and, and northern ireland. governing with respect means recognizing that the different nations of our united kingdom have their own governments, as well as the uk government. both are important and indeed with our plans, the governments of these nations will become more powerful, with wider responsibilities. in scotland, our plans are to create the strongest devolved government anywhere in the world, with important powers over taxation. and no constitutional settlement will be complete if it did not offer also fairness to england. when i stood here five years ago, our country was in the grip of an economic crisis. five years on, britain is so much stronger. but the real opportunities lie ahead. everything i have seen over the last five years, and indeed during this election campaign, has proved once again that this

is a country with unrivalled skills and creativeness, a country with such good humor and such great compassion. and i am convinced that if we draw on all of this, then we can take these islands, with our proud history, and build an even prouder future. together, we can make great britain greater still. thank you. [applause] [applause]

[applause] ed miliband: thank you for your kindness, friends. friends, this is not the speech i wanted to give today because i believe that britain needed a labour government. i still do, but the public voted otherwise last night. earlier earlier today i rang david cameron to congratulate him. i take absolute and total responsibility for the result and our defeat at this election. i am so sorry for all of those colleagues who lost their seats. ed balls, jim murphy, margaret curran, douglas alexander, and all the mps and indeed candidates who were defeated.

they are friends, colleagues and standard bearers for our party. they always have been, and they always will be. [applause] [applause] i also want to congratulate all our candidates who were elected yesterday and who will help take our party forward as well. [applause] [applause] i want to thank those people who ran our campaign. it was the most united cohesive, and enjoyable campaign i've ever been involved in.

i want to thank douglas alexander, lucy powell, spencer livermore, and most of all, all of you, the incredible team at the labour party. [applause] i also today want to thank the incredible team of labour party members, activists, and all those people who've pounded the streets over the past months. [applause] friends, britain needs a strong labour party. britain needs a labour party that can rebuild after this defeat so we can have a government that stands up for working people again.

now it's time for someone else to take forward the leadership of this party, so i'm tendering my resignation taking part after affect after this afternoon's commemoration of ve day at the cenotaph. i want to do so straight away because the party needs to have an open and honest debate about the right way forward without constraint. let me say that harriet harman is the best deputy leader that anyone could hope for. i worked for her more than 20 years ago i am proud to have had her as my deputy for my term of leadership. [applause] she will take over until a new leader is elected. for me, i'm looking forward to reacquainting myself with justine, daniel, and sam.

but before i do, i need to say a few things. i need to say thank you to the british people. thank you to the people who've met me on train stations and colleges, in workplaces and schools. thank you for sharing your stories from me, i have learnt so much for you. it has been an enormous privilege. thank you for the selfies. [laughter] thank you for the support, and thank you for the most unlikely cult of the 21st century milifandom. second, i want to [laughter] [applause] second, i want to address those who voted labour yesterday. today you'll feel disappointed even bleak but while we may have lost the election, the argument of our campaign will not go away . the issue of our unequal country

will not go away, this is the challenge of our time, the fight goes on, and whoever is our new leader, i know labour will keep making the case for a country that works for working people once again. [applause] third, i believe in our united kingdom, not just because it is our country, but because it is the best way of serving therking people of our country. i believe that there is more that unites us than divides us across the whole united kingdom and all of us in the months and years ahead must rise to the challenge of keeping our country together.

[applause] finally, i want to say something to my party. thank you to you. thank you for the privilege. i joined this party aged 17. i never dreamed i would lead it. it has been an incredible force for progress from workers' rights to the nhs to the minimum wage. no other party in british politics can boast these achievements and yes, it will be a force for progress and change once again. to all the labour party members , you're the most loyal supporters, amazing people. i thank all of you today. i am truly sorry i did not succeed. i have done my best for nearly five years. now you need to show your responsibility. your responsibility, not simply to mourn our defeat, but to pick

yourself up, and continue the fight. we've come back before and this party will come back again. [applause] if i may i say to everyone in our party -- conduct this leadership election with the same decency, civility, and comradeship that we believe is the way the country should be run. i believe i have brought a culture to this party, an ability to have disagreement without being disagreeable. i urge everyone to keep this in mind in the months ahead. finally, i want to say this. the course of progress and social justice is never simple or straightforward. change happens

because people don't give up, they don't take no for an answer, they keep demanding change. this is my faith -- where we see injustice, we must tackle it. in a couple of hours i will no longer be leading this party but you see, for me, that has never been the only way to achieve change, because i believe it isn't simply leaders who achieve change, it is people who make change happen. i will never give up on that idea, i will never give up on that cause, i will never give up on fighting for the britain i believe in. that faith will always be my faith, that fight will always be my fight, that cause will always be my cause and i will always be there in that cause with all of you. thank you very much. [applause]

thank you very much. [applause] [applause] thank you very much. nick clegg: thank you very much.

i always expected this election to be exceptionally difficult for the liberal democrats given the heavy responsibilities we've had to bear in government in the most challenging of circumstances. clearly the results have been immeasurably more crushing and unkind than i could ever have feared. for that, of course, i must take responsibility, and therefore i announce that i will be resigning as leader of the liberal democrats. a leadership election will now take place according to the party's rules. for the last seven years it's been a privilege, a huge privilege, an unlimited honour to lead a party of the most resilient, courageous, and remarkable people. the liberal democrats are a family and i will always be extremely proud of the warmth, good grace, and good humour which our political family has shown through the ups and downs of recent years. i want to thank every member

ever campaigner, every councillor, and every parliamentarian for the commitment you have shown to our country and to our party. it is simply heartbreaking to see so many friends and colleagues who have served their constituents so diligently over so many years abruptly lose their seats because of forces entirely beyond their control. in 2007 after a night of -- in 2011, after a night of disappointing election results for our party in edinburgh, alex cole hamilton said this -- if his defeat was part-payment for the ending of child detention, then he accepted it with all his heart. those words revealed a selfless dignity which is very rare in politics, but common amongst

liberal democrats. if our losses today are part payment for every family that is more secure because of a job we helped to create, every person with depression who is treated with a compassion they deserve, every child who does a little better in school, every apprentice with a long and rewarding career to look forward to, every gay couple who know that their love is worth no less than anyone else's and every pensioner with a little more freedom and dignity in retirement then i hope at least our losses can be endured with a little selfless dignity too. we will never know how many lives we changed for the better because we had the courage to step up at a time of crisis. but but we have done something that cannot be undone because there can be no doubt that we leave government with britain a far stronger, fairer, greener, and more liberal country than it

was five years ago. however unforgiving the judgement has been at the ballot box, i believe the history books will judge our party kindly for the service we sought to provide to the nation at a time of great economic difficulty and for the policies and values which we brought to bear in government. opportunity, fairness, and liberty, which i believe will stand the test of time. to have served my country at a time of crisis is an honour that will stay with me forever. i hope those who are granted the opportunity to serve our country in government now and in the future will recognise the privilege and responsibility that they've been given. it's it's the greatest thing they'll ever do. it is of course too early to give a considered account of why we have suffered catastrophic

losses. and the party will have to reflect on these in the time ahead. one thing seems to me is clear -- liberalism, here, as well as across europe, is not faring well against the politics of fear. years of remorseless economic and social hardship following the crash in 2008 and the grinding insecurities of globalisation have led for people to reach to new certainties. the politics of identity, of nationalism, of us versus them , is now on the rise. it is clear that in constituency after constituency north of the border, the beguiling appeal of scottish nationalism has swept all before it and south of the border a fear about what that means for the united kingdom has strengthened english conservatism too.

