restoring trust in the u.s. internet economy and in the u.s. government itself. but it alone is not sufficient and that indeed substantive reform is necessary. cbp supports the bill you have introduced, u.s. freedom act aand we thank you for it. we look forward to working with you and the committee as it moves forward. >> i'm worried about overclassification. i find oftentimes every administration's been guilty of this. it's easy to classify a secret -- classify a mistake rather than try to explain it. let me ask mr. salgado, are you permitted to tell us whether google's received any fisa court orders? >> i'm sorry, mr. chairman. i would have to decline that answer until the bills that we're discussing today is passed. >> is our country safer because you can't answer the question? >> i can't imagine the country is safer as a result of that. >> thank you. that answers my question. and mr. bankston, concerns have

been raised company by company reporting that fisa might tip off those we're trying to track. but there's a lot of reporting available on criminal surveillance. is national security sufficiently different from criminal investigations, we have to have this kind of secrecy? >> i don't believe so, chairman. no. in the criminal context we're often investigating sophisticated organized criminals and in fact sometimes investigating terrorists. and yet we've been able to publish and the u.s. government has been able to publish very detailed statistics about how the government is using its authorities, both the government as a whole and company by company without any suggestion that has harmed national security. and i just want to take the moment to address this issue of lumping all those authorities together. i think that combining numbers for targeted fisa intercepts with fisa registers, with fisa orders for records, with fisa warrants for stored communications, with all the

range of national security letters, then combining that with all federal, state, and local law enforcement, warrants, subpoenas and other court orders leads to such a useless number as to be actually detrimental. it's like asking a doctor to attempt to diagnose a patient by looking at his shadow. only the grossest, most obvious abuse, if even that, would be evident. >> i apologize to professor rosenzweig. i haven't had time. i will submit a question to the record. mr. bankston, on your argument that companies' first amendment rights have been violated. the question of prior restraint. please take a look at the question. i really would like your answer for the record. it's important to me. >> thank you, senator. >> thank you. all right. dick, thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman and mr. chairman, thank you to both chairmen. and thank you all for being here

today. i was interested in a number of your points, particularly, mr. salgado, that additional measures are necessary, especially in response to chairman leahy's questions to not only provide additional transparency but also assure that individual rights are protected. as you know, i proposed that there be a constitutional advocate to in effect provide some adversarial process within the fisa court. you know as lawyers, courts make better decisions when more than one side is presented. very few judges would permit a proceeding before them in which only one side is presented. because they know that the core principle of our judicial system is that it is adversarial and that the truth emerges as

differing points of view, factual perspectives and evidence are presented and so that is one area where i think that the system can be made more accountable if not more transparent. and as well, disclosure of some of the rulings and opinions of the court. right now it's a secret court. that operates in secret, making secret decisions and secret law. one of the few if only courts in the united states where there is any secret proceedings of this kind making secret law. let me elicit your comments on those kinds of addition al protections to our constitutional rights. from the perspective that you all have raised about our need

for credibility and trust internationally in this system. after all, the means of communication, the internet depend on international trust and credibility. otherwise, it falls apart. so let me ask that somewhat open-ended question. >> well, thank you, senator. i'm happy to take the first swipe at that. there are a number of proposals right now that are being considered, and that is a very good thing. the general principles, that there needs to be accountability and transparency with some oversight and the rules are clear, are addressed by the various bills. certainly as an example, making sure that a court that's reviewing applications for surveillance has an opportunity to hear different ideas, different sides. that makes perfect sense. and it is certainly at the heart of most of the judicial

proceedings we have in the united states. so that's something that i think makes a good deal of sense as far as a structural change to the current arrangement under fisa and obtaining of fisa authorities. the same of course is true with understanding the interpretations of the law that the court applies to the different applications that come in. i think those are two good examples of the sorts of ideas that can help restore confidence that the system works. >> i'm actually a fan of the idea of an advocate but for slightly different reasons i think than mr. salgado just said. the reason that we don't have an advocate in the search warrant application situation, for example, which is an ex parte application, or in a grand jury situation is because those decisions are ultimately subject to ex ante review in a criminal proceeding where there is a

defense attorney who presents an adversarial view on whether or not the issuance of the warrant was with probable cause or the grand jury subpoena was overbrought or things like that. we lack that systematic check in the intelligence context because of course the intelligence surveillance rarely if ever results in a criminal prosecution in which that kind of adversarial process comes forward. so to my mind i would want to distinguish in allowing an advocate between those situations in which the fisa court were making some broad new systematic determination, an interpretation of law like the interpretation that gave us the relevant decision in the section 215 law. i'd like to distinguish that from what i would characterize, and i admit the line is hard to draw, routineized applications of a settled law, where the

