caller: i don't see any reason why we are over there. [unintelligible] osama bin laden has been dead for three or four years. i don't see no reason for going in iran either. host: let me go back to the issue of bin laden. there is no confirmation he is dead. caller: i read it in a lot of news media and the internet. . .

caller: i think it is a war of choice. all wars are wars of choice. if we try harder, i think we could avoid most, if not all, wars. host: bill is joining us from north carolina. you say it is a war of necessity. why is that? caller: we are still battling radical islam. unfortunately, the taliban is still trying to reinforce [unintelligible] we also have to take into

consideration their using afghanistan and pakistan as a refuge for the radical element, and pakistan is a neutral power. we have to keep a presence over there and try to show that we can win this war, otherwise it gives the possibility of slipping back and bringing a worse situation. host: what do you think is a long-term solution? caller: i guess trying to change the attitude of afghans. i just wish that president obama would take more serious position, because mcchrystal has been asking for troops, at least with bush, when he asked for a kitchen sink, he would get two of them, but obama is saying let me get back with you, i have the health care and all that stuff. so i do not believe he should leave our men and women in uniform hanging out there in the wind. they need to get everything they

need to stay alive and to kill the enemy. host: in new interview will air sunday on "60 minutes." general mcchrystal saying the task of turning returning things around is worse than he expected. he is asking for additional troops. david roche joined us back in june here on c-span. "always there is dilution of the easy path. always there is the illusion which gripped all rumsfeld and now grips many democrats that you can find a counterinsurgency war with allied footprint, with cruise missiles, with special

forces operations and unmanned drones. always there is the illusion, deep in the bones of the pentagon's old or, if you confine a force like the taliban by keeping troops mostly in bases and then sending them out in well armored convoys to kill bad guys. there is simply no historical record to support these allusions. the historical evidence suggests that these middling strategies just create a situation in which you have enough forces to assume responsibility for conflict, but not enough to prevail. matt is joining us from pontiac, michigan. caller: 19 of the hijackers were from saudi arabia. where are to fight anyone, it should have been them. it is on winnable, for one thing. host: if you take the argument that the taliban has set up camp in afghanistan, how would you resolve those tensions or

those issues? caller: let them be. who cares? it does not bother me none. host: terry joining us from fort worth, texas. good morning. caller: i believe it is a war of choice, and i disagree with that article that you just read. the thing about it is that we had the technology in vietnam to do a lot of the things, they are so sophisticated now, it is unbelievable. we do not need men on the ground. we can do the job. we have plenty of technology to get the job done, and all they are doing is the same thing they did in vietnam. give us more men, give us more men. all you are doing is saying give us more targets. the thing about it is, this whole thing has been a fiasco.

now they want to completely ruin our economy by trying to take our men over there, and is not right. we have had the technology since vietnam to detect roadside bombs, and i know that for a fact, because i flew in helicopters. what we are having all these roadside bombs, that is what bothers me. i know the technology we had. it was crude, and is much more sophisticated now. there is something rotten in denmark here, and i just not understand why. they used the same thing in vietnam, give us more people, because more people. but it did not work. the thing about it is, we pulled out. why does it take so long to train people when they only give

us a short period time in the united states to train us and then send us to war, and we fight? and then we find out about who really has the ability to be in combat, and the ones that do not, they take them out of combat, and they try somebody else. host: did you serve in the military? caller: yes, i did, i was a crew chief in vietnam. and i can tell you right now, there is something rotten in denmark. although it was crude, we had the ability to do all the things they need to do to win that war, and when it quick. host: i will stop you at that point. should president obama send additional troops to afghanistan? half of those surveyed opposed sending additional troops. three of the five killings overnight are attributed to

roadside bombs. this, it from joe -- this comment from joe. stanley mcchrystal, who will appear on "60 minutes" on sunday, talking about the situation with david martin. >> or things worse or better than you expected? >> there are probably a little worse. i think that in some areas, the geographic spread of violence, places to the north and west, or more than i would have gathered. >> that violence is catalog in the briefing books he scans every morning at his headquarters in kabul. but he does not trust them to give him a real sense of what is happening out there amid all the ambushes and firefights. two or three times a week he gets on a helicopter to see for himself.

>> you can watch from the predator and see what is going on. you cannot give yourself that you know what is going on. but there is a danger that you do. you are not on the ground. you do not feel it. you do not hear the bullets. host: that was an excerpt from the interview that in -- that airs sunday night on a 06 demands." is afghanistan of war of choice or necessity. use a necessity. why? caller: i am afraid there would be a proliferation of al qaeda if we do not go along with what general mcchrystal is suggesting. my concern is that it will turn into the ho chi minh trail, like it did with vietnam, it knowing

that a lot of al qaeda at this in the borderlands of pakistan. that is my greatest concern. host: let me go back to the comments of david brooks. you can read more this morning from "the new york times." caller: it is a war of choice. every al qaeda plots that they have issued arrest warrants for

in the united states, it was always founded by an fbi informant. i am surprised at c-span has not come out with this. in the definition -- in a deposition, she named congressman -- she also said a lot of people had foreknowledge of 9/11. then you have a guy who was on the 9/11 commission and he has just written a book that said all the information was wrong. host: some of the bases from the senate finance committee that could go in it next week. senator chuck grassley of iowa. above that is a piece with this

headline. the essence of the story is that democratic political committees have seen a decline in their fund-raising fortunes this year, a result of complacency among the rank-and-file donors and a de facto boycott by many of the wealthiest givers, who been put off by the harsh rhetoric. >> we leave this recorded segment now to take you live to the g-20 summit in pittsburgh, where obama is expected to arrive shortly to speak with reporters. leaders of the world's 20 largest economies have wrapped up their meetings to buy u.s. efforts to control the global recession. president obama will be here momentarily. >> ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states, barack obama.

