despite opposition from the national guard association of the united states and from governors around this country, the army now wants to eliminate the use of these. the c-130 planes they propose using is two times as expensive to operate. plus eliminating would require rely on the air force for the use of planes. this would add up to a week to access planes cutting off the guards to be flexible. they are extremely popular with e special operations popularity. my amendment would uphold current law and prevent the retirement, divestment or transfer of c-23 aircraft and ensure their continued viable operation preventing the them from getting around viable

storage. i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment. let's listen to the men and women and support their success to the fullest extent possible. thank you, mr. chairman. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? mr. frelinghuysen: i rise to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. frelinghuysen: the army has made it clear to the committee that it doesn't want to retain the c-23's, the she prmbings as, the work horses that have been doing work for over 30 years or require any replacement platform. the army has taken steps to put the aircraft out of operation while stopping short of full retirement. year beginning of fiscal 2013, the army national guard was operating 34 of these

sherpas. as of july 14 of those had been turned into fort sill -- turned in to fort sill, oklahoma where they were in semiflyable storage. the remaining aircraft are to be turned in to fort sill by october of this year. because this amendment only applies to fiscal year 2014, the aircraft likely will be out of operation before this amendment would take effect. fortunately, because the c-23's will already be in storage by the time this amendment stake -- takes effect it's unlikely it will accomplish its intent. we do not believe that taking funds from other critical readiness programs to apply to the c-23 operations is the best use of the army's increasingly limited resources and thus reluctantly, i oppose this amendment and retain the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman

reserves. the gentlelady from oregon. ms. bonamici: i do appreciate the comments of the chair. however if we're talking about limit red sources it makes so much more sense to use planes that areless expensive, give the men and women of the national guard the flexibility and aircraft they need. i do ask, mr. chairman farc recorded vote. i urge my colleagues to support theament. the chair: does the gentlelady yield back. ms. bonamici: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from munle new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from oregon. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. merchandise bonamici: i do request a recorded vote. the chair: further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from oregon will be postponed. for what purpose does the

gentlewoman from hawaii seek recognition? ms. hanabusa: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk wiz designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 66 prointed in house report 113-170 offered by ms. hanabusa of hawaii. the chair: the gentlelady from hawaii, ms. hanbue, is a and a member opposed will each control five minutes. ms. hanabusa: the president's budget the last two years, have s been a foush tricare increases, even the tricare for life program, the promise of lifelong health care many were given when they joined the military, has been the subject of proposed enrollment fees the house armed services committee, of which i'm a member, and other defense committees have declined to grant the authority for these fee increases. my amendment would do nothing

more than ensure that the fund in this fact are not made available to implement any new enrollment fees in the tricare for life program. year after year we hear from the defense department that health care costs of our soldiers and veterans are spiraling out of control and tricare is crippling the d.o.d. with its rising costs yet for the past two dwhreerks pentagon has found a way to reprogram hundreds of millions of dollars from defense health accounts to higher priorities. these reprogramming actions totaled $70 million last career in 2012, and $500 million in the -- in the prior year in 2011. explained that the surplus was due to uncertainty about medical installation and health care use and the impact of continual benefit changes and

efficiency initiatives. if there is uncertainty about costs, the assertion cannot be made that added fees are necessary for even our most senior veterans. d.o.d.'s own documents prove military health care costs are not exploding. the combined personnel and health care costs are less than one third of d.o.d.'s budget and the same as they've been for 30 years. the over estimation of cost growth that has resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars being reprogrammed by d.o.d. the past two years is proof that costs are not growing as much as anticipated. in fact, they're not growing at all. the relatively low cost of health care and trong benefit are the fundamental elements and they are necessary not just to recruit but to sustain an all-volunteer force. significant cuts to this critical incentive packages sustain a top quality career

force will undermine long-term retention and readiness. i ask my colleague to vote for this amendment and uphold our commitment to the brave men and women of our armed services as well as the millions of veterans in need of health care today. again, i re-emphasize this amendment is to prohibit funds to be used to add any enrollment fees to tricare for life program. i reserve the plans of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? mr. visclosky: i rise to claim time in opposition to the gentlewoman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes in opposition. mr. visclosky: i begin by saying i deeply appreciate the gentlewoman's concern and her commitment to make sure that everyone who has take than oath of office and put on the uniform of the united states of america

benefits that deserve and that they have earned. but i would point out, as i have on a numb of occasions th evening, that we have got to start looking ahead and begin to make some very difficult decisions. i would quote again from the center for strategic and budgetary assess. s that has noted other the last decade, rather than getting larger and more expensive, the military has just grown more expensive. this reality make ours future choices even more difficult and it is imperative that congress joins with the department in orking through these decisions at an arm's length relationship but also as a partner. the department has made recommendations, one of which we're debating at this moment, that are very difficult decisions to have to make. on the other hand, we have to

egin to not reflect -- reflexively reject these recommendations out of hand. i understand what the gentlewoman is trying to do with her amendment but she does rightfully describe it that no funds shall be used to implement an enrollment fee. is that enrollment fee 25 cents? is that enrollment fee $1? is that enrollment fee $2? is that enrollment fee $250 for an individual and $500 for a family? considering to have to the pressure the budget is under. the gentlewoman says the department reprogrammed money and that means in fact the costs have not gone up. the fact is, i do believe that the department has if you would, underexecuted and overrequested moneys in past years. the subcommittee mark in the

bill we are debating tonight cut request ofn from the $15.8 billion based on the execution history. we would not have done that if we thought we had endangered anyone's health. and the fact is, costs are going up. the cost of military medical care has risen almost by triple in the past 12 years, raising from $19 billion to $56 billion. if the increase continues at this rate for another decade, coupled with sequestration, military health care could consume close to 20% of all defense spending. according to a report published by the congressional budget office entitled long-term implications of the 2013 future year defense program, the annual cost of the department's health care program could grow from $51 billion in fiss cat year 13 to $65 billion in 2017 and $90 billion by 2013. if we continue to block

enrollment fees for tricare for life, defense funding for this program will place other programs at risk. the center for strategic and budgetary assessments estimate that paid benefits for each active duty service member grew by 67% in real terms between 4.2% annually.or 'm not suggesting that our armed service members don't deserve this care but we have to consider what that growth means for our future budgets. operational costs per active duty employee grew by 34%. i oppose the amendment respectfully because i am worried that if we don't address the rising costs of health care now, there will be even a smaller pool of resources to make our military ready in the future and would reserve the

balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from indiana reserves. the gentlelady from hawaii. ms. hanabusa: thank you. i reclaim the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. hanabusa: i preesh the comments of the ranking member, however, the facts are as stated. d.o.d. has reprogrammed $708 million last year alone and $500 million in the prior year. these have been from the health account. in addition to that, we must look at the fact that the d.o.d. budget as to personnel and health costs are less than one third of the d.o.d. budget and that's been a consistent percentage for the past 30 queers. the health care fund has been the one that has been taking the hit every time, it's been the bookyman to say that's where we have to cut, that's what's rising the costs out of control. it's spiraling out of control. but that's in fact not true. an i think that to threaten

health care or not give our men and women in uniform and the veterans in particular the security with which they joined the military for, these are one of the benefits they looked for, by not being able to ensure them that, especially health care, is the worst that we can do. when we don't have the evidence that this is where we should cut, we should not cut and add any additional enrollment fees. as i stated, this amendment is to prevent any funds to be used to increase any enrollment fees for the tricare for life. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from indiana. mr. visclosky: i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the yom from haye. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. those in favor say aye.

those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it, the amendment is agreaed to. -- is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. frelinghuysen: i move that the committee do now rise. the chair: the question is on the motion that the committee rise. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. accordingly the committee rises. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union having had under consideration h.r. 2397 directs me to report it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 2397 and has come to no solution thereon.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leaves of absence requested of mr. coble for today and tomorrow. mr. horse fd for monday, july 22 and today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the requests are granted. mr. frelinghuysen: i move to adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the motion is adopted.

>> what are some of the controversial amendments coming up in the debate? >> amendments on the nsa surveillance program.

that would defund the nsa program if they do not specifically limited information on those who are investigation -- those who are under investigation. has been quite controversial. the house republican leaders delayed this bill for a week as they were trying to figure out whether or not they wanted to give the congressman to vote. they decided on monday that they would allow his amendment to receive a vote. >> what about usa to egypt and syria? being lefte all until the end of this bill. there were nine amendments offered that would restrict military aid or military action in syria without specific congressional approval. the house will vote on one of those amendments later on in. it would limit aid to egypt

without specific congressional approval. this is a pushback. the administration has said it will arm the rebels. that was approved after some delay why the congressional intelligence committee. this would require the entire congress to approve the eight -- aid. >> the inclusion of the debate on these amendments, will that be enough to satisfy the sponsors? will it be enough to secure passage of the entire bill? wax there was talk from congressman -- >> there were some talk they would try to stop the debate. a dropped it after they got votes on their amendment. this is the first time we are seeing congress weigh in on the nsa spying program since they were revealed. where are democrats?

>> that is the question. steny hoyer would not say when he was asked about it on tuesday. you have liberal democrats who are joining with the libertarian republicans in opposition. some of the more moderate are still they waiting. there was a briefing today with general alexander. he could address their questions . >> the administration has issued a veto threat. what is their objection? how does the spending level for this bill, 2014, compare with years past? >> it operates about $600 billion in defense spending including the base pentagon budget and the overseas contingency operations. it is below last year's level, but above the pre-snowquester levels of spending.

-- pre-sequester levels of spending. the house budget committee has approved a budget that cuts discretionary's -- discretionary spending down to sequester levels. the bill is going to pass in the does not seem like the veto threat would be followed through on, but it will be the fight. billere does the senate stand right now? >> the committee has not marked up their bill. they are expected to do that later this month. it is a question of when that goes to the floor. you can follow his writing at the hill.com. >> coming up on the next washington journal, a discussion on the implementation of the affordable care act.

thenongrsman bill cassidy in louisiana talks about his bill blocking the epa from enforcing adversely affect the economy. our spotlight on -- features a popular mechanics. he will discuss the cover story about the future of the technology of war and how the marine corps is preparing. washington journal is live every day at 7:00 eastern. coming up tonight, manager -- a discussion on nsa surveillance programs. oregon senator ron wyden warned that america could become a surveillance state with the

government tracking u.s. citizens for their smart phones. at remarks came in a speech the center for american progress. this is an hour. center.the chair of the i am very pleased to welcome senator ron wyden of oregon to talk about the defining chances -- challenges facing the united states today. how to racking -- reconcile the relationship between personal privacy and national security. he was one of only 10 senators who voted against reauthorizing the patriot act. . that the director of -- hearing was a few months before the recent revelations that resulted from the leaks about the extent of the national

security agency's domestic surveillance capabilities and practices. it is fair to say that general clapper oh was not particularly forthcoming. the senator has consistently been a thoughtful and forceful voice speaking out in support of constitutional principles. i am looking forward to what he has to say to us today. i want to offer a few brief reflections on my own surveillance and privacy, a topic i have been working on for quite a long time. we sent a letter to the attorney general asking whether or the 1968 wiretap title iii of the crime control and safe streets act applied to electronic mail and other forms of electronic communications. we heard back from the deputy attorney general who said the

answer to that question was neither clear nor obvious. that response led to the passage of the electronic privacy act. -- it hasce again slumped our existing legal regime. the media focus has circled around edward snowden's attempt to earn the world's record for airport layover. the individual focus on snowden distracts from what is most problematic about the information he provided. unlike the last time we had it conversation about the nsa and domestic surveillance during the 2005,f wiretapping in illegal president exists today. this time, the challenges are

rooted in nsa overstepping legal boundaries. the decreasing cost of storing huge amounts of data means that surveillance of an unprecedented note is not just -- now just technologically possible, but financially feasible for the first time. i think of this as the dark side . it is past time for us to begin a new national debate about what we want our surveillance to permit. time to revisit the issue of intelligence privatization. it is mind-boggling that we have over one million contractors with security clearances. these contractors are often paid

significantly more than public employees. they supplement their screens with less rigor and have access to the government's most sensitive secrets. snowden is a spectacular failure in the system -- in a system engineered to malfunction. congress should work to ensure that critical intelligence activities are performed by appropriate personnel. these last weeks and months have also made clear that we may better oversight -- we need better oversight of our surveillance agencies and we need increased transparency at the foreign intelligence capability particular. the american people have a right to know and understand the laws we live under. we all have a right to be treated as citizens by our government and to be respected as customers by the company we buy product and services from. surely we can meet our national security needs without sacrificing the need for purpose for personal privacy that has long been a hallmark of american life. finally, because these issues are so technologically complex,

and go to the heart of constitutional protections that we most cherish, we are recommending that president obama establish a national commission to examine these challenges in full. presidential commissions have a long history of thoroughly and impartially investigating major national security issues, from pearl harbor to 9/11. the commission should be tasked with offering recommendations or applicable legal framework that can easily accommodate technological advances -- offering recommendations for applicable legal framework that can easily accommodate technological advances. also private sector activities and telecommunications technology more generally. the nsa program that came to light in june rests in large part on a foundation of personal data collected by private corporations and governed by those lengthy terms and condition agreements that you click ok to without a second thought.

