nonentity. i think the framers would have been horrified. they assume that regardless of your party, that people in congress would fight mightily to protect their institution. that is what has changed. the used to be people like harry byrd in the senate who often did fight with democratic presidents for the separation of powers. you just don't have that anymore. the members in the senate today tend to be much more lockstep with the party. even when they see their own authority being drained away. in my view it's a very foolish thing. this president has only a couple of years left, and these credits will rue the day that they remain silent as their authority was drained away. there is no guarantee who our next president is, what this is not going to be our last one and these powers will remain. presidents do not tend to give back power.

host: in "the daily beast," the headline "the real reason the u.s. did not rescue bowe bergdahl -- did not arrest bowe bergdahl." u.s. special operative's would have had to give up one dozen possible hideouts in order to have a chance of rescuing him, according to u.s. officials who often -- who also say that the obama administration did not want to risk the political fallout from another unilateral u.s. raid, like a navy seal raid that killed osama bin laden in 2011. guest: that sounds quite logical. none of us want to see soldiers put into harm's way unless we have a clear target and operation. you know, the bin laden raid still remains controversial legally. we did go into another nation without their approval and carry

out a military operation. we did kill people within pakistan. while we feel that was justified, many around the world view that as a clear violation of international law. imagine if mexico did that, they came in and took out a guy in san diego and went across the border. we would be calling for a war. i think that the reluctance to engage in these types of multiple operations in pakistan makes a lot of sense. what is also interesting is that we still do not know -- there are some people who have said that people died looking for berg tall -- for bergdahl after he disappeared. some of the folks in his unit certainly believed that. that is another dimension the white house is balancing. host: let's go to dalton, georgia, where jimmy is on the line for republicans. caller: i wanted to give you three questions.

number one, i just wonder why the congress is not going to impeach obama. he has done a lot on a number of occasions. none of the soldiers of his fellowship don't think bergdahl is a hero, they think he is a traitor. and the other question -- what is the deal between this trade -- the deal on this trade between sergeant bergdahl and the taliban? guest: people are sort of getting their arms around the question of whether this was a price too hi to pay. as to the reaction of congress, this is something i find truly mystifying. i have been around congress for

a long time since the days i was a congressional page, and i have seen a change in congress. there used to be a core of members who did fight for the separation of powers regardless of who was in the white house. they simply have changed. congress was a -- congress is a different place. i do not think it is a better place. my concern is we have not only congress that is increasingly passive in the face of presidential overreach. we also have courts that have adopted the policies and doctrines of avoidance, so the courts have removed themselves from any of these separation of powers fights. the result is what the framers never thought would happen. we have the really extraordinary expansion of presidential power in our country. neither of the other two branches are actively checking that power. the result is a new system is emerging, one very different from what the framers intended. and i think one that is less stable.

that separate nation -- that separation of powers doctrine is what has given us the stability. it is why we have lasted when other systems have not. these are changes that are so fundamental and important, it is established -- it is astonishing that we have not had a debate about this. host: our guest is jonathan turley of the george washington university law school. an e-mail question came in that is right at the heart of what you are saying -- guest: he is, but that is not a good enough excuse. he is saying congress is not acting so i am acting alone, and many people applauded that. that truly mystifies me. first of all, there is a reason we cannot get things done today. we are a divided nation.

we are deeply divided on these issues. it so happens in the areas where the president is acting unilaterally are those issues where we are divided -- immigration, health care, and the like. those are areas we cannot get a national consensus. we are a representative democracy, and it does reflect those divisions. when we are divided, fewer things get done. that might not be such a bad thing because it is better to wait for when things come together that here is your answer. president obama says i tried to get congress to do this and they did not do what i wanted them to do, so i go it alone. there is no license to go it alone in the madisonian system. congress is so dysfunctional -- the framers designed this system for bad times because they lived in bad times. when people say, you know, it is like they want to kill each other in congress -- they were actually trying to kill each other back in the time of the framers.

they had the alien sedition act. they actually want to -- they actually wanted to kill each other. this is precisely the time this system was designed for. the one argument i have little patience with from the white house is that he has a license to do that because congress will not do what he wants them to do. host: in florida, mike is on the line for independents. caller: mr. turley, it is an honor. i have watched you time and again in front of subcommittees. the one that jumped out at me was your response to the irs subcommittee in the senate when you basically leveled some of these important accusations. herein lies the conundrum, or at least i think it is. stuff gets talked about, in congress, on the congressional side, not the senate side -- if

i'm not mistaken, stuff that has been passed up. there has been roadblocks on a variety of issues pertaining to this. on the flip side you see the president going through using czars, executive actions, i passing everything. you state clearly, this is dangerous and how do we address it. but right now there is a roadblock between the congressional sides that will never allow it to be addressed. look at the stuff that has come out in the last six months and all the screaming and hollering. at the end of the day, what is resolved about it? nothing. people get frustrated by it. if you are somebody who picks up a newspaper a couple minutes ago -- a couple minutes a day, 50% probably do not know what is going on.

like you say, they just want to see something happen. you go, guys, it could be bad. that is my comment, sir. guest: it is an excellent comment. it is funny when people say i just want to get something done. in a madisonian system, it is more important often how you do something than what you do. that is why the democrats are acting so foolishly. they have tossed aside many of the things that defined them as a party. certainly many of the things that protect them as a party, and those means are important. for the short term gains they are going to pay a heavy price. when the democrats killed the filibuster rule with the regard to nominations, i thought that was the most foolish thing i had seen in my life. democrats could very well be in the minority in a couple of years and they just tossed aside the most important protection they would have. i did not think that was a price worth paying.

the reason things are not going to get done and it is not going to change, we are divided. that division is going to take a while for us to come together on some issues. but that is not how the system was supposed to work ultimately. the framers expected congress to be divided on some occasions. what they did not expect is for the court system to remove itself from this. the judiciary is that vent that allows for these pressures to be funneled into judicial review. as i have written as an academic, this crisis is the product of the courts removing themselves from their constitutional function. when people blame the two parties for all the stuff going on on the hill, i take a less judgmental view of the parties. i do not think it is their fault. when the courts say we are not going to get involved, you leave the parties to just muscle politics. you leave them to do these stupid, juvenile type of things

because the courts are not resolving the constitutional questions. i frankly blame the courts in terms of what we are seeing today, and that is where our focus has to be. seeing the courts engage more and help the find those lines of separation. then that clarity will decrease a lot of this foolishness. host: i want to go to a couple of tweets and get your comment on them. host: another tweet i would like to look at is from dana. host: your thoughts on either of those? guest: first of all, the white house has come out with various rationalize stations for why he violated law. we did not want to risk a leak from congress.

that is the least persuasive of the rationale. if that is their rationale, they could refuse to comply with a host of areas. with any disclosures and the national security area. it also borders on defamation. i have a lot of criticism of the senate and house intelligence committees because they are, in my view, a rubber stamp in many regards to the national security complex. but to say that you cannot inform someone like diane feinstein and others about this operation is perfectly ludicrous. these are disclosures that are made in skiffs, special rooms of cleared individuals. they are overseen by security officers. there has not been this type of leaking of the information. i don't think people should tolerate that type of argument. it is a post-rasul is a -- a post-rationalization of violating federal law.

that seems closer to the mark. host: what about the argument that the white house needed to move quickly and that is why certain things did not happen? guest: there is no evidence to support that thus far, but more importantly, they did raise this years ago. this has been going on for literally years. i am very skeptical that they could not 30 days ago say we are moving very close to a deal, or we intend to move forward with this deal. the last time they raised this years ago they got a serious pushback where people started to raise concerns like we are seeing today. i think that pushback is the reason we did not see notification. host: we talk a lot about congress. but listen to senate majority leader harry reid, speaking yesterday on the senate floor, suggesting there may be was another avenue.

caller: it is not a victory for president obama, it is a victory for soldiers, their families, and our great country. president obama sought to that. mr. president, there are questions regarding sergeant bergdahl's disappearance. these are issues that were -- that will be resolved by the united states army and not monday morning quarterbacks on capitol hill. many just say this. the central argument -- let's assume bergdahl did violate his sworn oath. what do we do? do we meet out justice to an american soldier? as the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff has said yesterday and the day before, if he has done something wrong, military justice will step in and take care of that violation if in fact there was one. i don't know, but certainly that is a better approach than having the taliban do it.

