elaborately set out and with reporting back, this is not respectfully just -- and i think this i think this is reflected in the courts opinions which is now been declassified not just the court accepting whatever the government offered but making a determination according to its own statement that with these procedures the program strikes an appropriate balance with providing the capability.

>> the order that imposes more restrictions than the government. >> i don't know the answer to that question. my.was if you look at several of the recent opinions. >> some kind of rubberstamp. the procedures are little different than the ones in the district court or with congress in terms of having a robust consideration to minimize. whatever the judge can bring to bear. >> right. so what i think i can say is that although these particular orders are not in the joint appendix at home on the declassified materials are opinions

reflecting reactions to compliance issues that were identified and steps that were taken in response which as i recall included orders that were not simply things that were proposed by the government but that is the general recollection. >> he seemed to fly them properly so the material that has been declassified and therefore should serve to assure us that there is not a special needs problem 4th amendment problem. it is odd. that is what he have let us no. i mean, i say this with more than all due respect all of the stuff that we now know that we don't know we don't know, all the stuff we

now know is as part of a political reaction to the understanding that this program was in effect. arguing a good deal of material that was made that was classified and was made public as a reaction to that >> certainly that is true. there is no information public and the public realm that had not been public before. but this program and i think this think this is the critical aspect of the congressional design was subject to article three of you from the beginning by operation of the fiscal it was a body that congress set up specifically to accomplish that just as the intelligence committees act as the channel for oversight of the executive branch from the congressional side where

you are by necessity dealing with classified information. >> this is entirely useless. the whole system surely would be give one a much warmer feeling if it was not all ex partake that there was some representative of the other side even if it was a pro bono amicus. fitzgerald from chicago and have them argue the other side of this. i would find what you say i find this a lot more

reassuring if it were subject to an adversary process. >> as your honor may be aware among the proposals currently pending for a change to the program would include provisions that allow for more than one option on the table as the kind of approach are talking about but in fact i think if you look at the reasonableness inquiry for example i think balance the factors that the supreme court and this court have said should be balanced on the one hand there certainly is an overriding importance on preventing future terrorist attacks. the intrusion if any subject to the smith argument on the privacy of individuals is carefully and to allow the examination of the data, to allow the identification of

connection only on finding of reasonable articulable suspicion. so the statutory and post safeguards limit the use retention and dissemination of the records collected. there is also an oversight system as well as other entities and the executive branch all of this should lead the court if evaluating the 4th amendment question to conclude that the program as it currently stands is reasonable because the 4th amendment. >> constitutionally reasonable whether or not it gives us a warm feeling. >> that is certainly true. because the test is whether it is reasonably effective means there is no restrictive means. >> complete. something that you think you

have not gotten to that is critical. >> i just -- we will consider that based on the brief. brief. he will be able to pick it up in rebuttal. he didn't talk about it in his initial. relying on his brief. we need to hear more about the. something critical that we should know that you have not gotten to. probably more time than you will get in the supreme court. >> i i can assure you if and when you get to the supreme court he will see two of these. >> thank you, your honor. >> we will hear you on

rebuttal. limited rebuttal. limited to two minutes. at the same time a very thorough discussion of the issues. so i hope that you will be able to be relatively brief and respond only to points that you have not had an opportunity to address so far. with that go right ahead. >> just a few issues. that doctrine is not a game of god yet. the the question is always whether there is an official interpretation of statute that congress was aware of and legislated on the basis of which is not the case. many members of congress were not aware. those who were were not provided legal analysis, and even then they're were not allowed to discuss it with their colleagues or constituents in a way a way that the supreme court has pointed to in past cases. the 2nd, to go back to exchange that you had

relating to the efficiency the question of efficiency. the professor explained quite clearly that the government could use targeted the man's in a nearly instantaneous way if this structure the range structured arrangement with telecommunications companies in a certain way and congress could provide for that mechanism. and mechanism. and the fact that congress is not yet provided for the mechanism is no bar to this print court you link to the spring court ruling that he must. that was the case when the supreme court ruled a government cannot wiretap individuals without a warrant and was precisely the case when the supreme court ruled foreign intelligence surveillance even though justified by the need together entail -- intelligence had to be individualized. smith is very different from this case for a lot of reasons. it is not just that

the government is acquiring different types of information and it was under smith. not just that the government is acquiring the information about millions of individuals and not just one but that the government is acquiring information even when they are stuck to an single person for an indefinite duration. that is made clear the constitutional balance is different and needs to be addressed differently. i think you are exactly right. now requires this court to assess the expectations of privacy of this program and not just of what the supreme court decided. a quick related topic, the minimization procedures that the government heavily relies on would be constitutionally superfluous if smith govern this case. they could collect the record without protections in place, place store them indefinitely to my query them for any reason or no reason at all and build with

no constitutional restriction. the government tries to explain why it is only asking for narrow ruling but the legal theory that it advances is a roadmap to a world in which the government routinely collects vast quantities of information about americans have done absolutely nothing wrong. i don't think that is the world congress envisioned command it is certainly not the world that the framers envisioned when they crafted the 4th amendment. >> thank you very much. we very much appreciate the arguments of both sides which were extremely careful and learned command we will take them under advisement and eventually render a decision. thank you all very much. that is the last case on the calendar. the court will adjourn. >> the core stands adjourned. [inaudible conversations]

>> a partner with the law firm dorsey and whitney based in minneapolis, a veteran minneapolis, a veteran about the justice department and served as special counsel to the navy secretary joining us in los angeles on this thursday. thank you for being with us. >> i i think because it is actually going to go away. it's on path right now. it is going to expire in less than a month. likely either congressional action will come in and reconstituted or the votes won't be there and it will just die its preordained natural death. obviously there are

different factions in different houses as to what a different bill would look like but i don't think there is a strong likelihood that this exact bill would be reunited. >> let's reenacted. >> let's go back to the aftermath of september 112001 when the government began to connect this metadata from telephone calls was it was it understandable for the white house and congress to go along with this collection, always a wrong? >> i think i don't think i would personally have made it difficult. at that moment we were looking for a needle in a haystack. i don't know that we even knew we had the tools to find a needle in a haystack. one could argue that the program as it now exists provides that tool.

other issues associated with the use of that tool, but is there a way to find a needle in a haystack because of this program? there probably is. >> are significant was today's ruling not necessarily with this program but any future program with the government is trying to collect information on individuals were mass data? >> i think the court is issuing a caution to the congress which is an interesting advisory role which they claim not to be doing. clearly offering some perspective. it is this. if you're going to design a program that collects information taylor it narrowly so that the average american has nothing to hide is not concerned that their data is now being kept in some trove. >> in essence what did the court ruled today? essentially what happens next? >> the court said that as it now stands this legislation

cannot justify acts as they now are being engaged in. legally it can go back to the district court. none of those things before in all likelihood what happens next is congress will preside and reconstitute the program or perhaps they will take their chances and keep it as it is and see what the supreme court will have to say. >> let me get your thoughts on technology in general. they began by looking at phone data records and now

there is so much more out there with twitter and facebook and so much information and anyone can sift through to try to find a needle in the haystack. as as today's ruling in any way send a message on other forms of communication social media and the rest? >> i think it does. i think it would apply with equal force the same kinds of metadata in essence. i think it i think it would accompany many of the other electronic forms of social media communication, not necessarily saying you you are aware you live by your unique identifier we will accompany those conversations, and that can be stored, probably is being stored and someday could be retrieved. >> he spent some time here in washington. how do you think lawmakers will respond to this with pending legislation and future debates? >> that is an excellent question. i think on the continuum of

the particle scale those that primary proponents of national security will view this as a bad a bad decision. civil libertarians, whatever the parties will view it as a good decision the bell curve middle will be troubled by the decision. i believe. some insight into communications. the way that gives people the comfort that the rights are not being infringed. >> which is the big question how how do you strike the middle ground? >> i think one of the other problems is that the court that reviews these kinds of questions is not a public court.

the normal process is courts make decisions, lawmakers make laws dialogue commentary. the dialogue commentary. the structure we have now for this does not offer the opportunity for that. i don't say this pejoratively. it is in secret. so it is almost a hitter misting. congress will have to give it another go. somehow or other it will get challenged. it will continue to. it is somewhat blindly. >> atty. robert connect is an expert on cyber security, partner at the law firm dorsey whitney based in minneapolis on better veteran of the justice department and served as special counsel to the navy secretary joining us los angeles. thank you for being with us.

>> they were wives and mothers some had children and grandchildren who became president and politicians. they dealt with the joys and trials of motherhood, the pleasure and sometimes chaos of raising small children and the tragedy of loss. just in time for mother's day, 1st ladies day, 1st ladies looks at the personal lives of every 1st lady in

american history, many of whom raised families in the white house, lively stories of fascinating women and eliminating, entertaining, and eliminating entertaining, and inspiring read based on original interviews from c-span first lady series published by public affairs. available in hardcover or e-book and makes a great mother's day gift. we look into the lives of 21st ladies. spoke french inside the white house and gained a reputation for being queenly by her critics. the only first lady to date born outside the united states. she played an important role in her husband 1824 presidential campaign.

former first lady abigail adams. was in monroe sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span original series 1st ladies. influence an image examining the public and private lives of the women who filled the position of 1st lady and their influence on the presidency from martha washington to michelle obama sundays at 8:00 p.m. eastern. . before the senate appropriations attorney this runs one hour and

40 minutes. the committee will come to order. welcome, today's commerce, justice and science the science subcommittee hearing examining the department of justice fiscal year >> examining the department of justice fiscal year 2016 budget request attorney general loretta lynch to the first hearing before the subcommittee as she assumes the important responsibility of serving as the nation's chief law-enforcement officer. welcome. as you begin your two-year term

as attorney general i believe it is critical for you to return the office of attorney general to its constitutional purpose which is to enforce the law of the land. the president is arguing for the points of view on immigration, privacy, environmental regulations and more. the attorney general i believe is the servant of the law and the citizens of the united states. i want to encourage you to consider this carefully as you begin your service in the job that is critical to our democracy and to the rule of law. i am deeply troubled by your support of the president's unilateral executive actions, which provide amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants. fortunately, this week the

policy change undertaken without input from congress has been stayed by the court while the detailed review is conducted through the lens of the wall and the constitution. i hope that while this litigation is pending progress will be made on key responsibilities that are within the department statistics and such as the executive office for immigration review. the 2016 budget c. is a funding level of $482 million, which is $135 million above the current 2015 funding level. that is a big increase. significant improvements and reforms i believe are needed in the immigration court system in order to address the approximately 440,000 pending cases some of which involve unaccompanied children. the sequence to a waiting here for several years before the case is heard and i believe and

hope you would agree that this is unacceptable. the needs are great for the immigration courts i have serious reservations about such a large funding increase when inefficiencies and management concerns are yet to be addressed within your office. in the new role as the attorney attorney general of the united states, i'm interested in hearing your suggestions and recommendations for prayer at -- spending and the departments most important and pressing for missions involving national missions involving national security, law enforcement and criminal justice. the president's 2016 budget request for the department of justice totals $29 billion which is $2 billion above the 2015 and active level. while funding for the department of justice is one of the federal government highest theories we

simply cannot afford such an increase in spending while operating under our current budget constraints. i am concerned that even in the midst of the current fiscal climate, the president's proposed grant programs and initiatives that would further stretch the department spending with constant constant law-enforcement or a rifle at the department and the critical time is needed leadership is welcome. since the hearing early this spring with the departments law-enforcement chiefs, we have seen the departures of the director and the dea administration. i hope that you will pay particular attention to these law-enforcement agencies and to ensure that they execute their duties during this time of change. as an example, the bureau of

alcohol firearms and explosives has a rule pending that would impose burdensome and most people believe unnecessary regulations regarding firearms that are lost or stolen in transit. however the statistics indicate that this number is insignificant and shouldn't be a cause for concern. oversight remains a top mission for the -- priority. i express regarding the resistance to cooperate with the department of justice inspector general. i continue to hear from the inspector general that this office. i would urge you to work with the inspector general to make

sure that the reviews and the audits in the department of justice. i've outlined the department that the department faces many challenges that would require fiscal support. the path for making meaningful progress runs through the subcommittee and i and innovate. as you begin your tenure commitment of attorney general i want to express the hope that we would have a productive and constructive working relationship. >> thank you. senator mikulski. >> thank. >> thank you mr. chairman. and i want to welcome from the attorney. we are so glad that you are finally confirmed and we can get beyond the politics. before i go into my statement i want to remind the committee that yesterday was the senator's

birthday. can we join in a round of applause and wish him good health? like nobody since the high point of the hearing. madam attorney general, you've had an eventful first few weeks in office. i know that this is your first congressional hearing since you've been confirmed. you were looking forward to the testimony in terms of the justice department's need for the 2016 budget. we are eager to hear from you about the many ongoing efforts of the justice department agencies. we want to first of all thank you, madam attorney general for your work in coming to baltimore and your team for coming to baltimore. it was tremendously helpful to the mayor and the police department and most of all to

the citizens to have the presence of the just department. i personally to thank you on behalf of the entire maryland delegation for the professionalism of your team and of course your self and i want to acknowledge the right of the attorney general, mr. ron davis director of the program come your outstanding community relations that came in and provided a very crucial technical assistance during very troubling times. we were in baltimore on tuesday together as he listened to faith-based community officials and faith-based community leaders. u.s. with local officials and even reached out to the friday -- freddie gray investigation. you've gotten a request from the major about asking the department of justice to open a

pattern and practice investigation to the police department. later on this afternoon you will be getting he will be getting a letter from the maryland delegation supporting that request. that will go forward but i want to say in many of the cities throughout the country and including my own town in baltimore and the community is primarily that have significant populations of color, there has been a broken trust between the community and the police department. we have to restore that trust. we needed the police department and we want to express our condolences to the people in the police department about the death of the officer who was gunned down so brutally. but we also do need criminal justice reform and we need it with the emergency of now. i want to ask questions in the

resources to do the job that needs to be done and also what reforms are needed that are specific and targeted also appropriator but also the ranking member on the judiciary committee. we are here to show that the american people have a government on their side and have a constitutional focus to what we do. we have put money in the federal checkbook, $2.3 million for the grant programs purgative with resources for the police and local governments and communities. the range for more cops on the beach to dealing with the rate kickback to child abuse. they've told us we need more cops on the beat and we have $180 million in doing that. we also wanted to help them be able to have the equipment that we they needed and the $376 million in grant programs.

now what does that mean? is this one more gimmick or is that a crucial poll. they want to help our young people and that's why we will work with your thoughts either today or three of the community leaders have pointed out for the criminal justice reform. the judiciary committee will also be doing if i want to ask questions related to money and also training but in other words if you get the money should you get training to get the cops money and others should be

required training on how to deal with the racial and ethnic bias. should there be national standards every department needs and what about the body cameras. this privacy concerns, storage concerns. and last but not least i do hope again for both this conversation and ongoing. i supported the policy and somebody that started her career as a social worker that if you fit the broken window that you intervene with the youth when they were doing minor offenses could we intervene in the way growing up doing major offenses.

we were going to fix the broken windows. we were going to do this but now what seems to happen is the policy has deteriorated where we stopped fixing the broken window and escalated. 120,000 police stops occurred in baltimore. we are a population of 610,000. that is a lot. i don't know the appropriateness of that, but i think that we need to look at it. so i sit here as the ranking member of the committee in the department and i assume that national responsibility. and i'm also here for the 85,000 kids, all of whom went home peacefully what can we do to help them?

those that helped to do that we look forward to working with you and what are the tools to restore confidence between the police and community and also put our arms around him are young people in to what we can do to help them and maybe when we fix a broken window we have to fix the broken political process that we have to get the job done. >> welcome to the committee. your written testimony will be made a part of the record in its entirety. please proceed as you wish. >> thank you sir. >> remind me to come around another time. quite a celebration. well, good morning chairman and the vice chairman and the other distinguished members of the subcommittee. it is an honor to appear in front of you for the first time as the attorney general.

i look forward to working with all of you in the days ahead as we seek to protect and to serve the american people. i want to give a special thank you for your leadership in the united states senate over the next three decades for your support of the department of justice and its employees and for the extraordinary example of public service that you have provided to all americans and especially to women. and i'm honored to have the opportunity to work with you during your final two years in office. >> [inaudible] >> thank you sir idiot actually it seems to be fixed. >> thank you mr. chairman.