smart phones with built-in gps technology track their users' locations. social networks use personal information to sell ads. those companies collect mega data -- metadata. what was once thought of as transactional data and not content can now be used to develop a penetrating profile of any american. this won't be an easy debate to have, but the difficulty of the conversation, i think, is just one more reason why we need to begin today. it is one more reason why i'm glad we have senator wyden's leadership on this very important set of questions. after senator wyden offers his remarks, the senior vice president of the national security program at the center will moderate a q&a session. thank you for being here. [applause] >> john, thank you for your very kind words. suffice it to say, getting an inflationary introduction from a

renowned privacy hawklike john podesta is a pretty good way to start the day. i thank you for that. the center, as many of you know, has long been pursuing thoughtful intelligent policy. since opening the centerpunch stores in 2003, the center -- the center's doors in 2003, the center has been making the case that security and liberty are not mutually exclusive. that work is well-known in washington and especially in my office. i commend you for it. when the patriot act was last reauthorized, i stood on the floor of the united states senate and said, i want to deliver a warning this afternoon. when the american people find out how their government has interpreted the patriot act, they are going to be stunned and they are going to be angry. for my precision on the senate position on the intended -- on the senate intelligence activity, i had seen activities conducted under the umbrella of the patriot act that i knew would astonish most of our people.

at the time, senate rules about classified information barred me from giving out any specifics. and so we came to describe what was going on as essentially secret law. a secret interpretation of the patriot act, issued by a secret court that authorizes secret surveillance programs. programs that i and several colleagues thought went far beyond the intent of the statute. if that is not enough to give pause, then consider that not only were the existence of and the legal justification for these programs kept completely secret from the american people,

senior officials from across the government were making statements to the public about domestic surveillance that were clearly misleading statements. sometimes, they were simply false. senator mark udall and i tried again and again to get the executive branch to be straight with the public. but under the classification rules observed by the senate, we are not allowed to exactly tap out the truth in morse code. we tried just about everything else that we can think of to put the -- we could think of to put the american people on notice. but as i said that day on the senate floor, one way or another, the truth of -- the truth eventually in our country comes out. last month, disclosure was made

by an nsa contractor. it lit the surveillance world on fire. several provisions of secret law were no longer secret. the american people were finally able to see some of the things that we had been raising the alarm about for years. and when they did, there was a lot of anger. a lot of americans were stunned. so, now, you hear about it in the lunchroom of office buildings. you get asked about it at town hall meetings and at senior citizen centers. the latest polling done by -- polling found that now up allow reality -- now a plurality of americans say the government is overreaching and encroaching too much on our civil liberties. his is a dramatic swing from -- this is a dramatic swing from what the same survey said just a couple of years ago. the number is trending upward. as more information about sweeping government surveillance of law-abiding americans is made

public and the american people can discuss the impact, i believe more americans will speak out. they are going to say, in america, you don't have to settle for one priority or another. you don't have to settle for just your security or your liberty. we can have both. we can have laws that protect both privacy and security. and the laws, especially, should not be kept secret. after 9/11, when 3000 of our fellow citizens were murdered by terrorists, there was consensus that our country needed to take decisive action. at a time of understandable panic, the congress gave the government new surveillance authority. but the congress also attached an expiration date to the use -- to these authorities so that they could be deliberated more carefully once the emergency, once the immediate emergency had passed.

yet in the decade since, law has been extended -- the law has been extended several times with no public discussion about how the law has actually been interpreted. the result -- the creation of an always-expanding, omnipresent surveillance state that now chips away needlessly at the liberties and freedoms our founding fathers established for all of us. and it is all done without the benefit of actually making us safer. so, today, here at the center, i am going to deliver another warning. if we do not seize this unique moment in our constitutional history to reform our

surveillance laws and practices, we are all going to live to regret it. i will have more to say about the consequences of the omnipresent surveillance state. but as you listen to this talk, ponder that most of us here have a computer in our pockets that potentially can be used to track and monitor us 24/7. the combination of increasingly advanced technology with a breakdown in the checks and balances that limit government action could lead us to a surveillance state that cannot be reversed. now, at this point, i thought a little bit of history might be helpful. i joined the senate intelligence committee in january, 2001, right before 9/11. like most senators, i voted for the original patriot act. in part, i did so because i was reassured that it had an expiration date.

an expiration date that would force the congress to come back and consider these authorities more carefully when the immediate crisis had passed. as time went on, there were intel is -- there were developments that seemed farther and farther removed from the ideals of the founding fathers. this started not long after 9/11, with a pentagon program that was called total information awareness. this program was essentially an effort to develop an ultra large-scale domestic data mining program. troubled by all of this and the not exactly modest logo of an all seeing eye on the universe, i worked with a number of senators to shut it down. unfortunately, this was hardly the last domestic surveillance overreach.

in fact, the nsa's infamous warrantless wiretapping program was already up and running at this point, though i and most members of the intelligence committee didn't even know about it until several years later. that was part of a pattern of withholding information from the congress. it persisted throughout the bush administration. i joined, for example, the intelligence committee in 2001, but i learned about the warrantless wiretapping program when i read about it in "the new york times" in late-2005. the bush administration sent -- spent much of 2006 attempting to defend the warmest wiretapping program. -- the warrantless wiretapping program. once again, when the truth came out, it produced a surge of public pressure. the bush administration announced that they would submit it to oversight from the foreign intelligence surveillance court.

unfortunately, because the court's rulings are kept secret, most americans had no idea that the court was prepared to issue extraordinarily broad ruling permitting the massive surveillance that eventually made headlines last month. it is now a matter of public record that both the phone records program has been operating since 2007. it is not a coincidence that a handful of senators have been working since then to find ways to alert the public to what is actually going on. months and years went into trying to find ways to raise public awareness about secret surveillance authorities, and to do it within the confines of the classification rules. i and several colleagues made it our mission, our special cause to end the use of secret law.

now, when the people in my home state hear those words, "secret law," some of them come up and say, ron, what are you talking about? how can the law be kept secret? when you guys pass laws back there, it is like a public deal. i am going to look this stuff up online. and in response, i tell oregonians that there are, effectively, 28. ask -- effectively, two patriot acts. there is one you can read on your laptop. you can analyze that and understand it. then there is the real patriot act. the secret interpretation of the law that the government actually

relies on, the secret rulings of the foreign intelligence surveillance court have interpreted the patriot act as well as section 702 of the statute in some surprising ways. those rulings are kept secret from the public. i can tell you those rulings can be astoundingly broad. the one that authorizes the bulk collection of phone records is as broad a ruling as i have ever seen. now, the reliance of government agencies on a secret body of law has real consequences. most americans don't expect to know the details about ongoing sensitive -- ongoing, sensitive, military intelligence activities. but as voters, they have a right and a need to know what their government believes it is permitted to do, because that is what americans need to be able to ratify or reject decisions that elected officials make on their behalf.

to put it another way, americans recognize that intelligence agencies will sometimes need to conduct secret operations, but they don't think those agencies ought to be relying on secret laws. some argue that keeping the surveillance laws secret is somehow necessary. their argument essentially is it makes it easier to gather intelligence on terrorist groups and other foreign powers, and that is why the secrecy is appropriate. if you follow this logic, when congress passed the original foreign intelligence surveillance act back in the 1970's, they could have found a way to keep the entire thing secret.

that way, soviet agents would not know that the fbi's surveillance of -- what the fbi's surveillance authorities were. but that's not the way we do it in america. we don't keep laws secret. it is a fundamental principle of american democracy that laws should not be the -- should not be public only when it's convenient for government officials to make them public. laws ought to be public all the time, open to review by an adversarial, judicial process am a and subject to by unaccountable legislature -- judicial process, and subject to change by then -- an accountable legislative process. we may have eliminated a fundamental bulwark of our democracy. the congress said we're going to make make surveillance laws public. workut public laws, public

rulings that interpret those laws, you simply can not have an informed public debate. when the american people are in the dark, they cannot make fully informed decisions about who ought to represent them and voice agreement or disagreement about various government policies. these are fundamentals about our country and what the founding fathers wanted. it is civics 101. place inw has no america. i would like to turn next to the secret part, the foreign court.gence when the court was created as workof the 1978 law, the

was pretty routine. it was assigned to review government applications for wiretaps and to decide whether the government was able to show probable cause. for all you lawyers, it sounds like a garden-variety function of disk druid -- district court judges across the country. their role was so much like it judge, they are actually federal district court judges. this gave the government broad new surveillance powers. these new powers to not resemble anything in either the criminal law enforcement world or the original fisa law. they got the job interpreting these new authorities of the patriot act and the fisa amendments act. it was their decision to issue

binding secret rulings that interpreted the law and the constitution in a startling way that has come to light in the last six weeks. the patriot act could be used for tracking that bulk surveillance of law-abiding americans. , virtuallythe names everything else is secret about the court. secret, whichare makes challenge them in an appeals process almost impossible. the proceedings are secret, but i can tell you they are almost always one sided. the government liars walk in and they lay out their argument -- walks in and they lay out their argument. court isy unusual for

conduct in a major constitutional analysis. i know of no other court in america that strays so far from the adversary will -- adversarial process that has imparted america for centuries. it may also surprise you, and president obama came to office, his administration agreed with me that these ruling handed to be made public. received aof 2009, i written commitment from the justice department that a process would begin, be created to start redacting and declassifying five the court opinions of the american people would have some idea of what their government believed the law is allowed to do. , exactlyst four years zero opinions have been released.

