least in your >> if the senate has been without days so that the session of the senate is president,if the under article two, chooses to leave the house in session -- >> why do you need a date? will make ahat recess defined as something without the date? >> this takes us back to the first argument, and i think the comp -- the contemplation was that the recess would be between the time that intervened between the ending of the session of the congress and the beginning of the next. had a date, because we knew january 3 was a new session. >> well, that wasn't true until

the 20th amendment. you know, the date was a much different date in the original constitution. but to answer your question, it is usually the case that a recess is going to be longer than three days. if the sent finish all of this legislative business, for example in this year on december 30, then voted to a german, and and i'm again me onto the beginning of the second session of the congress on january 3, that will be in intrasession recess even though it would not be the one that would require consent of the house. but and that a usual case in which a recess is taken, it will be the type of break that the framers contemplated would need the consent of the house. and the reason for that will be obvious. we have a system of a bicameral legislation. the houses too are supposed to work together to accomplish the business of the people. if the houses working on something and the senate was to go away or vice versa am a they

need the consent of each other because they may need each other to frame ongoing legislative projects. and if the houses in honest on judgment things that ascend its officially available to the house and in our system -- so that has been in full compliance with an adjournment clause, it is very difficult to see how in the agreement of both houses that the senate is a fact effectively available, that there -- that is there with his full power of unanimous consent every third day. isthe house inks that adequate for the discharge of his constitutional functions and the constitutional functions of the senate. do final point that has to with the solicitor general's insistence on the no business language. >> yes.nish? >> makes it very clear -- it is also an hour appendix, that any

business may be conducted at anytime, without notice, by unanimous consent. and so that effectively, what's we have here is merely an thedment by the synod that 20 center staff tina and j were 23rd, only unanimous consent business would be agreed to. >> thank you. >> thank you. let me begin with a couple of points on intrasession recesses. with respect to the question that justice alito raise, it would've been perfectly familiar to the framers that a legislative body could take in intrasession recess.

jeffersons parliamentary manual written while he was vice president and presiding over the senate specifically refers to recesses of by an german that occur within a session and session resumes when they are over. the clause it self contemplates the need for approval by the other branch for a time longer than three days during the recession. i think it is difficult to senate hadthat the in the first years under president washington decided to take a two-month rate that the resident would not have been able to staff the offices of the republic. >> if we agree with your the first question, then there either needs to either be a member or a functional test. and i don't know with the number would come from and i don't know how the functional test would play out. bewithin the number should the number in the ad germans clause, three days or less. now, president have exercise

restraint and there had been recess appointments and periods below 10 days. >> with respect to the presence of that in the ad germans clause but in the absence of any number, how to explain that? think that there is a really a need for explanation. a recess is a suspension of business and what to be an german clause -- an adjournment clause says if you are gone for three days or less you are not really suspending your business, but if you are gone for more than three days you are. and i think that is quite consistent with the argument that microsoft the other side are making. now, with respect to the history on intrasession recesses apartments, really if you look at the congressional directory which is a document that we cite in our brief and you look at the column that says intrasession recesses, you'll see page after page of blank space.

and intrasession recess appointments really just precisely paralleled the increasing use of by the senate. >> can you argue that the senate sort of acquiesced and that and everybody has come together? >> you know, the president appoints somebody during a recess contrary to the respondents view, what is the sinistro objects to that supposed to do? >> a couple of things about that. was first enacted in this time in the 1860's when the first intrasession recess appointments were occurring. even in its original form never said and says never said anything about try to restrict. theye congress felt that were improper, they could've done what they did in the office act. eject? >> ofwould course. >> on the same ground that you're objecting here. well, we would.

but in terms of -- but well, then that's not some that's effective -- >> but in terms of -- >> you think is unconstitutional. >> in terms of expression of their disagreement as opposed, and it did not happen. well, the senate says we don't agree with the recess appointment. -- >> well,didn't some dead. >> famously objected to the president's assertion of that power. >> but he famously objected to the intrasession recession should be 30 days or longer. /he think that is just the haggling about the length. >> no, i just want to make sure i understand. >> well, the center who objects can say whatever the center wants, but we do not have a historical record. says, suppose the center i object to that. i think it is unconstitutional.

what can i do? >> well, if the congress as a body out that these were inappropriate that the take legislative action to try to limit the president's authority. >> but could you say that action would be ineffective? but we would agree on the -- certainly agree on the criminalizing point. >> the people object of the time to think that in fact they cannot do anything about, right? >> yes, your honor. >> the question of reports. sorry i deny me to -- you're your six minutes cannot already be up. >> take a few more minutes. >> i was thinking the same thing. there were a couple of a more committed reports by believe they were on the happen issue and that we turn to that. as i said, do not take that chart comprehensive. as we said, it is not. we think there are many more.

and of course, 39 president have made those appointments. purposes of the clause as we discussed earlier, i think, are for better served by our reading than the other side. jefferson gave a reasonable textual reading and then asked about the pay act. -- in the vacancy arose within 30 days, but it says something else. which is if a nomination is pending. >> but i am folks on 30 days and the reason i'm doing that it seems to me a real matter for the political branches to resolve. we have to decide this. and i got the 30 day thing from the pay act. >> i guess it -- >> i want to get your view on that. >> and what i will point out by analogy also is there is another provision in the pay act, even if the vacancy arose for more than 30 days there some expression of congress abuse about was appropriate.

senatean, that's not the that is sitting now. you are tripping the views of one senate to the senate over time. >> that is an expression of the law of the united states. think really into how you the 30 day idea, if practical, plays out. >> as i said, i think there's an equilibrium here and a 30 days does not fully capture it'll stop the let me talk about that. >> briefly. >> briefly. >> the vast majority of appointees are submitted for advice and consent. that was true historically and now. resourcemajority of a appointees are confirmed. so it's just not the case this is in and around the advice and consent role of the senate. whye are powerful reasons presidency do that. they do not want a temporary appointments that they have to deal with again and they don't want interbranch friction.

the real problem is that if you go with respondents on the issue or the to underlying issues that the circuit ruling, you really writing the recess appointment power under the constitution. that is anti-pedicle to the liberty enhancing properties of separation of power. ambitious which counter and ambitions should not to aside. thank you. >> the case is submitted. >> a panel of former chairman and testified on wednesday august the impact of the d c circuit ruling on broadband or high-speed -- high-speed internet. you can watch it here tomorrow at 10:00 eastern. >> richard cordray is the director of consumer financial protection bureau.

he will talk about the new mortgage rules that took effect. you go watch a quote newsmakers" on sunday here on c-span. >> watch our program offers lady nancy reagan on c-span. and on monday night, our series continue. >> i know truthfully that every single problem in america would ,e better if people could read write, and copper hand. i know that. we could compete with the rest of the world. would not have these children who are committing crimes because their families do not have jobs. they do not have jobs because they cannot read. they cannot write. they do not understand. thinking is coming to that conclusion. we have got to educate our

children. we have to educate their parents. it is not just a whim, it is a necessity. we are going to compete in this world. >> first lady barbara bush on monday. live on c-span and c-span 3 and c-span radio and www.c-span.or./ state john kerry held a news conference with his canadian and mexican counterparts. they are discussing nafta which was signed into law 20 years ago. talks on updating the trade deal will continue next month in mexico. this is half an hour.