>> , national police week will begin next week and at this particular time in history, it is important that we take a moment to consider the contributions and the needs of our law-enforcement officers across the country. law enforcement is a difficult profession. over the course of my career as a federal prosecutor and u.s. attorney for the eastern district of new york i've been privileged to work closely with outstanding public safety officials and i have seen up close the dangers that they face every day. as mentioned earlier this week a 25-year-old new york city police officer died after being shot while trying to question a man in queens and just two days ago, the sergeant was tragically gunned down also while interacting with a suspicious individual.

the tragic loss of these brave individuals serves as a devastating reminder that our nation's public safety officials put their lives on the line every day to protect people that they've often have never met. their work is the foundation of the trust that must exist between law enforcement officers and the communities that we all serve and that's why when there are allegations of wrongdoing made against individual officers and police departments the department of justice has a response ability to examine the evidence and if necessary to help them implement change. while i was in baltimore tuesday i met with the mayor, law-enforcement agents and youth leaders. i spoke with an officer who'd been injured and i heard a number of ideas regarding the ways in which the justice department can continue assisting baltimore as they work to recover from the recent

unrest. i have not ruled out the possibility that more may need to be done. and i would assure you that we are listening to your voices and we are in the process of requesting city officials and community and police leaders from an investigation into whether the baltimore city police department engaged in a pattern or practice of civil rights violation. and i intend to have a decision in the coming days. the situation in baltimore involves a core responsibility and the department in the department of justice. not only to combat illegal conduct but to help prevent the circumstances that gave rise in the first place. going forward your support of the department and of our funding and the president's fiscal year budget request will enable us to build on our

successes and make further progress in the mission with which we are interested and i am pleased to say that this is in-line with my highest priorities as attorney general. safeguarding our national security. defending the most vulnerable among us and strengthening relationships of trust and collaboration between law enforcement officers and the communities that we serve. of course the most important objective must continue to be protecting the american people from terrorism and other threats to the national security. as you note under my predecessor eric holder, the department of justice engaged in the efforts to counter violent extremism and domestic radicalization, to strengthen counterterrorism measures. to provide training and technical assistance to our foreign partners we must advance

this on all fronts. we must prepare to meet new and emerging threats in the counterterrorism and national security programs, this total includes 775 million an increase of 27 million for addressing cyber crimes and enhancing the security of information networks. in the age that criminals have the ability to threaten the national security and our economic well-being from far beyond our borders it is critical that we expand our focus. it must be on the top priorities of the department of justice. this will allow us to build on

the outstanding work of the department and identify new threats porting intrusions into bringing the perpetrators of wrongdoing whatever they may hide to justice. as the department works to safeguard in their security, we are equally committed to upholding american values including the protection of the most vulnerable populations. on the civil rights investments to address hate crimes and sexual violence and human trafficking. it would allocate to allocates to improve the efficiencies of the immigration court system and the board of immigration attorneys like spending the successful legal orientation program and by allowing for additional legal representation for the unaccompanied children.

and it would deliver 247 million program increases for the smart on crime initiatives. while reducing recidivism and deploying law-enforcement resources more effectively. as well as an area of the bipartisan cooperation and agreement. the funds in this year's budget will allow us to extend this critical work for the efficient and effective criminal justice system. the innovative approach doesn't lessen the result to combat violent crime, drug trafficking and other violations of federal law. we remain determined to investigate and prosecute criminal activity. the president's budget supports the goal in that regard by appropriating additional

43 million to investigate those that break federal laws and harm innocent citizens from the legal firearm and drug traffickers to the perpetrators of healthcare scams and financial fraud. in all other efforts we intend to work closely not only with this distinguished body but also the law enforcement partners on the front lines across the country. an additional 450 million to support the state, local and tribal partners in their own efforts to counter violent extremism to maintain officers to serve the victims of crime, to research and best practices can improve indigent defense and expanded reentry programs. this appropriation includes nearly 95.5 million for the community oriented policing services hiring program. 35 million for tribal and

20 million for the collaborative reform initiative. he recently developed a program that facilitates collaboration between the office and law enforcement agencies seeking assistance on a wide variety of criminal justice issues from the use of force practice and the deployment of crisis intervention teams to building trust with members of the communities. as we have seen in recent days they've established trust and improved collaboration are essential to carry out the law-enforcement duties effectively and to the overall safety of the american people. in the days ahead i hope and intended to bolster our efforts in that area. i'm eager to work with the committee and congress to build on the achievements of the department of justice and to secure the timely passage of the budget request which provides a total of 28.7 billion discretionary resources

including 26.3 billion for vital federal programs and 2.4 billion for state local and tribal assistance programs. as a former united states attorney that saw firsthand and lived through the unsustainability of the sequester i can tell you this little of support is necessary to continue to protect the american people and effectively serve the priorities of the united states of america. mr. chairman, subcommittee, thank you once again for the subcommittee to work with you today and discuss discussed the work of the department. i'm happy to answer questions you may have. thank you for your time. >> in november of 2014, the president expanded immigration amnesty through the objective order and in furtherance of the the executive order to people over the age of 30 and new arrivals are also allows about 4 million additional illegal

immigrants than in the in the country for five years and who are parents of u.s. citizens and legal residents to apply every three years for the deportation d. for roles. in january you testified during the confirmation hearing that you believe the president executive actions are legal and constitutional even though the president stated many times he did didn't believe he had the power to grant amnesty without authority from the congress. why do you believe the president's executive actions and amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants are legal and constitutional? ..

>> as you assume to the position of attorney general, how will you, madam attorney general, enforce current immigration laws begin your belief that the recent executive actions trump existing laws? understood do all executive actions the presumption that they trump the laws of congress?

>> i believe our existing laws are a vital resource in dealing with the problem of both illegal immigration as well as criminal activity that results from illegal immigration. and in particular, the department's own executive office of immigration reform, as you have noted is charged with adjudicating various types of immigration violations. that department, as you have noted, has suffered from a backlog of cases and inefficiency that have delayed actions, separate and i part from the president's new policies that has delayed actions for far too long. within the new budget request the department would seek to hire additional immigration judges 55 in total to reduce the backlog. but also, senator recognizing that we simply cannot wait for additional money. we are taking steps already to try and make the executive office of immigration reform mow efficient. previous to my testimony the

judges have already worked to triage so to spoke the types of cases that need to be adjudicated quickly. jumps have been dere-employed to handle the backlogs of cases because we recognize that is unsustainable. separate and aproperty tom immigration reform, as i'm sure the committee is aware, i believe almost approximately 30% of federal criminal cases that are brought by a u.s. attorney across the country relate to immigration. so senator separate and apart from the court result of the november policies, the department of justice is moving forward, both to prosecute criminal activity resulting from illegal exception to support the work of the executive office of immigration reform, which we believe is vital. >> i want to shift to another area of financial fraud. oneoff your previous jobs you were directly involved with

several high profill financial fraud settlements as the u.s. attorney in the eastern district of new york. however, it's my understanding that not one of those settlements also involved a criminal prosecution. why did you in and the department -- i know you weren't the attorney general then, you were the u.s. attorney -- not pursue criminal charges and how could you enter into a billion dollar settlement referring guilty of fraud and never see fit to prosecute not one person for mortgage or financial fraud. and will that change as the -- now since you're the attorney general? in other words are buying justice by settlement? >> senator, with respect to the work which i was proud to conduct as u.s. attorney, in regard to the residential mortgage backed securities initiative my office was involve in two of the major

settle. s of that as well as other outstanding u.s. attorneys offices across the country. and throughout this investigations the message at the time, both from the leadership at the time, from all the u.s. attorneys working on that and from myself to my team the direction was that no entity is above the law no individual is above in the law no one is too big or too powerful to jail or to fail. but what the department of justice does in every case, senator, is we follow the evidence. >> okay. >> we ascertain the best way of achieving legal compliance with there have been violations and providing redress to victims. we look carefully in every okay, not just rnbs cases but every case involving a institution where american citizens have lost hard-earned money to determine the best way to bring those wrong-doers to justice and where the evidence leads us

to find evidence that we can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there's been a criminal violation, we go in that direction, and i point you to the number of criminal fraud prosecutions brought by my office on behalf of the victims of a ponzi scheme, mortgage fraud scheme and real estate schemes, over the years involving hard-working americans who were defraud of their life savingsy. we find evidence that points toward civil liability we pursue that. but i can assure you senator both in my prior position and going forward i take very seriously the obligation to protect the american citizens from fraud of all types and it is one of my heist priorities as attorney general. >> standard thresh old for a civil case is not the same as criminal. >> there's a different burden of proof on the government, and

have evidence we proceed and several people in prison contemplating the results off their actions who can provide proof of that. >> mr. chairman, madam attorney general, the many programs you have functioning at the local level, certainly in baltimore top notch u.s. attorney's office and an outstanding baltimore fbi field office, joint task forces working with local government, dealing with everything from human trafficking such a violent, despicable thing to medicare fraud which we know, for example in florida is already the $3 billion defrauding our government of money that should be in the trust fund helping sick people. so we thank you for what you're doing. the issue is also focusing on

criminal justice reform. because of our grant program particularly in cops, others, that go directly to local law enforcement, do you think that there should be mandatory training in the areas of ethnic and racial bias as well as also on the use of force and that there should be a national standard? in other words in order to get the money you have to take the training that behavioral will not pat at the or wear out or even -- will not tatter or wear out or break the trust the commune must feel. >> senator, as we administer our grant programs to our local law enforcement partners, all of those issues are on the table and are under consideration. currently i will say that our view is that we feel that the grant program is a very important tool in bringing offices into compliance with not

only federal standards but community standards that they are aware of also. so we would not use that as a barrier to the grant program but, rather, as an incentive to work with us and gain training on u.s. of force policies. we have grants specifically targeted towards that. through the cops office, whether there's a collaborative reform effort or not suspect through the cops office we provide specific training on best practices involving use of force, not only do we provide the training. we also attempt to link local law enforcement with other local law enforcement offices that themselves have either received train -- >> but madam attorney general we'll get lost in collaborative reform and -- i don't mean lost. we do know that baltimore city, through its both mayor and police commissioner and the concurrence of other elected officials, initiated a collaborative reform effort in

baltimore. that's voluntary effort where police departments reach out to you, meaning the attorney general, and his or her offices to evaluate the department on how to better improve police community relations. that's underway. but that voluntary. that voluntary. >> yes. >> then there's the pattern and practice investigation. we know we have asked for that. you'll make your determination whether this -- later on whether you'll initiate it. what about where they haven't asked for collaborative reform but they have asked for money? there's a lot of, let get the money, and we supported more cops on the beat. we supported the burn grants so that our law enforcement would have the tools they needed, whether it's other technology or whatever. then -- but again they took the money but we see that there are other issues that

community-based leadersing are faith and grassroots and others, are saying the relationship is worn. and my question is, if you get the money, should there be training, whether it's deliberate bias and also the use of force. >> yes senator i -- >> apart from whether they have a collaborative reform effort underway or not. >> yes senator. separate and apart from whether there's a co lab bra riff to form northwester a grant situation, we seek to provide training. my only point, and i actually don't want to disagree with you on that because it's such important point. my only points we do use it as a barrier but instead to use it to obtain training. some training will come as a result of grants, some training comes as result of us connecting police departments -- >> i understand that. the community feels they get a

lot of money from the feds, and we don't have the necessary centers. i'd like to have an ongoing conversation with you about it. >> this issues are under consideration, because as you indicate they're very, very important and essential. >> what other tools do you feel you have on criminal justice reform to help restore this trust that we need to restore in our communities? >> well, senator we have touched a little bit on the collaborative reform process. again, as we had seen, without community trust in that, it may not be as effective as we would wish. certainly we then have other tools to consider. wasn't our programs we provide training on use of force. we do provide training on building community trust. we also, as you mentioner earlier, how to our community relations service worked directly with the community to attempt to empower them to engage with their local leaders with the police department, and to hold them accountable as

well. we do think that community accountability is an important part of that relationship. >> well, we have more to ask if there's a second round i want to focus on juvenile justice. thank you very much. >> senator perk. >> -- prosecutions. i understand that countrywide we have 1500 under the rico statutes. assuming that illinois is about five percent of the united states that would mean we would have had over 60 rico prosecutions in our area. right enough it's about zero. i want to encourage you very frankly to work with our u.s. attorney there and make sure that the rico prosecutions that we have underway -- that we can prosecute gangs gangs of national significance that then chairman

senator mccosky on the issue of gangs. rico is the particular statute we should go with. >> senator, i could not agree with you know or the case of the rico -- the efficacy of the rico start -- >> let me follow up. this subcommittee add 1.5 million dozen to the u.s. marshals to combat bangs. my understanding -- combat gangs mitchell understanding the new task force in chicago arrested 344 people in relation to this effort. is that your understanding? >> i don't have that exact number. but i know it is very active in the chicago area. >> thank you. >> senator just to follow up on your previous point i could not agree with you more on the efficacy of the rico statute as a tool to target violent crime particularly gang violence. the important of taking out the leadership of a gang, both from a law enforcement perspective and from a community perspective, cannot be

overstated. i thank you for the discussions you and i had during my courtesy visits with you and in fact i have had discussions with the u.s. attorney in chicago as well as with the head our criminal division here in washington about finding ways to bolster those efforts and both have assured me they're also committed to using this important tool. >> want to make sure we get the word down to leslie caldwell and doug krohn make sure they follow up. >> yes sir. i have spoken with them and they're commit as well. >> thank you. >> center leahy. >> thank you mr. chairman, and madam attorney general nice to see you again. >> thank you. >> thank you for being here. i agree with what senator mccosky said about your presence in baltimore. it's not only important for the community, which you understand probably far better than i but

it's important to the country and i understand that as you did in your hearing before the judiciary committee you were asked a number of questions on immigration, executive action, something that, since i've been here every president has done executive actions on immigration. i think probably the most extensive were by president reagan. but i also point out if an executive action is usually done when congress doesn't act. now, we spent hundreds of hours putting together an immigration bill in the u.s. senate, passed a couple years ago. two-thirds of the senates voted for it, republicans and democrats, huge bipartisan effort. the republican leadership in the house, even though it by all analyses would have passed the house representatives, refused to take it up.

so i have a little trouble hearing criticisms of the president finally acting when the congress would not. the congress doesn't like what the president has done on immigration, pass an immigration bill. we did it in the senate. again, republicans and democrats came together. they refuse -- the republican leadership refused to bring it up in the house. had they, we wouldn't even be having this question. so i just say that, if we don't like it in the congress, then let's pass a bill. i also think we ought to reform our federal sentencing laws. the bureau of prisons is consuming nearly a third of the department's budget. we talked about what we should be doing on law enforcement and other things. a third of your budget to the bureau of prisons. excessive mandatory minimum sentences are wasted. money could be spent. i one of the proposals under

consideration by the senate jew tissue -- jew judiciary. your long career as a federal prosecutor you prosecuted many drug cases. i've prosecuted many drug cases. you think we can reduce those mandatory minimums and still keep our communities safe? >> senator i think we absolutely can have sentencing reform that enables to us reduce the mandatory minimums and keeps our communities safe. it's important to note that the recent efforts at sentencing reform that seek to reduce mandatory minimums do not eliminate them. they still recognize the need to provide serious punishment for the most serious offenders. in fact what we have seen with the smart on crime initiative is that while overall drug cases may have don down, the good-have

gone down the longer sentences have actually gone up. so we are in fact trying now to focus on those larger offenders the large scale traffickers who are flooding our communities with poison as opposed to the lower level offenders who need to be punished but at a different scale. i think sentencing reform is an excellent way to make sure these efforts continue. >> i think also we sometimes think we can do a one size fits all. california did that it withthree strikes are out and darn near bankrupted the state. i worry about what is happening when we take money from law enforcement, lock up people. some people should be in prison. others we're wasting time. and money. and that money could be glued other areas of criminal justice system. i'm worried about the increase in heroine and overdoses becoming a health crisis.

anyone my state of vermont we have not been spared. between 2000 and 2012. treatment for opiode addiction in vermont rose by more than 770%. last week the vermont state police issued a warning about the dangers of heroin laced with a drug. it was going a number of multiple deaths in our state. interdiction won't salve the issues but -- won't solve the issues but the law enforcement agencies canner particularly in the smaller rural states or small are rural areas which every state has needs some help. i pushed last year to create a new grant program to support antiheroin task force. i understand the grant programs are getting underway. the yates of department was instructed to create a

multidepartment task force to address the rising up in of heroin use. can you tell me how that is going and what you might be available to do to help in the public health crisis? >> yes senator. it certainly is the intersection of law enforcement and public health issue. certainly with respect -- our budget does request additional founds to deal with this uptick in heroin abuse and other emerging drug areas. there is a senate mandated heroin task force. they held their first meeting just last week. the deputy attorney general is actively involved in that. it deals not only with law enforcement but the public health issues of that. it's also led and supplemented by self of our u.s. attorneys who over the past material several years have themselves worked with public health officials and local communities to deal with this as a public health crisis. so we are bringing all voices to the table in an attempt to get the policies effective at a

local level promulgated nationwide and make them available to other communes as well. the budget does call for increases that would support our law enforcement efforts in heroin as welling a open putts bass the prescription drug crisis is tied to this as well. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you senator collins. >> thank you mr. chairman. attorney general lynch just this morning the second circuit court of appeals held that section 215 of the foreign intelligence surveillance act does not authorize government to engage in the bulk collection of phone numbers under the metadata program. one of the president's independent review groups, which looked at this law mike moreal

the former deputy trespassing 'er of the crowe and the former director of thefy,-muller said had this program been in place prior to the terrorist attacks on our country on 9/11/01 it likely would have prevented those attacks. so we have a very serious question here of balancing security with privacy rights, and the clarity of the law which is set to expire, that provision, expires june 1st. since january of last year, this section of fisa has been conducted pursuant to new procedures that were instituted by the president. now the ag provides a semi annual report on privacy violations associated with the law. the new procedure provides that

except in emergencies the fisa court is now required to approve ahead of time any queries of phone records the database, because of the changes made by the president. two questions. one, are you aware of any significant privacy violations that have occurred since the president instituted these reforms? and second, has the justice department made a decision yet on appealing this doing by the second circuit? i realize it just came down. >> thank you senator. obviously section 215 has been a vital tool in our national security arsenal but the department has been operating under the new directive by the president with the view towards modifying the program to keep

itself efficacy but preserve privacy interests. i am not aware at this time of any violations that have come to light. i will certainly seek a briefing on that, and should i learn of any i will advise the committee of that. if my knowledge changes on that. but as of now i have not been informed of any violation is under the new policy. with respect to the second circuit, we're rereviewing that decision but given the time issues involving the expiration of it we also have been work with the body ands to look for ways to reauthorize section 215 in a way that does preserve its if cassy and preserve privacy. >> thank you itch want to turn to an issue you and i discussed when we met in my office, and that is the tremendous increase in the number of scams that are targeting our nation's seniors

ranging from the jamaican lottery scam the grandparent scam and most recently, the irs and podster scam. what we have learned is that these scammers typically operate offshore and they rely upon advanced communication and payment technologies, and the losses suffered by individual victims are devastating and they aggregate in the billions, yet the federal government has been extraordinarily lax in its approach to actually going after these criminals and only the federal government can realistically tackle the international crime networks behind many of these scams. i also want to bring to your attention that under your predecessor -- i want to make it very clear it was before your time -- that the department

refused to send to the committee a witness to testify on the department's efforts. that was appalling to both in the ranking member, and to me. what can the department do to be more agrees sniff -- aggressive in prosecuting these scams and will you pledge from now on the department will cooperate with our investigations? >> well, senator with respect to the very, very important role that this subcommittee plays in gathering inflammation about the depth's priorities i will always strive to cooperate and provide either a witness or information whatever is best for the committee to receive so that we can help you learn not only about our priorities and issues, but also to do the important work of this subcommittee. so i'm not aware of the

circumstances that were around the previous request but certainly i will always commit to providing providing this committee with the assistant it needs either before the committee or at the staff level. with respect to the very important matter you raise about the -- many of them are overseas based fraud schemes. the other troubling factor to mees that many of them target our elderly population and that is a particularly vulnerable population to telemarketing schemes, be they based locally or be they based overseas. so it's very troubling to me and the protection of our vulnerable population as one of our priorities. i'm not aware right now of the case wes may have in our pipeline. i'll ask for review of this important issue. our bug does ask for funding to continue the fight against fraud, and certainly i know all of the agencies involved in this you-mention, for example, the irs scam calls -- that agency is also very, very