this now brings our country to a very perilous point in our history, where grievance and fear combine to drive our different communities apart. i hope that our leaders across the united kingdom realise the disastrous consequences for our way of life and the integrity of our united kingdom if they continue to appeal to grievance rather than generosity and fear rather than hope. it's not it's no exaggeration to say that in the absence of strong and statesmanlike leadership , britain's place in europe and the world, and the continued existence of our united kingdom itself, is now in grave jeopardy. the cruellest irony of all is that it is exactly at this time that british liberalism, that fine, noble tradition that believes we are stronger together and weaker apart is needed more than ever before.

fear and grievance have won, liberalism has lost. but it is more precious than ever and we must keep fighting for it. that that is both the great challenge and the great cause that my successor will have to face. i i will always give my unstinting support for all those who continue to keep the flame of british liberalism alive. on the morning of the most crushing blow to the liberal democrats since our party was founded, it is easy to imagine that there is no road back, but there is -- because there is no path to a fairer, greener, freer britain without british liberalism showing the way. this this is a very dark hour for our party but we cannot and will not allow decent liberal values to be extinguished overnight.

our party will come back, our party will win again, it will take patience, resilience and grit. that is what has built our party before and will rebuild it again. thank you. [applause] [applause] >> yesterday, a federal appeals court ruled the national security agency's all collection of phone records is illegal. today, the semi-foundation hosted a discussion on transparency and how much the public has a right to know about government surveillance program. that is coming up at 2:30 p.m. eastern. that issue will come before congress in the coming weeks. next week, here is what is ahead

in the house and senate. they'll take up u.s. trade policy and granting the president fast track trade authority. they may also take up the highway bill area did the house returns on tuesday. it may include the defense authorization bill. they may take up the iran nuclear agreement passed by the senate this past week. live coverage of the senate is on c-span2 . some news from the house today court dismisses commerce and wrangles challenge to his house censure -- dismisses congressman rangel's challenge to his house censure. earlier today in washington

the attorney general, loretta lynch, announced a new federal civil rights investigation into the baltimore police department. investigation followed the death of freddie gray while in police custody in baltimore. his death set off a series of protests and riots in the city. loretta lynch: good morning , everyone. thank you all for being here. i'm joined by the head of the department's civil rights division and ron davis of the community oriented police office or "cops peter: we have -- or "cops. " we have watched as baltimore has

struggled with issues that face cities across our country today. we saw the tragic loss of a young man's life and a peaceful movement coalesced to explain the concern of a community. we have seen officers sustaining serious injuries during the city's unfortunate foray into violence. we have watched it all through the prism of one of the most challenging issues of our time. the issue of police community relations. when i traveled to baltimore, i had the opportunity to see the significant work the city and police department had done with the cops office over the last six months through a collaborative reform process. despite progress being made, it was clear that recent events, including the tragic in custody death of mr. freddie gray had , had given rise to a serious erosion of public trust. i have been asked to augment our approach to the situation with a court enforcement model. i have spent the last few days with my team considering which of the department of justice

's tools best meets the current needs of the baltimore police department and the broader baltimore community. today, the department of justice is opening an investigation into whether the baltimore police department has engaged in a pattern or practice of violations of the constitution or federal law. this investigation will begin immediately and will focus on allegations that baltimore police department officers use excessive force, including deadly force, conduct unlawful searches, seizures, and arrests, and engage indiscriminate tory -- and engage in discriminatory policing. the cops department will continue to work with them. some may ask, how does this differ from our current work? the answer is, rather than examining whether the police department violated good policies, we will now examine whether they violated the constitution and civil rights of the community.

this approach has been welcomed by the baltimore city fraternal order of police. i want to thank them for their support and partnership as we move forward. attorneys and investigators conducting the investigation and the police experts who will assist them will be engaging with community members and law-enforcement. we will examine policies practices, and available data. at the conclusion of our investigation, we will issue a report of our findings. if unconstitutional practices or policies are found, we will seek a court admissible order. we will continue to move forward to improve policing in baltimore even as the pattern and practice investigation is underway. our goal is to work with the community, public officials, and law enforcement alike to create a stronger, better baltimore. the department of justice civil rights division has conducted dozens of these investigations

to date and we have seen from our work in jurisdictions across the country that communities have gone through the process are experiencing improved policing practices and increased trust between the police and the community. in fact, i encourage other cities to study our past recommendations and see if they can be applied in their communities. ultimately, this process is meant to ensure that officers are being provided with the tools they need, including training, policy guidance, and equipment, to be more effective and partner with civilians to strengthen public safety. for many people across the country, the tragic death of freddie gray and the violence that did occur has come to personify the city, as if that alone was baltimore. earlier this week, i visited

with members of the community as they picked up trash and cleared away debris. they are baltimore. i visited with officials determined to aid the communities they love. they are baltimore. i visited with youth leaders who believe that there are brighter days ahead. they are baltimore. i also visited with law enforcement officers who had worked up to 16 days without a break. they were focused not on themselves but on protecting the people who live in their community. they too are baltimore. none of us have any illusions that reform is easy. the challenges we face and that baltimore faces now did not arise in a day and change will not come overnight. it will take time and sustained effort. the people i met in baltimore, from the protesters to the public officials, to the officers, including one who was injured, all said to me

ultimately the same thing, i love my city and want to make it better. that is why i optimistic about this process and i am hopeful about the days and weeks to come. that is why i am confident that as a result of this investigation and hard work that is still ahead -- make no mistake, it is hard work -- all residents of the baltimore community, residents and law enforcement alike, will be able to create a stronger and safer and more united city together. thank you for your time and attention. at this time i would like to open it up for a few questions. reporter: the request came from the city. what have you heard or seen from residents of baltimore that leads you to believe that the ongoing justice review needs to be augmented? are the problems deeper than you initially understood? can you talk about why cop does not work?

or is not sufficient? loretta lynch: the process has helped numerous communities and police department'ss across the country. but for collaborative reform to ultimately be effective, we need the three-part base of support. please, elected officials, and community engagement. and the ability to have faith in the process. we have all seen events change in baltimore and become much more intense over a short period of time. the community's trust has been worse and has severed in terms of the relationship with the police department. we felt that was one factor. in viewing weather whether we could use it to make the changes that we need. also, as we look more to the issues facing the police department itself in terms of the needs it has and the issues residents were raising, they

were more intense than when we started the collaborative process. we thought the best thing to do was to conduct an investigation to see if these issues rose to the level of civil rights violations. and if so, have the best model in which to address them. in our view, of -- a court enforced order. reporter: senator mikulski made reference to a fractured trust between police and communities around the country. i wonder, from your standpoint how serious that fracture is. loretta lynch: we have had a number of situations that have highlighted the fracture in various communities, in different parts of the country cities of all sizes, issues ranging from people being harmed or unfortunate deaths in custody. i think we see it when it occurs. i think the issue goes beyond just the interaction between the police and the community.

we are talking about generations, not of only mistrust, but generations of communities that feel separated from government overall. you are talking about situations where there is a flashpoint occurrence that coalesces years of frustration and anger. and anger. that is what i think you saw in baltimore when there was that unfortunate night of violence and you see it in other cities around country as well. you can't look at a city and predict what is going to happen. you can't look at a city and analyze it and certainly we are not looking to do that. we hope that our work, through collaborative reform and passed investigation, other cities can look at their own environments and decide what issues they see and whether or not some of the work done in the past can be brought to bear and help as well. reporter: will the department release any findings that the

folks have found in the collaborative review? loretta lynch: the information is going to be folded into the pattern of practice investigation. typically, when we work with a pu police department, that d usually and in a report that is made public. we are now going to full that into the investigation and will not have the collaborative reform report. there will be a report at the end of the pattern of practice investigation that will draw on that. reporter: this violence took place just as you are coming into office. as you saw this unfold, what was your reaction? what did you think? loretta lynch: i watched it, as did most people, through the prism of my television screen. i've seen similar incidents across the country and my first reaction was profound sadness. it truly was. it was profound sadness for the loss of life, the erosion of trust, the sadness and despair the community was feeling, for

the frustration i know the police officers were feeling also as they tried to encourage peaceful protest but had to deal with violence. my first reaction was profound sadness. reporter: the fbi director and secretary of homeland security are having a conference with the nation's police to talk about the growing concern over isis social media. how much of a concern is that? how urgent of a concern is that for the doj? loretta lynch: as we look into national security cases, we look to see what tools those who do america harm utilized. i think social media is a tool we have seen be used in cases that resulted in recruitment, as a means of distributing information. it is an area that we are trying to stay on top of. i would say it is part of the full panoply of things.