>> good morning. nice to be here with everybody, and i am delighted to welcome my friends and north american counterparts. we are happy to have them in washington today. i have had a chance to meet bilaterally a number of times with both the secretary and the minister, but this is the first time we have been able to meet all three of us since i became secretary of state. i'm grateful to both of them for making the trip here, and i hope to visit their countries, both of them, very, very soon. during my years in the senate and certainly since becoming secretary, i have often found myself in absolute awe about how extraordinary this continent really is. while we often wind up traveling

to troubled spots in the world, the truth is that worth america is a remarkable, remarkable unity of three very important and powerful countries that share values and interests and are operating on those values and interests every single day. we are three nations separated by peaceful borders. we are neighbors, we are partners, and we come together to confront the full range of challenges that we face, and believe me, this is something that is not every day everywhere in the world today. north american nations are promoting democracy and shared values at home and around the globe. we encourage daily our cooperation on matters of international peace and security. we work to gather on

nonproliferation, on syria among middle east peace come on a host of different challenges to our security, and we are also collaborating to address all of them more effectively than any of us could do alone. that is the power of north america and this relationship. through initiatives like the north america-central american security dialogue, we are improving security throughout the western hemisphere and beyond, and we are reducing the impact of natural disasters, providing assistance in the face of health, humanitarian challenges. we have launched trilateral initiatives like the north american plan for animal and pandemic influenza, which was critical during the h1n1 outbreak of 2009 and remains intact today in order to help us

address similar challenges should they arise at any moment we are taking steps to support economic growth that is inclusive, shared. a few weeks ago we marked the 20th anniversary of nafta. and i think we have learned a couple of important lessons that can help inform the vision of nafta. the first lesson is free trade works. in a world where economic policy is foreign policy, a free trade is a key ingredient for shared prosperity, for shared growth, and share security. every single day the united states does more than $3.4 billion of trade in our nafta partnership. that is about 1/3 of all the trading we do. it is done between this partnership.

more than $1 trillion a year. that is more trade than we engage with brazil annually, and each month we do more trade than we do with india annually. to give you a sense of the vitality of the partnership. over the past 20 years we have opened up a new north american marketplace. we have integrated supply chains and reimagined entire industries from agriculture to airspace. today north america is far more than the sum of three economies. it is the collective output of what has become a fully integrated manufacturing center. if you buy a car in mexico, it may well have been assembled in canada and contained made-in- america parts. there are workers in kansas putting the finishing touches on aircraft that contains fuselages

assembled in mexico and engines built in canada. this kind of economic integration is benefiting all three of our nations economically, and has also improved living standards and working conditions across the board. i will tell you because i was involved in the nafta debate in the united states senate. i remember how intense that debate was. it divided america. we could never really have envisioned even the best arguments what has happened in those 20 years. the second lesson that we can learn from the past couple of decades is that globalization is not slowing down anytime soon. and no matter how much there is some dislocation, and we acknowledge there can be, the fact is that no political leader or country can put that genie back in the bottle. when i joined my senators in supporting and passing nafta, we did not do it because it was

easy. we did because we believed it was a risk worth taking, and it has proven true. nafta was at the vanguard of the wholly interconnected world that we face today, and nobody has any way of transforming the realities of this desire of people everywhere to have better jobs, more jobs, or education, or opportunity that comes with that opening-up. yes, globalization can be a challenge. but it really has meant that our countries have to be more dynamic. we have to be more competitive. we have to be more innovative. that is not always easy. globalization is an enormous opportunity, and if we can take advantage of it as we build on the strong partnership, we believe it will help all of us to provide better opportunity and more security to our

citizens. if we want to compete, we actually have to make it even easier to trade, easier for people to invest in our countries. we talked bout that this morning. we talked about how we can improve the transporter movement of both goods and people. we talked about how the transpacific partnership good particularly have an impact on the global economy and also be enormously beneficial to each of our economies. if nations want to compete, the united states, canada, and mexico are best approaching this as partners. that includes the subject of energy. i look forward to discussion for the opportunities for energy cooperation, and we talked about that today, ways in which we can

address the enormous challenge of climate change, which we all agree in our nations must be addressed, but also how we address the question of taking advantage of vast resources we have in this continent, bring greater energy opportunity to citizens, but do so in ways that are environmentally sustainable and responsible. next month the president of mexico will host president obama and prime minister harper for the north american leaders' meeting. the lessons of the past will be at the forefront of our minds. our focus fundamentally needs to be on the future, and that is were it will be come on the growth of our markets, the strength of our partnership, the health and well-being of our people, and the security of our continent for years to come. mr. secretary? >> thank you, and good morning to all. thank you, secretary kerry.

thank you, minister. this has been a very good meeting for mexico. it has been an opportunity to talk about issues that are relevant to the region. at the outset i would like to recognize from mexico the long hours, the long days that secretary kerry, the risk he is taking to construct a better world, and i think those risks have paid off and mexico recognizes that hard work. we had a good meeting this morning. i would like to thank the members of the press. [speaking in spanish] >> i would like to thank mexican and foreign correspondents for their attendance. >> as secretary kerry said, division of 21st century north america, we will work to become the most competitive and most dynamic region and the world.

we will be honored to host president obama and prime minister harper in february. we discussed many topics on how to work, to increase our prosperity, our leadership, our international engagement, and the opportunity of citizens in the north american region. the president has said he believes 21st north america is called on to become the most competitive region and the world. prime minister harper and president obama also share this. we are willing to make this work. as the secretary said, and the minister believes, we have shared values. we have a working partnership that has worked for the benefit of our people. we also are a region that enjoys an important number of

competitive advantage is going forward. we have a competitive labor costs. we have huge transportation and logistic advantages. have [indiscernible] in human capital. we have a new paradigm. [indiscernible] we have had a framework that has worked and has worked well. as we marked the nafta 20th anniversary, it is important to see that the size of the resources. as this press conference is going on, more than 2 million dollars of goods are being traded every minute. behind that trade there has been job creation and prosperity for the region. mexico looks forward to partake in an effort to advance prosperity in the region.

we know we must find news ways to go forward. we need to collaborate more on education, science, technology, and innovation. we have the opportunity to work together in addressing regional concerns, engaging with central america because it is a latin american region. we think we have the political framework and political will that is in place to implement the system that we have taken. it is a north american idea that is a very good friend of mexico. mexico, the u.s., and canada are working together to spread their regional community, and that commitment was reaffirmed this morning. again, thank you, secretary kerry, and thank you, minister, for your partnership in the

september. >> thank you very much, secretary meade. >> it is a pleasure for me to be here today and to celebrate the good partnership and good relations between our two countries. >> we had great discussions today celebrating 20 years of nafta and the huge and significant economic growth and trade we have seen between our three countries. we also have seen the growth of our political relations. to work together to see more jobs, or opportunity, what we can do to make our economies more competitive, what we can do to boost income, job creation in all three countries. nafta has been an unqualified success, and one of the side effects is the strength and political relationship between all three countries where on issue after issue after issue there is a strength in

