no matter whether you abreed with his views or not. he will be missed by both sides of this house and our thoughts are with the right honorable member and other members of his family at this time. i'm sure the house would also join ming tribute to the pgb paralympic team following great success at the sochi games. kenny gallagher won our first ever gold medal at the paralympics. mr. speaker this morning i had meeting with ministers and colleagues and in addition to my duties to the house i will have such further duties today. >> mr. speaker i think the whole house want to associate themselves with the prime minister and the remarks on congratulating the paralympics

team. of course the paralympicsed in buckingham. mr. speaker, today unemployment has fallen 63,000. -- this has been evident in where we have growth in the private sector continue. does my right honourable friend agree with me that we must sustain this growth by continuing to tackle the deficit , the pork industry and continue with our long-term economic growth? >> my right honourable friend is absolutely right about buckinghamshire and came to number 10 downing street recently of she is absolutely right about these unemployment

figures. they show employment going up. they show unemployment coming down. a record number of people in our work in our country and record number of women in work in our country and youth unemployment going down too. i think what is remarkable private sector employment gone up by 118,000. public sector unemployment gone down 13,000. 10 times more jobs created in the private sector. but the important thing here is what this means for britain's families. it means for millions of people, pay packet, chance of work, chance of dignity and changes of civility and security and i hope it will be welcome across the house. [shouting] >> mr. speaker, let me begin by joining prime minister paying tribute to tony ben. he will be remembered as a champion of the powerless and

great parliamentarian who defended right of back-benchers in this house against the executives whichever government they came from. he spoke his mind and he spoke up for his values and everyone knew where he stood and what he stood for. i think that is why he won respect from all members of this house. all of our condolences go to his children, steven, hillary, melissa, joshua and his wider family. in their different ways they took forward what he taught as a father, socialist and also someone of great decency. mr. speaker, i also want to join the prime minister in paying tribute to the fantastic p&g pair are olympic team. special congratulations to kelly gallagher and jay etherington we saw a russian military intervention in ukraine. does the prime minister agree with me that the it was illegal, and in direct violation of the

ukrainian constitution? does he share my deep concern that the ukrainian servicemen were shot and killed at a military base in crimea yesterday? >> well the right honorable gentleman is actually correct the referendum in the crimea was illegitimate and illegal. it was brought together in the 10 days and held at the point after russian kalashnikov. this can not be accepted or legitimatized by international community. we have to be absolutely clear what happened here. this is the annexation effectively of one country's territory by another country. we must be clear about interests to see rules based international system where countries obey the rules. if we turn away from this crisis and don't act we will a very high price in the longer term. we should be clear that this referendum is illegitimate. we must be clear that consequences must follow and we should work with our european partners and with the united states for a strong, consistent and robust response.

>> i thank the prime minister for that answer, mr. speaker. i would like to ask him about the meetings that are coming up. the white house indicated their sanctions will be expanded. i'm sure the whole house will support the idea of list of ukrainian and russian officials about asset freezes and travel bans will be extended in the e.u. council tomorrow. what are the circumstances which he will be supporting additional wider and economic trade sanctions on the russian federation? >> as we discussed previously in the house the european union set out some very clear triggers. we said if the russians did not take part in a contact group with the ukrainian government to take forward discussions, then asset freezes travel bans should follow. those should be put in place at foreign council and i previous further action should be taken at the european council of ministers which i will take part in on thursday. i also think we should be responding to the fact of this annexation. that we said that if there was

further action to destablize the ukraine and this annexation is that action, further consequences need to follow. we need to set that out, on thursday, in concert with our european partners and at the same time i think we need to put down a very clear warning that if there was further destabilization for instance, going into the eastern ukraine in any way, then we would move to a position of sorts of economic sanctions that we discussed in the house last week. >> mr. speaker, the prime minister knows from this side of the house we'll have our support for the toughest possible diplomatic and economic measures against the russian federation given the totally illegitimate actions they have taken. i also welcome to the announcement yesterday that the g7 allies will gather next week in the hague. mr. speaker, given russia's actions it remains inconceivable that they remain in the g8. should this go further and explicitly decide to suspend

russia from the group of g eight economies? >> i was one of the first people to say that it was unthinkable for the g8 to go as planned. we were one of the first countries to sus spend all preparations for the g8. i strongly support the g7 meetings of countries on monday. i think it is important we move together with our allies and partners. we should be discussing whether or not to expel russia permanently from the g8 if further steps are taken. that is the steps we should steak on monday and i think that is the way to proceed. >> thank you very much, mr. speaker. can i add words to the support given to tony benn. it was my pleasure to work with one of his sons on foreign policy, steven. mr. speaker, income tax threshold is 10,000 pounds so far left 2.7 million poorly paid people not paying any income tax make a difference to them. is the prime minister pleased he abandoned his pre-election object to this and -- this

policy? >> what i think the honorable gentleman who always brings the house together in his usual way, what i'm sure we can agree on, is that it has been an excellent move by a conservative chancellor in a coalition government to make sure that the first 10,000 pounds of income you earn you don't pay tax on. that benefits people earning all the way up to 100,000 pounds that has worked so far. over 700 pounds to a typical income taxpayer and it is highly worthwhile and i look forward to hearing what the chancellor has to say. >> is the right honorable gentleman aware that this week i have received from the palestinian friend an email which tells me the israelis have assassinate ad friend in his house and another brother of a friend has been shot dead by the army? so we have spent our time from one funeral to another. when the right honorable

gentleman was in israel last week, did he raise with netanyahu this constant stream of killing of innocent palestinians by the israelis and what is he going to do about it? >> well i didn't raise that specific case which the right honorable gentleman quite rightly raises in this house today but i did raise with the israeli prime minister the importance of how the israeli, israelis behave in the west bank and elsewhere. i raised the issue of settlements which i believe is unacceptable and need to stop. but i was also strongly supporting both israeli prime minister and the palestinian president in their efforts to find a peace. there is a prospect and an opportunity now because the americans are leading a set of talk that is could lead to a framework document being agreed and i think it is in everyone's interest to put all pressure we can on both participants to take part and get on these negotiations which would mean so much i believe to ordinary israelis, ordinary palestinians