i always choose the justice system of the united states army, american justice, every time. we see the brutality of the taliban. what is the alternative? would any american honestly preferred that a u.s. soldier remain in captivity until all the questions have been answered? of course not. in the united states, we rescued our soldiers first and ask questions later. host: jonathan turley, your thoughts? guest: some of that i don't think anyone would necessarily disagree with. we do have this strong commitment to our soldiers to bring them home. the price that should be paid to it, i leave that to other folks. i really do not know. what i find fascinating about his comments is how he brushes over the federal law that was

passed while he was in the senate signed by this president and ignored. that is part and parcel to what we have been talking about. this is not a huge violation of federal law in the sense of talking about impeachment or things like that. that is not going to happen. but this is a mantra of the white house, to say that we just simply felt that we could not comply with federal law. you are not allowed to make that decision. but what is fascinating with congressional leaders who are bracing -- who are embracing this uber presidency, this new presidency, certainly unilaterally with absolute power in certain areas. it is like the democratic party in the nixon era, who fought very hard for the separation of powers. this will come back to haunt them. the polls are not good for the democrats, and they are creating a horrific situation for

themselves. if they lose the senate and the white house. host: as a counterpoint to what senate majority leader harry reid said, this op-ed from the editorial board of "the wall street journal" -- host: they say the larger problem is that esther obama treats foreign -- that mr. obama treats foreign policy as a calculus of the political system. he could more easily sell the prisoner swap, which would then help empty guantanamo so he could fulfill that campaign promise, too.

guest: the one thing i would agree with is that the handling of this has been remarkably ham-handed. it has been remarkably poor. i am surprised by it because i would have looked at this and thought no matter how this goes there are you -- there is going to be serious backlash. but the white house seems to be taken by surprise. what strikes me as odd is the different rationale that has come out of the white house, machine-gun like. some members of the administration called democrats and said we violated the law and we are sorry. while those calls were being made, or shortly afterward, you had other people going on the air and saying we did not violate the law, we interpreted it. and others say the reason we did not give notice is not raising the constitutional question but because we thought we could not trust you. these are all coming from different directions, none of which are particularly persuasive. together, they undermine any

quad ability -- they undermine any credibility for the white house. they lack someone who is going to keep them on message but also to make sure that the message can withstand debate. the white house often tends to throw different messages out to see what succeeds, and they have an army of folks that go out there and appear on the cable system. that is a very good system for a political campaign. it is not very good in the separation of powers fight where people are looking for the principal line, the limiting principle that you are maintaining. host: let's go to international falls, minnesota. paul is on our democrat line. caller: yes, good morning. i am calling to say that we are talking constitutional law and we have a president that we just got rid of who went to war over false pretenses.

and we picked up all these prisoners. 13 years ago. and now you are upset that we are getting rid of five of them? it don't make sense. guest: first of all, i had a lot of problems. i oppose both of the wars. i certainly agree with that. but i do not think it is enough for democrats to continue to say look how bad george w. bush is. this is a president in his second term. he is an adult and he owns these decisions. this mantra that we are referring to george w. bush, i think it is losing its resonance in terms of how convincing it is. there is an interesting dynamic with gitmo. i agree with the president that gitmo should be closed. i have been a critic of gitmo

for a long time. an interesting dimension is, if you are going to close gitmo, i actually thought the spin that was going to come out -- we have determined that obviously we cannot try these guys, otherwise we would have tried them. we are going to shut down gitmo, which means we are going to have to do something with these guys, and we got value out of them. i expected that sort of to be the line. it was not. but it does force attention again on gitmo. that is, what are we going to do with all these people? he has been a disaster. the military tribunals have been a disaster. but politically, neither party in congress wants to be seen as facilitating the closure of gitmo and the release of these individuals. so we have a real political problem here. host: we are going to take a look at the roster of current detainees in guantánamo bay. 88 are from yemen, 12 from afghanistan, 10 from saudi

arabia, six from pakistan. and then 33 are other. a tweet from jodi -- guest: that is a very interesting question. it is getting lost in the more pressing issues of the violation of law and the price for it but this is the concern that many of us have had with gitmo for a long time. gitmo is a place that was created by george bush, maintained in the obama administration that was for a reason on the other side of our border. george bush was arguing that if we put it on the other side of the border, he would have absolutely true over this facility. we have a facility that clearly violates international law. we are holding people without trial, indefinitely. in many cases we are holding

them at the secret behest of other countries who do not want them to show up, return. the problem is where the legal principle lies in my criticism of president obama is that when he looked at gitmo he said he wanted to close it. but with regard to military tribunals, which some of us view as a tribunal, which some of us view as a violation of law, he reserve that right. he said i will continue this role, this sort of caesar-like role, that you go to a trial and you do -- you go through one that i created. host: sunday morning at 9:15 eastern carl rosenberg discussing this particular issue. let's go to vallejo, california, where don is on the line for democrats. guest: good morning. you sure do change your program.

you used to let a whole lot of people call-in. i guess you want to be more like greta. host: go right ahead. guest: i was calling with regard to this guy. he talked about how he voted for president obama. he did not vote for obama. he criticizes him more than anybody i ever heard. then you have congress, talking about them being so dysfunctional. you know why they are dysfunctional. they are not going to do nothing for no lack president. nothing is going to get done. you wait until this white president comes in. you will hear nothing else about no president doing nothing. guest: first of all, congress has done some things for this president. that is not -- that is a continuation of rather lethal how ticks, and this call reflects those types of emotions. as to voting for president

obama, i did not have any problems with voting for him for the first time. but i think this is the problem for democrats. they have to avoid a cult of personality. they have to avoid feeling that it is disloyal to their values when we first elected president obama to then criticize him. we have to separate ourselves from our personal views, our personal respect for someone like president obama and concerns about our constitutional system. what is being burned here is the very bridge we are standing on, and we are going to miss it when we have bad times ahead. host: we had just a couple minutes left with jonathan turley of the george washington university law school. mike is from des moines, iowa, on the line for independents. caller: i believe this trade for bergdahl was the most ludicrous thing that could happen. tell me this -- a couple of the

filth that was traded for him, weren't they wanted for war crimes? guest: a couple of them appeared on international lists and are considered to be possible war criminals. i was surprised with who was released. these are really high ranking taliban. at least two of them have very plausible war crimes allegations against them. so i was taken aback when i saw the actual list. host: fayetteville, north carolina. robert is on the line for republicans. caller: good morning, america. i just wanted to say that i have a problem with the celebration of bergdahl. he was celebrated in the rose garden, followed up by the comments by susan rice saying that he served with distinction.

after serving in the military, you are always inculcated with the first standing order that you do not leave your post until properly relieved. we have to bring him back and i understand bringing him back because he is an american soldier. but to have him celebrated and his father standing next to him, and then i found out that he made these comments on twitter that was released -- i said, oh, my goodness, he has given me the impression that he is now sympathizing with the taliban and we have american trained taliban in the united states of america. it is just the celebration of his release. it should have been done quietly and discreetly because he has some serious questions to answer

to once he comes back on our soil. guest: a lot of democrats in congress would privately agree with that. the optics are not good. a white house seems to have put itself in the most exposed possible way without knowing what the backlash would be. that is what you are hearing in terms of grumbling from members of congress on the democratic side, that this could not have been done to maximize the damage more. i have to say we have to be very careful. i do not know what happened with sergeant bergdahl. i think there are reasonable questions as to why he would walk away from the base. that raises questions of desertion. but i think what the right house -- what the white house is trying to do is say as of now he has not been convicted of any type of desertion. he did serve his country over there, and we will have to drill down on the conditions under which he left. but i do agree, and i think

democrats would agree, that the white house walked into a buzz saw here. they did not seem to see it coming, which strikes me as being very odd. this white house has had serious trouble in looking down the road, even just a few steps down the road. most of us would have assumed the opposite. host: jonathan turley is the professor of law at the georgetown university school of law. thank you. >> on the next washington journal, we focus on president obama's three country, four-day trip to europe. our guest is executive director of the transatlantic academy. we will mark the 70th anniversary of d-day from the world war ii memorial on the national mall. washington journal is live on c-span everyday at 7 a.m. eastern. you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter.

