look at the proposed media merger between charter communications time warner cable, and brighthouse networks. then some of today's debate in the senate on expired nsa provisions of the patriot act. and later a discussion on homeland security and defense policies during the george w. bush administration. >> c-span, created by america's cable companies 35 years ago and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. >> this week on "the communicators" two guests. we're joined by gene kimmelman and harold furtchgott-roth former commissioner with the federal communications commission. good afternoon to you gentlemen. also joining us, gautham na

good. we're here to talk about a -- what was proposed this week? >> yes so charter communications is propose acquiring time warner cable the second biggest cable operator in the country in terms of subscribers, a deal largely about not just cable but mostly the broadband industry which is the major business for cable operators and chart we're merge with brighthouse. >> mr. fur 'got what is this about and what this potential of being approved. >> this is part of 25 year process of rationalization of the cable industry. we have seen lots of mergers over time, and in an industry that has been very competitive and is increasingly competitive. it is nose a stan-alone market. it's part of a broader market that includes other broadband providers and content provider.

>> mr. kimmelman. >> this is the cutting edge part of the economy driven by broadband. cable companies are the largest providers of high-speed internet service. here you would have a company doubling in size, time warner. approximately the size of the largest company, come cause. it's going to get a very serious review by law enforcement officials you. 'll have 30% of broadband customers in one combined company. i don't believe this has he same problems that the comcast proposed merger, but some will be carefully look at. the big question for consumers is what happens to my cable bill? die get better speeds, new services? will the netflix the amazon products the google products, the new online delivered video products be more available or will this combined entity try to

cut off my options. that's the big question, you spoke about problems and we can dive into the previous planned merger with time warner, waste on your list. >> that's the internet delivered video service. we'd love to have more competition. very few consumers have more than one wire into the home. some have satellite for video but hardly anybody has two broadband providers. wireless providers are available but they can't provide the video streaming that you get from your cable company or your fios if you have a telephone delivered service. the question where is do you get more competition? the competition is coming over the very same wire so it's the same company think cable company, controlling two parts of the,one is your tv package the other is your broadband service. a lot of con at any time companies want to -- content companies want to provide to both and want to make provider services packages of services. the cable company has an incentive to fav its own

favorite product its bundled service so i think law enforcement is going to have to make sure there's no unfair benefit to cable through this consolidation. >> mr. furtchgott-roth, do you see those concerns? >> not at all. look every american consumer has multiple paths to broadband services. most american consumers have free wires coming into their home and it's not that they're getting video services over all three but they have the option of getting video services oat least two which are the cable company and the telephone company, which still -- they still economist. they're not doing very well. in addition there are the wireless options and wireless speeds are increasing. lots of americans particularly young americans under the age of 30 have cut the wire. they don't have either a cable subscription and don't have a

telephone wired subscription. they're purely wireless, and they get the broadband they want. they're not -- these are not broadband illiterate people. they're quite broadband sophisticated. you have new companies coming online to compete wireless broadband offeringses. the idea there's any sort of market power or monopoly power in this industry right now is very difficult to understand. it's certainly not consistent with information that the fcc and other government agencies have checked. >> mr. nagesh. >> the cable industry itself, the pay tv industry, is frequent lay monopoly. there's usually on one cable provider in any one area. do you think the tv portion of this is going to be a concern for regulators or is muchly the

comcast time warner view. >> it's heavily on the braun market. it's not that consumers are unsophisticated or kidder unsophies tick indicated. the question is what can you get from your wireless device and can you get enough that actually competes with cable? you can get some things. the question is whether that market is going to naturally grow and expand without interference. that's where the regulators are going to look. and again i have to disagree with harold, the government has already found market power in the broadband side of business and the cable side of business. that was he review comcast traps section and others. so i newfoundland he has different view but that's not where the enforcement agencies are today. but i do think this will be different than comcast. this is a combination of companies that do not own content. they don't own something like nbc universal that is extremely important for other cable and

broadband delivery systems to get content from. there are pure transmission provider so it's a different transaction. the entire focus will be on the national broadband market. >> i agree with gene that the focus will primarily be on the broadband side because neither -- none of these companies has much of a content portfolio. i -- where i would disagree what if dean just said is a lot of the analysis will be on a local geographic market. these are geographically distinct companies that are merging and i'm not convinced they have any greater market power collectively than they do

individually because the don't have overlapping market areas. i'm sure that the regulators, the department of justice and the federal communications commission will look carefully at the deal, at least initially from to the outside it's very difficult to see they're going to be substantially antitrust problem. >> since the deal review will be focused on broadband one of the moves the fcc has taken in the past years they've defined broadband as being service at a speed above 25 egging me mega bits. how will that affect that's transsection and the regulator view of the market. we saw it play naught the comcast review and phone company offerings don't meet that definition. >> i don't think the precise definition will matter. the issue is what really delivers the service whether it's precisely 25 or something below, it's -- where do

consumers have choice, and if harold is right the phone company offerings offer that -- some do, fios do at&t universe services do debt but you have competition but it's not a precise number. it's real choice in the marketplace as evidence evidence by what consumers take, and i think that's what will dry -- drive the analysis here. the fact they raised fees is indicative of the fact the consumer demand is for more video, and that requires higher speeds. >> i think -- i agree with gene. i if you look back 15 years the fcc defined broadband as 5 or 600k and over time the definition has increased. 10, 20 years from now probably going to be something more than that. than 25ing me meg. what we see if we look at empire tall studies of actual consumer

behave you see consumers switching, and they're not didn't the consumer doesn't say 25 mega bit or not. they say can i gate certain service with this offering? and what we have seen is a rapidly evolving-rabidly changing market -- rapidly changing market in terms of technology and in terms of competitors in the market and providing competition at the edges, and a lot of that -- even with very small market shares it very much disciplines the prices they offer. also if you look at the national companies, they tend to have a national one price offering. not that they'll say well in this market, we're going to have this special offer and somewhere else. for marketing purposes and for a lot of other reasons the prices in all parts of the country are disciplined as a certain rate. >> gene, as a former antitrust

official at the department of justice, how big a role do you think the antitrust portion of this will be? because we did see in the comcast time warner cable transaction that doj had concerns about the deal but they really had to work closely with the fcc because the fcc has a broader mandate to review and vote up or down. >> my guess i you'll see that collaborative work again between the two enforcement agencies. they tend to see the market the same way you. can see that from what they need comcast, nbcu, and consent decree. they were looking at questions of whether the larger cable companies could squelch developing competition from internet delivered video providers. i think you'll seal the exact same analysis. i don't think you see all the elements of concern that were presented in the comcast time warner merger, it will beatle different analysis. i expect there will be a sir