and indeed the rest of us. >> thank you, mr. speak. unemployment has fallen over past 12 months from 4.9% down to 3 boiling 8%. -- 3.8%. helped by resurgence in british manufacturing. compared to the 1.8 million manufacturing jobs lost under the previous labour government, would our prime minister agree with me that our long-term economic plan is delivering to the north of england? >> my honourable friend makes an important point which is we want to have a balanced recovery. we want to see growth and employment right across the country and it is worth noting, since 2010, 80% of the rise in private sector employment has taken place outside london. the unemployment rate in the northwest, where my honorable member sits for a seat, the unemployment rate in the northwest is lower than it is in london. we are beginning to see a balanced recovery but we got to

do everything we can, backing apprenticeships , backing industry to make sure that continues. >> thank you, mr. speaker. -- it was a drug given to women to determine pregnancy in the '60s and the '70s, the potency 18 times the morning-after pill. as a result of thousands and thousands of babies were born with deformities. there has not been public inquiry or compensation for the victims. would the prime minister meet with me and my constituent and representative of victims association to discuss this? >> well, i'm very happy to look at the case that the honorable lady mentions. yearly this is important issue. anyone who had a disabled child knows the enormous challenge that is brings. i'm very happy to look at the case she races and get back to her about it. >> sir alan hays sell ton. >> will my right honourable friend acknowledge that the benefits of economic recovery in my constituency are somewhat tempered by uncomfortable

pressures on housing development and inadequate rail infrastructure? not withstanding the need for these matters to be dealt with quickly, is it not increasingly clear there's a need to do more to stem the flow continuing flow of population to the southeast by imaginative measures will spend the benefits of recovery throughout all regions of the country. >> i think my right honourable friend makes an important point. we want a balanced recovery, long-term economic plan working. an important part of that long-term economic plan is infrastructure investment that we're making. hs-2 is important in rebalancing between north and south. let's be clear we're spending three types more on other transport schemes in the next parliament as we are on hs-2. it includes projects like rail electrification to bristol, nottingham, liverpool and manchester. all things can make a difference and they're all part of our

plan. >> ed miliband. >> mr. speaker, in recent days the country's mental health charities to warn of deep concerns about mental health services. members across the house spoke out bravely on the subject, impact on those who experience mental health problems in our families and our country. bus the prime minister agree with me that mental health should have equal health priority with physical health in our health care system? >> first let me agree with the right honorable gent man said about the debate that took place in this house about mental health. i read the debate carefully and thought honorable members took very brave and bold steps to talk about issues and problems in their own lives. i think that was incredibly brave and right thing to do. in terms of whether mental health should have parity of esteem with other forms of health care, yes it should and we legislated to make that the case. >> let me suggest specifics that we're moving away from equal footing we won't want to be.

mental health share of hms budget are falling. there are fewer mental health beds and more junk people are being treated on adult psychiatric wards. this is not just bad for individuals concerned but can be a cost for the future. does the prime minister think these things really shouldn't be happening? >> first of all taking the big picture on health spending obviously we decided to increase health spending rather than reduce head spending and health spend something up 12.7 billion across this parliament. we legislative parity as i have said and we also put in place proper waiting times and disciplines actually for things like mental health therapies that weren't there before. of course there is still further to go. we need commissioners to really focus on the importance of mental health services but the money is there. the legal priority is there, we need the health service to respond. >> mr. speaker, the problem is the mental health budget has fallen for the first time in a decade. it isn't getting the share of health spending that it needs. i would urge him to look at the

specifics i have raised. we need to insure that the consensus clearly exists in this house is reflected in the daily decisions being made up and down the country about mental health in the health service. now will the prime minister, will the prime minister agree to enshrine a quality for mental health in the nhs constitution in order to send a message to the decisionmakers about the priority that mental health deserves and ensure those affected by mental health problems get better access to treatment and care they need? >> the right honorable gentleman raises an important point not parity for mental health in law but what we see on the ground. points i makes are these. we have put 400 million pounds in the talking therapies which think are very important in terms of mental health provision. mental health provision is referenced very clearly in the mandate given to nhs england which is absolutely the key document in terms of the health service. but he is absolutely right to say in the way the health

service works there is still a culture change in favor of mental health and helping with mental health problems that needs to be changed and put in place and i think there can be all party support. >> thank you, mr. speaker. many of my small business entrepreneurs said personal incomes below the current welfare cap. with that in mind would my right honourable friend look doing more for small businesses reducing burden of regulation and lowering tax and increasing thresholds as offering extra assistance to help them take on more apprentices? >> my right honourable friend makes an important point which is a key part of our long-term economic plan to help small businesses to take more people on. absolutely key to that is employment allowance, national insurance contributions that will come in this april which is a cut of 2,000 pounds. i think it is very important that we all encourage all small businesses to take up this money and also therefore, to take on

more people. at the same time as that we also abolishing employer national insurance contributions for under 21s from april 2015 so companies including his constituency can start planning to take on more people. >> thank you, mr. speaker. last week the deputy prime minister wrongly told the house, that child care costs in england were coming down while they continue to go up in wales. the house of commons library says it's not the case. this week the deputy prime minister is offering a pre-election bribe on child care which won't come into effect until september, till september 2015. will the, will the prime minister get a grip on this policy? help hard-working families now in this parliament with their child care costs because of cost of living crisis they're facing today? >> i'm afraid to say the honorable member is wrong on both counts.

