dual meaning. it is to protect us from those outside of our country who would harm us. we have the right under the fourth amendment to be secure. this concept of what that means it to be secure in the second respect has changed over time. it has changed as our technology has changed but the fundamental

principle is underlying the concept of security must remain the same. for our constitutional protections to continue to be meaningful. one of the things we have struggled with as a congress and that we struggle with as a country as a whole relates to the fact that where we keep our papers and what our papers are has changed especially in the last few years. no longer do our papers consist exclusively of actual paper. what the founding generation would've thought of as papers, s often exist int the electronic equivalent. those are not stored exclusively on hard drives with a finite

loaccation. it a lot of times they exist on a cloud somewhere. these pieces of information, these papers, in many instances are something we have or reasonably should have a next rotation of privacy which is reasonable. we have to figure out how to balance these two sometimes conflicting interests associated with security. there are several ways in which this arises. we have talked a little bit today about the collection of metadata and the fact that we have an enormous amount of metadata that has been collected on potentially 300 million americans. the government notes that it has in place a rigorous review

process that must be followed before anyone accesses this database containing metadata on basically every american. what concerns me about that is the fact that these are internal operating procedures. what is a policy today which may be followed religiously for all i know today could change tomorrow. i am willing to assume for purposes of this discussion that the men and women who work at the nsa have nothing but our best interests at heart. i am willing to assume that. that might not be the case a year from now or four years from now or 10 years from now. we have seen this movie before. we know how it ends. we know that eventually it that much information remains in the hands of government for that long it will be abused and manipulated for partisan and the various -- and nefarious

purposes. let's are with professor stone. -- wouldook at this this be something you describe as one of the most compelling argument in favor of putting more robust restrictions in law so that they are not simply in the hands of people, however well-intentioned they may be, inside the nsa? >> of this is of primary concern when it comes to the collection of metadata. it is not the actual use of the metadata it is authorized but the risks somewhere down the road that someone will figure out how to misuse that data . i think the safeguards in place internally are quite good. they are rigorous, multifaceted, there are checks and balances. even so, our judgment is that

it should be taken out of the hand of the government in terms of holding the data. substantially the potential for the data to be abused in the way you are talking about. it is still a question of trade-offs. our judgment is that it is an important step towards reducing the risk on one side while at the same time preserving the value of the data for national security purposes. >> for that reason, chairman leahy and several of my colleagues have introduced legislation. if i could ask one follow-up on this. suggested it would simply be categorically infeasible to require a court order as a condition precedent for performing a query of the government database. set doesume the data

remain in the possession of the government and we will move to a different system in which the government does not have possession. the argument frequently arises. you cannot require a sort of court ordered work wearing -- for querying that database. it would take too much time. do you know of any reason why that should be the case or why that should be the unavoidable case? while we can't get around that? >> our view is that there are practical route -- realities. you need to add resources, judges, magistrates is it necessary but there is no reason why the argument about getting a court order for a query of metadata is any more impossible than getting a search warrant to

search her home. this is what we do all the time and are great protections and there was no good reason it should not be adopted. >> thank you, professor. >> senator franken. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think this report will be overall help -- a real help. on page 124 under report you will quake a free people can government -- can govern themselves they have information they need to make wise judgments about public policy. i could not agree with you more and right now the american people do not have the information they need to make up their minds on these programs. bill thatipartisan has the support of 14 of my colleagues and strong support from the business community that has endorsed the principle of

transparency and has endorsed my bill specifically. when i met last year submitted written comments to your group, i urge you to support the reforms in my bill and i am pleased to report written -- endorses the same measures that are at the core of my bill. on thefocus my questions transparency reforms that we agree on. first my question is on government transparency. seven months after the snowden leaks, the government has yet to disclose a rough estimate of how many people have had their information collected in the telephone metadata or prism programs. my bill would force the government to annually disclose an estimate of the number of people who have had their information collected by the nsa under each key surveillance

authority. your report supports this. you say that for each key surveillance authorities the government should report publicly on the total number of requests made and the number of individuals whose records have been requested. why did you support this particular transparency reform? >> a theme of our report consistent with your bill which is sunlight is the best disinfectant and it is important for the american people unless there was a very strong national security justification on the other side. goal ist and foremost about democratic self-government and a free society. that is one of the things that distinguishes our nation from some others. wither idea has to do

economic interests that should not be trivialized. there are american companies that are economic risk because the american government is forcing them to turn over stop. that is not true. it shows it is much narrower adn nd targeted. >> i want to talk about that next. any other comments? continue to drill down on this first recommendation because it is different from what the administration has been saying. it calls for the government to say how many people had their information collected. my bill is for that. last november, representatives from the office of the director of national intelligence and the nsa came before the subcommittee

on privacy technology and law which i chair and testified that it will be difficult if not impossible for the government to say how many people had their information collected under these authorities. did the administration communicate this concern to you? if so, why did you find it unpersuasive? >> thank you. detail with some the administration about transparency provision. thereessed concern when is a provider that has a small number of customers that do not tip off the web and surveillance -- who have been surveilled. when it comes to the number of people would've been touched by the waters, they did not focus on the discussion on that risk of transparency. having talked to the companies on this, if there is cooperative