concerned about that. and as someone who actually received one of those calls myself i can tell you that if one is not aware of the fraudulent nature of them they consider vehicle disturbing and it's easy to see our hour seniors and other people can get pulled into that. >> thank you. >> senator baldwin. >> thank you mr. chairman. and vicewoman -- welcome now madam attorney general in your official capacity of leading the department of justice itch was please to hear your giving voice the toe the seriousness with which you take issues of overprescription addiction and abuse, and diversion of opiode drugs, and and i want to call

your attention a situation in my state of wisconsin at the va medical facility where there are number of investigations ongoing all rerating to these very pressing issues. i called upon attorney general holder to conduct an intrigues the facility. my request was based on multiple sources, including published investigative and journalism reports numerous whistleblowers and citizens who have contacted my office conveying information that in my mind raise serious questions about potential

criminal activity. currently the va is conducting an investigation as is the virginia inspector general and the dea is engaged in an investigation of allegations of drug diversion at the facility put i remain convinced that there are additional to elements that -- your predecessor outlined a few of them, including an alarming number of 9-1-1 calls made from the facility over 2,000 reports of 24 unexplained deaths, allegations of illegal access to confidential patient information and laundry law enforcement records. i understand you can't get into

details of ongoing criminal investigations so as a consequence i would simply ask you, will you rival wait these other valuations and coordinate with the existing three federal investigations to determine if there are additional criminal investigations that are warranted and appropriate in this particular case? >> well senator i thank you for raising this important issue because i think that the safety and security of those who use our veterans administration's hospitals is foremost a priority not just for my tenure as attorney general but our country, and as someone whose family has used those hospitals i'm well aware of how vital resource they are to the families and to those who are ill. certainly i am aware of the situation. i have not yet had a briefing on the matter. but i will commit to you i will request a briefing on this matter and make sure that all efforts to coordinate-under being undertaken. >> i thank you for that, and one

additional matter, again given the urgency with which we respond to the opiode abuse problems that we have through our nation, i wand to make your aware of in impediment inside the dea investigation into drying -- drug diversion at the va. the dea and the va differing internals of the scent of the patient privacy law which may be limiting the ability of the va personnel to fully participate in interviews if they're told they cannot reveal particular information about patients. it certainly would be an incredible obstacle to a

thorough investigation if not fully resolved, and so if you have previously been briefed i would ask you what is the status of the department's effort to resolve the confusion? and if you need authorization language from the congress to resolve this issue i would appreciate it if you would provide that to me and my staff. >> thank you senator. as i indicated i have not yet been briefed on this matter, although aim ware of the dea's investigation into the situation, and of course, fully support it. we will also look into whether or not there are impediments to dea being able to view this as a criminal matter. >> senator alexander. >> madam attorney general welcome. i was in new york city for my law school reunion at nyu this past weekend and many of my classmates knew you and very complimentary. >> thank you, sir. >> i want to begin by thanking

you and the department for something. it's my understanding that sometime today the drug enforcement administration will approve the state of tennessee's application to import certified industrial. hemp seeds for vive purposes. it was important tower state agricultural department and there was a practical issue. the seeds had to be planted in may. so i thank you for moving that along. second on the drug enforcement administration, i'd like to call something to your attention that's been called to my attention. i don't have a solution but i think it deserves the attention of the attorney general and the management and it's the issue of -- has to do with prescription drug abuse and the relationship between the drug enforcement administration and the wholesalers or pharmacies who distribute controlled assistances. here's what seems to be the problem.

dea requires wholesalers to track and report on, quote suspicious orders. these would be orders from local drug stores, i guess. and it restricts how those orders can be filled if they're flagged as suspicious. well there's no guidance or clarity about what is a quote suspicious order and as we both know in the law whenever the law gets too vague sometimes there are risks and problems associated with that. one risk is someone goes in -- if a wholesaler refuses to send a controlled substance to a drug store, then someone with a broken arm goes to the drug store and that person is out of luck. the other risk is that there develops an adversarial relationship between the drug enforcement administration and the wholesaler over the issue. so my request is simply this. would you please take a look at the words "suspicious orders" and the relationship between the dea and wholesalers and

pharmacies and see if there needs to be additional gained jeans we don't have ans a very sayreal relationship between people who should be in a warter inship to make sure controlled substances north sent to the wrong people at the corner drug store. >> certainly senator. i can commit to that. i also echo your concern that in a desire to protect people, we may be in fact inhibiting the ability of people who have legitimate needs for pain medications to obtain them there, is not our intention and certainly is something i will undertike review. >> thank you very much mitchell final question is just to put a spotlight on something our state, tennessee is third in the nation in meth lab seed ours. it's a big problem. especially in rural areas. and because the demand for enforcement exceeds the funding our state developed a what they call a central storage container

program and found a way to clean up meth labs for $500 per lab instead of $2,500 per lab. now, that's progress, if you can do something for 20% of what you used to do it for. so we were pleased to see the budget request of 4 million more for the meth lab cleanup program, but disappointed the department decided not to include funding for the competitive grant program for the state antimeth task forces. given that the meth epidemic is one of the most urgent problems we face especially in rural areas, what was the thinking, especially as it affects rural community with less resources in not expanding our continuing the competitive grant program for states. >> thank you senator mitchell understand offering the competitive program the copses, antimethamphetamine program is that in fact the funding that exists is two-year funding and

so there was not a need to request funding for this year because the grant -- the program as enacted last year would cover this fiscal year. it is, believe me, not a desire to end or in any way diminish the program and also my understanding that the solicitation for that fiscal year will be released very soon later this month in may. so i regret the appearance that the department may have pulled back or withdrawn from that, but it's my understanding that because we have two-year funding for that, that we will then have to come back in the next fiscal year to request additional -- >> that would be very encouraging, thank you for that explanation. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator murphy. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. welcome, attorney general lynch. congratulations on your confirmation. i had a few broader questions to ask but i wanted to begin with a rather specific question to the

northeast region and to connecticut. we have historically had a women's correctional facility in danberry connecticut, and in july of 2013 the federal bureau of prison announced it was going to close that facility, which would essentially be the only -- was the only facility for women in the northeast. we had a number of really positive discussions with the department of yates and with the bureau of prisons and they reversed the decision, understanding that it would be incredibly detrimental to women if they had to be transported hundreds if not thousands of miles to other facilities. the solution was to build a new facility low-security facility for women in tanberry, and the initial schedule was for it to be completed this month and in

the interim these people have been spread out to jails not equipped to handle the things these women need, especially drug counseling in the long run. so i just wanted to ask you if you had an update on progress of the construction of that new facility and whether we can expect that construct will be completed as soon as possible so we can transition these women who are now in places like brooklyn philadelphia, back to a more long-term suitable facility? >> certainly senator. i share your concern over that important issue. when i gam my career as a young ausa in the early 1990s fci danberry was not yet a total women's facility, and most women who are prettied in the federal system ultimately were housed in west virginia, and the facility was actually fine, but for women from the northeast it presented a significant negative impact on their ability to stay connect if

with their families. i harmed their relationships with their children. those collateral consequences are the types of thing wes seek to avoid. so having danberry in the northeast has been a positive step and positive law enforcement step nor all of us who work in that area. my understanding is that the environmental impact studies were complete lid quite recently and that there are additional matters -- in fact i believe that there's a pricing material being resolved this month, and i'm told by my team that construction should begin this summer. i do not have an anticipated completion date for you and i'm hesitant to offer one having seen several government construction projects in my day. but i am told construction should begin this summer on the new facility, and i share your corn in and view that -- share your concern and view that it's an important law enforcement resource in the east.

>> thank you for your personal attention on this. this is really a development of a really positive series of conversations. not easy to reverse course on something like this and i thank the bureau of prisons for considering the impact of shuttling women prisoners to far reaches of the northeast. just one other query. i represent newtown connecticut, sandy hook. a community that is still grieving dealing with the ripples of trauma that still exist there. i understand the realities of this place that we're not likely to get a bill expanding background checks that are 90% of americans support the notion that everyone should have to prove they're not a criminal before they buy a gun but as senator shelby noted in his opening comments the aft's position is open, very important position for the enforcement of existing laws, and the existing

national background check system can be made much better to make sure that all of the tata is being uploaded into it, making sure the information is distributed. 100,000 individual every year are prohibited from buying guns because of the background check system. i just would ask for your commitment to work with us to make sure the atf has the resources they need in order to carry out existing claws your commitment as your predecessor did to work with us on making sure our national background check system has the resources it needs to continue toe continue to do the work work it has for decade. >> i'm committed to supporting the goal of atf as well as making sure the processes and the existing systems are as efficient as possible because that's how we protect our citizens. >> thank you very much. thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you. senator. >> thank you mr. chairman. madam attorney general, william and thank you.

i want to point out the aspects of your budget that focus on tribal law law enforcement. this is an issue that is very important in my city. we had an opportunity to discuss it in power preconfirmation immediating we had and i know you have recently had conversation with jowlly kitka the profit the alaska federation of natives. the public safety challenges that face alaska native villages run the gamut including the absence of a full time officer inadequate resources for prevention and restorative justice efforts. we have a tribal court system that is struggling because it is just really in an embryonic stage.

we have human trafficking of native women. the heroin issues are not just limited to the cities. they're out in our villages. i know you have lot on your accomplishing it's clearing about i would like your commitment you've will work with me you will work with the alaska federation of natives to really be involved, to a personal extent and degree, with some of these challenge that we are facing as it relates to rural justice in our native areas. in our rural areas. i have been asked by asf -- i'm going to be speaking to them by video -- by teleconference this afternoon to their board -- for

an opportunity to sit with you and some of the native leadership to discuss some of the issues that are just so very troubling to us right now. so i'd like your commitment that we can have that meeting and perhaps very quickly your observations based on your conversations with not only me but miss kitka about some of the substantive issues we have with rural justice in alaska. >> senator would look forward so such a meeting and would welcome it. the commitment that the department of justice and our nation have made to indian country over the last several years has shown great promise but it is one that must be sustained, maintained, and improved upon we have several requests in the budget that good directly to the issues of tribal justice. the office of violence against women, for example and -- because it is such an important tissue me, i'm just going to outline them briefly because we are asking for an increase of $100 million.

but part of that money would go for tribal grant set-asidings 20 million for crime victims fund tribal assistance program 5. million would governor for the office of violence against women, domestic violence jurisdiction program. you are well aware we had great success in enabling tribal courts to deal with offenders who commit violence against women and children on native lands when the offenders are nonnative that have been a bar for some time. it has been tremendously helpful to have given that jurisdiction to the tribal courts. we also are asked for money to address environmental problems in indian country. as well as to maintain current positions. i firmly believe commitment must be maintained and expand upon, else we risk sliding back wedderses with all the issues face bid tribal lands particularly as we discussed with alaska, having such a large land mass and dealing with the

law enforcement challenges there, we have to set in place systems that will work but that will also be maintained. >> i agree with you. we have a lot of work to do and i look forward to those conversations with you and your team. on the heroin issue, you have heard it repeated several times here today but i will reiterate that in our very remote, rural areas, areas that are islands areas that are not accessible by road we are seeing the impact of heroin, whether it is in dillingham kodiak, and we have meth issues in the community of kodiak and law enforcement is fork cussing on that so they're not able to focus on the smaller villages out there. so you mentioned the heroin task force that is in place. i ask you not forget the smaller

communities where we see an addiction and a devastation truly just taking our communities -- just wiping them out. and it is a frightening thought that the resources may be there and available for the cities but that our smaller communities where losing a few young people can be so significant to just the health and morale and safety. so i'd did you work with us on that. and mr. chairman do. >> have other questions i would like submitted for the record, most specifically with the codification of the brady obligation in statute of we have take about that. but i'd like further followup on that. thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you. >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you, attorney general lynch for your service and your

testimony before us today and just want to congratulate you to begin your important service in the interests of our nation. least year congress demonstrate its commitment to the victims victims of child abuse act by unanimously reauthorizing the programs in both chambers. childrens advocacy centers funded their the law conduct forensic enter influenza a way to serve law enforcement needs and respectful of the delicate needs of a child victims of child abuse. i was disappointed to see the president's budget request only ask for half of the amount needed to fund these crucial programs. we're talking a modest amount. 11 million out of the 20 million. what has been your experience with childrens at slow case centers in your law enforcement role and do you expect to be an advocate for them within the indian to 2016 and beyond. >> in well, senator my experience has been based withmy experience as a u.s. attorney in the eastern district of new york. we have found the children's

advocacy centers to be extremely powerful partners and for us it's been in dealing with children who may be related to victims of human trafficking that has been a huge problem we have seen in the new york area, and so i know there are other issues in other parts of the country and i look forward to learning more about those. it is a program i feel is extremely important. the overall budget request is part of our overall request for juvenile justice programs, and it is our hope that the panoply of programs we offer will in fact help provide a valuable safety net for those children in need. >> thank you. i look forward to working with you on these valuable pyramides think are underresourced but there's many challenges in our budget. let me next reference the violence reduction ram to prevent violent crime and connecting law enforcement with

cutting edge federal resources itch just want to thank the very hard-working team of ojb bureau of justice day sis stance, and the wilmington team led by john skinner. i hope you commit to make sure the program is maintain expelled supported with necessary resources resources so it can serve as a valuable connection between doj and communities which have been increases in violent crime. >> i support it wholeheartedly. certainly wilmington has been one of the flagship cities in this. not a stink that you sought but one which came upon you. i understand. wilmington has been an excellent model, frankly for the left of took place between the law enforcement and the fbi and the state and federal law enforcement as well. my understanding we actually have identified five additional cities nor the next fiscal year to be involved in this program. again, not a distinction they

seek but one which is an area we think we can provide assistance. just beyond the vrn we have other resources for violent crime for our cities they mat no -- we're fully committed to those programs is a well. >> thank you itch look forward to continuing to work on federal, state local law enforcement partnerships that can reduce violent crime. >> let's turn to the cobra a -- collaborative reform initiate. we have seen trainedes relationships between the law enforcement and the communities most recently in baltimore. i iminterested in the collaborative reform initiative efforts underway in baltimore and would be interested in hearing more about what is on the table for the project and how it's going to be sustained and what -- whether recent events in baltimore affect third timeline or not. >> with respect to the situation in baltimore the collaborative reform begun last fall at the

request of the baltimore police department and our cops service office went into baltimore and has been very active in working with both the police and the blueprint to work on ways to improve the baltimore police department, as we discussed in this chamber earlier today and throughout my most recent steroid baltimore recent events have certainly made us cognizant of concerns that both the city, the police, and the community have about the efficacy of a collaborative reform process and we're lacenning to all voices and are considering the best way as we move forward to help the baltimore police department. it's important to note, i think that collaborative reform has been a very successful tool throughout the country. we not only provide technical assistance and training to police departments around the country, but we connect them with other police departments who have themselves either been through the process who are themselves have very positive

law enforcement practices. so we try to make it a peer-to-peer relationship in terms of work and training as well. it as tool very, very important tool and as you will note our budget does request an increase in that of $20 million, to support these important reforms. >> thank you. i'll submit a question nor record about forensic hair analysis. i was very concerned to see reports that fbi foreign sick sickic -- forensics may have overstated the strength of evidence and i look forward hearing what doj will do to private meaningful relief for those convicted on -- >> we're very committed to working on that issue. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> center bozeman. >> thank you mr. chairman. i apologize for running back and forth to you and our attorney general. there's two to goes that are really important to arkansas, this and the sense of combating violent supreme the other things we're dealing with, but also

reauthorizing the child nutrition programs. we have a subcommittee going nonthat regard, too which both things go to together. if you have hungry kids, then it all flows together. in the smart crime initiative, you talked how important it is and that in your request you stated that the initiative will spend $247 million to focus resources on reducing impacts of the criminal visit system on vulnerable communities. certainly that is important to arkansas but my understanding is that i'm hearing from attorney generals through the country that the reality is that there seems to be a directive coming down that terrorism and cyber crime is the number one

terrorism and cyber crime. can you talk about nat -- i know that's so important and yet we have so many communities now that are experienced violent crime that is increasing. >> senator, thank you for the opportunity to address that issue. obviously national security and cyber crime are important areas. as i've noted they represent not only ongoing threats to public safety and to american citizens but new and emerging threats and so our budget does ask for funding for that. with respect to violent crime however, will reiterate that the department's commitment and my own commitment to that issue has not waiverred. one thing that's important as a form u.s. attorney myself has ton to recognize that every prosecutor knows best the crime problems of their area, and so what we try to too in the department, certainly as i look at policies and interact with not just people here in washington but also in the

field, is make sure that we maintain the flexibility that allows u.s. attorneys working in conjunction with their state and local counterparts to identify the crime problems in their area and focus their resources on them. for example where my former office eastern district or new york has both a strong national security practice and a large violent crime practice, every office is not going to be similarly situated. so it's my goal give prosecutors the flexibility they need to deploy their resources to best address the crime problems at hand. with respect to violent crime the department's antiviolence strategies for several years have been focused on three main issues. law enforcement effective vigorous strong, is the core of that and the far part. we're also attempting to look at prevention as well as re-entry programs and it's been very

gratifying to see members of this body also address those issues at the a statutory level as well. us a you mentioned with respect to the food services practice. no a doj program but one that certainly impacts into the crime rate of an area, because it impacts the poverty rate of an area and the health of the children and the opportunities they have stop, it is interdisciplinary, it is hole listic and i can assure you there's not an over emphasis on one type of priority over others. if the u.s. attorney feels that the largest probable policemen in they're area is one of violent crime we have a number of ways in which we deal with that. we will concentrate resources for them. we will provide assistant from other offices and main justice for them. in the past i have detailed attorneys from my office to others to help out on cases capitol -- capital cases so

you'll find strong commitment within the department. >> another huge issue going on throughout the country not only in arkansas, is opiates and heroin. there's reports of doubling, tripling things in that nature. can you talk a little bit about addressing that problem? and then the other thing i think is so important are the drug courts. i think for the first time you have actually gotting? your budget for that -- actually got something for that? >> yes. >> are you an advocate or lukewarm or whatever? i really feel like that's -- if there is a solution, that is one of the components. >> one of the key components certainly in the reduction of overincarceration as well as crime prevention have been drug courts. at the federal level not only are we foundinges kid on drug court --...

it just that it's almost one 3rd of your appropriations i would hope because there was bipartisan effort in terms of what we need to do to reduce the prison population. we have a facility in maryland.

