>> a look now from the in the washington post. of themer direct your national security agency says president obama has embraced the surveillance programs that were in place by the george w. bush administration. mr. hayden was speaking sunday talking about president obama's surveillance groups -- programs. the president announced changes

on friday, but the intelligence review group laid out its recognitions testifying before the senate judiciary committee. we'll take a look at that hearing now. this is about one half hour. >> it is rare that a freshman from the minority party is the , but who says the race close not to the swift? gear,iate you all of the and i appreciate your

willingness to serve on the president's review group. they will do a lot to frame this important discussion as we move forward. the importance of these issues cannot be overstated. liked the things that i that you pointed out in your report appears on page 50. were you pointed out an coincidence, my word, not yours. the concept of security has dual meaning. the one hand it refers to the fact that one of the fundamental about sacred obligations of thernment is to keep

citizens safe. it also refers to something different, something that might not -- might be in contention with that first concept. the right, under the fourth amendment to be secure, to be secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and caesar's. -- seizures. the concept of what this means has changed over time. it has changed as technology has changed. the fundamental principles underlying that must business -- mustmain the same

necessarily stay the same. are has changed in the last few years. existger do our papers exclusively of actual paper. what the founding generation would've thought of papers only exist in either. only in the electronic equivalent of ones and zeros. storedre not any longer ask if closely on hard drives. a lot of times they only exist in a cloud somewhere. these pieces of information, these effects, are many instances are things in

which we have or should have an expectation of privacy that is reasonable to say the very least. to figure out how to best balance these 2 -- two conflict inc. interests associated with security. there are several ways in which this arises, but we have talked a little bit today about the election of metadata. that we have an enormous amount of metadata that has been collect and on potentially 300 million americans. notes that it has thatorous review process is in place before anyone can database.s these are internal operating procedures.

a policy today, which may be followed religiously probably know today could change tomorrow . forwilling to assume, purposes of this discussion with the men and women that work at the nsa have nothing but our and it -- best interests at heart. that might not be the case a year from now, or four years from now, or 10 years ago, or 40 years from now. we've seen this movie before, we know how it ends, if that information stays with government for that long of it will be abused, manipulated for partisan and other nefarious purposes. we cannot let that happen. let's start with professor stone. be something that you would describe as one of the most compelling arguments in favor of putting more robust restrictions a loss so they are not simply in the hands of

people? >> this is our right very concerned with the collection -- primary concern with the collection of metadata. the risk that somewhere down the road someone will figure out how abuse this. the safeguards that are in place now are rigorous, there are checks and balances, there is the inspector general, the attorney general, the fisa court, all of them are over this. even so, our judgment is that it should be taken out of the hands of the government in terms of the holding of the data. illuminateot entirely, but reduces fortantially the potential the data to be abused like you're talking about.

-- our judgment is that it reduces this. leahy and i and several of my other colleagues across the aisle have been this. for some have suggested that we categorically infeasible to require a court order as a precedent for performing a query of the government database. let's assume for purposes of these discussion that the data for the timemain being in the possession of the government, and that we do not in which thetem government does not have possession, you cannot have a

court order even where you have you distance -- u.s. citizens involved because it would take too much time. do you know of any reason why that should necessarily be the case? by we cannot get around that creating an additional five the courtposition -- fisa position? >> you would have to add external, judges, positions. fundamentally, this is what we do all the time, and there are great protections and having them overseas, why there should not be connections adopted like this as well. >> thank you. >> thank you mr. chairman, and

for this report as we try to improve our privacy and surveillance loss. youage 124 of your report free people need to make up their oats by -- make up their own minds. a strong support of the business community which has roundly .ndorsed the principle when we met last year, i urge -- to support the suburb reforms in by bill, and i am pleased that your report endorses the same measures that

are at the core of my bill. i'm going to focus my questions on the transparency reforms that we agree on. my first question is on government transparency. seven months after the edward theden links, -- leaks, government has failed to provide even a rough estimate of how many american individuals have had their information compromised. my bill would force the government to annually disclose an estimate of the number of people who have had the information collected by the nsa under each key surveillance authority. your report supports this. keysay that for each surveillance authority, the government should to the greatest extent possible report on the total number of requests made, and the number of individuals who had the records

requested. why did you resort -- support this particular transfer the reform -- transparency reform? >> the theme of our report consistent with your bill is that funds the -- is that sunlight is the best check. strongthere is a very national security justification on the other side to get a sense of what the government is doing. first of foremost goal is about a free society, that is one of the things that distinguishes our nation from others. to which you also referred also has to do with economic interests which should not be trivialized rape there -- american companies trivialized. there are american companies

that are targeted and live in fear. i want to talk about that next. >> any other comments on that? i'm going to continue to drill drown on this first organization because it is effort for what the ministrations has been say. it calls for the government to say how many people have their integration -- information collected. last november, representatives from the office of the director of national intelligence and the nsa came before the subcommittee ,n privacy technology and law where i said it would be difficult, if not impossible to say how many people of had their information collected by these authorities. coulde administration mitigate this concern to you?

why did you find it unpersuasive? >> we talked it sub detail with -- in some detail with the providers. that would not tip off people being surveilled. they did not ogres with us on the risk there. -- if there is cooperative efforts for companies to work with the government, they would be likely to come up with practices and estimates. nota e-mailu do applies to three people or one person, so with precision you might not have exact details. i think you will have good

trends numbers and the good .ense overall photos happening >> i am out of my time, and we will recess. i want to reiterate this thing about the company's ability to disclose. hads hurting them, and we stand to loseirm several million dollars as a result of the services abroad. thank you for that being part of your recognition. we have toess, and go vote.

