several years and had been starting in the senate office and then on to the 2008 presidential campaign. i have to say this was an area where the president had some pretty well-developed thoughts already long before he met me. it is well known that his first foray into public life was as a community organizer. what it is important to know that that organizing in the south side of chicago was with and among churches. helping to set up job-training programs and getting their food pantries in order and making sure that their voices were heard down in city hall. so when barack obama entered the national political scene, he was determined to work at the intersection of religion and politics and to try to do something about this also -- this false premise that progressives and democrats had a disregard for even antipathy toward faith and values. we heard echoes of this approach

in his 2004 democratic convention speech, a speech that got me involved in politics. he said that we worship an awesome god in the blue states. then there was his address to reverend jim wallis's call to a renewal conference in 2006, a speech that i was honored to work with him in the senate office and he developed a template for how this president would engage issues. in that speech, then senator obama declared that, "our failure as progressives to tap into the moral underpinnings of this nation is not just rhetorical. our fear of getting preachy may also lead us to discount the role that values and culture play in some of our most urgent social problems. he went on to say individual churches are sponsoring day care programs, building senior centers, helping ex offenders reclaim their lives and rebuilding the gulf coast in the aftermath of hurricane katrina. and he concluded, the question is, how do we build on these

partnerships between religious and secular people of goodwill? it will take more work he said, more than we have done so far. the tensions and the suspicions on each side of the religious divide will have to be squarely addressed and beside will need to accept some ground rules for collaboration." after that 2006 speech, he would address the topic of religion and politics and the faith-based office consistently in the years ahead, from the 2007 politics of conscience speech to the united church of christ general conference, a 2008 speech in gainesville, ohio and where at least nine separate times in the white house as well. but those ground rules of collaboration that he mentioned in those early days in 2006 could not have arisen out of thin air. in all of this talk about faith- based partnerships, the president and i were keenly aware that we were building on a foundation laid by president

george w. bush and by john julio and jay hein and others who aren't here. folks like stanley carlson. i want to say clearly that the playing field for federal funding of faith-based relations was not leveled in 2001, and would never have reached the increasing parity it has today if it were not for president bush. but even more than dollars and cents, the work of the faith- based office has been about opening the eyes of the sometimes drowsy federal bureaucracy to the fact that faith and civic organizations matter, that they are the backbone of this country. and far from being treated with suspicion, they should be embraced by government at all levels. these concepts seem self-evident to us now, but back then they were not. so president bush and the folks on this panel stood up and spoke out and took some lumps and bruises for them. and for that, our country owes

them a debt of gratitude. i do believe that come instead of continuing with the exact model of faith-based hardships under president bush, president obama has taken the initiative into new and important directions. in 2009, we launched the first- ever faith-based advisory council, an outside group of diverse religious and civic leaders who provide advice and guidance to faith-based office. we also began a new and expanded faith-based engagement at the state department on global affairs. we opened a faith-based office at the environmental protection agency focused on the stewardship of our environment. we extended our work at the corporation for national service and we issued a new executive order that answered some of the important and until then unresolved questions about legal parameters about the federal government engaging with faith-based organizations. but perhaps the most important shift is a subtle 1, 1 that is central to president obama's vision for faith-based and civil

partnerships. that is an expanded vision of the relationship between the federal government and the religious social service organizations from one that i'm -- primarily focuses on financial relationships between the two sides to a vision of faith-based partnerships that also includes significant room for nonfinancial partnerships that still serve people in need -- what we like to call civic partnerships. that grew from three imperatives. first, we were frankly dealing with a dramatically constrained federal budget in 2009. the resource pool had shrunk. second, we had a perception problem. as i traveled around the country on behalf of barack obama's presidential campaign in 2007 and 2008, i heard from so many pastors who falsely believe that they should be getting money from the faith-based initiative and wondered why there check was not in the mail. that is not the fault of anyone here, but the misplaced perception did exist. finally, president obama, based on his years with work with face