effort to have the companies and providers to work with the government that we are likely to come up with practices that allow estimates. you may not have exact numbers because sometimes you don't know at the same e-mail applies to three people or one person so with precision you might not have exact details but i think you could have a good overall sense of what is happening. -- i amout of my time out of my time. we will recess for five minutes. before we do, i want to reiterate this thing about the companies and their ability to disclose because it is hurting them. firm thatanalytic stands to lose up to $180 billion by 2016 as a result of

the disruption of their services abroad. thank you for being that part of your recommendation. we will recess for five minutes vote and iave to go better go now. i am the chair. i call on senator cruz. >> thank you, senator franken. i want to begin by thanking each of the members of the panel. thanking you for your service in the intelligence community and thank you for your service looking at the difficult and important legal issues and privacy issues that surround this critical area.

i think many americans have concerns about the current state of nsa surveillance. i have concerns on two different fronts. i am concerned on the one hand that the federal government has not been effective enough monitoring and surveilling bad guys. we have not succeeded in preventing what should've been preventable terrorist attacks. at the same time, i am concerned that the sweep of the surveillance has been far too broad with respect to law-abiding citizens. i think a great many americans would err to see that reversed. far greater scrutiny on bad guys, people that we have reason to suspect may be planning a terrorist attack, and far more

protection for law-abiding citizens who have conducted -- with committed no transgressions. i want to begin on targeting bad guys in a want to follow-up with the question senator graham saded earlier concerning as and maliki. despite all of our surveillance capabilities. despite having significant wascations that assad engaged. the federal government failed to prevent the horrific terrorist attack that claimed the life of 14 innocents at fort hood. the first question i would like in yourhe panel is judgment, why is that? that are bent us

from getting the information and acting on that to prevent that act of terror? >> i would say that is a very important question and your general thought to target through surveillance known bad guys -- that is something we did the boat a great deal of intention to -- attentinon to. the section has not gotten any attention. that recommendation is that we need to expand our authority to track known targets of counterterrorism. that is a gap in our statutory structure. whether that would apply in any way to the case you are describing, i don't think so but it is an important gap. that one is probably a group we

need to get more into the details of that we did -- than we did. welcome your thoughts as well as how we could've done better. >> it is not something that we as a group looked at. that was not our mandate. i am familiar with the case. i am constrained here because i in thenow what is unclassified and classified world. we can have a conversation afterward in closed session. >> a follow-up question for the panel. respect to true with the boston bombers where in that instance we had intelligence from russia that they were having communications with radical islamic groups and yet for whatever reason, their

radicalization continued, the government dropped the ball, and they carried out another horrific terrorist attack. did members of the panel had any view as to why our surveillance providety did not sufficient information to act upon it to prevent that terrorist attack before it occurred? >> i will tell you in that case there were not any communications between the united states and overseas. ofre was no surveillance those communications that would've provided any information that would've prevented the boston bombings. this is largely a case of domestic radicalization. i think that is the best way to think about it.

>> as i understand it, the elder brother after traveling to chechnya and meeting with radical islamic groups, came back and posted on public due to pages -- youtube pages. that does not take extraordinary surveillance capability. it just takes the government looking at what he is saying publicly. >> i was making a different point. you are right. i was making a different point about the actual communications and the collection of those communications. >> that underscores my concerned that the focus of the programs has been far too much on law-abiding citizens and much too little on people for whom we have significant reason to believe there may be a real danger of terrorism. bostonspect to the bombers, i am not sure there could have been too much

surveillance based on the information we had to protect national security. citizens at large, and i understanding correctly the conclusions that the commission received that in your the metadata program has not to date prevented any significant terrorist attack. is that an accurate understanding? >> that is a fair understanding. we have contributed some useful information but cannot say any specific terrorist attack was prevented because of the information we learn from the metadata program. >> an additional recommendation is that the government itself stop collecting metadata, but t hat private companies, the phone companies that have that data, preserve that data and that

searches be conducted only when there were specific cause to search rather than the government sweeping in every law-abiding citizen. >> precisely. >> is that the judgment of the immission that if there that was kept in private hands, at the phone companies already that would do, nothing to undermine the efficacy of the program preventing future attacks? >> we believe that way of handling the data can be done in the weight that will not in any way undermine the efficacy of the program. that itnize in a report is speculative. in fact turns out there are inefficiencies that make it more difficult to use the data in an appropriate way, the upturn of it is to have it held by private holders.