i guess i am the chair. i call on senator cruz. [laughter] >> thank you. i want to begin by just thinking each of the members of the panel, thank you for your service to the intelligence community, and thank you for the --rvice would be at at critical areas. a great many americans have concerned about the current state of american surveillance. , on the one hand, that the federal government has

not been effective enough monitoring and surveilling bad guys. that we not -- have not succeeded in preventing what preventablebeen 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. think a great many seeicans would prefer to 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 emitted no treacherous and -- committed no transgressions. thent to follow-up with question senator graham asked earlier, concerning the

communications with a known terrorist leader. despite all of our surveillance capabilities, despite having significant indications that he was engaged in the federalation's, the government failed to prevent the horrific terrorist attack that claimed the life of 14 innocents at fort hood. the first question i would like , is in youranel judgment, why is that, what was lacking that prevented us from acquiring the information and acting on it? say that it would is an of -- a very important question, and your general

thought is something that we did devote a rate he'll of attention to. has gotten not15 enough attention, and it is to expand our authority to track known targets of counterterrorism when they enter the united states. when they come to the united states or the protections immediately so we cannot track them. whether that would apply to the case you are describing, i do not think so. it is an important gap. that one was a group we would need to get more into the details that we did. would welcome your thoughts also on how we could have done better preventing that terrorist attack? >> it is not something that we as a group looked at. that was not our mandate.

i am familiar with the case. i am a little constrained here because i do not know what is in the unclassified world and what is in the classified world. maybe we could have a conversation afterwards a closed session. question, theup same is true with the boston bombers. that is did -- in that instance we had intelligence from russia, and yet for whatever reason their revelation -- radicalization continued, and they very doubt another horrific terrorist attack. havee members of the panel any views as to why our surveillance capability did not

sufficient information to act upon that terrorist attack before it occurred? case, there were not any communications between the united states and overseas. surveillance on those configurations that would have invented those bombings. this is largely a case of domestic radicalization. that is the best way to think about it. elderi understand, the brother, after meeting with radical islamic groups came back and posted on a public youtube page. extraordinarytake surveillance capabilities.

it takes the government looking to what he is saying publicly and loudly before that attack is -- out.out based >> i was making a different point about actual publications. the rogueern is that rams have been far too much on law-abiding citizens go that far too little on people for whom we have significant reason to believe there may be a real danger of terrorism. these incidences , i not sure that we could not have predicted national security, with the information we had. large,, to citizens at and are standing directly the conclusions that the commission received that in your judgment

google metadata program has not prevented any specific terrorist attack? that is a fair understanding. we do think it has contributed , but weful information cannot say that any specific terrorist attack has been in florida because of this information. private companies, the phone companies that already have that data preserve that data, and searches be conducted when there is a specific cause to search rather than in a blanket sense with the government's we begin every law-abiding citizen? >> precisely. >> if the data were kept in private hands, if the phone companies are the sus the data,

that would do nothing to undermine the efficacy of the program preventing future attacks? >> we believe that that way of handling the data can be done in wayy that would not in any undermine the efficacy of the program. we recognize in our report that that is speculative. we do not know that for a fact. if it turns out that there are deficiencies that make it more difficult to use the data in an appropriate way but the alternative is to have it held by a single private holder. that would eliminate most of the efficient -- inefficiencies. focusing on the question of overbroad surveillance. senator sanders wrote a letter to the nsa, asking if the nsa "spied, or is currently

spying on members of congress or elected officials?" the answer to-- that was that they have the same protections as other citizens, which is appearing to be the affirmative. the question i would ask this , has theare you aware nsa ever done surveillance on members of congress, or other elected american officials? >> we're not aware of any of that. one of the things we learned in our review is that there's no targeting by the nsa because of their religious views or convictions. in terms of could greatly -- of , we may notails

politics, legend, political views, that is not with their interest to get -- interested in. talking in the past. one thingto clarify, you said about religious views. agree that awould would not to jihad qualify as a religious view, and would indeed be a political position and an embrace of violence that merits very close scrutiny to prevent that violence from --

>> exactly. that would not fall within protect did religious belief. a follow-up question related to the question about the members of congress. panel awarer of the if the nsa is buying or has spied on members of the jewish gay sherry court -- on members of the judiciary court? >> we're not aware of that. >> i would do thank you for being here. with that, we will take a five- sess --recess. thank you.

nbc thisews from the morning, who say they applaud is that obama's defense of the nsa in a speech he delivered friday. mike rogers is the chair on the house side. he said the most important victory with the president standing up and saying the program did not have abuses, this was not sinister. he up reared -- appeared on meet the press this morning. the president made it clear in

his speech that they wanted to maintain the capabilities. roadcasthear that rebor on c-span radio. politics withnd steve phillips, a lawyer and select the best to help create the country's first super pac. here's some of what he had to say. >> 54% of the country is white. of that population, 41% are progressives. the progressive white population in the country is 26% of the united states. , and added to26% the people of color, that gives you the 55% that is the new majority in this country. this mathematical theorem has been proven twice at the national level with the

election, and the reelection of president obama. what does this mean for u.s. politics going forward? alwaysnse of status has -- also give us a geographic map to tell that the consensus is in the south and southwest. arenew battleground states in the southwest with a land that used to be known as mexico, that we now call tech six when mexico, arizona, colorado. and 24. 90% of voters of color on the threshold as to which they can win an election. three states withstood the wave and reelected democrats to the office. they lost the white vote, but we are able to prevail because of escalation -- the