-- faith-based groups, realized they wanted to partnership -- partner with government but did not always one or need that to be based in a grant. while ensuring that the playing field remained level and creates -- creating space for more flexibility, fewer legal hurdles, and more creativity finding the best ways to serve those in need. in addition to keeping the playing field level, which i believe we did, we also develop new programs that went beyond funding to civic or nonfinancial partnerships that serve the vulnerable. this was not about efficacy. -- advocacy. any one of our thousands of partners will say that it was solely focused on social service. this included our jobs program where we trained thousands of faith-based groups to set up and run employment ministries, reach out to local employers and get their congregants back to work. together forur tomorrow initiative, which provides technical assistance and on the ground and training

for faith-based group to want to partner with their local public schools in dozens of cities and counties around country. it included the president's interfaith campus challenge. i would encourage folks related to a college or university to get involved in this. it is about bringing diverse student religious organizations together on college campuses around the country to tackle common community problems. the campus crusade for christ working with the muslim students association to improve the environment and reduce religious tension on the campus. from disasters response training to helping congregations set up summer food ministries, building interfaith coalition on human trafficking and allowing faith- -- setting up a micro loan program, allowing them to participate at the small business organization. tangible,ed measurable, impact-driven civic partnerships that still serve americans in need but are not dependent on federal grants alone.

these partnerships are another tool in the toolbox of the federal faith-based initiative. as the president said at the 2009 national fair breakfast, the particular faith that motivates each of us can promote a greater good. instead of driving us apart, our beliefs can bring us together to feed the hungry, comfort the afflicted, make peace where there is strife, rebuild what is broken, and lift up those who have fallen on hard times. i believe the faith-based initiative has done just that. along with tremendous work on development and hiv aids along the world, i believe it is one ofthe shining legacies george w. bush and a cheater, cement of president obama as well. one of the things i perhaps most proud of is convincing the former chair of our advisory council, a church attorney who was absolutely not looking for a new job, to consider taking my place. melissa rogers is an absolute rockstar, and i'm excited about where she is taking the initiative and will take it in the year ahead. thank you.

[applause] >> thank you. those are characteristically overly generous remarks and i appreciate it. joshua has been so kind in terms of helping me get settled and learn how to do this job and i have only been on the job for a few months but i am grateful to him. i can also say i has been able to look to the rest of these gentlemen as well. they have each been gracious to me about giving me the wisdom that they gathered through their open of service, and being welcoming my calls and questions. i just want to say how much i am grateful for that, and i will keep calling you. [laughter] just keep answering the line, please. i want to thank the smu community, brian franklin, the

staff at the smu center for presidential history and all of you for being here tonight. it is truly an honor and a privilege to be able to have this conversation with you this evening. i would also like to say special word of thanks to former president george w. bush and first lady laura bush for the honor of being here at smu where the presidential library is located. and i want to thank them for their years of distinguished service to our country. as you know, the theme for tonight's program is faith, the white house, and the public square. and i'd like to start by placing that theme in a larger context. that is the context of the first amendment to our constitution. as you know, the first 16 words of the first amendment says congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. the first clause is often called the establishment clause and it basically prohibits the government from promoting

religion generally or preferring one faith over another. the second clause is often referred to as the free exercise clause. traditionally, it has been aimed at ensuring that the state does not unnecessarily interfere with the practice of faith. with this backdrop in mind, i would like to address a few questions that maybe on some of your minds about the office of faith-based and neighborhood partnerships or the office of faith-based and community initiative as it was during the bush years and faith in the white house generally, faith in the public square. the first question that some of you may have in your mind is is the mission of the white house office consistent with the first amendment? and the answer is yes. the goal of the office is not to promote faith. that is the job, of course, of religious individuals and communities themselves.

the mission of the office is to promote the common good of all americans. and the office does so by forming partnerships with organizations and individuals of all faiths and non-. in other words, what unites us is service to our neighbors. indeed, that is why our office is called the office of faith- based and neighborhood mark -- partnerships. it is about working with all groups, whether they are religious or secular to promote to help people in need and to promote the common good. every day, i have the privilege of working with my fellow americans who are engaged in extraordinary efforts to help people in need. a week ago, for example, we hosted at the white house a gathering of more than 100 leaders who want to stop the scourge of human trafficking. as you know, human trafficking is a crime that involves the exploitation of people, including children, for the

purpose of compelled labor or commercial sex acts. it includes threats of physical or psychological harm. as president obama said a year ago, human trafficking is also rightly called by the name modern-day slavery and we must join together to end it. last year, president obama ambitious and multifaceted agenda to combat human trafficking in his speech at the clinton global initiative. in that speech, president obama charged to the advisory council on faith-based and neighborhood partnerships with making recommendations for strengthening the partnerships with community organizations, both religious and secular, to prevent and combat human trafficking. theoshua mentioned, advisory council on faith-based and neighborhood partnerships, as a group of religious and