serious antitrust review, but also expect the public interest analysis will grow in importance at the fcc because the burden is on the merging parties to show the transaction actually is in the public interest. they carry the burden. at the department of justice the burden isen the government to show it is harmful the competition to block it. so that burden difference creates a greater focus on the fcc and what the companies actually say they can deliver in this transaction. >> haired, at the fcc depending on your opinion of view, i've i've spoken to a lot of people about this. some people call chairman tom wheeler the most proregulatory chairman we have had in quite some time. others say he most proconsumer given he is perhaps the key person in this review how will the fcc review will play out and what do you think of how chairman wheeler hassock -- has

acted so far? >> guest: that a lot of questions. >> sorry about that. >> let me build off of what gene said and i completely agree with the description of the regulatory review process. there will be a regulatory review at the department of justice and the telephone communications commission. if i just may provide my personal review. i would rather it all took place at the antitrust division. the statutory athlete for the commission to have a separate antitrust review and just the good government position if having duplicative reviews is very troubling and yet the fcc insists it's going to do this. the fcc has a very different standard offings in. they have a public record. anything that comes into the fcc is suppose told bevies able to the public, very transparent organization. the department of justice is

very different. they collect information, and it's known it's confidential. the public can't go to the department of justice and say i want to see everything there is about charter time warner. and so i personally am very troubled about the coordination that goes on. specifically about chairman wheeler, think chairman wheeler is a great guy wonderful public servant in a very difficult situation. a very difficult situation with at least the appearance of suggestions from other parts of the administration. i do not envy him his position. so whether he is the greatest regulator or the most regulatory or the most pro consumer, i think tom wheeler is in a very difficult position in aned a marges that tries to tell them what to do. >> there are stores that chairman wheeler started calling the ceo's cable companies to

talk to them and kind of say look we're not necessarily antibusiness, just we got look at these things. >> there was that article -- i have to say i was -- he's completely inappropriate for a government official to be calling up the ceos of companies and saying, -- really, it's as if a judge called up parties and said come into the court and resolve your dispute here. the appearance -- just awful. just awful. >> i think the fcc is on a firing line, and in the public's eye, and so when ceos come out and say we don't think we can do anything, i think it's really fine for the agency to pond and say -- to respond and do your business do what is legal and appropriate. so i'm not worried about general communications about how to think about the marketplace. if it were something that involved deliberation on an actual adjudication or

something, that would be different. but i think -- my perception of tom wheeler he is someone who comes from industry and comes with an orientation of doing as little intervention, as little regulation as is necessary to achieve his goals. his stated goals are competition in the marketplace. so i think he is constant lie looking for ways to push the markets and push for nonintervention by his agency and sometimes he has found that's not the case and has thrill surprised people. i don't think he is on one side are so the other. seems to be an incrementalist would tries to slowly push the market as far as it's able to function. >> let me ask you this. when this deal was announces there were stories and basically with chairman rutledge or -- of charter coming out and saying specific live they won't oppose caps caps on data consumers can use. talk about -- going out there saying what we won't do and does that mean anything as far as looking at a potential deal

being made. >> that's the example of how to the public interest analysis tends to push companies to describe their business plans going forward as a merged entity. a lot of this would happen confidentially in business documents at the department of justice that are not open to the public. the fcc invites the fog say how is your deal good for the american people. so to good forward for charter to say we don't impose data caps and we charge -- i believe they say $40 price for a stan-alone broadband suspect we intend to do this with a company that is twice the size of time warner. sounds like it's offering some potential benefits to consumers. there may be a back story to this, may be a counter-story. but those are important bits of information of their business plan that are really good for the regulators to review when they do their cost benefit analysis.

>> mr. furtchgott-roth? >> well, i think as gene just said all of this information would be discoverable by the department of justice in an antitrust review. i'm a little troubled that machineses feel they have to posture or make promises to the government agencies in order to get a business deal done. and also the pricing of services. the offering of services. these are business decisions and the business decisions in 2015 may be different in 2016 or 2017. so i don't think you would want to lock a business in to making a promise they're going to continue to do a certain service or certain offering or certain pricing. >> mr. nagesh. >> what would lock a company to have to offer pricing is a

condition extract by regulators. do you think that will be part of this process and what supports of conditions could be see regulators asking for perhaps commitments to the service offerings. >> i want to agree with harold. certain conditions are dangerous. don't want to lock in a business model in 2015 that will apply in 2020 because we don't know how the market will unfold. so i think there are certain kinds of precise prices or things like that, that are dangerous long term. i would expect to see structural conditions as what the enforcement agencies will look at. what -- do you have incentives and tubs to discriminate against anyone in the market? if so, what kind of limits need to be in place to prevent unfair discrimination and unreasonable discrimination. i think it would be those kind of things most likely focused on broadband delivered services. do you have incentives that favor your own cable product over broadband?

if so some conditions could be imposed that try to make sure that there's nothing unreasonable about the business practices on the cable side that fact the broadband side. >> i agree with gene. that's how it will play out. having looked at just about every merger the fcc over the past 20 years there's almost certainly going to be conditions and likely be conditions that are the type gene described, and what we have also seen over the past 20 years is the department of justice usually -- letting the fcc put the conditions on because it's just really easy for the fcc to put conditions on and they don't ha of the go to court. they just say merger or no merger here it is and that's how it will work out. >> so, one of the things that has come up repeatedly over the last year is the fact that the broadband market is at a very crucial point.

we see broadband subscribe issues exceeding cable subscribingers and at the same time we have seen a number of regulatory action biz the fcc. what role would the open internet rules play in this review or sorts of behaviors that would be imposed on these companies, and would the fact that cable companies are now title 2 common carriers have any impact on what they can do post merger? >> i think the open internet order is under review in the court so we don't know what the final disposition will be, but we know what he orientation of the regulatory agency is, to impose that kind of nondiscrimination requirement on a cable broadband provider. so i would assume that will be the logic they will aemploy in reviewing -- apply in reviewing the transaction. where the rules take care of it or look at alternative conditions, it's too early to say. that would be their orientation

in reviewing the traction. >> there are two types of things to lock at in the courts. one is whether the commission had the authority to designate title 2 to broadband and the second is to me equally if not more troubling issue is the extent of the forebearance the commission has. the commission designated title 2 with one hand and with the other hand said, well, we'll for bare from all of the worst of the regulations. and then you look at the analysis that is there and it's not there. if the commission has the legal authority to simply forbear baited on what they think at some point in time without any clear documentation without any report before it, that's a very troubling situation. and some of these court cases