concerns would be public safety. second and parallel, safety for the corruption officers be as you get significant challenges and prison. i worry about their safety. and third, safety. and 3rd, the issues were prisoners who are either really old or really sick, in other words, can we begin to do an evaluation of who is in prison and should they be imprisoned and met him atty. gen., i would hope we would begin your charm, you look also at those of a significant age or are significantly ill where they face no threat to the general public. let's have an ongoing conversation about it.

i like forward to your recommendations. heroin, it has come up on both sides of the aisle. my republican governor, 90% congressional to a 90 percent congressional to my democratic congressional delegation polio team maryland. we ask your task force support of senator shelby that it not only be internal to the justice department but it be across the board involving the department of education, the department of human services, the department of homeland security. is that the nature of the task force or is it in terms of the justice department across the street to those agencies.

several grant programs here juvenile justice. i would hope the days ahead we could work with your department and what you feel as we work with our mayor and community-based groups what would be the ineffective juvenile justice programs that we could either bring additional resources and or appeal for for these grants. speaking from the delegation and speaking for the leadership of our city that only government, private sector as well as community-based are faith-based leaders we see this situation in which there can be an opportunity to really do something dramatic and significant in terms of our young people so that for those that are on track we help them stay there, for those you need to

get back on track health and get there, and for those who really constitute significant risk, we also do the intervention. we look forward to ongoing conversation. your welcome back but we appreciate the availability and accessibility and professionalism of your staff. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you very much mr. chairman. i want to associate myself with the remarks of the senator from arkansas about the value of drug courts and the special veterans courts. i have seen firsthand the difference that these courts can make in helping people straighten out their lives avoid imprisonment and really change the direction of their lives. i no that doesn't happen in every case, but i have to

believe that these are cost cost-effective, and that is why i am disappointed that the administration budget. also cut the million dollars from the veterans treatment court. i hope the subcommittee will take a look at that but i wonder if the department has done any sort of cost-benefit analysis because this is the case with penny wise and pound foolish. >> am not aware of any cost-benefit analysis to that but i will see, i will ask if that was done. so i don't know the basis for that particular allocation of funding but i certainly share your commitment to the efficacy of drug courts and the veterans treatment court. like you i've seen them

literally changed lives. seen it firsthand because i actually several years ago hired someone who they gone through. turned out to be a wonderful employee and i want to give her a chance. but for drug court her life would have gotten a very different direction. i have also spoken at a graduation ceremony for drug court in portland, and it was really inspiring to see large the younger people be reunited with their significant others are spouses and children and know that they really were committed to turn the lights lives around. i've also heard of a case that one successful and i

realized what you have not been on the job very long and we are not involved in formulating his budget so i am not certain whether your familiar with this program but it is called the regional information sharing system. and i here repeatedly from police officers, officers, detectives, sheriffs, law enforcement's at all levels, state, local, county the risk program is in their

efforts to fight violent crime, drug activity, human trafficking, and a host of other criminal enterprises. i want to give you a specific example a detective in franklin county rural part of our state told me recently about a fascinating case involving counterfeit silver dollars china. he used the risk databases to discover that the suspect was committing this crime throughout the state of maine also able to determine whether the same crime was occurring in other states. what was at 1st just the one incident became a statewide investigation with the help of the risk network and tools which are especially vital in a rural state like maine. and that is why i am disappointed that the president's budget has

slashed funding for this program. it is such an important tool for rural law enforcement to use. so i hope looking forward that you will take a look at programs that encourage that kind of collaboration and all levels of government and allow a local sheriff who has directed -- elected someone to find out that this person has been committing crimes not only throughout his or her state but in other states as well. that is still a stronger case. >> yes, ma'am. yes, ma'am. i share your view that system is particularly efficacious. my understanding of that is that the request of the budget this year mayors a request last year which was increased by 5 million so that it was not viewed as cutting a program but maintaining it because we do feel that it is so important

>> it is my understanding that we plus .-dot the program is in the appropriation committee because it was so successful that any administration went back to the previous level. i may be mistaken. i was certainly welcome any additional information. >> we will provide you additional information. >> thank you. you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> attorney general, thank you for appearing here today and being patient with these questions. we look forward to working with you to making sure the justice department is properly funded. if there are no further questions the senators may submit additional questions for the subcommittee's official hearing record. we request that the department of justice responses to those questions would come back within 30

days. now, the subcommittee stands in recess subject to the child to public all the chair. the committee is adjourned. >> thank you, mr. chair. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

mr. mcconnell: now madam president, since the unlawful leaks of n.s.a. programs opponents of our counterterrorism program have painted a distorted picture of how these programs are conducted and overseen by exploiting the fact that our intelligence community cannot discuss classified activities. so what you have here is an effort to characterize our n.s.a. programs and the officials who conduct them cannot discuss the classified activities so they're clearly at a disadvantage. since september the 11th, 2001 fisa has been critically important in keeping us safe here in america.

according to the c.i.a., had these authorities been in place more than a decade ago, they would likely -- likely -- have prevented 9/11. not only have these tools kept us safe there has not been a single incident -- not one -- of intentional abuse of them. the n.s.a. is overseen by the executive legislative and judicial branches of our government. they're not running rogue out there. the n.s.a. is overseen by the legislative, executive and judicial branches of our government. the employees of n.s.a. are highly trained supervised and tested. the expiring provisions of fisa are ideally suited for the terrorist threat we face in 2015

these terrorists work together together -- they work together to protect us from foreign terrorists abroad who use social and our media to inspire and potentially plan attacks inside the united states. isil uses facebook, uses twitter its on-line magazine, and other social media platforms to contact and eventually radicalize recruits on-line. if our intelligence community cannot connect the dots of information we cannot stop this determined enemy from launching attacks. under section 215 authority the n.s.a. can find connections -- find connections -- from known terrorists overseas and connect that to potential terrorists

here in the united states but the n.s.a. cannot query the database which consists of call data records like the number calling, the number called and the duration without a court order. let me say that again. the n.s.a. cannot query the database which consists of call data records like number calling, the number called and the duration without a court order. and under section 215 the n.s.a. cannot listen to phone calls of americans at all. under section 215 the n.s.a. cannot listen to the phone calls of americans at all. despite the value of the section 215 program and the rigorous safeguards that govern it, critics of the program either want to do away with it or make

it much more difficult to use. many of them are proposing a bill the u.s.a. freedom act they say will keep us safe while protecting our privacy. it will do neither. it will neither keep us safe nor protect our privacy. it will make us more vulnerable and it risks compromising our privacy. the u.s.a. freedom act would replace section 215 with an untested untried and more cumbersome system. it would not end bulk collection of call data. instead, it would have untrained untrained -- untrained -- corporate employees with uncertain supervision and protocols do the collecting. so it switches this responsibility from the n.s.a.

with total oversight to corporate employees with uncertain supervision and protocols. they get to do the collecting. it would establish a wall between the n.s.a. analysts and the data they're trying to analyze. at best the new system envisioned by the u.s.a. freedom act would be more cumbersome and time-consuming to use when speed and agility are absolutely crucial. at worst it will not work at all because there is no requirement in the legislation that the telecoms hold the data for any length of time. put differently section 215 helps us find the needle in a haystack. but under the u.s.a. freedom

act, there may not be a haystack to look through at all. in short the opponents of america's counter terror programs -- counterterror programs would rather tus -- trust telecommunications companies to hold this data and search it on behalf of our government. these companies have no programs no training or tools to search the databases they would need to create. and if that wasn't bad enough we'd have to pay them to do it. the taxpayers would have to pay them to do it. in addition to making us less safe the u.s.a. freedom act would make our privacy less secure. the section 215 program is subject to rigorous controls and strict oversight.

only a limited number of intelligence professionals have access to the data. there are strict limits on when and for what purpose they can access the data. their access to the data is closely supervised with numerous numerous levels of review. these safeguards will not apply to the untried and novel system under the u.s.a. freedom act. and rather than storing the information securely at n.s. the information would be -- n.s.a., the information would be held by private companies instead. so madam president there was an excellent editorial today in the "wall street journal" pointing out the challenges that we face here.

it was entitled, "the snowden blindfold act." "the snowden blindfold act." the headline on the "wall street journal" today. i ask that it be included in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: finally i'd like to ask the senior senator from north carolina, who's the chairman of the intelligence committee the following question. why was it necessary to enact the provisions of the patriot act after the attacks of 9/11 9/11/2001 and why are they relevant today given the threat we face from isil and al qaeda? mr. burr: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina. mr. burr: madam president i appreciate the question that the leader has asked me and i would also ask unanimous consent to enter into a colloquy with my republican colleagues. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. burr: the leader raises a great question and it's really the purpose that section 215 was created.

it's the reason that the n.s.a. looked at ways to effectively get in front of threats take us back to 9/11 and the attacks. and as we reacted through our law enforcement tools within the united states we used an instrument called a national security letter. they produced a national security letter. they went to a judge. the judge verified that there was legitimacy to the concerns that they had. and then they had to go to each of the telecoms and ask that they search their systems for this information. the leader alluded to the fact that many looking back on pre-9/11 said had we had the tools we have today we might have stopped this attack. but over a series of years congress the executive branch the justice department and our intelligence community worked to refine the tools that we thought

could effectively be used to get in front of a terrorist attack. that brings us to where we are today. over those years we created section 215 the ability to use bulk data -- now what's bulk data? bulk data is storing telephone numbers and i.p. addresses. we have no idea who they belong to that are domestic. and the whole basis behind this program is that as a cell phone is picked up in syria and you look at the phone numbers that phone talked to, if there are some in the united states, we'd like to know that, at least law enforcement would like to know it so we can understand if there is a threat against us here in the homeland or somewhere else in the world. so section 215 allows the n.s.a.

to collect in bulk telephone numbers and i.p. addresses with no identifier on them. we couldn't tell you who that american might be. and if for a reason they believe that they need to look at that number because of an executive order from the president they go to a judge and the judge is the one that gives them permission to search or to query that data. if, in fact, they find a number that connects with that one of a known terrorist, they've got to go back to the court and prove that there is reason for them to know whose number is that. and the duration of time of the conversation. further information requires further judicial action. now, why are we here today? because this expires on may 31. and some would suggest that it's time to do away with it.

over this same period of time we added something the american people have been very close to, it's called the t.s.a. every time we go to an airport we go through a security mechanism, the americans have never complained about it, why? because we know when we get on that airplane, there's a high degree of likelihood that there's not a terrorist, a bomb some type of weapon that's going to be used against us. well the leader said there has not been a single instance of a breach of privacy. yet those that suggest we need to change this, do it 100% on the fact that the privacy has been invaded. let me just say to all my colleagues to the public both sides of the hill. every american today now has a discount grocery card on their key chain. they go and buy groceries and

they proudly scan that card because it gets them a discount. it gets them coupons gets them a gas reduction. here are the facts -- your grocery store collects ten times the amount of data that the n.s.a. ever thought about collecting on you. there's a big difference between the n.s.a. and your grocery store. the n.s.a. doesn't sell data. your grocery store does. from the data they collect on you, could you do a psychological profile on an individual that could tell you how old they are what their health is, where they live, 0-how often they shop, therefore when they work. we're not in the business of doing that. they are but i don't hear anybody complaining about the grocery stores' discount card because you get a discount so you're willing to do that. what we haven't shared with the american people is what do you get through this program? you get the safety and security of knowing that we're doing

everything we possibly can to identify a terrorist and the -- in the act and to stop it before it happens. so madam president we're here today with a choice. the choice is whether we're going to reauthorize this program that has been very very effective, with the same conditions that the president has in place got to go to a judge, and with important controls on privacy by professionals with rules. or whether we're going to roll it back to the telecoms. make no mistake about it, the compromise legislation rolls us back to the same thing we were doing pre-9/11. so whether you let it expire or whether you reauthorize it, those are the two choices because this compromise bill actually forces it back to telecoms. a very cumbersome time

consuming, and i would say fraught with privacy issues as the leader pointed out. it's my choice to continue the program because the program has worked. n.s.a. has a total of 16 people who have the authority to look at this data. i'll bet there would be more than 16 people in every telecom company that are authorized to search data. but let me just suggest to my colleagues this -- if their argument is valid then they should be on the floor with a similar bill eliminating the t.s.a. i'm not sure that anybody invades my privacy any more than the t.s.a. process when i go through the -- and are they x-ray me, they look at my luggage, in some cases they stop me and wand me and in cases hand check me. i'm not sure there is any more

blatant privacy concerns than that. but you know, they're not on here suggesting we do away with the t.s.a. because they know the public understands the safety that t.s.a. provides to aviation. our big mistake is we haven't been out here sharing with the american people why it's been so long since there's been an attack. we were luck why i this week in garland, texas lucky because 40-some texas law enforcement officers happened to be at a museum and everybody there was carrying. we're not going to be lucky every time. and i remind my colleagues and the public in the same week that isil went on the social media networks and say america don't think that you have got this in your rear view mirror, there are over 70 terrorists that we've got in america in 15 states and it's a matter of time

before it happens. why in the world would we think about rolling back the tools that are the only tools that put us post-9/11 versus pre-9/11? the threat is greater today domestically and around the world than it's ever been and the argument that we will be consumed with is whether we do away with tools that have been effective for law enforcement to protect america. madam president, i would suggest that we reauthorize this bill for five and a half years as is. and that we make the same commitment to the american people we do when we reauthorize and fund the t.s.a., no matter where you do, where we've got some controls, we're going to keep america safe. we're not going to let it revert back to where we're susceptible to another 9/11. with that, madam president i'd like to turn to senator cotton,

my distinguished colleague from arkansas and ask him whether he agrees that the collection of telephone and call data does not raise any reasonable expectations of privacy under the fourth amendment. mr. cotton: i thank the senator from north carolina and i appreciate his work and the majority leader's work in this critical issue. i've been working hand in glove with them all along. i would say the answer to your question is no. this is not -- does not raise any reasonable concern about privacy. in fact, the program does not collect any content that does not surveil any phone call. it doesn't even include any personally -- it doesn't even include any personally identifiable information. i have spent hours with the intelligence officers and the f.b.i. agents who are responsible for administering these programs, not merely the general counsels or the directors of these agencies but the men and women who administer them themselves. and i've asked them what do they think poses a greater risk to

their privacy the discount grocery card or -- the senator from north carolina mentioned or the fact that e-commerce web sites have their name, address, credit card number and personal history and to a person every up with of them said a greater threat to their privacy are those commercial marketing practices, not this program. the program has been approved 40 times by 15 different independent federal judges based on 36 years of supreme court precedent and approved by two presidents of both parties and if president obama wanted to end the program tomorrow, he could, but he hasn't. that's because this program is law firm you lawful, it is faithful to the constitution, it is smothered with safeguards against abuse and it is needed to fight the rising terrorist threats that we face today. in fact, those threats today are greater than they were on 9/11 and that's not my opinion that is the testimony of this administration's senior intelligence officials. the rise of al qaeda affiliates

in africa and the arabian peninsula and the broader middle east illustrates the metastasis of al qaeda following its retreat from afghanistan. they're more spread out their than their predecessors and are more operationally savvy recruiting westerners and using the internet to spread hatred. they publish how-to manuals for becoming a successful terrorist at home. of course there is the islamic state which has cut the heads off americans is murdering christians and other religious minorities and sadistically burned people alive. some have returned to their home countries, including the united states and some remained in their home countries becoming radicalized and ready to inflict harm against americans. we don't have to look further than this week when would jihadists decided to open fire in texas. press reports indicate one of the attackers was in contact

with an islamic state supporter currently in somalia. this conduct illustrates why this program is so important. it helps close the gap that existed between foreign intelligence intelligence gathering and stopping attacks at home before 9/11. this is the gap that contributed in part to our failure to stop the 9/11 attacks. there are also open source reports of islamic state sales in virginia, california, illinois and michigan. as a member of the intelligence committee i receive regular briefings on such threats. and i remind my colleagues to receive these briefings if they doubt the wolves are at the door or even in our country. and this highlights one challenge of our debate. most of the information surrounding these plots and the programs are classified. the intelligence community has been very accommodating in providing classified briefings to members of the senate and the congress. the issue is omnibus getting members to attend or to go visit with the agencies. that's why i believe the senate may have interest to enter a

closed session as we debate these programs so members are not willfully ignorant of the threat that america faces. now, under consideration in the house and proposed in the senate is the so-called u.s.a. freedom act. which will eliminate the essential intelligence this program collects. proponents of the bill claim that it provides alternative ways for the intelligence committee to obtain critical information needed to stop terrorist attacks and doesn't compromise our counterterror efforts but let me be clear this is wrong. the alternatives to the current program would not come close to offering the capabilities that now enable us to protect americans. one alternative offered by opponents of this program is to have phone companies retain control of callgate and provide only in response to searches the phone companies would run on the n.s.a.'s behalf. this isn't feasible. at the request of the president 's director of national intelligence experts concluded that the technology does not

currently exist that would enable a system spread among different carriers to replace the capabilities of the current n.s.a. program. any such system would create gaping holes in our ability to identify terrorist connections. first phone companies don't store the data longer than 180 days and oftentimes much shorter periods and nothing this the u.s.a. freedom act requires them to store it longer. the current program stores data for fives of five years which allows the n.s.a. to discover links within that time period. carriers who store shorter periods is close to useless in discovering sleeper cells many of which lie in wait for years before launching an attack. second a system that tries to search multiple carriers is cumbersome and time consuming. in many investigations the loss of valuable minutes hours days may be the difference between stopping an attack or seeing it

succeed. third, the data stored with phone companies rather than the n.s.a. are more vulnerable to hackers who would seek to abuse the data. fourth, the costs are unknown and the american people will bear them. either as taxpayers if the telecom companies ask to be reimbursed or as consumers as the companies pass along the costs on your phone bill, perhaps as an n.s.a. collection fee. and fifth to those people who say this is technologically feasible i would remind you this is the federal government that brought you healthcare.gov. a second alternative is to pay a third party contractor to store data and run the program. i would argue this is untested and unworkable. first, the proposal would also require an indefinite stream of taxpayer dollars to fund it. second the private entity may be subject to civil litigation,

discovery orders as it may hold evidence relevant to cases with no connection to national security and without the security and privacy protection in place today. third, a new organization would create the need for heavy security top-secret cleaners for employees and strong oversight as more resources are devoted to what we would end is up a reconstituted program with greater threats to privacy. as i mentioned i've taken the opportunity in recent months to go and visit the men and women who work at the n.s.a. and f.b.i. i can tell you all, they are fine americans with the highest character. i have spent hours with a very small number of men and women at fort meade who are actually allowed to search this data. i would ask, how many of the critics of the program have actually do this? let's examine in detail how these men and women search this data. an independent federal court regular a approves the n.s.a.'s