partnership were not only we're working together, but getting a lot farther faster than any of us could have ever hoped 20 years ago. we had an opportunity to discuss security and management, infrastructure. we had the opportunity to talk about regulatory cooperation, all things that can help used job creation. this remains a significant priority for canada. we look forward to continued preparation for a successful summit. we appreciate the significant leadership from the president of mexico and the speed of reforms that have taken place in his first year in office. remarkable. we had a strong relationship with the calderon administration. i want to thank you, john, for the significant american leadership with respect to the

palestinian-israeli conflict. i look forward to visiting with israel tomorrow and to do what we can to support your effort to seek a resolution to one of, if not the most, intractable issues in the world. your leadership as well with respect to trying to bring a political solution and end of the violence of assad and his war on his people, we will support you in those common values and efforts that we strongly support. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. >> the first question will be from michael jordan from "the new york times." >> a question for secretary kerry. sir, after you became secretary of state, you made the point repeatedly that it was important

to change assad's calculation to achieve a political solution that you needed. a year later, it is clear that the assad regime believes its position is stronger than ever. in his letter to the united nations, the syrian foreign minister who will be leaving the delegation suggest that the purpose is not to discuss the political transition. he said some point in the invitation the syrian government received are in conflict with the legal and political position of the state of syria. my question is, how can you expect to make progress toward a political transition that you needed to if the assad government does not accept the purpose of the conference, which is what it's letter suggests? have you been in contact with the syrian government over the past 24 hours that it accepts the purpose of the meeting? doesn't the letter mean more pressure needs to be brought to bear on the assad government in order to make political headway?

thank you. >> thank you very much, michael. yesterday, i addressed directly the revisionism of the syrian regime in its effort to try to divert the purpose that will not be successful. more than 30 nations will assemble, all of whom must be committed to the geneva i communique. you were in paris the other day when the foreign minister of russia stepped up and reiterated that the purpose of the conference is the implementation of the geneva i communique. nobody would have believed that assad would have given up his weapons. but he did. the reason he did was his patrons came to understand that

he had to. i believe as we begin to get the geneva and begin to get in this process it will become clear there is no political solution whatsoever if assad is not discussing a transition and if he thinks he is going to be part of that future. it is not going to happen. the people who are the opponents of this regime will never ever stop. there will be a low-grade insurgency at least and at worst potentially at the level of a civil war if it continues because they will not stop. we are not out of options with respect to what we can do to further change the calculation, and we have made that clear to the russian foreign minister and others, and nor are other players short of an ability to be able to have an impact here.

they can bluster, they can protest, they can put out distortions. the bottom line is we are going to geneva to implement geneva i. if assad does not do that, he will invite greater response in various ways from various people over a period of time. i am not particularly surprised that he is trying to divert this. he has been trying to do this for months, trying to make him the protector of serious against extremists, when he has even been funding those extremists, even purposely ceding territory to them to make the argument that he is somehow the protector. nobody will be fooled. we will not be fooled by this process. foreign minister lavrov has

stated that he is supporting this communiqué and the government must support that communique. since russia is one of the primary benefactors of the regime, russians have a high stake in making sure that assad understands what the parameters of this negotiation are. >> second question. thank you. >> you discussed how to improve the transit of goods here in north america. many people in the u.s. have been asking to update nafta, to take advantage of recent reforms in mexico. would your government be willing to update nafta or be willing to open it up formally? and also to include an issue --

secretary kerry, for you, how do you respond to those who believe that at some point the u.s. should include canada and mexico in the negotiations if only to avoid future conflicts between the nafta rules and whatever you end up agreeing to with europeans? >> i would like each of my guests to address this also. over the last 20 years, as i mentioned, we have developed this incredible network of trade agreements in the western hemisphere. we have long wanted to open up these benefits. i think stepping up all of us to the tpp is a critical component to moving through next year post nafta. you do not have to open up nafta to achieve what we are trying to achieve. there are plenty of ways for us

in cooperation -- and we discussed a lot of them this morning with respect to borders, with respect to regulations, with respect to energy cooperation, technology, innovation, investment. there are a host of things that we can move forward on that will take us to the next level without having to go back and reopen it. i think we are well engaged and looking forward to a much more robust relationship. what we did do today was set down a series of specific items that we will follow up on quickly so that these can be the items that our presidents and prime minister will end up negotiating in february. today's meeting holds out the prospect that this can be beneficial. >> we believe nafta has been an

unqualified success. the transpacific partnership trade negotiation which all three of us are in offers of us the opportunity to strengthen the trilateral partnership, and we are going to use that opportunity to do so. >> nafta has worked well on many levels. in the last 20 years, trade in the region multiplied by three. investment in the region multiplied by eight. mexico is now the third trading partner of the u.s. and canada. we are the second and the sixth largest markets of the u.s. markets respectively. it is the first market for exports from arizona, california, and texas. we are the second largest export market for other 20 states. to put the numbers in perspective, exports to mexico from the u.s. were larger than

exports to china and japan together. they were larger than the sum of exports to germany, france, poland, and the u.k. put together. that is how we have an opportunity to deal. i agree with secretary kerry and what the minister said that it is not necessary to reopen nafta, but we have to construct the idea of a dynamic north america. the three economies standing before you today is about 1/3 of the world's economy. we are the largest exporters of most advanced industries. we have the obligation to review how the economic process is going in such a way as to remove any obstacles for trade, investment, and economic prosperity to be an advantage.

what we agreed to today will allow us to have an agenda to have mechanisms that will allow for the commitments that we can reach to be fully implemented. in terms of the trade relationship with europe, at some point we will have three bilateral trade agreements with the european union. it is important for mexico that those are the benefit of the north american region. we think that is in the best interest of canada and u.s. as well, and we will work to ensure those negotiations further increase the north american competitiveness with a view eventually to having a more integrated perspective from north america and the european union. >> thank you. a question from the canadian press. >> my question is on a bilateral matter. canada-u.s. issue, the case of

pipeline. last february, secretary kerry, you said you were hoping to be in a position to offer a decision on keystone in the near future. it has been almost a year. since then, the canadian government has said it would not take no for an answer on keystone. this week your canadian interlocutor is in washington and has repeatedly asked for a decision because apparently the uncertainty is becoming untenable for the oil industry. i would ask you to answer your canadian friend. >> i have to do it according to our administrative process and the rules and regulations under which i have to operate. i think he understands that. we are currently engaged in the environmental impact statement analysis, and an analysis will be made with respect to the

national interest alternately, and we are just not at that point yet. i have not received it. they have not finished it. there were questions raised in all the public comment period, and those comments have necessitated appropriate answers. the public has a role in this. we are all accountable to our publics. democratic process demands we do that. we are doing that, and i can promise my friend in canada that all the appropriate effort is being put into trying to get this done, effectively, and rapidly, and my hope is that before long that analysis will be available. then my work begins. >> john and i have had discussions with this in the past. we will be meeting later today. this is a tremendously important project for the future from the

perspective of the canadian economy. 26 months ago, hillary clinton explained the concerns that the administration had with the aquifer in nebraska. the state realigned the pipeline. we hope the final report is out in short order. that the administration will be in a position to make a positive decision. this is a great project for the future economic prosperity of canada. there are a lot of jobs here for the united states. a great project that will increase the energy security of our closest friend and ally. we obviously want the report with a positive decision, a positive justice is and for job creation. >> thank you all, everyone. >> thank you very much. appreciate it. i think we are going out now.

