so it was very interesting that you had this secretive group of eavesdroppers sharing this same little town with the secretary largest secretary of polygamists in the country. it was the town even had to expand its boundaries to incorporate the entire facility t million square foot facility. it is a very interesting little note that the two groups there co habiting the same little town. >> phillip, independent caller. >> talking about polygamy. let me say this, the two party system is married to the military industrial complex games, and i recommend to all of those listening that the best book you wrote was "body of secrets." it's one of the greatest books i've read. i'm an activist, i've been out there working with the 25%, it's called 25 cent solution. and our goal is to get the

military spending cut by 25%, and send the money back to the cities and states to help save jobs and rebuild the economy. what the people don't realize is that 56 cents out of every federal tax dollar that you and i and the young lady send to the federal government goes to military spending which i'm sure part of is for this whole complex that you're talking about. 56 cents out of every dollar, it's outrageous. >> all right, philip. do we know what the overall nsa budget is every year and how many employees they have? >> it's all secret. the budget is enormous, nsa is about three times the size of the cia and -- in terms of personnel probably about three times the size of the cia. in terms of person ale el, possibly about three times the size also. it's hard to say. somewhere 30, 40,000 people, something like that.

but it is an extremely expensive agency because it has so much hardware and satellites and people all over the world. in the article, the wired magazine article, i show all of this new building that nsa has been going on in the last ten years. new listening posts in georgia, in texas, in colorado, in hawaii, putting new satellites up. putting new dishes and listening posts in england. so, it's -- their headquarters are spending another 2 to $3 billion on expanding its headquarters. then you've got the new super computer facilities down in tennessee, so it's an enormous building program and i agree with the caller that there's far too much military spending. it's -- eisenhower warned of the industrial complex, now it's

intelligence security and military industrial complex that is gobbling up so much money when we could be spending for thingsp more useful in the united states. one other point, it would be good if all of this money was usefully spent but nsa missed the first world trade center attack. it missed the attack on the "uss cole," it missed the attack on the east african embassies, it missed the attack on 9/11. it missed the attacks on -- or missed the underwear bomber who flew into detroit on christmas day, and they missed the times square bomber. so if you got something to draw that money it might be a different story. but the point is they spend, spend, spend and they collect so much information, it's not a lack of information they have, it's too much information that they collect. >> supporters of nsa might say we don't know how many they have caught. you're pointing out what they haven't been able to catch but

perhaps we have no idea because it's top secret how many other times they are catching. >> well, i've interviewed a lot of sources at nsa, including bill bennie. i think i would have found out if there was some massive terrorist operation that they stopped. i never heard of one yet. >> nsa's infringing on freedom of speech and association. what constitutional authority grants them this power? >> well, they have this -- let me back up for a second. nsa is a very unusual agency. it's extremely unusual. every other agency in the u.s. government was formed in congress. many there were bills creating the agency, there were hearings whether this should happen, when the cia was created. there was a bill before congress, they debated it. it was created in law. nsa was never created in law. it was created by a top secret memorandum signed by harry

truman in 1952. it was created in absolute secrecy. even congress wasn't allowed to know about it. even its name was supposed to be secret for years until it began leaking out. nsa was created in a secret method unlike any other agency. since then it has lived in this unique world where very few people are allowed to ask questions about it. the director hardly ever speaks in public before congress so the agency has little accountability. the only what you in terms of nsa's eavesdropping is a law called the foreign intelligence surveillance act which actually watered down the original law which was a foreign intelligence surveillance act created in 1978. and that put this court, it was a secret court, a foreign intelligence surveillance court, between the nsa and the public. so if nsa wanted to eavesdrop on

a u.s. citizen, had to go to the court. that's what the bush administration bypassed and broke the law by doing that. after that the law was watered down to -- water down the effectiveness and the role of the foreign intelligence surveillance court. in nsa's eavesdropping. >> john, a republican, st. louis, missouri. john, you're on the air. >> caller: i have a member of my not immediate family, just more or less distant relative who is a high ranking officer in air force intelligence. and he has to be vetted every year and they ask him repeatedly why my two sons married foreign nationals, one from germany and the other from spain which are our allies. i was told. and then the other questions get even more interesting. my hobby is paint ball war

