kessig. i was at the stanford business school and spent a lot of time and energy thinking of big issues with food, and now working with michelle and edible startups, we are a blogger introduces entrepreneurship in the food space. we will not flood your in boxes because we do not publish that often, but we are inspiring to do more. i am working on two projects, and one is a food startup, but let's get the focus on the panelists, where it belongs. introduce yourself and tell us about your organization, and then i will kick it off. ashley? she is a public relations person for zero waste energy. >> first of all, thank you for having me and our company represented today. like you said, i am with the zero waste energy based out of lafayette, california, and we handle waste management with and emphasis on organic waste . what we are focusing on is our dry anaerobic digestion

technology which basically speeds up the natural composting process to a 21 and a batch cycle, so after about 48 hours, it begins producing methane gas and all of the bye gases. and after 21 days, all you have left is an agricultural quality compost, and all of that gas that is collected is transformed into either electricity or cng fuel, so it is a completely closed loop cycle that we have, and we just celebrated the grand opening of our project in san jose, which is 1.6 megawatts of electricity, about 34,000 tons per year of compost, if i remember correctly, and it is processing 90,000 tons per year of organic waste, so that is just one of our projects, and that is what we do. >> i want to point out that that is the largest facility of its kind in the world. >> yes, it is the largest in the world.

>> the energy that it produces is eligible for inclusion in the renewables portfolio. that is a goal set out by the government of california. utilities have to use one third of their energy by renewable sources by 2020, so this is an important component to meeting regulatory goals. >> and i also believe it is a leads platinum certified facility, and it is just one of them, but i move on. roger gordonon, -- . cofounder of food cowboy. >> thank you very much. my brother and i started food cowboy along with barbara, and my brother was a trucker, mostly pulling produce, and barbara hunger toolkit, and we put this together because for about 20 years whenever he had a load of produce, he has called me, and this was before cell phones and internet, and i had a desk job, and i was trying to find a school or a food bank

or synagogue or somewhere to take the food, so we finally got smart and said maybe this could use the match.com technology, being used to truck food to food banks and composters and facilities like yours instead of landfills, because the problem is they just need to get rid of it and get rid of it quick. to give you a sense of what the supply chain does, all of the food donated to all of the food banks by all the countries to feeding america, the largest food bank network in america, equals the amount of money they waste in 19 days, so we can do a lot better than that. the government spends $80 billion per year on food stamps. we spend $160 billion per year on food that we throw away as consumers, so there is limited ability to interdict that waste postconsumer because of food safety issues and scale issues, but in the supply chain, it is

palletized, and what is missing is information, because without knowing where to take the food quickly, because it is perishable, it is expensive to move. you cannot do anything with it. our next step is to crowd source a food waste map of the united states. all of that leaks out of the system, and facilities like yours or animal feed manufacturers and so forth that can use the food, because then the charities and entrepreneurs can get to scale by building efficient systems, so we ask for your help with that. >> thanks. from foodstuffs. valley girl foodstuffs. chef turned insurance agent, turned chef mentoring at risk teens.

i guess that is the best way to introduce myself quickly. i started valley girl foodstuffs about one year ago after volunteering with a nonprofit in sonoma. it is the teen center in sonoma, and a lot of food was coming and being donated from local grocery stores, and a lot of kids who like to be in gangs were at the teen center, so i started a cooking program there to teach some of these kids how to not get pregnant and not kill people by cooking, and the grocery stores in sonoma were desperate for someplace where they could offload the food that they were throwing away, so we started picking up seven days per week through the teen center, and i quickly realized that basically what was happening is all of the food was going to the teen center and promptly thrown into the dumpster because they could not deal with the sheer mass of food that is tossed away at grocery stores, and we are not even talking about all of that.

you're only talking about the eight percent. my notes said 10%. of food in retail is what is tossed out. however, in california, 52% of produce that is grown, and i know there are people here who grow food, and there are people here who grow meat, and there are people here who cook, so 52% of food that you see on the produce shelves is thrown away every year, so that is basically what i am dealing with, that 52%, so i was teaching kids at the teen center how to can and bake and ferment and dehydrate and do all of these sort of old-school skills that nobody knows how to do anymore, although there is a renaissance. i have seen it, and then however, when you work with a nonprofit, it is a nonprofit, which means there is no profit,

which means nobody gets paid, so these kids were doing a lot of work for no pay, and they were still showing up every single week to go to the farmer's market with me, as was i. i was not getting paid either, but i had four girls show up with me, and we would stay there until 1:00 in the morning and go to the farmers market the next day, and these girls were amazing, so 1.5 years ago, i decided to start a for-profit business on valley girls foodstuffs. it is not nonprofit, but we pick up food four days per week from whole foods locally, and i distribute that to these nonprofits, and whatever they cannot use, i then take and make food with it with these kids, so there is some in the back. i brought to show people what we do. there are raisins back there that we make from the 80 million cases of grapes that we get

every summer, and there is also some quince jam. it is not a super popular item in terms of people buying it in grocery stores, so when it is in season, i get it, and then we also started this year a farm in sonoma, so valley girl foodstuffs is now valley girl foodstuffs and farm. we are not certified organic. it is sort of a big process, but we do grow everything using sustainable and organic processes, so that is my side job. my real job is still being a state farm agent, so -- [laughter] >> a very great mission and a very cool operation. we are hoping to hear more from you later. to my right is the cofounder of food star partners and also a long-time investor and founding partner of mindful investors, so i will have him talk at everything he does. >> well, i will not talk about everything, but i will share a few secrets with you of food waste reduction. as austin said, my day job, it

seems like a lot of us have a day job, it is with mindful investors, so it is innovative, breakthrough technologies which positively impact our lives and health being a foundational aspect of what we do. the environment is a key area that we are investing in. food, water, and agriculture is another key area, and two years ago, two of my buddies from the food industry saw me at a conference and said, we are working on a food waste issue. this is a huge problem. will you help me with this? and i said, anthony, i help you with everything, and i said the wrong thing, so i ended up getting involved in this food waste reduction business, and when they first look at this, they looked at it as how do we change the world, and how do we reduce all of the waste that is occurring on every side of food, and first starting with animal

protein, and we spent one point five years looking at that and considering how we can bring this product, a shelfstable product that was normally going to waste, and bringing it to the food channel, particularly focusing on taking food that was going to be thrown away and getting it at very low cost and then creating a product that i would say would be a great value for the consumer that would be a shelfstable product, and after about 1.5 years of looking at that and looking at that, and talking with retailers, we were too early. we realize they easiest place to start was the low hanging fruit, and that was with produce, so we created our business, and we were fortunate to be able to encounter some really smart people who were focused in this area, and one of my partners, ron, is here. ron, say hello. ron has been working in the food waste business in over a decade, focusing on bringing food that was coming from farms and being

wasted and bringing it to food banks and the not-for-profit sectors, so we have created food star as a technology company. a for-profit business focused on how can we take this business and not make it be a sort of throw away and let's just see what we can do in a small way. how can we take the 64 billion pounds of food and put it to use for people to eat, and particularly in low income communities is where we are trying to focus, and so we created food star with two specific ideas. the first is ron has great relationships with farmers that are having significant amounts of food that are going to waste. it might be going to animal feed. it may be going to juicing, or they may just not be picked, so we are sourcing and finding those sources of fruits and vegetables and bringing those into retail markets, and we started a partnership with a company where we do this on a spontaneous basis, so it is not

every week or every month. whatever is available, whatever is excess, we are bringing it to market and are doing it at anywhere of discounts from 75%, -- 25% to 75%. and consumers love it. it is great food, and it is great fruits and vegetables. it has got great nutritional value. the company loves it, and the employees love it, and it has been an incredibly successful program, and we are looking to expand that program with other retailers in the west coast and eventually expanded beyond the west coast. the second aspect i mentioned to you is about technology, and we are developing primarily with third-party vendors and partners and leveraging technologies that are creating today, to use technology, as roger said, to improve the efficiency of the supply chain, and so there are a lot of very sophisticated tools that exist today to be able to improve everything from understanding, of course, the entire growing process to

looking at transportation, looking at the time the food is spent at a distribution facility, when it is at your dock, when it is in the back room, how long it takes from being in the back room to being on the shelf, how long it is on the shelf, what is the life itle of that food, where is the coming short code date. and so we are beginning to integrate these technologies and these two -- bringing these two retailers to enable them to become much more efficient and to reduce their shrink, and instead of putting a plastic bag out there that has got black bananas and melons that are completely juicy, getting it before hand and letting customers know you can get great value by buying these products, and we have created flash sales, so two or three