>> next, president obama proposed changes to surveillance. followed by a panel of experts at the brookings discussed in presidential remarks. the u.s. supreme court oral argument. meaning the history and and language of the cousin to should recess appointments clause. later, at another look at certain kerry press conference on nafta. -- secretary of state kerry press conference on nafta. will react tord

president obama's speech. we will be looking for your calls and e-mails on the issue began at 7:00 eastern on c-span. >> 300 years ago, the first pioneers crossed the ocean to a new land. a promise. a promise of a land where a man could build his own house and raising the children in freedom. and yet, but what of the great -- something went wrong. in the tennessee valley, the descendents were neglected people. they lived in a rural window land. these children, the hope and promise were gone. >> tennessee valley authority was a project is a new deal project. it was a project and a concept that had been under consideration for some years

before franco roosevelt became president. a senator was looking to help improve the quality of life in a the tennessee river valley to bring flood control and generate electrical power and improve the lives of the people. one of the poorest regions in the country to the end of the 1920's. remaking thempt at social and economic lives. other the way to the ohio river. tv and week is on book american history tv, and look at the life of a chattanooga, tennessee. span 3.at 5:00 p.m. on c- obama outlined changes to some of the government surveillance programs specifically record collection. he spoke about monitoring.

from the justice department, his remarks were about 45 minutes. [applause] >> thank you very much. thank you. thank you so much. please, have a seat. at the dawn of our public, a small secret surveillance committee born out of the sons of liberty was established in boston. the group's members included paul revere. they would patrol the streets at night, reporting any signs that the british were preparing raids against america's early patriots. ourlligence has secured

country. in the civil war, union balloons reconnaissance tracked the size of confederate armies by tracking the number of campfires. in world war ii, codebreakers gave us insight into the japanese warplanes. they intercepted communications, help save the lives of the troops. after the war, the rise of the iron curtain and nuclear weapons only increased the need for sustained intelligence. in the early days of the cold war, president truman created the national security agency, or nsa, to give us insight into the soviet lock and provider leaders with information they needed to confront and avert catastrophe. we have benefited from both our constitution and our traditions of limited government. u.s. intelligence agencies were anchored in a system of checks

and balances with oversights from elected leaders and protections for ordinary citizens. meanwhile, totalitarian states like east germany offered a cautionary tale of what could happen when vast unchecked surveillance turn citizens into informers and persecuted people for what they said in the privacy of their own homes. even the united states proved not to be immune to the abuse of surveillance. in the 1960's, governments spied on civil rights leaders. additional laws were established in 1970's to ensure that our intelligence capabilities would not be misused against our citizens. in the long twilight struggle against communism, we have been reminded that the very liberties that we thought to preserve could not be sacrificed at the altar of national security.

as the fall of the soviet union left america without a competing superpower, emerging threats from terrorist groups and the proliferation of weapons of mass distraction placed new and in some ways more complicated demands to our intelligence agencies. globalization and the internet may be spreads more acute as technology a raised borders and allowed individuals to protect great violence, as well is great good. these new threats raised new policy questions. while few doubted the legitimacy of spying on hostile states, our framework of laws was not fully adapted to prevent terrorist attacks by individuals acting on their own or acting in small, ideological-driven groups. the horror of september 11 brought all these issues to the

forefront. across the political spectrum, americans recognized that we had to adapt to a world in which a bomb could be built in the basement and our electrical grid to be shut down by operators and ocean away. we were shaken by the signs we had missed. phone calls were made to extremists. they traveled to suspicious places. we demanded that our intelligence community improve it's capabilities. and that law enforcement change practices to focus more on preventing attacks before they happen rather than prosecuting terrorists after an attack. it's hard to overstate the transformation america's intelligence community had to go through after 9/11. our agencies suddenly needed to do far more than the traditional

mission of monitoring hostile powers and gathering information for policymakers. instead, they were now asked to identify targets, plotters and some of the most remote parts of the world and to anticipate the actions of networks that by their very nature cannot be easily penetrated with spies or informants. it is a testimony to the hard work and dedication of the men and women of our intelligence community that over the past decade we have made enormous strides in filling this mission. today, new capabilities allow intelligence agencies to track who a terrorist is in contact with and follow the trail of his travel or his money. allow information to be collected and shared more quickly and effectively between federal agents and state and local law enforcement. relationships with foreign intelligence services have

have expanded and our capacity to repel cyber attacks have been strengthened. taken together, these efforts have prevented multiple attacks and save innocent lives. not just here in the united states, but around the globe. and yet, in our rush to respond to a very real set of threats, the risk of government overreach, the possibility that we lose some of our core liberties in pursuit of security also became more pronounced. we saw an immediate aftermath of 9/11 our government engaged in enhanced interrogation techniques that contradicted our values. as a senator, i was critical of several practices. wiretaps.rantless

all too often, new authorities were instituted without adequate public debate. the action by the courts, increased congressional oversight, and adjustments by the previous administration, some of the worst excesses were curbed by the time i took office. a variety of factors have continued to complicate america's efforts to both defend our nation and uphold our civil liberties. first, the same technological advancements that allowed u.s. intelligence agencies to pinpoint an al qaeda phone line or an e-mail between two terrorists also mean that routine communications around the world are within our reach. at a time when more and more of our lives are digital, that prospect is disquieting for all of us.

second, the combination of increased digital information and powerful supercomputers offers intelligence agencies the possibility of shifting through massive amounts of bulk data to identify patterns or pursue leads that may fort impending threats. that is a powerful tool. the government collection and storage of such bulk data also creates a potential for abuse. third, the legal safeguards that restrict surveillance against u.s. persons without a warrant do not apply to persons overseas. this is not unique to america. the whole point of intelligence is to obtain information that is not publicly available. america's capabilities are unique.

the power of new technology means that there are fewer and fewer technical constraints on what we can do. that places a special obligation on us to ask tough questions about what we should do. finally, intelligence agencies cannot function without secrecy, which makes their work more subject to public debate. yet, there is an inevitable bias, not only within the intelligence community, but amongst all of us who are responsible for national security to collect more information about the world, not less. so in the absence of institutional requirements for regular debate, and oversight that is public as well as private or classified, the danger of government overreach becomes more acute. it is particularly true when

surveillance technology and a reliance on digital information is evolving much more quickly than our loss. for all these reasons, i maintained a healthy skepticism towards our surveillance programs when i became president. i ordered that they be reviewed by my national security team and our lawyers. in some cases, i ordered changes in how we do business. we increased oversight and auditing, including new structures aimed at compliance. we sought to keep congress continually updated on these activities. what i did not do was stop these programs wholesale. not only because i felt that they made us more secure, but also because nothing in that initial review and the thing that i've learned since indicated that our intelligence

community has sought to violate the law or cavalier about the civil liberties of their citizens. to the contrary, in a difficult job, one in which actions are second-guessed, success is unreported, and failure can be catastrophic, the men and women of the intelligence community, including the nsa, consistently followed protocol to protect the privacy of ordinary people. they're not abusing authorities in order to listen to your private phone calls or read your e-mails. when mistakes are made and which is inevitable in any large and complicated human enterprise, they correct those mistakes. obscurity.