>> that afternoon -- good afternoon. let me first of all thank the mayor, the county executive, and the people of pittsburg for being extraordinary hosts. last night during the dinner that i had with world leaders, so many of them commented on the fact that sometime in the past that have been to pittsburg, in some cases 20 or 25 or 30 years ago, and coming back, they were so impressed with the revitalization of the city. a number of them remarked on the fact that it pointed to lessons that they could take away in revitalizing manufacturing towns in their home countries. the people here have been just extraordinary, and so i want to

thank all of you for the great hospitality. i will tell you, i am a little resentful, because i did not get pamela stunner for pancakes, although -- pamela's diner for pancakes. yukio hatoyama did get pancakes, and he was raving about them. six months ago, said that the london summit marked a turning point in the g-20's efforts to prevent economic catastrophe. here in pittsburgh, we have taken several significant steps forward to secure our recovery and transition to a strong, sustainable, and economic growth. we brought the global economy back from the brink. we laid the groundwork today for long-term prosperity as well.

it is worth recalling the situation we faced six months ago, the contracting economy, skyrocketing unemployment, stagnant trade, and a financial system that was nearly frozen. some were warning of a second great depression. but because of the bold and coordinated action we took, millions of jobs have been saved or created. the decline in output has been stopped. financial markets have come back to life, and we stop the crisis from spreading further to the developing world. still, we know there is much further to go. to many americans are still at work, and struggling to pay bills. too many families are uncertain about what the future will bring, because our global economy is now finally interconnected. we need to act together to make sure a recovery creates new jobs and industries, while preventing the kinds of imbalances and abuse that led us into this crisis. pittsburg was a perfect venue for this work.

this city has known a share of hard times. older industries like steel could no longer sustain growth, but pittsburg picked itself up and dust itself off and is making the transition to job- creating industries of the future, from biotechnology to clean energy. serves as a model for turning the page to a 21st century economy, and a reminder that the key to our future prosperity lies not just in new york or los angeles or washington, but in places like -- like pittsburgh. today we took bold and concerted action to secure that prosperity and to forge a new framework for strong, sustainable, and balanced growth. first, we agreed to sustain a recovery plans and to growth is restored and a new framework for prosperity is in place. hard-core natives in his plans lading indispensable role in averting catastrophe. now we must make sure that when

broker turns, jobs do, too. that is what will continue our stimulus efforts until our employees are back to work and face them out when our recovery is strong. going for, which cannot tolerate the same old boom and bust economy of the past. we cannot grow complacent. we cannot wait for prices to cooperate. that is our new framework allowing each of us to assess the other's policies, to build consensus on reform, and to ensure that global demand supports growth for all. second, we agreed to take concrete steps to move forward with tough new financial regulations that do so that a crisis like this can never happen again. never should we let the schemes of a few put the well-being of others at risk. those who act irresponsibly must not count on taxpayer dollars. those days are over. that is why we have agreed to a

strong set of reforms. we will bring more transparency to the derivatives market. we will strengthen national capital standards so that banks can withstand losses and pay for their own risk. we will create more powerful tools to hold an initial firms accountable and have orderly procedures to manage balers without hurting taxpayers. we will tie executive pay to long-term performance so that some decisions are rewarded instead of short-term greed. in short, our financial system will be far different and more secure than the one that failed so dramatically last year. third, we agreed to phase out subsidies for fossil fuel so that we can transition to a 21st -- to a 21st century energy economy. this reform will increase our energy security. it will help transform our economy so that we are creating the clean energy jobs of the future.

it will help us combat the threat posed by climate change. as i said in new york, all nations have a responsibility to meet this challenge, and together we have taken a substantial step forward in meeting their responsibility. finally, we agreed to reform our system of global economic cooperation in governments. we can no longer meet the challenge of the 21st century with twentieth century approaches. that is why the g-20 will take the lead in building a new approach to cooperation, to make our institutions reflect the reality of our times. we will shift more responsibility to emerging economies within the international monetary fund, and give them greater voice. to build new markets and help the world's most moeller will citizens climb out of poverty, we established a new world bank up trust fund to support investments in food security and financing for plane and affordable energy. to ensure that we keep our

commitments, we agreed to continue to take stock of our efforts going forward. we have learned and time again that in the 21st century, the nations of the world share mutual interests. that is why i have called for a new era of engagement that yields real results for our people, an era when nations live up to their responsibilities and act on behalf of our shared security and prosperity. that is exactly the kind of strong cooperation we forged here in pittsburg and earlier this week in new york. on issue after issue, we see that the international community is beginning to move forward together. at the g-20, we have achieved a level of tangible, global economic cooperation we have never seen before, while acting to address the threat posed by climate change. we passed a historic resolution to secure nuclear materials, to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, and to seek the security of a world without them. as we approach negotiations with