civic leaders that get together and take on a task that president obama asks them to undertake. the task of the current advisory council, as i mentioned, has been human trafficking. the advisory council delivered its report of recommendations, called building partnerships to eradicate modern-day slavery to the president in april 2012. it was my great privilege to be able to set their when the advisory council delivers its reports and to have conversations with the president about their work. one of the things president obama at that time was that a dedication to eradicating human trafficking crosses ideological lines, and it crosses lines of age. so it brings us together as americans in a special way. and we have been grateful to work on that. in partial fulfillment of the advisory council

recommendations, we welcomed more than 100 leaders to the white house last week for a daylong convening. the gathering included heads of religious denominations, rabbis and nuns, ceo's of large nonprofits such as the united way and the girl scouts, along -- foundation leaders, along with human trafficking survivors and experts, all united in their interest to join forces to eradicate modern-day slavery. and in this day-long meeting, we talked about ways that their organizations can work together to raise awareness and educate the public, identify victims, expand services for survivors and eliminate slavery in the goods and products that we consume. we are looking forward to working with this group in the coming days. this is just one illustration of some of the partnerships that have been formed under the obama administration and have powerfully woven together various aspects and elements of civil society to produce what we could never have known on our own.

as john suggested, we have increasingly been able to find common ground. on some contentious issues in recent years, including contentious issues connected to the office of faith-based and neighborhood partnerships. another achievement of president obama has been bringing together diverse groups and finding common ground on some key issues. i realize we haven't found common ground on all key issues. so, as joshua had mentioned, i actually had the great privilege of sharing the first advisory council on faith-based and neighborhood partnerships. if you looked at that group at the outset, you might have said, i am not sure there will be a lot of agreement in that group. we had former bush officials. we had people serving in former democratic administrations.

we had people from the left on -- and the right. we had the secular, and people representing religious traditions as well. yet that group was able to find common ground and meaningful common ground, i should add, on a range of important issues. including a range of issues connected to the faith-based, what is known as the faith-based initiative. for example, this group was able to come to agreement on a set of amendments that they recommended to the president regarding the bush 2002 executive order setting out some of the fundamental principles and policymaking criteria for partnerships between the government and religious entities. so this executive order underscored the fact that the -- of course the religious identity of organizations that receive government funding should be protected.

at the same time, there should be clearer directions about the limits of what the government can and cannot fund, and clearer directions about the necessary separation between activities funded by government grants and privately funded activities. and we are actually implementing that executive order now. another characteristic of the focus, as has been a joshua said, on nonfinancial as well as financial partnerships area many groups, particularly many religious groups, do not want to receive government grants and contracts. but they are interested in being involved with government in some way to promote the common good. they want to share information about what they are seeing in their community, about needs that exist. they want to tell us about what they're hearing from people in need who are struggling, the

government leaders really need to hear. they want to share and get together and have meetings and meet new partners and think of new ways to collaborate to serve people in need, whether it is assisting veterans and getting their benefits, feeding children who need nutritious meals not just when school is in session, but also in the summer months when they might not get a nutritious meal, and making sure that communities and conversations know about things like the latest flu vaccines and where to get it. president obama has led, i think, in making sure that we open doors to these kinds of partnerships that are nonfinancial as well as maintaining a set of financial partnerships with religious and civic groups who want to partner with government. as i said, i believe this has opened the door to many more partners and many more partnerships.

for that, i am very grateful. let me just offer a few other thoughts on faith and the white house as we close out this section of the program. one of the great things for me as a newcomer to the white house has been able to see how faith is present in the white house in so many different ways. it is present in the white house in part because religious beliefs inform many americans ' convictions about public policy. whether it is commonsense immigration reform, poverty at home or abroad aids prevention , or treatment to just name a few, a local set of religious americans raise their voices on issues at the white house almost every day. one of the most moving meetings i recently participated in was with some of the lions of the civil rights movement on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the march on washington. i had the privilege of sitting in the roosevelt room with some of the pastors and ministers who

were key leaders in this movement and with the first african-american president of the united states. as we all noted that day, we were truly experiencing a partial fulfillment of martin luther king's glorious dream. another way in which faith is present in the white house is the recognition that we all have, that almost any law can affect communities and government officials need to be cognizant of that fact. religion runs through every human endeavor. so it has the potential to be affected by almost any law or public policy. of course, all these policies have to comport with the first amendment's religious liberty guarantees, and to be sure, there are contentious issues in this space that drawn national attention and difficult debate.