times per week, the company has flash sales, notifying customers, tomorrow at 4:00 p.m., from 4:00 until 5:00 p.m., we have got bananas and melons and cucumbers, and they are 60% to 80% off. consumers, once again, have loved it. it is great product and great nutrition, so we are bringing these technologies to the retail industry to help reduce food waste, and we are interesting in bringing more of us who are focused on this together, because this is a collaborative issue, and we need to work together, and that is what we are desirous of doing. one of the things we have talked about is there is technology that exists today to reduce that 23% figure, where we can all reduce food waste in our home, and there are a lot of ideas that people talk about as we go further along, and i am pleased to see that you went to be part of the solution. thank you. is the program director at food shift. >> hello, my name is kelly, and i am the program director at

food shift is an oakland-based nonprofit. we have been around for about two years, and what we are doing is we are looking to reduce food waste. we are doing this and a couple of ways. the key is education and action. people need to know about this problem. what we have learned from campaigns overseas is that a lot of people do not have an idea about the problem of food waste and what they can do to solve it, so about 1.5 years ago, we started an action campaign. you may have seen some of our advertisements and bart. we are not only telling people about the environmental and the social and the financial consequences of wasted food, we are also trying to arm them with tips and tools to reduce it. what do you do before you get to the grocery store? how do you help plan your meals? how do you get your family involved to moving food that is soon to be spoilt to the front of the fridge? what are some everyday tips and tools to arm the way you think about meal planning and storage.

where do you put eggs if they are from the market or the farmers market? these kinds of everyday tips and tools for our consumers. we are also really excited about some programs that we are launching in 2014. we are currently working with the oakland unified school district to do a food recovery program, so what we do is we work with parents on site and help them with food safety and food handling, and we take the recovered surplus food that is perfectly edible but because of federal meal plan regulations cannot be returned to the cafeteria. in schools in oakland, giving it back to the students. one of our sites, 98% the students are using some kind of food assistance, so this helps supplement their mealtimes. we are also working on a program in partnership with a local grocery store to create jobs in the recovery, processing, and distribution of food.

we are inspired by valley girl foodstuffs, d.c. central kitchen, and l.a. kitchen, and others, trying to find ways to make this problem into a solution. we are interested in definitely the source production, which is obviously the first step in reducing food waste, but food that is going to go to waste that cannot be resold at a grocery store, excess food from a restaurant that they will not sell to a customer but is otherwise edible, what can we do with that food, and how do we turn that to a positive? we believe we can turn the tables on how typical food recovery operates, which is volunteer-based and run from nonprofits, and how can we use a revenue-producing model with food waste. >> perfect. patricia kelly. >> thank you. patricia kelly, i am with business development. it is kind of fun watching us go through the panel.

i am in the space of source reduction. we started with ashley at the end of the food chain, and now we are going back to the very beginning. lean path is automated food waste reduction systems. we have been in business for 10 years. we have clients in 49 states. we are working in canada and have conversations with many countries outside the u.s. that are looking for automation. we live by three statements in the company. you cannot manage what you cannot measure. pre, you canol influence post. this is sort of where my thought process goes, and when i am eating somebody new, typically a presentation consists of me providing all of the information with the data you have heard so far, and then we plugged into all right, it cannot manage what you cannot measure, and let's look at the lean path, and lean path consists of an element of software and hardware and a lot of coaching and consulting that goes with it.

once food has been identified to go to waste, it has a scale, and on top of that scale there is a camera and a tracker. this is a tracker. it is essentially a tablet, and this tablet is encased in steel, so it is ready for that durable kitchen environment. you can pass it around. just to show you how easy it is to work and how easy it is to transact. we have created a user interface that it is so simple that the front line employees can engage with it, and also the analytic capability that is sophisticated and state-of-the-art, so we want to make sure that, yes, our technology is the best in the world, but equally important is that we say nobody is going to be successful without a cultural change. we do a lot of coaching. this allows baseline understanding of metrics, and then we establish goals, and then we establish -- and then we work with coaching, and working on a day-to-day basis on how

that affects procurement and menu planning and production. all of these are part of the systems that are created, again, through metrics for management. >> to visualize a little bit, i looked at the website, and there are some nice photographs. you are selling to organizations preparing large amounts of food? >> most often, it is commercial, but at the end of q1 2014, we will have a mobile app, for those small, owner operated businesses, so they can actually participate as well, but what you see on the website right now, most often, it is commercial, somewhere in excess of 250,000 per year. >> so when they are producing food, they can start to measure, capture, and repurpose what used to be food waste in their food -- foodn supply chain production supply chain. >> that is right. food measurement. >> so as you can see, we have got a lot of different perspectives here.

one common thread is there are a lot of economic gains to be had, whether it is nonprofit or for-profit, every step in the supply chain. that is the good news. people stand to profit from doing something differently. momentum driver whenever you are talking about a change in the industrial setting, and i want to talk about the low hanging fruit, so to speak. and it is an apt place to focus because a lot of this is centered on fresh produce. fruits and vegetables spoil very quickly seafood is another area where there is a lot of loss, but i read a great report, and i encourage you all if you want to dig deeper, the national defense -- national resources defense council. there is a woman who is quite prolific in writing about food waste. she put out a report called "wasted." and it will have all of the summaries you would ever want. let's focus on the consumer losses, just over half of the total food waste in the united states. about 40%.

this seems to be the area of the greatest promise in terms of sheer volume, so let me address this question to zero energy, food shift, and to some extent, and lean path. i know to some extent, you are not in this area. how is your company addressing consumer losses? what are the biggest challenges, because a lot of this has to do with established behavioral patterns, psychology, and these are areas where it is hard for a company to affect what consumers are doing at home or at the point of consumption. >> at the place where we are working in that area, there is a lot of opportunity. right now, about 60% of what is going to the landfills is organic waste. in california, there is legislation that is requiring that landfills divert 75% from landfills by 2020, so the way we look at food waste is that you first take out your recyclables, and then you take out the organics, and then you have a small fraction of trash at the end, and i mentioned to the

electricity, but we have smaller plants that are generating 100 kilowatts. we have a facility that we are working on right now that is converting it into cng fuels. rout of picking up trash will run enough fuel for that collection vehicle run for the rest of the day. the opportunities are grand and everywhere, and the biggest obstacle is twofold. one is getting the word out there. everybody knows that this technology exists, it is economically feasible and that there are a host of benefits for that. and what makes it difficult is the collection part of it. in some places, you have the green bins.

a lot of places do not have that, and every district, every place handles it a bit differently. in the area where i am from where we put our first facility, there is a restaurant program, and a number of the restaurants in the area have signed up, and there is special collection from those restaurants, and the food waste from the restaurant is what fuels the smaller facility that we have. but it is definitely in collection, and as far as improving it, it is about education, but not just to the consumer, because it does not matter if the consumer is educated is the system is not there to take the separation and correctly convey that the whole way through to the digester, though it is a whole stream of education, and along with that, it is just getting the technology in place so that way it can be utilized to its maximum abilities. ask food shift,

how do you address consumer attitudes and consumer behavior at the home or in restaurants? i thought about my roommates. about half of them are pretty good about turning off the lights, composting and things you had a clear economic incentive to do. the other half did not care. nothing i said could get them to change. i feel like the population is split along those lines. how are you reaching out to people who maybe have not heard that message or are not receptive to it, to get them to do things differently? >> that is perhaps one of the biggest hurdles that we or any sort of education or awareness group faces. how do you deal with different behavior changes? the epa has a "food too good to waste" tool. one thing that they found is one of the biggest motivators is not the environmental concern, the financial concern, which is a

lot of individuals in oakland. it is this an eight -- this innate-- it is this feeling of sadness when you see wasted food. there is something within us that we cannot name, and it is difficult to talk about. that is something we are trying to tap him as well. we have different angles. we talk about how 25% of the freshwater used in food production goes to food we never eat. we talk about how one in six people in alameda county do not know where the next meal is going to come from. most of those are children or senior citizens. we talk about the financial implications, $1600, and in some estimations up to $2200 a year , for the average consumer and what they are spending on food they never eat. we do a lot of different levels. i think the biggest issue is -- it is coalition building, working together. we need macro and micro change. in the trenches, we need more food recovery programs. we need people working on gleaning programs.

we need to figure out different ways that in everyday practice we get food from what would be the trashcan and into people's bellies. we also need macro change. we talk about policy changes. we need to evaluate the way food recovery operates. the other issue we are finding is that, for example, san francisco food runners is an amazing program. 200 volunteers. they move 15 tons of food a week. they are just making a dent in the food that goes to waste in this city. part of the issue is, they are going for foundation funding. they are in the area a lot of us in the nonprofit world are in. you are not able to pay volunteers and cannot provide reliable service. how do we change that? we are working on a job training and job placement program. that way, we can use -- we can train people. we can pay them to recover food, to process food. that money comes back not as profit, but goes back into the programs.