iran on october 1, we have never been more united in standing with the united kingdom, france, russia, china, and germany in demanding that iran live up to its responsibilities. on all these challenges, there is much more work to be done, but we leave here today more confident and more united in the common effort of advancing security and prosperity for all our people. so i am very grateful to the other world leaders to review today. with that, let me take a few questions. >> the iranian president today said that your statement of this morning was a mistake, and that your mistakes work in iran does he favor. what gives you any sense that he continually negotiate with him, and when you hop -- when you talk about holding iran accountable, is the military option growing more likely? >> i think it is important to

see what happened today, building on what happened in new york. you had an unprecedented show of unity on the part of the world community, saying that iran was the action raises grave doubts in terms -- iran's action raises grave doubts. not only did the united states, france, and the united kingdom, who initiated the intelligence that brought this to likght stad before you, but you had china and russia as well issue statements calling for an immediate iaea investigation. that kind of solidarity is not typical. anybody who has been following responses to iran would have been doubtful just a few months ago that that kind of rapid response was possible.

so i think iran is on notice that when we meet with them on october 1, they are going to have to come clean, and they are going to have to make a choice. are they willing to go down the path that i think ultimately it will lead to greater prosperity and security for iran, giving up the acquisition of nuclear weapons and deciding they are willing to abide by international rules and standards in their pursuit of peaceful nuclear energy, or will they continue down a path that is going to lead to confrontation? as i said before, what has changed is that the international community has spoken. it is now up to iran to respond. i am not going to speculate on the course of action that we will take.

we will give october 1 chance -- a chance, but i think you have heard that even countries who a year or six months ago might have been reluctant to even discuss things like sanctions have said that this is an important enough issue to peace and stability in the world that iran would make a mistake in ignoring the call for them to respond in a forthright and clear manner, and to recognize that the choice they make over the next several weeks and months could well determine their ability to rejoin the international community or to find themselves isolated. the last point i will make specifically with respect to the military, i have always said that we do not rule out any

options when it comes to u.s. security interests, but i will also reemphasized that i -- my preferred course of action is to resolve this in a diplomatic fashion. it is up to the iranians to respond. >> he said a couple of months ago that the war in afghanistan is a war of necessity. do you think it is possible to meet u.s. objectives there without an extra infusion of u.s. troops? as you consider this, how does the public's flagging support for the war affect your decision making now, and how is your review process been affected by the allegations of election fraud? >> first of all, let me be clear on our goals. we went into afghanistan not

because we were interested in entering that country or positioning ourselves regionally, but because al qaeda killed 3000 plus americans and vowed to continue trying to kill americans. and so my overriding goal is to dismantle the al qaeda network', to destroy their capacity to inflict harm, not just on us, but people of all faiths and nationalities all around the world, and that is our overriding focus. stability in afghanistan and pakistan are critical to that mission. after several years of drift in afghanistan, we now find

ourselves in a situation in which you have strong commitments from our nato allies, all of them are committed to making this work, but i think there's also a recognition that after that many years of trip, it is important that we examine our strategy is to make sure that they actually can deliver on preventing al qaeda from establishing safe havens. obviously the allegations of fraud with the recent election are of concern to us, and we are still awaiting results. we are awaiting the iec issuing their full report. what is most important is that there is a sense of legitimacy in afghanistan among the afghan people for the government. if there is not, that makes our task much more difficult.

in terms of the review process we are going through, the minute i came into office, we initiated a review, and even before the review was completed, i ordered 21,000 additional troops into afghanistan, because i thought it was important to secure the election, to make sure that the taliban did not disrupted. what i also said at the time was that after the election, we were going to reassess our strategy, precisely because so much of our success has to be linked to the ability of the afghan people themselves to provide for their own security. the afghan government's ability to deliver services, opportunity, and hope to their people. so we are doing exactly what i said we would do in march. i put in a new commander, general mcchrystal, and i asked him to give me an unvarnished assessment of the situation in afghanistan. he has done that as well.

but keep in mind that from the start, my belief was, and this is shared with our allies, that our military strategy is only part of a broader project that has to include a civilian component, a diplomatic components, and all those different factors are being weighed and considered at this point. i will ultimately make this decision based on what will meet that core goal that i set out at the beginning, which is to dismantle, disrupt, and destroy the al qaeda network. with respect to public opinion, i understand the public's wariness of this war -- weariness of this war, given that it comes on top of weariness about the war in iraq.

every time we get report of a young man or woman who has fallen in either of those theaters of war, it is a reminder of the extraordinary sacrifice they are making. i know that our partners in afghanistan feel that same pain when they see their troops harm to. -- when they see their troops armeharmed. we are asking some tough questions. we will not arrive -- arrive at perfect answers. anyone who has looked at that situation realizes it is difficult and complicated. my solemn obligation is to make sure that i get the best answers possible, particularly before i make decisions about sending additional troops into the theater.