will be -- you'll have at least the initial hearing during the deliberations on charter time warner but i don't think you'll have the final decisions on any of this. >> i don't think it matter weather you're talking about title 2 and forebearance in the context of this transaction. it's the logic of what the commission was doing. they said there is an opportunity and an incentive to discriminate if you are -- have this broadband service. i think that's the logic they will apply. it's not really whether it's one part of the law or the other because this is a merger transaction and they won't by applying that part of the law. it will be a public interest test whether thelines loo should be transferred. so the logic will be consistent and not one part of the law that matters. >> anallies on wall street reading the tea leaves here issue title 2 threatening and they have concluded the direction the regulators are moving is very proregulatory and perhaps negative for people

in the cable industry. is that a fair direction to take and do you think that puts this merger on more tenuous ground than it would be otherwise? >> look at the amount of money being proffererred for these properties. it's hard -- some entrepreneurs are guessing the regulatory environment is very ripe for the business they want to run. they're willing to spend a lot of money for it. so i don't really see any one particular reaction on wall street that is reflective of a mindset about the government. some are cautious and some are extremely anxious to dive in and spend their money. >> you're exactly right. the wall street analysts have assessed this very accurately. there's a sense that the government is involved in a very regulatory activity, involving investments, and the -- what we're seeing is charter, rather

than purchasing new plant equipment to compete with time warner let's just buy time waner. that's the better solution, and there are other troubling reports about the declining investment in plant equipment. >> google is investing. they're building out finer and a variety of communities and i must say i would love it if a company like charter had done just what you said. never in their history a public and democratic fcc have they ever invested in overbuilding and competing head to head with other cable companies. none of them have. so there's nothing about this particular regulatory environment that is making that worse. our problem is we don't have enough head-to-head wires competing with each other and maybe wireless some day will get there hope you're right. but at this moment in time it's not delivering everything that a fios or a charter time

warner cable broadband service is providing. >> but the fcc has statistics going back many years about more than 90% of american consumers have access to two or more broadband providers -- wired broadband provider under the old definition i grant you not. not the 25 meg -- well, a lot of consumers are pretty happy with it. there actually is a lot of robust competition. >> i read something on the content site, netflix uses up 37% or something. what does it mean going forward in light of mergers and the fcc's work on net neutrality? if we have more content, how somebody gets in. >> hopefully you'll have mergers that don't interfere with that. that's a critical thing. you have more companies like netflix, like amazon, like google out there sony, delivering new services over

broadband. and i think if the services there are the desire there is from consumers the investment will come to build out as well. it will -- a lot demand driven because i think people want the video product, and as much as harrell talked about competition, the consumer is know see their cable bill goes up every month every year. the broadband prices have not been coming down, fees have been going up, which is good but prices have not been coming down like they to do in a lot of consumer electronic markets. so i think we're missing something on the competitive side. >> look, prices are going down and consumers are going the lower prices. they're called wireless services. the things you can do with your pad or smartphone has convinced alet of consumers to just completely abandon having wires into their home. but i think the point that you make initially and i completely agree with gene -- a lot of

the -- is an enormous amount of investment going on in the content side, and a lot of the broadband world is on the content side, it's companies like google and facebook and twitter and so on, and those are areas where the american -- for whatever reason, the american economy dominates the broadband business globally. these wires that's a local national market. but the online content companies, the global market, fortunately america is doing very well. >> one more question to harold's point we see that mobile devices are the majority of web traffic and that the younger people tend to spend more time looking at their ipad or iphone or android device than they do on the traditional television. so is this all misguided? is it strange that we're so focused on a cable tv and wired merger when it seems like wireless is the place that most younger consumers are

gravitating towards? >> we have to look at both there is an explosion on the wireless side and apple is investing more and going into the video side. what you're seeing from all of the online providers, all of the wireless devicemakers, app developers and content transcribers they still need a lot of the video product that is on traditional cable in order to drive more demand for them to invest more. so i think that the market is being transformed over time. we're going to see more conversions but when 60% of people still get that big fat cable package and a bundled service you can't disregard access power -- excess power na that transmission system. >> i would just say that if one were to look at the market today and contrast it with the market five years ago ten years ago 15 years ago 20, years ago, this is a very rapidly changing

market very rapidly changing technologies and i actually have lot of confidence in the department of justice to get these things right. there's a certain amount of humility required in assessing mergers in a rapidly changing technological environment, and i think that is what we have here. >> before i let you go, one name that came um in the investment side is john malone. who is he and why is he important in this discussion? >> john malone is one of the great giants in an industry filled with giants. some people might say one of the great characters in an industry filled with characters. he has been a giant in the cable media industry for 30 years or more. first major company was tci the largest cable company in the late 1980s 1990s. he sold so it at&t in 1998 or so and now he is getting back

into the business. >> he is a character. definitely has been a leader in the cable industry and sometimes i think to excess. some of his early exploits led to he reregulation of the cable industry with driving prices high and preventing satellite companies from getting content. i hope he has learn his lesson and is happy to function in a purely competitive marketplace but i'm sure the enforcement agencies regardless of the personality, will look at the facts and determine whether this transaction is in the public. >> joining us on "the communicators" this week is gene kimmelman, the president and ceo and harold furtchgott-roth, the former which is of the fcc and also gautham nagesh. thank you for being on "the communicators."

>> how house transportation committee hold as hearing tomorrow on the recent amtrak train derail independent philadelphia that killed eight people and injured more than 200 others. the president and ceo of amtrak will be among the witnesses. we'll have that live at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span3. and later in the day a hearing on the takata air bag re-call that was recently expanded to include more than 30 million vehicles in the u.s. the executive vice president of takata's north american division will be among those testifying before the house energy and commerce subcommittee on manufacturing. that's also live on c-span3 beginning 2:59 p.m. eastern. insure.

>> the senate resumed -- while making changes to how the agency acquires phone data. the senate voted to advance the bill sunday but the measure did not make it to final passage before midnight deadline because of objections from kentucky senator rand paul. the senate now continues its work with certain provisions having expired. for more on senator paul's position and what to expect next we talked to a capitol hill reporter. >> alex roger's the national journal has been following the nsa debate in the senate, and the central role played by senator rand paul. he is joining us on capitol hill. thank you for being with us. >> absolutely. thank you for having me. >> has senator paul achieved his objective in terms of this debate? >> well, if you talk to him he thinks he has. we just met up with him right after he left the floor just moments ago and he is touting

this as a victory. he has said that now due to his efforts some day the nsa's bulk collection of metadata is over and that it is true temporarily but looks as if the senate will pass house bill. the u.s.a. freedom act that also ends the bulk collection of metadata later this week. >> you've paint a pick tire -- your piece available at national journal.com. what the scene was like as he left the capitol yesterday what did you witness? >> so, just an interesting moment for me. i'd been hearing for weeks and during that day about how senator rand paul had been antagonizing his g.o.p. colleagues, didn't even go to the g.o.p. conference meeting sunday afternoon to present his position on the topic. so when i saw him leave the capitol, knowing that the nsa's authorities were going to expire it's interesting he got