in a few moments, president obama and british prime minister david cameron speak with reporters. in the senate intelligence committee considers a bill that would limit how the nsa gathers and uses data. then a look at the history of presidential signing statements and the legal issues involved in the u.s. telegram swap -- u.s. .aliban swap >> c-span's new book includes gretchen journalist mortenson. >> what role should the government play and housing finance? if you want to subsidize housing in this country, and we want to talk about it and the populace agrees it is something we should subsidize, then put it on the balance sheet and make it clear and make it evident, and make everybody aware of how much it is costing, but when you deliver it through these third-party enterprises -- fannie mae and

freddie mac -- when you deliver the subsidy through a public company with private shareholders and executives who can extract a lot of that subsidy for themselves, that is not a very good way of subsidizing homeownership. >> read more of our conversation with gretchen mortenson and other featured interviews from our book notes and q&a programs and c-span's "sundays at eight" now available as a father's day gift. meeting ing-7 brussels, president obama and british prime minister david cameron held a joint news conference, setting a new deadline of a month for russia to meet their conditions in ukraine. the two leaders say moscow must recognize the newly elected leader in kiev, stop arms from crossing the border, and see support for pro-russian separatist groups that are concentrated in eastern ukraine. here is that news conference in 40 minutes.

>> good afternoon, everybody. it is good to be here with my great friend and partner, prime minister david cameron. earlier this afternoon, we concluded our summit with our fellow g-7 leaders, and i want to thank his majesty, king philippe, the prime minister, as well as the belgian people or welcoming us back to brussels. david and i also just had the opportunity to meet and discuss some challenges including syria, libya, and iran, as well as the process of ending our combat mission in afghanistan. we spoke about the deepening partnership that we have on issues like nigeria in support of our shared goal of safely returning the kidnapped girls to their families, but what i want to focus on briefly before we take questions are two issues that dominated our discussion over the last two days, and that's the situation in ukraine,

and energy security. originally, of course, our summit was supposed to be in sochi, but after russia's actions in ukraine, our nations united quickly around a common strategy. we suspended russia from the g-eight and canceled the sochi meeting, making this the first g-7 held without russia in some 20 years. all seven of our nations have taken steps to impose costs on russia for its behavior. today, in contrast to a growing global economy, the sluggish russian economy is even weaker because of the choices made by russia's leadership. meanwhile, our nations continue to stand united in our support and assistance to the ukrainian people, and the g-7 summit was an occasion for me, david, and our fellow leaders to ensure that we are in lockstep going forward. on ukraine, i shared the results of my meeting yesterday with president-elect poroshenko.

like many ukrainians, he wants to forge closer ties with europe and the united states but also recognizes that ukraine will benefit from a constructive relationship with russia. i believe his inauguration provides an opportunity, particularly since he has demonstrated a commitment to reach out to the east and pursue reforms. russia needs to seize that opportunity. russia needs to recognize that president-elect poroshenko is the legitimately elected leader of ukraine and engage the government in kiev. given his influence over the militants in ukraine, russia continues to have a responsibility to convince them to end their violence, lay down their weapons, and enter into a dialogue with the ukrainian government. on the other hand, if russia's provocations continue, it is clear from our discussions here that the g-7 nations are ready to impose additional costs on russia. i also briefed david on the new

initiative i announced in warsaw to bolster the security of our nato allies, especially in central and eastern europe as well as our focus on building counterterrorism capabilities across the middle east and north africa. david will be hosting the next nato summit in wales in september, and i preceded him updating me on the preparations for that summit. we agree that it is going to be an opportunity for every ally to make sure they are carrying their share and investing in the capabilities our alliance needs for the future. the situation in ukraine has also highlighted the need for greater energy security. at the g-7, we agreed to help ukraine reduce its energy risks, to include diversifying its supplies. we are going to help countries in central and eastern europe strengthen their energy security as well, and i am following the review i called for in the united states earlier this year, every g-7 country will conduct an energy assessment to identify possible impacts of any

potential disruptions and offer ways we can better prevent disruptions and recover from the m more quickly. related to this, we agree that the g-7 to continue to lead by example in the fight against climate change, which poses a danger to our environment, our economies, and our national security. i made it clear that the united states will continue to do our part. earlier this week, we took a major step, posing new standards that for the first time would limit carbon pollution from our existing power plants. it is one of the most ambitious steps any nation has taken to combat climate change. it would reduce carbon emissions from our electricity sector by 30%. it would help us meet the commitments we made when i first came into office at copenhagen, and it will improve our public health. it's also going to be good for our economy, by helping to create more clean energy jobs and ultimately lower electricity bills for americans, so it is the right thing to do.

this built on the steps we have taken over the past five years to invest more renewables like solar and wind, raise fuel standards for cars and trucks, and make our homes and businesses more energy-efficient. today, we are holding our carbon emissions to levels not seen in nearly 20 years, so we are making important progress, but my action plan for climate change indicates that we have got to keep at it and do more. i know it is a cause david is also passionate about. we believe every nation has to do its share. all the major economies, including the g-7 in emerging markets like china, need to show leadership as we work on a new global climate agreement, and that includes putting forward by march of next year and ambitious long-term target for reducing emissions. again, i want to thank prime minister cameron and our fellow leaders for our work here together in brussels. david, i believe that whenever our two nations stand together, they can lead a world that is more secure and more prosperous and more just, and we will be reminded of that again tomorrow

in normandy as we mark the 70th anniversary of d-day. on that day, like so many others, american and british troops stood together and fought valiantly alongside our allies. they did not just help to win the war. they helped turn the tide of human history. they are the reason we can stand here today and a free europe and with the freedoms our nations enjoy. theirs is the legacy that our two nations and our great alliance continued to uphold. i am grateful to have a fine partner in david and making that happen. thank you. >> thank you, and good afternoon. i am delighted to be here with you today, barack. as we stand here together in europe on the 70th anniversary of the d-day landings, we should remind the world of the strength and stead vastness of the bond between united kingdom and the united states. 70 years ago, as you just that, our countries stood like two

rocks of freedom and democracy in the face of not security -- of nazi tyranny. thousands of young british and american soldiers with their canadian and free french counterparts were preparing to cross the channel in the greatest liberation force that the world has ever known. those young men were united in purpose to restore democracy and freedom to continental europe, to free by force of arms ancient european nations, and to allow the nations and peoples of europe to chart their destiny in the world. thousands of does -- those young men paid the ultimate price, and we honor their memory today and tomorrow. shortly after d-day, my own grandfather was wounded and came home. we will never forget what they did and the debt that we owe them for the peace and the freedom that we enjoy on this continent. today in a new century, our two democracies continue to stand and uphold the same values in the world -- democracy, liberty,

the rule of law. day in, day out, our people work together to uphold those values right across the globe, and that approach has been at the heart of what we have discussed here at the g-7 and in our bilateral meeting today. we have talked about one of the greatest opportunities we have two turbocharged the global economy by concluding trade deals including the eu/u.s. deal, which would be the biggest deal of them all -- deals it could be worth up to 10 billion pounds a year for britain alone. it would help to secure our long-term economic success and generate a better future for hard-working families back at home. that is why i was so determined to launch those negotiations a year ago. since then, we've made steady progress, but we've got to keep our eyes on the huge prize on offer and not get onto down. -- bogged down.