i'm going to apologize for not knowing everyone's name right away. otherwise, i would not point to you in this manner. reporter: the baltimore police -- garland police department say they did not know a threat was headed there way. how are you guys working to make sure that local officials are looped into the threat that you guys identify at the federal level? loretta lynch: when information is determined to be a threat to any police department, we provide them with as much as information as possible. in the situation you saw, there is an individual underscore new before but had not been very active in the immediate past. the information provided was more limited than the garland police would have liked to seen. certainly, all efforts are made to provide them with information

and they were tremendously helpful in the results of the case and the results of the shooting that occurred. reporter: carrie johnson, npr. as you know, a lot of localities are looking to you and your department now to help heal the fractured trust between police and communities. that said, you only have so many resources to conduct these reviews and investigations. do you need more attorneys and investigators? do you need a law to be changed? in order to change the legal standard under which you bring these cases. loretta lynch: i was on the hill for my first information meeting. we always ask for increased resources to handle the cases we have and the ones we anticipate. to the larger issue raised by your question, which is communities looking for help and resources, the department of justice is here to help and we try to be a resource.

the reality is, we cannot litigate our way out of this problem and and is not our intention to engage in a review of every police department. it is rather our goal and found -- profound hope that the work we have done will be a base for communities to look at and to build upon as they determine what issues exist in their communities. we now have a very solid body of reports, both collaborative reform and pattern of practice investigations. one of the things i most pleased about over recent years is that many of our investigations are begun very cooperatively in conjunction with law enforcement and elected officials. they reach out to us for assistance. they are not in an adversarial mode. we do have a few that may result in court action, but by and large, most of them have been under the environment of working very well with police and community officials.

our hope is that other jurisdictions, cities large and small can look at these reports and say, are these the issues i face? what does the justice department see their? what is my police department doing that might look like this or be a model for better behavior? one of the things we try to do through the cops process is pair police departments with their peers who have had successful work, particularly in police-community relations. we have a whole range of resources that we offer. our goal is to be a guide, but not a hand reaching into the police department. we truly believe that communities, cities, police departments, they know the city's best and know what the issues and problems are. we want to help them reach the best solutions. reporter: eric tucker, ap. much has been made about the

different racial dynamics wayne when you talk about baltimore city versus ferguson. ferguson had with the department a very few number of minorities. baltimore is different. loretta lynch: i think that regardless of the ethnic or racial makeup of every city, every city is different. every police department is different and they all present different issues. policing is a challenging profession, no matter where you are. the issues facing baltimore certainly do -- some people express them in racial tones. people to me were expressing them more in terms of community leaders feeling frustrated, feeling and pain.

police department leaders also feeling frustrated at not being able to protect their city. there was a commonality that crossed races, crossed groups. every city is different and i do not want to prejudge or put that particular prism on baltimore or any other city. reporter: senator mikulski said that grant money should be tied to training. is that something that you will actively consider? loretta lynch: we have a wide range of grant programs. many are specifically for training purposes. many simply provide equipment and do other things. our approach has always been rather than conditioning getting a grant on a particular program, we work with the jurisdiction to really focus on the specific need they have and basically

gives them access to the training that they need. the training for every department is different. requirements and needs are different for every department. we are always considering ways to make the grant programs more efficient. reporter: what more should the federal government be doing to deal with isis using social media? what more should the federal government be doing? loretta lynch: at this point, i can say that we are certainly using all the tools available to us to determine how social media is being used. as always, we have to balance that with the right to free speech, with privacy rights. those are very important concerns. we have to balance that with making sure that what we do does not interfere with the free flow of information for law-abiding citizens, for example. i'm not able to give you the

specific details of what the government is focusing on right now, but say that we are focusing on that as an issue. it is not a new issue. we have seen social media being used in a number of cases and it is an expansion of how the internet has been used for several years now. both in recruitment and radicalization. >> one more question. loretta lynch: several hands are up now. reporter: can you explain to people why they should not be concerned that the federal government was flying surveillance planes over baltimore during the protests? loretta lynch: i did see that report. someone came to me and said something about were you flying drones over baltimore? i said, i don't have drones. leaving that aside, it is not an uncommon practice for police helicopters to fly over and try to figure out where our people moving to or where violence might be breaking out and buy

-- provide information to the field, to officers on the ground providing surveillance reports as well. i do not think it was a new occurrence and you see it in a number of cities. it was for the purpose us finding out where there were pockets of violence and what can be done about that. you will have to be the last one. reporter: just the other day when the mayor was talking about the investigation, there was a 40% drop in excessive force complaints. is that any indication that things are getting better? loretta lynch: all the data that has been gathered will be factored into the investigation. it is premature to say what the data means. we have all seen situations where you can have numbers that can look great, but if you are the person involved in an

unfortunate incident, for you it feels like it is 100%. we will look at all those issues and incidents and look at the larger issues of whether or not the police, as they work to stop, arrest, and detain people, how they implement their policies, the use and guidance they have already, that will factor into our investigation. it is premature right now to say how it will impact. thank you all. >> loretta lynch was asked about

this issue yesterday in a hearing on appropriations. a federal court in news york ruling that collection of phone records is illegal. coming up in about 15 minutes, the sunlight foundation is hosting a discussion on transparency and how much the public has the right to know about the government surveillance programs. in the meantime, a look at mental health issues from this morning's "washington journal." host: just north of washington, d.c., in bethesda, maryland is the national institute of health. dr. thomas insel is the director of the national institute of mental health. what is it that nimh does? guest: we are a federal agency and our focus is on research. we are all about the signs of mental disorders. that covers a broad spectrum -- schizophrenia, bipolar depression, ptsd, and now we focus a lot of attention on autism as well.

there are a series of childhood disorders -- adhd, there is various conduct problems that are also very much in our purview. our job is to try to understand what causes these and that develop -- to develop the best approaches to recovery prevention and cure. host: how do you do that research? do you do it at the campus or around the country or grants? how? guest: we are federal. so, what we exist on is taxpayer dollars. we receive of taxpayer money $1.5 billion each year from congress. all of that goes into the science that we support. about 10% of it, a little bit more than that is done by a , group of scientists at a hospital and clinics that we run in bethesda, maryland at the national institutes of health, but the vast majority, almost 90%, is going to universities and companies throughout the country, sometimes throughout the world where we support the very best science to try to help

us make progress on developing diagnostics and new treatments. host: what is the status of mental health coverage when it comes to the affordable care act? how has it changed over the last couple of years? guest: couple of provisions that there are a make a big difference. people overlook the fact that in contrast to cancer and heart disease and dimension, mental disorders are disorders of young people. 75% of people with the mental illness will have onset before age 25. extending coverage to age 26 makes a big difference for people with mental disorders. that helps. another key aspect of this is that there is no pre-existing exclusion. that is that in the past people with mental illnesses could have been excluded from receiving insurance coverage. that is no longer the case. but perhaps one of the most important aspects is that, with

the labeling of mental disorder treatment as an essential benefit, we see for the first time in this country true par ity, that means the opportunity or the expectation that coverage for mental disorders will be on par with other medical problems. and that has not been the case in the past. host: dr., what are we not doing that you would like to see the u.s. as a society do when it comes to mental health? guest: well, it's not a pretty picture. for listeners who have someone in their family who is affected by a mental illness, they know what the challenge is today to get either access to care or high-quality care. this is a situation we probably would not tolerate for the treatment of other serious medical problems like cancer and heart disease.