in the car and it was thomas massey a kentucky congressman and a libertarian side in the driver's seat and he was in passenger side, and then justin amosh, another republican on the house side, was in the back seat, and and they drove away in magey's tesla and just a great image for me to see them sharing a smile as they left and accomplishinged one of their goals. and i was mentioning -- i mentioned in the piece to kind of note that at least among his fellow senators, senator rand paul is really alone. nor -- senator mcconnell the majority leader, really indirectly ripped into him on the senate floor yesterday and senator mcconnell had endorsed him for president. so even amongst his close's allies senator pauls' actions yesterday infuriated his friends. >> for those who followed the debate into the evening on c-span 2 some rather terse word

biz senator john mccain of arizona. >> yes oh, yes senator mccain is lucky to have his pal, lindsay graham, running for president, really as an antagonist to senator pull paul but mccain has been -- as well as senator burr, really lighting into senator paul. i believe senator burr, the intelligence chairman says i think rand fabricated in his own mine what this program is, refer though nsa's collection of bulk metadata. so there's been some strong words being thrown around here, and senator rand paul right now is just pretty unpopular among his republican colleagues. >> and matt drudge popular conservative web site has been playing up the story with senator rand paul and his own campaign using this as a fundraising tool. >> sure. well i mean, what you saw drudge drives a lot of traffic. he had his front page of the

weekend some rand-related items and then tweeted out that the message that senator rand paul gave on the floor yesterday was one of the best he has seen in his campaign, and so there are members in conservative circles and analysis libertarian circles who agree with senator paul's message and he definitely has on his side the privacy advocates as well, and he can say that he is the only one democrat or republican that really feels this way. he has everybodied this niche this lane for him and to that point that this afundraising tactic he completely disagrees. he said i don't think people can question sincerity and said there's always going to be cynics and drove anyway the tesla. >> we're talking with alex romers of national journal. this may be a short-lived victory for senator rand paul.

what happens late this week in the senate. >> a procedural vote tomorrow and then late tomorrow night into wednesday for final passage on this. there's going to be some amendments also offers as well that could actually, in terms of senator paul's eyes, actually weaken the u.s.a. freedom act but we still expect for the most part the house passed bill which passed overwhelmingly to pretty much be passed later this week. >> joining our canon hill, alex roger whose falling all of this for national journal. thank you for being with us. >> thank you for having me. >> the senate returns tomorrow morning at 9:30 eastern with a vote to move forward on the u.s.a. freedom act scheduled for 10:30. 60 votes would be required for the measure to advance. next we'll show you some of the debate on the senate floor.

>> mr. president, i want to speak about the fisa bill, but before i do, i want to express what is one every one of our hearts of our grieving with the joe biden family. that family has had more of its share of tragedy. but what it has produced is, in the case of beau biden an extraordinary public servant who served his country not only by elected office, but by serving in unform as well. most of us in this chamber know the biden family and the dad

and and the now mom joe and jill are extraordinary human beings. that have contributed so much and it's not necessarily easy to be in public service as long as the vice president has and still raise a family that is so extraordinarily accomplished and contributing so much. and then to have that eldest son taken from him just is like a dagger into our hearts. so we grieve with the family. we grieve for them. and with the nation. and i just wanted to get that on

the record. mr. president, we are here because the senate is not functioning. we were here last night because the senate is not functioning. oh it's functioning according to the rules which says that you have to go through this arcane procedure of cloture on the motion to proceed and get 60 votes before you can ever get to the bill, and once you get to the bill, then you file another motion for cloture and the senate rule says there are 30 hours that have to run unless, as has been typical of the senate business, there's

understanding, there's bipartisanship but one senator can withhold unanimous consent and that has been done so the 30 hours. now normally that may be standard procedure for the senate. but it's getting in the way of our national security. because at midnight last night the law that allows our intelligence community to track the e-mails and the phone calls of the terrorists has evaporated. and it woken be re-enacted until sometime later this week because of the lack of unanimous consent. but this senator from florida is

not putting it at the feet of just the one senator that is not -- withholding unanimous consent. this senator from florida is saying this should have been planned on over a week ago. and this senator is saying that we should have gone through the laborious procedures, not assuming we were going to have the votes last night. not assuming that there was going to be comity and nance consent. this senator -- unanimous consent. this senator thinks we should have done this because of the-under gentlemen send of national security. now, it's interesting that this senator from florida comes here with mixed feelings. i voted for the lay pea bill, which is identical to the house bill.

but i did that because we didn't have any other choice. when i had another choice, i voted for the senator burr, the chairman of the intelligence committee's version which was to continue existing law and i did so because i clearly thought that was in the interests of our national security. but since that is not the prevailing votes of the senate, we need to get on with and it pass the house bill and then i would urge the chairman of the intelligence committee who is here on the floor -- i would urge him then, to down the line the six-months transitional period from the old law to the new law that be extended with a greater

transition time to 12 or 18 months and i would further urge the chairman of the intel committee that a major flaw in the bill passed by the house which we will eventually pass this week, that it be added to it a requirement for a certain amount of time that the telephone companies would have to keep those telephone business records so that if there is an urgency of national security going through the fisa court that those records would be available to the intel committee to trace the telephone calls of the terrorists. that would be my recommendation, and i see the chairman nodding in somewhat agreement. so mr. president i hope we'll get on.

i hope better hearts and minds will prevail and that we can collapse this period of dark, where there is no law governing e-mails, phone calls cell phones et cetera as we try to protect ourselves from the terrorists. i would hope that would be collapsed into a much shorter time instead of having to wait until late tuesday or wednesday or thursday of this week. mr. president, i yield the floor. >> mr. burr. >> mr. president i have nap consent that all morning business be yielded back and the senate resume consideration of hr2048. >> there is objection? without objection. >> i was want to -- >> morning business is closed. under the previous order the senate will resume consideration of hr2048, which the clerk will report. >> number 87.