games. i'm active on the internet forums, and i frequently use terms like rpg, law, tank, silencer, et cetera. and they asked him about my political leanings and great detail my attitudes toward the government in great detail. if you want to connect the dots it's because big brother is listening. >> mr. bamford. >> that's the problem is you're an innocent citizen, never done anything wrong and your comments could be taken completely out of context. that's how you get a million people on the watch list. that's how you get so many innocent people. it's not a problem of just being thrown off an airplane. you may not even be on the list that is a no fly list, but you could be on the nsa black list, but it means if you secretly

somehow -- or if you had say a relative or a son that wants to go to the -- one of the service academies, he might not get in because they see that you, from the mistaken intercepts that they're getting, indicate that you're not a loyal american citizen, or you're applying for a small business loan, and you don't get it. may not know why but may be because you're on this secret watch list that nsa has. those are some of the dangers. people say i never do anything wrong, that's why you should care because there are a million people. who knows how many never did anything wrong. they aren't going to send you a letter saying you're on the watch list. you're not going to get that loan you applied for as this gentleman mentioned going to be questioned because they think that the person is involved in terrorism or something. >> how is it that the nsa is getting this information out of

-- how is it that they are getting it, what is the role of telecommunicati telecommunications companies, at&t, google, are they allowing nsa to tap? >> they have been doing it since 1952. actually you go back to the predecessor at nsa, in 1946. the telecommunications have always known it was illegal to help these agencies do it. and they've always gone along and done it. this last time was the warrantless eavesdropping. during the bush administration. once again at&t and the other companies, saluted smartly and did whatever nsa asked them to do, regardless of the fact that it was a violation of the law. and they suffered no penalties because congress passed a law saying they can't be prosecuted and cannot be suited. and they can't even be sued. they gave them total immunity for what happened.

there is no incentive to obey the law. and if you get another president like bush or nimen comes in and used it largely a lot of times for political reasons. that's the problem. if you have immunity to these companies the next president can use it to subvert his political opponent or use it for nefarious ways. as the nixon administration did. >> gracie on twitter. what would happen if we got rid of the nsa, defund them? fire them? what would happen? >> i don't know. it would be an interesting question. i'm not a supporter of doing away with the nsa but i am in favor of putting the nsa on a leash so they can't get away with doing what they did during the bush administration or operate in absolute secrecy in a democracy. i would like to see some compromise where nsa gets the funding it needs but doesn't get the funding that is so excessive

that it's getting now. and with no questions asked. the congress asks no questions of nsa. at the end of this article, but the next article i wrote about nsa. i said about, who's listening to the listeners, that's the problem. nobody's paying attention to the people that are doing the eavesdropping. >> do the intelligence committees on the hill have oversight of nsa? >> they did but the problem with the house intelligence committee do but the role has shifted. when these committees were created around mid-70s under senator frank church, for example, he was very aggressive in taking on his role protecting the american public from these agencies. and he did an enormous search, that's how they found out that nsa had been illegally eavesdropping for 30 years. since that time congress has

shifted its role pretty much. now it's basically a cheering squad for the nsa. administration isn't giving the intelligence community enough money, they are lobbying for more money going to the nsa. so it's a complete switch from this hard oversight to a lack is a daisical, well, we can't say anything about nsa. they can do whatever they want attitude. >> james bamford writes about the nsa, wrote the wired cover piece, inside of the piece he writes once it's operational this utah data center which comes with a price tag of 2 billion for construction will become the nsa's cloud. the center will be collected data fed by the satellites, listening posts and secret monitoring rooms throughout the u.s. all of that data will be accessible to the nsa's code breakers, data minors, analysts, specialists, and others working

at its ft. meade headquarters and around the world. georgie, democratic caller in california. good morning. >> caller: good morning. i've always found this interesting and with my age i've always known that they have been doing this. but now they are doing it where people are actually getting arrested for things they have done five years ago. and it's been things that's been on their cell phone. so that's going to be interesting to see how that plays out in california. in los angeles, it's going to set a precedence. if it hasn't already been set, i don't know if it's been set or not. anything you say on your cell phone, you get red flagged. and people know they are red flagged but then there are so many that don't, and they find themselves behind bars five years later for something they said five years ago. to me it's absolutely insane. we lost this country, the

citizens of this country need to take this country back, and make it a democracy. >> all right. chris a republican in las vegas. >> caller: thank you for your work, mr. bamford. >> appreciate it. thank you. >> as one who also connected the dots out here i have found that this utah center seems to be the crowning jewel of what was originally inspired under 10 usc 2358, the strom thurmond act of 1961. and i find it likely that there's an incorporative system to it that interfears with the smart meters through the smart grid system that enables a

two-way transmitter on your home to create that virtual wire prism, the wires in your home, you can't see and possibly the introduction of mind alter ing psycho electronic waves in your home via the tower on the ac frequency. >> that was chris in las vegas. we'll hear from corrine. >> caller: mr. bamford, my question to you is that you mentioned that congress needs to launch an investigation into the illegal tactics of what the nsa are doing but how is that possible when congress are pretty much allowing and you know, passing legislation to allow the nsa to do what they are able to do? >> mr. bramford. >> all of those questions are very good. and the question that the gentleman just asked, that's the problem. congress doesn't have an incentive to look into nsa because the problem with the congress right now is that no congress person ever wants to look weak on terrorism.