they are unable to discuss their work with family or friends. the men and women of the nsa know that if another 9/11 or massive cyber attack occurs they will be asked why they failed to connect the dots. those who work at nsa and other intelligence duties throughout this pressure have the knowledge that they play a central role in the defense of our nation. now, to say that our intelligence community followed the law and is staffed by patriots is not to suggest that i or others in my administration felt complacent about the potential impacts of these programs. those of us who hold office in america have the responsibility to our constitution. while i was confident in the integrity of those who lead our intelligence community, it was clear to me in observing our intelligence operations on a

regular basis that changes in our technological capabilities were raising new questions about the privacy safeguards currently in place. moreover, after an extended review of our use of drones in the fight against terrorist networks, i believe a fresh examination of our surveillance programs was a necessary next step in our effort to get off the footing we maintained since 9/11. for these reasons, indicated in a speech at the national defense university last may that we need a robust public discussion about the balance between security and liberty. of course, what i did not know the time was that within weeks of my speech an avalanche of unauthorized disclosures would spark controversy that has continued to this day. given the open investigation, i

will not dwell on mr. snowden's actions. our nation's defense depends in part on the fidelity of those in trust with our nation secrets. if any individual who objects to government policy can take it into their own hands to publicly disclose classified information than we will not be able to keep our people safe or conduct foreign policy. moreover, the sensational way in which these disclosures that come out has shed more heat, revealing information to our adversaries in ways that we may not understand for years to come. the task right now is greater than simply repairing the damage done to our operations or preventing more disclosures from taking place in the future.

instead, we have to make some important decisions about how to protect ourselves and sustain our leadership in the world while upholding the civil liberties and privacy protections that our ideals and constitution requires. we need to do so not only because it is right, but because the challenges posed by threats like terrorism and proliferation and cyber attacks are not going away anytime soon. they're going to continue to be a major problem. for our intelligence community to be effective over the long haul, we must maintain the trust of the american people and people around the world. this effort will not be completed overnight. given the pace of technological

change, we should not expect this to be the last time america has this debate. i want the american people to know that the work has begun. over the last six months, we created an outside review group on intelligence and communication technologies to make recommendations. i've listened to privacy advocates and industry leaders. we considered how to approach intelligence in this era of technological revolution. so, before outlining specific changes i've ordered, let me make a few broad observations on this process. first, everyone who has looked at these problems, including

skeptics of existing programs, recognizes that we have real enemies. we cannot prevent terrorist attacks or cyber threats without some capability to penetrate digital communications. whether it is to unravel a terrorist plot, to make sure that air traffic control systems are not compromised, or to ensure that they do not empty your bank accounts. we are required to have capabilities in this field. moreover, we cannot unilaterally disarm our intelligence agencies. there is a reason why blackberries and iphones are not allowed in the white house situation room. we know that the intelligence services of other countries, including some who feigned surprise over the snowden disclosures, are constantly

probing our government to listen to our conversations and view our e-mails and compromise our systems. we know that. meanwhile, a number of countries, including some that loudly criticized the nsa, privately acknowledge that america has unique responsibilities as the world's only superpower. they themselves have relied on information we obtained to protect their own people. second, just as civil libertarians acknowledge the need for robust intelligence capabilities, those with response abilities for national security readily knowledge the potential for abuse as intelligence capabilities advance. after all, the folks at nsa and other intelligence agencies are our neighbors, our friends, and family. they have electronic banking

medical records like everybody else. they have kids on facebook and instagram and know more than most of us the vulnerabilities to privacy that exist in a world where transactions are recorded and e-mails and texts are stored and our movements can increasingly be tracked through the gps on our phones. third, there was a recognition by all who participated in these reviews that the challenges to our privacy do not come from government alone. corporations of all shapes and sizes track what you buy, store and analyze our data, and use it for commercial purposes. that's what you see those ads pop up on your smart phone. all of us understand that the standards for government surveillance programs must be higher.

given the unique power of the state, it is not enough or leaders to say trust us and we will not abuse the data we collect. history has too many examples where the trust has been breached. our system of government is built on the premise that our liberty cannot depend on the good intentions of those in power. it depends on the law to constrain those in power. i make these observations to underscore that the basic values of most americans when it comes to questions of surveillance and privacy converge a lot more than the characterizations that emerged over the last several months. those who were troubled by our existing programs were not interested in repeating the tragedy of 9/11. those who defend these programs are not interested in civil liberties. the challenge in getting the details right is not simple.

over the course of our review, i have reminded myself, i would not be where i am today if it were not for the courage of people like dr. king were spied upon by their own government. as president, a president who looks at intelligence every morning, i can't help but be reminded that america must be vigilant in the face of threats. fortunately, by focusing on facts and specifics, rather than speculation and hypotheticals, this review process has given me and hopefully the american people some clear direction for change. today, i can announce a series of concrete and substantial reforms that my administration intends to adopt administratively or will seek to create with congress.

first, i have approved a new presidential directive for our intelligence communities at home and abroad. this guidance will strengthen executive branch oversight of our intelligence communities. it will ensure that we can taken into account our alliances come our trade and investment relationships come including the concerns of american companies, and our commitment to privacy and basic liberties. we will review decisions about intelligence priorities and sensitive targets on an annual basis of that our actions are regularly scrutinized by our senior national security team. second, we will reform programs and procedures in place to provide greater transparency to our surveillance activities.

we will fortify the safeguards that protect the privacy of u.s. persons. since we began this review, including information being released today, we have declassified over 40 opinions and orders of the foreign intelligence surveillance court. including the program targeting foreign individuals overseas and the section 215 telephone metadata program. going forward, i am directing the director of national intelligence and consultation with the attorney general will annually review for the purposes of declassification any future opinions of the court with broad privacy implications. they will report to me and to congress on these efforts. to ensure that the court hears a broader range of privacy perspectives i am also calling on congress to authorize the establishment of a panel of advocates from outside government to provide an

independent voice in significant cases before foreign intelligence surveillance court. third, we will provide additional perfections for activities conducted under section 702, which allows the government to intercept the communication of foreign targets overseas who have information that is important for national security. specifically, i'm asking the attorney general and dni to institute reforms that place additional restrictions on government's ability to retain, search, and use in criminal cases, communications between american citizens incidentally collected under section 702. in investigating threats, the fbi also relies on what is called national security letters which requires companies to supply limited information without disclosing orders to the

subject of the investigation. these are cases in which it is important that the subject of the investigation, such as a possible terrorist or spy, is not tipped off. we can and should be more transparent and how government uses this authority. i, therefore, directed the attorney general to amend how we use national security letters so that this secrecy will not be indefinite. so that it will terminate within a fixed time unless the government demonstrates a real need for further secrecy.