>> let me ask you, while we were inside this very safe and secure and beautiful convention center, some 5000 demonstrators were on the outside. some caused some property damage. others just shouted their messages, much of which had to do that what you believe the g- 20 summit was a success and represents a positive sign, they see it as something devilish and destructive of the world economy, and particularly the economy of the poor. what is your response to those who are demonstrating and those who oppose this summit? >> first of all, it is important to keep things in perspective for the people of pittsburg. if you have looked at any of the other summits that took place, in london, you have hundreds of thousands of people on the streets.

at most of these summits, there has been a much more tumultuous response. i think the mayor and the county -- account executive at all people of pittsburg deserve extraordinary credit for having managed what is a very tranquil g-20 summit. i think that many of the protests are just directed generically and capitalism -- at capitalism, and they object to the existing global financial system. they object to free markets. one of the great things about the united states is that you can speed your mind and you can protest ridgy you can speak your mind and you can protest. that is part of our tradition. i disagree that the free market is the source of all ills.

ironically, if they had been paying attention to what was taking place inside the summit itself, they would have heard a strong recognition from the most diverse collection of leaders in history that it is important to make sure that the market is working for ordinary people, the government has a role in regulating the market in ways that do not cause the kinds of crises that we have just been living through, that our emphasis has to be on more balance, including making sure that growth is bottom up and workers, ordinary people, are able to pay their bills, make a decent living, send their children to college, and that

the more that we focus on how the least of these are doing, the better of all of us are going to be. that principle was embodied in a communique that was issued. i would recommend those who were out there protesting, if they are actually interested, in knowing what was taking place, to read the communique that was issued. >> i would like to follow up on iran. since iran seems to be so blatantly in reach of its international obligations and with some of your allies growing impatient, why even meet with the iranians on october 1? can you also explain to us what happened between the end of 2007, when an intelligence estimate cast doubt on the fact that iran was pursuing nuclear

weapons and this year? what credit should be given to such intelligence >> first of all, with respect to the intelligence that we presented to the iaea, this was the work product of three intelligence agencies, not just one. these intelligence agencies checked over this work in a painstaking fashion, precisely because we did not want any ambiguity about what exactly was going on. i think that the response you saw today indicates the degree to which this intelligence is solid, and increase the degree to which iran was instructing enrichment facility that it had not declared, contrary to u.n.

resolutions and contrary to the rules governing the iaea. in terms of meeting, i have said repeatedly that we are going to operate on two tracks, that our preferred method of action is diplomatic, but if that does not work, then other consequences may follow. i also said, and this was debated extensively here in the united states, because there were some who suggested you cannot talk to iran, what is the point? by keeping the path of diplomacy open, that would actually strengthen world unity and our collective efforts to then hold iran accountable. i think you are starting to see the product of that strategy unfolds during course of this week. what we saw at the united nations in the security council

was a strong affirmation of the principles of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty, and as a consequence, the iaea has strengthened, and those countries to follow the rules are strengthened when it comes to dealing with countries like north korea and iran that do not follow the rules. that means that when we find that diplomacy does not work, we will be in a much stronger position, for example to apply sanctions that have bite. as i said, that is not the preferred course of action. i would love nothing more than to see iran choose the responsible pat. whether they do so or not, will ultimately depend on their leaders, and they will have the next few weeks to show to the world which path that want to

travel -- which pat they want to travel. i will take one last question. i have to call on one of these guys. they are my constituency here. >> you just mentioned sanctions that have bite. what kind of sanctions, and i know you cannot get into details, but what kind of sanctions would have bite with iran? some of your visors today said that this announcement was a victory. do you consider it a victory, and if so, why didn't you announce it earlier, since you have known since president- elect? >> this is not a football game, so i am not interested in victory. i am interested in resolving the problem.

the problem is that iran repeatedly says it is pursuing nuclear energy only per peaceful purposes, and its actions contradict its words. as a consequence, the region is more insecure, and vital u.s. interests are threatened. my job is to try to solve that, and my expectation is that we are going to explore with our allies, a wide range of options in terms of how we approach iran, should iran declined to engage in the ways that are responsible. you just told me i am not going to get into details by sanctions, and you are right, i will not. but i think they do have the

international community making a strong united front, that iran is going to have to pay attention. in terms of why we did not come out with this sooner, i already mentioned that it is very important in these kinds of high stakes situations to make sure that the intelligence is right, and we wanted all three agencies, the french, the brits, and the americans to have thoroughly scrubbed this and to make sure that we were absolutely confident about the situation. we are, and now it is up to iran to respond. thank you very much, everybody. i hope you enjoyed pittsburg. thank you. [applause]

>> join book tv live saturday for the national book festival here in washington. we will kick off our coverage with the founder of the festival, former first lady, laura bush, and all day, authors including a net gordon reed, ken burns, plus your phone calls. also, afterword. find the whole schedule online that booktv.org. >> supreme court which is just a week away, featuring interviews with the justices. >> why is it that we have an elegant, astonishingly beautiful, imposing, impressive structure? it is to remind us that we have an important function, and to

remind the public when it seized the building of the importance and the centrality of the law. >> supreme court weak stock -- start sunday, october 4, on c- span. to complement our original production, c-span of procedures for resources on the judicial system. >> several sections of the u.s. a patriot act expire at the end of the year, some of which give the fbi expanded surveillance power. a house judiciary subcommittee heard testimony earlier this week on whether or not to extend the provisions. jerrold nadler of new york is the chairman. subcommittee civil rights will come to order.