the fact that many people with a mental illness and up being incarcerated in jail rather than being in the medical care system. that we have a huge proportion of people who are homeless and who are not receiving care at all. the range of difficulties for those with a disabling illness like schizophrenia is hard to put in words. this non-system we have today. in some ways, the system we have d 50 years ago where we had a state mental health system including hospitals that provided care, not great care, but at least provided safety and refuge for people with severe mental illness, had some benefits that we are lacking today in a situation where there is no system. there really is no net for people who have these most disabling illnesses. and i need to point out that these are not just disabling

they are more disabling , according to the world health organization that have looked at what causes morbidity and mortality, what are the sources of disability for some 291 health conditions and injuries. a group of neuropsychiatric disorders -- the brain disorders -- come up at the top. that is that they are more disabling than cancer, heart disease or diabetes. they are also more costly. yet, we are not doing a very good job providing access or the quality of care that people with these disorders need. host: is there any movement to return to the old state hospital system? guest: i do not think anybody wants to rebuild that whole system, but the question is really what it is that would work better than what we have today? other countries have already done this. in england, they have developed a very high bar for what is available for psychosocial

treatments, psychotherapy for depression and fore anxiety disorders like ptsd. you can see countries like norway and sweden, putting in a whole network of care systems that are really focused on how do we provide better care in the long run for people with these very severe illnesses? how do we then did -- bend the curve for suicide? the other gray area of neglect is we focus so much on homicide. there are 17,000 homicides each year in the united states. but there are 41,000 suicides each year. that is one about every 13 minutes. 90% of those are related to having a mental illness. so we have got a highly fatal set of medical problems. in fact, there are more suicides than there are deaths from breast cancer or prostate cancer. this is a really serious medical problem in terms of mortality.

and there is not much that is being done. we are still at the early stages of even thinking about how to make sure we are making bridges safer so people do not jump off them. or creating the kind of preventions that are possible. one simple example is that we had 760 deaths last year from carbon monoxide poisoning. it is not that difficult to put a sensor on an automobile that shuts off the engine when the carbon monoxide levels go up. we have known how to do that for 30 or 40 years, but so far there has not been the will to make this happen to save 760 people each year in a preventable way by removing one of the sources, or one of the means for suicide. host: is mental illness reversible? guest: mental illness is a lot of different kinds of problems.

you can say the same thing about heart disease or lung disease or kidney disease. some of them are highly treatable. some of them are not going to be that treatable. you're going to be faced with a long-term disability. the ones that we look to where we have very good interventions would be the anxiety disorders some of the mood disorders using psychostimulants and behavioral approaches for adhd a common disorder of young people. these are all treatable. people do well. there are some forms of autism that we are still challenged with for those who have very low iq and may have no language, we are struggling to figure out what is the cure, what is the best way to help people with those kinds of very severe developmental disabilities. for schizophrenia, there are people who do quite well, but the reality is that there are

many people who many years later are not later, are still not able to work because of the cognitive deficits that come with that disorder. host: we have a lot of callers waiting. let's hear from our viewers. rachel in south carolina. caller: good morning. doctor, i am going to make a statement. i have had a stroke. i had a heart attack. i laid in a coma for nine days. the older i get, the more my medication -- i am bipolar -- the more my medication seems like it is not working. i am so proud of you to keep trying. we need your help. we do have a little group of men and women that do have bipolar. we understand the ups and downs. we are also very spiritual.

we understand that we are in the middle before we go down to get into deep prayer. it is a balance but i think god -- thinkank god for people like you. i cannot get out of it. i am up one day and down the next but i am grateful you are trying. host: that is rachel. guest: thank you, i appreciate those words. what you share with us is the importance of finding other people involved in the same struggle. sometimes, even when we do not have a cure and we do not have all the answers, we can support each other. these are tough medical problems. there was a time we did not appreciate how serious they are. there is a terrible legacy of blame and shame, blaming parents and sometimes those who have the disorders themselves. i think we are at a point where we understand these are serious brain issues. ones we are beginning to get a

deeper understanding of. but we are not where we want to be in terms of having the best treatments to turn around all of the symptoms and the core problem that leads to this illness. host: john is in phoenix. caller: dr. insel, i want to speak to you about the use of cannabis for schizophrenia and ptsd. i believe there is some science, medical science, in alleviating the fear of cannabis and some different byproduct of cannabis for treating ptsd and schizophrenia. i would like to know what is the , national institutes of health doing to explore the ability of care? host: we will get an answer in just a minute. what is your situation? are you a cannabis user? do you have issues you're dealing with?

caller: i have a brother and other individuals who served in the service and wartime theaters . my brother has schizophrenia and he uses it as a byproduct. it helps him function to come out of his depression. as far as my brother in arms dealing with ptsd, they use it to help them keep out of depression and so that they do not push themselves into anger. in colorado, where it is legal and oregon where they study it more, they byproduct of cannabis proved useful as far as use for schizophrenia and ptsd. i would like to know what the national institutes of health has done or if they have dedicated funds for the study of it? guest: if i understand the question, it is whether there is good evidence for the use of

cannabis or any of the metabolites or products of cannabis for treating serious mental illness like schizophrenia. to my knowledge, there is no evidence from any controlled trial that this is useful. we do have evidence, especially from studies in england, that the use of cannabis increases the likelihood of psychosis in young people who are at risk for schizophrenia. that risk has been described as high as 13-fold. our concern as we look at laws changing in colorado and elsewhere is that the potential is there that of those who may be at high risk would be using it anyway. but in the case where becomes -- it becomes more available, would have a greater likelihood of an earlier onset of psychosis. the evidence for that is still

unfolding. we need to learn more about that. that may be speaking to a subgroup of people on this whole spectrum of what we call schizophrenia. it is not to say that of that experience will be true for everyone who has a psychotic illness. host: george in south carolina please go ahead. caller: dr. insel, i was calling -- i had cancer, colon cancer, about 2011. my wife has seen a lot of anger issues i was having. i was being impatient with the kids and not acting myself, so she brought that to my doctor's attention. he called me in the office and said i was doubly struggling with depression. i told him no -- i argued with him. for me, depression are people -- those who are bungled up and

do not want to get out of bed and are in corners and do not want to bother with anything not anger as part of depression. now, he has me on prozac, a few other medications. around thanksgiving, i did contemplate committing suicide but my -- my question to you is, are you guys studying that in any way as far as with the anger -- like i said, i did not know anger was a part of being depressed. i go out, play sports, coach sports, it was just that anger issue i was having. the other question i had about the cannabis the other gentleman called, because people do -- i work in the medical field and i hear doctors ask about self-medicating, they cannot get

medications for some reason. that they do have marijuana and it seems to calm them so they can cope. those are my questions, thank you. guest: thank you, george. that is important. there is a tendency to think about depression as involving sadness. there is actually a different picture of depression in men versus women. in men, it is more common to see irritability and anger rather than sadness. we have not often appreciate that, and many people, even physicians, do not understand that. that is often the way depression emerges, particularly in men as they get older. we see suicide as a particular risk in men over the age of 50. we look at this carefully. depression is very treatable. a lot of the irritability and anger, part of this syndrome

can be turned around so that people can get reengaged and enjoy the things they are used to doing. the self-medication question is always important. >> see all of this online at c-span.org. "washington journal" life everyday at 7:00 eastern. we will take you live to capitol hill, the sunlight foundation holding a hearing a response to the court decision yesterday striking down nsa 's collection policy. >> this event, who is watching the watchers, is focused on focusing on policy problems regarding surveillance. my name is sean, i am the policy expert at the summit foundation.