>> focusing also on the question of potentially overbroad ouple weekse -- a c ago senator sanders wrote a letter to the nsa asking if the nsa had spied or if the nsa is currently spying on members of congress or other american elected officials. wasnsa's response to that that members of congress have the same privacy protections as all u.s. persons which suggests the answer to that question is affirmative. you understand it, each of were granted security clearances, the ability to see classified information. i will ask the pet -- asked the thel -- are you aware has nsa ever done surveillance on members of congress or other elected american officials? >> we are not aware of any such.

one of the things we learned in our review is that there are no targeting by the nsa of people because of their political views, religious convictions, or their political party. somerms of concretely, may not havee precise questions that every one of which answer to. politics, religion, political views -- that is not what they are interested in. >> we are talking about in recent years. we are not talking about the 1960's and 1970's when there was a different history of surveillance agencies. >> i mean incurring years -- in current years. i want to clarify one thing you said about religious views. agree that awould would not to jihad

qualify as a religious view and would be a political and an embrace of violence that merits very close scrutiny to prevent that violence from happening. >> if there is reason to believe the person is threatening the united states, that would not fall between -- under protected religion belief. >> a follow-up question related congress,bers of are any members of the panel aware that the nsa has spied on any of them? >> we have no information to that. we would not anticipate that. >> i want to thank each of you for being here. the remainder of the committee is off voting so with that we will take a five-minute recess

and i expect my colleagues will return. the hearing will commence again. thank you.

>> i just wanted to note a couple of quotes from your report. one is the question about granting the government authority makes us safety but whether the additional safety is worth the sacrifice of individual privacy, personal liberty, and public trust. it -- soust as we know many times we have to rely on individuals and the public who might give us information that can be valuable but they have to have the public trust. law-enforcement knows this. same with the intelligence

community. yield. but, in your review, did you identify a difference? i think you already answered this question. a difference between the demonstration of the utility of the government's abilities which is aimed at non-us persons abroad and the phone records program. 702 has proven to be much more valuable as a counterterrorism tool thean 215. >> thank you very much. morell, how would you characterize the value of the 215 program? will, from a safety

perspective even if as fast if it has not generated intelligence. i'm interested in your assessment of its values. >> that is where i am. it is absolutely true that 215 has not by itself disrupted, prevented terrorist attacks in the united states, but that does not mean it is not important going forward. as i said in my op-ed, it only needs to be successful once to be invaluable. one of the ways that i think about this is that many of us have never suffered a fire in our homes but we still all have homeowners insurance to protect against that. that is one of the ways i think about 215. the concerned that of an author -- in

unauthorized leak -- an una uthorized leak was not foreseen by the intelligence community and that there would not appear to be a response that was timely, sensible. they didn't seem to be paired. what is your sense of what the reaction was i the intelligence community? was it a scramble as a look like from the outside? >> i was inside for part of it and outside for part of it. the strategyhat that was being pursued was not successful. pursuedtegy that was did not deal, did not mitigate

the lack of public trust, did not win back any of the public trust. it was absolutely clear to me that and this picks up on something professor stone raised earlier, this was one of the most overseen programs in the history of the intelligence community. >> in the history of the country. nsa, within the executive branch, within the justice department, within the intelligence community, congress , and with the judiciary which is very unusual for intelligence program. in the there was a sense intelligence agencies and the executive branch that that level of oversight was enough to keep the public trust if there was a disclosure and i think that turned out to be wrong. >> i wonder if it might have done better if within the first

couple that weeks a full disclosure of how the program had been carefully overseen and daysout because it took initially and weeks before they were as a -- there was a solid view. what you said was one of the clearer expositions we have heard yet. this is one of those cases where the not completely accurate image got across town but for this -- before the truth had its roots on. this is going to happen again. for the intelligence community not to be prepared for it is a mistake. if we make a hash of what happened by responding to this program, you dial back from that if that is the way you're thinking to be more candid up

front and diminishing that risk. we could've been more candid with the american people up right about this program without creating any significant national security laws. that is my thought. my time is running out. i just want to take a moment and thank you for your service to our country. i find you all extremely capable and honorable. i want to thank mr. clark who is one of many things -- who warned of many things. we could've avoided disaster. i am going to yield to senator sessions. toill ask senator blumenthal

take the chair. before i leave -- i have spent decades on this committee. we have had some terrific panels. i cannot think of anybody who brings the wealth and broadness of knowledge to an issue like the five of you do. i say that because you give it a great deal of your time and public service. it is extremely valuable. whatever we do is going to be influenced heavily by your report. i appreciate that. i know the president also appreciates the amount of time you have done.

some of you i go back to longer as i have with mr. clark. page.rell, in your drafted to the cia. the clearness of your helpful.s were fromis something you hear both republicans and democrats. i appreciate that. he has been extremely helpful to this committee. professor stone, thank you so much for the time you ever taken. i will turn it over to senator blumenthal and yield to senator sessions. has spent aeahy number of years dealing with these issues also. i believe the patriot act he helped craft and we all worked

on and spent hours on was not where youse things have to reduce constitutional rights in order to protect america. i think that was the wrong characterization of it. i believe everything in that ill was consistent with then existing criminal law and techniques that were used every day by prosecutors in the counties of america, in u.s. attorneys offices. i don't believe there is anything there that we should be apologizing for. the committee is an excellent committee and a highly intelligent one. i would note that three of the had hands-onever experience with this. you have written about it but you have not been on the field directly dealing with these issues. i think anyone would say it is a