authority to collect and store the data in the first place. but for these men and women to even look at the data, it must go through a multistep process that includes approval by four different entities at the n.s.a. numerous toarps at the department of justice and those very same judges who sit on that court. and even if the search request is granted not just ning at n.s.a. can access the data. access is limited to the small group of men and women all of whom undergo regular background checks drug tests and are subject to regular polygraphs, many of whom are military veterans themselves. and to prevent use of the program in retrospect, searches of the data are automatically recorded and regularly audited by both the inspector general and the department of justice with strict penalties for anyone to have found to have committed abuse. moreover i the senator from north kearld andnorth carolina participate in these reviews. this is a robust and layered set

of protections for americans their privacy and these protections would not exist under the proposed u.s.a. freedom act. there are also protections that almost definitely with not be adopted by private telecommunication providers who some wrongly suggest might contain exclusive control of this data. these multiple safeguards are why to date these programs have a sterling record with no verified instances of intentional abuse not a single one. madam president in conclusion, in the wake of the tax rate traitorous snowden disclosures as senator feinstein when she was chair of the senate intelligence committee wrote to end this program will substantially increase the risk of another catastrophic attack in the u.s. that is a proposition with which

i wholeheartedly agree. i now see my colleague from the judiciary committee on the floor, himself a former u.s. attorney and state attorney general, and i would wonder if he agrees that in program is both constitutional and does not differ in substantial ways from the traditional tools that prosecutors can use against criminals while also providing adequate safeguards to american privacy? mr. sessions: thank you senator cotton. that's an important question. first, i'd like to thank you for volunteering to serve in the forces of the united states to protect the security of our country in the middle east and dangerous areas. we do need to protect our national security. we lost almost 3,000 people on 9/11 the nation came together -- i was a member of the senate judiciary committee at the time -- and we evaluate what had to do about it. and we worked together in a bipartisan way and in a virtual

unanimous agreement passed the patriot act that would try to help us be more effective in dealing with international terrorism. and what i have to tell you colleagues is we were facing -- and many people were shocked to see the improper obstacles that were placed in the way of our f.b.i. and other agents as they sought to try to figure out how to identify and capture people who wanted to do harm to america. it was stunning. there was a wall between the c.i.a. which did the foreign intelligence. they couldn't say to the f.b.i., we have intelligence that this person might be a terrorist. the f.b.i. has jurisdiction within the united states. that wall was eliminated, i think, on a totally unanimous vote. and we did other things in an overwhelming bipartisan way. and as a person who spent 15 years as a prosecutor, i would

say, colleagues, that there's nothing in this act that alters the fundamental principles of what powers investigators have to investigate crime in america. a county attorney can issue a subpoena from any county in america, and does every day by the hundreds of thousands subpoenas to phone calls for telephone toll records and those telephone records have the name and address and the phone numbers called and how many minutes. what is maintained in this system is basically just numbers numbers. all right ... not only can a county attorney, who is a lawyer but a drug enforcement agent, an i.r.s. agent can issue an administrative subpoena for -- on the basis that the

information in telephone toll records regarding john doe that are relevant to the investigation i'm conducting, and they can get this information. it's done by law and it is a written document. but that's the way it's done. every day in america. it doesn't have to be a court order to get those records. we're talking about hundreds of thousands of subpoenas for telephone toll records every murder case, virtually every roberobbery case, every big drug case. the prosecutor wants to use those toll records to show the connection between the criminals. it is extremely valuable for a jury. this is part of daily law practice in america. and to say that the f.b.i. agents have to have a court order before they can obtain a telephone toll record is contrary to everything that happens every day in america. i'm absolutely amazed that the

president has gone further than the law requires in requiring some form of court order. apparently, this bill would go even further this freedom act. it's not necessary. you do not get the communications. all you get is who the person may be a terrorist in yemen and they're making phone calls to the united states, and you check to see who -- what those numbers are and who they may have called. and you might identify the cell inside the united states that's on the verge of having another 9/11 to hijack another airplane blow up the capitol. i mean, this is real life. and we -- i think we only had a couple hundred queries. i think that's awfully low. one reason is i'm sure we've got such a burden on it. so -- so i would say colleagues,

let's don't overreact on this. pleerksplease let's do overreact on this. former attorney general mukasey a former federal judge himself has just really pushed back on this and he believes it's the wrong kind of thing for us to be doing at this time. this is what he said. "to impose such a burden on the n.s.a. as a price of simile running a number -- simply running a number through a database that includes neither the conat any time of calls nor even the identity of the callers, the president said this step may be dis-expensed with only in a true emergency as if events -- crescendo to tell when with a true emergency was at hand." he was talk aboutthis is the way the system works and has worked the last 50 years -- 40 years at least. a crime occurs.

prosecutor or d.e.a. agents investigate it. they issue a subpoena to the local phone company who has these telephone toll records the same thing you get in the mail and they send in response to the experiential subpoena, they send these documents. so now the computer systems are more sophisticated, there are more phoning calls than ever. it numbers by the tens of millions probably billions of calls. and so they are reducing their number that they are maintaining in their computers and the subpoenas -- i believe senator cotton said 18 months maybe they abandon -- wipe out all of these record. well an investigation into terrorism may want to go back five years. so the government, they download the records they maintained in the secure system and they're accessible just like they had been before but actually with

less information than the local police get when they issue a subpoena. so i thank the chair. i believe this would be a big mistake and i am pleased with my colleagues -- senator bur? mr. burr: i thank my colleague colleague. i would ask unanimous consent for five additional minutes on the majority side and to add five additional minutes to the minority side of this period. the presiding officer: is there objection sno? without objection. mr. burr: madam president, i am very curious to hear what my colleague, senator rubio has to say and whether he is in agreement with what we've said on the floor to this point. mr. rubio: i thank my colleagues have made an excellent point today in outlining all the details of how to program works. let me just back up and point out why are we even having this debate other than the fact that it is expiring? and it is because a perception that be created including by political figures that serve in

this chamber that the united states government is listening to your phone calls or going through your bills as a matter of course. that is absolutely categorically false. the next time that any politician -- senator congressman, talkinghead whatever it may be -- stands up and says that the u.s. government is standing up and going through your phone records, they're lying. this just is not true. except for some very isolated instances -- in the hundreds -- of individuals for whom there is reasonable suspicion that they could have links to terrorism. you know, those of us in this cull tire and in our society are often accused of having a short attention span. we forget that less than a year ago russian separatists shot down a commercial airliner armed by the russians, maybe even the russians themselves did t we forget it wasn't long ago that assad was using chemical weapons to slaughter people in sear yasm the world moves on. what wreeshed never forget is what happened here on the is 11th

of september of the year 2001. there are moments that people always remember. they remember when president kennedy was assassinated. everyone in this room remembers where they were and what they were doing on the 11th of september of the year 2001. here leshere's the truth: if this program had existed before 9/11, it is quite possible that we would have known that the 9/11 hijacker was living in san diego and was making phone calls to an al qaeda safehouse in yemen p. there's no guarantee we would have known. there is no way we can go back in time and prove it. but there is a probability that we could have. there is a probability that american lives could have been saved. this program works as follows: if we believe that an individual -- we meaning the intelligence agencies of the united states -- believes that there is an individual involved in terrorist

activity a reasonable belief, and that individual might be communicating with people as part of a plot, they have to get an order that allows them access to their phone bill, and the phone bill boskly tells us when they called, what number they called and how long the call took. why does that matter? because if i know that subject "x" san individual involved in terrorism, of course you want to know who they are calling. you won't be as interested in the calls to pizzaer hut or the local pharmacy, but you would be interested in calls overseas or calls to other people because they could be part of the plot as well. that's why this is such a valuable tool. and my colleagues have already pointed out if the i.r.s. wants your phone bill, they just have to issue a subpoena. if any agency of american government -- if your local police department wants your phone bill -- if you are involved in a civil litigation and they want access to your phone bill because it is relevant to the case, they can just get a subpoena.

it is part of the record. the intelligence agencies actually have to go through a number of hoops and hurdles. that's fine. that's appropriate because these are very powerful agencies. i would further add that the people that are raising hysteria -- what is the problem we are solving here? there is not one single documented case, not one single documented case -- there is not one single case that's been brought to us as aen an example of how this is being abused. show us the story give us the name. show us who is this individual that is going out and seizing seizing the phone records of americans improperly. there is no one example of that. inif there is, that individual should be nut jail. the solution not to get rid of a program at a time when we know that the risk of homegrown violent extremism is the highest its ever been. we u -- we used to be worried about a foreigner coming to the united states and carrying out an

attack. then we were worried about an american traveling abroad and carrying out an attack. now we're worried about people that may never lead here that are radicalized on-line and carry out an attack. this is not a theoretical threat. just last weekend two individuals inspired by isis, tried to carry out an attack in the state of texas. one day -- i hope that i'm wrong -- but one day there will be an attack that's successful. and the first question out of everyone's mouth is going to be, why didn't we know about it? and the answer better not be because this congress failed to authorize a program that might have helped us know about it. these people are not playing games. they don't go on these web sites and say the things they say for purposes of aggrandizement. this is a serious threat and i hope we reauthorize this bill. mr. burr: madam president i thank my colleagues for their participation, and i thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for their accommodation. and i would conclude by saying this. in the very near future, this congress will be presented two

choices -- to reauthorize a program that works or to the roll back our tools to pre-9/11. i don't believe that's what the american people want. i don't believe that's what members of congress want. i urge my colleagues, become educated on what this program is what it does and more importantly, how effective it's on the floor to this point. mr. rubio: i thank my colleagues have made an excellent point today in outlining all the details of how to program works. let me just back up and point out why are we even having this debate other than the fact that it is expiring? and it is because a perception that be created including by political figures that serve in this chamber that the united states government is listening to your phone calls or going through your bills as a matter of course. that is absolutely categorically false. the next time that any politician -- senator congressman, talkinghead whatever it may be -- stands up and says that the u.s. government is standing up and

going through your phone records, they're lying. this just is not true. except for some very isolated instances -- in the hundreds -- of individuals for whom there is reasonable suspicion that they could have links to terrorism. you know, those of us in this cull tire and in our society are often accused of having a short attention span. we forget that less than a year ago russian separatists shot down a commercial airliner armed by the russians, maybe even the russians themselves did t we forget it wasn't long ago that assad was using chemical weapons to slaughter people in sear yasm the world moves on. what wreeshed never forget is what happened here on the is 11th of september of the year 2001. there are moments that people always remember. they remember when president kennedy was assassinated. everyone in this room remembers where they were and what they were doing on the 11th of september of the year 2001.

here leshere's the truth: if this program had existed before 9/11, it is quite possible that we would have known that the 9/11 hijacker was living in san diego and was making phone calls to an al qaeda safehouse in yemen p. there's no guarantee we would have known. there is no way we can go back in time and prove it. but there is a probability that we could have. there is a probability that american lives could have been saved. this program works as follows: if we believe that an individual -- we meaning the intelligence agencies of the united states -- believes that there is an individual involved in terrorist activity a reasonable belief, and that individual might be communicating with people as part of a plot, they have to get an order that allows them access to their phone bill, and the phone bill boskly tells us when they called, what number they called and how long the call took. why does that matter? because if i know that subject

"x" san individual involved in terrorism, of course you want to know who they are calling. you won't be as interested in the calls to pizzaer hut or the local pharmacy, but you would be interested in calls overseas or calls to other people because they could be part of the plot as well. that's why this is such a valuable tool. and my colleagues have already pointed out if the i.r.s. wants your phone bill, they just have to issue a subpoena. if any agency of american government -- if your local police department wants your phone bill -- if you are involved in a civil litigation and they want access to your phone bill because it is relevant to the case, they can just get a subpoena. it is part of the record. the intelligence agencies actually have to go through a number of hoops and hurdles. that's fine. that's appropriate because these are very powerful agencies. i would further add that the people that are raising hysteria -- what is the problem we are solving here? there is not one single documented case, not one single

documented case -- there is not one single case that's been brought to us as aen an example of how this is being abused. show us the story give us the name. show us who is this individual that is going out and seizing seizing the phone records of americans improperly. there is no one example of that. inif there is, that individual should be nut jail. the solution not to get rid of a program at a time when we know that the risk of homegrown violent extremism is the highest its ever been. we u -- we used to be worried about a foreigner coming to the united states and carrying out an attack. then we were worried about an american traveling abroad and carrying out an attack. now we're worried about people that may never lead here that are radicalized on-line and carry out an attack. this is not a theoretical threat. just last weekend two individuals inspired by isis, tried to carry out an attack in the state of texas.

one day -- i hope that i'm wrong -- but one day there will be an attack that's successful. and the first question out of everyone's mouth is going to be, why didn't we know about it? and the answer better not be because this congress failed to authorize a program that might have helped us know about it. these people are not playing games. they don't go on these web sites and say the things they say for purposes of aggrandizement. this is a serious threat and i hope we reauthorize this bill. mr. burr: madam president i thank my colleagues for their participation, and i thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for their accommodation. and i would conclude by saying this. in the very near future, this congress will be presented two choices -- to reauthorize a program that works or to the roll back our tools to pre-9/11. i don't believe that's what the american people want. i don't believe that's what members of congress want. i urge my colleagues, become educated on what this program is what it does and more importantly, how effective it's minutes

when knife consumed five minutes. thank you. madam president, i rise today to support the president's negotiations with the p 5 plus one and iran and i speak about the tremendous work especially at our national laboratories to create a framework agreement that meets the scientific requirements to prevent iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. i also want to express my support for the corker-menendez bill as passed by the senate foreign relations committee. congress must have an oversight role. there's no doubt about that. and while i do not believe this bill is necessary to have such a role i do believe it is the best compromise to ensure a congressional role and a congressional oversight role. without weakening the president's hand to continue critical negotiations. first let's be clear we all agree on one basic point. a nuclear armed iran is a

serious threat. no up with doubts this. no one questions the history of iran's deception. that history is well documented and the danger is evident. this is the greatest nuclear nonproliferation challenge of our time. it is of tremendous import to our nation, to the middle east region and to our ally, israel. it is a challenge that we must meet. we do not disagree on the danger we disagree on the response. the corker-menendez bill is truly bipartisan. it passed the foreign relations committee on which i'm proud to serve unanimously. i want to thank chairman corker and ranking member cardin for their leadership and all their hard work to find a compromise solution. this is a solid bill that gives congress the opportunity to review a final agreement to hold hearings and to ask tough questions and it creates an

orderly method for congress to approve or disapprove of any final agreement providing more than enough time for both. the administration still has work to do and needs time to do it. i believe the framework agreement has promise to stop iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon to protect israel and prevent a new war in the middle east. and it would take longer for iran to secure nuclear materials needed to make a bomb. as a result, the u.s. and its allies would have much more time to respond if iran attempted to break out and build a nuclear weapon. this is not speculation. this is not wishful thinking. energy secretary monise and secretary of state john kerry make this commitment clear. if anyone doubts this, visit our nuclear security experts at the labs in new mexico, california and oak ridge tennessee oregon

or and illinois. talk to the engineers and scientists who know the most about nuclear weapons and what is needed to make them. as the secretary said in his recent op-ed in "the washington post," "an important part of the parameters is a set of restrictions that would significantly increase the time it would take iran to produce the nuclear material needed for a weapon. the breakout time, if it pursued one. the current breakout time is just two to three months. that would increase to at least a year, for at least ten years; more than enough time to mount an effective response." secretary monice goes on to say -- and i quote -- "the negotiated program tems would block iran's pathways, the path to a nuclear reduction at a reactor, two paths to a uranium weapons to the netantz and

fordow enrichment facilities. these must continue. the president and his team must have room to proceed. let's not kid ourselves. this complex is daunting. success is not guaranteed. i will opposite any amendments to the corker-menendez bill that would tie the president's hands. efforts such as the letter sent by 47 members of this body and other efforts to derail negotiations only serve to confound and weaken our position politics must stop at the water's edge. the senate will have ample time to review any agreement and to approve or reject any agreement but our debate is within these halls. it is with each other and with our fellow senators and with our president. the ayatollah has no place in that debate. the congress should give the president the room he needs to negotiate. this is a world of imperfect choices. and if negotiations fail, make

no mistake our options are limited and likely costly. we are dealing with an unstable region. use of force or regime change has unforeseen consequences. that path may seem simple. it's not. both recent history in iraq and the history of our interactions with iran and the 20th century surely has taught us that much. senators corker and cardin have given us a disol -- a solid bill one that is in the best tradition of the senate and in the best interest of our country. i commend them for this and i urge my colleagues to support the bill. i yield the floor madam president. mr. menendez: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: madam president i rise to speak on the iran

nuclear review act. as i have said from the start bipartisanship on this legislation has always been the key to making sure that congress has the ability to review any agreement with iran, a nation that we cannot trust. it is critically important that that bipartisanship is preserved. as we head to a 2:00 vote on cloture to move forward on this bill let me just say i want to thank chairman corker for his leadership. i want to thank ranking member cardin for taking up the cause and for helping to bring this legislation to this point starting with a unanimous vote out of the senate foreign relations committee. at the end of the day we can pass a bipartisan bill, as senator corker and i first envisioned it. now it's been a long and difficult process. there has been debate, disagreement to some amendments,

but we have almost reached the finish line. and despite the good intentions -- and i will say the good intentions of many of the amendments some which i agree with -- we cannot risk a presidential veto and we cannot at the end of the day risk giving up congressional review and judgment. that is the critical core issue before the senate. will we have congressional review and judgment on probably the most significant nuclear nonproliferation national security global security question, i think of our time. we cannot risk having no oversight role. and without the passage of this legislation, we will have missed an opportunity to send a clear message to tehran. so as we near the finish line and hopefully agree to govern as we should, i believe we will

ultimately pass legislation without destroying what senator corker and i carefully crafted and was passed unanimously out of the committee. from the beginning we fashioned language to ensure that congress plays a critical role in judging any final agreement. and i want to also recognize senator kaine who had significant input as we were devising the bill, and for his support. the bill we crafted was intended to ensure that if the p-5 plus 1 and iran ultimately achieve a comprehensive agreement by the june deadline, congress would have a say in judging that agreement. now, a core element of the framework agreement that is, i guess the foundation of the negotiations leading into june