know a bit about secret law and the courts that created it, i want to talk about how this has diminished the right of every american man, woman, and child. despite the efforts of the intelligence community leadership, the downplay, the bulk collection of phone records significantly impacts the privacy of millions of law- abiding americans. if you know who someone calls, when they call, where they call from, and how long they talk, you laid bare the personal lives of law-abiding americans to the scrutiny of government bureaucrats and outside contractors. of the bulkreality of records collection program. true if youicularly are vacuuming up cell phone location data turning

everybody's cell phone into a tracking device. we have been told that this is not happening today, but intelligence officials have told the press they currently have legal authority to collect americans location information. especially troubling is the fact that there is nothing in the patriot act that limits this collectioneping bulk to phone records. the government can use the preacher he asked the business records of authority to retain patriot actse the business records of authority. they can use it to develop a database with going -- with gunowners that are deemed subversive. the government's authority to collect information is

essentially limitless at this time. if it is a record held by a business, a doctor, school, any other third party, you could be subject. the bulk collection authority under the patriot act. give the national security bureaucracy the power to scrutinize the personal lives of every law-abiding american. allowing that to continue is a grave error that demonstrates a willful ignorance of human nature. moreover, it demonstrates a complete disregard for the responsibilities entrusted by us to maintain robust checks and balances on the power of any arm of our government. this point, i think we got in

front of some various questions. ,hat happens to our government our civil liberties, and are wonderful system. our data the -- our daily democracy. happens if it just keeps growing and growing and growing? the intelligence leadership is determined to hold onto this authority. it revealed every aspect of a persons's life with the ability to conjure up the legal authority to execute staff surveillance. removing any accountable judicial oversight creates the unprecedented opportunity to influence our system of government. without additional protection and the law, every single one of

us, every one of us, can be .racked and monitored the piece of technology we happens to be a listening device, location tracker, and hidden camera. there is not an american alive who would consent to being required to carry any of those items. we ought to reject the idea that government will use its power to arbitrarily bypass. government officials openly tell the press that they have the authority to effectively turn america's smart phones and cell phones into a location.

the leaders of the intelligence community have consistently been unwilling to state what the rights of law-abiding people are on this issue. i have repeatedly asked this in public hearings. without adequate protection, there is no way americans can be sure that the government is not going to interpret authorities more and more broadly. it turns from dystopia into reality. some are going to say, that is never going to happen. the fact of the matter is senior policy makers and federal have deferred again and again to the to decidece agency what surveillance authorities they need.

i believe it is more likely that i will achieve my lifelong dream of playing in the nba. when james madison was attempting to persuade americans that the constitution contains sufficient protections. he did not just asked his fellow americans to trust him. he carefully laid out the protections contained in the constitution and how the people could ensure they were not breached. we are failing our constituents, we are failing our founding fathers. if we are willing today to just trust any individual or agency with greater power than the

limited authority that the as aing fathers wanted firewall against tyranny. i do want to spend a few minutes talking about those who make up the intelligence community. they work to protect us all. i have found in men and women who work at our nation's intelligence agencies to be hard-working, dedicated professionals. they are genuine patriots who make real sacrifices to serve their country. i believe they ought to be able to do their job secure in the knowledge that there is strong public support for everything they are doing. unfortunately, that cannot happen. when senior officials from across the government mislead the public about the government surveillance authority. publice clear here, the was not kept in the dark about

the patriot act and other secret authorities. .he public was actively misled i pointed out several instances where senior officials have made misleading statements to the public about the types of surveillance they conduct, public. i would like to focus on several of the most significant examples. senior justice department officials have told the congress and the public that the patriot .ct business record authority it is like a grand jury subpoena out. -- >> it is like a grand .ury subpoena i

>> both authorities can be used to collect a wide variety of records. this makes that authority very different from regular grand jury subpoena. i am sure there are some lawyers here. after the speech was over, if you have ever seen a grand jury subpoena that allows the government on an ongoing basis to collect the records of millions of ordinary americans. is that no one has ever seen a subpoena like that because there are not any. has been made by more than one official in one occasion. official who served four

years has just become the company's top performance on behavior. federal -- >> he or .he would be less defenders have said that members of congress have the ability to get the. ray, what the government is doing on a classified basis. they should not complain when officials make misleading statements, it even a congressional hearing. this is an absurd argument. that does not excuse the practice of misleading statements being made on the public record.

when data become all right all right in america for government officials public statements and .rivate statements to differ i am in a much larger culture of for example, the director of the nsa spoke over at the american enterprise institute. we do not hold data on u.s. citizens. that statement sounds reassuring. but of course, the american people know that it is false. it is one of the most common mistakes ever made. later that same year at the theal hackers conference,

same nsa director said that government does not collect dossiers on millions of americans. i have served on the intelligence committee for more than a dozen years and i do not inw what a dossier meant that context. idea know that americans not familiar with classified lingo would operably hear that statement and think there was no .ulk collection after the director of senator udall and i rode to the director asking for clarification. he asked whether the nsa collects any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of americans. even though the director of the actuallyhe one who had

raised this issue in public, intelligence officials declined to give us a straight answer. a few months ago, i made the judgment that i would not be responsibly carrying out my oversight powers if i did not press intelligence officials to clarify what the nsa director said repeatedly about data collection. so i decided it was necessary to put the question to the director of national intelligence. the actualaff send question over a day in advance so that the director could prepare to answer. the director, unfortunately, the nsa does not knowingly collect data on millions of americans. after the hearing, i had my staff called the director's office on a secure line and urge

them to correct the record. disappointingly, his office decided to let this inaccurate statement stand. my office made it clear. my staff said that this was clearly wrong and unacceptable to leave the american people misled and i continued to warn the public about the problem of a secret surveillance law over until theing week june disclosure. even after those quotes, there has been an effort by officials to exaggerate the effectiveness of the bulk phone records collection program. is toy to do that conflate it with the collection of internet communications under section 702. involves the computer prison program and has produced information of real value. last summer, i was able to get

the executive branch to declassify the fact that the pfizer court had ruled that his collection violated the fourth that affectsa way an undisclosed number of americans. thecourt also said that government had violated the spirit of the law as well. i certainly think section 702 needs stronger protections for the privacy of law-abiding americans. i think those protections could be added without losing the value of the statute. meanwhile, i have not seen any indications that the bulk phone records program yielded any unique intelligence that was not also available to the government through less intrusive means. when government officials referred to these programs collectively, as we have seen on a number of occasions, and say

that the programs provide unique intelligence without pointing out that one program is doing all the work and the other one is basically along for the ride, in my judgment thomas that is also a misleading statement. there have been a number of misleading and inaccurate statements made by section 702, the prisons program, and its collection as well. saytor udall and i wrote to that the fact sheet contains misleading information and an inaccuracy that makes protection for the privacy of our people sound much stronger than it actually is. the next day, the fact sheet was taken down from the front page of the nsa website. sheethe misleading fact still be up there if senator udall and i had not pushed to take it down? given what it took to correct the misleading statements by the

national security agency, that may well be the case. you through how secret law interpreted by a secret or that authorized secret santa -- secret surveillance works, the obvious question is, what is next? a few weeks ago, more than a quarter of the senate wrote to the director of national intelligence demand and public answers to additional westerns about the use of the government surveillance authority. it has been two months since the disclosures by mr. snowden and the signers of this letter, including key members of the senate leadership and a committee chaired in the senate with decades of experience, we a quarter of that the senate will not accept any more stonewalling or misleading statements. reform legislation has also been enacted. the centerpiece of this effort

would require that the government show a demonstrated link to terrorism or espionage before collecting american personal information. senders have proposed legislation that would ensure the legal analysis of the secret court of opinions interpreting surveillance law is declassified in a responsible manager -- manner. i am collaborating to bring other reforms that will bring openness, accountability, and estates to the endocrine operations of the most secret court in america. importantly, i and my colleagues are making it clear that we are going to keep the public debate alive. have exposed misleading statements. we are holding officials accountable. we are showing that liberty and security are not mutually exclusive. that the sideis

of transparency and openness is starting to put some points on the board and make some progress. a bold e-mailad records program that was similar to the bulk phone records program. this program offered -- operated under section 214 of the patriot known as the pen register provision until fairly recently. senator udall and i were very concerned that this had a significant impact on the privacy rights and liberties of our people. 2011 pressingof the intelligence community to show actual evidence of its effectiveness. it turned out they were unable to do so. the statements that have been made about this program before congress and the courts have significantly exaggerated the bulk e-mail record program and its effectiveness. the program was shut down that

same year. all who a big win for care about privacy and civil liberties. wish weudall and i could have told you about it at the time, but at least you know that there was an effort that we think contributed to ace -- a significant step forward. recently, and authorization bill was going through the committee that included a number of provisions meant to stop leaks. but would have been disastrous for the public's right to know. it would have restricted the ability of former government officials to talk to the press, even about unclassified foreign- policy matters. it would have prohibited intelligence agencies from of a fewyone outside high-level officials available for background briefings, even on an unclassified basis. were intendedns

to stop leaks. i am certainly against leaks as well. is clear to me they would have significantly encroach on the first amendment and led to a less well informed public debate on foreign policy and national security matters. these anti-leak provisions went through the committee ross s in secret and the bill was agreed to by a vote of 14-1. you probably get the sense that i opposed it. the bill then made its way to the senate floor. at the time, i and everybody else did not even know how bad and how flawed the bill was because, in the course of the committee's consideration, we could not talk to anybody on the outside. i knew it was flawed, taking away pension rights without due process. those things lead out at us. -- leaped out at us. once the bill came out, because

you still have to pass a bill, it was even serrated by all concerned, regardless of political party, to the point where people who were supporters, they would not contribute to op-ed articles and other opinion pieces. and put a hold on the bill within a matter of weeks, all of thatoverly broad language restricted the public's right to know was removed. months later, we were able to get the official justice department opinion, laying out what the government believes the rules are for the targeted killings of americans. this is the drones issue. these documents on killing americans were not even being shared with members of congress on a classified basis, let alone being used to have debates with the american people. wille said it before and i repeat it here.

i believe every american has the right to know when their government believes it is allowed to kill them. committeef us on the fought publicly and privately to , usehese documents whatever procedural opportunities were available, and eventually we got those documents and established that this is the kind of oversight that needs to be conducted by the intelligence committee. since then, we have been looking those documents over and working out a strategy that would allow a pertinent or sent to be made public. pertinent portion to be made public. i do not protect anyone when it comes to protecting gender -- genuinely sensitive security information. i think government agencies need to conduct secret operations. thethey should not rely on

secret court or secret law. we are at ai think truly unique time in our countries controversial history. the growth of digital technology, dramatic changes in the nature of warfare and the andnition of a battlefield, secret courts run counter to the forces that the founding fathers imagine and together, they make for a combustible mix. at this point, i usually conclude mentioning ben franklin. to have ake we ought ben franklin caucus in the senate. said that anyone who gives up liberty for security does not deserve either. that is certainly true. but today, i thought that a

different founding father would be appropriate for wrapping up. james madison, the father of our constitution, says that the accumulation of executive, judicial, and legislative powers is the very definition of tyranny. nation on to assure the that the constitution protected us from that fate. my question today is, by allowing the executive to secretly follow the secret interpretation of the law under the supervision of a secret, non-adversarial court and occasional secret congressional hearings, how close are we 's veryto james madison definition of tyranny? i believe that we are allowing

our country to drift a lot closer than we should. if we do not take this opportunity to change course now, we and all americans will live to regret it. thank you very much. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> i know the senator's schedule. he has got to get back to the hill. but that was a fine statement. there were many very important ideas and obviously a lot of work. we will do two or three questions. we know he has got to get back. i would also like to note for those watching on c-span and theo streaming that

chairman statement as well as senator wyden's statement will be on the website. i want to a knowledge -- ac knowledge that the center for american progress is presenting a paper for the future of intelligence gathering written by our colleague, peter tool. tight, we will take two or three questions. i want to thank you for coming and i want to thank you for an excellent statement. we will go right there in the second row to start us out. >> thank you very much. i was hoping you could weigh in on the effort in the house, specifically the amendment that would go after some of these surveillance rams through the funding mechanisms in the appropriations bill. >> i have not seen what the congressman is actually proposing, but the fact that this has made it to the floor of

the house of representatives is unquestionably good. it is another step, as i have outlined, in the march to a real debate. we would not have had that seven or eight weeks ago. , as ild not have been tried to outline, chipping away day after day, trying to make our case. night, thisast debate is going to be on the floor of the house of representatives. later today, we are going to see members of congress start debating the real issues. they are going to start a discussion about what i call the false choice, where you can either have your security or your liberty. in rooteard me describe canal like detail, i do not

think that is the case. when elected officials do their job, we can have both. the fact that this is on the floor of the house of representatives later today is unquestionably very good for the cause that we are outlining today. >> thank you. let me go to the center there. please identify yourself. russell.e is i am just a student here. >> you are not just a student. we are glad you are here. >> thank you. i am glad to be here with you. i have one question. you talked about the franklin quote. and they saymining that they have not adopted the motion of adopting other values because that paradigm results in a zero-sum outcome and policies diminish at the expense of security. dom wondering what we can

about the department of homeland security as well as the nsa. >> are you quoting from an official homeland security document? >> that diminishes the importance of privacy? >> yes, it was in the footnotes. >> think i there are students out there that read footnotes. there are students out there that read full not. john dickens from my office will be getting that from you in about three or four minutes. i am stunned that there would be a government document formally, as a matter of agency all as he, unraveling what the founding fathers were seeking to do. we will follow that up. >> he is coming.