we will also enable communications providers to make public more information than ever before about the orders they have received to provide data to the government. this brings me to the program that has generated the most controversy these past months. the bulk collection of telephone records under section 215. let me repeat what i said when this story first broke. this program does not involve the content of phone calls or the names of people making calls. instead, provides a record of phone numbers and the times and length of calls. metadata that can be queried if and when we have a reasonable suspicion that a particular number is linked to a terrorist organization. why is this necessary? the program grew out of the desire to address a gap identified after 9/11. one of the 9/11 hijackers made a

phone call from san diego to a known al qaeda safe house in yemen. nsa saw that call, but did not know it was from an individual already in the united states. the programs maps terrorists so that we can see who they are in touch with. we need to see who they may be in contact with as quickly as possible. this capability can also prove valuable in a crisis. for example, if a bomb goes off in one of our cities and law- enforcement is racing to determine whether a network is poised to conduct additional attacks, time is of the essence. being able to quickly review phone connections to assess whether a network exists is critical for that effort. the program does not involve the nsa examining the phone records of ordinary americans. rather, it consolidates these records into a database that the government can query if it has a

specific reason. a consolidation of phone records that the companies already retain for business purposes. the review group turned up no indication that this database has been intentionally abused. i believe it is important that the capabilities that this program is designed to meet is preserved. having said that, i believe critics are right to point out that without proper safeguards, this type of program could be used to yield more information about our private lives. it could open the door to more intrusive bulk collection programs in the future. they're also right to point out that although the bulk collection program was subject to oversight by the foreign

surveillance court and has been reauthorized by congress, it has never been subject to vigorous public debate. for all these reasons, i believe we need a new approach. i am therefore ordering a transition that will end the section 215 bulk metadata program as it exists and establishes a program without the government holding this bulk metadata. it this will not be simple. the review group recommended that our current approach be replaced by one in which the providers or a third-party retain the bulk records with the government accessing information is needed. both of these options pose difficult problems. relying solely on the records of

multiple providers could force companies to alter their policies. any single company holding the database could carry out what is essentially a government function with more expenses more legal ambiguity, potentially less accountability, all of which would have an impact on increasing public confidence that their privacy is being protected. during the review process, some suggested that we may also be able to preserve the capabilities we need through recombination of existing authorities, better information sharing, and recent technological advancements. more work needs to be done to determine how this system will work. because of the challenges involved, i ordered that the

transition away from the existing program will proceed in two steps. we will only pursue phone calls that are two steps away from a known terrorist phone number. the database can be queried only after a judicial finding or in the case of a true emergency. next, step two, i've instructed the intelligence community and the attorney general to use this transition period to develop a new approach without the government holding this metadata itself. and they will report back to me with options for alternative approaches before the program comes up for reauthorization on march 28. during this time, we will discuss the reauthorization of

the program as needed. the reforms should give people greater confidence that their rights are being protected, even as law enforcement retains the tools they need to keep us safe. additional issues require further debate. some who participated in our view, as some members of congress would like to see more sweeping reforms. we have to go to a judge each time before these requests.

here i have concerns that we should not set a standard for terrorism investigations that are higher than those involved in investigating and ordinary crime. i agree that greater oversight on the use of these letters may be appropriate and i prefer to work with congress on this issue. there are those who would like to see different changes to the court then i proposed. i'm working with congress to ensure that we build a broad consensus for how to move forward and i'm confident that we can shape an approach that meets our security needs while upholding the civil liberties of every american. let me now turn to the separate set of concerns that have been raised overseas. i will focus on america's approach to intelligence collection abroad. as i've indicated, the united states has unique response

abilities when it comes to intelligence collection. they helped not only our nation, but our friends and our allies as well. our efforts will only be effective if ordinary citizens in other countries have confidence that the united states respects their privacy, too. the leaders of our close friends and allies deserve to know that i want to know what they think about an issue. i will pick up the phone and call them rather than turn to surveillance. just as we balance security and privacy at home, our global leadership demands that we balance our security requirements against our need to maintain the trust and cooperation among people and

leaders around the world. for that reason, the new presidential directive that i've issued today will clearly prescribe what we do and do not do when it comes to our overseas surveillance. to begin with, the directive makes clear that the united states only uses signals intelligence for legitimate national security purposes and not for the purposes of indiscriminately reviewing the e-mails and phone calls of ordinary folks. i've also made it clear that the united states does not collect intelligence to suppress criticism or dissent, nor do we disadvantage people on the basis of ethnicity or race or gender or sexual orientation or religious beliefs. we do not provide advantages to u.s. companies or commercial sectors. in terms of our bulk collection of signal intelligence, u.s. intelligence agencies will only use such data to meet specific security requirements. counterintelligence, counterterrorism, counter proliferation, cyber security, force protection for our troops

and our allies, and combating transnational crime, including sanctions in asia. in this directive, i have taken the unprecedented step of expanding certain protections that we have for the american people to people overseas. i have directed the dni to develop the safeguards come which will limit the duration that we can hold personal information while also restricting the use of this information. the bottom line is that people around the world, regardless of their nationality, should know that the united states does not spy on ordinary people who don't threaten our national security. we take their privacy concerns into account in our policies and procedures. this applies to foreign leaders as well. given the understandable attention of this issue, i've made clear to the intelligence community that unless there is a

compelling national security purpose, we will not monitor the communications of heads of state and government of our close friends and allies. i've instructed my national security team come as well as the intelligence community, to work with foreign counterparts to deepen our coronation and cooperation in ways that we build trust going forward. let me be clear -- our intelligence agencies will continue to gather information about the intentions of governments in the same way that the intelligence services of every other nation does. we will not apologize simply because our services may be more effective. heads of state and government with whom we work closely should feel confident that we are treating them as real partners. the changes i've ordered do just that.

finally, to make sure that we follow through on all these reforms, i am making some important changes to how our government is organized. the state department will designate an officer. we will appoint a senior official at the white house to implement the new privacy safeguards that i've announced today. i will devote the resources to centralize and improve the process we used to handle foreign requests for legal

assistance, keeping our high standards of privacy while helping foreign partners fight crime and terrorism. i have also asked my counsel to lead a conference of review of big data and privacy. this group will consist of government officials who, along with the president's council of advisors on science and technology, will reach out to privacy experts, technologists, and business leaders and look at how these challenges are being confronted i both the public and private sectors. whether we can forge international norms on how to manage this data and how we can continue to promote the free flow of information in ways that are consistent with both privacy and security. for ultimately, what is at stake in this debate goes far beyond a few months of headlines or passing foreign policy. when the country hears a noise,

what is really at stake is how we remain true to who we are in a world that is remaking itself at dizzying speeds. whether it is the ability of individuals to communicate ideas, to access information, or to forge bonds with people on the other side of the globe, technology is remaking what is possible for individuals and for institutions and for the international order. so while the reforms i've announced will point us in a new direction, i am mindful that more work will be needed in the future. one thing i'm certain of, this debate will make us stronger. i also know that in this time of change, the united states of america will have to lead. it may see some times that america is being held to different standards. i will admit, the readiness of some to assume the worst motives

of our government can be frustrating. no one expects china to have an open debate about their surveillance programs. or russia to take privacy concerns of citizens in other places into account. let's remember, we are held to a difference entered precisely because we have been at the forefront of defending personal privacy and human dignity. as the nation that developed the internet, the world expects us to ensure that the digital revolution works as a tool for individual empowerment, not government control. having faced down the dangers of fascism and communism, the world expects us to stand up for the principle that every person has

the right to think and form relationships freely because individual freedom is the wellspring of human progress. those values make us who we are. we should not shy away from high expectations. for more than two centuries, our constitution has weathered every type of change because we have been willing to defend it and because we have been willing to question the actions that have been taken in its defense. today is no different. i believe we can meet high expectations. together, let's chart a way forward to preserve the liberties that make our nation worth fighting for. thank you. god bless you.