but as important as those issues are, we should never forget that there are many less noted issues as well where we often find common ground. because time is short, just let me cite one of them. zoning and land-use matters can profoundly affect religious communities, whether by design or accident. for example, sometimes churches would like to lease space in a storefront but they are turned away because zoning officials say houses of worship are for bid and in that zone. -- forbidden in that zone. at the same time, fraternal organizations, meeting halls and other places of assembly are permitted in that same zoning area. well, for many years, the department of justice has enforced the law to ensure that religious institutions are treated as well as comparable secular institutions and that they are not unduly burdened by zoning and land-use restrictions. this law has the ungainly name of the religious land use and institutionalized persons act

, otherwise known as rlupa. carrying over from the bush years to the obama years, it has done a great deal to respect and protect the free exercise of religion in this country. and i know we are all very proud of that bipartisan tradition. let me just close by saying the united states of america has an unusual commitment to freedom for people of all faiths and none. this has made it possible for our country to be a place of amazing diversity and remarkable cooperation across religious lines. our nation also has an extraordinary commitment to serving people in need. this has led to the formation of powerful coalitions of the sacred and the secular to provide service to our neighbors. like my colleagues, i am honored to be both a beneficiary and a

steward of these cherished american traditions. thank you. [applause] >> thank you to all of you. i would like to take a few minutes to have a little bit of a discussion with their whole group together, and then i would love to open up the floor for some questions after that. let me start. i confess i am an early american historian. the first question on my mind is something a couple of you referred to, this first amendment and the founders. like many of our political conversations these days, this one often comes back to that, and maybe rightly so in many ways. to the founders, whoever they are. so what do the founders or the

founding generation or founding era have to say to this office when someone asked that question? what do the founders had to say about this? how do you address that? i might start with jim or melissa. you mentioned those in particular. >> ok. yes, the founders and i know we probably have many academics in the room who make this their field of study so i tread with great trepidation. the founders had different ideas about faith and public life. of course, we have james madison having written a towering remonstrance about religion and the role of government. one of the things that james madison was very careful about was insuring that government doesn't do anything that would end up undercutting religions

' integrity in america. that is something that has animated our discussion, that we want to ensure that religion has a vocal and a vital place in american public life, but that we never set up a system that ends up undercutting the prophetic autonomy and integrity of religion. sometimes i think the supreme court has captured it well when they talk about a benevolent neutrality about religion that is exhibited in the best of our traditions. when we welcome religion into the public square but also make sure we respect their independence, as an actor that will make decisions on its own that will sometimes be in cooperation with government and will sometimes be standing outside government, calling it to heed the better angels of its nature in religions eyes. so it is a dynamic relationship, and one that i would guess all of us feel is a delicate balance that has to be carefully preserved.

i know that i certainly feel that every day, but i want to make sure we preserve the delicate balance. >> what she said. [laughter] i would just add to what melissa said, that any serious student of history sees the role that faith plays not only in the founding of the country, where many fled religious persecution to come to america, but even when you look at the nexus of church and state in the first 50 years. i think in 1832, the last law that stop states from taxing and using money to build churches, places of worship, you see an entanglement that stretches throughout time. the blaine amendment back in 1875, where a speaker -- there were a lot of religious tensions in the country. so any study of american history sees this entanglement and sees also the supreme court very reluctant to weigh in on these cases.

there has not -- there have been a number of church-state cases, but none like the lemon case in 1970, and there has not been -- the course may be taking up cases in the near future. but i think that there is certainly a tension, and i would defer to my colleagues. >> well, we have plenty of time for this now. we will be here for several hours. [laughter] is it that bad? oh, my god. there we go. let there be light. [laughter] best book on the subject is philip hamburger's book, harvard university press, 2003. a big thing that students get frightened of when they see it, but it is the best single-boeing history about the separation of church and state.