reck mize mysel >> today's hearing gives the members of the committee the opportunity to review the u.s. a patriot act, three provisions are scheduled to expire later this year. these three provisions deal with wiretap authority. section 215 allows the government to obtain records and has aroused a great deal controversy and concern. some have argued that each of these authorities remain necessary tools in nevada against terrorism that they must be extended without any modifications. review and modification. some allow all of these orp authorities to sunset. additionally i believe we should not miss the opportunity to review the act it ins entirety to examine how it is working where it's been successful and where it may need impro. for example, i've introduced for the last few years the national security levels

reform act which would make some vital improvements to the current law in order better to protect civil liberties while ensure nsls remain a useful tofl -- tool in national security investigation. two. -- i have long believed civil liberties and national security need not be in conflict and i hope to work with my colleagues to strike that balance and responsible and effective american. we have some outstanding witnesses today with great deal of experience and knowledge in this area. especially pleased the administration sent a witness to assist the committee in its work and explain the administration's views. i would note mr. hinnen's testimony states at the out set the administration is ready and willing to work with members on any specific proposals we may have to craft legislation that both provides effective investigative authority and protects privacy and civil liberties close quote. whatever disagreements we may have on any particular provision or approach i want to note this attitude is a refreshing break with recent

practice well take the administration at its word and i for one intend to hold it to that. i look forward to working with the administration and with my colleagues to craft legislation that protects our national security and our fundamental values. i look forward to the testimony and i thank our witnesses for being here today. i yield back and i now recognize the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee for five minutes for your opening statement. >> thank you mr. chairman. two weeks ago this country honored the 3,000 innocent people killed in the 9/11 terrorist attacks. in 100 days the tools to prevent another horrific attack on america will expire. wheel i appreciate the chairman holding this hearing today, it's long overdue. congress must reauthorize the expiring provisions of the patriot act before december 31st of the year and -- of this year and the clock is ticking. in 2001 the usa patriot act was passed with wide bipart support and in this committee i would remind the members and everybody else

is that we spent a month considering it. we had two hearings and we had markup. in 2005 i again spearheaded the effort to reauthorize the patriot act. recognize the significance of the act to america's counterterrorism operations and the need for thorough oversight this committee held 9 subcommittee hearings there days of full committee hearings and completed its markup of the reauthorization all before the august recess. hardly a procedural rush job. i am deeply concerned we are weeks away from adjourning this ledge slay tuf session and now only beginning the process of reviewing the ad. during a senate confirmation hearing in january attorney general holder said he wanted to examine the expiring provisions of the patriot act. talked to investigators and lawyers and get a sense of what has worked and what needs to be changed. in may general holder appeared before this committee and i asked him about the department's position on reauthorizing the act.

again he said he needed to examine how the expiring provisions have been used and to gather more empirical information. he assured me that the department would express its views with sufficient time to reauthorize the act. just last week the obama administration finally made public its views on the three expiring provisions. i am dismayed as to why it took nine months to assess just three measures. but i commend the administration for recognizing the value of these important national security tools and rightly encouraging congress to reauthorize each of them. the administration has also promised to reject any changes to these or other patriot act provisions that would undermine their effectiveness. of particular importance to me is the lone wolf provision which closes the gap in the foreign intelligence surveillance act. that if allowed to expire could permit an individual terrorist to slip through the cracks and endanger thousands of innocent lives.

when fisa was originally enacted in the 1970s terrorists were believed to be members of an unidentified group. this is not the case today. many modern day terrorists may subscribe to a movement or certain beliefs that they don't belong to or identify themselveses with a specific terrorist group. allowing the lone wolf provision to expire could impede our ability to gather intelligence about perhaps the most dangerous terrorists operating today. section 206 of the patriot act authorizes the use of roving wiretaps for national security and intelligence investigation. the roving wiretap allows the government to use a single wiretap order to cover any communications device that the target uses or may use. without roving wiretap authority investigators would be forced to seek a new court order each time they need to change the location, phone or computer that needs to be honored. director muller testified before the committee in may that this provision has been

used over 140 times and is exceptionally useful for facilitating fbi investigations. section 215 of the act allows the fbi to apply to the fisa court the issue orders granting the government access to any tangible aitems in foreign intelligence international terrorism or clandestine intelligence cases the pi tri yot improvement and reauthorization act of 2005 significantly expanded the safeguards against professional or potential abuse of section 215 authority including additional congressional oversight. procedural protection application requirements and judicial review. according to director mueller this provision has been used over 230 times. the terrorist threat did not end on september 11, 2001. just last week federal authorities disrunned a potential -- disrupted a potential al-qaeda bombing plot that stretched from new york city to denver and

beyond. it's time for this community to act. we must not allow these critical counterintelligence tools to expire and i look forward to hearing from today's wrnss and -- witnesses and yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you i must say i wish i was as confident as the gentleman from wisconsin that this session has only weeks to go. i now recognize the distinguished chairman of the full committee mr. conyers for an0% statement. >> thank you chairman nadler and i wanted to thank jim sensenbrenner for his recapitulation of those days in the judiciary committee of where so much happened. i'm also pleased to see tom evans our former colleague from delaware back on the hill. now, the patriot act is nearly 8 years old after many

hearings and multiple inspector general reports of the use and abuse of this law and after much work by scholars in the field we've learned that since this law was rushed through congress in the week after the 9/11 attack we have to recall this with some specificity. the hearings that then chairman sensenbrenner referred to were leading up to a bill that was sent to rules committee that never got out of rules committee. and that bill that the chairman and me the ranking member worked on so carefully was unanimously

reported out of the house judiciary committee. record vote. and then the bill went to the rules committee and then chairman drier under lord knows whose instructions substituted that bill for another bill that we in judiciary had never seen. and so we come here today now to consider what we do with those parts that are expiring. and so i wanted to make a

couple ideas, give you a couple ideas about what might have happened if the bill that we debated and voted out and chairman nadler was there, ranking member lamar smith was there and the bill that we voted out required that targets of so-called roving wiretaps be identified the a fisa court order. to prevent john doe roving wiretaps that some experts and many commentators consider abusive. that was our bill. bipartisan. 100%. another feature of that bill