actually, we are seeing some easing in cost pressures in england on child care costs. but i'm afraid in wales they're still going up. but he might want to talk to the national assembly government about that but the point that the deputy prime minister and i were making yesterday we want to help hard-working families with their child care costs and so from 2015, for every child you have, you can save up to 2,000-pound on your child care costs. isn't it interesting, mr. speaker, we can now heart that the labour party oppose this is move. clearly they don't welcome it. so can have a very clear choice at the election. if you vote for parties on this side of the house you get help with your child care and if you vote labour you get nothing. >> would the prime minister join with me in praising conservative council for -- fifth straight year this year? real help to hard-working people

and stark contrast of the three labour parties going up this year? >> well my honourable friend is absolutely right. we should do everything we can to help hard-working people meet their budgets and meet their needs. that's why council's, freezing council tax provide a huge amount of help. the government is doing its part freezing fuel duty, raising personal allowance doing everything we can to help hard-working people get on with their lives. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the prime minister assured the house on the 27th of november that the government has exempted disabled people who need extra bedroom from the bedroom tax. does he think it is right my constituent who has to pay the tax with disability living allowance, has to pay it because he lives in tory stratford? >> what i said to the house was absolutely correct and i'm happy to repeat that again today. but there is also obviously the discretionary housing payment that is are there, for local

counsels to deal with difficult cases. i recommend he take that up with the councils. >> thank you, mr. speaker. russia is not just expanding into the crimea but also its ships, submarines and aircraft are increasingly appearing off our shores. bearing in mind that we've got great news on the economy, and bearing in mind that the defense ministry sent back an underspent last year, is it possible as suggested by the house of commons defense committee that we should, could have a new maritime patrol aircraft before the next sdsr? >> what i would say to my honourable friend is first of all, we're only able to have these sorts of discussions and these sorts of considerations because we sorted out the defense budget, gotten rid of the enormous deficit in it and we have a successful and growing economy. in terms of maritime patrol we are currently using the awacs aircraft and the sea king merlin

and lynx helicopters and royal navy his and submarines. we work in close partnership with our nato allies. i'm sure the ministry of defense will listen to the representation for the fourth coming stsr. >> -- tax rises evidence of the prime minister's cost cutting instinct? >> this is a great labour campaign. i spotted it this morning which is they have enumerate ad number of tax increases that we had to put in place in order to deal with the deficit. just to remind people, we said it was right to deal with the deficit with 80% spending reductions and 20% tax increases. there's a problem though with this labour campaign. when the spokesman was asked, would you change any of these tax increases, the answer was no i don't know -- [shouting] i'm not the world's biggest

expert in campaigns but i would say that was a bit of a turkey. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i welcome the prime minister's help for those hit by flooding but i'm told this only applies to areas affected since december. my constituency had its worst-ever flooding last september. will he visit the area and will he extend it help to homes and businesses who are still suffering? >> what i absolutely understand the honorable gentleman's concern, the sea surge that took place at there are some. worst floods seen in the area if for a long time. what is key improve the properties from future flooding. my understanding working with partners there is 30 million-pound investment going ahead across three kilometers of coast which will protect something like a thousand homes. there may well be more we need to do and i'm very happy to discuss that with him.

>> in 2010 the chancellor said budget deficit would be eliminated by 2015. what went wrong? >> what we said we'd do, we said that we'd cut the deficit and we cut the deficit. we said we would get britain back to work and we're getting britain back to work. we said everyone in private sector led recovery. we have a private sector led recovery. she asks what went wrong. i can give it to you in one word. labour. >> mr. speaker, mr. speaker, this week bmw announced they're coming and bringing with them 100 skilled new jobs. hundreds of new jobs which are already in the pipeline. when he is next in the midlands, which is the manufacturing heart of our country, will my right honourable friend drop in tamworth and help me deliver our long-term economic plan and make

tamworth the place to do business. >> i'm always delighted to visit tamworth not at least to pay homage to the senate taught of robert peale. important to do that. this manufacturing revival we can really see it in the west midlands with the news from jaguar land rover and new engine plant opening up and what he says about bmw as well. what we now see, one in four bmws with a british-made engine in it. that is great news. we want to see more jobs making things. more jobs exporting things and manufacturing revival in the u.k. >> mr. speaker, can i first speaking to myself, madam deputy speaker and people we served so well for 30 years join with the tribute to the tony benn an condolences for his family. tony benn was from a very privileged background yet he spent political life fighting

for working people. with cost of living crisis, wages falling by 1600 pounds here, people queuing up food banks, so much requires the prime minister attention why he seems so obsessed with plans to bring back fox hunting by the back door -- >> >> if of all, could i join the honorable laid dry to pay tribute to 10 any b-n. n he was busy back-bencher and administer but never forgot about constituents. he was friendly helpful word for new back benchers whatever side of the house you be on. many members like me experienced that from him him in terms of what we're doing to help the poorest. , most important thing is getting people back to work. we've seen 1.7 million new private sector jobs under this government is best way to help people sustainably out of poverty. as they come out poverty they see higher minimum wage and more ability to earn money before

they pay any taxes at all. those are the government's priority, that is our long-term plan and that's what you're going to hear about. >> can i, can i join my right honourable friend in paying tribute to tony benn who ancestral is in my constituency where he was held in high regard by my constituency even though they may have not agreed with his views. is he aware however, that today's figures show unemployment in mald opt n fallen by 27% since the last election? does he agree this is further proof that the chancellor was absolutely right to ignore his critics opposite as a stick to his guns? >> thank my honourable friend for what he said. obviously in the unemployment figures there is good news about women into work about young people into work, about falls in long-term unemployment but it is also the largest annual fall in the claimant account, number of people claiming unemployment