i had a joke here, but it turns out i am not funny. our goal is to ensure that congress, and all in this room, to better do your job, and your job is complicated. this pairs of the goals of security, accountability, and transparency. we are tweeting at hashtag who is watching us. to do quick introductions, and i will be very quick, starting to my left is bob. to his right is fritz schwartz. he was chief counsel to the church committee.

to his right is patrick toomey of the aclu national security project. i will note that he was one of the litigators working on the decision yesterday. to his right is a woman who has had a long career on the capital. she was the chief of staff to a representative and spent four years on the house intelligence committee. with that, i will invite all of the panelists, and i will start with mika, i supposed to give an introduction on who they are and what they work on. and i'm hoping, one thing that they think staff should know that they may or do not know. mika: i'm the director of the national security program at third way. i spent most of my career doing oversight of national security programs on capitol hill before i got a third way. i want to say a few words on

how congressional oversight works in the current context. one thing to keep in mind is that oversight of intelligence programs by congress is hampered by three different benchmarks. one of it is hampered against public oversight which is by necessity. the programs need to be sick or national security reasons, but that means you are deprived of all of the public tools of journalism, citizen oversight and other things he would have a different places. you have to forgo that. even as a matter of congressional oversight, compared to other tools, congressional oversight on the congressional front are hampered in its access to gao crs, and also to whistleblowers. those authorities are different, and the way that they use them

are different or nonexistent compared other national security committees. congressional oversight and intelligence is actually different between the house and senate. the house members are at a tremendous disadvantage compared to their senate counterparts. house members do not have individual designees, they do not get to higher a staffer to work for them on their intelligence business. house members, when i was there did not have access to a technical working group. the house intelligence committee have much greater control over the dissemination of classified information in the house, very different from the senate. you saw that with knowledge that all senators, who had been given access to an intelligence program related to fightfa programs, when i was not disseminated in the house. there is a difference between

house members and senators. i feeling that a lot of things i will stop there. patrick: my name is patrick toomey. i'm the national security project where i work mainly on surveillance cases. that includes the aclu versus klapper case, which was decided yesterday. it also includes a lawsuit including the -- also a case where these authorities have been a knowledge or have been use including a case in colorado where the first defendant who got ffa notice is litigating that authority. i start by saying that the decision yesterday shows that a little sunshine can make quite a big difference in how these programs are evaluated.

that was a point that the second circuit expressly made and the judge expanded on it. the type of robust judicial review that is reflected in the opinion is welcome. i would say to everyone who is here today unfortunately, that type of judicial review is not reflective of the broader reality when it comes to the surveillance programs. there are basically three ways in which they can be adversarial review of these surveillance programs. one is through civil challenges in the public court. another is through criminal cases. the third is when providers, who receive orders under these surveillance authorities, bring challenges. each of those avenues is currently broken. and the civil context, the government has used the standing and secret doctrines to prevent

challenges to these authorities from going forward. and the criminal context, we are now learning that the government uses parallel construction, and there are strict rules around the disclosure of fisa related material. in the context of providers, like telecommuting a companies it is very clear that there interests are not aligned with the privacy of their customers. in fact, they have been granted immunity in many cases when they comply with court order seeking their customer information. in order for there to be more review, more adversarial public review like the type we saw yesterday, those mechanisms need to be fixed. fritz: right now i am chief counsel at the brennan center of justice. 40 years ago, i was chief

counsel at the church committee. i was then 39 years old. i did not know a single senator. what would i say if i were just taking out one thing about -- that might be adjusting to people not around at that point? in my new book, "democracy in the dark," i have a whole chapter on congressional investigation that might be worthy of your looking at. the one thing i would single out is that the atmosphere on the church committee was extremely nonpartisan. our most important fighting was probably that every president from franklin roosevelt through richard nixon, for democrats and two republicans, had abused their secret powers. that helps with internal cohesion and external had ability. the committee -- mike mansfield who was majority leader of the body is important.

he had called for a major investigation of the intelligence agencies 20 years earlier as a junior senator, and nothing had happened. the circumstances change and he was majority leader. he structured the committee to help with it being nonpartisan. instead of seven to three democrats, which would have been the norm, it was 6 to five. instead of the leader of the republicans being called the majority -- what is it, ranking member, and not having any power at all, senator tower of texas was the vice-chairman and have the powers of vice chair, and presided often. he picked senators also who were not people who had supposedly overseeing the fbi the cia, even though both cases, they

said please do not tell us but we are doing. he picked people who were not tainted by that, and also people who were capable of working in a partisan way. nonpartisanship is extraordinarily important if you are trying to oversee, or try to change and intelligence body. bob: i would just say that i think, as i said before -- sorry, i'm bob on the council for national intelligence. that does not mean i the chief lawyer of all the intelligence agencies, but it does mean that i am lawyer for the director of national intelligence. one of the things i think the entire intelligence community has learned over the past couple of years is that we do need to be more transparent, if we want to maintain public support for mission. my view is frankly that if we have been able to be more transparent about some of the

things we do, in advance of the leaks, they would not have been nearly as controversial. i think some indication of that is that members of congress who did know about these programs, with one or two exceptions, were not necessarily troubled by them. there were quite a few members of congress that did know about them. the intelligence judiciary committee got all of the relevant information. i think in general, we can be a lot more transparent about how we interpret the laws and government activities, the procedures we used to protect liberties. i think where we cannot be transparent, there are specific methods we use, specific sources of intelligence, specific targets, specific intelligence that week at her. at the same time, i think people have to recognize that there are risks to transparency. if we advertise everything that

we do and the way we do it, we will not be able to do it anymore. i can tell you that terrorists are looking at the articles that appear in newspapers, passing them around to each other, and saying things like -- this is close to a direct quote -- stay away from x service, because we know that nsa is on that. there are definite risks to transparency. it is a careful balance that has to be struck, how much we can inform, while still protecting our ability to protect people. sean: thank you. to start us off, i want to give us some recent context. in 2014, it was held that human rights activist gets -- advocates did not have right to sue the government. the court held that their fears

were too speculative. a few month later, the world learn to edward snowden was the yesterday, the second court of appeals decided that the aclu did have standing, is fears were not speculative, and the government collection of telephone calls was unlawful. fritz, can you tell is a little bit, how does the country get to the need of the church committee? fritz: the climate of the times is vital to understand. after world war ii, there was for 15 years at least, i would say, and probably more, a general acceptance that the government knew what it was doing and that the press and the people should stay away. then, there was a lot of frustration over vietnam, which got people concerned about if

the government was being fair-minded and the pentagon papers brought out the is sort of had not been fair-minded in what it was saying publicly. watergate made the public worried about even the president being involved in improper illegal conduct including illegal surveillance, and break-ins to psychiatry's offices. j edgar hoover was dead. i make it -- that made a huge difference. with the senate have been courageous enough to look at the fbi is to cougar -- if j edgar hoover had been alive? i'm not sure. the release of the fire, nixon had tried to use the cia to shut down the fbi investigation of watergate. and, there had been a series of leaks. there is an adjusting, -- an

interesting comment that says that leak is not the right word. it had been interesting series of leaks about programs that were troublesome. seymour hersh about the cia doing domestic surveillance when it really is not lawful for them to do it. all of those factors led to the church committee inc. founded. -- church committee being founded. i just want to join in something both bob and mika said, you have to recognize that some secrets are legitimate. we succeeded -- the church committee succeeded in part because we did recognize that some secrets were legitimate and let the government cr draft reports before they came out, so they could argue.