we can get another grocery store on board, another restaurant. another program we are working on in terms of restaurants started in brazil. it is similar to a program out of austin, texas. it is encouraging consumers in restaurants to have smaller portions. the program and brazil for , example, you have a restaurant that signs on, and they can offer an entrée that is about 2/3 of the size but the same price. the difference goes toward a local nonprofit working to end childhood hunger. these different tactics made to -- need to work together and we need to work together to be able to, when we have a client that comes in or an issue -- you know what? that is not what we do. let me tell you about lean path and how they can help a large-scale grocery store deal with waste in terms of source reduction. >> either of you want to chime in? >> that is interesting

technology. they are starting to be developed related to oxygen. oxygen is the key factor food and forting it to age. there is one company called fresh paper and one called blue apple that have created products you can have in your refrigerator that you can put with your produce. it extends the shelf life anywhere from five days to up to three weeks. there are technologies that are now becoming developed. there are technologies that are coating- that are fruits and vegetables in a vegetable-based gel that extends the shelf life of them. there are other innovative practices that forward thinking companies are using. we have a company called organic girl. you may have seen the product in the markets. it is an organic salad business. i have created in their own -- they have created in their own packaging some oxygen deprivation. it reduces the amount of oxidation that occurs in food.

they also are focused on -- as soon as it is picked in the morning, within 24 hours, that project is in your store. there are ways that even the growers can become much more efficient. it is truly economical for them to do this. for the ones that actually care and want to reduce food waste -- farmers hate seeing this food being thrown away. we all hate seeing the green muck in our refrigerator. there is a san francisco-based company which is using interesting applications for consumers for giving recipes. when you have stuff that is aging, you can cut it up. you can make a sauce or a soup. a lot of things we can do as consumers to reduce the 23% figure, which is so significant. >> i think it is worth mentioning on this topic. there is a lot of great writing on this. food labels, expiration dates --

there is no uniformity and standard there. it is up to the food manufacturer what they put on there. that anchor may mean something or may not. typically, it would signify what should be moved out of retail. it may have months or weeks of refrigeration life. does anyone want to speak to innovation in that space and consumer education? >> i can speak to that a little bit. to your first question, one of the things i can say as far as education -- get some teenagers on board. they will get out there and tell everybody what you are telling them, and make their parents do what i am telling them to do. they are very effective and persistent. they are super irritating when they get on their soapbox. one of the things that i have been trying to work on, as far as -- what do we do with all the

food? for instance, i think you were talking about recipes for different things. we see things like bananas will come in. that and salad greens are constant. the bananas, once they look a certain way, people do not want them. it is purely a statics -- it is purely aesthetic, it has nothing to do with taste or what you can do with the banana. it has only to do with the fact that it has got brown on it. trying to educate people around aesthetics can be really difficult. i would say generational. trying to be innovative in that space with these foods -- salad greens, i have not figured out what to do it. you have to eat them or compost them. that is what i do. with bananas, i have discovered different ways you can use them.

part of it is the reeducation process for me is for me as well. i am noticing i have to change the way i think about things in order to create something out of them. i am fine with eating brown bananas. i think they taste good myself. when you have five cases are brown bananas, suddenly you hate them with a passion. i have probably eight different recipes that i have just figured out. i scoured the internet for recipes, and there are none. i have the recipes, if you want them. the education process is not just about educating other people. it is about educating ourselves as well. is about making sure we understand what we need to do. i think i just circumvented your whole question and went bananas. at any rate, the education process really does start at home first.

it starts with asking certain questions about what we will eat. what i have noticed is these at-risk kids i work with -- these kids are from families where homes are broken. the mother might be in jail because she did something to the dad, or the dad might be in jail because he did something to the mom. or they shot somebody they were pissed off at because they were drunk. these kids do not always eat at night. what they eat is often what i am bringing them from whole foods, who just donated to me. these are the kids that need food. i will go to the local high school where kids have money, and they do not need food so much. but when you talk to these two different demographics, the kids who need food for who you think do not know anything actually are a lot more open to listening to what i have to say than the kids who have food.

that blew me away. i did not expect kids who are educated, who come from good families, that they would not want to listen. i do not want to change their habits, because it is too hard. it is too hard to stick something in your refrigerator that is going to keep your food from turning brown. it is hard to move your food from the back to the front. it is easier to just stick it in when you get it. that is the attitude a lot of these kids have. i was like, little punk. i went to the at-risk kids, and they listen to what i said, because nobody had said it to them before. there were not being inundated with media or their ipad or iphone, or their nanny or whatever. it would listen to what i said and would make a change. they would take the tomato they use in their households, as most of them are hispanic, and they would cut the brown spot off of it rather than throwing it away. as they started doing that,

their mom started to do it. maybe their brother never will do it, but their grandma started to do it. dad would not throw the tomato away, and would wait for mom to cut it. i know we are talking about cultural differences, but the fact is, behaviors started to change. i am small. i only had eight employees over this last year. i am cycling it through my insurance business to afford it. the fact of the matter is, i did see change. it is possible. the education process does require a lot of work and passion. we can figure out a way to clone my dna. then, we will be able to do it. >> a topic for another time, perhaps. >> i want to move up the supply chain a little bit to food star and waste cowboy. we know losses are less between production and postconsumer. retail is still a problem.

this is where you deal with the consumer picking this issue. -- consumer pickiness issue. i know you are both addressing this with their respective operations. alleviating losses in retail -- is it a pure economics question? if you drop the price low enough, people are happy to take it? or create value where there was none, the distribution part of the supply chain? what do you see work, and what does not work? >> we waste around 28% of the produce we buy at a supermarket. produce makes up 10% of sales, but 15% of the profits. if we were to cut down our produce waste to 14%, we would -- the supermarket industry would go from profit to loss. waste is essential right now to america. if we stop wasting food, the entire economy would go into cardiac arrest. it would be like a longtime alcoholic going dry cold turkey. it would be catastrophic.

the opportunity -- if you read dana's report, 10% of freshwater, 20% of freshwater, eight percent of the energy, and 25% of the land. if we, as consumers, stop wasting money, supermarkets would be laying off people. we did not get into this situation overnight. we need to restructure the american economy. it is a long-term process, but it has to be done because of the resources we are burning through. what we are trying to do here is invest in new sectors. you can recapture some of that energy if you do it right. it is tough, but you can do it. you can use some food to feed animals, to replace chemical fertilizers. that is a lot of displacement of existing investments and basically lobbying dollars. but it requires organization. the other thing is, we have come to look at hunger as a monolithic thing.

that 50 million hungry people number is a result of answering the question, in the last year, did you feel hungry, or did you worry about your next meal is coming from? that equates people on the streets with long-term comorbidities, with people who just lost their job and will get another one. unless you break it down to why people are hungry, what are the behaviors that lead to hunger and the behaviors that lead to waste, we are not going to make a dent in things. for example, senior citizens -- a lot of them are hungry and have poor nutritional outcomes, because when the spouse dies, they do not like to be or cook alone. and who does? there are programs of college students going in, not just dropping off the meal, but sitting down and eating. you can do all sorts of things with social media to put people together. but if you look at it simply as a logistics program, it is always going to boil down to a cultural problem.

d.c. central kitchen, starting l.a. kitchen, retired marine corps, spent 30 years in the marine corps and then started running the greater chicago food depository, and brought it up to speed logistically. changed the face of the industry. he said you can have all the technology and all the freight management systems you want. ultimately, it comes down to culture. the combination of approaches has to build a new economy and a new culture. that is the goal. that is what you do. >> roger is saying essentially this is all about economics at some point. it is really hard for the farmer, for the retailer, to look at this and justify making investments and changing relatively entrenched industries to say, how can we make this more efficient? how can we make this more profitable for us?

the key driver we are seeing is more of a moral issue. we want to do well. we want to look at this issue. how can we reduce waste? no one wants to throw the food away. as an example we approached originally -- our first customer was walmart. we took this idea to walmart to reduce food waste. walmart throws away -- i am not going to quote the numbers, but it is insanely high, the food they throw away each year. they know it. they are one of the few that measures every piece of food that goes through their system, and they know what is happening with it. we gave them some solutions. they did not take them for reasons i will not go into. what they ended up doing is realizing there was an opportunity for them to change their supply chain and look at their purchasing patterns and how they take certain of their products.