benefits is the largest fall since february of 1998. this is really important point about getting people back to work and giving people a chance of a job with dignity and security in their lives. that is what our economic plan is all about. >> mr. speaker, at the weekend a young woman from my sit whensy, sophie jones died of cervical cancer leaving her family and friends unable to understand why she did not get the smear test she asked for. will the prime minister send his sympathies to her friends and family and will he work with me to make sure once we understand what went wrong we have the right policies in place to make sure this doesn't happen to anyone else? >> i think the honorable lady is absolutely right to mace this case. many read in the papers in the weekend. seems absolutely tragic case. we've made huge breakthroughs in this country under governments of both parties in terms of screening programs that are available and public health information is available but something seems to have gone wrong in this case. i'm happy to look into this and

write to her and seek any views she has about it too. >> mr. david ward. >> thank you, mr. speaker. today's unemployment figures show a reduction in -- 14, which i concede is better than an crease of 14 but very disappointing nevertheless, and leaves us highest still in the country. i recently visited a training provider in bradford said there were 600 apprenticeship vacancies in bradford. is the prime minister confident we're actually doing enough to insure that young people in particular are aware of apprenticeships but also prepared to take those apprenticeships on? >> i think the honorable gentleman, my honourable friend makes a very important point, pockets of quite high unemployment right next to areas that have a lot of apprenticeships or jobs available. i think there are two things we have to get right hire. one we have to make sure more of

our young people are leaving school with the key qualifications including english and math are absolutely vital to take on an apprenticeship. we need to stress those subjects are vocational subjects at the heart of education. the second we need to do more to explain to young people in school what is available in terms of apprenticeships an training and that is exactly what our national career service is going to do. . .

let me answer, let me answer the honorable gentleman very directly. under our plan everyone in the nhs will get at least a 1% pay rise, and this is something that i was told was supported by the labour party. this is what the leader of a lady -- labor party said. we're talking about a pay increase limited to one person. i say, this labor party is going to face up to those difficult choices we have to make. how long did that one last? confronted by trade union campaign, he demonstrates once again his complete weakness and i'm fitness for office. >> -- unfitness. thank you, mr. speaker. arenas report and the female -- suggested in the population has been reduced in the uk by 4500. as a proud british asian father

to two daughters, can ask my right honorable friend to call for into this most appalling practice? this was a taboo subject must in quite clearly not just in the uk but in the world as a whole. whole. >> my friend is right about this. it is a simply appalling practice. i think there are areas like this, like female genital mutilation, like forced marriage where we need to be clear about our values and the messages we send and that these practices are unacceptable to the government has made clear abortion on the grounds of gender alone is illegal. the chief medical officer wrote to all doctors last year reminding them of their responsibility, i'm beating with the chief medical officer and i will raise this issue with her and i think it's right my friend to run c-span, 430 five years

bringing public affairs events yearstly to you -- for 35 bringing public affairs events directly to you. created by the cable tv industry 35 years ago and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. watch us in hd, like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. cofounder, microsoft bill gates talks about poverty, global health issues, and the u.s. education system. he said that in the next 20 years because prosperity is spreading around the world, there should be fewer than 10 countries in poverty. here is a little of what he said. >> you offer an incredibly bold prediction. you say that there will almost be no poor countries remaining by the year 2035.

what do you mean by that? is gdpprimary measure per person. we still do not have a substitute measure. countries codifies with over $1200 per person per year moving up into a middle income bracket, low income to middle income. we have 45 countries that are still in that low income category. be less there should than 10. they will mostly be places like north korea, where you have a political system that basically or theiroverty, landlocked african countries where the geography, the disease

burden, the disparate ethnicities mean that they have not been able to bring together that does the most minimum things for them. we are on this rising tide. wt is overwhelming ho prosperity is spread around the , from 1960, where there were very few rich countries -- now most countries are middle income countries. poor countries are much smaller. just saying that they will move up be on the threshold does not mean that they will mud have poor people in the countries and their governments will be fantastic. it will be a lot better on average than it is today. >> on the next "washington the chief washington the role

correspondent for yahoo! news joins us. how american presidents have reached out to other foreign leaders during times of crisis. janete will focus on yellen and the federal reserve. "washington journal" is live on c-span everyday day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. live events to tell you about today here on c-span. a speech by the wisconsin lieutenant governor at the heritage foundation at noon eastern. she is focusing on her state's economy and jobs. president obama talks about when women -- about women and the economy at the valencia college in orlando, florida.

today's young adults, the millennial's, who are having a lot of trouble getting started as they come of age in this economy, they are paying money into a system to support a level of benefits for today's retirees that they have no realistic chance of getting when they themselves retire. there needs to be a rebalancing of the social compact. it it's a very important challenge, a very difficult --llenge for the scum tree for this country politically. it is symbolically the purest statement and public policy that we are a community all in this together. these are programs that affect everybody. the old math of these programs does not work. >> paul taylor on the looming

generational showdown. in a few weeks, your chance to talk with military strategist bing west. he will take your calls, comments, e-mails, tweets. book tv, every weekend on c-span 2. join the discussion about the new biography of stokely carmichael. the health care program in the united states -- if we do not deal with the issue of innovation, if we do not translate all of those findings that occur at the university level into health care products which are affordable and treat as longand cure them --

as we do not understand disease and their causes and how to cure them, there is no point in talking about the solution of the health care problem. health insurance coverage is going to provide health insurance. when it comes to drugs, the premiums, subsidies, where are the subsidies going to come from? from taxpayer money. people are not going to get the dollars out of the trees. people have to pay for that. there is a limit. the economy is the science of limitations. if we do not do with a better ,ystem of working on prevention how we can take care of our own health, there is no point in just having health insurance because what is going to happen is what is happening in colombia right now. what happens in panama. everyone can have access to health care. it is what is happening in

europe, too. but there covered, government is having problems affording the drugs. >> the future of health care. q&a.y night at 8:00 on >> c-span, bringing public affairs events from washington directly to you. and offering complete gavel-to-gavel coverage of the u.s. house. as a public service of private industry. c-span, created by the cable tv industry 35 years ago and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. watch us in hd, like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. saidnior u.s. officials wednesday that the government is conducting lawful surveillance of foreign persons overseas under the foreign intelligence surveillance act.