they cannot tell us, but they could argue that something would reveal something that should not be revealed. the parallel house committee which potentially could have done great good, because it was concentrating on the quality of intelligence that was coming out, but it foundered, and ultimately fail because they did not accept that there were some secrets that are legitimate. sean: fritz, a number of things were obviously unearthed by the church committee and the leaks can you highlight a couple? fritz: i will highly three. one was martin luther king, where we uncovered the document which was sent to him by the fbi after bugs -- by the way they were able to put bugs, without even the approval of the attorney general, because the earlier attorney general had

such a geographical over, i do not want to know, -- had said to j edgar hoover, i do not want to do. they had put bugs to humiliate him so much so to where he would commit suicide. you have to use fact there are illustrative. the night of his "i have a dream" speech, they met and said they had to destroyed martin luther king and find their own choice of a new black leader. they came up with a new black leader. he did not know he was their choice. that was one. cia. that was particularly really terrible. the cia hiring the mafia as part of their effort to kill fidel

castro the leader of cuba. then nsa getting every single telegram -- or almost every -- the content, not just the metadata -- the content of everything will telegram that left the united states between 1945, when it was the army security agency, to 1975, when it had been nsa for quite a while. just add something that i think you would agree with me that this would not be the attitude today -- i assume you would -- the general counsel of the nsa, when i was talking to them about why we were going to expose the program of getting everything will telegram the left the united states, and i said, you'd, there is a fourth amendment problem with doing that. he said, the constitution does not apply to the nsa.

>> i would agree that i do not agree with that. [laughter] bob: i would like to follow-up. i think fits's -- fritz's discussion is a good metric of judging what has been done in the past several years. the fact of the matter is that the programs we are talking about were all authorized by court order. there is disagreement about whether the court orders were valid or not, but the government went to the court, told the court about the program, and got in order for the program. moreover, they were fully disclosed to the relevant congressional oversight committee. while he think it is legitimate to have a policy debate over whether we do these or not, to compare this with the things that were done with dr. king, or so on, recognizes how far we have come as far as oversight and illegal -- and a legal

framework. sean: most of the program started with stellar wind, which was not authorized by court order, correct? it was several years before they came under court provision. :and that was -- bob: and that was 10 years ago and have since been replaced by court provisions. sean: let's say, pre-9/11, we had a review of congressional inquiry, perhaps, that turned into legislation reform. bob, i think the intelligence community may even benefit from another investigation and find unequivocally that this is not the case. instead, the lack of transparency around the issue leaves it open to, let's say, the second circuit comparing it

today to the church committee. : bob: i'm not sure what much of transparency you are talking about. sean: the concern for example that the house intelligence committee or the senate intelligence committee is in some ways an effective broken, or co-opted -- i'm just using words that i think most of us here in some way. we can replace that distrust with an effective comm ittee. the question for the panel next is is it time for a new church committee? fritz: two things in footnote to bob's points -- the torture was never blessed by a court. it was blessed by a grossly inadequate legal opinion. it was devised in white house

meetings where they listened to know history, they didn't listen to the state department, they didn't listen to the defense department to the fbi. they did not recognize that both george washington and abraham lincoln had gone against torture. then, i have some trouble with taking all of what you said and accepting it, in light of where mr. clapper was asked a question that clearly was looking at the metadata program and he says -- the question is is the government collecting data on millions of -- hundreds of millions of americans? he said, no, not wittingly. that was not a truthful answer. what he should have done, i do not know. i think you have to worry about

whether in the new system, the government is sufficiently candid when it testified. bob: on the issue of the cia's program, we are talking about surveillance. i think the president has admitted that that is wrong. i am in it -- i am an expert on the clapper case. i have written to the "new york times" and "new yorker" on this. when you say they were untruthful, that is not correct. as a lawyer, you know the difference between an untruth and a mistake. when clapper was asked that question, it was a public hearing and rector clapper said for him, he liked public hearings as much as he liked root canals or folding sheets.

he had two huge notebooks to prepare for the hearing, neither which talked about surveillance. we were notified the day before that said or widen was going to ask this question. -- that senator wyden was going to ask this question. he was hit unaware by the question. if you read his answer, it is perfectly clear that he is thinking about the 702 program when he talks about not wittingly collecting. after this hearing, i went to him and said, you know, you were wrong. it was perfectly clear that he had absolutely forgotten the existence of the 215 program. this is not an untruth or falsehood, this was a mistake on his part. we all make mistakes. i would say i made a mistake as well thereafter because i did not think to counsel him that we should immediately send a classified letter to the committee correcting the record. i wish we had done that time. his lawyer let him down in that

regard. people make mistakes all the time and that was just a mistake. sean: to get to the yes or no, yes to a new church committee or no? fritz: i think a new church committee would be useful. not to come up with more dr. king stories, i agree, i do not think that will happen, but to assess how well the programs are working, how well the congressional oversight is working, and what is it that we do not know -- i'm sure there is quite a lot -- that the public should know. there are things that we do not know that we should know. sean: i would add, things that people may be have forgotten. mika: on the question of whether or not you need a new church committee that is separate from the standing committees -- or the existing intelligence committees, i would say that this is something the

intelligence committees themselves could do if they were properly resourced to do that. i think the kinds of stuff that they have on board or the number would not be sufficient to the task. i think also the question that you are asking in this context is very different. bob is right, the numbers of committee knew the contours of what edward snowden rigged deal -- revealed. but, their level of knowledge was much greater than the average person. there is a separate question that is useful for inquiry. as we look at these surveillance programs, can we make an assessment about how effective they are and then make some judgment about the level of outrage that could occur if the programs were revealed or the levels of outrage that occurs based on the knowledge of the

programs now jack against the benefit to the nation in terms of national security. i think the national security would value the programs very differently, and given to outrage, might make a different regulation on whether or not they need to keep, or whether or not they could work around whether or not there are technical solutions out there that would allow them to do the things they need to do to protect the nation, without collecting, or requiring the communications of millions of people, potentially billions of people, who are unrelated to any national security interest. shot: this gets significantly to the access of information. can you describe the difference there? do you think it is the appropriate line? mika: yes.

well the fact that most intelligence programs are overseen by a smaller group of people, i think it is right. if get wrist national security if some of these programs are revealed. how we target al qaeda or groups that are trying to do the united states harm, you want to keep that to a small group of people. whether or not you can share clearly the senate made a difficult relations in the house in sharing information with its broader membership. sean: let's take a particular example. we know instances where our representatives claim to have been denied access to information, in light of these leaks. should a representative be able to get the information? the representative, him or

herself? mika: in the senate, if the said it had amended the information the senate intelligence committee would have given an individual senator access to those things. i'm not quite sure what the rationale is in drawing a difference between the house and senate. pbob: to be clear, that is based on house rules. sean: on a similar note, you talk about staff designees. one thing that i have heard that is a problem for a number of staff is clearance. can you explain the difference between the clearance system, which is necessary to ask this information -- and i could jump

to the trees, but by your estimate, how many staffers outside of the house intelligence committee have clearance to use this information? ms. eoyang: not all policy is created equal. on the intelligence committee, they would have access to depending on the jurisdiction access to broader swaths of inspiration. the committee staff, it generally has sci clearances that entitle them to deal with programs that the military needs for its war-fighting capabilities. there are a few sci cleared staff on committees, but for the most part, most members of congress do not have someone cleared at that level to assist them with doing oversight of these things. mr. vitka: does this strike you

as a problem mr. schwarz: it was not a problem for us. as i read about it, the senators and congressmen are enormously busy and they are given a limited amount of time and they cannot have a staff person who often is more broadly knowledgeable, and that is a problem. my guess is the intelligence community ought to be able to decide if staff people are deserving of high-level clearances, and then they could get rid of this rule that seems to say to senators and representatives you got to do it all on your own and you got a limited time, but why cant they clear high-level staff people on the committee's or elsewhere in the congress? ms. eoyang: if i could say why it is important why members of