instead of taking all the products to all the distribution centers. holding some products that they probably bought so much they will never have enough consumer demand, because they get so much at such great prices. hold it there, and figure out ways they can take that product them donate that food. they are donating. the numbers are, once again, so large. they truly are interested in caring. they want to do this. effectively, it is going to start with this feel-good basis. we need to show retailers and consumers that the economics behind this are really important and really valuable. it is not just about what is lost but where there is true , profit margin opportunity. those are some of the tools we are bringing forward, and the partners that have those tools. it shows there are really significant economics and we do not just have to accept the fact that we are going to throw away a certain amount of our food, whoever we are and wherever we

are in the supply chain. >> if i could talk about walmart. walmart from arkansas can tell a any one of its coolers has leaky seal. they can read the temperature in any cooler. most food banks cannot tell you where the trucks are. everyone in the supply chain, 24/7, 365. you get to be late for walmart once. food banks are open monday through friday. they do not have the money. walmart can bury every food bank in produce every day of the week. food banks are the problem. they do not have the resources to move that food. they should be in the composting business, so they are always the answer to problems. i should aggregate it someplace so you can get it in without using more gas than you generate. the culture -- when walmart says do it, every walmart in the world would do it. the culture is solvable on the business end. it is the nonprofits, the charities, that do not have the

-- i ran nonprofits for years. to think,get that take yourself off line and say how would you like to do it? at some point, the policy issue is not just food policy or tax benefit policy. do you really give these people the resources to do what you say you are going to do? it is not just shoving food into a hopper. or dropping off food for people and saying there you go. it is a real question. do we want to make the investment it takes to do it the right way? >> a quick comment. we have multiple business articles, colleges and universities, health care, casinos, hotels -- the ones we have had the most challenging time with our the retail. retail.he i have developed theories. you obviously have more exposure than i do. first of all, it was a concept of, waste is negligence. therefore, it could lead to job insecurity. there are a lot of reasons. it all comes down to economics.

as i listen to the conversations and the objections, it seemed to come to a psychology where they did not want to see the metrics. they don't want to see the numbers. they did not want to have to create a solution once they sell those numbers. we are still struggling with it. we know there is a huge amount there. depending on how big they are or how small they are, they are receptive. the bigger they get -- it is a thing here. they are exposing me to stuff i had not thought to. i was concluding it was the psychology was not ready to see that in black and white. things. are stubborn i want to invite audience questions. make your way to the microphone. i am going to ask one final question of the panelists, and request short answers. the european union -- they have a common food waste policy across 27 different countries.

they have a target of 50% food waste reduction and a 20% reduction of food chain inputs by 2020. that is an aggressive goal. coming on the heels of the least productive session of the u.s. congress in history, is there something we can hope for in the u.s. on par with that, federal or state level food reduction targets? or is there something people in the audience should be asking local representatives to do to grease the wheels for your various goals? is there something missing that the government could spur? >> as i mentioned before, in the state of california, there is actually legislation that is pushing the waste sector to deal with organic waste, or a -- 75% reduction or diversion from landfills by 2020. really make people confront that.

because of that, we have seen an interest in california. we have seen interest in other places, where people are realizing there is an economic benefit to do it. we are starting to see that type of legislation in the united states. one thing i would say about europe as well is, the biogas -- the european biogas association or german biogas association -- 800 dryrently have anaerobic digesters and are expecting that to increase to 2000 by 2020. they are putting a big emphasis on biogas. we are seeing that in california, and it is creeping up other places. there really will be movement in that direction. >> a section of the irs code e3a needs to be changed to give a credit. that will spur a lot of movement.

the federal food waste reduction act is the most hypocritical thing you have ever read. it says that for any contractor over $25,000, the administrators will require the contractor to take measures to reduce food waste and to recover food. the next paragraph said the waynistrator shall in no take financial responsibility for those efforts. if that were true, you guys would be able to find yourselves like that. make some change. >> i already said it. get the teens. >> we launched a petition to the epa administrators. i mentioned earlier there was an epa project called "the food too good to waste toolkit." it is aimed at municipalities, but expanding. we want epa administrators to put their backing and funding behind this toolkit. there are videos giving cooking lessons.

there are training programs for people who are interested in spreading the word about food waste and what you can do with that. go to our facebook page or our website and sign that petition, and help us get epa funding behind the toolkit. >> i do not have any confidence in the political system to affect change their -- affect change there. i am sorry to say there is not any optimism there. to become educated is the process. the more we become educated in understanding what we can do in our own personal life and personal homes, and how we can integrate that. and for the businesses, understand how it is truly an economic benefit for them, whether it is profit driven or marketing, branding, and feeling good about it. that is the approach we think is going to drive the change we need to see happen. >> i am not confident on the

federal level, but i have a lot of confidence in the system, are dealing with a lot of municipalities that are very active. they are putting bans on local organics in the landfill. right now, it is very bottom-up. >> i am very pleased with the level of specificity. we had the tax code cited over there. >> one of the things that i think is very important is how we frame this. we say, there are lots of problems with food waste. there are lots of problems everywhere. but there is not just a problem. there are opportunities now. all of us are in things now that did not exist before. i am sure you are involved in movements that did not exist before. this is not just about the problem of food waste. it is about the opportunities of food waste that did not exist

before, making sure people are aware of the opportunities. people hear about problems every day. but what could happen there that was not before? that is where we could make headway. >> are there any audience questions? thank you. hi, my name is kate. servicegrocery delivery in new york city. the thing that kept hitting me is that the problem is with retail. other then the wonderful thing i am the flash sales, what wondering is -- if the retail system is so broken, what do we do to create a new way of selling food that does not have so much waste? i would rather see a redesigned way of selling food to people

than figuring out what we do with the waste. let's go back one step and figure out how. by company is less than a year old. 6% wasteetween 3% and already, most of that goes to my employees. that is my question. a maybe you all have heard an, the. as president of trader joe's. doug has been focusing on food waste reduction. he talks about code date. stampedause the date is does not mean the food is not gold or you have a risk. there needs to be greater education. create arying to retail store that sells expired date products.

he gets them at a discount and then creating a store for great values for products that are fine to eat. maybe you need to eat them quicker than you would let them sit on your shelf. are the key issue, there are many solutions we can look at. it is up to us. costcok buying we do at -- the amount of waste that can occur there is enormous. i do not mean to -- they are providing great value. often, it is just too much. we have to think about that and look at how we as consumers can reduce our purchasing. it is fascinating in food service. food service is starting to look at this because the economics are so big. they done a lot of food, but one thing that bon appétit management did. they said how are we going to look at food waste reduction?

they reduced the size of their trash cans and reduced the amount of trash cans. they saw food waste reduced by over 50% are that simple technique. if i'm answering your question. there are ways that we can do this better and smarter. it is just accepted, the shrink. people say that is what happens because that has always been done. the youth are saying the old ways are broken and we will do what we can going forward. we have young entrepreneurs creating technologies that can enable us to be a lot more educated about our choices and to take action to reduce the waste that is occurring. idea needs aug's lot of work. food has utility, food waste has utility. if you read michael moore's fat," food is not

just caloric and value. the idea of having food the rest of this will not eat and taking it to the hood. that is poor compared to changing everyone's behaviors, taking care of the environment. thecing food waste is not duty of the poor, shoveling it to them institutionalize is the problem and ratifies the nurses assist -- ratifies the value of the sell by dates. see, in theove to same way that the local campaign off. people would go to a local restaurant or locally owned theness, something along ways of food waste in a local store. places that are working on waste reduction in terms of what they are buying and how they are displaying food. instead of having a mound of

great prints, -- mound of grapefruits. getting together with how canneurs and saying we display food differently, how do we order food differently? i am not sure in terms of a delivery service. having people say -- berkeley aboutthey are great taking produce that is about to turn and doing value back. for one dollar you get food that is about to go. i seek out berkeley bowl because i know they do that. i go to stores that have that same mindset around food waste. those are things we need as well. of points ofa lot optimism touch upon here. of nudgings concept and behavioral economics is a really promising area of study. there aren't a lot of environmental structural changes

that you can change -- there are a lot of internal structural changes you can change behavior with. thank you all for being a great audience. thank you to our panelists. please feel free to catch them. some of them have to rush off, there is more wine and beer, stick around and continue the conversation. thank you again to our hosts. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> on the next "washington we will talk politics ahead of the 2014 and 2016 elections. a look at the republican party , author of "the gop civil war." then, the future of the democratic party with al from. liveington journal" is

every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. special airing of our q&a with former ohio representative robert ney. he talks about his memoir, "sideswiped." iner his decade-long career congress, he was sent to serve 30 months in federal prison. he was released to an alcohol rehabilitation and ohio 45 months. 7:00 p.m.ob ney, eastern on c-span. >> you are watching c-span's 2013 year in review. significant revelations about national security surveillance methods. documents leaked by former n.s.a. contractor edward snowden unveiled a widespread vacuuming

of voice and data communications. in june 2013, senator dianne feinstein spoke with reporters. she said the u.s. has to look for ways to get intelligence that is operable and ways that can prevent plots against americans. >> first of all, i really think that protecting the nation is important. secondly, protecting the nation within the principles of this great democracy and this great constitution is also important. now, the metadata is not constitutionally guaranteed to the supreme court has passed on that. but having said that, we have got to examine ways to be able to get data, to get intelligence that is operable and that can prevent plots from hatching and americans from being killed. that is the goal.