>> thank you very much for those remarks. thatoncerned should we be this information that is collected by private or government sources could be used to influence members of congress , certainly people in the business community? it is very valuable information to know when someone is running knows whatce fundraising activities they are involved in. are you fearful for the future, that this information could be parceled in a way that supports those who support the intelligence agencies and fight those that oppose them? >> there are plenty of ways in which you can envision how this would be used. i want to unpack the argument that made -- that is made on the

other side. they say, we are not listening to anybody. we are not considering the concept of a specific call. , as onewhat amounts to privacy experts said, this is a human relationship database. if you know, for example, that someone called a psychiatrist read times in the last 36 hours, twice after midnight, that tells you a lot about the individual. that can have enormous ramifications. it can certainly have ramifications in terms of -- i can envision a whole host of them. that metadata, essentially data about data, is not a big deal, is simply not consistent with how you can extrapolate about people and their lives just by looking at

who they called and when they called from. >> we are going to take two more. front andman in the the gentleman in the back. >> george from the nation magazine. earlier, you said that edward snowden revealed some of the programs. that there are still secrets. are there still data-gathering programs which have not been disclosed which you feel the public would or should be aware of? >> that, of course, is classified and i cannot get into it. is when youtell you unpack the language of patriot act authority, the authority of the government is essentially limitless. it isot talk about how actually used, because that is

classified. i can't tell you -- i can tell you that the authority is essentially limitless. >> the gentleman right there for the last question. >> ed black with computer and communications association. i think this is a very important speech. i hope everyone recognizes how important it is. everything you talked about is very much on the mark. one item that was not mentioned -- >> only one? >> a few things. the important of the in dash the importance of the internet to our world is phenomenal. thehe importance of internet to our world is phenomenal. it is the ability to communicate for democracy and the u.s. government's ability to become an incredible advocate any international arena for an open

internet has been undermined because of these programs. i think that is a part of the equation for which i would like to think the administration did not consider that risk when making some of their decisions. is, you madeent some great references to the founding fathers. i would like to suggest that you are the paul revere, warning that the secret surveillance state is coming. thank you. bouquets.d for the i will not make this a bouquet tossing contest, because your group does wonderful work as well. what i wanted to do this morning generation at our this unique time in american history does not take these surveillance authorities, these programs and practices we have learned an awful lot about, and find a way to show that we can secure both our liberty and our

public safety, i think we are going to regret it. have an always expanding omnipresent surveillance state. the smartphones that everyone has got in their pockets, i am grateful that not everyone read theirs while i was talking. thank you. a trackinge used as system for everybody in this room, 24-7. as i outlined, the government has asserted that it has the authority to do significant cell phone tracking. time inthis is a unique our constitutional history and for all the great work you and the center have done, i very much appreciate this program and i hope that all who are here and

all who are listening in will begun,t what has highlighted by the fact that the house will be starting a debate in a few hours, is giving us momentum we have not had ever on these kind of issues. it could not come at a more appropriate time. thanks for having me. [applause] >> german cook spoke about the 2014 and 2016 elections. toe is some of what he had say about the chances for democrats to hold onto the majority in the senate. you can see his remarks in full m. eastern on c-span or anytime on c-span.org.

>> this is obviously where the action is going to be. the democrats are overexposed. if you look at the numbers, you would say, wow. this is not a question of whether democrats are going to lose senate seats, but how many are they going to lose? there is one problem with making that statement. most of us made that statement two years ago. through most of the 2012 election cycle, it really did look like republicans would pick 4 u.s. senate seats in that election. keep in mind, we have to have 2 midsets. in the house, the table is set and the cards are dealt by the previous election, what happened between the 2-year terms. in the senate, we have to look back and say, what happened six years earlier? in 2012, we were operating off

of 2006, a terrific year for democrats with the iraq war and president bush's second term. they had a great election in 2006. in 2012. overexposed they probably should have lost seats, but a couple of strange things happened. you had a couple of people who decided it would be a really good idea to swallow and grenades after pulling the pin. in missouri and indiana. and some other bad breaks here and there. we went from a situation where everybody thought that republicans would pick up two or three or four seats, to a net loss of 2. that is why i am reticent about saying that even though the dynamics are similar, 2008 was a great year for democrats, therefore to thousand 14 -- 20

14, they are overexposed. he opens the numbers appear to be vulnerable. all of these things, democrats are enormously overexposed in 2014. a lot of this will be contingent upon, can republicans fix their problems? both in terms of their macro brand problems as well as problems like number one, are they getting good people to run? are those people winning their primaries? what kind of campaigns they run and that sort of thing. bitblicans have been snake in the senate for the last two elections. even though 2010 was a terrific year for the republican party and they did pick up a good number of senate races in 2006, of the seven senate races that were re-rated as tossups going 2010,lection day,

republicans lost five out of seven. in 2012, they lost eight out of 10. there is a monkey that republicans have to get off their back. i have been losing the close races. some of this is brand damage. maybe a little is technology. we will talk about that later, if you would like. getrepublicans, if they their act together, they ought to be able to pick up a bunch of seats in this election. republicans need five seats to get a majority. the real number is six because they borrowed a seat in new jersey that they are going to lose in october in the special election they are hardly contesting. seatt is going to be a six- gain that republicans will need. surely, there are six opportunities. there are three democratic open seats that look, more likely than not, to go into republican hands.

it is those fourth, fifth, and sixth seeds that republicans have to worry about. arkansas, pryor in mary landrieu in louisiana. can those tip over? can republicans tip those over in addition to the open seats in south dakota and west virginia and what is the other one i am thinking about, republican? montana, yes. withrats have the below schweitzer not running. three democratic-held seats that look like they will probably go to the republican side. the key is the fourth, fifth, sixth. that is assuming republicans hang onto all their own seats. there is only one republican -- i amin a democratic

not counting new jersey -- in a democratic-aiming state. unless she does not run for reelection or gets bumped off the primary, i do not think either of those will happen, she is fine. the only other one is in georgia , where saxby chambliss is retiring. later today, apparently michelle nunn is running. there are five or six republicans running on the other side. , whetherion there nunn's candidacy, it only matters only if republicans this, andhow do i say exotic or potentially problematic nominee. at is the term i used with my wife trying to convince me not to use the term wacko anymore. [laughter] if republicans nominate a normal

republican, they hold onto the seat. little.is shifting a in the south, virginia has become a certifiably mid- atlantic state. it is not behaving like a southern state anymore. it is a classic swing state. north carolina is working its way through the transition. it is not as far along as virginia is, but it is getting less and less of a southern state every day. georgia is way back. it is moving the same general direction and the rest of the east south is not moving at all. georgia is not there yet. texas is its own world. we are not going to texas or florida. so georgia is not there yet. if republicans nominate someone who cannot reach out into the suburbs and do well with moderate suburban voters, particularly those from other

parts of the country that have moved into georgia over the last dirty, 40 years, -- 30, 40 years, that could be one they could potentially lose as well. that is really the only republican seat i am paying much attention to at all. >> coming up on the next "washington journal," a conversation with jim mcdermott. and then conquers men bill cassidy of louisiana talks about his bill enforcing rules deemed to inversely -- adversely affect the economy. then our spotlight on magazine pappalardo,res joe who will discuss the marine corps and modern weaponry. president obama signed a transportation law last year

that funded transportation programs at more than $105 billion for two years. wednesday, the senate environment committee examines implementation of the wall. newesses include transportation secretary anthony fox. live at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c- span three. >> that role of the first lady, she becomes the chief confidante. she is the only one in the world he can trust. so he unloads to her and talks to her. they have all done that. they are all strong women. of course, they accompany usually a strong man to where he was. i would say that is their main role, as confidante to the president. examinesiginal series the public and private lives of these women and their influence

on the presidency. --ch the encore president the encore presentations weeknight in august at 9:00 p.m. eastern, starting august 5, on c-span. two nomineesma's for the national labor relations will replace recessed appointees share in black and richard griffin. this hearing is one hour and 45 minutes. >> the committee on health education, labor, and pension will please come to order. hearing is a result of a bipartisan agreement that was reached to offer a fully confirmed national labor relations board or the first time in over a decade. a fully confirmed and fully functional board will be a huge

step forward for workers and employers in our country. i hope that this agreement brings a new beginning to the board so that we can ratchet down the political rhetoric that seems to surround this agency. instead, let the dedicated public servants do their jobs. is an agency that is absolutely critical to our country, economy, and middle- class. ago, congress enacted the national labor relations act, guaranteeing american workers the right to form and join a union and bargain for a better life. for both union and nonunion workers alike, the act provides central protections and gives workers a voice in the workplace, allowing them to join together and speak up for fair wages, good benefits, save working conditions. these rights ensure that the people who do the real work in this country see the benefits when our economy grows. the national labor relations board is the guardian of these

fundamental rights. workers themselves cannot enforce the national labor relations act. the board is the only place workers can go if they have been treated unfairly. denied the basic protections that the law provides. the board is a vital role in indicating workers rights. in the past 10 years, and that transcends both republican and democratic administrations, the nlrb has secured opportunities 544 reinstatement for 22, employees who were unjustly fired. it has recovered more than $1 billion on behalf of workers whose rights and pay were violated. protectd does not just the rights of workers and unions, but our nation's employers. the board is and employers only recourse if, for example, a

union commences a wildcat strike or refuses to bargain in good faith during negotiations. the nlrb helps numerous businesses resolve disputes efficiently. preventing labor disputes that could disrupt our economy, the work that the board does is vital to every worker and business across the nation. isfirming these nominees vitally important because, in the absence of senate action, the board will effectively be forced to shut down. that is more than an administrative headache, it is a tragedy that denies justice to working men and women around the country. workers like dave reese, a union called mica -- coal miner in west virginia who was refused a job when his company was purchased. the nlrb has ruled twice that the new company's refusal to hire dave and any of his fellow union supporters was illegal and violated their rights under the

national labor relations act. dave and his colleagues have been waiting over eight years for justice. three of his coworkers have passed away during this period. who has a 16-year-old son has needed several surgeries for a life-threatening heart condition. his son's health care costs would have bankrupted the family if the surgeries have not -- had not been covered through the state's program and medicaid. dave is currently doing odd jobs to make ends meet and take care of his family. twice, the board said he had been unjustly let go. enforcement of the reinstatement remedy from the board, you will be forced to live on $500 per month when he retires. ers, dave other minre just wants to go back to work. he has attempted to find out -- find other jobs, but when the company find out how much union

time he has accumulated, that kills his chance of a job. that's the clear about why they were not hired. they were not hired because of their previous union activities. that is against the law. it is not fair, it is not right, and it is illegal. that is why we need a strong nlrb. today's nominees will help us restore the board to its full strength and capacity. they both come from diverse backgrounds and are deeply steeped in labor and employment law. their rich experiences will serve them well at the board and they deserved to be confirmed with strong bipartisan support. i look forward to hearing their testimony today and to moving them expeditiously through this committee. i might say that under our agreement, the committee will meet in executive session tomorrow to vote on these nominees. with that, i turned to our ranking member. >> thanks, mr. chairman, and welcome to the two nominees.