,hat we know of the founders the guys that were against the constitution where the religious conservatives of the day, the anti-federalist who very much -- including patrick henry at the time, though he came along eventually -- wanted to have religious tests for officeholding and so forth. the founders were the cosmopolitans, yet most of them were bible-believing christians. but why did they take the approach they did? why did they ultimately come down where madison came down? because they believe that no faith, including their own, was beyond faction. you don't get rated on the exam if you say that madison wanted a lot of sex. you get partial credit. that's it. i'm not going to go any further. [laughter] >> you said hours. >> this is c-span and it is g-

rated. >> want to note that the two catholics on the panel keep bringing up sex, by the way. [laughter] >> that's true, now that you mention it. >> as jim mentioned, the office, when i first started with president bush, it quickly became polarized in a lot of ways. but i think, particularly after president obama continue the office, although making some changes, the polarization seems different and there seems to be a friend conversations going on that are not necessarily as party driven as they were right off the bat. what do you think about that? >> tomorrow, i am speaking to the religion newswriters association in austin at their annual conference. our to my message to them will be that i think there is a bit

of a built-in antagonism to faith and to this work that is not the fault of this office or anyone later but just kind of existed from the outset. i am not sure that the type of "controversy" -- i hate to even say it. if you look at the work, there's not a whole lot that was controversial. there are areas of his agreement, but i think it was kind of played up or blown out of proportion just because folks saw this as an area of political or media vulnerability of president bush and they kind of tried to blow it wide open and to talk about it as much as possible and put it in as negative a light as possible. i'm not certain that i kind of buy into the contra city -- the controversy narrative.

although you certainly saw that in practice in terms of how the media reported on the office. why did some of that reporting die down in the current administration? i think part of it is because we did -- although, again, the playing field remains level -- if you look at the funding going to faith-based organizations, it has remained constant or increase. we focused less on the financial resources and more on these nonfinancial partnerships and i think there is less controversy associated with that. but this notion that is inherently a controversial office is not something that i buy into. >> i have a clarifying question. >> yes. >> i agree that the washington narrative was not the national narrative. if you traveled the country, there is a warm embrace of government-faith-based partnerships to be sure. but maybe to your to melissa,

i'm not sure that i understand the distinction you're making between the bush administration's emphasis on financial partnerships or nonfinancial partnerships. we already talked about the culture change, which was predominant in president bush's contribution, but he also had a very act if call to service which impart contributed to the highest levels of volunteering. he raised a lot profiles and capacity building. we launched something called the pro bono challenge, which is calling on corporate america to come inside nonprofits and nonfinancial -- in a nonfinancial manager and build these organizations from the inside out. we have a billion dollar equivalent of contribution that these as it is that said yes to the challenge have done. we have -- my question is what

is the distinction? why was that not understood as a nonfinancial contribution to these organizations. >> two answers. number one, it's pure perception. maybe the reality of what happened within the office, i can't say that -- having met with thousands of pastors in the 2008 campaign and since then, there wasn't a basic expectation that most congregations in the country thought about the faith- based initiative, they felt as if they should be repaid -- should be receiving funding from the initiative. maybe it is not something that you could have managed or that anyone could manage, but i think that it existed. i think the other contribute infect her -- contributing

factor, when you are hosting roundtables focused on capacity building in order to apply for federal grants, i think that sets an expectation potentially that organizations will at some point along the line will receive federal grants and that is something that groups had to grapple with when some of them were not funded. i think those two things contribute to the perception issue. but i absolutely knowledge that the reality of your focus on service and volunteerism and technical assistance and capacity building extended beyond just finding alone could >> i think the answer here is impart also that, if you continental is the news, when the playing field level work was being worked on, most of the stories were on money and grants and contracts. by the time jim came to town and was able to run that office so

well for so many years, the work of actually implementing that on level playing field report was getting to where is the money. a lot of things are going on but that perception did linger on the part of some of the other stuff of the initiative at least early on were less obviously noted. >> the money issue had to be fixed, too. organizations were not in a fair consideration when it came to grants. i'm not sure there is any way around this. is this the progressive. -- it is just a progression. >> i agree with some of this. we won't get too much into the law, but to make a long story short, there has been an important -- there have been important developments in the

law over the last couple of decades in terms of government funding and religious institutions. so i would say that there were some real issues to work through and to figure out. the rules that govern this area during the clinton years or the early clinton years were different. they changed over time. some people think that was a good thing and some people think that was a bad thing. there are some really important issues that people fight about and fight about with some legitimate disagreement. that all was happening and i think that probably plays into this as well because there was a focus on the funding and the debate about the funding issue, the funding issues, and that eclipsed perhaps some other work. >> had like to add one thing. i was touched by their kind words on the president's contribution and i know that is not just because you are in texas. and i also felt when president