we also discussed what i believe is the greatest threat that we face, how we counter extremism and the threat that terrorist groups pose also to the safety of our people both at home and abroad. this year, we will bring our troops home from afghanistan. they can be proud of what they have achieved over the last decade -- deny terrorists a safe haven from which to plot attacks against britain or the united states. at the same time, as we have reduced the threat from that region, some al qaeda franchises have grown in other parts of the world. many of these groups are focused on the countries where they operate, but they still pose a risk to our people, businesses, and our interest. barack and i share the same view of how we tackle this threat in the fragile regions of the world where terrorist networks seek a foothold. our approach must be tough, patient, intelligent, and based on strong international partnerships, so when it comes to serbia, now the number one destination of jihadist anywhere in the world, we have agreed to intensify our efforts to address the threat of foreign fighters

traveling to and from syria. we will introduce new measures in the u.k. to prosecute those who plan and train for terrorism abroad. here at the g-7, we have agreed to do more to work with syria's neighbors to strengthen border security and disrupt the terror financing that funds these jihadist training camps. in libya, we want to help the government as it struggles to overcome the disastrous legacy of gaddafi's misrule and build a stable, peaceful, prosperous future. we have recently appointed envoys who will be working together to support efforts to reach a much needed political settlement, and we are fulfilling our commitment to train the libyan security forces with the first tranche of recruits due to begin their training in the u.k. this month. in nigeria, we are both committed to supporting the nigerian government and its neighbors as they confront the scourge of boko haram. the kidnapping of girls was an act of your evil, and britain and the united states have provided immediate assistance in the search. in the longer term, we stand

ready to provide more practical assistance to help the nigerians and the region strengthen their defense and security institutions and to develop the expertise needed to counter barbaric extremists. finally, as barack said, we had an important discussion on ukraine and relations with russia. from the outset of this crisis, the g-7 nations stood united, clear for our support for the ukrainian people and their right to choose their own future and firm and our message to president putin that russia's actions are completely unacceptable and totally at odds with our values for this group of democracies. that is why russia no longer has a seat at the table here with us. we were clear about three things -- first, the status quo is unacceptable. the continuing destabilization of eastern ukraine must stop. second, there are a set of things that need to happen. president putin must recognize the legitimate election of president poroshenko. he must stop arms crossing the

border into ukraine. he must stop russian support for separatist groups. third, if these things do not happen, sanctions will follow. the next month will be vital in judging at president putin has taken the steps, and that is what i will urge president putin to do when i meet him later today. finally, we discussed a cancer eating away at the world economic and political systems -- corruption. corruption is the archenemy of democracy and development. best way to fight corruption and drive growth is through what i call the three t's. that was at the heart of our g8 -- greater transparency, for your systems, and free trade. that was at the heart of our g8 agenda, and today, we agreed to push for more actions unfair tax systems, freer trade, and greater transparency, things that are now hardwired into these international gatherings this year and for many years to come. thank you. >> all right, we got a couple of questions from each press delegation. we will start with jeff mason at reuters. >> thank you, mr. president.

you are going to france later this evening. since you last had president hollande visit, and a lot of tensions have arisen in the relationship, including on bnp paribas. the french say a potential multibillion dollar fine on that and would affect local -- the global economy and could affect trade talks. do you believe those concerns are valid? have you expect to address them with him tonight? and also u.s. concerns about the french selling warships to russia. prime minister, do you feel isolated among your eu leaders about your position on jean-claude juncker, and who would you like to get the job? -- european commission president. second, do you feel pressure from president obama about your position of keeping the u.k. in the eu? thank you. >> first of all, the relationship between the united states and france has never been stronger.

on a whole range of issues, we are seeing intense cooperation, and i'm looking forward to seeing president hollande this evening to talk about a range of issues and continue the work that was done here in brussels. my answer on the banking cases is short and simple -- the tradition of the united states is that the president does not meddle in prosecutions. we do not call the attorney general -- i do not pick up the phone and tell the attorney general how to prosecute cases that have been brought. i do not push for settlements. a cases that have been brought. those are decisions that are made by an independent department of justice. i have communicated that to president hollande. this is not a unique position on my part. perhaps it is a different

tradition than exists in other countries, but it is designed to make sure that the rule of law is not in any way impacted by political expediency, and so this will be determined by u.s. attorneys in discussion with representatives of the bank, and i will read about in the newspapers just like everyone else. >> he says he is going to confront you about it tonight, though. >> you will hear the same answer from me tonight as you just heard at this podium. >> [indiscernible] >> i have expressed some concerns, and they do not think i'm alone in this. about continuing significant

defense deals with russia at a time when they have violated basic international law and the territorial integrity and sovereignty of their neighbors. president hollande understands my position. i recognize that this is a big deal. i recognize that the jobs in france are important. i think it would have been preferable to press the pause button. president hollande so far has made a different decision, and that does not negate the broader cooperation that we have had with france with respect to its willingness to work with us on sanctions to discourage president putin from engaging in further destabilizing actions and, hopefully, to encourage him to move in a more constructive direction. we are at a point where mr.

putin has the chance to get back into a lane of international law. he has a president in poroshenko, who he can negotiate directly with. having spoken directly with president poroshenko this morning, it is clear he recognizes that ukraine needs to have a good relationship with russia, but also rightly affirms the right of ukraine to engage with the rest of the world, and the steps that david outlined earlier and that the g-7 unanimously agrees with, which is for mr. putin to take -- seize this moment, recognize poroshenko as legitimate leader of ukraine, cease the support of

separatists and the flow of arms, work with ukraine to engage those in the east during this process of constitutional economic reform -- if mr. putin takes the steps, then it is possible for us to begin to rebuild trust between russia and its neighbors and europe. should he fail to do so, there will be additional consequences, and one of the important things that came out of this meeting today was the recognition on the part of all of us that we cannot simply allow drift. the mere fact that some of the russian soldiers have moved back off the border and that russia is now destabilizing ukraine through surrogates rather than overtly and explicitly does not mean that we can afford three

months or four months or six months of continued violence and conflict in eastern ukraine. we will have a chance to see what mr. putin does over the next 2, 3, 4 weeks, and if he remains on the current course, then we have already indicated the kind of actions we are prepared to take. >> you asked a couple of questions about europe as well. given the context, we just had a set of european elections where we have taken two countries at random, france and britain, and into european parties won. you can wish these results would go away or you can address the concerns of the people you represent in your country. i have a strategy to represent and understand them. it is important we have people

running the institutions of europe who understand the needs for change, the need for reform. i would argue that is a view that is quite widely shared among other heads of government and heads of state in the european union. as for britain's future, i am clear in what i want to achieve. to secure britain's place in a reformed european union. i have a strategy for delivering that -- it is about renegotiating our position, recovering some important powers, making significant changes, and then putting the decision in a referendum to the british people. but very much recommending that we stay in a reformed european union. again, it is a strategy for healing within issue, which i think if we just walk away, we towardee britney drift the exit, and i don't want that to happen. we have good discussions about these issues. as we discuss everything else. let's have a question from the bbc. >> mr. president, even if you don't have a meeting scheduled

face-to-face with vladimir putin, are you going to end up talking with him face-to-face? do you see real possibilities of opening up the pathway whereby you engage in him? britain is potentially facing, mr. president, two major decisions, whether or not scotland stay part of the united kingdom and the united kingdom staying part of the european union -- what of those decisions mean to you? and to the people of the united states? prime minister, you will be the first to engage with vladimir putin face to face. despite everything you have said, is there something of an olive branch in your hand? notr all, mr. putin has denounced the elections that brought the new president into power in ukraine. do you accept that germany may not come to your aid and stop juncker becoming

president of the european commission? will your credibility be so damaged that people may simply vote to leave the union? finally, who are you more afraid of, angela merkel or teresa may? >> great question. right. let me take those. my meeting with vladimir putin this's important to have communication about some very important messages. what is happening now is not acceptable, about the changes that need to take place. as the president said there is , an opportunity for diplomacy to take a role and to chart a path. we have had these elections. the ukrainian people have chosen a president. he's a capable man. it is possible that he could have a proper relationship with putin that could be a proper relationship between ukraine and russia. but change is needed for that to happen. that is the message i have been delivering this evening.

in terms of your other questions , on this issue of who runs the european commission, the european institutions on what matters are people who need this -- understand the need for change, the need for reform. who realize that if things go on as they have, this union is not going to work for its citizens. thinks the message that i was loudly received in these european elections. as for who -- i am very fortunate in my life to work with some extremely strong and capable women, of which they are undoubtedly two. >> i have no doubt that i will see mr. putin. we have always had a businesslike relationship. it is entirely appropriate that he is there to commemorate d-day, given the extraordinary sacrifices made by people of the soviet union during world war ii. should we have the opportunity to talk, i will be repeating the

same message i have told him through this crisis. keep in mind that although we have not had formal meetings, i have spoken to him by phone repeatedly from the outset of the protests. my message has been very consistent. and that is that russia has a legitimate interest in what happens in ukraine, given its historical ties and its borders. ultimately, it is up to the people of ukraine to make their own decisions. that russian armed forces annexing pieces of a neighbor is illegal. it violates international law. and the kinds of destabilizing activities that we have funded -- that we now see funded and encouraged by russia are illegal. and are not constructive. there is a path in which russia has the capacity to engage

directly with president poroshenko now. he should take it. if he does not, if he continues a strategy of undermining the sovereignty of ukraine, then we have no choice but to respond. perhaps he has been surprised by the degree of unity that has been displayed. i do think the fact that he did not immediately denounce the outcome of the may 25 election offers the prospect that he is moving in a new direction. i think we have to see what he does and not what he says. with respect to the future of the united kingdom. obviously, ultimately, this is up to the people of great britain. in the case of scotland, there is a referendum process in place.