hr2048. an act to reform the authority of the federal government to require the production of certain business records and so forth and for other purposes. >> mr. president. >> senator from north carolina. >> i want to rise while my good friend from florida is here to say, i wish i had a magic wand where i could collapse this time but as he knows under senate rules one member can demand for the full 30 hours and we're in a process like that and my hope is that there will be some accommodation as we go through this because i think most members would like to resolve this. and let me say specifically to his two points. there is a substitute amendment that has the u.s.a. freedom language with two additional pieces. those two pieces are a six-month notification to nsa by intel

company who intend tuesday cheng they're retention program -- change their retention program and as my good friend from florida knows in part trying to move a bill is make sure we move bill that can be passed and accepted by the house of representatives, and mandatory retention right now does not meet that threshold but i hope that they will accept this requirement of notification under any change in their detention -- retention program. as well as a dni certification at the end of whatever the transition period is. now, there will be a first degree and a second degree amendment in addition to that made in order and germane. the first degree amendment will be to extend the transition pert to 12 months. so we would come from six months no, two years like the gentleman from florida and i preferred -- and not 18 but to 12 and that's a happy spot for us to agree. and there will be a second degree amendment to that to

address some language that's in the bill that makes it mandatory on the part of the justice department that hey -- they get a panel of amicus individuals and what we've heard from the justice department and gotten a recommendation is that be a voluntary thing on the part of the courts, and the first degree amendment with that language provided by the courts. would like to tell the gentleman i hope by tomorrow afternoon we can have this completed and that we can send it to the house and by the time we good to bed tomorrow night this might all be back into place and i remind my colleagues that any law enforcement case that was in progress is not affected by the suspension of the roving or lope wolf provisions. they're grandfathered in so those investigations can continue. but for the 48 hours that we might be closed, it means

they're going delay the start of an investigation if in fact they node those two tools and from a standpoint of the bulk data program, it meaned that is frozen it can't be queried for the period of tim but hasn't gone away, and immediately as we re-institute the authorities in this program that additional data will be brought in and the process that nsa would go through to query the dat would in fact be available to the national security agency. only. as is current law. only once a fisa court provides the authority for them to do it. and i think there are a lot of misstatements that have been made on the floor. let me just say for my colleagues what is collective -- what is metadata? it's a telephone number, it's a date it's a time that the call was made, and it's the duration of the phone call.

now, i'm not sure how we have invaded anybody's privacy by getting a telephone number that is defied. we don't know who it blews to and we would over in know who it belongs to until it's turned over to law enforcement to investigate because it's now been connected to a known foreign terrorist telephone number. stop and think about this. the cfpb, government agency, collects financial transaction's on every american but there's nobody down here trying to -- i'm loaf to eliminate the cfpb tomorrow but there's no outrage over it, and they collect a ton more information than and it's not deidentified. every american has a discount card for the grocery score you. get a discount. your grocery store collects 20 times the amount of data that

the nsa does, all identified with you and there's a big difference between the nsa and your grocery store. we don't sell our data. at the nsa. your grocery store does. i'm for outrage but let's make it equal. let's understand that we're in a society where data is transferred automatically and the fact is that, one this is a program authorized by law overseen by the congress, house and senate, and the executive branch at the white house it is a program that has never had -- never -- never had a privacy violation, not one -- in at the time it's been in place. now, i'm all for the american people saying this is not a function we believe government should be in, and i think that's what we have heard and we're transferring the data over to the telecom companies where no longer is there going to be a limited number of people who can access that information.

we're going to open it up to the telecom companies to search it in some way shape or form, whether they're trained or untrained or how they're exactly going to do it. it's going delay the amount of time it takes to us connect a dot to another dot. >> mr. president would the senator yield? >> i'd be happy to yield. >> mr. president, is it a good example of the chairman of the intel committee a republican, and this senator from florida a democrat a former member of the intel committee are so frustrated as just exemplified by the senator that there's so much misunderstanding of what this legislation does. the fact that the chairman has just said, metadata, a fancy term is nothing more than

business records of the telephone company. a telephone number is made to another telephone number on such and such a date at such and such a time for such and such a duration. that's all. we don't know who the call was from or to. it's when there is the suspicion through other things that are authorized by court order that the analyst can get in and open up as to what the content is in order to protect us. and would the senator from north carolina agree that there is so much misunderstanding in the press as has been reported about how this is the invasion of privacy as if the conversations were the ones that were being

held by the national security agency. would the senator agree with that statement? >> agree with exactly that statement. the collection has nothing too with the content of the call, and to do that, would take an investigation into an individual and an additional court process that would probably be pursued by the fbi not the nsa to look at the content. and i think when the american people see this thing dissected in reality and they say really, my telephone number without my name isn't really an intrusion. the time that the call was made really isn't an intrusion. the duration of the call really isn't a duration -- and now i know they're not collecting anything that was said. there's no continent it. of this nate data babies is -- metta data bases only telephone

numbers and there's a him question of the american people. why did we create this program? well it was created in the department of defense transferred to see the intelligence community and the purpose was in real time to be able to search or query a massive amount of data. so a few weeks ago we -- the united states went into syria and we got a bad guy. and we got hard drives and we got telephones and we got a lot of sim cards and those telephone numbers now hopefully -- don't know -- hope any we'reting it in the metadata base to see did those phones talk to anybody in the united states. why? i think the american people want us to know that if terrorists are talking to somebody in this country. i think they really do want us to know that. and what we have tried to do since 9/11, since we tried to structure something that lives

within the law or a presidential directive, that gives us that head start at identifying who that individual is. but we only do it through telephone numbers the date of the call, the long of the call, we don't do it through listening to content and that's why i think that it's healthy for us to have this debate. i think the -- my good friend from florida shares my frustration. we're changing a program that didn't have a problem and didn't need to be changed. and we're accepting a lower threshold of our ability to intercept that individual in the united states that might have the intention of carrying out some type of an attack. now, i'd only say this. i don't believe the threat level has dropped to point where we can remove some of the tool. if anything, the threat level has gotten higher, and you would think we'd be talking about an

expansion of tools. but i accept the fact that this debate has gotten to a point where a bulk data storage capacity within the government is not going to be continued long term, and i would say to my good friend, who i think agrees with me, that though i believe 24 months this safer transition period hopefully our friends in the house will see 12 months as a good agreement between the two bodies and that 12-month agreement would give me confidence that knowing that we have taken care of the technology needed for the telecoms to search in real time. mr. president, this will be a delay from where we currently are. i can't get into the classified nature of how long it takes to us query a database, but there's no question that this will lengthen the amount of time it

takes to us connect the dots. therefore, for something that might be in an operational mode, we may or may not hit that. that's a concern. but this is certainly something we can go back and look at as time goes on. >> mr. president if the senator will further yield. >> absolutely. >> has the senator heard many times in the press well, nobody has come forth and showed us one case in which the hold little of these telephone business bulk records has paid off. has the senator heard that statement by the press? ... mr. nelson: has the senator come to the conclusion that the holding of that data, that there

are so many cases that are classified that has protected this country from frifts by virtue -- from terrorists by virtue of just the example that he gave of the terrorist records that were apprehended in the raid in syria a couple of weeks ago that those telephone numbers may well be it's like mining gold and finding other terrorists that are hitting -- that want to hit us? mr. burr: the senator hits on a great point. let me state it this way. would any member of the intelligence committee be on the floor battling to keep this >> >> we are battling on the