the privacy and civil liberties oversight board heard from a nsa'sthat included the top lawyer as a continues to that allowslaw surveillance of non-us citizens abroad. this is a little more than an hour and a half. cut avenue in w this hearing was announced in the federal register. presiding officer. all five board members are present and there is a quorum. board members are "after the

bell," greta van susteren, greece and mario draghi. i will call the hearing to order. all in favor of opening the hearing please say aye. unanimous consent to proceed, we will now proceed. i want to thank the board's staff, of brian seaman, for their efforts in making this event possible. last year we provided the president and congress a public report on two counterterrorism programs, under the patriot act and the seminole program. the report on the 215 program was issued on january 23rd, 2014. our focus is on the section 7 program under the amendment act. the purpose of this hearing is to foster public discussion, legal, constitutional and policy issues related to this program. a few ground rules. we expect the discussion will be

based on unclassified or declassified information. however some of the discussion will inevitably touch on classified documents or media reports of classified information. in order to promote a robust discussion speakers may reference these documents but keep in mind in some cases they remain classified. therefore while discussing them neither board members more speakers in a position to do so will confirm the validity of the documents or information. there will be three panels today, the first will consist of government officials who agencies have varying degrees of responsibility for the surveillance program that will be the subject of our report. the second panel will consist of academics and advocates who will focus on legal issues including statutory and constitutional issues. after the first two panels we will take a lunch break. a final panel will consist of a mix of academics, advocates and private sector representatives that will focus on transnational and policy issues.

board members will pose questions with questions and rounds for each board member. panelists are urged to keep their responses brief and to permit the greatest exchange reviews. program is being recorded and a transcript will be posted on pclob.gov. written comments are welcome and may be submitted on line as regulation.gov, by mail until march 28th. today's hearing will focus on the collection of foreign intelligence information, electronic communications service providers under court supervision pursuant to section 702 and foreign intelligence surveillance act. information obtained with court approval with written directions from the attorney general and director of national intelligence to acquire foreign intelligence information. this law permits the government to target non-u.s. persons, someone who is not a citizen or permanent resident alien located out the united states for foreign intelligence purposes without obtaining sufficient warrant for the target. we will move to our first panel

and bob will make an opening statement for the panel. >> thank you for the opportunity to appear on behalf of the group here and talk about section 702. i would like to give a brief overview of section 702 to set the stage and we will allow the points i make in response to questions. section 702 as you noted, against foreign targets to are outside the united states while protecting privacy rights. under section 702 the fisa court requires certification from the director of national intelligence that identify categories of foreign intelligence that may be collected. we then target sectors such as telephone numbers or e-mail addresses that will produce foreign intelligence within the scope of the certification. the fisa court has to review

targeting and minimization procedures. the targeting procedures ensure that we target only non-u.s. persons who are reasonably believed to be outside the united states, that we do not intentionally intercept domestic communication and we do not target any person outside the united states as a subterfuge to target someone inside the u.s.. the minimization procedures ensure consistent with foreign intelligence we minimize the acquisition and retention of nonpublic information available about u.s. persons and prohibit dissemination of such information. i want to make a couple of important overview points about section 702. first there is either a misconception or mischaracterization commonly repeated in section 702 as a form of bulk election. it is not bulk election. it is targeted collection based on selectors such as telephone numbers or e-mail addresses where there is reason to believe

the selectors relevant to a foreign intelligence purpose. i just want to repeat section 702 is not above collection programs. second from a legal point of view persons who are not u.s. persons who are outside the united states do not have rights under the fourth amendment so the constitution doesn't require individualized warrants to target them. in fact the intelligence covered by section 702 targeting foreigners outside the united states has historically been viewed as part of the president's inherent constitutional authority. i am not aware of any other country that brings this kind of collection and did the judicial process. it is subject to extensive oversight for all three branches of government. extensive view of collections 702, inspectors general by the department of justice, the director of national intelligence includes reporting of all compliance to the foreign

intelligence surveillance court. that includes periodic reports to congress and the court. and the documents declassified, the foreign intelligence surveillance court carefully scrutinizes our activities under this section and there have been a number of compliance incidents over the years the court has never found intentional effort to violate the requirements of section 702. the fact that communications of u.s. persons may be incidentally intercepted when we target valid for an intelligence targets is neither unexpected nor unique to section 702 collection. the statute itself with its requirement of minimization procedures and legislative history make completely clear congress knew full well when it passed section 702 that incidental collection of communications with u.s. persons would occur when they are in communication with valid foreign targets and it is important to note this kind of incidental, attackers all the time.

when we conduct criminal wiretap or wiretap pursuant to its subtitle 1 which would likely intercept communications. there are communications with persons, the minimization wills under section 702 which the pfizer court approves is consistent with the statute and the fourth amendment. are designed to protect the privacy, that incidentally collected. allowing the use of information that is lawfully collected and valid for intelligence and law enforcement purposes. i want to close by emphasizing, section 702 is one of the most valuable collection tools i have. many of the specific achievements have to remain classified, we are not revealing who we are targeting or collecting. it is not only about terrorism but wide variety of other threats to our nation and unless one of my colleagues has

something to add we are ready to address your question. >> thank you for that statement. i want to pick up with your discussion of incidental collection, to make clear under this program even though the targets may be a non-u.s. person there will be times when the conversation by e-mail or telephone, will be a u.s. person. this panel, whether you have communications that implicate fourth amendment concerns and if so do you believe there is a foreign intelligence exception to the fourth amendment, and if not, how collection of information of u.s. persons permissible and rising this to the traditional wiretapped. is there a distinction here from on a traditional wiretaps the court has a judicial determination with particular ready of particular collection whereas here there is only a

broad programmatic court that -- approval of the specific election. broadly speaking, address the fourth amendment regarding incidental collection. >> i will take that. this is as bob said collection targeting non u.s. persons overseas who don't enjoy fourth amendment rights and supreme court precedent. that affects the fourth amendment analysis. that is not to say u.s. persons whose information or whose communications are collected incidentally doesn't trigger a fourth amendment review. it does. people still have fourth amendment rights but what the courts have said is that minimization procedures in place render that collection reasonable for fourth amendment perspective. we think there is an exception to the warrant requirement.