value of an adversarial advocate would be much diminished and the procedural difficulties that would arise from it, the costs involved, the time delay might very well be adverse to national security. so cabined in that way i think that would be a perfectly fine idea. and for the public disclosure i would offer the exact same answer i gave senator flake in the other context, which is provided that we make sure that it doesn't wind up with the adverse effect of disclosing heretofore undisclosed programs that are properly classified, that would be as well an advancement in our understanding. again, i admit that's a hard line to draw and probably in both instances the best answer would be to let the fisa court make that decision itself, to authorize the appointment of the advocate in situations where it wants to and to authorize them affirmatively or direct them affirmatively to make public

disclosures when they think the disclosure of an opinion would not adversely affect national security interests. >> thank you. the fisa court's job used to be pretty straightforward. it was a pretty straightforward statute based on some pretty straightforward fourth amendment jurisprudence addressing some technologies. now we have the fisa court addressing an incredibly broad statute in the fisa amendments act. we have rapidly complexifying technology landscape and we have the foosa court rather than simply making imagination terial decisions creating a body of common law on some of the hardest and most important fourth amendment questions of our time, sometimes in the face of what the court has described as misleading conduct by the judge that is in front of it. in that context i do believe that it's critically important not only to have greater

transparency regarding the decisions made by the court but also to have an advocate in front of the court who is there to protect the people zpp & as such cdt does support your legislation senator blumenthal and are working with your staff and chairman leahy's staff on the issues that that might bring to bear. >> thank you all. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator blumenthal. not to speak for you. but i think that the way that mr. rosenzweig described the role of a constitutional advocate is very in line with what you envisioned. >> pretty much so. thank you. >> i want to thank all three of you for your testimony. and in closing i want to also thank the ranking member, senator flake, along with senator heller and chairman leahy. who lent this legislation

critical support. and of course i want to thank all the witnesses, each and every one of them who appeared today. we've heard a lot of valuable testimony. there was a lot that i agreed with. there are some things that i didn't agree with. but i want to leave everyone with this thought. there is no question that the american people need more information about these programs. there's no question about that. for a democracy to work its citizens need to have at least a basic amount of information about the surveillance their own government conducts over their affairs. i think that my bill will give the american people that transparency. i'm looking forward to continuing to work with the administration and my colleagues to make sure we're getting it right. we will hold the record open for one week for submission of questions for the witnesses and other materials. this hearing is adjourned.

oregon congressman greg walden is chairman of the national republican congressional committee. he spoke at a christian monitor breakfast this morning, saying the president's health care law is a "category 5 political hurricane" and that republicans will add seats to their majority in next year's midterm elections. >> let me start in my role as nrcc chairman and talk about 2014 and what we see. and i want to start by recapping what i said when asked about what i saw in 2014 what it looked like a year ago. and that was i believed then and i believe now that 2014 will be about the president's health care law, obama care. and i believe it more now than ever.

and now it has become a category 5 political hurricane that is not just causing havoc in certain regions of the country. it is ripping apart every region of the country, from tiny hamlets and towns to major cities where people are finding confusion, chaos, cancellation, cost increases, all of which were predicted as if you had noah reporting that the storm was coming three years ago and the administration and the democrats in the house were in denial. they misled and they did nothing to prevent what is now unfolding. and so i think 2014 is going to be a referendum on the failures of this administration and its notion and philosophy that big government has the answers, big

government can do things better, and americans now fully appreciate that that's not the best approach. and further, that they want a check and balance on the obama administration and its big government ideas. now, they did not have that check and balance when the health care law was passed only with democrat votes and speaker pelosi shut out every single amendment in the house that was -- tried to be offered in the rules committee on that fateful day. the president has apologized to the american people in different wa ways. i think it's time for the democrats who voted for this law and for the speaker of the house, and today would be a perfect day, to apologize as well because the american people feel very misled and a bond of trust has been broken with the

president and the democratic laefrdship in the house. and when you lose that trust, it's a very difficult thing to ever get back. >> here is a poem that comes directly out of my boyhood in detroit, and it's called "those winter sundays." sundays too my father got up early and put his clothes on in the blue black cold. then with cracked hands that ached from labor in the weekday weather made banked fires blaze. no one ever thanked him. i'd wake and hear the coal spliptering, breaking. when the rooms were warm, he'd call. and slowly i would rise and dress, fearing the chronic angers of that house. speaking indifferently to him, who had driven out the cold and polish my good shoes as well. what did i know? what did i know of love's austere and lonely offices? >> robert hayden i think is one of the major poets of our time.