required extensive and robust oversight of the executive branches' use of surveillance powers. which might have had -- headed off the 2004 crisis at the department of justice caused by then president bush's warrantless domestic surveillance program. also in the bill was a requirement for extensive reporting and certification requirements and created clear avenues for people affected by patriot act violations to claim redress. which may have eliminated certainly simplified the extensive litigation about the pi tri yot a -- patriot abuses that continue to this day. and timely the current

administration has recommended reviewing these provisions that are expyring and they have su -- expiring and they are supported their simple extension. i disagree. and i want to hear some more detail about these. especially the infamous lone wolf statute which has never been used. and which there is some question as to whether it's necessary at all. now, the administration has stated that the protection of privacy and civil liberties is of deep and abiding concern. and they're willing to work on legislation that provides effective investigative authorities the power they

need but at the same time protect the rights and civil liberties and privacy of the people that are under investigation. and so i think it's critical that every member of this committee has accepted this invitation to work with the administration. and so now's the time to consider improving the patriot act. not simply extend the three expirg provisions which -- expiring provisions which is a point of view. no less valid than any other. but please judiciary committee let's consider what we've done, let's consider what was done to

us. and let's consider where we go from here. and i thank you for your time chairman nadler. >> i thank the chairman. i now recognize for an opening statement the distinguished ranking member of the full committee the gentleman from texas mr. smith. >> thank you mr. chairman. is my mike on? >> it is. thank you mr. chairman. america is fortunate not to have experienced a terrorist attack since 2001 but we must not be lulled into a false sense of security. the threat from terrorists and others who wish to kill americans remains high. in the 8 years since the attacks of september 11, 2001 al-qaeda and other terrorist organizations have continued their war against innocent civilians worldwide. in 2004 119 people were killed in the -- 191 people were killed in the madrid train bombs in 200552 innocent civilian killed

when suicide bombers attacked the london subway and last year 164 people were killed in mumbai by a pakistan based terrorist organization. counterterrorism tools helped british and american authorities foil the 2006 plot to attack as many as 10 airplanes flying from great britain to the u.s. two week ago three of the plotters were convicted of planning to blow up passenger planes using liquid explosives according to british prosecutors if the terrorists had been successful they would have killed thousands of innocent passengers. in 2007 federal authorities thwarted two terrorist attempts on u.s. soil. a plot to kill u.s. soldiers at the fort dix army base and a platt to borm jfk international airport by planning explosives around fuel tanks and a fuel pipeline. again surveillance and investigative technique saved lives. many of these plots would not have been thwarted the terrorists would not have been convicted and thousands of lives would not have been saved without the patriot

act. the patriot act gives intelligence officials the ability to investigate terrorists and prevent attacks. we cannot afford to let these lifesaving provisions expire. last march i introduced the safe and secure america act of 2009 to extend for 10 years sections 206 and 215 of the u.s. patriot act and sections 6001 of the intelligence reform and terrorism prevention act of 2004 which are scheduled to sunset on december 31st. for years the patriot act has been subject of misinformation rumors and innuendoes about how intelligence officials can use its provisions. as congress once again considers these provisions we must ensure that the debate is about facts, not fiction. the expirg the expiring provisions we are considering today are designed to be used only by intelligence officials investigating

terrorist and spies in cases involving national security. despite allegations that the patriot act is unconstitutional, these provisions have been upheld in court and are similar to those used in criminal investigations. the patriot act simply applies the same provisions to intelligence gathering in national security investigations. the director of the fbi in testimony before the house and senate judiciary committee's earlier this year urged congress to renew what he called exceptional intelligence gathering tools. the obama administration decided last week that it agrees with the director and finally called for reauthorization of the three expiring patriot act provisions. america is said today, not because terrorists and spies have given up trying to distress and our freedoms. . set off bombs in new york city. america is safe today because the men and women of the intelligence community used the patriot act to protect us the threat to

america from terrorists spies and enemy countries will not sunset at the end of this year and neither should america's anti-terrorism laws. anti-terrorism laws. th act works exceeding well. if the patriot act expires or is weakened, american lives will be put at risk. thank you mr. chairman. i'll yield back. >> thank you. if you insist on talking you'll be escorted from the room. sit down please. escort him from the room please. we have a sergeant arms here. out of the room. >> in the interest of proceeding to our witnesses and mindful of our busy schedules i ask other members submit their statements for the record. without -- five legislative days to submit opening statements for inclusion in

the record. without objection the chair will be authorized to declare recess of the hearing. we'll now turn to our first panel of witnesses. as we ask questions of our witnesses, -- as we ask questions of our witnesses the chair will recognize members in order of seniority in subcommittee alternating between minority and majority providing the member is sprenl when his or her turn arrives members not present when their turn begins, when the turns begin will be recognize affidavit the others had opportunity to can their questions. chair reserves the right to accommodate a member late or only able to be with us for a short time. todd hinnen department of jus ties national security did vimgs prior to rejoining the justice department. mr. hinnen then counsel to