before fisa was enacted in the 1970s number of courts held in a number of different circuits that there is a foreign intelligence exception to the warrant requirement under the fourth amendment, in light of special needs of the government to collect foreign intelligence weighed against the privacy interests of u.s. persons concluded you don't need a warrant when engage in foreign intelligence collection and the only remaining question is is it reasonable under the fourth amendment to collect information on u.s. persons when you are targeting non u.s. persons and what the fisa court has held that it is reasonable in light of the minimization targeting procedures that you have in place? i don't know if that answers your question. the warrant requirement not applicable to foreign intelligence collection still have a reasonable this requirement of which u.s. persons, it is reasonable in light of the procedures we have that are designed to ensure we are targeting non u.s. persons? >> the minimization procedures make a reasonable form of collection under the fourth

amendment. >> minimization procedures address the targeting procedures address the acquisition, retention and dissemination of u.s. personal information and so those procedures are designed to protect u.s. persons whose information might be incidentally collected so for example you can only disseminate information about u.s. person if it is foreign intelligence necessary to understand foreign intelligence or is that a crime, you have retention rules and in some cases for nsa a 5-year retention limit on how long the information can be retained. these are procedures the courts have found protecting u.s. privacy and making the collection reasonable for fourth amendment purposes. >> under the minimization procedures i understand the agencies, the fbi, their own minimization procedures are not the same with each other? >> that is correct. >> why shouldn't i be concerned they are not being subjected to

the same minimization standards? >> each of them have their and minimization procedures based on their unique mission and that record the jumbos for cia, fbi, nsa, reasonable for each different agency, slightly different based on the operational needs. >> would it make more ascents at the minimization procedures to apply for the information? >> just to contrast, of using information in different ways, fbi has more latitude with respect to personal information in terms of criminal activity, and as a doesn't have the law-enforcement missions of is important to have differences between the agency in terms of how they handle the information. >> the practice that all information that is collected under 702 is subject to the minimization procedures, some questions could be raised, some comments were submitted to access information that would be considered communication for minimization or approach that

all information collected in 702 is subject to minimization? >> all u.s. personal information is subject to -- >> thanks to all of you for being here this morning, we appreciate your taking time, and to continue on the fourth amendment discussion. could one of you explain the process both inside the executive branch and with the courts of conducting the fourth amendment analysis and seeking the court's approval to fourth amendment analysis and what kind of opinions on the fourth amendment you had that you can talk about and help understand how that works? >> the fisa court operates differently than regular court, that means only the government is there. there is not a party on the other side. other than that we are briefing the legal issues in the same way

as a regular proceeding where there's a party on the other side so we have an obligation to persuade the court is that the collection under 702 is lawful and complies with the fourth amendment and explain to the chair that the minimization procedures comply with the fourth amendment so we would reach that issue at explaining for the amendment procedures in the core issue's opinions and has issued opinions going through the fourth amendment analysis finding that 702 collection including minimization targeting procedures meet fourth amendment standards so it is a full look regular legal briefing on that. >> if i could add something to that, it is typical in matters that involve the collection of evidence for these proceedings to be conducted, wiretap or search warrant applications are all done x party even if they happen to present significant legal issues. there's nothing novel in terms of the approach that is taken

care. >> in addition to what brad was articulating the court has the fourth amendment analysis as you all know, the 702 process requires an of -- certification every year. the minimization and targeting procedures for various agencies which statute has to conduct fourth amendment analysis on those procedures. >> the fourth amendment analysis is once the year, of the program overall. >> consistent jurisdiction all year. the point i was making is part of the annual certification they're required to report fourth amendment analysis of the annual procedures that are submitted annually. it gets evaluated at least once a year. >> can you elaborate on that. what would there be in addition to that once a year analysis? >> point be a number of factors, to change procedures in mid year. that would prompt another

analysis. that could be one circumstance. a variety of compliance matters raised particular concerns in which case the court may do a review of cycle but we wouldn't presume to meet once a year but at a minimum by statute once a year. >> you talked about collection, i want to delve into that, full collection, selectors, you need to elaborate on that little bit. what is it? >> it is helpful to talk about what collection is. if you look at the president's policy directive, collection of communication without relying on some sort of discriminant to target particular collections,

of huge sort of more informally, of bunch of communication hanging on to them and what you want. this is not that. what we want, we get that specifically and targeted rather than bulk election. >> i want to get more into what you are getting. rajesh de can talk about this better than i can. >> it is the necessary predicate to understand how the question occurs. there are two types of collection and dissections 702. both are targeted which means they are both selector based and get into more detail about the selectors or things like the numbers and e-mail addresses. both are legal processes, both types were conducted with the assistance of electronic communications service provider

and most collections are subject to the same statutory standards. the first type is what has been known as prison collection. using shorthand for a moment, under this type of collection communication to or from specifics electors, things like phone-number or e-mails are provided with the assistance of i s ps. the second type of collection is shorthand referred to as upstream collection which is from lack of a better phrase internet backbone rather than internet service providers. it is also selector based, based on particular phone numbers or e-mails. this is a collection to, from or about, the same selectors using prism selection. this is not based on keywords for example. this type of collection fills a