i find whatever i feel like reading poetry i take down his books and go over them again and again. his poetry principally but also his prose. i think one of the attractive features is that all of his poems are written in different styles, in different voices, in different forms and techniques. he was very deliberate about this from the very beginning. many poets write well but they write essentially the same poem over and over again. but hayden was determined to try -- to make every poem unique, as unique as it could be. so he writes historical poems. he writes personal poems. he writes comic poems. he writes very elegiac poems. he's a fascinating figure because he represents the world

of early detroit, detroit in the teens and '20s of the 20th century and all the way through the depression, the war, the aftermath of the war. the life people lived in the '50s and '60s. of course he was a chronicler of the civil rights movement. and there are so many areas in which he has written beautifully, written compellingly. i'm delighted that there is attention being paid to him at his centennial. >> the life of poet robert hayden, this weekend, as book tv and american history tv look at the history and literary life of ann arbor, michigan. saturday at noon on c-span 2. and sunday at 5:00 p.m. on c-span 3. if you're a middle or high school student, c-span's student cam video competition wants to know what's the most important issue congress should address

next year? other make a five to seven-minute video and be sure to include c-span programming for your chance to win the grand prize of $5,000. with $100,000 in total prizes. the deadline is january 20th. get more info at studentcam.org. former u.s. ambassador to nato evo dalder says europe is not contributing enough to the nato alliance. he spoke this week at the atlantic council in washington ahead of an upcoming nato summit in great britain. >> good afternoon, everyone. let me welcome you back to our conference, nato's deterrence and collective defense. my name is damon wilson. i'm the executive vice president here at the atlantic council. and we are delighted to welcome with us this afternoon ambassador yvo dalder for his speech on nato in the age of austerity, challenges for the future. we're particularly pleased to have ambassador dalder here because today will be his first

speech on nato since he stepped down as the u.s. permanent representative to the north atlantic council last summer. and he's giving the speech now as a new board director here at the atlanta council, which we're particularly pleased. the ambassador's always been known for being thoughtful and for being frank and i think today we have the opportunity to hear from ambassador dalder unencumbered, if you will, by any government position. but seriously, after four years of serving as our ambassador to nato we'll have an opportunity to hear from ambassador dalder what he learned during his time at the alliance and the lessons for nato's future as he looks not just to a summit next year but to an alliance post-2014 afghanistan as well. ambassador dalder served as the nato permanent representative from the united states for four years. from may 2009 to july 2013. during a tumultuous time and a significant time. he was an intellectual driver behind the development of a new strategic concept that helped

define the role of the alliance. he pressed the north atlantic council not just to discuss operations but to delve into sensitive political issues and make it a forum for political debate among the allies. he served as a leading voice on issues of arms control and disarmement. and i think all of us can see his fingerprints not only on the nato defense posture review but also on president obama's prague agenda. he was there for a surge on the allies, a surge in afghanistan and to make a new model for alliance prevention in the operation in libya. he's also been one of the few ambassadors to serve as a permanent representative host, a host of the nato alliance when the united states and president obama hosted the alliance summit in chicago. i think it was probably the

run-up to chicago when he and his family fell in love with the windy city and that's where he made his permanent home. he joins us now where he serves on the chicago association of global affairs, where he's helping to put chicago on the map not just as an intellectual city but also for national security. he embodies the transatlantic link which we're so proud of here at the atlantic council. he's literally written the book on transatlantic security, with books on kosovo "winning ugly" as well as the security council in the shadow of the oval office. he was at university of maryland. he served at brookings and he served on the national security staff during the clinton administration during difficult times dealing with the balankan as well. with that, ambassador daalder, let me welcome you to the podium. we're looking forward to your reflexes today. [ applause ]