now if we can do it in another way, we are looking to do it in another way. we would like to. if we can't, we can't. >> could you say that this program has thwarted some specific attacks? >> well, it has. but that is classified. we discussed it in there. i gather there is -- i have to there is a report on that. i'm going to look at that report. >> senator, was this a regular meeting or did you put this together because -- >> we just put this together. because what happened -- we just put this together quickly as a briefing because on the floor a number of members came up to me and said we really need a briefing. and what also happened is members who briefed made comments they were astonished, they didn't know this was happening. we thought so many things that people have to deal with that it would be critical if we could bring members that were interested to come in. i think there was a good crosssection both of republicans

and democrats there. >> senator, are you able to share with us some of the concerns that members -- >> this took place in a classified briefing and we don't talk about the substance of it. >> are you considering looking at changes to the program? what kind of changes would be made? >> we are always open to changes. but that doesn't mean there will be any. it does mean that we will look at any ideas, any thoughts, and we do this on everything. >> we are with mark mazzetti, national security correspondent at the "new york times" bureau here in washington. we saw a clip of dianne feinstein back in june. she had just come from a briefing on the n.s.a. revelations. take us back a little bit. who was edward snowden and how did he get such access to the top secret material? and how did it make its way to publications like the "new york times"? >> edward snowden was a n.s.a. contractor working for a number

of companies. most recently booz allen. working as a computer systems administrator which gave him access to a tremendously wide array of classified files inside the n.s.a. system. i think the f.b.i. and n.s.a. are still trying to figure out the extent of what he took and how he did what he did. but what he did over the course of 2012 and 2013 was systematically download and copy files, thousands and thousands of files from a facility in hawaii that the n.s.a. ran. >> is there any idea, do you think the n.s.a. has any idea how much information he has? >> they are still trying to grapple with that. even so many months later to figure out exactly how much he took. and to some degree the american government has been scrambling with each new revelation in the

press, the foreign and the american press, to mitigate the damage whether it is relationships with other countries or other intelligence services. >> and you have been writing regularly about this story, the n.s.a. surveillance and revelations. what has been the most surprising thing that has been revealed in his treasure trove of data? >> i think that you go back to the very beginning. i think in my mind the most extraordinary document is really the first one that "the guardian" published which the court order ordering both collection of cell phone records of americans. i think that even after months and months of revelations about tapping the internet, about gaming, of all sorts of things you go back to this because it is extraordinary the reach of the order which allows the n.s.a. to gather data about pretty much every single phone call of americans, and i think that really is even to this day extraordinary.

>> it unfolded almost like a weekly serial novel. your most recent article was about online gaming, an infiltration there. what is the n.s.a. and the c.i.a. looking for? >> they are trying to just build up massive amounts of data, collect massive amounts of information in order to then go back and run searches in order to find what they call the needle in the haystack. and they say you have to build the haystack in order to get the needle. they are looking for terrorist activity. in this order they claim to find out cell phone records or e-mail records of people who might be engaged in the activity you need to build up a massive amount of data and then run algorithms to find the information. in the gaming story that i did,

it is hard to know exactly what it is that they were looking for in world of warcraft or in second life. they were, we believe, they thought that these games provided a venue for terrorists to go in, pose as different characters, and be able to discuss things in normal gaming code and actually discussing real world terrorist attacks. we don't have any evidence that was actually happening. >> we will show the c-span viewers on the year in review program some of the hearings held and some of the floor debate. what in general has been congress' reaction to the revelations? >> there have been episodic attempts by congress over the course of this year to restrict some of these activities. but nothing has really in the end happened of any significance. in part because congress itself is very torn about what they think about these things, and the democratic leadership of the senate, the senate intelligence committee, dianne feinstein has broadly supported this activity.

and so you have for the most part a congress that has blessed these activities of the n.s.a. so that is why any kind of real change is difficult. >> get back to the information with mark mazzetti in a moment. we wanted to show the floor debate on the amendment and other hearings this year on the n.s.a. surveillance program. >> in recent years, the information gathered from these programs provided the u.s. government with critical leads to help prevent over 50 potential terrorist events in more than 20 countries around the world. f.a.a. 702 contributed in over 90% of the cases. at least 10 of the events included homeland-based threats, and the vast majority business records fisa reporting contributed as well. it is a great partnership with

the department of homeland security in those with the domestic nexus. it has been our honor and privilege to work with director mueller and deputy director joyce. i will turn it over to sean. >> thank you for the opportunity to be here today. n.s.a. and the f.b.i. have a unique relationship and one invaluable since 9/11. i want to highlight a couple of the instances. in the fall of 2009, n.s.a. using 702 authority intercepted an e-mail from a terrorist located in pakistan. that individual was talking with an individual located inside the united states talking about perfecting a recipe for explosives. through legal process, that individual was identified and he was located in denver, colorado. the f.b.i. followed him to new york city and later executed search warrants with the new

york joint terrorism task force and n.y.p.d. and found bomb- making components and backpacks. he later confessed to a plot to bomb the new york subway system with backpacks. also working with business records, the n.s.a. was able to provide a previously unknown number of one of the coconspirators. this was the first core al-qaeda plot since 9/11 directed from afghanistan. another example, n.s.a. was monitoring a known extremist in yemen. this individual was in contact with an individual in the united states. individuals that we identified through a fisr that the f.b.i. applied for were able to detect a plot to bomb the new york

stock exchange. he had been providing information in support to the plot. the f.b.i. disrupted and arrested these individuals. also, david headley a u.s. citizen living in chicago. the f.b.i. received intelligence regarding his possible involvement in the 2008 mumbai attacks responsible for the killing of over 160 people. also, n.s.a. through 702 coverage of an al-qaeda affiliated terrorist found that headley was working on a plot to bomb a danish newspaper office that had published the cartoon depictions of the prophet muhammad. headley later confessed to personally conducting surveillance of the danish newspaper office. he and his coconspirators were convicted of this plot.

lastly, the f.b.i. opened an investigation shortly after 9/11. we did not have enough information nor did we find links to terrorism so we shortly thereafter closed the investigation. however, the n.s.a. using the business record fisa tipped us off that this individual had indirect contacts with a known terrorist overseas. we were able to reopen this investigation, identify additional individuals through the legal process and were able to disrupt this terrorist activity. >> now in order -- the way it works, is the -- there is an application that is made by the f.b.i. under the statute to the fisa court, we call it the fisc. they ask for and receive permission under this to get records relevant to a national security investigation and they

must demonstrate to the fisc it will be operated under the guidelines that are set forth by the attorney general under executive order 12333. it is limited to tangible objects. what does that mean? these are like records like the metadata, the phone records i have been describing but it is quite explicitly limited to things that you could get with a grand jury subpoena. those kinds of records. now, it is important to know prosecutors issue grand jury subpoenas all the time and do not need any involvement of a court or anybody else really to do so. under this program, we need to get permission from the court to issue this ahead of time so there is court involvement with the issuance of these orders which is different from a grand jury subpoena. but the type of records, just

documents, business records, things like that are limited to the same types of documents that we could get through a grand jury subpoena. the orders that we get last 90 days. we have to re-up and renew the orders every 90 days in order to do this. now, there are strict controls over what we can do under the order. and again, that is the bigger thicker order that hasn't been published. there is restrictions on who can access it in this order. it is stored in repositories at n.s.a. that can only be accessed by a limited number of people and the people who access it have to have rigorous and special training about the standards under which they can access it. in order to access it there needs to be a finding there is reasonable suspicion that you can articulate, that you can put into words that the person whose phone records you want to query is involved with some sort of

terrorist organizations and they are defined. it is not every one. they are limited in the statute. there has to be independent evidence aside from these phone records that the person you are targeting is involved with a terrorist organization. if that person is a united states person, a citizen or a lawful permanent resident you have to have something more than just their own speeches, their own readings, their own first amendment type activity. you have to have additional evidence beyond that, that indicates there is reasonable articulable suspicion that these people are associated with specific terrorist organizations. >> madam president, thank you. i'm reading the statement on behalf of the commission and i'm

here today instead of the vice president, who is unavailable. the commission is concerned about recent media reports that the united states authorities are accessing and processing on a large-scale the data of european union citizens using major u.s. online service providers. programs such as the so-called prism and the laws on the basis of which such programs are authorized potentially endanger the fundmental right to privacy and to data protection. the present case as reported in the media is also likely to reenforce the concerns of e.u. citizens regarding the use of their personal data online and in the cloud.