floor for have been on the committee since 1911 because we have seen the impact of this program and we know what it has enabled us to do and what happens with the trove of technology. and what gives us the ability if we knew or didn't the fact is if you have groups like isis today that says stay in the united states state in europe. go buy a gun. here is a list of military officers here is how you can carry out senator king. it makes that to even more important because the lager

to really get the no-fly list for those that intend to travel to syria. the individual said grew up in neighborhoods the only way we can find out is to connect the conversation they have had against the fact it took place and law enforcement can peel the onion back with proper authority to see if this is her real need to worry about. the senator from florida is 100 percent correct it is invaluable to the overall defense of this country. >> if senator would further yield the american people need to understand there's so much agreement behind the closed doors of the intelligence community -- community as they are invested with the oversight

in order to protect and might lead now is we would get to the point as the chairman has suggested that maybe even by waiting to barrault we could collapse this time to get on to passing this with minor modifications to the house to get it to the president's for this program that tries to protect us from terrorist can continue. i think the senator for yielding. >> also my good friend from florida with my friend from arizona before i yield let me just restate what the senator from florida asked

me that was we need a longer transition period with said data that is held and i say to my colleagues there will be 3.-- both at some point with the exact same language that makes touche changes to the usa freedom bill that has a requirement the telecom it notifies the government six months in advance of any change of the retention program for their data which is reasonable the second is a requires the director of national intelligence to certify that transition day that the software needed is so the search can go through. in addition there are two other amendments lung dash

amendments to expand that transition period i would have preferred 24 but i settled on 12. and the lasting is it would change the current of the kiss language to reflect something provided by the courts with the recommendation with the time sensitivity to it as we go through that debate today and tomorrow hopefully we can have three amendments that pass that we can report this bill out tomorrow if everything goes well. with that i will yield the floor. >> mr. president i rise to address the bill before us the fourth talking about the

specifics what is it we're wrestling with and why this is so hard and what we are trying to do is to balance to critical constitutional provisions. the first is with the preamble to provide for the common defense to ensure domestic tranquillity is a fundamental purpose of this government and of any government to provide for the common defense to ensure tranquillity that is national security and in the very core preamble to the constitution of the united states the other provisions are found in the bill of rights project if the fourth amendment with the rights of the people to be secure in that person's papers from unreasonable search and

seizure. unreasonable is a key word. the people that drafted the virginia says and every word counts so there is no absolute right to privacy just as there is none with national security purpose we have to try to find the right balance in relation to developments and technology developments with the threats that we face is a calibration that we have to try to make i have been concerned about the retention of large quantities of telephone data by the government and the program under which that data has been analyzed is important i share the concern of many of the body

with the government computers how it is to be accessed with the detail of that access is important with no evidence it is ever abused i still felt along with many others that simply having the government retain that information itself was the danger to the liberty of our country and like those that have expressed that concern there for the freedom act the usa freedom act proposes to move to leave the data with the phone company and if it is necessary to access for national security purposes

purposes, the government will have to go through the process of the justice department to get permission to access that data. why shouldn't the government holds it? i am a subscriber to the maximum power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. the current administration or prior administration may have no information to miss use that data. we have no idea what pressures there may be what political pressures there may be into getting out of the government's hands. the problem i have had with the usa freedom act i felt it went too far in the other direction because there was no requirement in the bill as it passed the house that the phone companies retain the data for any period of time. now as a matter of business

practices 18 months through two years that is all that is necessary to have the data available for the national security search if necessary. so to maintain that level. for one of the vice presidents of the carrier's so with how long we have to hold the data i think it is the glaring weakness in the usa freedom act that led me to vote against consideration of the bill with a motion to proceed when it came up last week. today or tomorrow whenever the timing works out there is a series of amendments proposed from the senator of north carolina and the chair of the intelligence committee to deal with several of these technical

aspects of this program. one would require if the carriers decided to hold the data for a shorter period of time there would have to notify the government and congress and we could make the decision if we thought additional required a period of retention inadequate to -- to adequately protect national security. another amendment that the transition period from the curb program from those to hold the data aspect is extended from six months to one year because this is a major or herculean task to make sure this is available for national security purposes on a timely basis.

what we have been debating and discussing is the important program if you cannot point out to a specific plot foiled by this narrow provision i don't buy that mr. president. it is interesting to talk about what is the history of the provision? it is after shortly after september 11 because of the gap of the security analysis was identified that we could not have our phone connections to prepare for the september 11 attack and for that reason in section 215 program was invented.

this does not have anything to do with the content of all calls. they say we don't want the government listening to all of our phone calls and the answer is they don't. and they have not done any such authority with the narrow ability to determine if a particular phone-number federation and the dates in the example of the usefulness was the boston marathon bombing. finitude bombers perpetrated the horrendous attack april 2013.

to see if they ever in touch with other people in the country to determine if this was a nationwide plot or simply these two in boston for i would submit it is an important or critical piece of information if there are connections with similarly inclined people in the country at that time it is an important thing for us to know. that is the way the program is used. it is absolutely critical and indispensable to solve these cases? i don't think anyone can argue that is the case. is as important and useful as a tool kit? yes. particularly when the invasion of privacy is so limited and narrowly

defined. i liken it to a new book that a police officer carries at the scene of the crime and takes up the notebook to write some notes purportedly said detectives can no longer carry notebooks would eliminate their ability to solve crime? no. but would eliminate tool that is helpful to them? to solve that crime or another i think the answer is yes. we should not take a tool way that is useful and important unless there is a compelling argument on the other side and since we're not talking about the content of phone conversations simply which number called another number and it can only be accessed through a process through the justice department and permission from the court i think it is the program worthy of protection and

usefulness to this country. i think it is particularly important now and it is ironic that we are talking about unilaterally disarming at a time when the threat has never been greater and the nature is changing september 11 is tourism 1.show up plot hatched abroad the people who perpetrated it were smuggled into the country in various ways with a specific target and of what they were working on. that is september 11. terrorism and 2.go is up lot that communicated directly to people in the united states set apart of the jihadist group that now it is 3.now -- 3.o that isis that sends out to the

terrorists epb to no particular person but anyone that is radicalized by themselves to the internet it might be a facebook post then that person takes up arms to kill americans that is the intent that is the hardest to interact where the ability to have numbers calling numbers could be extremely useful and might be the only useful tool because we will not have that specific plotting we have seen in the past it is the most dangerous threat that i think we face today and to throw aside a protection, a safeguard that

i believe passes constitutional muster that goes the extra mile to protect the privacy rights of americans by getting the data out of the hands of the government is one that is worthy of the support in this chamber to find that balance, the balance between the most solemn responsibility we have to provide for the common defense to insure domestic tranquility. in light of the of constitutional limitations with the of bill of rights to protect individual liberties that make us who we are. high hum there will never be a final answer to the question but montreal have to assess lovecraft's and technology with the right calibration of balance that

will allow us to meet the most solemn of responsibilities. mr. president i look forward to hopefully the consideration of amendments today or tomorrow and i look forward to what i hope will be with the passage of this legislation in the next 48 hours to look the constituents in the eye to say we took the responsibility to protect your security seriously also your rights your liberty and understanding of government will not impinge unreasonably in any way in violation of the principles of this constitution. mr. president i yield the floor.