particular gap of allowing us to collect communications that are not available in the present collection. given the unique nature of upstream collection there are different minimization procedures that apply. the reason procedures are not all is the same different types of collection as brat articulated is they are different privacy interest and commission interests. >> my time is up. >> thank you for coming out this morning. we really appreciate your time on this. happy to be a part of this dialogue here. to followup on a couple points that have already been raised. first, we talked about the fourth amendment implications of the collection. we also talked about the fact, it is known the information that is collected can subsequently be queried. do you consider that subsequent aquarius search for the purposes of the fourth amendment and if

not why not? >> i would say the search chuckers at the time the collection occurs so when the information as rajesh de explained is acquired by nsa, that is the time we should search, lawfully collect that information, subsequently querying that information isn't a search under the fourth amendment, it is information already in the government's custody. i don't think there are any contexts in general in which a warrant is required to search information already in your custody. >> following up on that someone suggested whether it is a matter of fourth amendment necessity or policy, as a matter of policy, that you should seek court approval before doing a query of a u.s. person identifier. can you talk a little bit about the operational impact of such a requirement?

>> sure. this is something my colleagues could talk about, the operational impact. in general with other types of collection whether it is collection under title 1 fisa which is regular collection you have already gotten from fisa cord to tie the a particular foreign power or moving over to the criminal side if this information collected and the wiretap act, title free under which you are conducting surveillance on organized crime or a drug case, in all these contexts we collect information. once we collected it we have the necessary court approval to obtain the information, we don't have to go back to court, lawfully and second time to say okay to look at it. and the custody, imagine they were quite burdensome and

difficult -- to address that a little bit. >> turn it to my colleagues on the bureau. one basic point talking about prison query's and two types of collection to clarify u.s. person query's are not allowed to upstream collection. as i articulated there might be different reasons to have tailored procedures, minimization procedures so such queries are not allowed upstream. adding to brad's point about collection information, wins information is collected pursuant to 702, the president will review what is in that information querying that lawfully collected information is one way to think about that. a way to more efficiently reviews at which the government has in its possession to review follow-ups. your question about policy, creating that data, one also needs to understand that information is that the

government's disposal to review to organize. there are standards in place for querying that information for nsa. such a query when talking about prison collection must be reasonably likely. in order to disseminate information, and from publicly available procedures. >> at a high level, i think, you have to think about a new and special category of information. they are acquired pursuant to lawful process. we will query that and look through when something comes in and look through collected

materials. and deal with what we have and move forward as expeditiously as possible. a new category of information is off limits. and pretend to fully understand the implications, the couple that come to mind will be delayed. you have additional processes you have to go through and some emergency carve out and so on. you have to factor in the reality to lay into the system. there is a gap, several types of gaps, the disinclination for people who don't have facts. -- some type of connection with the we have and look at normally in this material and other types

of material. and create a blind spot and intelligence collection. you have to think about the technical complexity you are suggesting so this is segregated in some way, treat it in some way. that could lead to a training issues. we actually do it in a way that would be different from other types the we handled. >> one brief point to this, the last decade and at half, they were set up to investigate after a variety of terrorism events 9/11, fort hood, the underwear bomber and so on, consistently everyone of those commissions has found that we need to eliminate barriers to making use of information that is lawfully in our possession to better

protect the nation and requiring some kind of additional process before we can query this information directly contrary to the recommendations of all those. >> i see my time is up. >> i never had a chance to introduce the panel to the benefits that they are familiar to us and benefit the audience. we have jim baker who is general counsel of the fbi, joan council of nsa, the general counsel and director of national intelligence, and brad wiegmann from the -- i thank you. >> thanks. thanks for the witnesses for being here. they are very well known to was. everybody should realize we now spent many days with these gentlemen and with many of their colleagues and all their

agencies going through this information and delving deeply into this. there has been a huge dedication of time on the part of the agencies to make sure we have everything we asked for and make shore all of questions are answered. all board members appreciate the amount of time you dedicated to talking with us and i think it is very important here to be 100% clear. there has been a lot of misunderstanding about 702 program and i do see issues for the program and things we are talking about but it is important to narrow the subjects of controversy or discussion or concern and i am afraid rajesh de may have partly reinsert a problem when you said u.s.

person selectors were not used for upstream collection or upstream searches, they are not used at all period at the collection stage. you are saying u.s. person identifiers or selectors are not used to search the required data base of communications that were otherwise acquired on a particular rise to basis under the upstream program. correct? >> correct. i would prefer not to introduce more ambiguity. let me be absolutely clear. section 702 collection of any flavor is only targeting non-u.s. persons to be located abroad. the topic i was discussing was in the realm of that lawfully collected targeted information once it is in the government's possession the secondary issue arises as to how one can search through that data and the issue

we were discussing was whether those searches can be conducted using personal identifiers in that collected data and the answer to that question is no with respect to upstream collection. >> when you are talking about search and collect and acquire, all of those terms you are using to mean in a colloquial sense when a government collects, obtains, puts into its database, acquires, you are not parsing those words from 702 purposes, there's not a distinction between the search, the collection, the acquisition, it is all -- you are using those things all to refer to the same activity. >> no pricing between acquisition and collection so there are some theories that when the government receives the data doesn't count as collection or acquisition. acquisition and collection for these purposes are the same

thing but the term search is a different term. search as we discussing means certain information that has already been lawfully acquired or collected. >> also the first -- now we have two meanings of search and it is hard to be clear on this. brad was explaining, the search occurs when you first collected or acquire. that is the fourth amendment search. >> he was speaking to the use of the term in the fourth amendment and not the use of the term -- >> querying you, second use of search, so you query your database. >> that is the term we typically use rather tha query is not a

search. >> persons reasonably believed to be outside the united states and there has been some talk about there may have been some slide somewhere, i don't know where this came from, some notion that it is 51% likelihood, therefore, 49% of the time we might be wrong, the person is not outside the united states and that is permitted under 702. can you comment on that? >> the bigger picture question that gets to is how a determination is made for purposes of the statute, that you are targeting a non-u.s. person recently believed to be located abroad. as bob articulated, sorry for repeating this but just for clarity statutes does not allow you to target a person, t omm1t