is about sanctions relief as a core part of it, at least from the iranian perspective. and the sanctions relief the administration is proposing that is at the heart of these negotiations from their perspective for us, it's about their nuclear infrastructure and their drive for nuclear weapons. but for them, why are they here seated in negotiations in the first place? as the administration themselves has recognized. it is because of the sanctions. well, that was crafted by congress and it was enacted by congress. and we should be the ones to make a determination of whether or not it is appropriate to relieve those sanctions. now i have to say as one of the authors of those sanctions i never envisioned a wholesale waiver of sanctions against iran without congressional input and without congressional action. so the message i believe that we

can send -- and i hope we will do it powerfully to iran is that sanctions relief is not a given and it is not a prize for signing on the dotted line. make no mistake having said that i hope we can have a strong bipartisan vote on this bill, i have serious questions about the framework agreement as it stands today from the different understandings that both sides have of the agreement which is, i guess, part of the challenge of not committing it to writing one document in writing, about the pace of sanctions relief. i increasingly get alarmed that there is a suggestion that there will be greater upfront sanctions relief. i don't believe as i said, that iran should get a signing bonus. i'm concerned about the recent statement by the president that he could envision greater sanctions relief coming up front for iran. i have real questions about

where is the spectrum of iran's research and development authorities as we move forward and how far they can advance their research and development as it relates to nuclear power. greater research and development means, among other things, more sophisticated centrifuges that can spin faster and dramatically reduce breakout time towards a nuclear bomb. i'm concerned about the ability to snap back sanctions if there are violations of any agreement. and certainly what i've seen in the first instance which sounds like a committee process doesn't guarantee that a snap back will take place or that it will be done in a timely factor, fashion, and ultimately snapback in and of itself is a challenge because it doesn't recognize that it takes time for sanctions to actually take effect. so even if you're snapping back, as saying we won't have to go to the law again to have them in place, to have them take effect

to pursue its enforcement we have learned takes time, and time is something that is ultimately not on our side. i'm concerned about the international atomic energy administration's ability to obtain any time, anyplace snap inspections. i already heard the iranians say, they're balking about that and also balking about the possibility that the iaea believes that such a location might be a military installation. no not going to allow any of our military installations to be inspected. that is a sure-fire way to guarantee that if you want to ultimately violate the deal, do it at a military site where you're not allowing inspection to take place. i'm concerned about what i hear, that the administration is trying to differentiate between the iranian revolutionary guard and the quds force to provide greater sanctions relief, both

as far as i'm concerned are terrorist groups. and as far as i'm concerned are clearly covered by u.s. law. so trying to get the treasury department to differentiate is really problematic and concerning. i'm deeply disturbed that the agreement does not speak to the long-established condition that iran must come completely clean on the question of their possible weaponization of their nuclear program. we need to know how far along iran progressed in their weaponization so that we can understand those consequences as it relates to other breakout time issues. and above all i'm concerned that when you read the framework agreement, while it does talk about some things in longer time frames the core question as to when iran could advance its

nuclear program in a way that they want to and that i think is problematic is at the expiration of ten years. does that mean we are ultimately destined to have iran as a nuclear weapons state after that period of time? that cannot be and should not be the ultimate result. so i say all of those concerns to say to my colleagues even though i passionately believe that this legislation is critical for us, it is not that i don't have concerns, but this legislation is the vehicle by which we can judge. now maybe these issues will be resolved in a negotiation. i don't know. but ultimately without this vehicle, we have no final say on an agreement and we have no oversight role established for compliance. i'm concerned that the sanctions relief can comes without what appears to be a broader iran policy in terms of how do we

contain its acts of terrorism. it clearly is the largest state-sponsored terrorism. we see its hegemonic influence as a major place of what is assad and syria, what is happening in yemen, what is happening in different parts of the region. i'm concerned about its missile technology. there are a lot of elements here of concern at the end of the day. and i would say to my colleagues who feel passionately about some of these amendments that they have offered this isn't the only bill on which we can consider those things. i stand ready to work with colleagues immediately on pursuing other concerns such as missile technology, such as terrorism, such as their human rights violations, such as their anti-semitism, such as the americans who are being held hostage. and to look at either sanctions

or enhanced sanctions if they already exist on some of these elements that we should be considering. that is separate and apart from a nuclear program. so i'd be more than willing to work with my colleagues to deal with all of those issues. and i will say that even as we have worked to give the administration the space to negotiate and believe very passionately in this legislation, it bothers me enormously that just last week reuters reported that great britain informed the united nations sanctions panel on april 20 of an active iranian nuclear procurement network apparently linked to two blacklisted firms. iran's centrifuge technology company called tesa and khalia company, k.e.f. if what great britain bought before the sanctions panel is

true, how can we trust iran to end its nuclear weapons ambitions and not be a threat to its neighbors when even as we are negotiating with them, they are trying to illist sitly acquire materials for their nuclear weapons program in the midst of the negotiations? forgetting about everything they are doing in yemen and syria forgetting about their hostility to ships in the strait of hormuz forgetting about their actions of terrorism, this is square on trying to ultimately use front companies to get materials for your nuclear program. so we can't build this on trust alone and i know the administration says we're not going to trust them, we're going to verify. but it goes beyond that. it can't be a fleeting hope that iran will comply with the provisions and change their stripes. i believe they won't. it can't be built on the

aspirations or good intentions like the north korea deal, not when iran continues to sponsor terrorism, not while it asserts its interests from iraq to bahrain and lebanon. not as events continue to worsen. i just had the u.n. relief coordinator in on syria. this is a human tragedy of unimaginable proportions. we have become almost desensitized. you don't hear about it on the senate floor anymore. it's all supported and encouraged and financed by tehran. and not while iran's fingerprints remain in the dust of the jewish community center in argentina even as it seeks to bargain with our country's leader for absolution. that is the iran we are dealing with. that is the state we are being asked to hope will change. well hope is not a national security solution when it comes to dealing with iran. congress having a say on any

final agreement is critical to how we deal with iran and so i urge my colleagues to have a strong vote on cloture. and i hope after that, a unanimous vote on passage. and with that, madam president i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: mr. president i rise today to address the legislation before us, the iran nuclear agreement review act of

2015. which sets up a deliberate process for congressional review of a final nuclear agreement with iran. the united states, our citizens, our president and probably every member of the u.s. senate and house stand united in our commitment to prevent iran from securing a nuclear weapon. nuclear proliferation is a huge danger to human civilization on our planet. the more nations that possess nuclear weapons the more opportunities there are for misunderstandings between nations to trigger first use of a nuclear weapon. the more nations that possess nuclear weapons the more opportunities there are for failures in command and control to result in the unintended use of a weapon. and the more nations that possess nuclear weapons the more opportunities there are for terrorist groups to gain acquisition of a weapon. and certainly the possibility of iran possessing a nuclear weapon

poses special security concerns. the middle east is being torn asunder by long-standing conflicts and challenges. if iran acquires a then other nations, like saudi arabia, are likely to also seek to secure a nuclear weapon. moreover, in the fervent rivalry between shia islam and sunni islam which brings powers into bloody and extensive conflict from syria to yemen to iraq, there are abundant scenarios that could generate potential use of a nuclear weapon either through misunderstandings or misguided perceptions of military advantage. and none of us will ever forget that the government of iran has put forth a steady stream of invectives against our close ally israel, calling for her destruction iran's possession of a nuclear weapon would pose a

very real threat to the existence of the state of israel. for all these reasons americans are united. our 100 senators are united in believing that it is imperative that iran does not secure a nuclear weapon. but the question we must debate here and resolve is, which strategy is most effective to achieve this outcome? there are three basic options. a negotiated dismantlement of iran's nuclear weapons program with an intrusive inspection and verification regime to ensure iran is keeping its word. second a reliance on indefinite extension of tough multilateral economic sanctions in hopes that that will continue to dissuade iran from pursuing a nuclear weapons program. and, third a military option designed to destroy critical components of iran's nuclear weapons infrastructure.

of these options forereasons -- for reasons i will explain in due course, the first is the far superior option. to understand this set of possibilities, however, we have to understand the current situation. the united states has imposed sanctions against iran since 1979. many of the sanctions iran faced from that time through 2008 were unilateral. these sanctions however were largely ineffective. iran's trade with the united states was diminished but sanctions had little overall effect because iran was able to continue trading through other nations. president obama coming into office in 2009 saw this clearly. he recognized the importance of enforcing u.n. resolutions passing stronger ones and convincing our allies to go beyond those resolutions and truly tighten the web of restrictions on iran's trade and

finances. the result was coordination with the p5-plus 1 the united states united kingdom russia, and china. and these multilateral discussions have come about in several phases. in 2010, there were a series of sanctions targeting the banking and oil sectors. in 2011, section 1245 of the fiscal year 2012 national defense authorization act was passed. in 2012, we passed the iran threat reduction act. in 2013, the iran freedom and counterproliferation act. these sanctions the american sanctions and the multilateral sanctions, have had an enormous impact on the economy of iran. their crude oil exports fell from around $2.5 billion -- excuse me, $2.5 mill -- 2.5 million barrels per day in 2011 to about 1.1 million barrels per day at the end of

2013. trade between europe and iran plunged. it plunged from almost $32 billion in 2005 to about $9 billion today. iran's economy has taken a huge hit and iran's current president was elected on a platform of negotiating with the goal of alleviating the enormous economic impact created by the sanctions. the sanctions have accomplished their intended goal -- they have brought iran to the negotiating table in search of an agreement based on a simple are straightforward formulation. iran will forego a nuclear weapons program if the international coalition will, in return lift its devastating and -- devastatingly effective sanctions. that's the background to the negotiations underway today between iraq and the p5-plus 1. but when these negotiations got into full motion they weren't

just about talking. they agreed on a set of continues to freeze and to some degree reverse elements of iran's domestic nuclear program. not waiting to the conclusion of the negotiations but as a condition of the negotiations. this joint plan of action, or j.p.a., that iran and the p5-plus 1 agreed to, has a substantial number of elements and i'll mention a few. first, iran has to refrain from any further advancement of activities at three critical facilities. at the furdahl enrichment facilities, at the batan enrichment facility and further activity at the iraq heavy water reactor. that reactor could when completed, produce plutonium that could be utilized in a bomb. second iran in this joint plan of action has agreed to provide the international atomic energy agency, or iaea, with additional information about its nuclear

program as well as access it to sensitive -- access to sensitive nuclear-related activity facilities to which the iaea does not require access. third, as a condition iraq agreed not to produce 20% enriched uranium -- that's the form of hexaflorida ride -- of enriched uranium in iran's stockpile that has caused the most concern. fourth iran has agreed to fully eliminate its existing stockpile of 20% uranium by diluting half of that stockpile to uranium hexaflorida ride containing no more than 5% of uranium 235 and converting the rest of the material to a uranium compound not suitable for enrichment. these conditions in effect, as i speak on the floor of the senate, have not only frozen iran's program during the negotiations, they have also given the p5-plus 1 coalition members enormously improved

understanding of iran's nuclear program. that understanding of iran's program has increased the ability of the p5-plus 1 to shape a framework for a final agreement designed to block all of the possible pathways to a nuclear weapon. there are four iranian pathways to a bomb. one pathway is to utilize fissile material from the fordahl underground enrichment facility. this is the secret uranium facility -- former secret -- deep beneath underground massively reinforced with concrete and steel to enable it to withstand most bombing assaults. the second pathway is to utilize fissile material at the utan underground enrichment facility. the third pathway is to utilize at some future point plutonium of spent fuel from the iraq heavy water reactor.

and i say at some future point because this reactor is still under construction. and the fourth is to utilize covert operations to acquire or to make fissile material for a bomb. on april 2 last month iran and the p5-plus 1 coalition announced a framework for a joint comprehensive plan of action on iran's nuclear program intended to address and block all four of these pathways to a bomb. now, as reported by the state department, i'm going to review a few of those details of this framework. this is the bones of agreement that has to be fleshed out in the weeks to follow. let's talk first about fordahl this deep underground massively reinforced formerly secret uranium enrichment facility. they would repurpose it for peaceful research. they would not enrich uranium at this facility. iran would remove approximately

two-thirds of the centrifuges. the remaining centrifuges and related infrastructure would be placed under iaea monitoring. let's turn to natanz. here are the few of the restrictions for this second pathway, second possible pathway for an eye rain yum nuclear weapon. iran would remove the thousand ir2-m centrifuges currently installed and place them under iaea monitoring for 10 years. they would engage in limited research and development with some of its advanced centrifuges according to a schedule and parameters agreed to by the p5-plus 1. iran would use only its less efficient first-generation centrifuges to enrich uranium at natanz, a process that would be closely monitored. and beyond 10 years iran would abide by its enrichment and r&d plan submitted to the iaea under the additional protocol resulting in certain limitations on enrichment capacity. let's turn to the third pathway

and that is the possibility of plutonium secured from nuclear fuel used at this heavy water reactor. to block this pathway to a nuclear bomb iran would agree to ship all of its spent fuel out of the country and not to build a reprocessing facility for such nuclear fuel. iran would redesign and rebuild its heavy water reactor in iraq based on a design that is agreed to by the p5-plus 1. the original core of that reactor, which would have enabled the production of significant quantities of weapons-grade plutonium, would be destroyed or removed from the country. and iran would not build any additional heavy water reactors. finally, the framework provides major design to provide high confidence that iran is not employing covert operations to develop a bomb. this is the fourth pathway the

covert pathway. under the agreement the iaea would have regular access to all of iran's nuclear facilities, including natanz and fordahl. inspectors would have access to the supply chain starting with the uranium mines the uranium milling. they'd have continuous surveillance at the uranium mills. they'd have continuous surveillance of iran's centrifuges. in addition all of the centrifuges and enrichment infrastructure removed from fordahl and natanz would be under continuous monitoring by the iaea and a channel to monitor and approve the sale or transfer to iran of certain dual-use materials and technology. iran would be required to grant the iaea access to investigate

suspicious sites or rent refuge yellow cake facilities anywhere in the country and iran would implement and agreed set of measures to address iaea's concerns regarding the possible military dimensions of its program. many of the framework elements i've just described are to last ten years. some have a lifetime of 15 or 20 or 25 years under this this initial framework. so this framework as many have pointed out does not lock into place all of these elements for an eternity. but by building a deep cooperation, consultation and coordination over a ten-year period we create a the best possible chance of forming a long-term agreement that will preclude the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the middle east. the challenge now is to take this framework as articulated by

the state department and generate detailed agreement language. that will not be an easy task. already you can tell the complexities from just the elements that i've mentioned on each of these four pathways. earlier, i noted that while senators are united in believing that we must prevent iran from acquiring a nuclear bomb, there is disagreement over the best strategy and i have laid out the main elements of the negotiated strategy but in addition to the verified dismantlement of iran's nuclear program there are two other options widely discussed. one option has been articulated by members of this chamber and others would be simply to end negotiations and try to continue with an intensified multilateral sanctions regime. it's important to note, however, that if you end negotiations it means an end to the measures that are currently in place measures in place today as i speak on this senate

floor. it would mean an end to the freeze on construction of the iraq reactor an end to the negotiated elimination of stockpiles or the modification of the 20% enriched uranium, an end to the inspections of iran's nuclear facilities and infrastructure which has enabled us to learn so much about their activities. moreover without any interim agreement on inspections iran could decide to vastly expand its nuclear program an outcome that is in direct contradiction of the security interests of the united states and our allies. furthermore, there is no guarantee that if the u.s. ends negotiations that multilateral sanctions would survive. if our partners in the p-5 plus 1 believe that the u.s. has deliberately undermined the success of the negotiations, the partners may very well be

unwilling to maintain and force -- enforce a strong multilateral regime. this is not just speculation. representatives from britain and france and germany have expressed concerns that to undermine negotiations to withdraw could fracture the international coalition which has made the sanctions effective. where are we then? without effective multilateral sanctions, iran would have achieved its top negotiating objectives. its economy would improve. the pressure to make concessions on nuclear activities and international monitoring would aevaporate. in short pursuing alternative negotiations could have disastrous consequences with our major objectives undermined, iran's economy improved, iran's nuclear program unleashed an outcome that would degrade national security.

the third option discussed in this chamber is to destroy iran's nuclear infrastructure through military force. advocates for the use of force point to israel's 1981 attack on saddam hussein's reactor in iraq. and israel's 2007 destruction of a syrian reactor. advocates for this military option paint a picture in which a small group of american bombers conduct limited strikes using bunker-busting bombs. thus they argue the u.s. could break key links and set iran's program back three to five years. this simplistic analysis is way off the mark. military experts paint a very different picture. mr. president, i encourage raul of my colleagues here to read the analysis prepared by the center for strategic and

international studies entitled "analyzing the impact of airstrikes against iran's nuclear facilities." this recognizes that a competent campaign would involve many defensive and offensive elements. here you a few of them. a strategy to reduce radars and batteries an expensive strategy to destroy ballistic missiles iran could use in an retaliatory strike, a direct assault on iran's nuclear facilities ex extensive supply logistics, a expensive -- extensive strategies to prevent retaliatory strikes and a huge effort to defend against asymmetric attacks throughout the world. that's just a modest list of the

complexities of the military option. i again encourage folks to read the analyses by serious military analysts. hopefully you get the picture. there is nothing quick nothing easy about a military option. moreover retaliatory threats to the u.s. and our allies might come from sources other than iran shia groups or nations sympathetic to iran are a possibility. one thing is clear the course of war is messy and un unpredictable. what we can be sure of is that in the chaos and complexity of war, there will be significant detrimental developments. we know this because it is true of virtually every war ever fought. our recent history provides more than enough evidence that once unleashed, a military option that looks simple in the beginning can be very difficult to control and very costly.