pro-libertarian panel. i am pleased that you fundamentally agreed with some of what i said. out of recent disclosures and commentary have created the impression that nsa surveillance is indiscriminate and pervasive across the globe. an essay focuses on foreign intelligence information that is relevant to protecting the national security of the national -- of the united states and its allies. i know you did not say lightly and would not say if you don't believe it. of group found no evidence any abuse of authority for the purpose of targeting domestic the local activity. -- political activity. it has always been my impression. you also say that in your review you have been covered -- have no t uncovered any intent to

intrude in people's privates lives without justification. the american people are not interesting in what we are saying in our telephone calls. i thank you for that. i believe those who have raised concerns about it could take comfort into that. i was a prosecutor for a long time. i want to raise the question about the metadata. that sounds so awful and scary that it makes us nervous but in conventional prosecutions in a countyoday prosecutor who is interested in knowing who a criminal gsuspect

is talking to issues a subpoena to the phone company and a submit the records to them. they examined the records to see if that guy -- bad guy one is talking to bad guy two. this is the kind of thing that is done every day in every office. can issue records of saying -- your motel, telephone records. the irs to get every bank records you have administratively. the reason is that these are not their records. they are not the and that -- it is not the individual who is being investigated records. you have a diminished expectation of privacy. the supreme court has clearly helped this for the past 100 years.

the records brought to the united states are in our custody because of the way the computer systems work. we get numbers basically. morell, i guess you have used this system. would you share with us, is there any difference between a traditional issuing of subpoenas and the way this is done in the of the government getting the records from the companies involved and then accessing them -- in bulk and then accessing them? >> i am not the best person to answer that question so let me defer to my colleagues. >> who would like to?

mr. stone, i am glad to hear your comment to you on the board of the aclu, is that right? did you support the aclu against the government? >> i had nothing to do with that. >> you don't feel any conflict? >> no. i think what has changed is the nature of the technology. when you talk about subpoenas whether it is through grand jury, typically you are looking for a very focused type of information relevant to a specific investigation. when you are comparing this to the metadata, you are talking about millions of americans records swept up. >> swept up. it is somewhere in the computer. >> no subpoena has ever been

allowed to reach that level. the analogy is a flawed analogy. >> looking at every record that is there, they have to have some valuable for an investigation. >> you were drawing analogy -- an analogy to the subpoena appeared as subpoena has the -- subpoena. a subpoena had to be relevant to a particular inquiry. the metadata program elicits a vast amounts of data far more than any subpoena in the history of the world has been able to gather. and theetadata comes in only difference is it was in the computers of the phone company

but for easier access it is put into the computer of the government somewhere. inquiries only go to those records just like they would have gone to the phone companies. the only difference is for convenience in computer access the government could get it quicker because some of these issues are life and death. court hassupreme recognized a year ago, there are hasts to technology now called into play about how far this doctrine that if you disclose information to somebody else that you have no reasonable expectation of privacy of the information. justices case -- five suggested that that basic principle that was around for a long time has to be called into question when you get into the

world where technology allows -- >> they called into question -- >> nothing we say has nothing to do with the constitution. >> i see no difference. you are accessing the same records whether you get them from the phone company or you get them in bulk. i think the direction you were going in is actually quite compatible with the recommendation. our recommendation is not to weminate the 215 program but have a program where the government does not have all the stuff which the government does not have in the cases you have worked on. it on aaccess to certain showing and that is the model we are suggesting. we suggest is that model won't compromise any national security goal because in cases where time is the essence, you can get it from that. in cases where it is not on the

line, you go through the standard legal process. that is what we are building on. >> my time is up. judge casey does not agree. >> thank you, senator sessions. i would like to thank the entire panel for your testimony here today and your hard work to make sure we really focus on and get right some of these tough questions. professor, how did the review groups suggested surrounding the 215 authority addressed the constitutional concerns raised by the judge? doour task we were asked to

was not focus on constitutional analysis. our task was on what policy should be good moving forward. -- should be moving forward. >> do the group's recommendations address those concerns or fail to? >> i think at the professor was saying there was a discussion in the report how metadata looks given the changing technology. and the 1970's, there was a limited number of phone calls. today the number of texts and facebook posts are different. study on this metadata issues because we think the changing facts require some itnging law a we don't say is unconstitutional.

this new board will be empowered to review the collections and have a new function to respond to whistleblowers. underrrent one is resourced relative to its scope over spots ability -- scope of responsibility. authorities without resources can be worse than no authorities at all if they provide a false sense of security. i would be interested in your view -- what budget would be sufficient to allow this new board to perform its mission? >> i don't have a specific answer for you. it would be a significant more amount of resources. communityelligence and the inspector general exist to ensure legal

compliance. it told us that lacks the resources to conduct a perot review -- eight doro review -- a thorough review of the 215. resources are needed to make sure the oversight and accountability is ensured. the classified opinions revealed the nsa has exceeded court decisions and attempted to defend those actions and fun of the court. i think it is agreed that was a violation. my concern is that the nsa tried to defend its use of nonapproved selectors. i will be interested in your view why the nsa attempted to defend its illegal actions. what reforms are necessary to encourage the ic to come clean and admit its mistakes? there was a lack of