already in 2012, 70% of e.u. citizens were concerned that their personal data held by companies could be used by a purpose other than the one for which it was collected. the prism case as reported in the media also highlights the difference between the european union and the united states. whereas in the u.s. legal system only u.s. citizens and residents benefit from constitutional safeguards. in the european union everyone's personal data and the confidentiality of their communications are recognized and protected as fundamental rights irrespective of their nationality. while reports are particularly worrisome -- >> colleagues, commissioner, 500

million european citizens were very shocked last week to find that a foreign nation has unlimited access to every intimate detail of their private life. it was the president himself who came and answered to questions of congress and the media. so what do they see in europe? first of all, with all due respect to the commissioner, we get the commissioner for public health to deal with this issue. well, the president who should have stepped in his helicopter and flown to straussburg to answer 205 million citizens, we have at least the responsible commissioner to respond to terrorism in the house. where is the responsible commissioner? why aren't the prime political leaders of europe here? we also need to look at ourselves, colleagues. look around you.

an empty hemicycle. this house just over a decade ago when faced with a similar situation, something called echelon, we decided to set up a heavy parliamentary inquiry. today we get a handful of dedicated m.e.p.'s to address 500 million citizens. we are failing the european citizens at a time where trust in the european union is at an all-time low! we should be ashamed of ourselves. and then to the subject matter itself, first of all, we can't have been very surprised to find that the americans are spying on us because we knew about it. we have been asking questions again and again and again. but asking questions through the commission is like talking to a wall. i have a long list of nonanswers to my questions about the patriot act, about extra territorial application of u.s. law, and we get no answers from

the european commission. the member states because there is a national debate about the same issue everywhere. mrs. merkel will ask the americans for an explanation. in all of the member states, including the u.k. and in my member state, we are doing the same. the member states are doing double speak to the citizens. are we surprised that they are losing trust? and actually, you can say the citizens don't trust their governments any more, but the governments seem to trust their citizens even less. we are also losing moral authority here. how can we tell the governments of say egypt, iran, any other country that they should not spy on their citizens because that has no place in a democracy if we are doing the same on our citizens? we are losing credibility here. on the special relationship, i

have heard nearly all colleagues here refer to the special relationship with our best friends and closest allies the united states. i don't know if you listened to the statement of president obama when he was addressing the american audience who were worried. he said don't worry, you know, we are not spying on you as citizens, we are only spying on foreigners. foreigners. so that is us. that is european citizens. so what kind of a special relationship is that? and over the last 12 years, europe has bent over backwards to be the closest ally of the americans in the fight against terrorism. and i'm sure that we will continue to be their ally. but we need to see eye to eye. and we expect the commission and with all due respect i'm grateful you are here, commissioner borg, but this is a matter for political leadership. we need political leadership in europe to defend the rights of our citizens and the time is now. >> as we look at the specific

cases described in hearings earlier this week, what at first seemed like fairly dramatic claims, dozens of terror plots being foiled, looks a lot less dramatic under closer scrutiny. separate out prism and 702 from 215, you say 40 of these terror events again, whatever that is, were overseas so those may have involved prism or at least half may have involved prism in some significant way and 10 or 12 that are domestic. and then when you start looking at exactly what that means, you say how many of those was 215 actually used specifically? this metadata program. and well, the majority we believe. okay, six or seven. what are the cases? one involved finding someone

donating money to shababb, the ethiopia group. find and prosecute those people. that is not exactly a terror plot foiled and not clear why the same thing could not have been achieved using traditional tools. another terrorist already being monitored. whatever use was made of 125 -- 215 later. not clear why a more targeted use of that would not have been possible. there was this other case involving a supposed plot to bomb the new york stock exchange. was it a serious plot? the deputy director sean joyce for the f.b.i. says well, the jury thought it was serious because they were all convicted. as it turns out, there was no jury trial and they were not convicted of plotting terrorism. they were convicted of material support for a terrorist

organization meaning, again, assistance, money. and the new york stock exchange plot part of it appears to have involved the fact that the u.s. person involved in the case scoped out several tourist targets and it appears to have been abandoned. the u.s. attorney who worked the case said there was no specific plot. if these are the showpiece cases they are bringing up to justify the bulk collection of all americans' phone and possibly internet records, it is not clear that that is a justification that passes that cost benefit test. if you have general warrants to search any suspected place, any home, then yes it turns out when you are investigating crimes the thing that you used that will be helpful in solving those crimes was the general warrant. if instead, as we have, you have a system where warrants are specific and based on probable cause, that is what will end up when you look back having been useful in solving crimes.

i will say that they are similar in that they both appear to represent elements in a trend i think we have expected or suspected as being going on in the fisa court since 9/11, which is an increasing shift from restrictions on the front end on collection, that is to say up front restrictions on what can be acquired to back end restrictions where you have a very broad access, analysts themselves who have the discretion to select which things are going to be queried for search, which particular selectors will be entered to pull up particular phone records or e-mail contents. and then various back end procedures sort of counted on to prevent that from being misused. i think that is, frankly, a

dangerous shift in a way that is what the fourth amendment was supposed to prevent. it was centrally about moving discretion in searches from executive agents to neutral magistrates. and so, you know, instead of letting the agent decide which homes to search and having some kind of back end review to make sure that they weren't indiscriminately searching too many homes you would say no, you actually need an up-front warrant for each particular home you are going to search. the move away from that especially given the scale of the surveillance which i think makes any kind of meaningful oversight really more sort of a chimera than a reality as evidenced by the fact that what

they are forced to do is statistical sampling to determine their validity should not be sufficiently reassuring to make us comfortable with this larger scale shift from front end to back end restrictions. once you have got data, you have got the data. and the back end restrictions on what you do with it last only until you decide to change them and the record so far suggests we won't necessarily know if they decide to change them. >> do you see any limitation under the fourth amendment or the patriot act on the government's power to gather information en masse on people? >> yes, sir, i see very many limitations from both the fourth amendment and from the patriot act and the fisa act. there are many, many limitations that are put in and many checks and balances both to the -- >> let's go over a couple of

those. i assume you have to go to the fisa court and those are one of the checks and balances. could you go to the court and argue that you had a right to obtain, say, either an individual or every american's tax return? could you argue that with a straight face? >> i think they -- >> i have a long list of them. yes or no? >> any individuals tax return? there are separate laws that cover the acquisition of tax returns. >> you could get tax returns. could you get at somebody's permanent record from school? >> if it was relevant to the investigation you could go and ask for it. >> could you get somebody's hotel records? >> if it was relevant. >> the record of everybody who stayed in a particular hotel at a given time? >> if you can demonstrate to the court it is relevant. >> could you get my visa and master card records? >> if i can demonstrate to the court -- >> could you argue with a straight face you could create a database of every financial transaction that happen in the country because visa and master card only keep those for a couple of years?

>> mr. farenthold, that is dependent on what i'm investigating and what the relevance of the information and how it would be used and how it would be limited. all of those have to go into it it is not a simple yes or no blback or white image. >> could you get google searches? >> excuse me, sir? >> all of the searches on a search engine. >> i would have to make a showing to the court that that kind of information is relevant. >> get all google searches and come back and say we will search them later when we got that information? >> it would depend on the way i would be able to search them and again under 215 of these -- of this statute that we are talking about, it is only if i can show that it is related to specific terrorist organizations. >> can you get the g.p.s. data from my phone? >> i'm sorry? >> the g.p.s. data or mapping software on my phone, too? >> only if it is relevant to investigation of the specific

terrorist organizations. >> how is having every phone call that i make to my wife, to my daughter relevant to any terror investigation? >> i don't know that every call that you make to your wife and >> but you have got them. >> i don't know that they would be relevant, and we would probably not seek to query them because we wouldn't have the information we would need to make that query. >> we are here today for a very simple reason. to defend the fourth amendment. to defend the privacy of each and every american. and the director of national intelligence has made clear the government collects the phone records without suspicion of every single american in the united states. my amendment makes a simple but important change. it limits the government's collection of those records so

those records that pertain to a person who is the subject of an investigation pursuant to section 215. opponents of this amendment will use the same tactics that every government throughout history has used to justify its violation of rights. fear. they will tell you that the government must violate the rights of the american people to protect us against those who hate our freedoms. they will tell you there is no expectation of privacy in documents stored with a third- party. tell that to the american people and our constituents back home. we are here to answer one question for the people we represent -- do we oppose the suspicionless collection of every american's phone records? >> the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman reserves. who seeks recognition? >> i reserve the balance. >> the gentleman from florida seeks recognition.