seven m1 to thank my good friend the senator from maine. but one that has been vitally involved in the oversight section 215. what is left out is 15 members of united states senate actively carrying out over cited is one of the most look at programs within the jurisdiction of the intelligence committee. but this isn't a program that is used that frequently prescribe want to reiterate but there is no content collected. this expired last night.

and what i think that is important to remind the american people in it is all triggered with that member outside of the united states. but to see where the connection has been made to see if there is the direction but it is triggered to go through the database and to search choosy that conduct on the united states. with that reasonable suspicion based on the specific facts for the

terrorist organization and. if the nsa cannot make the case for the courts then it is never authorized or forward. to see to americans are calling. >> but my good friend from maine let me go back and earlier this sheer or last year. he testified that the program was in place those attacks may have been derailed. but the intelligence community for one of the two that lived in san diego tied to a terrorist group binyamin.

i knew of a terrorist organization in yemen that we could have targeted the telephone numbers out of the cell to see if they ever contacting anybody in the united states and we could put the connection together. and they think director mahler said we saw on 9/11 if it is not put together for not emplace because of san diego. but it served no purpose. prior to 9/11 then they have the boston marathon that there was no terrorist link then through 2009 the new

york city subway bombing. while monitoring the activities in pakistan it was a contact for the individual with of colorado based group that has the lead information. this the program works. it has worked and has stopped attacks because we have been able to identify an individual cell my colleagues who say who has not served a useful purpose then it that is not what we have the program in place

just like in 2009 a chicago terrorist investigation with the chicago businessman at the time of his arrest and then with the cartoons and with the analysis that was done to oversee a so she is it with their involvement of the activities i am not sure how it gets any clearer than that. we have an individual that is radicalized that has overseas connections that we never would have understood without section 215. but when you connect one

doubted typically leads to another but not given the tools to connect that that we're supposed to keep you safe to we will not do that but i say to my colleagues i hope we can reinstitute the program after lunch tomorrow. hopefully we can do it with three amendments votes in the final passage. one is the substitute to the full bill with although language it would require the telecom companies to have the edification the of the program -- notification of a program that was the suggestion from the senator of maine and the second piece the substitute

amendment will deal with the national intelligence certification to make technological changes necessary for the telecom companies to query the data. there is to additional amendments to change that transition period in double by to see it lunker as we talk about the safety and security of the american people. and the change of the of friend-of-the-court language or the of amicus laing bridge but the current bill says the court shall that means they will. what the court for what the administrator has provided to us is language to have the flexibility when they need a friend-of-the-court to solicit of rand but not

require them with the word shall to always be a friend-of-the-court. i think is my friend has noted the process that we go through section 215 through the fisa court is an accelerated process. any delay can defeat the purpose of what we're trying to do and i say one last time for my colleagues that nsa under the metadata program collects a couple of things the telephone number number, the dates the duration of time that the call to place. they don't get content or the person's name, they have no idea and if they would tie a domestic number to a foreign terrorist number in that goes directly to the

fbi because they say we have a suspicious american because they communicate with a terrorist. it is out of the 215 program the there is ever of a need to find out whose telephone number it was or for content it is under the investigation that is not part of the amicus program. with no identifier for the collection of the date in the direction and -- duration of the call. i think the gentleman that is will translate out so this can seamlessly happen

is it of the artificial date of six months. i thank the gentleman. i yield the floor.

[inaudible conversations] before i get started but niseis bond behalf of the biting family how deeply appreciative they are for the outpouring of love and support they have received since beau passing on saturday. all over the country and all over the world and they've been a great deal to the vice president and his family. for those of you in this room or anybody watching if you're looking to pay your respects to beau visit the white house .gov the virtual condolence book all we'll be collected and shared with divided family.

-- the biden families. >> i want to talk about the actions of how they are pursued differently with the expiration. >> the failure of the senate to not renew the page redact has as an impact upon the ability or on the authorities the national security professionals can use. so what the president has advocated and to have strong bipartisan support in the senate is key legislation in that would incorporate reforms to protect our privacy and civil liberties

of the american people as well as renewing tools the national security professional has used and those reforms have not been enacted into law a and the extension of those important tools have not been enacted as a practical matter that means a national security establishment is not using section 215 with authority to collect any data em what the president and the national security team has reformed in the freedom act and also noncontroversial authorities better not currently available that includes the authority to get a warrant to use section

215 to conduct investigations of individuals that are suspected to have a link to terrorism. also means the professionals do not have authority is that they need to get a warrant to get a roving wiretaps of individuals and are suspected having links to terrorism and also means the national security professionals to not have the authority to get a warrant. it's under though long will provision this is under the provision that we have acknowledged has not been used previously. but this is a provision if needed today cannot be used by national security professionals and what we have said the failure to act introduces unnecessary risk

to the country and to citizens. >> has the president than notified with the department of justice to pursue a particular case? details to share about ongoing gore recently started issues. what we also a acknowledges the national security professionals have other tools to use to conduct investigations but there are tools they can use. >> with the roving wiretaps. >> there is a grandfather clause for the routine use

of section 250 not the bulk but what would allow the individual suspected of having ties to terrorism to allow national security professionals to examine business records that those authorities as relating to ongoing investigations are not affected and they continue. but law-enforcement and professionals to not have the authority to collect those kinds of records or to seek those types of warrants under a new the started investigation. >> with passage of the freedom act to have several amendments would of then extends the transition period of a full collection data to one year instead of

six months as the freedom act. >> but we do support that. >> is completely unnecessary. then it would require a six months' time period to carry out the change that you just describe. we are confident that time period would give professionals time for reforms but if for some reason it is judged to be insufficient the national security team will go back to congress that is why we believe an amendment like this is not necessary. we believe six months is enough.

and then we will go back to congress to ask for additional time. in the unlikely event. >> see you rather not have any amendments? >> we like to have access to the legislation as soon as possible is the big bill that collected 338 votes in the house and support from democrats and republicans. the senate should not get into a game but the president thinks the senate should act as quickly as possible to pass the usa freedom back so he can sign it into law and we can first implement the reforms over the six month period to better protect civil liberties to make sure we

have the deal -- the tools to keep us safe. >> and just to observe they had a year-and-a-half to exercise that prerogative. but now they have flown through the deadline is of privilege and right with the good of the country to relinquish because with a deep legislation without strong support and the national security professionals and write - - rather than get into additional political gamesmanship to pass the was a freedom back to pass into law.