mr. here is allah and ms. schiffer. schiffer.a and ms. the hearing is about who's jobs it is to be judges. that is what the national labor relations board is supposed to do. the national labor relations act beingabout the job described as the legitimate rights of both employees and employers in their relations affecting commerce, which suggests a high level of impartiality. former senator baker used to tell the story of the mountain judge in tennessee who, when the lawyers appeared before him, said, boys, just give me a little bit on the law. i had a phone call last night and i pretty well know the facts. that was the kind of impartiality they had in that

county in tennessee at the time. that is what we hope we do not have at the national labor relations board. we want you and the other three nominees, if you are confirmed, we want people to be able to approach you in a way that causes them to believe that you had not decided the case before they come. i know that you know that. that is, for me, what this hearing is about. i want to make sure the board's commission -- the board's mission is carried out without any private agendas. we have plenty of information about you. we have the committee application, which all of us received yesterday. and includes both public private financial information. last week, we distributed biographical and other information about your writings.

today, we have the opportunity to ask questions. today, we also received the government ethics information. all of the senators have that. we will have a chance to not only discussed today, but to vote tomorrow. there will be written questions that will come to you from senators. i would hope that you would be mindful of the fact that we hope to proceed to an up or down vote sometime next week. we want to make sure that all senators have a chance to see what the result of this hearing is, what the result of the markup is, and what your response is to any questions that might come. more rapidly, you could get those -- the more rapidly you could get those in, the better. if you are approved tomorrow, i do not expect there would be a vote in the senate before next week. the senators would have that time to make their decisions. senator harkin referred to the fact that this proceeding is a

little unusual because it comes as a result of an agreement about any president's ability to courts.arch -- recess three federal courts found that the president violated the constitution i making recess appointments to the nlrb when the senate was not in recess. of 2013.n january more recently, one was the fourth circuit case just last week. basically the same issue. a related case in may of this year. in the third circuit or of appeals. that is 3 to 0. the combination of, and i do not intend to re-litigate the whole plenty ofe have had debates, but it is a very important issue. ther our constitution,

separation of powers, checks and balances. the president has the right to nominate and the senate has the power to revise and except. the senators did not want an imperial presidency and they created a check on that presidency. that is certainly the best-known check that we have. courts' decthree after theses 2 ons -- after' decisi decisions, icourts' think it is fair to say that the president would not use recess power at a time when the senate was in recess and that the senate, not the president, would decide when it was in recess. hopefully, as a result of that

discussion, this issue is settled. i think that is an important issue. theactions unconstitutionally appointed nlrb members have taken have led quite a miss the citizens who have brought to this agency more than 1000 cases. that leaves thousands of employees, unions, and employers in limbo, wondering whether they should comply with a particular decision. by moving ahead on these nominations, hopefully we will have a vote on the senate floor shortly and that may result in the ability to put a stop to that uncertainty and misuse of taxpayer resources. most important characteristic of what i will be looking for in

this discussion is impartiality. recent years, i am afraid the nlrb has been moving away from that level playing field or that impartiality. of policy changes and reversal that have come out under this administration have caused great confusion on labor law. one professor recently said that she cannot even use the most recent textbook. she has to resort to handing out nlrb decisions instead, they are coming out so rapidly. the nlrb has ventured into new territory with efforts of rulemaking, both of which have been stalled by federal courts. they have gone into the legal obligation of employers to withhold dues even when there is -- validly-collected bargaining agreement in place, the legality of numerous and well intentioned and book revisions rules governing employee discipline when there

is no valid collective bargaining agreement in place, these are things the nlrb sought to change as well as other precedents and rules. this seems to tilt the playing field in favor of organized labor, which is not the directive of the statute, which is not my definition of impartiality. fairness and impartiality is what i think we should all be nlrb nominee. any i look forward to today's questioning. >> now we will proceed to our testimonies. both your written testimonies will be made a part of the record in their entirety. i read them over last evening and they are excellent statements. mr. here, -- with curacao -- hirosawa.

take five or seven minutes and we will get into our questions. mr. kent hirozawa church -- served as chief to the national labor relations board before joining the nlrb, he was a partner in a new york law firm. clients on a variety of employment law matters. hirozawa alsor -- served as a field attorney. he received his doctorate from the new york university school of law. nancy schiffer has associate 2eneral counsel from 2000- thousand 12. prior to that, she was deputy general counsel at the united auto workers. attorney in the detroit regional office of the nlrb. she received her ba from michigan state university.

congratulations to both of you. you have sterling records and careers. we are just fortunate to have you willing to serve on the nlrb. take 5-7 minutes and then we will go to ms. schiffer and then we will open it up to questions. rankingman harkin, member alexander, and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. i am honored and humbled to be considered for a position in the national labor relations board. this is something i could not have imagined as a young field attorney with the board nearly 30 years ago. it has been pointed out to me that if i am confirmed, there would be -- i would be the first asian-american member of the board. that, of course, would be a great honor. it is a tremendous honor to be introduced by chairman harkin, one of the greatest champions of

the american worker in the history of the united states senate. mr. chairman, thank you for your kind remarks. startay, i would like to by telling you a little bit about where i come from. my father was born and raised on a sugarcane plantation on the island of kawai. in the territory of hawaii. he and his brothers enlisted in the army during world war ii and went to school on the g.i. bill. my mother grew up on the other side of the tracks. her father and grandfather were surgeons who came to hawaii from japan and helped found the japanese charity hospital in honolulu. parents met at the university of hawaii, got married, and went to grad school at minnesota and wisconsin. a father took a job as a research chemist with the wyandotte chemical company in wyandotte, michigan. he had a long and fulfilling career there with many scientific papers and hundreds of patents to his credit.

one of the distinct memories i have of my father's time with the company however, has nothing to do with science. hery once in a long while, would pack a suitcase with enough close for a couple of weeks and take it to work. the reason was that there might be a strike that night. as a salaried employee, he would be responsible for helping to keep the plants running for as long as the strike lasted. naturally, this was very interesting to us kids, but he did not imbue it with any drama. it was just part of the job. my mother had a long and fulfilling career as a teacher and beloved member of the community at the roper school in bloomfield hills, michigan. they are both retired now and are unable to be here today. examplesause of their of decency and generosity and a respect for the values of hard work and playing by the rules

that they passed on to their children that i have been able to achieve what i have. so thanks, mom and dad. and grewn in wyandotte up in southeastern michigan. i went to college at yale and law school at nyu. , in addition to getting a terrific legal education, i met young womana lovely from minnesota. we have been married for over 25 years and she is here today with our two wonderful children, nora and miles. judicial clerkship, i started my career as a field attorney at the board of manhattan regional office. after a few years, i left to go into private practice, but not before gaining a deep appreciation for the importance of the agency's work and a deep respect for the quality and dedication of the agency's employees. years as a partner

with the new york city labor and unemployment law firm, i decided to return to the agency when mark pierce asked me to serve as its chief counsel. the three years i have spent at headquarters have been a tremendous learning experience. and have given me even deeper appreciation for the staff's , andts, professionalism commitment to fairness and the goals of the national labor relations act. if i am given the opportunity to serve as a board member, i think that my decades of practice as a labor lawyer am a both within and before the agency, will serve me well. i would also be helped in the perspective gained from my 20 years as a co-owner of a small business. with my partners, i had to deal with the challenges of making payroll, paying the rent, providing health insurance for employees, and staying competitive in our market.

i have had to discharge employees and i know that it is always difficult and never taken lightly. i believe that these experiences will help me to see all sides of the workplace disputes that come before the board. agent, i i was a board once heard another employee ro- -- pro-act, dedicated to advancing the policies and purposes of the national labor relations act without regard to the identities or alignments of the parties. as anas always struck me apt term of praise for an employee of the board. itt is what i will aspire to i am confirmed as a member of confirmed-- if i am as a member of the board. i pledge myself to the

enforcement of the act consistent with the purpose of maintaining industrial peace. thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you very much. guy,w you were a smart what i did not realize how smart marry ae -- you were to woman from minnesota. my wife is from minnesota. best thing i ever did. >> same for me. >> ms. schiffer, welcome and please proceed. you, chairman harkin, ranking member alexander, members of the committee. i am honored beyond words to be here before you today as a nominee to be a member of the national labor relations board. first, i would like to introduce my husband, goldman smith, who is here today and without whose support i would not be. we will celebrate 32 years of marriage next month. herdaughter amelia and

husband could not be here today because they both just started new jobs in california. our son michael is here with us in spirit. i grew up in a small town in southwestern michigan, 3500 people. my mother was a home economics teacher and my father was a pilot. he taught people how to fly. that was his passion. a were both raised on dairy farms in central michigan. wasrandparents farm designated a centennial farm, owned and farmed for 100 years by the same family, in 1982. my grandparents are in the michigan farmers hall of fame. i spent my summers on that farm. i helped with haying and i showed cows at the county fair and the michigan state fair. it was my dream to go to law

school and my parents supported that dream at a time when their friends thought it was a waste of money to send their daughters to college at all. , thei went to law school university of michigan, i did not know that i would become a labor lawyer. while i was there, i represented nonunion university workers, in a management review process. the first described to me how she made less than a male colleague who was doing the same work. i only talked to her on the phone, but i wrote a letter on her behalf, and she got a very sizable salary increase and i was amazed. represented a woman who had worked in her department for 20 years but was passed over for a supervisory position in favor of a recent graduate who happened to be white and male and she was neither. a facultyaring before committee, she got a promotion and i have fallen in love with labor law. after law school, i worked at the detroit regional office of

the national labor relations board. i conducted representation for workers, served as a hearing officer's in cases involving election issues, investigated and prosecuted fair labor brought picket i line injunction actions against unions in federal court. while i was there, i received a certificate of commendation from john irving. never, for one second during my work at the detroit regional office, did i think that one day i would have the honor of being considered to serve as a member of the board. i loved working for the nlrb. in large part because i had the opportunity to work under the tutelage of regional director bernie gottfried. the region.ed in there is still a memorial symposium every year in his honor. he had a deep knowledge and understanding of the law and was

open to and respectful of all viewpoints and positions presented to him. he made sure he knew every fact and every aspect of the case before he made a decision on whether to issue a complaint. most importantly, the care deeply about the impact his decisions would have on the workplace. on the employer involved, on the workers. he knew that real people would be affected by what he did and he worked very hard to make sure the decisions were fair and honest. he was a role model and i will strive to follow his example should i become a member of the board. a private firm in detroit that represented labor unions and workers and was a staff lawyer for the international union united autoworkers in 1982. i served as deputy general counsel for two years, handling the day-to-day administration of legal department before coming to washington dc to join the general counsel's office of the afl-cio, where i advocated for their position in including

it four congress. my work on an lra issues -- on me aissues have given deeper appreciation for the work the board does and how important it is for all involved.