obama was running for office and he announced he would keep the office open, i was surprised good and i thought he deserved credit because i'm sure he was under pressure from some within the party because it was so identified with resident bush. there were perception issues that i'm sure he had to address. and there were limitations on what a not -- limitations on what a white house office could do. while we were here at a panel and we all want to make nice at a gathering like this, there are fundamental disagreements that you might have about something the bush did that you would seek to correct and there would be issues that i identified one but there are several as they did not have an ideological viewpoint lined up properly. when that happens, that is not necessarily the white house office's responsibility anymore than it was under my watch when

things happened or j or john's. it is not just perception, but i think the nice thing is, in our country and tonight, that we can come together and talk about them. we do disagreement have processes in place in a crop -- and they compensate -- in a country that addresses grievances and wrongs. despite your best efforts, there are things that would happen within the administration that you couldn't properly and fronts hockley influence from your own purge and that could be a source of frustration. >> something else that i think both administrations have agreed on and then in different ways, the role of faith in general but the office in particular in foreign affairs and stepping boyfriend domestic affairs and stepping into the foreign realm. j mentioned that far -- jay mentioned petfar. how do you see -- what do you recommend that going forward?

>> i think there really has been a lot of common ground on this issue going way back. there have been countless symposia and reports written on how -- i think secretary kerry said at the lodge of the state department office -- we ignore the global impact of religion at our peril. and there has been consensus around that idea for a very long time. it is only -- the news is that i'm a just a few months ago, the state department office opened with a capacity to deal with educating people in the united states government that serve around the world and helping them become literate about the religious aspects of the landscape in which they serve,

which is terribly important. that has been an area where there has been common ground. i think that some of the tasks of this new office will be to do that kind of academic and professional training for people who served so that they know the difference between shia and sunni muslims and many other faith groups around the world and know what that means. that is very important. and also working with faith and community groups around the world to do things like development, economic development, to try to counter violent extremism and to try to promote religious freedom and other universal human rights. so i think there is a lot of consensus around those kinds of ideas and i hope that we will be able to push forward in a way that draws together people from across the political spectrum, to promote the agenda of that office.

>> faith is a dominant actor in villages all over the world. we have seen it all too often and horribly how it interfaces in so many geopolitical questions of today. so illiteracy is unacceptable. so it is adjusted federal government question. tony blair and rick warren held an event at douglas not long ago, a couple of years go -- an event at davos not long ago, a couple of years ago. these are necessities. >> i would like to go ahead and open it up to some questions. here's what i would like to ask you to do. we have one microphone here. i need you to use the microphone so that your voice can be heard. and you have to give it back.

so we will just kind of tacit as the crows fly -- kind of pass it as the crows fly. we will start here in front. >> in my history of this understanding of the relationship between faith-based groups and government is a long one. i remember catholic charities and catholic receive -- catholic relief charities having received and cooperated with the government from back in the 1920s. i'm not that old. that was a precedent. so when this office was established, i thought wonderful.

>> before that. >> catholic charities was 40% of the income. >> 70%. >> thank you for the correction. i cofounded a nonprofit about 30 years ago in dallas, homeward bound. having understood, it is not faith based. we have faith as founders and staff, we are not openly religious oriented. we have served 160,000 or more local people in distress with counseling, residential

counseling. across the spectrum from probation to prostitutes. we have done that with several state, county, and local money without galas and golf tournaments. we relied on the general public. it works. tell me if my history is right. >> your history is great. catholic charities, salvation army, jewish federation, the whole canopy. what was observed and part of the motivation that led to the evolution was the observation that as great as they are, i am big on catholic charities and so forth, the number of religious and nonprofit organizations that are not large but you do incredible work and were shut out from the kind of public/private collaboration has led in those organizations to

enjoy support not only financial but other support from government, they do not have the available. nor did they have sponsors in many cases in the form of the larger organizations. part of it was, there is great history there. even more secularized groups found it easier to collaborate in those ways. >> some of the changes were called forth by the african- american pastors that would be the first door and knocked on what somebody was released or in need of service. i remember tony evans meeting in the office with the president and td jakes and others of the frontline. they may not have some the sophistication of these established charities but they have capacity. why would they be excluded?