misunderstanding -- of understanding and communication between the nsa and the court. there was no intentional attempt to circumvent the court what i think we had a bunch of engineers and computer scientists at nsa talking to a bunch of lawyers at the court and i think there was a lack of understanding about what each side was saying. i believe as soon as the nsa learned the court objections they rectified the problem. is thencidents point to need for the court to have more technical staff and resources. just as the other program is underesourced, so is the court. >> are there any other levels that would do with this mismatch? anything about adding an moreate to adding a

adversarial component to the process -- would that also strengthen the court capabilities? >> there are several recommendations. one is a public advocate in the court and the other a strengthening the ability of the court. another would be creating in the new civil liberties admission, and technology assessment staff. tiony last question -- sec 702 and 215. these are sections about whether has been a lot of public debate. it also recommends greater public disclosure. doeseport appropriately not disclose any additional info. what do you did the group have about any disclose programs?

>> there is a great deal of metadata collected by the national security program. we do speak to that. there is a great deal of communications related information collected under the executive order. public attention is focused on it produces a small percentage of the overall data that is collected. >> tank you to the whole panel for your testimony -- thank you to the whole panel for to your testimony. >> i want to know that two of the witnesses were law professors. stone talkprofessor evidence. -- taught evidence. i want to start with some of the recommendations. one of the most prominent recommendations of the review group was that the u.s. government should not hold the

metadata but that data should be held by the companies or third-party. i remember that general alexander said he was open to this idea back in july. do you think this would lead to greater security or do you think there could be a possibility of it being hacked? i would ask the professors if you'd inc. the companies would be insisting him protection for liability? >> i was not your professor, thankfully. there has been a very significant information at nsa. nsa can have its information stolen, or it is not just commercial entities. i am unaware of people's phone records going into the public record when they were stolen

from phone companies. they are there now. we are not suggesting something new. the phone companies have the data. we are suggesting that they keep it rather than the government. rather than leave it with the phone companies, we went the third-party route. you are right here to security of those records would have to be paramount. i believe security can be achieved from hackers. we have spent a whole chapter on the report talking about how to do that. it is just that people don't do it. lex what about the liability >> what about the liability issue? >> that is another one. >> the court would provide for more of an adversarial process, to provide for someone to ensure the civil interests wherever presented. what proportion of the cases

should be argued by public interest advocates on privacy and liberty? do you see it happening in every case or a percentage of the cases? >> the reason i say approximately small is that an overwhelming majority of the cases do not involve difficult issues of law and policy. one thing we are focused on is the possibility that the public interest advocate would not have as many hours of engagement as a standard lawyer does just because a lot of the cases are routine. we don't have an exact percentage to where the issues of law or policy are novel then there was a keen importance to make it sure. >> i thought it was a good recommendation. the committee received a letter from judge bates. in which he raised questions about proposed reforms like

adding a special advocate to the court and recommended that the court be allowed to appoint an advocate on a case-by-case basis. >> we respect and admire his views. we is agreed on that one on the grounds that the judge is not in the ideal position to know whether a particular view needs representation. does not decide whether one or another view gets a lawyer. this is an unusual context. if there was a privacy concern, it is good to have someone that is specially authorized to take account of that concern and decide whether to participate. thehe public revelation of surveillance programs, particularly those targeting foreign leaders, has generated a strong outcry from some of our allies including germany and brazil. the review group recommended that the intelligence community limits focuses on foreign

leaders. ask, mr. morell, in your view, did the surveillance of prime minister merkel meet the standards you are suggesting? >> i can't confirm or deny the surveillance of any foreign leader. i would say that i think it is important policymakers make decisions about collection at that level. that has not been the case here before. >> the review group also recommended extending the oftection of the privacy act 1974 to foreign citizens. is there a precedent for the government to extend privacy protections for foreign citizens? >> on the privacy act, the department of homeland security

has had a policy that should be adopted more broadly which is when there was a mixed system of records and there are u.s. and non-us people, then the non-us people should have access as well. we are building on that precedence. >> thank you. >> thank you all. -- i regret that that osama bin laden brings us to the airport about an hour earlier than we were supposed to. i regret that edward snowden brings us today but i think we have food knowledge -- acknowledge this. there is a public question about privacy and whether the government is going too fa r. now that this is a public record, we had this hearing as we should to try to restore the confidence of the american people. several you are authors.