ñññññ÷÷ññññ÷÷ññ÷a

lot. mr. president, there are many overused expressions huer in washington -- game changer comes to mind. but i think the worst may be the so-called pivot. i say this not just because it's used too much to really mean anything but also because it is a troubling frame of mind. i mean, the idea that the white house can simply pivot to jobs for day or two, then abandon it for a few weeks or months, anden this pivot back for a couple of days really epitomizes the attitude that turns people off from politics. it's the notion that job excretiocreation is somehow mort scoring points at convenient moments than just doing what's mess to get americans back to work. -- what's necessa to get americans back to work. this is the kind o thing that

really angers folks in kentucky and across the country. but it seems to be the only thing that administration and its allies in congress are ever interested in. because here's the thing: not only should we be focused on jobs day in and day out around here, as senate republicans have been all along, but it's also not like we don't n the kinds of -- know the kinds of things needed to get our economy back on track. it's not like we don't know how to get the private sector moving again and creating jobs. we don't need to pivot. we need do the things that have been stang us in the face for the past four and a half years. and if washington democrats are really serious about turning the economy around, ted they'd be e working with republicans to do that instead of sitting on the sidelines waned waiting t waitir cues fromhe president whenever he feels like changing the

topic. there are thingse need to be spending our time around here, things like implementing a revenue-neutral reform of our tax code to make it fairer, flatter and more couldn't you don'tive to the -- and more conducive. things like reimagining a regulatory state that was designed in the 20th century so that the american companies and workers can remain competitive in the 21st. the regulatory state we have now is entirely geared to the past, not the present and the future. things like developing and refining more energy at home instead of importing it from overseas. but washington democrats really havet worked with us to d any of that. they've mostly given us higher taxes, anndless strea of religions and an unwilling -- regulations and an unwilling

ocess -- they've given us a stimulus that ballooned the debt, maddeningly complex financial regulations that fail to solve too big to fail, and made bailouts the official law of the land and they gave us a 2,700-page health care law that almost no one read with a tower of at least 20,000 pages of accompanying regulations that almost no one can understand. it is no wonder so many americans remain out of work with 54 months of unemployment at or above 7% in. kentucky, the rarity is regretfully -- the rate is regretfully even higher. washington democrats have been pivoting back and forth. they pivot so much that they often don't seem to know what to do with themselves when there is an absolutely policy issue to be solved. an issue where you would assume many democrats and republicans would normally agree. just take the student loan issue. right now the unemployment rate

for 20-24 year olds is about 14.5%. for teens it is even worse, about 24%. the youth of our country are struggling. and yet with that backdrop, senate democrats still continue to fight with each other over the student loan bill 23 days past the deadlines they themselves warned us about. congressional republicans and president obama have actually been more or less on the same page on this issue from the very start. we've agreed on the need to pursue permanent reform for all students -- all students, not just a short-term political fix for some. and still democrats focused on a showbet that seemed more will politics than policy. wasting pressure tiesm the july 1 deadline blowing past, they started bickering among themselves about the way forward. they need to stop.

democrats need to finally awe lot bipartisan student loan reform proposal to come to a vote this week so we can pass it and ensure there's one less washington-created problem for young people to worry about in this economy. because it's tough enough out there for them already the obama economy has not been kind to the youth of our nation. so i hope the white house and senate democrats will help us change that becau this persistently high unemployment is su simply not acceptable and neither is pretending that it can be changed by simply executing another pivot or delivering another campaign-style speech. or just spending more taxpayer money, because washington democrats have tried all that before over and over and over, and in fact it's just not working. mr. president, i yield the floor.

especially troubling is the fact that there is nothing in the patriot act that limits this sweeping bulk collection to phone records. the government can use the patriot act business records of authority. they can use it to develop a database with gunowners that are deemed subversive. he government's authority to collect information is

essentially limitless at this time. if it is a record held by a business, a doctor, school, any other third party, you could be subject. he bulk collection authority under the patriot act. give the national security bureaucracy the power to scrutinize the personal lives of every law-abiding american. allowing that to continue is a grave error that demonstrates a willful ignorance of human nature. moreover, it demonstrates a complete disregard for the responsibilities entrusted by us to maintain robust checks and balances on the power of any arm of our government. t this point, i think we got in front of some various questions.

what happens to our government, our civil liberties, and our wonderful system? our daily democracy. what happens if it just keeps growing and growing and growing? the intelligence leadership is determined to hold onto this authority. it revealed every aspect of a ersons's life with the ability to conjure up the legal authority to execute staff surveillance. removing any accountable judicial oversight creates the unprecedented opportunity to influence our system of

government. ithout additional protection and the law, every single one of us, every one of us, can be tracked and monitored. the piece of technology we consider vital happens to be a combination listening device, location tracker, and hidden amera. there is not an american alive who would consent to being required to carry any of those items. e ought to reject the idea that government will use its power to arbitrarily

bypass. government officials openly tell the press that they have the authority to effectively turn america's smart phones and cell phones into a location. the leaders of the intelligence community have consistently been unwilling to state what the rights of law-abiding people are on this issue. i have repeatedly asked this in public hearings. without adequate protection, there is no way americans can be sure that the government is not going to interpret authorities more and more broadly. it turns from dystopia into reality. some are going to say, that is never going to happen. the fact of the matter is senior policy makers and federal have deferred again and again to the intelligence agency to decide what surveillance authorities they

need. i believe it is more likely that i will achieve my lifelong dream of playing in the nba. when james madison was attempting to persuade americans that the constitution contains sufficient protections. he did not just asked his fellow americans to trust him. e carefully laid out the protections contained in the

constitution and how the people could ensure they were not breached. we are failing our constituents, we are failing our founding fathers. if we are willing today to just trust any individual or agency with greater power than the limited authority that the founding fathers wanted as a firewall against tyranny. i do want to spend a few minutes talking about those who make up the intelligence community. they work to protect us all. i have found in men and women who work at our nation's intelligence agencies to be hard-working, dedicated professionals. they are genuine patriots who make real sacrifices to serve their country. i believe they ought to be able to do their job secure in the knowledge that there is strong public support for everything they are doing. unfortunately, that cannot happen. when senior officials from across the government mislead the public about the government surveillance authority. let's be clear here, the public was not kept in the dark about the patriot act and other secret authorities. the public was actively misled.

i pointed out several instances where senior officials have made misleading statements to the public about the types of surveillance they conduct, public. i would like to focus on several of the most significant examples. senior justice department officials have told the congress and the public that the patriot act business record authority. it is like a grand jury ubpoena. they say it is analagous to a grand jury subpoena. that statement is misleading and certainly strains the word analagous to the break willing point. certainly true that both authorities can be used to collect a wide variety of records.

but the patriot act to be secretly interpreted to permit ongoing collection, and this makes that authority very, very different from regular grand jury subpoena authority. i am sure there are some lawyers here. after the speech was over, if you have ever seen a grand jury subpoena that allows the government on an ongoing basis to collect the records of millions of ordinary americans. the fact is that no one has ever seen a subpoena like that because there are not any. his has been made by more than one official in one occasion. the official who served four years has just become the company's top performance on criminal behavior. >> he or she would be less.

defenders have said that members of congress have the ability -- what the government is doing on a classified basis. they should not complain when fficials make misleading statements, it even a congressional hearing. his is an absurd argument. that does not excuse the practice of misleading statements being made on the public record. when data become all right all right in america for government

officials public statements and private statements to differ. i am in a much larger culture of misinformation for example, he director of the nsa spoke ver at the american enterprise institute. he said, we do not hold data on u.s. citizens. that statement sounds reassuring. but of course, the american people know that it is false. it is one of the most common mistakes ever made. later that same year at the annual hackers conference, the same nsa director said that government does not collect

dossiers on millions of americans. i have served on the intelligence committee for more than a dozen years and i do not know what a dossier meant in that context. i do know that americans not familiar with classified lingo would probably hear that statement and think there was no bulk collection. after the director of the nsa made a statement in public, we wrote to the director asking for clarification. we asked whether the nsa collects any type of data at all. senator udall and i wrote to

the director asking for clarification. i decided it was necessary to put the question to the director of national intelligence. so i had my staff send the actual question over a day in advance so that the director would be prepared to answer. the director fortunately said the appears was no, the n.s.a. does not knowingly collect data on millions of americans, which is obviously not correct. after the hearing, i had my staff call the director's office on a secure line and urge them to correct the record .

disappointingly, his office decided to let this inaccurate statement stand. my office made it clear, my staff said clearly this was wrong and it was unacceptable to lead the american people misled, and i continued to warn the public about the problem of secret surveillance loss over the following weeks in effect until the june disclosure. now, even after those disclosures, there's been an effort by officials to exaggerate the effectiveness of the bulk phone records collection program. one way they do that is inflate it with the collection of internet communications under section 702 of the statute. this collection, which involves the prison computer program, has produced some information of real value. i will note that last summer i was able to get the executive branch to declassify the fact

that the court had actually ruled on at least one occasion that this collection violated the fourth amendment in a way that affected an undisclosed number of americans, and the court also said that the government had violated the spirit of the law as well. so i certainly think section 702 needs stronger protections to the privacy of law-abading americans, and i think those protections could be added without losing the value of the tatute and the collection. meanwhile, i haven't seen any indication that this yielded any unique intelligence that was not also available to the government through less intrusive means chsm government officials referred to these programs collectively, and we have seen that on a number of occasions, and say these "programs" provide unique

intelligence without pointing out that one program is doing all the work and the other one is basically along for the ride. in my judgment, that is also a misleading statement. there have been a number of misleading and inaccurate statements made by section 702, the prisons program, and its collection as well. senator udall and i wrote to ay that the fact sheet contains misleading information and an inaccuracy that makes protection for the privacy of our people sound much stronger than it actually is. the next day, the fact sheet was taken down from the front page of the nsa website. with the misleading fact sheet still be up there if senator udall and i had not pushed to take it down? given what it took to correct the misleading statements by the national security agency, that may well be the case.

having walked you through how secret law interpreted by a secret or that authorized secret surveillance works, the obvious question is, what is next? a few weeks ago, more than a quarter of the senate wrote to the director of national intelligence demand and public answers to additional westerns about the use of the government surveillance authority. it has been two months since the disclosures by mr. snowden and the signers of this letter, including key members of the senate leadership and a committee chaired in the senate with decades of experience, we made it clear that a quarter of the senate will not accept any more stonewalling or misleading tatements. patriot act reform legislation has also been enacted. the centerpiece of this effort would require that the

government show a demonstrated link to terrorism or espionage before collecting american personal information. senders have proposed legislation that would ensure the legal analysis of the secret court of opinions interpreting surveillance law is declassified in a responsible matter. i am collaborating to bring other reforms that will bring openness, accountability, and benefits to the endocrine estate operations of the most secret court in america. most importantly, i and my colleagues are making it clear that we are going to keep the public debate alive. we have exposed misleading statements. we are holding officials accountable. we are showing that liberty and security are not mutually exclusive.