and may god bless the united states of america. thank you. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> next is reaction to president obama's remark about changing government surveillance programs rome expert at the brookings institution. the panel included a british defense official. and this is about an hour and a half. i think we will get started. welcome to the brookings institute. my name is ben. i'm a senior fellow here. i will be very brief on the introduction side. -- leave as much time as humanly possible for the

discussion that we will have here today. thank you for coming on very short notice. as you all know, the president gave a major address this morning on signal intelligence, of the, and reform authority and policies in connection with the snowden disclosures. these issues and the speech raised an incredible array of discrete policy and legal questions. there is the domestic authority question and civil liberties question. foreign policy diplomatic questions. there are internet governments. that are u.s. industries are losing large amounts of money as a loss of confidence in overseas markets. as there are privacy questions.

one of the remarkable things of the brookings institute is just people that we have working on vers components of stuff across a number of our programs. we work to put together this very thick event in which we will offer a bunch of different reactions from different parts of the institution. keep in mind, the speech was given very recently. it covers a wide range. a lot of what i will say today i think is still relatively tentative and some of my thoughts might be subject to change over time on that. i want to be candid about that upfront. with what i think we will do is with wallacearting

and myself, we will speak briefly to get some overview thought. we will have a brief exchange. i will try to leave as much time as possible to take your questions and go in whatever direction you all want to go. we have a twitter audience as well. they will be tweaking in tweeting in questions. with that, i will turn it over to bruce. we're to get the limoneira reaction to what is a large amount of data we have got here today. .hat the speech and a document we have a lot of material to work with. i wouldn't characterize it as a classic, maybe even

vintage barack obama. we know him to be very deliberative and likes to reach out to as large a group as possible. it was a message here to his handlers in that white house to be summed up. it is good for the deliberative process. [laughter] i will not try to go through the whole process in every document. i will highlight couple of things upfront. i think the emphasis here is on transparency and oversight rather than fundamental changes and election programs that the nsa is carrying out. intact with largely a few fixes, but with more transparency. the presidential policy directive that accompanies the

mind -- i do not think we have ever had a document like this that lays out the protocols, the principles for collection. i think that is good in two respects -- it is good for the global public to be able to read it and see what those principles are and it is good for the national security agencies. course, the biggest issue you ofe heard is section 215 metadata. who will hold onto that data will be resolved by looking at it within the next 60 days or so. this is a very complicated and difficult issue that is rightly called the hot potato of this problem. i do not know if in a few days they will come up with a solution.

the capacity and financial willingness to carry this out. one of the things i would stress from the review is as the president said in his speech and as edward made very clear, the president has found no abuse of authority by the national security agency. he said that over and over again. they found no evidence of an abuse of authority by the nsa. are they found mistakes made, and they saw the mistakes corrected rather quickly. that is an important judgment to go out there. immediately a couple of questions that were on my mind and how i see the president responded to that. how does he portray the national security agency, particularly then -- did he portray as the nation pasta vendor?

this is his team. it he embraced them? when did he distance himself a little bit? housee heard some unnamed -- white house advisers over the last couple of months. maybe they didn't do something wrong. they were kind of out of sight and maybe a little bit out of control. on this i think the president unequivocal. he identified the national security agency as the spiritual son of the sons of liberty upon revering 1775. i cannot imagine a better description in the eyes of fort meade than the one that the president did. he called them the world war ii codebreakers of today. the first five minutes of the speech was about how the nsa detects our security -- protects our security. not a lot of people are not going to believe it.

a0 and powerful -- a) powerful -- how many movies heavy watchword seems like they are spying on you and keeping track of everywhere you go and willy- nilly oversight and the president says it is only categorically. all of that is nization.asian -- demo i do characterize effectiveness of these programs? over the course of the last few months we have heard about foiling several terrorist operations. the president and here i think was more on shaky ground. he's in multiple facts were supported, but gave us no

examples of that. that is understandable. secrecy -- the only specific and lunch into was september 11. -- launched into was september 11. he said if n.s.a. had had the mega-data program, it would have realized that when one of the 19 hijackers called home to yemen, he was in san diego. the problem with opening up that pandora's box is, the c.i.a. knew he was in san diego. the problem isn't that we didn't know about it, it is that one hand didn't tell the other hand. i think this is one occasion when the administration will regret having opened up the discussion. it is not really crucial on the president's statement today. the third thing on my mind, is he going to mention edward snowden. it came up very clearly. the president made his views on

edward snowden clear as he has in the past. he is not a whistle blower, in the president's eyes. he's a man that violated his secret service oath. he's a man that leaked information in an often sensationalistic and inaccurate way, and he said snowden has harmed our ability to gather information for years if not decades to come. the president in effect associated himself with remarks from british intelligence chiefs who have asked the question, what has snowden done, responded, al-qaeda will be lapping it up for years to come. that's pretty strong words, and the rpt came up to close to the upand the president came

close to the same area. the last question on my mind was, what about the so-called "no spy deals." are we going to expapped the so- called five-eyes agreement in which the u.s., britain share intelligence and agree not to spy on each other. there wasn't word on that. the question of whether another country would qualify to be in a no-spy deal did not come up. i'm not surprised. this president has specifically said forget it, we're not going to do that with anyone else. there is the idea that only the heads of state will not be spied upon, and we are told a couple dozen already fit into that category. i would suppose one of the great guessing games at various international summits in 2014 is, am i in the good guy category that doesn't get spied on or am i in the bad boy category that does get spied on. it is a very important question, really, not a trivial one. does behavior over time change whether you are in one category or another?

what the president has done in setting up the p.p.d., he's said there is going to be a constant review of that process at the highest levels of the nalt security bureaucracy. one last point i would like to make. -- at the highest levels of the national security bureaucracy. one last point i would like to make. i think it is important to remember that only a few months ago we had a similar big speech on drones. that speech on drones a few months later is a good one to look at in comparison to today. a lot of things that were talked about in the drone speech are still works in process. the transfer of drones from the c.i.a., the department of defense, to be charitable, we

could call it a work in progress. secondly, a lot of it requires the congress. for example, in the transfer of dropes from the c.i.a. to the d.o.d., they have said no, we don't think that's a good idea. we're not going to go that route, mr. president. so this is a stepping stone, this is a first step. there is a lot of material to work with. a lot of this has to be translated into implementation, and a lot of it has to do with what capitol hill wants to do. >> for those of you standing in the back, there are a few rose in the -- and i would urge you to sit down and be a little more comfortable. cam? >> while i agree with bruce on the tenor of the speech, the president began with, as bruce said, a strong defense intelligence gathering, then ended it with a strong defense of american values, and the importance of america upholding those values.