>> thanks for that really kind and full some introduction, it's good to be here. i've heard that you said it was -- you were hoping for a provocative and frank speech. because this is off the record, right, except for c-span, i will hopefully oblige. no, it really is i think fitting to have the opportunity to talk about my four years at nato and sort of what the future looks like here at the atlantic council that has done over the many years so much to support transatlantic relations, to support nato, and support, indeed, my own work when i was in brussels, including in the runup to and during the nato summit in chicago when the atlantic council worked very closely hand in hand, i should say, with the chicago council on global affairs to bring nato to the united states and to remind

people what -- how important this alliance is. that's really what i want to talk about. next year is the 65th anniversary of nato. in most countries, not all, but in most countries in europe, that means you retire. so the real question, it seems to me for nato, is, is it time for nato to retire? my answer is i surely hope not. for one i think it's healthy to continue working after you're 65, but more importantly, is the fact that we, the united states, need nato, and i would argue that we, the ah nitd state-- un states, need nato more than ever. so the real question is not whether nato needs to retire but the real question is whether nato will still be there for us when we need it. that's really what i want to talk about. if there is a challenge, it is the question of whether the alliance will be there when we

need it most. i hope that nato can show what it has shown so many times before, that they can adapt to new times and meet new challenges. that's what has made this alliance a great alliance. but the question is will it be able to continue to be that adaptation in the future. clearly in the 65 years of this alliance, nato has evolved. to use the software metaphor, nato 1.0 was the cold war alliance. it was there to protect europe so it could rebuild after a devastating two decades of war. europe was rebuilt. europe became prosperous and the cold war itself was won without even firing a shot. the european union and prosperity were made possible by the fact that the united states was committed to the defense

of europe through the organization of nato. it was nato 1.0, an extraordinary success of trans atlantic leadership and american commitment to the defense of europe. the question then after the first 40 years is what is nato going to do. many question whether nato still had a role. turns out nato did have a role, 2.0 became post war -- post cold war alliance, which sought to do for central and eastern europe what the alliance had done the previous 40 years for western europe. enlargement of the alliance and its membership, hand in hand with the european union, helped solve disputes among and within the countries of central and eastern europe. helped promote democracy and control civil control of the militaries and helped relay the

basis for prosperity throughout central and eastern europe. that too was an extraordinary success of leadership by the trans atlantic alliance. when i came to nato in 2009, the real question was now that we succeeded in winning the cold war and had frankly succeeded in making the post cold war europe as stable, as peaceful, as whole and as free and the parlance of the alliance as we had been able to for western europe, what was nato supposed to do? nato needed to be updated again. i would argue it did so very successfully in what you might call nato 3.0. we adopted a new strategic concept under the wise leadership of the group of experts led by madeleine albright, the secretary general, which i would summarize as the

four cs. the purpose of nato was to provide for collective defense, for cooperative security, by having common structures based on the foundation of common values. collective defense remains the core of what the alliance is about, and the previous panel spent some time talking about how do you maintain defense in the new age when there are threats that are cyber, terrorism, missiles and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. but that is not the only thing that nato does. nato that is only concerned about collected defenses and nato that is likely to be less and less relevant for the future. as important is its commitment to cooperative security. a cooperative security that relies not only on what the 28 members can do, but also what nato does with the sum 40 partners it has around the world. a nato that is not only

concerned about deterrence and defense but also disarmament and arms control. that is essential for the success of nato, at least as essential as the commitment to collective defense. what makes nato unique, what we have seen over time and what we have really seen in the last two years is that having common structures, common command structure and common capabilities is what makes nato more than just a collection of states. a coalition of the willing that makes it an actor that is larger, more important and better than the component parts. and what makes nato unique finally is that it unites in a single alliance a set of countries that share a commitment to common values, the values of democracy, human rights, of the rule of law. those four cs now are enshrined in the nato strategic concept and made nato a new alliance, one that could endure in the current strategic situation.

what it also did, it allowed nato to become for the first time an operational reliance. nato has always been a deterrence alliance. but in the last few years, it became a nato of reliance. in 2011, nato was involved in six operations on three continents and more than 150,000 men and women under nato command. we had a counterterrorism operation in the mediterranean and continue to have a very significant deployment of troops in the balkans that included not only nato countries but also partners from as close by as switzerland and austria and as far away as morocco. there are 200 more balkan troops

serving in kosovo. we had thirdly an operation in the gulf of adden to support operation ocean shield which links to not only the european union but countries like china and indonesia and russia. in order to provide for security at sea, we had an air policing operation in the baltics as well as over iceland, and iceland in the future will see the participation of non-nato members, finland and sweden, and of course we had our operations in afghanistan and libya. let me spend two minutes on those operations and the lessons we learned for nato. afghanistan is a unique, truly unique operation. it involves 50 nations at the height, deployed 150,000 troops. a third of which came from european nato members. and in 2009, cartwright will remember those discussions, we