ask yourself this question -- which american leader thought that our efforts to eliminate from terrorist training camps in afghanistan would lead to a 14-year occupation, thousands of deaths, a huge in up of devil debilitating injuries and a loss of national taxpayer sure exceeding a trillion dollars? which american leader thought attacking iraq to eliminate phantom weapons of mass destruction would strengthen iran and unleashes isis? in addition the military option is a substantial risk of increasing rather than decreasing iran's determination to acquire a nuclear weapon. iranian leaders after an tea tack might well decide it is their top national priority to acquire nuclear weapons no matter the cost. so that neither the u.s. nor any other nation would ever dare attack iran in such a fashion

again. and so if the u.s. chooses a military option it is most likely committing to a cycle of war as iran rebuilds a nuclear program in the future with more steel, more concrete and more depth underground. so let's return to the three options before us. a negotiated and vier final agreement for iran to dismantle its nuclear program promises the possibility of achieving our core security objectives without a massive cost in terms of lives, injuries and treasure. it addresses the uranium and plutonium and covert pathways to a bomb. now, compare this to the second option ending negotiations and resuming the toughest possible sanctions. under this option, there is a substantial possibility that the multilateral coalition will fracture ending the multilateral sanctions. with the additional disadvantage all the programs that are frozen not are diminished under the

current negotiating process will be free to be operating again. and let's turn to the third option. the third option will be extraordinarily expensive in blood and treasure. it could generate a cycle of warfare that would diminish rather than enhance the security of the united states and our allies. this is an option that could motivate iran and other nations not to give up their nuclear programs but to redouble their efforts to secure a nuclear weapon. so the single best option if achievable is a negotiated verifiable agreement for into dismantle its nuclear program. thus we in congress, we in the senate chamber should do everything possible to increase the likelihood of this option siding. -- succeeding. one valuable role of this chamber and the the house is to articulate the need to have agreements well designed. my colleague from new jersey was raising a series of questions.

these are the types of questions the state department will be praying close attention to so when an agreement is delivered for our consideration there will be strong answers. we need ironclad assurances about the dismantlement storage and control of key materials and equipment rigorous and enforceable boundaries on any nuclear program, expensive inspection protocols, strong snapback provisions in the event that iran breaks its obligations and we need an orderly process in which to conduct this assessment to confirm it meets these standards. such a coherent congressional process has several advantages. it strengthens our president's hand in the negotiation. the president and his team must strive to get all key elements nailed down knowing it will be reviewed by a sometimes skeptical congress. second such a review

strengthens the framework as a transition to the next presidency. this can contribute confidence that the implementation will be honored by both sides and generate the momentum to hammer out the final agreement. thus i support the bill reported out of the foreign relations committee unanimously on april 14 and currently under debate before the senate. this bill gives congress the right to review the agreement and classified and unclassified versions of reports secretary kerry must report to congress. it gives congress the right to disapprove, requires the president to provide information to congress including evidence of material breaches of the agreement, of iran's involvement in acts of terrorism, evidence of violations of human rights and ballistic missile capabilities. in addition the president must certify iran has not materially breached the agreement. that iran has not taken any action to advance its nuclear weapons program.

the sanctions most appropriate to iran under the agreement and the vital national security interests of the united states and that the agreement does not compromise in any way our enduring commitment to israel's security. mr. president, congress shaped the sanctions regime that put the pressure on iran and forced them to the negotiating table. it is logical therefore that congress should be involved in making sure the results of these negotiations full the security interests of our nation and our allies. what we must not do, however is unusual this bill, this structure for appropriate and valuable congressional review into an instrument designed to poison or undermine the success of negotiations in order to pave the path for war. i will oppose the adoption of any poison pimpled designed to undermine the viability of the negotiations. what's at stake is much bigger

than the ordinary day-to-day politics of this chamber. the content of any final agreement with iran is of profound significance to the national security of the united states the national security of our allies, and to international peace and stability. i urge my colleagues to carry the weight of this responsibility of this topic of this process this concern over nuclear proliferation and particularly proliferation that could put a nuclear weapon in the hands of iran, and to keep our eyes on the prize. i urge my colleagues to work together in partnership with our president to develop and implement a tough verifiable end to to his request mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. rubio: thank you mr. president. i wanted to come to the floor today to speak about the risk that iran poses to the world and, as a result, the

legislation that's before the senate at this moment. a lot has been talked about in the media over the last months, years, quite frankly about the notion that we're going to work out a deal with iran that will avoid war. sad lirkt i believesadly, i believe the direction this deal leads is towards war. let me back up. the issue at hand is that iran, run by a radical shia cleric, its government whose head and supreme decision-maker is a radical shia cleric has made two decisions. they've decided they want to become the hegemonic power in the region. they want to become the dominant nation the dominant movement in the middle east and in that entire region. so how do you achieve that?

first, it requires to you drive the americans out of the area. which is why we've seen them invest in all sorts of asymmetrical exanlts like these little swarm boats that they use to sometimes harass u.s. naval vessels. that's why you see them just a week ago basically hijack a commercial vessel on the international waters. the second thipg they do is they sponsor terrorism. they have all these proxy groups in the region that are doing their bidding. that's also acimetry cal warfare much it is using some nontraditional method to expand their power or to show their power. so they use these proxy groups like hezbollah or now with the group, the houthis that they're involved with in yemen and in other parts of the world. the threat is, if you attack iran these terrorist groups will attack you. we have seen the hand of the iranian government in terrorist attacks. for example we saw an attempt to assassinate the ambassador of saudi arabia here in washington

d.c. we know that in 1994 there was a bombing in. mr.in-- in buenos aires that was linked to iran. so they sponsor terrorism. the third aspect of their desire to become the hegemonic region power is a nuclear weapon. what do you need to acquire a nuclear weapon? you need three things much the first thing you snead need is a bomb design. you can buy a bomb design. the second thing you need is a delivery system. that is why iran is developing long-range rockets. they're expand expend ago lot of money to build these long-range rockets. that isn't for some sort of fancy fireworks show. it isn't to put a man on the moon. they are building them because they understand that is the second critical component of a nuclear weapons program. and the third thing is you have to be able to get your hands on enriched uranium or reprocessed

plew to enyuvment no one in the world is going to import to them weapons-grade proulx to enyuvment dhow it the way north korea did it when they tried to hide their program. they do it by claiming that they have a peaceful nuclear program that they're trying to build. in essence their argument is we don't want to build a weapon. we're just trying to build nuclear reactors so we can provide electricity. it makes no sense. this is an oil hch rich country. they don't really need nuclear energy in order to provide cost-effective energy for their country. but the other is, it costs so much money to build the equipment to enrich and reprocess. they could just buy it already reprocessed or enriched and ship it bring it into the country the way south korea does the way other nations do. so if it would be cheemp to -- so if it would be cheaper to bring it in

instead of having to enrich and reprocess it themselves, why are they spending all this money on the infrastructure? the answer is that because at some point in the future they know they are going to want a nuclear weapon. perhaps they haven't made a decision they need it today or next week or next year. but they certainly at a minimum want to have the option to be a threshold nuclear power. and i believe knowing everything we know about them, both open-source and classified, that whether they've decided or not to build a nuclear weapon, they will decide to build a nuclear weapon because it provides for them the sort of regime stability they crave. the radical shia cleric that heads that country he looks at north korea and he looks at libya ax and he says, libya is what happens when you don't have a nuclear capability. north korea is what happens when you do. mohammed qadhafi is dead and out of power. but north korea is still run by that mad man. why? because he hayes a has a nuclear weapon

and you can't touch him because of what he'll do in re-spofnlts i think they're guided by that principle. they want to be the regional hegemonic power and nuclear weapons gives them that role. and they are a guided by a third mission: that's the openly stated desire to destroy the state of israel. to wipe it off the face of the reasonably. they haven't said this once in passing. the supreme leader of iran has said this on hundreds of occasions. in fact every friday in iran at government-sanctioned religious events they chant gej to america and death to israel. when a nation repeatedly says we are going to kill it you should take that seriously. and when the nation that says we are going to kill you is using its governmental money to sponsor terrorism, you should take that even more seriously. and when the nation that's going out saying we're going to kill

you and wipe you off the face of the earth a reprocessing plutonium or enriching uranium you have a right to be extremely scared. the world understood this ten years ago eight years ago so it imposed u.n. security council sanctions. they were not easy to put together. a lot of those countries in europe have companies in those quuns thatcountries that were dying to do business in iran. they didn't want those sanctions. and then about a year and a half or two the president decided it is time to try to open up to iran and see if we can work a deal out with them. and, look, in normal circumstances there's nothing wrong with that. right? two countries who have a disagreement on some issue, you can work things out. there is a place for diplomacy in the world. the problem is that the issue we have with iran is not based on a grievance. they're not mad that we did something and so that's why they're acquiring a nuclear weapon and if only we stopped doing what it is that aggrieved

them it would go away. this is not a grovance-based problem. this is an i had ideological problem. if you read the founding documents of the islamic republic it doesn't describe the leader--it describes them as the supreme leader of all muslims in the world. that is why they believe it is their goal -- it is their mandate, their calling to export their revolution to every corner of the planet but beginning in the middle east. and a nuclear weapon capability would give them leverage in carrying out that goal that they have. and in their mind nothing would be more glorious than the destruction of the jewish state. so the president enters these negotiations and it has been a process of constant appeasement. moment after moment we went from saying no enriching and reprocessing to you can enriffed and reprocess at 5% to you can enrich up to 20% for research purposes. we went from saying no

enrichment ever to saying in ten or 15 years all bets are off. and there are still items in the negotiation that are not clear. you know, the white house put out a fact sheet. they put out a piece of paper and say this is what we agreed to. iran put out a piece of paper to. it conged like a totally different deal. captions on iran would not come off until iran complied. but iran's fact sheet said, no, no sanctions come off immediately. and now when you press the white house ton they refuse to say that in fact it will be phased, not immediate. that's why i filed an amendment. even though i think that the president's deal, as outlined in the fact sheet was not good enough i filed an allot to at least hold -- i filed an amendment to at least he had d hold them to that. whatever deal the president crafts has to reflect the fact sheet he provided the senate.

we couldn't get a vote on it. the other amendment i filed is that any deal with iran should be conditioned on iran recognizing israel's right to exist. and here's why that was so important. that was so important because this is not just about the nuclear program. the deal the president is trying to sign is about removing sanctions, meaning money is now going to flow back into the iranian government's coffers. what are they going to do with this money? are they going to build roads hospitals? are they going to dough night a charity? no. are they going to buy food and med sing for people that are hurting around the world the hundreds of thousands that have been displaced by assad their puppet? they're going to use that money to sponsor terrorism and the prime target of the terrorism they sponsor is the state of israel. we couldn't get a vote on that amendment neither. apparently there are senators terrified of voting against that amendment, so they'd rather not have a vote at all. so i am deeply disappointed by

the direction this has taken. i felt and understand that this deal was kaiferlly crafted. i am on the committee that passes it. but i also understand that every member of the senate has a right to be heard. unfortunately, only a couple of amendments were allowed to be voted on. no one had an opportunity to get their amendments voted on. but now we've reached this point where the majority leader has filed cloture on the bill because it's time to move on to he isthese other issues. i respect that. we have to make a decision. the decision is not whether we're going to pass the bill we want or nothing at all. the decision is, do we pass -- are we better off a as a country with this bill or with no bill? if we don't pass a bill, the senate can still weigh in on the iranian deal. but the iranian deal kicks in immediately. and unless -- and until the senate acts, the sanctions will be off, at least ther u.s. sanctions will be off.

there's also no guarantee that the white house will even show us the agreement if we don't pass a bill. if we pass a bill, it delays the sanctions being lifted for aered pooh of time. it requires the white house to submit the deal to us so we can review it. and ultimately it calls for a vote up or down on approving the deal or not. it actually requires that that vote will have to happen and there can't be any procedural process to impede it for the most part. so at the end of the day while this bill does not contain the amendments -- we didn't even get a vet on the amendments we wanted it doesn't contain the different aspects to make it stronger -- if left to the choice we have now, i don't think there's any doubt that tbher a better position in this bill passes because at a minimum at least it creates a process whereby the american people through their representatives can debate an issue of extraordinary importance. if i'm troubled by anything is that while this issue gets a lot

of of coverage, i'm not sure the coverage accurately reflects what a critical moment this is. i said at the outset that i think a bad deal almost guarantees war and here's why. because the state of israel, such an important allay to the united states, they are a not thousands of miles away from iran. they -- put yourself in their position for a moment. the small country with a small population nine miles wide at its neigh rowest point with a neighbor to the north that openly and repeatedly says it wants to destroy you and on the verge of acquiring a nuclear capability and israel feels like their very existence is being threatened. and faced with that, israel may very well take military action on their own to protect themselves. i think a bad deal exponentially increases the likelihood of that happening. i also think you look at the other nations of the region

because iran is a shia country a shia-persian country but its sunni-arab neighbors aren't big fans of the shia branch of islam. they have already said whatever iran gets, we're going to get. if iran gets the right to enrich and reprocess, we will enrich and reprocess. if iran builds a weapon, we will build a weapon. and so it creates the very real specter that we're going to have an arms race, a nuclear arms race in the middle east. you're talking about a region of the world that has been unstable for 3,800 years. the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mr. rubio: i ask unanimous consent for 30 seconds that i may conclude. the presidin -- the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. rubio: you talk about a region of the world that could have a nuclear arms race, one of the most unstable regions on the planet. i'm hopeful that we'll get a good deal.

i'm not hopeful that we will but i think we're better off that we have this process in place. so i hope this bill passes here today so at least we'll have ahton

carter and joint keeps of stuff jeff joint chiefs of staff martin dempsey. they testified on the 2016 defense budget and addressed sequestration and budget challenges posed by syria, r

ussia, and iran. this runs about one hour and 50 minutes. >> if the committee will please come to order. today, our subcommittee on defense appropriations reviews the budget request of the department of defense. we are very pleased to welcome secretary of defense ashton carter and chairman of the joint chief of staff general martin dempsey of the united states army. this is our final schedule hearing of the year on the 2016 defense budget request. the subcommittee recognizes the uncertainty of the current fiscal environment and the impact it has only department of

defense in its planning. we also appreciate the complexity of building the first year 2016 budget request and we look forward to comments from secretary carter and general dempsey on how we can support our men and women in uniform and our national security interests. we are pleased to recognize dr. carter on his first appearance before the subcommittee in his capacity as secretary of defense. mr. secretary, we look forward to working with you. i also want to recognize that this will be general dempsey's final appearance before the defense subcommittee as chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. general dempsey you have served with distinction sense of 2011 -- since 2011 and this committee is grateful for your contributions. we will miss your insight when

your term it comes to an end in october. the committee also welcomes mr. mike mccord, the undersecretary of defense and chief financial officer for the department. i am confident that mr. mccord it will provide the committee with useful information as the subcommittee relates -- subcommittee formulates the 2016 budget. thank you for appearing before us this morning. your full statements of course will be included on the record. i now turn to my friend and vice chairman of the committee senator durbin for his opening remarks. senator durbin: thank you mr. chairman, and thank you all for being here. secretary carter, good to see you. mr. mccourt, thank you as well for being part of this. special thanks to general dempsey for your many years of service in the u.s. army and to the united states in terms of our national defense.

you have risen to the top rank within the white house administration. i appreciate all the talent that you brought to it and dedication. i wish you the best where life takes you with your wife and grandchildren. you will now be able to enjoy a lot more. it is important for us to hear your advice on a number of pending issues. the first is a threat of our own creation called sequestration. their efforts within the house and senate to increase defense spending by using what is in fact a budget gimmick. namely to shift tens of billions of dollars in funds in the base budget over to the overseas contingency operations account. i believe this effort is not the right way to address the problem. while i support avoiding sequestration, congress must address funding shortfalls for the entire government, and do it responsibly.

moving programs from the base built to overbroad accounts moves our problems instead of fixing them. the doj cannot fix problems if the u.s. government moves from one fiscal crisis to another year after year. i want to hear on you from that subject. this manufactured budget crisis comes retire quickly changing global security environment where our military is operating all over the globe -- operations in afghanistan africa, responding to russian aggression in eastern europe. since last year's hearing we have added operations in iraq and syria to a busy military operational tempo. there are many issues i hope to get to any questioning maintaining our innovative competitive edge in research, ending what i believe is the exportation of it service members and families by predatory, for-profit colleges, making certain that the department of defense can keep track of contractors working for them, and lastly, keeping in

mind general dempsey's persistent admonition not, last week, the repore department reported on number of sexual assaults. itmore than half of those individuals experience retaliation for doing so. we need to make progress. this is a daunting array of challenges, and just of the many of you face. i look forward to your testimony. >> secretary carter, you may proceed. secretary carter: mr. chairman, thank you, members of the committee, thank you for inviting me here today. mr. chairman, i especially want to recognize the sense of civility and courtesy with which you conduct all you do, including the leadership of this committee. it does not go unnoticed, at least not funny. it is much appreciated. -- at least not by me.

vice chairman, i will make sure we get to the issues you raised in a private conversation and just now. thank you for your leadership and thank you all. i want to thank my friend and shipmate marty dempsey for his wonderful service. i'm going to miss him. i know all of you on this committee share the same devotion that i do to the finest fighting force the world has ever known and to the great defense of our great country. i hope that my tenure as secretary of defense will be marked by partnership you on their path. i am gratified that this committee, as well as the three other defense committees, recognized the urgent need to halt the decline in defense spending imposed by the budget control act. president obama and i deeply share in that recognition.