the fact also is that the side of transparency and openness is starting to put some points on the board and make some progress. the nsa also had a bold e-mail records program that was similar to the bulk phone records program. this program offered -- operated under section 214 of the patriot act, known as the pen register provision until fairly recently. senator udall and i were very concerned that this had a significant impact on the privacy rights and liberties of ur people. we spent much of 2011 pressing the intelligence community to show actual evidence of its effectiveness. it turned out they were unable to do so. the statements that have been made about this program before congress and the courts have significantly exaggerated the bulk e-mail record program and its effectiveness. the program was shut down that same year. that was a big win for all who

care about privacy and civil liberties. senator udall and i wish we could have told you about it at the time, but at least you know that there was an effort that we think contributed to a significant step forward. recently, and authorization bill was going through the committee that included a number of provisions meant to stop leaks. but would have been disastrous for the public's right to now. it would have restricted the ability of former government officials to talk to the press, even about unclassified foreign-policy matters. it would have prohibited intelligence agencies from making anyone outside of a few high-level officials available

for background briefings, even on an unclassified basis. these provisions were intended to stop leaks. i am certainly against leaks as well. it is clear to me they would have significantly encroach on the first amendment and led to less well informed public debate on foreign policy and national security matters. these anti-leak provisions went hrough the committee ross s in secret and the bill was agreed to by a vote of 14-1. you probably get the sense that i opposed it. the bill then made its way to the senate floor. at the time, i and everybody else did not even know how bad and how flawed the bill was because, in the course of the committee's consideration, we

could not talk to anybody on the outside. i knew it was flawed, taking away pension rights without due process. those things leaped out at us. once the bill came out, because you still have to pass a bill, it was even serrated by all concerned, regardless of political party, to the point where people who were supporters, they would not contribute to op-ed articles and other opinion pieces. so i put a hold on the bill and within a matter of weeks, all of this overly broad language that restricted the public's right to know was removed. a few months later, my colleagues and i were finally able to get the opinion laying out what the government believes the rules are for the targeted killings of americans. this is the drones issue. these documents on killing americans were not even being shared with members of congress on a classified basis, let alone being used to have debates with the american people. i have said it before and i

will repeat it here. i believe every american has the right to know when their government believes it is allowed to kill them. number of us on the committee fought publicly and privately to get these documents, use whatever procedural pportunities were available, and eventually we got those documents and established that this is the kind of oversight that needs to be conducted by the intelligence committee. since then, we have been looking those documents over and working out a strategy that would allow a pertinent or sent to be made public. i do not protect anyone when it comes to protecting gender -- genuinely sensitive security information. i think government agencies need to conduct secret operations. but they should not rely on the ecret court or secret law.

that is why i think we are at a truly unique time in our countries controversial history. the growth of digital technology, dramatic changes in the nature of warfare and the definition of a battlefield, and secret courts run counter o the forces that the founding fathers imagine and together, they make for a combustible mix. at this point, i usually conclude mentioning ben franklin. i often joke we ought to have a ben franklin caucus in the senate. he always said that anyone who gives up liberty for security does not deserve either. that is certainly true. but today, i thought that a different founding father would be appropriate for wrapping

up. james madison, the father of our constitution, says that the accumulation of executive, judicial, and legislative powers is the very definition of tyranny. he went on to assure the nation that the constitution protected us from that fate. my question today is, by llowing the executive to secretly follow the secret interpretation of the law under the supervision of a secret, non-adversarial court and occasional secret congressional hearings, how close are we coming to james madison's very definition of tyranny? i believe that we are allowing our country to drift a lot closer than we should. if we do not take this opportunity to

change course now, we and all americans will live to regret it. thank you very much. >> i know the senator's schedule. he has got to get back to the hill. but that was a fine statement. there were many very important ideas and obviously a lot of work. we will do two or three questions. we know he has got to get back. i would also like to note for those watching on c-span and video streaming that the chairman statement as well as senator wyden's statement will be on the website. i want to acknowledge that the

center for american progress is presenting a paper for the future of intelligence gathering written by our colleague, peter tool. knowing time is tight, we will take two or three questions. i want to thank you for coming and i want to thank you for an excellent statement. we will go right there in the second row to start us out. >> thank you very much. i was hoping you could weigh in on the effort in the house, specifically the amendment that would go after some of these surveillance rams through the funding mechanisms in the appropriations bill. >> i have not seen what the congressman is actually proposing, but the fact that this has made it to the floor of the house of representatives

is unquestionably good. it is another step, as i have outlined, in the march to a real debate. we would not have had that seven or eight weeks ago. we would not have been, as i tried to outline, chipping away day after day, trying to make our case. as of late last night, this debate is going to be on the floor of the house of representatives. later today, we are going to see members of congress start debating the real issues. they are going to start a discussion about what i call the false choice, where you can either have your security or our liberty. as you heard me describe in root canal like detail, i do

not think that is the case. when elected officials do their job, we can have both. the fact that this is on the floor of the house of representatives later today is unquestionably very good for the cause that we are outlining today. >> thank you. let me go to the center there. please identify yourself. >> my name is russell. i am just a student here. >> you are not just a student. we are glad you are here. >> thank you. i am glad to be here with you. i have one question. you talked about the franklin quote. they do data mining and they say that they have not adopted the motion of adopting other values because that paradigm results in a zero-sum outcome and policies diminish at the expense of security. i am wondering what we can do about the department of homeland security as well as the nsa. >> are you quoting from an

official homeland security document? >> yes. >> that diminishes the importance of privacy? > yes, it was in the footnotes. >> thank god there are students out there that read full not. john dickens from my office will be getting that from you in about three or four minutes. we will be following that up. i am stunned that there would be a government document formally, as a matter of agency policy unravels what the founding fathers were seeking to do, so we'll follow that up. >> i know we've got some reporters here, so i want to make sure we are inclusive there. he's coming. >> thank you very much for those remarks.

how concerned should we be that this information that is collected by private or overnment sources could be used to influence members of congress, certainly people in the business community? it is very valuable information to know when someone is running for an office knows what fundraising activities they are involved in. re you fearful for the future, that this information could be parceled in a way that supports those who support the intelligence agencies and fight those that oppose them? >> there are plenty of ways in which you can envision how this would be used. i want to unpack the argument that made -- that is made on the other side. they say, we are not listening to anybody.

we are not considering the concept of a specific call. this is what amounts to, as one privacy experts said, this is a human relationship database. if you know, for example, that someone called a psychiatrist read times in the last 36 hours, twice after midnight, that tells you a lot about the individual. that can have enormous ramifications. t can certainly have ramifications in terms of -- i can envision a whole host of them. this idea that metadata, essentially data about data, is ot a big deal, is simply not consistent with how you can extrapolate about people and their lives just by looking at who they called and when they called from.

>> we are going to take two more. the gentleman in the front and the gentleman in the back. >> george from the nation magazine. earlier, you said that edward snowden revealed some of the programs. we know that there are still secrets. are there still data-gathering programs which have not been disclosed which you feel the public would or should be aware of? >> that, of course, is classified and i cannot get into it. what i will tell you is when you unpack the language of patriot act authority, the authority of the government is essentially limitless. i cannot talk about how it is actually used, because that is classified.

i can't tell you -- i can tell you that the authority is essentially limitless. >> the gentleman right there for the last question. >> ed black with computer and ommunications association. i think this is a very important speech. i hope everyone recognizes how important it is. everything you talked about is very much on the mark. one item that was not mentioned -- >> only one? >> a few things. the important of the in dash the importance of the internet to our world is phenomenal. -- the importance of the internet to our world is phenomenal. it is the ability to

communicate for democracy and the u.s. government's ability to become an incredible advocate any international arena for an open internet has been undermined because of these programs. i think that is a part of the equation for which i would like to think the administration did not consider that risk when making some of their decisions. the last comment is, you made some great references to the founding fathers. i would like to suggest that you are the paul revere, warning that the secret surveillance state is coming. thank you. >> thank you for the bouquets, and i won't make this a bouquet-tossing contest because your group does wonderful work as well. what i wanted to do this morning was to say, if our generation at this unique time in american history does not take these surveillance authorities, these programs and practices we have learned an awful lot about, and find a way to show that we can secure both our liberty and our public safety, i think we are going to regret it.

because we do have an always expanding, omnipresent surveillance state. he smartphones that everyone has got in their pockets, i am grateful that not everyone read theirs while i was talking. thank you. hese can be used as a tracking system for everybody in this room, 24-7. as i outlined, the government has asserted that it has the uthority to do significant cell phone tracking. think this is a unique time in our constitutional history

and for all the great work you and the center have done, i very much appreciate this program and i hope that all who are here and all who are listening in will see that what has begun, highlighted by the fact that the house will be starting a debate in a few hours, is giving us momentum we have not had ever on these kind of issues. it could not come at a more appropriate time. thanks for having me. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> on c-span today, charlie cook, publisher of the cook political report, talks about the 2014 and 2016 elections. live at 7:00 eastern, "washington journal" looks at the healthcare law, e.p.a. regulations, and the future of marine corps weaponry. and at noon eastern, the house continues work on the 2014

defense spending bill. president obama signed a transportation law last year that funds programs at more than $105 billion for two years. today the senate environment committee examines implementation of the law. witnesses include the new transportation secretary, anthony fox, live at 10:00 a.m. astern on c-span3. the congressional caucus on black men and boys holds its first hearing today on the status of black men in the u.s. co-chairs, washington, d.c., delegate eleanor holmes norton will hear testimony from witnesses, including knapp president kweisi mfume. live coverage at 3:00 p.m. astern on c-span3.

>> interestingly, the korean war in a sense sort of helped unify h korean themselves in a way that was ot there before. when they came down, they turned again, and that sort of solidified, i think, their sort of sense of national cohesion and identity. but i think they miscalculated, because had he waited, it's very possible that the south probably would have -- it's possible that it would have disintegrated on its own. >> 60 years after north korean troops crossed the 38th parallel, sheila miyoshi jager looks at a war that never really ended, sunday night at 9:00 on "after words," part of booktv this weekend on c-span2.

charlie cook, cook political report publisher and national journal political analyst, predicted it was pretty unlikely republicans in the house would lose their majority in the 2014 elections. he also discussed the possible democratic and republican presidential candidates for 2016. his is an hour and 15 minutes. >> since this is the first one of these for the season, i thought maybe we would just sort of step back and sort of think about maybe how we ought to look towards 2014, and i think one way of thinking about it is a sports analogy. you know, whether it's before a baseball or football or basketball or soccer or hockey season, you know, you kind of look forward to the season and you're not sure how each team is going to do, what the season's going to be like. you don't really know for sure.