and it is up to the people of scotland. i would say that the united kingdom has been a mixed -- has been an extraordinary partner to us. from the outside, at least it , looks like things have worked pretty well. we obviously have a deep interest in making sure that one of the closest allies that we will ever have remained strong, robust, united, and effective. ultimately, these are decisions that have to be made by the folks there. with respect to the european union, we share a strategic vision on a whole range of international issues. it is always encouraging for us to know that great britain has a

seat at the table and the larger european project. in light of the events we will be commemorating tomorrow. it is important to recall that it was the steadfastness of great britain that allows us to be here in brussels, in the seat of a unified and extraordinary ily prosperous europe. it would be hard for me to imagine that project going well without great britain. it would be advantageous for great britain -- would not be advantageous for great britain to be excluded from political decisions that have an impact on its political and economic life. this is why we have elections. we will see the arguments made. i'm sure the people of great britain will make the right decision.

>> have you been surprised by the backlash that has been whipped up by your decision to do a deal to free bowe bergdahl? in retrospect, could you have consulted more with congress? or announced a deal that might have spared him and his family being caught up in the political crossfire? prime minister, how do you respond to the criticism that your decision to meet vladimir putin and his meetings with other key european leaders are devaluing the punishment that was meted out to russia by the throwing it out of the g-8? should qatar be deprived of the right to host the world cup and if so, would britain be willing to host it? [laughter] >> i am never surprised by controversies that are whipped up in washington. that is par for the course.

i will repeat what i said two days ago. we have a basic principle. we do not leave anybody wearing the american uniform behind. we had a prisoner of war whose health had deteriorated and we were deeply concerned about him. we saw an opportunity and we seized it. i make no apologies for that. we had discussed with congress the possibility that something like this might occur. but because of the nature of the folks we were dealing with and the fragile nature of these negotiations, we felt it was important to do what we did. we are now explaining to congress the details of how we moved forward. this basic principle that we do not leave anybody behind and

this basic recognition that that often means prisoner exchanges with enemies is not unique to my administration. it dates back to the beginning of our republic. with respect to how we announced it, i think it was important for people to understand that this is not some abstraction. this is not a political football. you have a couple parents who se kid volunteered to fight in a distant land. who they had not seen in five years. and were not sure whether they would ever see again. and as commander-in-chief of the united states armed forces, i am responsible for those kids. and i get letters from parents who say, "if you are sending my

child to war, make sure you make that child is being taken care of." i read too many letters to folks who don't see their children again after fighting a war. i make absolutely no apologies for making sure that we get back a young man to his parents and that the american people understand that this is somebody's child. and that we don't condition whether or not we make the effort to try to get them back. did you have a second question? you can ask him about football. >> on the issue of meeting president putin, i think it is right to have this dialogue, particularly if you have a clear message and point to make. i think there's a world of difference between having a dialogue between president putin and excluding someone from an institution as significant as the g-8 and the g-7. i think was absolutely right to exclude russia. i think it was one of the first

g-8 leaders to make that point. it was the totally right decision. there is totally a world of difference between the meeting we just held which did not include russia and having a bilateral meeting in which we discussed the issues about ukraine. on the issue of football, we should let the investigation run its course. of course, england is the home of football, as it is the home and the inventor of many sports. tennis, rugby, golf, skiing, table tennis, cricket. i don't think we can lay credit to -- >> baseball, basketball. [laughter] >> you did invent the english language. [laughter] >> you've made a few changes to it. [laughter] they don't hold us back. final question. >> you spoke about the importance for you and your allies of being in lockstep on the crisis of ukraine? if this crisis shows no sign of de-escalating, the next step will be to sectorial sanctions.

are you confident that you will be in lockstep with all of the european allies and g-7 allies? because there will be costs and consequences for them and their economies as sanctions get widened. prime minister, you spoke about the threats of extremist ideology at home and abroad. describe it as the greatest threat to britain and its allies. even by your own government's estimate, there are several hundred british citizens learning to fight and kill in syria. with regard to extremist ideology at home, particularly in schools where there has been a lot of concern, do you think it is morally unseemly and wrong for members of your own government to engage in an argument about whether british children should be protected against extremist ideology? >> first of all, let me say on the issue of sectoral sanctions and this issue of lockstep between the u.s. and countries

of the european union, i think it has been striking over the last few months how we have been able to stay as unified as we have. i pay tribute to barack for his understanding of how important it is for us to work together and deliver these messages together. i think it is surprising and i hope it surprised president putin. in terms of tackling extremism, i set up the u.k. extremism task force. which i chaired after the appalling murder of leave rigby -- lee rigby. i wanted to make sure the government was doing everything it could to drive extremism out of our schools, out of our colleges, off campuses, out of prisons, in every part of national life. i think it is very important that we recognize that we have to deal not only with violent extremism, but also the stink of extremism, of tolerating extremist views from which violence can grow. the whole government is signed up to that agenda and is driving through changes to deliver that

agenda. as for issues for the last day or so, we will get to the bottom of who said what and what happened. i will sort it all out once we finish these important meetings i am having here. >> i think what has been striking is the solidarity. between the united states and europe with the ukraine crisis. i think a lot of people anticipated early on that immediately the two sides would fly apart. in fact, there has been a consistency in affirming the core values and the united and prosperous europe. that is despite the very real economic consequences that can arise by ringing sanctions against russia. i think europeans understand

that the reason we have seen such extraordinary growth and peace on this continent us to do with certain values. certain principles. that have to be upheld. when they are so blatantly disregarded, the choice is clear. europeans have to stand up for those ideals and principles, even if it creates economic inconvenience. having said that, sectoral sanctions would be more significant. our technical teams have been consulting with the european commission to identify sanctions that would maximize impact on russia and minimize adverse impact on european countries. that work is ongoing. my hope is that we do not have to exercise them because mr. putin has made some better

decisions. i think it would be better for russia. i think the russian economy is not in good shape right now. we have seen significant capital flight just from the sanctions we have already applied. that could easily worsen. if we have sectorial sanctions, i think it will inevitably hit russia a lot worse than its it hitsit hits -- than europe, which has much more diversified and resilient economies. do i expect unanimity among the 28 eu members? i have been president for 5.5 years. i have learned a thing or two about the european union, the european commission, the european council. sometimes i get them mixed up. >> welcome to the club. [laughter] >> the basic principle that you have 28 people sitting around the table and not everyone is going to agree -- we take that for granted.