then senator joseph biden now vice president of course if mr. hinnen serves 2005-2007 director combatting terrorism national security council. responsibilities include coordinating and directing to united states's government response to terrorist finance and terrorist use of the internet. prior to serving on the nsc. prosecutor in department of justice computer crime section and clerk for -- he's a graduate of amherst college and harvard law school. welcome your written statement in its entirety will be made part of the record. ask you to summarize your testimony in five minutes or less to help you stay within that time there's a timing light at your table. when one minute remains light switchs to yell he and red when the time is up up. before we begin it is cust mir for the committee to swear in its witnesses if you would please stand and raise your right hand to take the oath. dow -- do you swear or

affirm under penalty of personal ri the testimony you're about to give is true to the best of your belief. >> arm answered in the affirmative. we'll now hear your statement sir. >> the gentleman will be removed. the witness will proceed. >> thank you. >> chairman nadler, ranking member sensenbrenner. full committee chairman conyers. full committee chairman smith and members of the house judiciary's committee

subcommittee on constitution civil rights and civil liberties. thank you for inviting me to speak to you today on behalf of the justice department about the three intelligence authorities scheduled to expire this december. my written testimony sets forth afirm tf case for renewal for each of these three important authorities. mind. ful of the sub committees time and importance of the discussion my remark today will touch briefly on the importance. of each authority. at the outset it is important to recognize these authorities exist as part of a broader statutory scheme authorized by congress and overseen by the fisa court that supports foreign intelligence collection and thereby protects national security. the lone wolf provision allows the government to conduct surveillance pursuant to a fisa court order on a non-u.s. person if the government demonstrates probable cause that the individual is engaged in international terrorism activities or preparation therefore. although this provision has never been used it is

essential to the government's ability to thwart an international terrorist ploting to take the united states who has no established connect to a recognized terrorist organization. either because he has broken ties with such an organization or because he has been recruited and trained via information posted to the internet. analysis suggests that as the international coalition dedicated to combatting terrorism puts increasing pressure on terrorist groups and safe havens did min ush individuals who share the destruck tuf goals of these groups but have no formal connection to them will pose an increasing threat. the roving wiretap authority allows the government to maintain surveillance of a target who has been identify or specifically described and who attempts to thwart surveillance by rapidly changing cell phones or other facilities the government must demonstrate probable cause the target is an agent of a foreign power and that that target is using or will use the cell phone. the government must also

make a specific showing that the target will attempt to thwart surveillance and if the government uses a roving wiretap order, it must notify the court within 10 days of that use and demonstrate the specific facts that demonstrate that the target is using the new cell phone. this authority is critical to efforts to collect intelligence on and protect against terrorist and foreign intelligence officers who have received counter surveillance training. our most sophisticated adversaries the government has sought and been granted the authority in an average of 22 cases per year. the government has had occasion to use that authority granted by the court far more seldom than that. the business records provision allows the government to obtain any tangible thing it demonstrates to the fisa court is relevant to a counterterrorism or counter intelligence investigation. this provision is used to obtain critical information from the businesses one wittingly used by terrorists in travel, plotting preparation for,

communication regarding and execution of attacks. it also supports an important sensitive collection program about which many members of the subcommittee or their staffs have been briefed. all applications of this authority are subject to fisa court approval min myization procedures and robust oversight. each of these authorities meets an important investigative need the department ands or are firmly commited to ensure they are used with due respect for privacy and lifl civil liberties of american we welcome discussion subcommittee ensure these are renewed in a form that maintains their operational effectiveness and protects privacy and civil liberties. finally i would like to address national security letters. a number of bills have recently been introduced bon ott -- on both sides of the hill governing this authority. i appreciate the careful thought and hard work that went into those legislative proposals the department looks forward to engaging regarding them with members

of the subcommittee. the administration has not taken an official position on any particular provision on nsls so my ability to respond to questions regarding them today will be limited. i appreciate the subcommittee's understanding in this regard and its recognition today's hearing is only the beginning of a process of working closely together to create legislation that maintains the operational effectiveness of these important investigative tools and protects the privacy and civil liberties of americans. thank you. .. with respect to the so-called loan will authority, since terrorism is obviously a crime, why do we need this provision? what additional powers does this provision gives beyond the normal article 31, and why are those powers necessary? >> thank you, mr. chairman.

the distinction, i think, between article three powers and fisa powers are that the factors recognized by congress when enacting fisa in the first place, the needs of the government in conducting intelligence investigations, whereas, when using article 3 of stories, you are investigating the violation of one of the criminal laws, in an intelligence investigation for a counter-terrorism investigation, the government is often not intending to investigate a violation of criminal law and often does not have prosecution -- >> regardless, can you get a lone wolf warrant in a certain sense where you could not get an article 3 warrant? an article 3 weren't? >> i think it's the conditions under which you can get the authority important. the additional secrecy it provides that protects ongoing intelligence investigations --