is oneue before us today where the word is not even found in the constitution -- privacy. ob can come to expect and what the court might view as going too far and whether the court of public opinion is going too far. when you consider the great advancement of telephone technology, smartphones, the ubiquitous use of the internet. whetherme to revisit smith versus maryland is in line with the expect nations -- with privacy?tations of thep ofple stand up in the middle the plane and broadcast their telephone conversations within earshot. where we know that commercial invasion of our privacy has taken place i was constantly. of the information

by the government is only a fraction of what the private sector is gathering on us every day. tell me what you think the issue of privacy looks like. level, we doh believe in the current technological environment if people use the internet or the it is ae or banks, matter of public policy to protect their privacy and focus on striking the right balance between national security needs and the needs of government to get access to information back to protect us. we were not asked to investigate the constitutional issue. we were alert to your concerns very much in offering our recommendations. phone logsld attain of the actual phone numbers people called and know the names

of the person they called, i could probably draw some inferences about them, their lives, maybe their intentions? >> unquestionably. metadata is not the same as content but it is something that people are understandably skeptical about the idea that others get access to, especially the government for exactly the reasons you give. >> if you let the telephone companies pertained possession of this data and go after it as needed, what kind of obstacle does that create in going after bad guys? like the boston bombers will be can come up with a telephone, -- telephone number and know pretty quickly if this is an effort. >> because there is reasonable grounds because it can happen in the near future, if time is up the essence, there is no need to go to court. recommendation a and the legislation that would respond in a way that it

knowledge is that sometimes you have to move very fast. >> i'm sure this question was raised earlier about adding some balance to the fisa court so there is something akin to adversarial proceedings. feel on the work you've done is the most credible way to establish that? >> one thing is thinking about who those people are institutionally. those who but the advocates would have to have the clearance because they would have to work court.fisa the cases known to them enough so that the next make sense and it may not be a full-time job. it's only occasionally that the minimization happens. we suggested some ideas that have not been suggested in public.

the privacy board or whatever some forward, they have law firm republic interest to fiveo have three years. when they are there to do it, they do it. if you just pop in and out you would not have the other context to do it well. >> we have this quaint concept of an inspector general literally charged with taking a look from an outside point of and most of them emerge with some credibility because of this relationship. is that something we can build on. they haverstanding is not had a legal function.

they have had fraud waste and abuse but if you want the best lawyers you can get for privacy liberties, arguing with the department of justice and thinking about how to staff that do have the good people available, they probably need something else to do when there is not that many cases. twoet me close by saying things. a pending omnibus bill contains provisions that will finally make public as much as can be made public. it's a lot of specific data about what has been collect did. it's been an issue important to me for a long time and it will be part of the bill. what senator blumenthal is trying to do to make sure that the court is more balanced in its appointees. i think if there was a more diverse selection there would be a more diverse outcome.

to pursue senator durbin's point about how to the special advocate, constitutional advocate, public advocate, the key question is who does he/she works for? my concept in advancing it was that the client is the individual or group whose constitutional rights may be in peril. it really is the constitution. earlier about appearance and perception being important. thisng is important from perspective. if public defenders in court, and i dealt with a lot of them as a u.s. attorney, were housed in the prosecutor's office, clients coming to be defended would have a totally different

perception even though it might actually save money to put them in the prosecutor's office. i think there is a very important analogy here. we have had public defenders who are not full-time. they are not ad hoc. for a long time, people were in toented by people hold do their duty with minimal pay while juggling other duties. clear theyit's not have the experience to handle a particular case. that's why i have advocated a full-time institutionalized separate office that is as independent as possible, because perception is so him. i went to thank you for giving excellent thought to the questions that the senator have raised.

point.t it's about as outdated as i think any supreme court could possibly be given that it was dealing with a different system of information gathering at a different time not only with thehones but literally wires, the mechanisms, were so different. the outfit in the room here is really the supreme court. many of our colleagues have said we should wait for the supreme court. we all know the supreme court is not necessarily an andlutely clear noncontroversial source of law. responsibility, the congress under the united states constitution has an equal

responsibility to protect the constitution and indeed to define it. that is why your work, i think i'm has been very important. you have not only given us guidance but great credibility to the direction i believe this will go. if there are other comments, we will hold the record open for one week. senator sessions has asked me to place in the record an opinion article in "the wall street journal." it is on the reality and the nsa reform. we will hold this record open for one week and thank you both, gentlemen. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> as congress begins consideration of fiscal year 2014 omnibus spending bill, we are joined by eric watson of the hill. what are some topline details we should know about? trillion inut $1 total land fleshes out the ryan- murray budget pact that had 2013. in the worked to hash out budget that encourages compromises that was originally 134 policy writers, limitations on everything from the post office, discontinuing saturday mail, to preventing the export- import dank from preventing. an important point that is in the bill. other points not in the bill,

blocking all funding for obamacare. that is the issue that shut down the government for 16 days. however, they can point to the fact that it has been taken out of the obama prevention care fund, often derived as a slush fund, that they can dip into to bolster obamacare funding and overall funding held that the post sequestration level. there is no new funding for obamacare. year.4 is an important how does the omnibus handle the funding? >> $92 billion on the high and is what the house was seeking. that would help the pentagon deal with cuts in base funding reduction from what the house had sought. aid to the afghan government is limited.