i also think that if in fact we have to move to sectorial sanctions, it is important to take individual countries ' sensitivities to mind and make sure that everybody is ponying up. that everybody is bearing their fair share. some people are going to be more concerned about defense relations, some will be concerned about the financial sector, others might be concerned about trade and basic goods and services. that is the technical work that is being done. again, my hope is that we do not have to use it. i have been heartened by the steadfastness of europe thus far. i think that people underestimate the degree to which, given the history of this continent, certainly in the 20th

century, the people are not interested in seeing any in the -- any chinks in the armor. they recognize that that is worth working for. thank you very much everybody. y national captioning institute] [l cable satellite corp. 2014] "washingtonxt journal," we will focus on president obama's trip to europe. our guest is the leader of the transatlantic academy. "washington journal" is live on c-span everyday at 7:00 a.m. eastern. you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. and johnbernie sanders mccain, whom you see there, have

struck a deal to reform the veterans affairs department. to seed allow veterans private doctors outside the system if they have experienced long wait times or live more than 40 miles from aba facility. it would also make it easier to fire officials for misconduct, similar to legislation passed in the house last month. dealical rights that the also approves construction of 26 new v.a. medical facilities and funds to00 million in hire additional doctors and nurses. in a few moments, and intelligence committee reviewed how the nsa gathers and reviews data. and about three hours, a look at the history of presidential signing statements and legal issues involved in the u.s. talo swap. taliban later, we will re-air the news conference with president obama and british prime minister david

cameron. >> the reason we are trying to focus on the speaker is because the full speaker, with majesty and weight of his position who yesterday made certain allegations which at this point at least he has not yet answered to. yield to mr.o right, but i will yield to you. >> you have an audience. you do not normally have been in the 26 hours you have presented this case to the public, but the interesting fact is the whole tenor of your remarks going back to 1970 and 1972, you were there for one reason alone, and that was to imply that members of this side were un-american in their activity. knew that there was nobody here. you knew that there was nobody here. >> put those two men from your

perspective -- give us your perspective on the two. >> o'neill was really a giant. he knew the politics of the house. he knew the politics of the house, and he kept much of it to terms of other members, but he obviously received a great amount of intelligence all day long from members, what was going on in alwaysnt places, and he believed that politics was the art of the possible, that nobody got their way all the time, and he was a broker within the democratic caucus and within the house, and what you saw was newt gingrich, who made a conscious decision that they would always be in the minority because they worked with the majority, so he ,tarted attacking bob michael the leader, and john rhodes, and everybody on that side in his own party. he said the only avenue

to the majority is through confrontation, and we are going to take them down, and this was an argument about the misuse of tv now coming to the fore, where he would ask these rhetorical questions, make these charges, and he knew that in fact the thater was empty, but at time, remember, the camera was very tight on the speaker at the .ime, wherever they were of course, it changes the whole dynamic, but that was a whole process that now many years later has torn this institution apart and has really paralyzed the institution. >> congressman george miller, sunday night at 8:00 on c-span's "q&a." >> on thursday, the one-year anniversary of the first story published on the edward snowden leaks about the nsa. the senate intelligence committee considered house passed bill that would limit how the nsa gathers and uses data.

witnesses, including representatives of the nsa, the fbi, and verizon. it's three hours. >> the committee will come to order. i want quickly to set the ground rules for this hearing. the first thing is any discussion at all, i will clear this room immediately. please, everybody know that. this is a serious discussion, a serious subject. witnesses deserve to be heard and members deserve to be able to ask their questions, select the first inkling of a demonstration, we will clear the room and come back when the room is cleared.

so, today, we meet to receive testimony and discuss the legislation passed by the house of representatives on may 22 two reform the foreign intelligence surveillance act. that legislation, which is called the usa freedom act, was approved last month by the two committees of jurisdiction in the house, the house judiciary committee, and the house permitted select committee on intelligence. after amendments on the house floor, the ale was passed by a vote of -- the bill was passed on a vote of 303-121, and that is about three to one and it sends a large signal to this house -- there was a large majority voting for it and votes came from both sides of the aisle. the bill makes major changes to existing intelligence programs

conducted under the foreign intelligence surveillance act, or what we call fisa. first, the house bill will and nsa collection of telephone metadata by reference to the business records provision in the usa patriot act. the program has been approved more than 37 times by the fisa court and upheld a further three times by other federal courts. i happen to believe it is lawful and that it has been effective, but i recognize that the situation is such that change is needed. the house bill replaces nsa's acquisition of call records with a process by which the government can obtain a fisa court order that would compel telecommunications providers to conduct specific queries of the phone metadata that they first -- possess.

the government would be required to show that the information sought is relevant to an authorized investigation and that there is a reasonable, articulable suspicion that the phone numbers at issue are associated with a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power. the government would obtain only those records related to telephone calls of the individual of interest. unlike the current nsa practice, again, authorize repeatedly by the fisa court, this legislation would restrict the queries of phone records to two hop[s -- hops instead of three. the bill priebus the government from acquiring the name of the people involved or the content of the communication, and the result of this legislation would be to reduce by a significant extent the amount of information

in possession of the government, the vast majority of which would never be seen by nsa personnel. some information of intelligence value will be lost given that tell a communication companies may not all retained their records for the five years that nsa does, but by limiting query results to caller: -- two hops rather than three. the nsa has told the committee that the value of the information from the third hop and information older than 18 to 24 months years old -- old has been limited. it would provide protection for companies that provide information required under the court order.

it would also allow the attorney general to authorize in order in case of an emergency when there is not sufficient time to go to the fisa court. the same limitations and detections are in place here as in other parts of -- protections are in place here as well as other parts of the fisa. the bill prohibits the government from conducting bulk collection. the and rapid trace authority and through the use of security letters. while prohibiting both selections is supported by privacy advocates and private sector companies, the language used in the bill is somewhat controversial. this controversy revolves around the requirement that the government focus its collection of information on what is called a specific selection term,

meaning that the government may only seek records or other information that is specifically related to its investigation. the problem comes with the definition of a specific selection term, which is not clear on its face, and, i believe, it is confusing. a specific selection term in the bill is defined as follows -- as follows, and i quote "a discrete term, such as a term specifically identifying a person, entity, account, address, or device used by the government to limit the scope of the information or tangible things sought pursuant to the statute authorizing the provision of such information or tangible things to the government." i understand the definition has to provide some amount of flexibility in order to give

government investigators the ability to gather information needed for a case, especially in the early days of a case without already knowing what there is about the subject. i hope that our witnesses today will provide specific examples, and if you have better alternatives, now would be the time to put them forward. we might, hypothetically, have an intelligence source that tells us that a terrorist is on a specific claim flying -- plane flying to the united states, but we may not know their name. it seems reasonable to me that the fbi might want to find out who was on the flight manifest even though all but one or two people will certainly be innocent. there is also concerned that the definition that i just read might be so broad as to allow the fbi to get all flight

manifests of an entire airline, for example, and i think we need to look at that. flight manifests of an entire airline, for example, and i think we need to look at that. i know that is not the intention of the house authors, and i believe the government witnesses today will tell us that they do not believe the bill would authorize them to conduct drift net surveillance or records collection, but i am interested in trying to find a more clear and more understandable definition, and make clear that it prohibits bulk collection of information under these authorities. finally, let me note that this committee has been looking at the nsa's business records collection for years. we passed legislation to reauthorize the provision multiple times and debate the

legality of the program as well. 31, we passedober a bill that would institute a number of reforms to the nsa phone metadata program and make a number of other improvements to those authorized under fisa and executive order 12333. i continue to support that legislation, but in the interest of passing legislation now, as soon as we can, before we get into election time, that will continue the business records authority passed its sunset date of june 1, 2015, and remove the bulk record storage from the government, which is what the administration supports now, the house supports, and numerous citizens and businesses appear to want. i believe we should take a close look at the house legislation

with a view to its passage, perhaps as amended in the senate. that is the purpose of today's hearing, so i would like to welcome the witnesses, and they are in front of us for the first panel. they are james cole, the deputy attorney general. there you are. where are you much mark there you are -- where are you? there you are. richard ledgett, deputy director of the nsa. mark giuliano, deputy director of the fbi. stephanie o'sullivan, the rentable deputy director of national intelligence. thank you for being here. after this panel we will have a second panel of outside witnesses who i will introduce at the time. let me turn to the distinguished vice chairman for his remarks. >> thank you, madam chair, and i join you in welcoming our witnesses and thank you for providing testimony on the usa freedom act.