congress are not left on their own. because your average member of congress comes from a walk of life where they may not necessarily have expertise in the law or in technology. without someone else to explain to them how these programs work they may not understand what the aggregation of metadata can do in terms of a privacy infringement, or understand the scope of the law in the fourth amendment when they are evaluating these programs. members of congress i think for the most part are looking at programs and asking themselves, is this couple to secure our nation? that is an important question, but the need for other questions where they may need help in order to frame the question appropriately and understand the answer comes back. mr. vitka: i would like to get b ob's opinion quick. there is a video of a representative saying in

response to aggression from a town hall meeting, saying effectively that representatives could not have axis as they wanted as they were potential security vulnerabilities, which seems inflammatory. i do not put that on the committee. that is a political actor with a political statement. rob, from your perspective representing there is a level of transparency, is this too far, or there could be more transparency, access to classified information for at least one person in the 435 offices in the house -- do you think that is too far? mr. litt: i do not have a particular view on that. when the church committee made its recommendations, there was a need to strike a allen spring congressional oversight and secrecy of intelligence operations. the balance that was struck at that time in both houses was to

set up an intelligence committee . we are required to keep the committee informed of all intelligence activities, and by and large we do that. and they have got ample staff and not all of them are cleared into every compartment. the same is true for my office. there are programs on which i am the only person in my office, and there are programs i am not readied on. some of these are -- but the essential compromise made was we would be opened with the intelligence committees and they would serve as standards for the rest of the congress. question is whether the congress wants to modify that and how effective the oversight is going to be when it is oversight by all 535 members. in advance of reauthorization of some of these provisions several years ago, we offered briefings to all members, and few members bothered to show up, including some members who are now complaining they were never

informed about these programs. if these matters are the importance the people say they are. members of congress should be allowed to come. i do not know -- ms. eoyang: they can leave notes there and leave them there later. they cannot take them back to their office. mr. vitka: could they talk to other representatives who did not make it about what they learned? ms. eoyang: bob and i might differ, but the speech and debate clause would protect members from talking to each other, if they are talking do they protect speech on the four of the house. if they were talking to each other, i do not know how the executive branch would say to a

member of congress, you cannot do that. the classification limitations are an executive branch by regulation system. it has never been tested as to whether or not they could actually bind members of congress in the ways they communicate inside the legislative branch. mr. vitka: that seems precarious to me, but i want to move on, but you see that freedom act is going to be in front of most staff very soon, certainly in front of a lot of staff. one of the things we have seen lost between last year and this year and the veriest -- -- very art transparency provisions. these are not provisions designed to rein in or curtail surveillance. as an advocate, it is confusing and alarming to see transparency and the bargaining table. for instance, in the current version of the usa freedom

there is no longer a requirement to state how many u.s. persons are affected by collection. why are we having this fight? what is transparency to think we would be willing to give up, and i would add this into the intelligence community's credit that one of the things we lost was the top line of 702 effect, and it is reported now, that the freedom act has a lower standard for 702 searches. i could be mistaken, but i am curious why is it that the transparency is on the line as this moves politically? maybe this is a political question or that the intelligence committee is opposing. ms. eoyang: i cannot speak to what happened on 215, and since that primarily is a law enforcement program related to title 18 authorities, it is not

my expertise. patrick might have more sense of where that was in negotiations. i do not know if i have a good answer on that. mr. toomey: i can only speak what was the bill at one point what is not in the bill anymore. and what i would like to see or expect in terms of transparency. previous versions of the usa freedom put forward last session provided certain transparency figures around the number of u.s. persons who are affected by 702 surveillance and other figures about the number of u.s. persons affected eye the other authorities addressed by the bill. a number of those provisions have been stripped out, and that is concerning in my perspective because the logic behind the hill created was -- the bill created that the there was some necessary or predictable and be doing the about the how the hill

would operate on the front and in terms of structuring the specific election -- selection term and -- specific election terms. because of that and you do it become there were protections don't into the bill that were designed to both protect the information of innocent americans when it was collected and ended up in repositories like the corporate store of 215 phone records, and to provide the public with information about the scope of collection down the line. that came by the transparency figures. now in the version that has been proposed this session, a number of those key figures the figures that would tell you how many americans are ending up in the databases or subject to collection under these orders, have disappeared. not only that, but the fbi has extra exemptions. the agency engaged in law enforcement in the u.s. and that

may seek to make use of this information is exempted from providing information about backdoor searches of 702 data, searches for certain types of 215 information, and in a way that makes it impossible to understand how authorities that are being justified on grounds of intelligence are being used in the course of ordinary criminal investigations. mr. vitka: to go into the fbi exemption, bob i'm curious if you had thoughts on this. in your introduction he said that transparency could be improved. it could be improved right now couldn't it? mr. litt: as i also said, there is a balance that has to be struck between transparency and impact on security. i think while -- and i am not an expert in the details of the transparency provisions -- but is my understanding that some of the provisions were taken out and some of the existing provisions were strengthened. more detail was provided, and

more transparency in some areas. the fact is more you authorize release of information about specifically what we are doing the more you enable people to evade what we are doing and that is the balance that has to be struck in any kind of legislation like this. mr. vitka: i would think the most informative part there for policy makers would be the number of americans who are affected, and i do not mean the numbers who are targeted, that it would indicate a pretty broad number that would not drive down to something that would compromise surveillance operations. bob, is that the case, or am i mistaken? mr. litt: it is difficult for me to answer that. there are other considerations that go into the issues of exactly what we can and cannot report beyond is it a good idea

to report this or not and those are the kinds of things in many instances that i cannot talk about in this kind of a session. mr. vitka: would you agree it would be exculpatory for the community to say that 100,000 americans were affected versus 300,000 million americans? mr. litt: i am not comfortable with the word exculpatory. people would be happier if there were smaller numbers than if there are larger numbers. mr. schwarz: i think it is important to figures between transparency perspective the existence of the broad program versus, which i think in general there should be more of, versus transparency with respect to how decisions are made on who to target where i think that is something that there should not be transparency on. and to me, the founding error in

the metadata program was that when president bush instituted it and president obama continued it, he did not have an open discussion about whether the country should have such a program, and actually that seems to run through a little bit of yesterday's opinion by judge lynch. even dick cheney -- this is a that i discovered writing this book and nobody had seen before -- when he wrote his dissent in the iran-contra matter, he said if you have a hard foreign policy or national security issue, a wise president first would not engage in excessive secrecy, and, second, a wise president would have a full and open democratic discussion in

which he would attempt to persuade the public of the need for validity of a broad program. mr. vitka: the concept delineating between the number of people affected or how targets are picked, versus the program itself, i think is valuable, and it gets to a question that i would like a from everybody on. there is a trust problem that now exists, for whatever series of reasons. an example of a concern that i have was revealed through a usa today piece that came out last month that revealed that the dea had been conducting a meditative -- metadata collection program 10 years before 9/11. one of the concerns and maybe this is pessimism, eightieths is paranoia, putting on who it is or who you ask, is that stopping a program like the telephone metadata collection of ram that is ongoing -- collection program

that is ongoing under authority how do we know it does not show up under another 30? it is a sincere question that pre-much everybody, because there's no reason to hold the community to such a paranoid standard, but how do we get to that point? ms. eoyang: i think this question is a real challenge because of the compartmentalization of the staff they do for information protection reasons but you have to ask the question read what, and you have to parse the answer in order to ask follow-up questions. when you ask, are you doing this under this authority or are you doing this, meaning the witness at the table in front of you that individual may only know a piece of it, and they may say no, i do not, that does not mean it is lurking out there in other corners of the agencies come and some of the agencies are big and

the witness may not know what is going on. so it is a real challenge, and one of the challenges for the intelligence committee is it is a relatively small staff spread across a wide number of things. if that agency is doing the dollars, and have one person going through that entire agency to determine if there is a program hidden in a corner of it, it becomes a difficult challenge without access to the kinds of audit tools easy available in other places, and without the election challenges you have -- it resembles a litigious environment in terms of questioning. it feels like opposing counsel deposition where i'm going to ask you this question, now i will rephrase and at again. i think a lot of people in the committee -- community and the

agencies come with that need to know deeply ingrained attitude and so they are looking for ways not to necessarily reveal everything. on the armed services side, what i found on a committee is when you ask questions, the answers were much more. -- more fulsome. they may say somebody else does that, but that is not my program, but let me talk to you about some of the things. the answers were much more -- much broader on the armed services side than on the intelligence side. mr. vitka: does anybody else have any thoughts? mr. litt: a little dose of reality is useful here. remember the committees new about these programs and about the balk collection program and by virtue of our statutory requirement, if we do and other program, they will know about that as well, whatever authority it is done under.