>> madam chair, i rise to claim time. >> the the gentleman is recognized for 7 1/2 minutes. >> i'm very happy to yield three minutes to the gentleman, very distinguished chairman of the house intelligence committee, the gentleman from michigan mr. rogers. >> the gentleman from michigan is recognized. >> thank you, madam chairman. i think the american people, certainly some well-intentioned members in this chamber have legitimate concerns and they should be addressed and we should have time and education on what actually happens in the particular program of which we speak. i will pledge to each one of you today and give you my word that this fall when we do the intel authorization bill we will work to find additional privacy protections with this program that has no e-mail, no phone calls, no names, and no addresses. 14 federal judges have said yes,

this comports with the constitution. 800 cases and between the 197 9 case have affirmed the underpinnings of the legality of this case. 800. so 14 judges are wrong and 800 different cases are wrong. the legislators on both intelligence committees, republicans and democrats, are all wrong. why is it that people of both parties came together and looked at this program at a time when our nation is under siege by those individuals who want to bring violence to the shores of the united states? because those who know it best support the program because we spend as much time on this to get it right, to make sure the oversight is right. no other program, no other program has the legislature, the judicial branch, and the executive branch doing oversight of a program like this. if we had this in the other agencies we would not have problem -- problems, excuse me.

and think about who we are in this body. have 12 years gone by and our memories faded so badly we forgot what happened on september 11? this bill turns off a very specific program. it doesn't stop so-called spying and other things that this has been alleged to do. because that is not what is happening. it is not a surveillance bill. it is not monitoring. it doesn't do any of those things. what happened after september 11 that we didn't know on september 10 and again passing this amendment takes us back to september 10 and afterward we said wow there is a seam, a gap. somebody leading up to the september 11 attacks, a terrorist overseas called a terrorist living amongst us in the united states and we missed it because we didn't have this capability. what if we would have caught it? the good news is we don't have to what if. it is not theoretical. 54 times this and the other program stopped and thwarted terrorist attacks both here and

in europe, saving real lives. this isn't a game. this is real. it will have a real consequence. this is hard. think about the people who came here before us in this great body. madison. lincoln. kennedy served here. the issues they dealt with and politics of big and moving america forward while upholding the article one mandate to this house that we must provide for the general defense of the united states and think of those challenges. >> the amash amendment would have prevented government from invoking section 215 of the patriot act. to allow collecting of data but not the content of the calls unless the government had a reasonable suspicion that a specific target was involved in terrorism.

it fell one vote short. 205-217. 93 republicans voted for the amendment and 134 against. >> france, mexico, brazil and other countries, we insist on freedom and privacy in solidarity with our friends in germany, we say [speaking german]. and we insist on freedom and privacy in solidarity with our friends in france, we say [speaking french]. we insist on freedom privacy in solidarity with our friends in mexico and throughout the spanish speaking world, we say [speaking spanish]. in solidarity with our friends in brazil, we say [speaking in

portuguese]. we insist in freedom of privacy. the state, the state has made this equation. security or liberty, take your pick. listen to benjamin franklin's well-known admonition in 1755 he said, "those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." today, in 2013, faced with a government which moves without morality, without respect for liberty or law, here or abroad, without adherences to the

constitution, let us declare that we have made the choice and we choose liberty! [cheers and applause] we choose liberty over a national security state. >> as a result of edward snowden's disclosures, i have learned that your cell phone turned off can be used as a listening device. an open microphone. turned off. as a result of edward snowden's disclosures, your cell phone's locating devices can be used when your cell phone is turned off. the greatest fear i have is that nothing will change. there is a general apathy for what is happening because "it is not about me."

i'm reminded on the statement of the wall of the holocaust museum. first they came for the socialists, and i did not speak out because i was not a socialist. then they came for the trade unionists. and i did not speak out because i was not a trade unionist. then they came for the jews, and i did not speak out because i was not a jew. then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me. who is looking at all of this personal information? how will it be used? how will it be abused? stand up, america, we are mad as hell and we want you to stop this spying on us now. [cheers] >> look at the program that we have. we as american citizens, everyone at this table is also an american citizen.

have agreed that we would take our personal data and put it into a pile, a lockbox. that would only be looked at when we had reasonable and articulable suspicion that we had connection to a foreign al- qaeda or related terrorist group and look into that box. in 2012, we had 288 such selectors that we could go and look into that. that is it. of the billions of records, only 288. and with that, we had tremendous oversight. when you look at the amount of oversight from this committee alone and from others, from within the d.n.i., the department of defense, with our own director of compliance works with our own general counsel and with our own i.g. and with all of our compliance individuals at every level everything that we

do on this program is audited 100% on the business record fisa. 100%. the data is kept separate from all of the other data that we have. i think it is important to understand that the leaker did not have access to this data. period. the technical safeguards that we have there ensure that no one else gets access to it and no one can get a query unless it goes to one of those 288 numbers of the numbers that are currently on the list. only 22 people at n.s.a. are authorized to provide numbers, to approve numbers, and about 30 are authorized to look into that database and that is it. when you look at the number of people that we have and the oversight and compliance that we have on this program, and what it does to protect our civil liberties and privacy, we couldn't think of a better way to do that. let me give you some thoughts here because i think this is

important for our country to think about this. if you look at the trends in the c.t. arena, in 2012 it was the highest globally that has been ever. over 15,000 people killed. in just this last month, 2,336 people were killed. 1,510 injured in pakistan, afghanistan, syria, iraq and nigeria, and yet there has not been a mass casualty here in the u.s. since 2001. that is not by luck. they didn't stop hating us. they didn't say that they were going to just forgive this. they continue to try. it is the great members in the intelligence community, our military, our law enforcement that have stood up and said this is our job and we do it with our partners and our allies.

and it has been a great partnership. when you look at the numbers that we gave you early on about the numbers of terrorist-related events that we helped stop, recall that 13 were in the u.s., 25 were in europe. they are closer to the threat. it is easier to get to europe and they are going after them. and i think it is a privilege and honor from the united states perspective to know that we have helped stop incidents there. as congressman king said, one incident was called 9/11. we call that one incident. that should never happen again. that is what we are about here. that is what we are trying to do. i think it is also important to note that we have asked industry's help. ask, okay, more accurately, we have compelled industry to help

us in this manner, by court order. and what they are doing is saving lives. and they are being penalized because they are helping to save lives in our way of life so that people sitting behind me can express their feelings. that is something we all stand up for so they can say what they believe. we think it is important that they have the facts. industry has helped because they were compelled to help. and i will tell you there are a lot of patriots out there that know that what they are doing is saving lives not only here but in europe and around the world and it is the right thing to do. and it is done under court order. i think it is absolutely vital that we understand that. so where do we come from? eight plus years, we have been a team for seven plus years. this is the greatest workforce i

have ever met. these are patriots who every day come to work saying how can we defend this country and protect our civil liberties and privacy? nothing that has been released has shown that we are trying to do something illegal or unprofessional. when we find a mistake, a compliance issue, we report it to this committee, to all our overseers and we correct it. in the business record fisa and in the 702 there have been no willful violations. under our executive order 12333 there have been 12 over a decade. the majority were done in foreign space on foreigners. i think that is important to understand. for our foreign partners and our allies, we hold ourselves to that same standard no matter if we operate here or abroad.

if we do something that does not fall within an intelligence requirement, it is wrong. we report it, we hold our people accountable. if they did that willfully and disobeyed orders, then they are held accountable and most all of those people are gone. three of them were military. two were given a court martial, reduced in rank, half a month's pay for two months and 45 days extra duty. we hold our people accountable and we report to the committee everything that we are doing. as we go forward in the future one of the things that we talked about -- this is a tough time for n.s.a. where everybody says what are you doing or why are you doing it? here is what we do, when we get together, we don't -- well, maybe a couple times we whine. but we actually say it is much more important for this country

that we defend this nation and take the beatings than it is to give up a program that would result in this nation being attacked. we would rather be here in front of you today telling you why we defended these programs than having given them up and have our nation or our allies be attacked and people killed. and the interesting part is we have shown we can do both. defend the country and protect our civil liberties and privacy. chairman, ranking member, it has been an honor and privilege to work with this committee even though at times you wirebrush us. you know that we are going to tell you the truth, the whole truth, and everything that we know every time, that is our commitment to you. and that is our commitment to this country.