and somewhat painfully, we know that the washington nationals were, according to "sports illustrated," world series contenders this year and were, you know, struggling to get up to .500, we didn't -- you know, we overestimated a little bit how the season would be. that's the way it is right now, i think, midway through an odd numbered year in terms of the next election. we don't really know what the next election is going to be about. we can have theories, but, you know, we don't really know, and what we have to do is sort of watch certain metrics to try to tell us, you know, is it going to be this kind of election, that kind of election, or something entirely different? and i think quite a few of you probably heard me tell the analogy -- i remember tip o'neill used to talk about all politics is local. and while i have an enormous amount of respect for speaker o'neill, you know, my variation of that or what i think he meant, is you know, a state, a district, what kind of people

live there, what are the voting patterns there? what are the local issues and circumstances, the candidates, the campaigns, the money? you know, using that formulation, every house race, there are like 435 stove pipe household races or 33, 34 senate races. but my variation of that is, i think all politics is local except when it's not. i realize that's not terribly profound, but the thing is that sometimes we have these weird years when all politics isn't local,&where there is like a mysterious hand, invisible hand that's pushing the candidates of one party forward and pulling down the candidates of the other party. i mean, you can't tell a republican in 200 or 2008 that all politics is losm you couldn't tell a democrat in 2010, with the kind of undertow that was out there for democrats, that all politics is

local. and sometimes they are and sometimes they're not. and so that's the first, is it going to be a microelection, all politics is local, or is it going to be a macro, where there's that invisible hand pushing one direction or the other? and then you can say, ok, well, what do we think the die nament i can are going to be in 20 -- the dynamics are going to be in 2014? for me, i can come up with two different scenarios, not in any particular order. first one is the dynamics of 2012, the problems that republicans had in 2012, just simply pulled forward into 2014. the other one is that this is a typical, becomes somewhat of a typical second term, midterm election, where we know the presidents typically have sufficient times during their second terms, and that this is a typical second term, midterm

elections, where democrats have real problems, or it can obviously be something entirely different. let's sort of look at those two things. we know that looking back in 2012, and it's sort of still at the top of a lot of our minds, the republicans had real problems with minority voters, with younger voters, with women voters, with self-described moderate voters. do they repair their damage? do they fix that in time for 2014, sort of yes or no. and obviously we're, you know, we're still sort of young into this, but, you know, so far, we're not seeing a lot of improvement in republican party numbers as of late july. we haven't seen that quite yet. and so we're sort of watching to see, do those problems just sort of carry forward? now, one thing i have to say is that usually the dynamics of

one election don't really carry forward into the next. usually it's about something different. but we have had times when it's repeated and, you know, you could almost look at 2006, which was a great democratic year, and 2008, which was a great democratic year. they flowed into one another. but that's really, really, really unusual. i think you probably have to go back, with 32, 34, 36, to find another time where the flow just sort of continued on from one election to the next, but obviously it could happen. but the other one is that this is a traditional second term, midterm election. you know, we know historically that bad things typically happen to presidencies in their second term. you know, in some ways, it's the freshness, the newness, the novelty of a brand-new president that's worn off, new

ideas not so much, the energy, the focus, it just sort of starts unraveling. sometimes the a-team has left the field, the team that actually elected that president. they've moved on to make money, and now the b or c team is sort of in there. but for a wide variety of reasons, they just tend to run out of gas when they get into their second term, doesn't matter whether their democrat or republican, but we've seen that historically over the last -- or in the post-world war ii era. the second thing that typically happens is stuff goes wrong. and you can have economic down turns, like eisenhower had in 1958. you could have scandals like atergate in the nixon-ford administration, and iran-contra in the reagan misdemeanors, but that actually broke on election day. monica lewinsky, obviously, is another.

you can have unpopular wars, like vietnam for the kennedy-johnson administration, or the iraq war for george w. bush. so you could have economic down turns, you could have scandals, you could have unpopular wars, but those have a tendency to happen in the second term. the third thing is that you could also have sort of chickens coming home to roost, decisions, decisions that were made, dynamics that sort of were created in the first term, sometimes they kind of come back on a president and bite him on the rear end during that second term. and one of the things we're obviously going to be watching very carefully is the affordable care act, a.k.a., obamacare. we know that in 2009 and 2010, president obama's first two years in office when the affordable care act was pushed through, it became enormously polarizing, controversial, and was one of the, say, two leading reasons why democrats

lost control of congress back in 2010, the house in 2010, that it was -- it was affordable care act and, you know, not a little bit of the economy sort of thrown in for good measure. then in 2011 and 2012, to be honest, i don't think that many people changed their minds on the affordable care act during that two-year period of time. the people that were going to hate it had already decided they hated t. the people that liked it still liked it. and roughly a quarter of american people that were undecided were still undecided. now, the next question is, as we go into 2013 and 2014 and more parts of the law, realize that part of it's been pushed back to january 2014, but as it starts to become implemented, do we see it become controversial again, yes or no? and that's something where, you know, what you ought to do maybe is, you know, do your own

research and look at any impact on your own healthcare policies and, you know, have rates gone up or down or stayed the same and what's happened in terms of the co-pays, that sort of thing, and ask your friends and relatives and neighbors, and just sort of get a sense anecdotally of what people are saying about it, and you'll have kind of a fair idea maybe of what starts happening there. so what i've done is started watching, and we've got it on our website is sort of a little guide to looking at the political environment in terms of trying to look for some cues about, is this going to be a republican problem to continue, or is this going to be a second-term problem occur yet again for another president or something entirely different? and what i would suggest you do is sort of watch some of the polling data. you know, number one, you watch the president's approval rating, because midterm

elections do typically, they are, to a certain extent, a referendum on the incumbent president. right now, the president is at a equilibrium point, where more or less his approval and disapproval numbers are about the same, in the mid to high 40's, so he's not an asset for democrats, but he's not a liability either, but watch those numbers. he's been dropping since, say, mid-january about, a point every three or four weeks, and does that level off at some point or keep going, whatever? you know, watch the overall job approval rating. the second thing is watch public attitudes towards the economy. one thing that happens is that when things are -- when the economy is perceived to be good or improving, people are a lot more forgiving than if they think it's not doing so well or getting worse. and one of the things that really helped president clinton

back in his second term through the whole monica affair zpashe today is her 40th birthday -- is that -- but who's counting? i completely lost my train of thought. [laughter] guess i'm wearing a blue shirt. but anyway, what -- why did i say that? the economy was doing really, really well, and as a result, i think people are a little bit more tolerant than if the economy was getting worse. and i noticed in my home state of louisiana that voters in louisiana were always more forgiving when oil prices were up and the state economy was good, and that when the oil prices were down, the state's economy was down, they were less forgiving, and sometimes bought some of their politicians were not quite as funny when the state economy wasn't doing so well. so watch consumer confidence,

conference board, university of michigan numbers, and they're roughly right now basically at or very close to a six-year high. does it stay that high or improve? again, public a little bit more forgiving given the tough times that we went through. on the other hand, if consumer confidence starts coming down, you know, it's pretty clear what you ought to -- what conclusion you ought to draw from that. the third thing is the affordable care act, and one of the things i'm watching, and we have this little political environment guide, is watching the keyser family foundation tracking -- it's almost monthly, where they ask questions on the affordable care act and favorable and unfavorable attitudes. and most recently, these are off the top of my head, but something like 37%, 38% favorable and roughly 45% unfavorable, with about 23% undecided, something like that. watch those numbers and see if

they start changing. the favorability numbers, do they go up or down? just sort of watch for any major changes there, and that can give you a hint about where things may be going. the next thing is the favorable or unfavorable ratings two two parties. i confess, i look at a lot of polling data and have for many, many years, this is not something i've particularly paid a lot of attention to in the past, but i'm really starting to. because for republicans to take advantage of democratic problems, they really need to get their numbers -- get their favorable party numbers up, and the numbers are down, and that simply hasn't happened. there's the brand damage that you've heard so much about over the last couple of years. it is still very, very real, and republicans need to do something to address those problems with minority women, younger and self-described

moderate voters. so far that hasn't happened yet. at the same time, if the same problems that typically happen, if they start reoccurring, then you can expect the democratic party's favorable numbers to start coming down and unfavorable numbers coming up. you know, a good characterization right now is the republicans, the american people are not real happy with democrats. in fact, democrats have fairly lousy numbers. it's just that the republican party has worse numbers. and so watch those. and then finally, watch the generic congressional ballot test, where they ask if they were held today, would you vote for the democratic candidate for congress or some pollsters will ask, which party would you rather see control? it doesn't make any difference. one thing you need to know about that question is that it typically has, for some bizarre reason, and i've never heard a good explanation for it, but it typically has about a two or

three-point tilt in favor of democrats when you compare what it ends up being with the national popular vote for the house of representatives. don't know why, but it sort of does. now, for that reason, a lot of people, a lot of analysts don't like to look at the generic ballot test. for me, you know, i could use my louisiana public school amyth ma particular and subtract two or three from almost any number. so for me, i can do that and kind of figure out where it is. now, the generic doesn't tell you how many seats one party is going to gain or lose or anything like that, but it does tell you sort of roughly which way the wind is blowing, and this is lightly, or is it moderately or is it heavily, which way is it going? so it's a useful indicator there. and so i would suggest you sort of watch those kind of metrics to get an idea as we get into this fall and as we get into the -- the election year officially starts, watch those things to kind of figure out

for yourself, is it scenario a or b or is it something completely different? and i don't want to dismiss one other possibility. what if it's kind of all the above? what if voters are growing, the novelty has worn off of president obama's freshness, and, you know, they're not really -- you know, kind of hit the mute button, not listening to him that much anymore, but at the same time, what if republicans haven't fixed their problem? you just sort of have a muddle of both scenarios. and right now, if i had to actually pick one, i think that's actually the one that i would pick right now. now, in terms of the house of representatives, let's just talk about the end game, in terms of the house of representatives, it's pretty, pretty, patriot unlikely, and i think most people in this room would agree, pretty unlike that

will republicans will lose their majority in the house. the democrats need a 17-seat net gain, which isn't a huge number, but when you sort of look at where the congressional district boundaries are drawn and sort of the landscape, it's hard to see how either party could pick up double digits, particularly 17 seats. 93% of all republicans in the house of representatives are sitting in districts that mitt romney carried. 96% of all districts that democrats hold are in districts that president obama carried. and so, to a large extent, the house has kind of sorted it out, and republicans were very fortunate that they had that terrific 2010 election, the election preceding the congressional district boundaries, and so they were able to, in a lot of states with governors and ledge tures, draw boundaries that were better than they've seen in a very, very long time.

and not to be partisan about it, but democrats had done that plenty of times in previous decades, and this time where they had a chance to, for example, illinois. but the thing about it is, because of where these lines are drawn, it's really, really, really hard for either party to get a major switch, and particularly for democrats to do it. another factor to keep in mind -- and this is actually in my office to the races national journal daily column from this morning -- keep in mind, midterm election turnout dynamics typically are a little different from presidential election years, and particularly when you look at the groups where democrats have done so, so well in recent years in presidential elections like young people, like women, like particularly unmarried women, the minority voters have a tendency to overperform some in presidential years, but then

underperform in midterm election years. d yesterday, stan greenberg, democratic pollster, works with the democracy corps, and page gardner, whose women's voices, women vote, they released some surveys that showed exactly that, that among all voters, democrats were ahead by one point on the generic ballot test, but among likely voters, as i remember, they were down two points. and looked at specifically unmarried women. that's a key group that democrats are focusing on enormously, because the gap between democrats and republicans on unmarried women, you know, it's close to like 30 points or something. it's an enormous gap, and that's where democrats really have their work cut out for them in terms of boosting up turnout with some of these groups that helped them so much and 08 and 2010, or 2008

2012, and obviously didn't help them in 2010. some of you may be wondering, well, the previous midterm elections, democrats did very well in 2006, which is absolutely true, but that was really more of an election. it wasn't about turnout dynamics changing so much as independent voters, because of the war in iraq, swinging very strongly away from president bush in favor of democrats. that really wasn't a turnout dynamic situation. the senate is obviously where the action is going to be, where democrats are, everybody here knows, overexposed. you know, if you just looked at the numbers, out say, wow, this is not just -- this is not a question of whether democrats are going to lose senate seats, but how many are they going to lose. now, there's one problem with making that statement, and that is that most of us made that statement two years ago. statemt two years ago. the 2012gh most of

election cycle it really did look like republicans would pick up two, three, four u.s. senate seats and that election. we have to have two mindsets. the cards are dealt by the previous election. of hissenate, because six-year terms, we have to look back to say what happened six years earlier? off a2 we were operating base of 2006, a terrific year for democrats with the war and president bush's midterm election and all the arguments we ever talked about. so they had a great election in 2006. there were overexposed in 2012. they probably should have lost seats.