because they know that their opponent is going to say well, you voted against this new bill to put the data center in utah which actually isn't even a bill, nsa just does it. that's the problem. the problem is that there are too many congress people not willing to go out on a limb and say we've got too much surveillance going on, because they are so afraid of being accused of being weak on terrorism so anything that the administration suggests or proposes or anything that nsa comes up with is okay because it's going to fight this war on terror. and to be opposed to it is to open yourself up to criticism from the future opponent who is going to say you're weak on terrorism. i think that's a serious problem how you get around it you have to have congressmen or congress people that have a lot of moral fiber to stand up against these agencies.

>> how has the obama administration responded to the nsa? >> well, it's done the same as i was saying, they are very weak on the whole issue of privacy. president obama when he was running for office said he was totally against what nsa was doing, illegal warrantless eavesdropping and that he would vote against any expansion of nsa's power. he would even filibuster against it, and he said he would vote against any immunity to the telecom companies that illegally assisted nsa. and then when push came to shove and it came up for a vote he voted in favor of expanding nsa's surveillance capability and voted in favor of immunity to the telecom companies. since then the u.s. surveillance under obama has increased enormously from the bush years. now they are talking about drones flying over the united

states collecting pictures and eavesdropping. as a few people have mentioned general petraeus, the new head of the cia came out a few days ago, a couple weeks ago maybe, saying there's all of these connections now to people's electronics in their houses, dishwashers, their electronic components and that the cia feels it has a responsibility to monitor these things. nobody's saying stop. everybody is saying uh-oh, war on terrorism, we better let them do whatever they want to do. >> cape cod, massachusetts, clay, democratic caller. >> caller: thank you very much. mr. bamford i thoroughly enjoy your books. i have a question for you. in 2008, i had attended the conference where admiral gary spoke about the test fleet.

as you all know, i think the test fleet is a reinvigoration from the fdr era of anti-submarine by american forces. i believe it was about 50 at the time. as i understand it the fleet is now going to incorporate 44,000 employees on top of i believe 13,000 employees for intelligence gathering specifically electronic eavesdropping. i'd like to know if you heard of this about this program and by the way, some of these directors, the present was a former nsa director. some of these programs what their budget is, and what they are tasked for. i would very much like to hear your comments on this. thank you very much. >> well, it's a good question. it's expanded enormously. there is this entire fleet now of cyber warriors. that's the new war. we're creating an enormous -- always looking for new wars throughout and now they are latching on to cyber wars is the

latest thing. these contractors, these contractors need some place to make money and they are making lots of money on these cyber wars. as you mentioned, there is a new fleet, the fleet is going to be made up of eavesdroppers and cyber warriors. >> james bamford, we have to leave it there. thank you for your time. >> appreciate it, greta. on washington journal tomorrow morning, the president of the national organization for women with, terry o'neil will take your calls about the senate debate on reauthorizing the violence against women act. and we'll be joined by steve forbes to discuss tax policy in the economy. washington journal is live on c-span every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. up next on c-span3, a senate aging committee hearing on

providing long term care for seniors. then a panel of governors talks about the tax policy at the george w. bush institute. and later, the u.s. institute of peace looks at the future of afghan security after the withdrawal of american troops. >> on thursday, defense secretary leon panetta will give an update on syria's human rights organization. he'll be joined at the house armed services committee by martin dempsey. you can watch live coverage beginning at 10:00 a.m. eastern time here on c-span3. >> from a colonial era, prohibition to today, drinking for better or worse has always been a part of the american landscape. saturday night live on american history tv. a history of alcohol in america. watch our simulcast back story with the american history guys,

host ed ayers regail with tales of beer and spirits in america. part of american history tv this weekend on c-span3. >> this senate special committee on aging looked into the finances of long term care for seniors, and its effect on the medicare program. several witnesses argued for allowing more states flexibility in providing long term care. this hearing is 1:20. >> good afternoon to everyone. and thank you so much for being here today. we're looking at the question how best to provide and finance long term care services for the millions of americans who need them while also balancing our