>> we got on the press account the n.s.a. is collecting billions of cell phone location records every day and reporters gathering information or communication of information of online gaming sites. the stories suggest the activities are directed abroad but we know the n.s.a. was making plans to obtain cell site location information under section 215. we also know that the n.s.a. engaged in bulk collection of internet metadata under the fisa register statute. it suggests to me under that kind of a legal interpretation of fisa the n.s.a. could collect the same amounts of massive information domestically that these researchers are suggesting they are collecting abroad. maybe i should direct at you, i

know the program authorized the bulk e-mail and other internet metadata was shut down in 2011 because it wasn't operationally useful. but under the current law would the n.s.a. be able to restart the bulk collection of internet data? >> i think that if the n.s.a. and the department of justice were able to make a showing to the fisa court that the collection of internet metadata in bulk, which is a category of information that is not protected by the fourth amendment, that if it were relevant to an authorized investigation and could convince the fisa court of that yes, it would be authorized. >> it was shut down before as not being operationally useful. would you have to go to the court? >> i believe we would have to. >> to restart the bulk collection of internet data, would you have to go to the court? >> i believe we would. >> mr. cole? >> yes, mr. chairman. under the fisa statute i think you would have to get court authority just like you would

under 215 to be able to do that and would only last for a period of time. there is no active authority for it right now. >> setting aside any technology limitations, would it authorize you to obtain internet metadata, not just e-mail? >> i think that is correct, but would be limited to the metadata in that regard. >> if i could make sure i understand mr. cole's answer. the only limitation would be that it would be metadata? >> it cannot be content. and the latest order of the fisa court under 215 specifically excluded cell site location as well. >> i was going to add that you would have to show that the categories of metadata that you were seeking was in fact relevant to the authorized investigation. >> mr. cole, you talked about the legislation senator lee and

i talked about to update the electronics communication privacy act. we want to require in criminal matters the government obtain a probable cause warrant to gain access to the contents of electronic communication stored by a third-party provider. section 215 of the u.s.a. patriot act requires the government to show only relevance to an authorized intelligence investigation or to obtain records. i'm not talking about bulk collection but the more standard usage of 215. has section 215 ever been relied upon to obtain the contents of stored communications from a third-party provider? >> not that i am aware of, mr. chairman. >> mr. litt? >> i'm hesitant to give an answer to that. it is not a question i ever asked.

i would prefer to get back to you on that, sir. i don't know the answer sitting here. >> can you get back to me by the end of the week? >> i will try. >> if they haven't as a legal matter could section 215 be used to obtain the contents of communication? >> i would have to think about that. considering that it is -- it is limited to the types of information you can get with a grand jury subpoena, i would have to look because of the aspects of stored communications and things of that nature, i would have to check. but i'm not sure. i would have to go back and look at that. so without a check of the legal authorities, i will get back to you on that, mr. chairman. >> and i appreciate you checking those. i think you understand by the question -- >> yes. >> there are some serious legal ramifications to your answer.

>> i agree. >> well, good. the -- i'm going to yield to senator franken. but general alexander, you talked about using -- and i will get to you in my next round -- about going to the private sector and looking for best practices from them. you can imagine i'm going to ask if those best practices had been used would a 29-year-old subcontractor have been able to walk away with all of your secrets like mr. snowden did? senator franken? >> are you going to ask that in the next round or do you want it answered now? >> you -- that is okay. i don't want to take -- you have been waiting patiently. i will wait my turn. >> well, okay. the general will have plenty of time to think about that. i have a question for you.

let's see if you can do both at the same time. i have the surveillance transparency act, i think you are all familiar with. among other things, general alexander, the bill would require n.s.a. to tell the american people how many of them have had their communications collected by the n.s.a. do you think that the american people have the right to know roughly how many of them have had their information collected by the n.s.a.? >> i do, senator. i think the issue is how do you describe that? those that are under a court order -- so under fisa as you know to collect the content of a communications we have to get a warrant. the issue would be almost in the title three court do you tell someone, a u.s. person who may not be a u.s. citizen that we are tracking that we are tracking them here in the united states or that we have

identified that? >> i'm not suggesting that you have to tell people they are being surveilled. i mean that they personally are a suspect. what i'm saying is the american people have a right to know how many american people have had their information collected. that is a different question. i wasn't suggesting we tip people off that are suspects. >> i think in broad terms, absolutely. >> in broad terms? >> for example under 215 today, less than 200 numbers approved for reasonable articulable suspicion for being searched in the database. >> 200 orders or 200 people? >> 200 numbers. some may be multiple numbers per person. those numbers could be both foreign and domestic. in fact, they are. but that is the total number for that category for a section 215 today under that program. the other one that i think, and

i think the deputy attorney general mentioned, is we can also put out more about what we are doing under the f.a.a. 702 program that we have compelled industry to do in a more transparent manner. the issue is how do we do that without revealing some of our own capabilities? and we are working with the interagency to get resolution on that. >> okay. i'm being told by staff that that is actually the number of people that had their phone numbers searched, not collected, right? >> so under 215, all of the data is going into a repository. >> metadata. >> metadata. if, for example, i'm talking to a foreign terrorist my number would automatically hit that link. in fact, you probably would want to know that. i know the white house would. >> we need to know that.

>> that is right. the issue would be how many of those. what we would do is we would look at those and based on our analysis give those numbers that are appropriate to the f.b.i. to then go through the appropriate process to look at those numbers. >> mark mazzetti of the "new york times." we have seen the hearings in the past year with general alexander and director clapper. among the revelations in the past year have been the tapping of the cell phones of foreign leaders. what has that meant to the administration? how impactful has that been? >> it has been incredibly embarrassing for the obama administration. it has taken up a lot of time of senior officials trying to explain to allied governments specifically how this happens. now, many allied governments are not surprised that even friendly governments spy on each other but it creates major setbacks for some diplomatic relationships.

germany is one of them. the united states has long had a relationship with britain and other english speaking countries that they don't spy on each other. beyond that relationship there really isn't -- kind of fair game. everything is fair game. so the merkel relationship has really been one that sort of fractured this year as well as other relationships. the relationship with brazil for instance. >> as the year wraps up, general alexander in a hearing this past week said we can't live in a pre 9/11 moment, which is something he said several times throughout the year. as we go into 2014, what does the administration hope to do with this issue and will anything happen legislatively in terms of pulling back some of the n.s.a.'s ability? >> it is not going away in part because the revelations will continue. there are still thousands of

documents. the press will be continuing to report them. i think the real question for 2014 is whether president obama is going to deal with this actively. this is now part of his legacy. and how he wants it to be part of his legacy is the question for the next year. he has spoken occasionally about it. he said he wants a debate about surveillance. the tension between liberty and security. and yet frequently he avoided opportunities to really talk about it. the question is for 2014 -- will he embrace the issue as one for debate and try to roll back some of the things that the n.s.a. has been doing and really create a debate in the united states about where the boundary should be? >> and a story that you will keep reporting about. >> yes. >> thanks for being with us on our year in review. >> thanks very much. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> today on c-span, "washington

journal" live with your calls and the newspaper headlines followed by the youth parliament. later today, special airing of our "q&a" program with former ohio congressman bob ney on his memoir "sideswiped." norm now have secular instead of theological norms that govern our acceptance or resigned -- or rejection of the goddessesor gods or would speak to us, see you have the branch davidians, you have david caressing his a special bible, and the community understanding the bible better and allow for them to say that they are living in the end times in the way that most americans do not accept.

that by itself does not seem to be a problem but it leads to other elements, then that triggers both law enforcement's concern as well as the popular then suddenly, the idea of somebody listening to god and have him call to do things that seems to be aberrant to the national norm, that is dangerous, and that needs to be policed and controlled. >> wesleyan university religion professor peter gottschalk argues that religious persecution has been committed by the very government that is supposed to protect us from persecution, sunday night at 9:00 on "after words" on c-span2. >> in a moment, your calls live on "washington journal," with a look at the republican party

with eric ham, author of the "gop civil war." then the leader of the democratic leadership towns all out -- council al from. ♪ ♪ >> congress is out of session, president is in hawaii, aaa estimating that 40% of the washington area residents traveled for the holiday. pretty quiet in d.c. we have a three hour, live "washington journal." here are some headlines. from "the wall street journal," mary landrieu oh in-line -- in line.