i think the sort of testament to the balance he was able to strike there, is i can tell you that in the room with a sizable portion of law enforcement and intelligence community there as well as a number of privacy advocates, that both groups went away smiling. i focused on what this says to the international community, to our allies in europe in particular, but also around the world, and what it says for privacy issues, what it says for internet governance. because at the end of the day, as great as the impact on intelligence gathering may be, i believe that the impact on trusting the united states government, trusting the united states industries, trust in the united states developed model of

internet govenance has been far greater. that has had enormous economic and diplomatic fallout. there i think the president accomplished a great deal. i think he went further irthan than spkted -- expected in declaring we are going to extend proteches to nonu.s. persons, to non-u.s. nationals. regardless of where they are. that will be principles for intelligence gatherings. many of those principles have been developed by the intelligence community. i know the first of its kind goes far beyond that, and i think it will resonate with the international community. it is a statement by the president in the highest levels of policy, and it is binding, and it is public. so those are all important things.

any of those principles have been applied by the community. in a presidential directive, it would resonate with the international community. statement by the president at the highest levels of policy. it is binding. it is public. those are all important things. the presidential policy direct everyone is that entitled to dignity and respect

for their privacy regardless of where they live. it also goes beyond some of the existing policies in articulating a set of criteria for what constitutes legitimate intelligence gathering related to nuclear proliferation, terrorism, et cetera. related to nuclear proliferation, terrorism, et cetera. you know, that i think helps to not only provide some reassurance and trust but to advance the international digital n norms in space. that the president alluded to that i think sort of helped to kick that off, but i think what is important is that the united

states has taken a leap in defining what is legitimate national security protection. that is a key piece of the national norms discussion. every country collects intelligence. ok, what are the international norms that define legitimate national security protection? the president has put down a marker on that. he has put down a marker saying that the united states regardless of what other countries to -- do is going to bind itself to a set of norms. that is an enormous step. something i think will advance the discussion and help to repair some of the short-term damage, and in the long-term, to

help to begin a serious discussion rather than a sort of larm discussion, but serious discussion about international norms. >> thank you. >> i wanted to draw attention to the three things that the president really didn't emphasize in his speech and i think may have been significant for that. not necessarily a criticism. there are things that are deeply complicated, but i think there are things that will continue to festor wip the wider debate and to remind ourselves of them i think is an important part of situating the context for the peech. first is the organizational question which to some people's surprise is prominent in the

review panel report. there are a few organizational proposals, again, decisions in ,he p.p.d., about the oversight changes to the committees that oversee some of the intelligence gathering, but not so much focused in the speech as some had hoped on how the collection s organized. there were proposals in the review report. there was plenty of discussion the last few months about whether the n.s.a. commander and -- should be separated. that decision was clearly -- or that opportunity was clearly not

taken by the president. pick upthat reflects to the point of the operational zanssquans of what the n.s.a. provides potentially over and above the potential presentation. that may reflect the fact he thought he got those presentational benefits from some of the other pleasures that he took. -- some of the other measures that he took. the british system has not , is such a public issue he fact that the political party is not necessarily the person who has the benefit of

the intelligence collected. hether you could designate n.s.a. as a security -- as ligence collecting opposed to defense. that was not brought up. i think for the most part this was an endorsement to the intelligence community and its way of doing things. second was the question of cryptography and whether the national security agency evails upon this to weaken cryptography to make it easier for n.s.a. to spy on people, and there has certainly been a lot of concern in the community that this was a brief of trust on behalf of the u.s. government.

again, and for example, a large number of quite significant security consultants have said they will not attend the r.s.a. conference in protest in the idea that r.s.a. may have taken month money to weaken some security standards. the important thing to note here is that the internet is heavily dependent on the geeks outside government to -- in order to operate in undermining their trust on the wider side of the security community. i think it is going to be something the government will have to work hard to regain. that wasn't addressed here, and that probably is a reflection of the fact that there are no easy answers to this question between errorism and cyber-security. it has not been particularly

explored in the public dialogue because there are no simple answers. again, i wouldn't expect to see that today, but again that'sy think this isn't the final issue -- word on this issue. this is going to be a crucial issue going forward this year because of a big debate that was already going on about snowden, and countries that wanted to maintain athe oversight, and another set of government who is prefer a more governmental approach. think the concern with snowden, the governments sitting between these two were beginning to distance themselves from the united states. .here is a lot more to do

but i also attend -- i tend to cam, that national security data is changed in which foreign leaders or policies governing have failed. we have had some of those governments who themselves have engaged in signal activity and -- that may help them get and allow them to take forward a more public engagement. it will not alone solve all these problems. i think it gives a basis on

which the u.s. government will change the dialogue and can reenter the norms debate in hopefully a more active and positive display. the bottom line therefore, this is a base system. i don't think it's the end of the story by any meavepbs means. >> i'm going to do two things. i want to talk a little about the tone of the speech, am identify on some things -- amplify on some things that have been said already and then i want to geek out and talk a little about the substantive legal l areas the president has talked about. i essentially agree. i think the speech was sort of a surprisingly strong endorsement of the essential activity of the intelligence community broadly and of the n.s.a. in particular. i think surprisingly, not because the president is, you

know, has tapped out on this in the past but because he has actually been under enormous pressure. the review groups that he appointed came out with a series of recommendations that were quite dramatic in the scope of the reform they were proposing in certain respects. i think he really did have a choice to make todays, whether he was going to be somebody who essentially game in and, you know, saw an out-of-control intelligence community under his watch and was going to be the guy who reformed it or whether he came and described it as a situation in which there was lawful and important intelligence activity taking place in his administration. i.e., his administration, his intelligence community, and that

certain changes were needed to increase the perception of legitimacy of that lawful ppropriate activity. i think he very solidly chose the second option. i think up until relatively recently, the one direction he was going to go in that was somewhat in play at least according to news stories, and sort of other signals and trials . so i think that is a notable thing, this sort of high arc. in particular, i want to focus that ithing that he said think will have -- was i'm sure not an accident that he said it and really reflects an anxiety in the intelligence community that is pretty pervasive and pretty strongly held. i think it will mean a lot to a lot of people that he said it.

there is a portion of the speech that i should have highlighted and just read it, but where he said these are people that work every day knowing that the next time something terrible happens, they are going to be asked why they didn't connect the dots. i think identifying with that dilemma. that when you talk about removing authorities, the anxiety that this engenders is the anxiety of people who believe they will be held accountable for not having exercised the various authorities that were taken away from him. it was a rather zahavi -- savvy thing to include, and to identify with a specific dilemma that the ns intelligence community is in on a basically hourly basis when they decide what to use and what not to use and how aggressively. i want to talk briefly about

three substantive areas the president discussed in his speech. the second is the 702 thords, and third, the total victory of the f.b.i. and the justice department on the matter of national security letters. on 215, this is presumed the multion core of the political dwafmente it is the moulten cower that faces the civil liberties community. which is to say, this is a comprehensive collection program, but it is a comprehensive collection program aimed at a very narrow category of data. which is to say metadata. so its capacity to either do great good, as bruce describes, or frankcally,ing to do terrible

damage in the civil liberties arena, is actually much less than either collection under 702, which i'll come to in a minute or section 703, it is not that broad-based a program in terms of what gets collected and analyzed and how. so what the president did here, he basically adopted in a limited sort of way, the review group recommendation, which is to say, moved the program outside of government and allow it to be queried with an order of the fisa court. the problem is, that's actually very easy to say and very hard to do. so what he did, which it's clever, and the question is if it is too clever by half. he said, well, we'll implement part of it