debt, our deficits and overall financial picture. as we look ahead, we're going to have to do more with less, we all know that. in fact, we must find better and more efficient ways to find care, because the money simply will not be there. today we're going -- we're here today to talk about some of the ways to save money, without doing material damage to long term care. the cost of long term care services, more than $300 billion a year are already massive for both taxpayers and families, and left unchecked this burden will continue to grow as our rapidly aging population requires more long term care. medicaid alone projects 1.9 trillion in long term care costs over the next ten years, with an average cost increase of.6%. and we are seeing similar increasing costs for medicare and in some sectors of the long

term care insurance industry. unfortunately, there is no easy answer. while our two largest publicly financed health care programs, medicaid and medicare currently pay for the bulk of long term care, they're limited in scope and private long term care insurance has the potential to play a larger role. the market is facing challenges and some consumers have been skeptical about purchasing a policy is worth -- both worth the cost and represents a secure and sound investment. to help us meet these challenges, our witnesses will discuss some promising strategies for improving services while at the same time restraining costs. particularly i look forward to hearing about the savings we would achieve by reducing unnecessary hospitalizations. by delaying or avoiding institutionalization, and by increasing the use of home and

community based services. as we will hear today, these solutions have already achieved some success and could be expanded across the country. as we work to develop policies that enable seniors of all incomes, the plan for and access long term care we will need the best ideas and we will need to work together in a bipartisan manner. so we look forward to today's hearing, is a testimony and the ideas that we will hear from our witnesses. now the witnesses, mr. john o'brien is director of health care and insurance for the u.s. office of personnel management. overseas, federal employees health benefit program. and more importantly for this hearing, the federal long term care insurance program. this program is the largest private long term care program in the country.

mr. loren coleman is with the department of human services, with more than 25 years of experience with with long term care facilities, a host of programs for older adults, and is the leading force behind minnesota's transform 2010 program. which is designed to help the state prepare for retirement of the baby boomer generation. dr. aiken is president of the american action forum. he was chief economist with the council of economic advisers from 2001 to 2002. and he serbs as the director of the congressional budget office from 2003 to 2005. professor judy fader has had a long and established academic career, serving as dean of the policy in washington, d.c., from 1999 to 2008. today she's a professor at georgetown university, a fellow

at the urban institute and an elected member of the institute of medicine. we also have dr. bruce chernoff with us today, the president and ceo of the scan foundation. an organization that's dedicated to research and dissemination knowledge that improves the health of older older adults. dr. chernof also served as director and chief medical officer for the los angeles county department of health services. we thank you all for being here. and before we go to your testimony, we'll hear from the distinguished ranking member of this committee, senator corker. >> mr. chairman, thank you. and i had a conflict. i came at the perfect time. i don't give opening comments much. i thank you for calling the hearing and i look forward to hearing the witnesses. so thank you so much. i appriate it. >> thank you. all right. mr. o'brien?

>> chairman, ranking member corker, members of the committee. thank you for the opportunity to testify today on long-term care insurance. the office of personnel management oversees numerous benefit programs, including long-term care insurance for federal employees, annuityans and family members. long-term care is provided to people who need help with activities of daily living or need supervision due to severe cognitive impairment. it can be provided at home, an adult day-care center, assisted living facility or nursing home. most health insurance programs, including the federal health benefits program do not provide coverage for long-term care services. this unmet need led to the creation of the federal long-term care insurance program. long-term care insurance is an important benefit because people are living longer and a likelihood of needing long-term care services increases with age. after age 65, americans have a 76% chance of needing some form of long-term care during their lives. long-term care is also provided to people under age 65 who need help taking care of themselves

due to diseases, chronic conditions, injury, developmental disabilities, or severe mental illness. long-term care insurance is also important because services can be very expensive for the average american family. in 2011, the average cost of a semi private room in a nursing home was over $75,000. and the average cost of home care was roughly $31,000. in 2000, congress passed the long-term care security act, which authorized opm to contract with qualified carriers to provide long-term care coverage to federal employees, u.s. postal employees, members of the uniformed services, annuityans and her qualified family members. in march we introduced the program. this is the tenth year for the program and is the largest employer-sponsored program in the country. the long-term care program is 100% -- is a 100% employee-paid benefit. through the long-term care program, the federal government uses its