and indeed, i want to commend you and your colleagues for both recognizing and deciding -- and saying that sequestration threatens our military readiness, the size of our fighting forces, the presence and capabilities of our air and naval fleets, our future technological security, and ultimately tjehe lives of our men and women in uniform. the joint chiefs have said the same thing, and have specified the kinds of cuts that their services would have to make it sciquest ration returns. -- if sequester returns. the defense department has taken over 3/4 of $1 trillion in cuts to its defense spending. the magnitude of these cuts would stress the most capable planers and programmers. but the stresses have been made even greater cause of the

frequently sudden and unpredictable timing and nature of the cuts, as well as continued uncertainty over sequestration. as a result, dod has been forced to make a series of incremental inefficient decisions, often made well into a fiscal year, after prolonged continuing resolutions are finally resolved. moreover, even as budget drop precipitously, our forces have been responding to an increasingly tumultuous world. i believe our defense budget is unbalanced. we have been forced to prioritize structure and readiness over monetization, taking on risks and capabilities in infrastructure at ftoo far a degree. this is a serious problem. high demand on a smaller force structure means the equipment and capabilities of too many components of the military are growing too old to fast. from our nuclear deterrent, to

our tactical forces. meanwhile, each of the past several years painful but necessarily formed, or posted by dod including eliminating overhead, retiring older force structure, and making reasonable adjustment in compensation, have been denied by congress. at the same time that sequestration looms. we are starting to see this double winning once again. -- doublwe e whammy in a markup in legislation this year. i do not believe that we can simply keep making incremental cuts. as i have said before, we would have to change the shape and not just the size of our military. significantly affecting parts of our defense strategy. in recent weeks some in congress have tried to provide

dod with its full budget request for 2016 by transferring funds from the basic ounce to overseas contingency operations. -- basic accounts. this approach clearly recognizes that the budget total we have requested is needed. the avenue it takes is just as clearly a road to nowhere. i say this because president obama has already made clear that he won't accept the budget that locks in sequestration in moving forward, as this approach does, and he won't accept a budget that severs the link between our national security and our economic security. legislation that implements this framework will therefore be subject to veto. we do not come together and find a different path by fdaall, when

a budget is needed, it will put our department and troops in an all-too-familiar and difficult position. we will yet again needed to make hasty and drastic decisions to adjust to the government to have an adequate dod budget. decisions that none of us wants to make. the joint chiefs and i are concerned that if our congressional committees continue to advance this idea and don't explore alternatives, then we will be left holding the bag. that is not where i want to be in six. but since the oco funding approach is not the kind of widely shared budget agreement that is needed, we can see now that it won't succeed. moreover, the one year oco approach does nothing to reduce the deficit. it risks undermining support for mechanism boco, which is meant to fund incremental cost of overseas conflicts in afghanistan, iraq, and elsewhere. most importantly, because it

doesn't provide the stable, multi-your budget horizon, this one your approach is managerially unsound and also unfairly dispiriting to outsource. our military personnel and their families deserve to know their future more than just one year at a time. -- dispiriting to our force. not just them -- our defense industry partners too need stability, not end of your crises or short-term fixes. there ought to be efficient and cutting edge, as we need them to be. last and fundamentally, as a nation we need to base our defense budgeting on our long-term military strategy. and that is not a one-year project. this funding approach also reflects a narrow way of looking at a national security, one that ignores the vital contributions

made by the state department, justice department, treasury department, homeland security department, and disregards the enduring long-term connection between our nation's security and many other factors. factors like scientific or entity to keep --scientific r&rd to keep our technological edge, and the general economic strength of our country. finally, i am also concerned on how we deal with the budget is being watched by the rest of the world, by our friends and potential foes alike. it could give a misleadingly diminished picture of america's greatest strength and resolve. for all of these reasons, we need a better solution than the one mouthy -- the one now being considered. two years ago we saw congress reach a two-year agreement to be bipartisan budget act.

although we preferred a longer-term solution to sequestration, that deal was able to provide dod a measure of stability needed to plan for more than a just one year. today, i hope we can come together for al longer-term, multi-your agreement that provides the budget stability that we need by locking in budget levels consistent with the resident's request. -- president's request. i pledge my support this effort as well as the support of the entire staff of the department of defense. i would like to work with each of you as well as other leaders and members of congress to this end. if we are successful, i am confident we can build a force of the future that is powerful enough to underwrite our strategy and show resolve to friends and potential foes alike. a force that is equipped with bold new technology and ideas able to lead in cutting age to

abilities in cyberspace. a force that is lean and efficient throughout the enterprise that continues to attract and inspire new generations of americans to contribute to this great mission. that is the vision for the force of the future i have been pursuing since i took office 11 weeks ago. and i hope to continue doing so in partnership with all of you. mr. chairman, this is the time for coming to governor and problem-solving, -- coming together and problem-solving. much like in december 2013, our only choice is to come together to find a real solution that reflects our strength and security as a nation. i look to this committee and its many leaders who sit on it to help us get on the right path out of this wilderness. thank you. >> thank you, mr. secretary.

i noticed in the submission we had before us this morning, you created or proposed to create a new unit. a point of partnership so-called. apparently to be led by a civilian with a military deputy and staffed with an elite team of active duty reserve and civilian personnel. it sounds like an ambitious undertaking. may be complicated. there is the suggestion that the team will vote for breakthroughs in emerging technologies. i wonder if you could let us know how much you think this is going to cost, and how long it will take to be up and running? secretary carter: i surely can

provide you with the costs and i will do so. as far as the mechanism is concerned, it is an important effort. it is an experimental effort -- as is our so-called defense innovation unit. i announced the creation of it a week and a half ago. it has a couple things that it brings together. one is our need to continue to be on the cutting edge, especially the cyber-edge represented by the silicon valley tech industry. second, our need, which i mentioned in my statement, to attract the very best to defense. we want to have an open door. we are and exciting and attractive lease for the -- attractive place for the

country's smartest people to come and work, even if they can only work for a period of time. and third it combines an ingredient you mentioned, which is the use of the reserve component, which is a huge treasure for our department. a lot of reservists are technologically savvy. they will contribute to the region. it brings a number of ingredients together for the future. we are going to try it out. it is an experiment, but it is not a costly experiment. i think it is critical for us to have an open avenue between us and silicon valley. we need to be an innovative department so that we stay fresh and attractive. senator cochran: thank you. senator dempsey, i will ask if you would like to make your opening statement. you may proceed at this point. general dempsey: thank you

chairman. thanks very much at the outset for the very kind words about my service. it has been a rare privilege to hold this position and be able to represent the millions of men and women and their families concern around the world. and thank you to this committee for their support. this is my last during. i -- last hearing. i think you for the opportunity. and if it is not, i suppose until we meet again. on that note, i fully support the nominations of general. board as -- dougford as general vice-chairman. you can trust them, which i think is the right word, to provide you timely, pragmatic, and effective military advice. i would like to reiterate something that i said in the previous hearings this fiscal year which is that the global

security environment is as consistent -- is as uncertain as i've seen in 40 years of service. we are at a point where our global aspirations are exceeding our available resources. we have heard the congress of the united states loud and clear that we have to become a more efficient, and we have to do the rigorous strategic thinking to determine the minimum essential requirements that we believe are essential to protect our national interests. in my judgment, this budget represents a responsible, nation of capacity and readiness. but we are at the bottom edge are manageable risk in achieving and fulfilling our national security strategy as it is currently designed. funding lower than pv 60, and

lacking the flexibility to make the internal forms -- internal reforms that we need to make will put us in a position where we have to change our national security strategy. let me describe what kind of change you might see. for the past 25 years the u.s. military has secured the global commons, we have deterred our adversaries, we have reassured our allies, and we have responded to crises and conflicts, primarily by maintaining our presence forward or abroad. it is been our strategy to shape the future any international security environment by our forward presence and by building relationships with regional partners. in general terms, about 1/3 of the force is forward deployed, and one third is getting ready to go. this puts significant strain on the men and women in europe, but

we have kept the nation safe by following that paradigm. -- meant and women in uniform. sequestration would change the way we deploy the force, and change the way we affect the security environment. we would be almost 20% smaller from what we started than when i became chairman. our forward presence will be reduced by more than 1/3. we will have less influence and we will be less responsive. conflict will take longer to resolve, and will be more costly in terms of dollars and casualties. in an age where we are less certain about what will happen next but certain that it will happen more quickly, we will be further away and much less ready then we need to be. sequestration will result in a dramatic change to how we protect our nation and how we promote our national security interests. our men and women in uniform are performing around the globe with extraordinary courage

character, and professionalism. it seems to me that we owed them and their families clarity and predictability on everything from policy to compensation, health care, training, equipment, and readiness. settling down the uncertainty we have experienced over the past 40 years and our decision processes and getting us out of a one year at a time cycle will hold us keep the right people. and that is our decisive edge. we will be able to maintain the military is that the american people deserve, and frankly they expect. i am grateful for the continued opportunity to support our men and women and uniform and i will promise to run through the tape in the time remaining and make myself available at any time to help you shape the policy and fiscal decisions ahead of you. i think youank you again members of congress for your support. senator cochran: thank you

general. i recognize mr. durbin. any comments? senator durbin: thank you chairman cochran. i was going to go into the oco issue, but both of your statements have been unequivocal ont hat that issue. i want to go to an issue not of budgetary cuts went, but a consequence nonetheless. -- budgetary comes consequence. i did it with some reflection, knowing that wit would require

commitments of the united states. i know that this may not be a genocide by classic legal definition, but this is the cement syrian crisis by our time. millions of people displaced. i would appreciate it if you tell us what you think of this concept and the challenge it could present to us. general dempsey: sure, thank you senator. you're right what is happening in syria is a terrible humanitarian tragedy. it has been going on for several years. there are many displaced people within syria and fleeing to countries around. we are caught between two forces -- or the country is caught between two forces both of whi ch are intervening to this

violence against the very people of the country namely isil and it's like, and the syrian regime. we are trying to create a third force to combat those two and to create an environment in which the syrian people can live in peace, which they deserve. your questions about, can we establish ourselves in a humanitarian six of? -- humanitarian safe zone? we talked about that yesterday. in concept that is an area in which people could flee and find safety. what i was saying to you was that we would need to, and have thought this through, how secure that zone would be. doing something like that would be contested, both by isil

forces and other syrian forces. it would not necessarily be supported by the neighbors supported militarily in a strong way, therefore something we will do ourselves. that is a combat mission and a major one. the practicalities of it are significant. that is what i was sharing with you yesterday. perhaps general dempsey would like to add something to that, but we would need to fight to create such a space. and then fight to keep such a space. that is why it is a difficult thing, or challenging to use your word. senator durbin: my concept is that it would not be alone. my hope is that it would be done through the united nations or in concert with other nations to join us with his effort.

i am not naive enough to believe that isil is going to sign up. so we have to prepare to defend the space. secretary carter: thanks senator, it would not be isis but the regime itself that challenges the region. for this to be practical and effective would have to involve regional partners. i can tell you that militarily, in contention with european command and our turkish counterparts, we have been planning for such contingency for some time. the question, can we do this? of course, we can. there would be opportunity costs, that is resources put elsewhere would have to be repositioned. i want to point out the cognitive dissonance about talking more about doing more in the world when we are facing

losing another $250 billion over the next five years. i will say that it is practical militarily. but it would be a significant policy decision to do so. senator durbin: thank you very much. senator cochran: senator shelby from alabama. senator shelby: i congratulate you on your long career, your 41 years since you graduated. you served this nation with honor and dissension. thank you very much. -- honor and distinction. secretary carter, it is my understanding that the department of defense has recommended a legislative solution which would allow the use of as many as 18 rd, 19 80s force future space launch competitions. is that correct? general dempsey: yes.

senator shelby: we hope there could be 2-3 years in ensuring access to space. have you looked at that, and do you agree or disagree with that? how can we ensure there is no gap because these programs are so important to national intelligence and other things. general dempsey: it absolutely is. secretary carter: we cannot afford to have a gap. just to scope out the issue as a whole, these engines that power some of our rocket boosters are manufactured in russia. we want to get off of that dependency on russia, but it takes some time to do so. in the meantime, we don't want to have a gap. therefore, our approach is not to order more, but not to cancel the orders we have placed for

the engines while we are able to prepare competitive engines that are not russian into the space business. that is our strategy, and you are absolutely right that we need to launch national security settlers. senator shelby: but it is important for us to build our own satellite in the future. but it takes time. secretary carter: correct. absolutely. senator shelby: i post this next question to you and general dempsey. the iranian threat, not just to the middle east, but to the persian gulf. we are all familiar, not as much as you towo are, with what is going on any given. -- on in yemen. a lot of our allies are nervous there, as they should be.

as our administration is negotiating with iran on a nuclear weapons it seems that they continue to supply a training and so forth to their allies all over the area causing us and our allies more than apprehension. i would like your comments, where you can on iran. i believe senator durbin brought up isis in a sense, what is going on there. and then in yemen we are on a different sides. what is our challenge to north korea too, and perhaps even with russia? i know that is a lot of questions. [laughter] secretary carter: thank you, i will say some thing briefly about some of them. you are right that iranian

behavior is concerning on a number of fronts and locations. both as regards to the stability of the gulf countries, freedom of navigation which is very important, and other things. in addition to their nuclear program, of course, which is the concern that inspires the negotiations to which you referred. i will say that for us in the department of defense, this creates a continuing requirement for present ince the region, reassurance of our allies and partners in the region. particularly israel, but not confined israel. -- confined to israel. also of course with respect to the nuclear agreement, the

president has said that he would take no deal over a bad deal, and therefore we are under construction to have a military option. those are our responsibilities in respect to iran. isis is a continuing threat, both in iraq and syria. then you see the ability of it as a movement to inspire the lost and the radical worldwide to acts of the violence. it is seriously concerning in both of those respects. we are combating it from the air and with partners in both iraq and syria. just to touch on north korea -- north korea's behavior -- i was

in south korea a couple of weeks ago -- it continues to be provocative. we need to watch it carefully. we say that south korea is the place where we need to fight to night. it is not a game over there. we need to be present and ready. one thing we can't trim is our deterrent in the korean peninsula. i can keep going, but i will see if the secretary has any general has anything to add. general dempsey: let me unpacked really briefly. i said that this is the most uncertain security environment i experience in four years. here is why -- we face are

mergingr emerging threatse -- we face emerging threats from many areas. a rising china which is not yet a military threat, but if that relationship is not minute carefully, -- not managed carefully, could become one. we have a large body of nonstate actors al qaeda, other groups who have aligned themselves. and for the first time in my career, they are both manifesting themselves simultaneously. this is not a time to be withdrawing from the world. >> the senator from rhode island, mr. reeves. >> thank you general dempsey for your extraordinary service. i think you'll attribute it to

the brilliant first glassman who mentored you at west point. just for the record. thank you for your extraordinary service to the nation. in regard to the proposals to do things that might help defense general dempsey indicated in testimony that there are nine of lines of operation against isil. the department of defense has two of those lines. the other lines are agencies that were not benefit directly or as much from this oco maneuver. is that fair to say? general dempsey: to tell you the truth, i have not looked at anyone's budget although than myself. two of the lines are military, others are other agencies of government. >> the efforts of the state

department are contracted because you don't have that expertise. fbi, dea agents deployed forward -- you have a whole strategy that will become unhinged even if you get the extra oco money. general dempsey: again senator i don't know what the other the permits are lacking, i literally don't know. -- other departments. those kind of threats that you described, the threat of nonstate actors requires a whole government approach, not just military. >> one example that leaps out to everybody. the statistic used in social media by isil. and our response to that without traditional nondefense actors who have a role in this, our response will

be as it has been today. you don't have to concur, but that is my conclusion. mr. secretary, you made an interesting point notably only in terms of having a long-term strategy with a long-term budget but how you can do things that require componentry partners in government, when they don't have the resources. the other point is about the world watching. you traveled to the capital. in fact, you are getting intel about our adversaries. they are looking at us unwilling to invest in a national security. and they get it, unfortunately. secretary carter: that is my experience, and you travel as well. and among our friends it is concerned whether we have our

wits about us in terms of the danger of the world, the responsibilities of america, and the inherent strengths of our country. i obviously don't talk to our potential foes, but they talk to others. and they say see what the americans are doing to themselves? i would like to come back and say we are still the world'stest fighting force. we are amazingly experienced including in our military, in complex missions. we do take a whole government approach, which is necessary in the world. you need to tell people that they can't look at the difficulties we have, and we obviously have them in terms of reaching a budget, and concluded that in america has eclipsed or is losing its power. i hasten to say that. at the same time, it would certainly approve our standing were we to come together, as i urged for our budget.

>> another aspect too is that we remain at the paramount military force in many dimensions. but the gap is narrowing in so many areas. it used to be not fight tonight in korea, it was fight this month. we can't do that any k longer. when we put an aircraft of the air, it will be dominant for 10 years. it may not be as long now. a lot of the programs not reached by oco for these proposals are these long-term investments in capabilities, cyber and elsewhere. where, if we don't make them now,, we can keep the lights on, but that apple gets to the point -- that gap will gets to the point where it disappears. is that fair?

secretary carter: it is very fair. >> the senator from maine. >> thank you very much mr. chairman. welcome, thank you general dempsey for your service. mr. secretary twice this morning we have heard general dempsey say that this is the most uncertain security environment that he has seen in his 40 years of service. ms collins: it is the navy that allows us to project power particularly in areas where we would otherwise be denied access in trouble spots around the world. yet the navy's 30 year shipbuilding plan does not include enough funding for ships to fully support the 300 ship goal over the entire 30 year

period. we have seen the need for naval ships to be deployed just last week. i had the opportunity to honor an aircraft carrier in response to the iranian naval forces boarding upon a commercial shipping vessel. at the same time, combatant commander requirements or missile defense platforms are soaring in the middle east and the asia-pacific region as our adversaries developed technology. recently, the office of naval intelligence just last month described how china has launched more naval ships than any other country during the past few years, and will do so in the next 2 years. mr. secretary, you are well aware that ships cannot be built

overnight and that operational requirements are increasing. what then, is the department's plan to mitigate the risks associated with the shortfalls in shipbuilding and to preserve a robust shipbuilding industrial base? secretary carter: thank you senator. let me say that i completely agree with you. it is one of the great strengths of our country is our ability to project power around the world. the navy is an important ingredient of that. and also to ensure freedom of navigation and to dominate the naval comments, as we are able to do. -- naval commons. we are committed to continuing to do that. and you're right we can't do that without an industrial base which is robust.

we have, as you know full well, a fibrous and competitive marketplace. -- vibrant and competitive marketplace. but we need to keep that going. i suppose with this links up with this discussion state about the long-term budget is the point you made, that ships of quality made elsewhere for our navy those are not one year projectss. if anyone your budget -- if a one year budget arises, we need to that kind of horizon and our industry partners need that kind of horizon as well. that is why we are asking for that kind of planning horizon. >> thank you. the general commander of nato testified last month before the armed services committee that russia and pro-russian

separatist horses continue -- separatist forces continue to exploit cease-fire in ukraine to reset and repositioned themselves, and that they appear to be preparing for a fresh offensive against ukraine's military. he voiced his support for providing the ukraine with offensive military hardware to deter a russian advance. by contrast, i recently met with german chancellor merkel, who argued the exact opposite against providing offensive weapon. would you give us your thoughts on this issue and what factors you are considering in deciding whether or not to provide military weapons to ukraine? and what is your assessment of our ability to protect those in

ukraine? secretary carter: first of all general read love is right. it appears that the clearly russian-backed separatists in eastern ukraine are preparing for another round for military action that would be inconsistent with the minsk agreement. we are supporting the ukrainian military, not with offense of ive arms, but. i think chancellor merkel is making an important point, mainly that the big in her once or -- big influencer, if there

is anything that influences russian behavior, is the common asian of sanctions -- combination of sanctions and falling oil prices. that is what is punishing russia now. you mentioned chancellor merkel, it is the weight of european sanctions that matters most, because they do most of the trade with russia. that is why we are so intent on working with the europeans led by germany. i depreciate the steadfastness of germany in leading those sanctions. by ourselves, we would have a lot less pressure to apply to russia, simply because the volume of trade is less. we need to germany and if europeans to apply -- and the europeans to apply that kind of