there are policy provisions that would require bilateral security agreements in order for full funding for the afghan government. it was not sanctioned very well on the aid to egypt as well which saw a two and the funding limited by the administration and now having to meet certain object is to receive its full military assistance as well. you reported back on some of the benefits that were taken away. tell us more about that. cut about $85 billion in spending in order to boost spending in the near term on the discretionary side. how they got to that overall cut involved a cut the military pensions. it was a cost-of-living adjustment for military retirees and it has proven quite .ontroversial

there are deficit hawks and there is a big push in the senate to reverse that. and this is not completely reversed. instead, they have disabled survivors for members of the military who have been killed or who have died. this would exempt them from the cut and is part of the deal. >> you tweeted earlier about republican leaders saying they are start to sell the $1 trillion omnibus to the rank and file. how are they going about doing that? >> there was talk among house republicans about how this is bringing discretionary funding before the obama stimulus, a lower number than in the first paul ryan budget and emphasizing that there are a lot of andervative principles

those that we are going for. a lot of the members have just started review the bill. dropped at 8:00 p.m. last night. there are very vocal concerns. conservative, he provisionned about a in the lieu of taxes that relates to rural communities paying to the government. they're bringing up individual pieces of the bill that they are worried about and talking about how this might be addressed and other legislative vehicles. there would be that shut down during the days of votes which start in the afternoon. >> you report supporting the omnibus spending measure, does that make it easy for house democrats to favor the bill?

>> it did not do enough to a long-term budget and has said they will support the measure. i think there will be a strong vote. still talking to members and seeing if they have concerns. there are cuts to nih funding and those in the education department that made the terror members from voting for it. >> read more from eric watson on the hill's website. follow him on twitter. >> thanks for having me. president for a stated in march and we emphasized, the is tof united states disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al qaeda and its extremist allies and prevent its return to both countries. the effort to stabilize afghanistan is necessary to

achieve this overarching goal. >> robert gates served two presidents and cia director in the early 90s. friday on c-span 2, a live book tv event talking about his management of the wars in iraq and afghanistan and his relationship with the white house and congress. for for women's history beginners. her your questions and comments live on in at noon eastern. join the discussions on the liberty amendments. go to booktv.com and click on club" to enter the charts. >> a forum on raising the minimum wage. speakers include iowa senator tom harkin and representative george miller from california. they are sponsoring legislation

to raise the minimum wage. this is a little more than one hour. >> there are decades worth of letters on minimum wage. it's where the best economists to getth as an outlet their ideas out and as a way to of thesetheir support issues. the fact that you see such a broad-based a list of economists a lot of what we will go through in terms of raising the minimum wage is really mainstream and increasingly the view of the economic profession. >> epri said we were upstream. we say now what the mainstream will say later. >> fair enough. intellectually, none of them

have a vote. none of them can make anything happen. fortunately, we have senator harkin and congressman miller who have championed this issue for just as long or longer than anyone else has and are really going to be the reason that it's going to happen. putting to start out by the store cold context on the but im wage and showing think is the single most striking fact about the minimum wage right now which is where it was below inflation-adjusted terms in 1950. to put some context, real per .apita gdp is up 242% real hourly wages are up 65%, which is disappointingly small given the gdp growth and that's

story although not entirely unrelated. if you look at real capacity household wealth, that is up 298%. minimum wage is down 64 years without a raise for workers at the bottom. it wasn't always that way. it was all enough word trend and it reached its peak in 1968 and it has fallen by one third since 1968. of the an important part explanation for what we have seen in this economy since the late 1960's. there's been a lot of discussion on the council of economic advisers putting out a report and there are a lot of things and that record. if you look at the poverty rates and don't take into account

public policy, it's actually gone up since 1967. when you are cutting pay for people at the bottom for one third, you should not be that surprised that you're not making a lot of progress on poverty and you only take into account those wages. the war on property -- poverty was about a lot of things including expanding assistance to low income households. reporting workr like nutrition assistance. when you take that into account, we have made an immense amount of progress and that's why it's important to make sure we are extending emergency unemployment insurance, defending robust , the earnedsistance income tax credit, the child tax credit. to make a lot more progress and

continue to do so, we are going to need to raise wages for all workers. one of the important tools we ise to help make that happen raising the minimum wage. it does not just a matter for poverty. it matters for what president obama has called the defining issue of our time which is inequality. there's a lot of dimensions of inequality. the ratio of women's rages -- closely tracking. as much as one third to one half of certain types of inequality has been due to the erosion of value in the minimum wage. inequality is a much larger phenomenon at the top related to the middle. there's a lot of causes of inequality and this is one of

the most important ones especially for inequality at the bottom. returning again to poverty, we are now at a place where full-time year- round and they will be paid $14,500. adding the tax credits they get to that, and you are still raising the family below the poverty line. we fundamentally think you want to set a minimum wage that if you are working full-time year- round that you can raise your family above the poverty line. when you take into account tax that they all support, that would take you above the poverty line. it would lift 1.6 million people out of poverty and 8.8 million people in poverty would see the wages go up. , that haseral level

often been a way to encourage states to raise the minimum wage and what they do in turn encourages us. 21 states and d.c. have higher minimum wages and a lot are now indexing to inflation and one of the encouraging developments is that we have seen four states passed legislation and we would like to see more states doing that and there's no reason that anyone needs to wait for washington to do that. minimum wage disproportionately benefits women although it benefits an awful lot of men. and about halfed of the benefits go to low and moderate income families. a third of the benefits go to 75mily between $35,000- thousand dollars. i don't think it's a defect.