>> my question is this, there are differences. dr. diiulio wrote a textbook you would transfer. i want to know basically would it have stayed the same system since there are so many differences? what do you as a director pass on to the next? >> headaches. [laughter] horrors. messes to clean up. you cannot possibly look back. i said at the outset, what unites us is a lot bigger that divide us. the desire to put them on a level playing field and engage in them and financial and

cultural transformation. this is something everybody at this table shares deeply. while we may have differences, the reality is, we all share with the great founders of habitat for humanity calls the hammer. when you bring people together and to do things in common, you will solve problems and those differences are not going to melt away. you will be more willing at the margin to listen and find a way to navigate around. that has been the great tradition in faith-based public/private collaborations. >> he was not only pioneering his work prior to the candidacy of president bush. as the first base -- as the first faith-based director and finding the problems. also his influence in academia

the kind of policies contributions and research he has done. when i was appointed, i got on a train and came to philadelphia and took john to lunch. it cost me a bundle. >> you can see why. [laughter] >> i learned a lot. when i was leaving my position, i gave jay at long memo and gave him the baton. i was tired. it was his turn. i had not met joshua until today. >> very good infrastructure. a lot of federal agencies do not collaborate. these gentlemen set up a system that was 12, not -- now 14 agencies. we are on the phone every single

day. we do a phone call every morning talking to each other about how we can work together. very rapid interagency elaboration. sharing of information and resources. it is a relatively small team. government working well and that infrastructure continued. we do not have to sit at the offices again. we expanded and set up new ones. we were able to tap into what was there. >> i will find something that one of these guys -- and i will use it. that was said to myself, thank goodness i do not have to rewrite or create because it already existed. i see their handiwork in a lot of ways in my current job. no, no. [laughter] >> a listening device.

>> do you have a question? >> i do. i would like to preface by saying i am a 2003 graduate from the air force. and there's a seminary across the street and what of the things that i think would bring the two sides of the political debate together at how we are waging of the global war on terrorism. with regard to our interaction with our in me and really extended the policy of martin luther king's dream every man, woman, and child prayed for. something that crosses not christian denominations but also across faiths. i just have a question. continuing this prophetic call, it seems the openings are -- as

the united states air force academy graduate, this subtitle space of cyberspace -- battle space of cyberspace. they think of edward snowden and russia and hardware/software and not the war of ideas. if you could comment on that and why it should work in a government. >> i would say there is an increasing interest and desire and activity in the chaplain to not just i tend to the spiritual and emotional needs of our troops but look out and how they can engage religious issues as well and be an active programming partner and actively work to reduce tensions. they do a phenomenal job. they need more support.

they need more support for years. that is one area to look at potentially. the chaplaincy, and they are doing phenomenal work. >> based on what you all said tonight, the beginning of the faith-based offices were meant to help educate people in south dallas. help feed people in the south the dalles. all of a sudden, ms. rogers is talk about worldwide slavery and this. are we losing the emphasis to work here in the united states to go worldwide? where it is a much better headline? >> i will say, no. i think it is one of these questions about timing. no one was more interested and concerned as president bush

about the way to use nongovernment organizations and make a difference in the lives of people all around the world. the early part of the initiative was focused on the u.s. engage in those urban communities like in south dallas or south-central l.a. or dorchester boston or around the country. i do not be the emphasis has shifted. it was there from the beginning. >> trafficking is an issue would have to deal with a broad and at home. there's domestic human trafficking. this focus has been all domestic as well as international. >> there are a lot of other points of contact to dallas in terms of the faith-based office. a major initiative that john

alluded to earlier was the department of agriculture to get a competition set up with the summer food program to feed hungry children right here in your neighborhood. absolutely, international and local. >> is that your question for the evening? feel free to ask more questions. that would be great. let's have our last question. the microphone is here. >> i was quick to ask what you think about the syrian and egyptian persecution of christians by terrorists? >> the president put out a statement reflecting -- put out various statements reflecting concern about christian minority in these regions and wanted to protect them at all people and bring about peace and certainly, that is something the president and the administration are vested in at the moment. certainly something that is a

cause of concern. a more general concern of bringing peace to all people in that region. >> these two last questions. that is absolutely a powerful use of presidential leadership to babel -- to be able to go to a crisis like this. mrs. bush and did so much to go its way like this. it is a beautiful and powerful expression of the presidential bully pulpit. i like to go to the comment about the neighborhood level expression of this initiative. with all due respect which what's with the talk about is the white house portion, we need more voices outside of washington that create a powerful hall to serve and demonstrate of what works in our communities.