in the last two years the intelligence community has come to recognize the reality of eleaks, and i think it would he a brave intelligence official who would say we're going to re-create a balk collection program. it is a part remember this program requires cooperation of telephone countries. to be unlikely you would be able to secure the cooperation of telephone companies in a program that was re-creating this. the prospect that this program could eat pre-created -- be re-created under this authority, willing to disregard all these outcomes, anything is possible. it is not going to happen. ms. eoyang: i would say thouguhgh, i was on the committee at a particular point in time. it is like "memento."

and so it is probably true that post snowden leaks that the committee has recognize that without a greater transparency the committees than they did at the time i was there. i was started in the bush administration, so a little more adversarial. the idea that members of congress have the confidence to say we know everything that is happening and there is nothing out there that if revealed he would be upset about, it is not something that at least when i was there they without confident in saying. that was not just because of a suspicion, but because they had had examples of programs that they had not previously been briefed to the had been ongoing, and as a result, on the committee, we conducted an investigation into what keeping the committee fully and completely informed actually meant, because they as my present committee felt like they were not fully and completely informed.

mr. schwarz: i have one thought. i think today the shelf life of secret of major programs is far shorter than it was during the cold war where you would have some program secret for 30 years. i do not think that is ever going to happen again for a variety of reasons. a, is that true, and b if it is true, what implications does it have for how the government and congress should relate to each other? mr. litt: i think it is true, and we are now at a position where everything that is undertaken by the intelligence community involves an assessment of what happens when this --leaks out and are the benefits worth

the risk. mr. toomey: if that is a change it is a recent change. the dea program lasted 20 years and only to like last in your area. i would also say that to the extent we are talking here princely about section 215 section 702, and maybe fisa's provision, we are leaving aside a huge number of programs that operate under executive order 12333, and staff may know what level of oversight exists over those authorities, but some statements by the members of the intelligence committees have suggested that the committees were not fully informed about those programs is by the fact that they had significant indications for the indications and privacy of u.s. persons. and i think that is supported by recent reporting that the senate intelligence committee is working even now on compiling what is called an encyclopedia

of executive order 12333 programs. a.b. there has been an uptick in oversight of those types of programs, but i do not think this historically and necessarily before 2013 that was the case. mr. litt: what reform we can did -- mr. vitka: what reform will convince you that that was not continuing? mr. toomey: now we are considering a different type of congressional oversight. one possibility would be to have congress involved in assessing in a way that fritz talked about the church committee and we are talking about just healthy today , and making some of the assessments around what should be disclosed to the public, what types of high-level description of the authorities government wants to use can be usefully disclosed to the public and to

the extent that the intelligence agencies want new authority and to the extent that the debate around usa freedom is whether we are confining the types of requests made to targeted grand jury like requests or usa freedom is designed to open up the door to data mining of americans' information, that is the type of debate that we believe should be happening in the public sphere and that the opinion yesterday suggested should be happening in the public sphere. mr. litt: could you briefly run -- mr. vitka: could you briefly run through what was happening yesterday. mr. toomey: yesterday it was decided aclu vs. clapper. the case was decided on statutory grounds. the court concluded the plaintiffs had standing to sue that their statutory claims

were not precluded, and that the bulk collection of phone records was not consistent with the authority that congress granted under section 215 when it passed that law or when it reformed 1 861 in 2001. mr. vitka: the collection is ongoing? mr. toomey: it was remanded to the district court for orderly resolution of what happens next in the case. mr. vitka: bob, i have a jurisdictional question that i do not answer to. the court of appeals for the second circuit, they say that this is unlawful. the opportunity to appeal at the supreme court. the fisa court of review is also an appeals court. does fisc have to listen to this if it stands? mr. litt: i'm not the right person to ask that. i think the answer is no i do

not think the court of appeals has direct up peel --direct authority over the fisa court. it is something they would take in account but i do nothing this binding upon them. mr. vitka: does that change given that the harms that the second circuit acknowledged are felt in that jurisdiction? mr. litt: again, i'm not a network in appellate jurisdiction. i do not think that is relevant to the question whether the second circuit has binding authority over a court that is not within the second circuit. i do not know, patrick, if you have a different view on that -- ms. eoyang: but the injunction would be. mr. litt: it would be binding on the persons who would be seen -- mr. toomey: the defendants are

the agency officials said the injunction would be directed at those officials. mr. litt: but there is no injection. i think the court made clear that was a deliberate decision on their part, not to issue an injunction, to play this out over the political process. mr. vitka: this touches usa freedom, nobody knows what is going to happen with it. in the event there is not legislation that changes the recording requirements, would you expect to maintain this same level of transparency have now question, with potential to increase it? mr. litt: yes, and i expect he would continue to do that. mr. vitka: fritz, in your book you have a number of harsh words for judicial subservient "the

courts are again undermining democracy. they undermine democracy by discounting the relationship between american democracy and citizens' access to information about what the government is doing." is this case a turning point? mr. schwarz: this is a court being more address -- aggressive where courts have not been. the judge you clerked for potter stewart's, back in the 1970's expressed the powerful arguments worrying about too much secrecy. in the mink case, where the supreme court held courts could not look at foya documents, but should amend the statute which the congress did potter stewart said the secrecy system

leads to cynical my up and even corrupt decisions. and then in the pentagon papers case -- i'm picking on you because you clerk for him -- complementing you because you clerk for him -- and the pentagon papers case, potter stewart said if everything is specified, then nothing is really classified. the courts are pretty open to challenges the government under foia and in some other areas and then they started just automatically decided in favor of the government over the last 15 years, at least. i think they are afraid. they are afraid to could be wrong, and they are afraid to do what the courts often do and deal with subjects they are not experts in. i think the courts themselves

see this -- say this. the several respected judges say we roll over in cases where the government -- foia case and state secrets case with the government raises a defense or in the foia case tries to deny information. maybe this is an era of courts being more willing to stand out but climate makes a difference, and they are reacting to how the public and the congress reacted to snowden, and they are saying maybe it is not quite so scary as we thought to go against the government. mr. vitka: i want to move on, because -- but i thought you might have the best you as to how mike this ruling influence of politics of this, the congressional will. ms. eoyang: i think the second

circuit put this back in congress' lap and say congress did not authorize this under 215 and if they want to be explicit about that, they need to ask. they made note of the timeline. there is an analysis of the 215 program that suggests they would not look kindly upon it the way it is currently constructed. i think there is politics in this. in the house you would not get a clean reauthorization of the program through, so the real question for senator mcconnell to take the legislation or do you let the program expire. mr. vitka: i want to highlight this was a reuters report, and it detailed an