as families may have a secondary earner working part-time, full- time. they need a raise and about $75,000 is where the minority of benefits go but many of them could also use a raise in this economy. a goes through a wide spectrum of ages. only a small amount to teenagers and a diverse set of families, a lot of them with children. of the case overall, andimpact on our economy jobs, one thing to put it into context is a we are among the lowest of countries as rich as the united states even with $10.10 per hour, we would still be relatively low compared to many of our peer countries. this is not something in the historical perspective for the united states would be particularly high.

international, it's a very manageable. i wanted to end on this slide that summarizes the research that john schmidt put together. are you here? ok. thank you, john. we share this everywhere we go. this shows the range of studies and the impact it has on unemployment. some find a negative effect, some a positive. the vast find zero effect dam that is why he correctly summary of inno negative adverse meaning affect. was crazy +15 and +20 so it never got published. it is likely skewed those studies it in a negative direction -- skewed to those studies in a negative direction

essentially seeing zero in the analysis. that is the micro-labor economics. if you look at the one we have today, in the short run it will at least provide a boost and potentially help create more jobs. summary, this is long overdue. arguably 64 years overdue to get to where we need to go matters a lot for poverty, inequality. a lot of the myths about who it wrong in a lot of these are very tangible and very large. it's something we need to do. >> thank you very much, jason. senator harkin. >> thank you very much. thank you to everyone at epi for all of your talented economic analysis not only on this issue but so many of our issues that we are confronting. thanks for bringing us together

today. it's a great show of unity. all agreeing that this is one of the most important issues that we can deal with and give a boost to our economy. i will not go into specifics. i think jason has done some of that and you all know the specifics. i want to just focus on a couple of things. there used to be a consensus in the congress about dealing with issues like this one such as minimum wage. at least in our time here, there used to be a universal agreement that people who work hard every kids,ake care of the elders, running the cash registers, ordering a meal or a workercoffee, but these bees out there are really valuable. economy valuable to our and, quite frankly, they are the

ones who make our country run, you know? someone running the cash register doing these minimum- wage jobs, they don't show up in things grind down a little bit. we always agreed their valuable. if we agreed you worked hard and paid by the rules you could have a good economic stake. you could put money away for a rainy day, have a secure retirement. it's alarming to see how these are being degraded in our public policy. the new attitude is -- tough luck. you are on your own. even if you struggle and face insurmountable challenges, it's probably your own fault. used to just hear this on talk radio and now it has become part of the discourse in the u.s. congress almost every day. we hear minimum-wage workers don't deserve an honest wage

because they are not worth $10.10 per hour. or, get this, raising the minimum wage will not help people get out of poverty. come again. if you give people more money you are not helping them get out of poverty? i remember mr. rubio said that last week with this ludicrous look on his face. a minimum-wage worker, you should just get a better job. maybe work harder. tell that to the single mom working two jobs trying to put food on the table in figure out how to keep her kids safe and cared for. the republican party may not understand the challenges this single mother is facing. they are calling for better wages and better working conditions. they see our neighbors falling behind and that is why there is a groundswell of support across

the country and across party lines for an increase in middle -- minimum-wage. as it is becoming clear this is the right thing to do, i'm confident that a strong majority will see this as something we must pass. congressman miller and i have introduced legislation to raise the minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10 over three years. over twonot been done decades. the minimum wage for tipped workers is $2.13 per hour, they don't believe in. i have a copy of a paycheck that i have actually used from a worker here in the district of columbia. the actual paycheck is for zero dollars. after the withholding, she got no money.

chips may be up one day and down the next, up one, down the next downps may be up one day, the next. it will no longer be a poverty wage. to ensure it does not fall below that again. i want to give a little warning. there are going to be attempts to lower this to $8.00, $8.50 and index it. that will lock in a sub-poverty wage and index it for the future. george and i have worked on this for a long time. we are willing to negotiate. it's not just my way or the highway. i'm not saying that. we've already negotiated it, at

least in the senate. we have agreed the first tranche would go in the six months rather than three months. that's in the senate don't. we agreed to put in a tax provision for the expensing of capital. fine. there is some negotiation that $10.10 is the bottom line. we cannot go below it. if we had cap the minimum wage up from 1968 it would be $10.75 per hour. to somehow bring it below that and lock in a subpar minimum- wage for the future is not acceptable. we are always willing to talk and negotiate, but on this? that's the bottom line. we cannot go below $10.10. 6.8new studies we have that

million will be lifted out of poverty after the implementation. there are lots of statistics. just for a minimum-wage worker, the increase could pay for seven months of groceries, six months of rent, or 1600 gallons of gas per year. that's a real difference. they're calling on us to do this. the pressure will build. can we get something done like this in an election year? may be better this year than any other. in 1996.at happen we both worked on it then. the republicans had the house and the senate. but we got that through then because the pressure built. republicans did not