this is an initiative that can not only be an washington, d.c., but a communities. we need leaders standing up with the same type of inspiration and expression of the work at home. >> i want to add. your question is an important one. there's a systematic attack on christian churches in syria and throughout the middle east. places are being burnt down. it is a continuous, ruthless campaign against the christians in the very heart of the holy traditions of what we call sacred land. there cannot be enough word being done. that's the issue of religious liberty. you have to protect it. it has to be protected by the strong. we have to do that not only abroad but at home. >> join me in thanking our panelists. [applause]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> today, we talked to robert ney. after is more than decade-long career and congress, he was sent to serve 30 months in federal prison. he was in prison one year and released to an alcohol rehabilitation program in ohio 45 months. that's q&a with former congressman bob ney at 7:00 eastern on c-span.

friday morning on "washington journal" a look at president obama's legislative priorities for 2014 including immigration. we will speak to the white house deputy editor for politico. also a look at the transformation of america's special forces units. we will be joined by linda robinson for the rand corporation. the bureau of economic analysis, we will talk about american spending habits and how they have evolved since the 2008 recession. airs at us --rnal at 8:30 eastern on c-span. c-span's 2013ng year and review. leaked documents by edward

unveiled asnowden widespread vacuuming of data communications. in june of 2013, diane feinstein, chairman of the tenant intelligence committee spoke with reporters following a reefing on the collecting of verizon phone records. she says the u.s. has to look for a way to get intelligence that is operable and kim urban plot 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 be first amendment material. 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 shabab, 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 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 are 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 united states congress and 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 individual's 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 to the fisa court and ask for it. >> could you get somebody's hotel records? >> if it was relevant. >> could you get 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 black or white image. >> could you get google searches? >> excuse me, sir? >> could you get 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. >> could you 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 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? >> again, there are great

limitations to how i can do that, and 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 -- >> 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 that are stored with a third party. tell that to the american people. tell that to 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? i yield back. >> 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 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. 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-mails, no phone

calls, no names, and no addresses. 14 federal judges have said yes, this comports with the constitution. 800 cases between the 1979 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 the 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. democrats voted 111 for, 83 against it. 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 portuguese] we insist in freedom of privacy. [applause] 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." [cheers] today, in 2013, faced with a choice from a government which

moves without morality, without respect for liberty or law, here or abroad, without adherence 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 dni, the department of defense, with our own director of compliance, 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 nsa 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 it 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, ok, 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 and 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 of those 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 this 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 nsa, 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 nsa 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 nsa was making plans to obtain cell site location information under section 215. we also know that the nsa engaged in bulk collection of internet metadata under the fisa pen register statute. it suggests to me under that kind of a legal interpretation of fisa the nsa 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 nsa be able to restart the bulk collection of internet data? >> i think that if the nsa 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 then, 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 technological limitations, would the fisa pen register statute authorize you to obtain all internet metadata, not just e- mail metadata? >> 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 that is stored by a third-party provider. section 215 of the usa patriot act requires the government to show only relevance to an authorized intelligence investigation in order 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 ok. i don't want to take -- you have been waiting patiently. i will wait my turn. >> well, ok.

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 nsa to tell the american people how many of them have had their communications collected by the nsa. do you think that the american people have the right to know roughly how many of them have had their information collected by the nsa? >> 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 they are suspects. >> i think in broad terms, absolutely. >> in broad terms? >> for example, under 215 today, less than 200 numbers are approved for reasonable articulable suspicion for being searched in the database. >> 200 orders or 200 people? >> 200 numbers. some of those numbers 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 faa 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. >> ok. 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 fbi for them to then go through the appropriate process to look at those numbers. >> mark mazzetti of the "new york times." we have seen part of the floor debate, 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 -- it is kind of fair game. everything is fair game. so the merkel relationship has really been one that sort of fractured over 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 basically 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 nsa'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 has 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 nsa has been doing and really create a debate in the united states about where the boundary should be? >> and this is a story that you will keep reporting about. >> yes. >> mark mazzetti of "the new york times," 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] tonight, bob ney. our year in review at 8:00 p.m. eastern. following that, from the first ladies series, mainly eisenhower at 9:00 eastern. over on the house floor today, and democratic whip denny hoyer, pro forma session. he withdrew his objection but not before deciding congresses extend unemployment

benefits or pass immigration ministry -- legislation. he spoke for about five minutes. >> i think the speaker. arguably, mr. speaker, this congress is the least productive one in which i have served over the last 33 years. both from a humanitarian standpoint and an economic one. this congress has earned the disdain of the american people, irrespective of their party affiliation. rise, mr. speaker, specifically to express my and the democratic minorities strong of chechen to adjourning this first session of the 113 congress without extending unemployment insurance eligibility for the 1.3 million including 20,000 military veterans. will lose that support in just 48 hours.