>> one of several americans following negotiations can you confirm that? >> i cannot offer any details about those reports because of privacy considerations but we are working to provide additional details at an appropriate time which we hope is relatively soon. >> is there a change in the way the u.s. communicates with these families with the hospice policy? >> i am not aware of any policy changes. no. the individuals who are detained there are

individuals we're trying to secure their release. >> after secretary kerry injury over the weekend they say that could preclude him from participating with any consideration. >> i understand even as we speak he is in route back to boston for treatment on his broken leg. the secretaries dr. is traveling with secretary to boston to monitor his condition to ensure he remains comfortable in flight. a the president each had the opportunity to speak with secretary kerry yesterday's to wish him well on a speedy recovery. he made clear he will pursue

an aggressive responsible recovery schedule and there is a range of recovery trajectories that our possible dealing with an injury like this and i am sure he will have more to say about this relatively soon but we do continue to believe that we have the time and resources necessary to pursue and hopefully complete the iran negotiations. and what will be affected by the secretaries injury and exactly how moving forward on this we will have more details. >> and whether or not we could participate. >> i am confident he will

continue this effort and whether he will spend every day of the next four weeks in europe negotiating face to face with his counterpart to give that injury that he sustained by a confident that whatever capacity he can participate he will play the un credit -- a very critical role in that effort >> you could not comment about the 13 hours that go back to history. can you point to anything in the past that was not successful under these current conditions? this is something to explain why it is so important. >> probably not it as much detail that will satisfy you at the top but with two

compelling reasons why the national security professionals say to have these authorities is important to national security. the first is there are recent examples i cannot go into those that they say that the information they obtained using these authorities is what they're not previously aware of as an indication that these authorities have succeeded. that is critical and the second thing is the way that our investigators talk about this information is these pieces as they are collected are building blocks to in investigation and what that means is a clear picture is

provided with a variety of pieces of information together as is its you get that clear sense of what additional are investigating. that could be information or building blocks to be used to exonerate somebody and that is useful. we have limited national security resources based on that information that they are not under significant concern to focus resources in other areas. >> on a scale of one to attend cal much less safe are we? >> that is something a national security professionals can speak to.

that we have these authorities they are not controversial and as a national security professionals tell us they have been used to elicit information and so the question you have heard three offer up a few times over the last week is simply why would we as an unnecessary risks to national security? because of congress' failure to act? we have these authorities that many have not been controversial. the one that is subject to extensive reforms if the senate passed the bill with the house of representatives

so why would we incorporate this unnecessary risk? to look for an opportunity to build a political advantage and apparently they concluded the risk was worth it. the president does not agree

[inaudible conversations] we'll come to this afternoon's session i am the director of sustainability studies at hofstra university. welcome to our camp is a lovely you can see our great sustainability efforts from our cogeneration plant that produces 30% pre-energy every day. today we have an interesting set of papers and afterwards i hope we can have some great conversation going from the audience we have david:-- david cohen and

terence o'sullivan, head justin gone from boise state university, also from the u.s. naval war college, we have a great set of catalyst here with us. unfortunately congressman king could not make it a day due to commitments in washington and. the first paper the way we will do this we have two papers we will have discussions then will open it up for conversations that we must work every day to improve the home is security infrastructure with george w. bush white house to have

tiryns o'sullivan and david cohen. >> before i get started thank you for putting on this conference is my third presidential conference the first was with george h. to be bush has a low of the graduate student and i presented a paper the way house chief of chat -- chief of staff johnson britt before the panel started to sit right in the front row and was given a copy of my paper by in the carter proceeded to read my entire paper and wood hivite as he went along so i thought if i could survive this site could survive anything with academia. so it is a good training ground for public speaking is an interesting first experience and am looking forward to the next days of

the conference. is part of though long-term project of the function of the white house home is security which would include the office of homeland security council as well as the structure with the position of the home and security advisor. we pay attention to historical evolution what is needed out the application is from interviews with a former bush administration personnel with high-level staff that are working in conjunction with so-so draw

data from the documents from home is security presidential directives. but if you go back to september 11 it was a classic event and the bush administration was given a great opportunity to reshape and restructure the organization of the federal government more than abraham lincoln and. to provide clear supports for that anti-terrorism policies and the bush white house embraced the idea that the federal level particularly with the white house itself. for example, pulque cbs news poll 85 percent of respondents said another

terrorist attack was very likely. of less sweeping change of the national security advisor using everything change september 11th. that is true in is how we would organize united states government to defeat the threat of terrorism. the recommendations of what became the department of homeland security was dismissed by the bush administration. because those ideas would come from the democratic congress with that change had not registered with the administration and yet but continuing with the your own dash bureaucrats as usual evaporated and after 9/11 intelligence failures so

something needed to be done said to embrace the idea of the homeland security apparatus within the white house with president bush hopes to a joint session of congress the notion of creating with the cabinet lovell position on october 8 the plan was formalized when they issued tutus 13a that creates the office of:security to be house and the executive office of the president so with the myriad of responsibilities including getting together agencies to provide better intelligence for future tax.

it also stipulated zero hrs was to be led by the president of komen security and it was modeled after the modern day version of the national security staff and advisor with the model going forward with the major difference is that ohs was accretion of executive order and nsc was statutory from the national security act of the 1947 s bush 47 had a free hand to create and change the ohs. also because of a presidential creation the director of senate confirmation as this became a major source of friction

in the 107th congress to have numerous issues but only after it announced to create the id hs of course looking at the office of plans security not only chosen because of a resonate to have very close personal relations with bush to have access as a fairly important ingredient in by many accounts to have both of those and other official that we interviewed about this, operates that the

second major muscle movement for the functions not to mention those to go together someone that is close to the president released to make those major muscle movements were this would not have succeeded so they did have bush is here to a certain extent for there is some skepticism from congress with a direct admission and to lack sufficient power and authority because the ohs director did not have budgetary authority to hold people accountable. said to be rife with concerns from the away chess director.

sova to tap down these criticisms in a weekly address president bush made clear to have total access to have full support of the federal government to have full support of the government that was a public statement of support the assessments reported that '08 chess when dash ohs was not functioning to that bush administration and many of those were resisting change and of course, they had no budgetary tool to punish those agencies and without that authority rigid did black that authority of that behemoths with those turf battle satin suit almost immediately.

. . based on proximity to the oval office the homeland security advisor never achieve the status of that of the national security advisor. the both had an office in the west wing the homeland security advisor office was in the basement