are experienced on these issues and i expect our committee will benefit from their insight on this bill. while i recognize this bill has gained a lot of momentum, i think we need to step back and ask ourselves if these changes are necessary. it seems this bill is fixing a lot of things that simply are not broken. for example, the bill will end this section 215 bulk data collection program. all three branches of our government have performed extensive oversight of this program for years and have ensured it has been operated in accordance with our constitution and within the u.s. law. officials toermits conduct historical analysis of suspicious threats in an effort to identify emerging and evolving terrorist networks. the system where this data is maintained is very secure. the number of analysts that can access this data is extremely

small. there are a host of multi-layered, oversight mechanisms in place to detect and resolve compliance issues. my phone data is in there with ierybody else's, but frankly am not worried. i am not worried because i do not talk to terrorists, and hopefully, i am not talking to other people that are talking to terrorists. what do we get in return for eliminating the section 215 program? untested,et undeveloped process where the intelligence community and send specific selection terms to and inrs and received a a. it can register -- it sounds a lot like a pin register , only it will have the capability to pull records that

out.wo hops i am concerned this hypothetical register will cause more problems than it fixes. it could be considerably more expensive than the current system, and it will probably also be less secure because there will be more people involved in the process. it will be less capable because the analysts will not have access to the historical data using this new authority, and there will likely be operational delays as the selectors get sent out to the various service providers. the other problem is the bill does not satisfy -- specify a data retention period, leaving it up to the service providers to determine how long to hold the data. it seems to me that swapping the current program of for an untested system might be a bad deal from a national security perspective and for the american people. i think a lot of us are feeling

the sting from the inexcusably deal thatal security resulted in the release of the taliban five. this protection system was designed to protect us from terrorists exactly like them. i do not think we should be compounding our errors right now. and iyou, madam chair, look forward to dialogue with our witnesses today. chairman.ou, mr. vice we will proceed with witness statements. if you can confine it to approximately five minutes, and give us your written remarks, and that would be helpful. if you need the time, this is important, please take it. generaldeputy attorney cole, who will be followed by stephanie o'sullivan, mr. giuliano will.

not give formal remarks unless you want to, and you'll be able to answer questions. begin.e, please >> thank you, chairman feinstein, vice chairman chambliss, and established members of the committee. we are pleased to express the for therations support bill recently passed by the house of representatives. i appreciate the leadership and the considerable effort of this committee in working with us to explore how we can increase the confidence of our fellow americans in their privacy being protected while providing our intelligence agencies with the authorities they need to acquire foreign intelligence that is so important to our national security. the bill passed by the house last month would make significant changes to the provisions of the foreign intelligence surveillance act that we believe will help us meet these two objectives.

it would prohibit bulk collection of information under section 215, the national security letter statutes, and the pin trace commitments of fisa. it replaces the bulk metadata collection program with a new framework that preserves the capabilities that we need without the government holding the bulk metadata. to be clear, the president called for this transition not because the program was illegal or was being abused, but rather to give the public greater confidence that their privacy is being appropriately protected while maintaining the tools that our intelligence and law enforcement agencies need. the bill would also provide greater transparency to the public concerning intelligence activities and authorize the surveillance court to appoint independent amicus so alternative views could be heard.

mentioned, hr 3361 establishes a new mechanism under section 215 that permits the government to access telephony metadata without having to collect it in bulk. it includes all of the key attributes identified by the president in march for a new program, including, in particular, a requirement that absent an emergency situation, the government would obtain the records only pursuant to individual orders from the fisa court, approved with the use of certain selection terms for such queries and only if a judge agrees the government has established reasonable, particularly suspicion the firm is associated with a terrorist group. as i said before and is worth repeating, the prohibition of bulk collection extends to all bulk collection of records pursuant to 215 going forward, as well as under the national security letter statutes and the

provisions of fisa. under each of these authorities the government would be a -- required to use a specific selection term as a basis for the collection of records. specific selection terms are defined as "a discrete term such as a term identifying a person, entity, account, address, or device, as used by the government to limit the scope of the information or tangible things that are sought." this definition clearly prevents bulk collection under these authorities, including the collection of the sort that has been conducted with respect to the telephone and internet metadata. itle i have heard people say would allow the government to seek all of the phone records, for example, of a particular zip code, that is not the case. that would be the type of indiscriminate, bulk collection

that this bill is designed to end. it does preserve the ability to collect information in ways necessary to identify and disrupt the threats that we face. for example, if the fbi learns that an unknown suspect intends to build an improvised explosive device using ball bearings and fertilizer, this bill would enable the fbi to obtain sales records for those items from particular stores in the area that sell those items. or, if the fbi comes aware that an unidentified terrorist suspect spent several nights at a particular hotel, the bill would allow the fbi to request the hotel's guest records for those nights. as the house committee on intelligence noted in its report 3361, "the collection means indiscriminate

acquisition, not the collection of tangible things." the bill's recognition of specific selection terms recognizes that distinction. other provisions would create unprecedented transparency and further enhance oversight. all, buildsrst of on what the government has already committed to make public regarding the use of national security authorities. in addition to codifying best method to release annual figures, the bill essentially codifies the department of forice's january framework reporting by providers, but has additional options for reported -- reporting broken down by authority. it would require a review of fisa opinions, orders, or decisions that include an interpretation fisa and would direct the government to make

such orders publicly available to the greatest extent correctable -- practical. it would create a new mechanism to ensure that the fisa court and the fisa court of review receive independent, third-party input in the consideration of novel matters. beyond the authority to challenge orders they receive pursuant to fisa, the legislation would provide a magistrate to appoint an amicus and assist the court in a review that prevents novel or significant interpretations of the law unless the court issues a written finding that such appointment is not appropriate. in summary, we support the usa freedom act as an effective means of addressing some of the concerns that have been raised about the impact of our collection intelligence activities on privacy, while preserving the authorities that

we need for national security. we urge the committee to give the house still serious consideration as soon as possible consistent with this entity is important role. importantmmittee's role. thank you for the ability to share our views. stephanie o'sullivan will make an opening statement and we will be happy to answer your questions. >> thank you, the star cole -- mr. cole. mrs. o'sullivan. >> thank you. we are pleased to sit before you -- the usa freedom act as passed by the house last month, but i wanted to touch on a few key points in my remarks. over the past year the nation has been engaged in a robust discussion about how the intelligence community uses its authority to correct -- collect critical for and intelligence in a way that protects privacy.

we take great care to ensure the protection of privacy and civil liberties in the conduct of collection activities. nevertheless, we have continued to examine ways to increase the confidence of our fellow citizens that their privacy is being protected, while at the same time providing the intelligence community with the authorities that he needs to fulfill its mission and response abilities. to that end we have increased our transparency efforts and the director of national intelligence has declassified and released thousands of patients -- pages about the program including court decisions and a variety of other documents. we are continuing to do so. these documents demonstrate the commitment of all three branches of the government to ensuring that these programs operate within the law and apply vigorous protections for personal privacy. it is important to emphasize that although the information released by the director of national intelligence was

probably classified originally, declassified it because concerns were outweighed. in addition to declassified documents, we're taken significant steps to allow the public to understand how we use the authorities in fisa now and going forward. are currentlye working to finalize a transparency report that will outline on an annual basis the total number of orders issued under various fisa authorities and an estimate of the total number of targets affected by those orders. moreover, we recognize it is important for companies to be able to reassure customers about the limited number of people targeted by orders requiring companies provide information to the government. we support the provisions of the house bill that allowed the companies to report information about national security legal demands and law enforcement legal demands that they receive each year.

we believe this increase transparency provides the public with relevant information about the use of these legal authorities, while at the same time protecting important collection capabilities. making adjustments to our collection activities and our authority is also part of this effort. for several years the government courtught and the fisa has issued orders under section 215 of the patriot act, allowing the bulk collection of metadata about telephone calls. the president has ordered a transition that will end this bulk collection in a manner that maintains the tools and intelligence agencies need for national security. we are committed to following this mandate. the intelligence community believes that the new framework in the usa freedom act preserves the capabilities the intelligence community needs without the government holding this metadata in bulk. the usa freedom act would prohibit all woke collection -- all bulk collection of records

pursuant to section 215, the pin andster provision of fisa national letters going forward. the intelligence committee understands and will adhere to the prohibition on all bulk collection under these authorities. moreover, the usa freedom act makes other important changes by further ensuring that individuals privacy is appropriately effected without sacrificing operational effectiveness. to that end, we support the usa freedom act as an effective means of addressing the concerns that have been raised about the while of our activities, preserving the authorities that we need for national security. we urge this committee to give the house bill serious consideration as expeditiously as possible consistently with -- consistent with this committee's deliberations and we are able -- ready to work to clarify language in the bill if necessary. in closing, we appreciate the committee's leadership, in

particular your support in considering issues related to our collection activities and privacy and civil liberties issues. we also appreciate your support for the men and women working throughout the intelligence community's that includes the nsa remain dedicated to keeping our nation safe, protecting our privacy, and who have upheld their does this require the government

to upheld the information for a sufficient amount of time? -- we believeto this provides a sufficient. of time. allowss a provision that best order a technical assistance from the companies. to make sure the records are in the form and format that will be useful to us. leggett? >> we believe that the 18 month

retention time would be sufficient. if the companies were to change their practices, we would advise the committee. >> you are saying you are confident the companies will retain the call records for 18 months. >> we can't say that. they will retain the records for businesss their records require that. we would fight the committee if and when that happens. >> in your opinion, is this program conducted in accordance with the laws? answer to theour same question?