person, there how that means an analyst must take into account all available information, means an analyst cannot ignore any contrary information to suggest that is not the correct status of the person and also means naturally is that any such determination is fact specific to the facts at hand. i did a little checking and turns out in our internal training materials we actually asked our analysts a question

along the lines of if you have four pieces of information that suggests a person -- two pieces of information that suggests a person is domestic, given that it is 4-2 is that sufficient to establish? the correct answer is no is not sufficient because it is not a majority test, it is totality of the circumstances test. one must take into account strength, credibility and import of all available information but to add on to that to the bigger point about confidence in that determination analysts have an affirmative obligation to periodically revisit the point of determinations so it is not once and done system. targeting determination must be documented before any, action occurs. that documentation is reviewed, every determination is reviewed in 60 days increments for the department of the director of national intelligence to determine if they agree with

that. targeting procedures as we mentioned which account for a lot of this are reviewed annually by foreign intelligence and prove to be consistent with the court. >> if i could add from the doj perspective, we review those as the terminations and found an error rate of less than 0.1% basically, so that equates to less than one in a thousand cases where we are finding nsa making erroneous determinations. >> thank you. i think the nsa said in some of its information, information about u.s. persons is incidental to the 702 search that is targeted of an non-u.s. person, and incremental information for u.s. persons found not have

foreign intelligence value it will be, quote, perez to -- purge. tell me what purging means. does that mean it can subsequently not be used at all or subsequently used and retained for some purposes and at one point by whom could this decision, not intelligence value, be made? >> let me step back for a moment. information is determined -- >> speak a tiny bit louder. >> information is determined not to have foreign intelligence value, it is required to be purged. what purging means is removed from nsa systems in a way that it cannot be used, period. >> for any reason at all. >> correct. there are extensive requirements we have gone for with the foreign intelligence surveillance court to ensure the

best extent humanly possible that nsa's technical systems can purge data as required by minimization procedures in the foreign intelligence surveillance court. >> in your experience, is that to purge or not to purge decision made early in the process or is it kept in there until the analyst or whoever has the chance to do some more hunting around and see whether or not other things would suggest that does have intelligence -- in other words, if there is such a concern about as there is in outside groups about u.s. incidental information that is in the files and later possibility of being query i wonder how extensive this purging operation really is. >> to purge or not to purge,

that is the question. procedures require the determination about for intelligence value be made as early as possible -- is not something that by default can be ignored. that being said -- >> who makes that? >> intelligence value is made by foreign intelligence -- >> analysts are working on it. >> they would be the ones who have the most relevant information but that goes to a bigger point as to the nature of intelligence analysis. you all would appreciate that it is difficult to determine without context the 4 intelligence value of any piece of information. in fact that is why the intelligence community's in courage to connect the dots of pieces of disparate information so i think we would hope and expect analysts make that determination about for intelligence value in the context of all available information.

information is not reviewed, what is the default? this is a large reason we have default retention periods for data. for example for nsa the default for prison collection is a five year retention period. there's a reason that retention period is adjustable or at least tailored to the specific nature of the collection. for this collection the retention period is two years recognizing the nature of the unique nature of collection and it may have a greater implication. >> the president required -- required january directive that went to 215 that at least temporarily selectors in 215 were questioning the databank of u.s. telephone calls had to be

approved by the fisa court. why wouldn't the similar requirement for 702 be appropriate in the case where u.s. person indicators are used to search the prism database? what big difference do you see? >> i think from a theoretical perspective the difference between the bulk collection and the targeted collection. >> sorry for interrupting. i would think the message from 702 actually got the content. >> the second point i was going to make is the operational burden in the context of 702 would be far greater -- if you recall, the number of actual telephone numbers as to which a reasonable like teachable suspicion determination was made under section 215 was very small. the number of times we query the

702 database for information is considerably larger. i suspect the 4 intelligence surveillance court would be extremely unhappy if they were required -- >> i suppose the ultimate question for us is whether or not the inconvenience to the agency's or even the unhappiness of the fisa court would be the ultimate criteria. >> it is more than a question of inconvenience. it is a question of practical ability. >> i think one must also look at the underlying nature of the collection program at issue and so i think we should be clear not to conflate the 215 program with the 702 program. as you mentioned one deals with metadata and the other deals with content. the latter is directed at content collection targeting non u.s. persons located abroad where as the 215 program

although it deals with snick did not. >> if i may, the 215 program -- >> the judge's time is expired but i will have the opportunity on another round to continue that. i want to shift to a different topic about communication, searches and query switch is have you explain it basically that you are looking for other people's discussion of another selector or e-mail term but back to the definition here. what is a collector and what is the director if you could explain those terms. >> tiger is the operative term others build on.

a selector would be an e-mail account or phone-number that you are targeting so this is -- you get terrorist@google.com or whatever. that is the address you have information about that you have reasonable to believe that person is a terrorist and like to collect foreign intelligence information on that person's account so when you go up on that selector we say go up on or target that selector and collect information going to the provider and getting information related to that person's accounts intercepting real-time and collecting the story communications of that particular account. that is what we mean by targeting a selector. using that collector and providing that to the company and provided information or the phone number on that phone numbers so when we say selector is an arcane term that people wouldn't understand and targeting is the when you are

going to get. those are not the targeted numbers or accounts but others that are acquired with these communications. target is the one you are going after and the statute requires the target be a non-u.s. person located overseas. that is the determination we are talking about as we go through great lengths to make sure that target belongs to a non-u.s. person overseas. the other questions? tasking, when you are saying going to test this town, collect information from that account. so you are identifying this one is going to be approved. a terrorist or proliferators or cyberperson or whoever it is, we