>> yes, it is. do believe that the metadata collection system has been one of the most heavily overseeing programs in the ?ntelligence community >> yes, i do. extend the deadline to 2000 and best 2017. denting theson we sunsets were concerns about the bulk data collection program. have there been any abuses? >>, no, there have not. would you be in favor of making the lone wolf provisions permanent? >> yes or. >> -- yes, sir.

>> mr. leggett? >> yes. the nsa has been subjected to a lot of unwarranted abuse sense edward snowden's disclosures. i want to thank you and all the a patriotic americans who serve our nation. by quietly performing nsa -- nsa's vital mission. is this country safer or less those damaging disclosures? >> first, thank you for the words of support. we appreciate that. in my opinion, the country is less safe is the disclosure of the methods we use to conduct our foreign intelligence mission. theredoesn't appear to -- doesn't appear to be any requirements the bill for the service providers to retain call detail records for any said. this for any set time.

scale backecide to their data retention time, how would that impact the mission? -- makewould make it the information less useful for providing intelligence on the external threat with the u.s. nexus. we would inform the committee at that becomes the case. >> how would the fbi be affected if a service provider unilaterally decided to cut back their retention time? >> it would affect the richness of the data. >> would it make other techniques like grand jury subpoenas and national security letters less effective? >> i am not sure he would make them less effective, sir, but if the data is less rich and there is less data to use, it would impact the value of the data.

>> now, i am in favor of providing a statutory basis for the fisa to use their inherent judicial authority to appoint amicus hearing when the court determines it is appropriate and in our billing made a provision for that. section 401 requires the court to appoint an amicus to assist the court in situations involving "novel or significant interpretations of the law unless the court issues a written finding that such appointment is not appropriate." now, this seems like an unconstitutional infringement upon the judicial's branch's power to interpret the laws of the united states. we routinely entrust our judges to make these determinations in a criminal context. mr. cole, do you think is a good idea to try to impose this requirement on fisa courts? , dod idea to try to impose this requirement on fisa courts?

thes a practical matter, courts will be appointing amicus when there is a significant and novel issue that comes before them and i think that will happen in the due course. this does not require them in all instances to, but it says in some instances if they decide they do not want one, they have to put their reasons in writing. my expectation is that when it is significant and novel the courts generally will want to have another point of view and have amicus come in, so i think the operation will be virtually the same as if it were just the inherent power. >> so, what if you run into a judge who in every case decides they are going to make a determination that we do not need an amicus brief? do you think it is going to be doj to review the those decisions the judge makes? >> no, i do not think there is a mechanism that requires the

justice department to oversee employing this. it is still under the court discretion. when you have one that is significant or novel and they do not, they need to state their reasons if they do not appoint one why. >> thank you, mr. vice chairman. senator udall. ,t is udall, king, wyden mikulski, rockefeller, james and yell in. >> let me enter a letter. >> without objection, thank you. >> the surveillance coalition is made up of leading american companies -- linkedin, dropbox, google, andebook,

yahoo!, and the important letter has ane is the senate opportunity to pass a version of the usa freedom act that was -- that would restore the confidence of internet users here and around the world while keeping the coalition safe. stress goes on to concerns with the house bill and then urges us in the senate to make changes to the house bill. i want to make a set of comments and then i have questions for the panel. on january 17, the president ordered a transition away from the bulk collection of phone records. i share this goal and i applauded his intention at the time. he also stated that "it is not enough for leaders to say trust us, for history has too many examples when that trust has been breached. our system of government depends on the law to constrain those in power." i agree that we must depend on the law to constrain potential future abuses of government surveillance, but i believe the house passed bill falls short of

this goal and is not the true reform i have demanded in any -- many other americans have demanded for years. section 215 language in the house-test build describing -- house-past bill is vague enough of mass the collection information. i believe it is not this administration's intent to interpret the language so broadly, but the nsa has shown time and time again that he will seize on wiggle room in the law and there is plenty of that in the bill. you, evenlet me ask if it is not the intent of this administration or this congress, what would stop the fisa court from interpreting the specific selection term very broadly if the government should ask it to do so? what would prohibit that is the legislative history, the

statements of intent, the legislative history we are creating here by and -- by making unambiguous statements that this is intended to stop all collection, and what we are focus,g on is some tailored in queries that will depend on the facts and circumstances, and it is impossible to predict all of them ahead of time, but to make sure that we have focused inquiries and focused collection of information for our investigations. so, i think a lot of that is going to come from both the language of the statute, and if there are improvements that people want to suggest, we are happy to work with them on them, but we think the language does it by using terms like ,"pecific," and "identifiers and things of that nature to make it not indiscriminate. the statements being made by you, senators, in the course of your comments, and by the witnesses that come before you making up the legislative history, those would constrain

it. in addition, if there were an interpretation by the fisa court that it is very broad, that would be a novel and significant order and opinion and it would be given to the united states congress, the senate, and the senate would have the opportunity to pass additional legislation to rein it back in. i would be very surprised to see it go in that direction based on the language that is here and the legislative history. >> we do have a moment in time where we do have to get this right, and with all due respect courtot remember the fisa showing a great deal of restraint in the past. i want to move my -- to my next question. the current court-approved order for section 215 bulk election expires on june 20, not a long time from now, so in the absence of agreement on congress on a assumingll, i am congress will be asking the fisa

court for another 90-day extension. it is disappointing. i believe we have the tools to keep the country safe and protect rights. has the ministration looked to what can be -- has the administration look to what can be done if only on an interim basis to and bulk collection now? does it not make sense for the administration to pursue other options to data in bulk collection even as congress does its work? >> no final decision has been made on the renewal, but to answer the specific question, senator, you do not get all of the features on the the existing authority that you have under the current fisa order that exists or under hr 361. hops were get the two the time period given by the statute to transition into the thesystem and formatting up

phone companies and providers will have to do. so, there are a number of features that we do not have today and would not have today without the current fisa order. as the president had said on the 17th of january, this is important information, but we think we have found a way to collect the kinds of information we need to substitute it with out bulk collection, but without the structure we have in 3361, we do not have that tool. >> my sense, if i can be a bit contrarian, is that the fisa court has expansively interpreted the patriot act to allow the collection of millions of americans phone records, and if you came to them with a more narrowly drawn interpretation of the law as it now exists rent requiring further congressional action, they would positively respond. have you made any such request or engaged with the court on those questions? >> we have, to my knowledge, not

engaged with the court on those questions. we have a judicially tried and tested method here, as the chairman had pointed out. 37 times the court has approved this. other courts have approved this as well. we are a little reluctant to start going into some other type of legal regimen that has not been tested, that is not been approved by the courts. we would rather go the legislative route were the united states congress and both houses have looked at it, to passted, and decided it. we think our choices at this point really come down to what has been approved by the courts or a number of years, the new legislation, or else not having the tools that we need at all. >> manager, i time has expired -- madame chair, i want to say thank you to the panel for being here today. i have a number of questions. i will submit them for the record. >> july, senator udall.

is next, but he has graciously agreed to permit senator coats, who has to catch a plane, to make a statement. >> i thank my colleague and i hope i can return a favor. in the interest of not taking time, i will make a statement for the record. i have a number of questions we could pursue as we go through this. i was taken by the words of the vice chairman when he said --xing what is not roping broken -- we have to be very careful here." unfortunately, in my opinion, there has been misrepresentation that the current pogrom regarding -- program regarding privacy concerns, and regarding suggesting the lack of significant oversight by the three branches of government, which, unfortunately, has put us in a position where i am afraid we have over-reached in terms of what we are trying to do. i take a backseat to no one regarding