>> article 3 warrants under seal? >> they may be under sealed but those orders are eventually on sealed as are the applications that underlie them and often the predicate facts that support the issuance of such order are of sufficient sensitivity that the government does not want them -- >> if article 3 warrents had the authority to keep certain things you're talking about secret that would be an adequate substantive for that? >> i think still the important distinction between the requirement under fisa the government demonstrate -- >> but the wiretap they don't have to demonstrate that. i'm sorry, the lone wolf they don't have to. >> under will of the government still has to demonstrate the target is an agent of foreign power -- -- door telling me it

is harder to get because it demonstrates something they don't demonstrate from article 3 so my question is assuming you took care of the problem of potentially and sealing records eventually because you want to keep certain things secret, what advantage is there to the government in terms of investigation aside from having to jump through additional troops to get the warrant in the first place to be using this as opposed to an article 3 warrant? >> i didn't mean to apply or simply the government had to make a difference showing. >> let's assume, never mind that. why is it to the government of advantage other than the question of declassifying information eventually, assuming we amended that, but is the it advantage of a wiretap as opposed to a.m. article 3 wiretap? >> the government has to make in order to get a fisa y utech is more closely tailored to an intelligence investigation that

it focuses on an agent of a foreign power rather than a violation of criminal law. >> see you could get it under certain circumstances when you couldn't get an article 3 wiretap? >> the government gets it by making it different showing. >> and the facts are such that there are cases in which you could make that showing necessary for wiretap but couldn't make a showing in the same case necessary for article 3 wiretap? >> i believe there is some overlap but not complete -- >> i would ask then today because i want to go into two other questions and the minute i have left, given specific information on how it would be advantageous to the government -- assuming we plug the secrecy problem by article 3 warrants wouldn't suffice how is it different. the administrated mentioned no to the support proposals to better protect privacy as well as efficacy. given the position in the

context of section 215 would the administration supports a standard there require specific facts showing the records are related to a foreign power rather than the current standard and if not why not? >> thank you, mr. chairman, it is an interesting question. the administration would support specific or to cable standard that existed before the patriot act as opposed to the relevant standard. this of course is something congress changed in the original patriot the administration has not taken a position on this. it is not entirely clear to me that there is a substantive difference between a specific and articulate standard and the relevant standard. if there is in fact not, i would suggest that settled expectations militate in favor -- >> clearly, there is no difference in the matter, but everybody has said that there is a difference. >> if there is a difference, i

would think the assumption would be against change. >> because? >> in part because congress recently made the change to the relevance factor. in part because a practice has developed around the standard, and in part because congress has added additional safeguards, including judicial review in 2006 -- >> again, i would simply say this, and in my time will have expired. saying we should change something because congress did it is never a good argument. because we are always changing something. i would ask you again after today to supply us, it you think we should not change that, with specific reasons other than -- we are already doing it this way, but specific reasons and illustrations of how that would affect intelligence gathering and white it would not be a good idea to change it. it.

thank you. my time is expired and i now recognize the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee. >> thank you very much, mr. hinnen. you are a breath of fresh air, and i would say that in many cases, you have indicated many of the assertions i have made both as the author of the patriot act in 2001 as well as the author of the patriot act reauthorization in 2006. the patriot act has been extensively litigated, and in most cases, it has been held constitutional. where there has been the biggest problem as relative to the national security letters issue, and i would point out if you look at the legislative history behind national security letters that wasn't one of the expanded powers given to law forced by the patriot act but merely changing the position of another statute that was offered by one

of the patriot act biggest critics, senator leahy of vermont from one part of the criminal court to the other. and i can see that the reauthorization put significant additional civil liberties protections into the use of national security letters that were not there in the original waihee test administration of 1986. now, with all of that being said, given that debate over the patriot act, would you kind of get somewhat of a argument over why the administration comes down in favor of expiring provisions of the patriot act without amendment? >> thank you, mr. ranking member. just to clarify the administration position is to reauthorize the three expiring provisions and the administration has indicated

that it is open to discussion of amendments so long as the amendments both maintain operational effectiveness of the authorities and protect privacy and civil liberties. and i think the reason that that has been the position of the administration is because we recognize the need to strike is continuing balance between effective intelligence, investigative one hand and the privacy of civil liberties -- privacy and civil liberties of americans on the other and we are anxious to work collaboratively with congress to strike the balance. >> will the administration put the heat on congress because i fear what would happen at december 31st comes and goes and the three expiring provisions effectively to expire would be the consequence of congress have letting us slip through the cracks in your opinion? >> as i mentioned in my opening statement, mr. ranking member, we feel these are very important

investigative authorities and would be very unfortunate to allow them to collapse the administration december 31st so that there is no gap in the investigative capabilities of the government. >> thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. >> i thank the gentleman and recognize the distinguished chairman of the full committee, mr. conyers. >> thank you, mr. chairman. welcome, mr. hinnen. is this the first time you've testified before judiciary? >> yes, it is. >> how long have you been in the department of justice? >> january 21st, 2009. >> january 21st. you know, you sound like a lot of people from the doj that's come over here before, and yet you've only been there a few months. you think that's a good thing or a bad thing?

okay. [laughter] you don't have to and respond to that. at me ask you something. do you know how many times the patriot act has been challenged in federal court? >> i have not counted, mr. chairman. i know that various provisions of it have been challenged a number of times. >> how about five? >> i will take the chairman's word for it. >> all right. thank you. now, all i refer to something i think you know about. the inspector general described an incident in which the foreign intelligence surveillance act court refused to issue to 15 a quarter because the request

intruded on first amendment rights. remember that case? >> with due respect, mr. chairman, unless we are discussing one of the declassified cases of the fisa course i am not at liberty to discuss. secure not at liberty to discuss it? its been in the newspapers. we are discussing it. i have had secret clearance before you longer than you. >> i can readily believe that mr. sherman. however, the fact that it has been published in the newspapers does not mean that it has been declassified and doesn't mean it's appropriate for discussion and an open hearing. >> let me turn to the chief staff of the house judiciary committee. >> [inaudible conversations] >> well, would you say that the

inspector general, who oversight's the intelligence can refer to matters like this and have them published and made public without violating secrecy requirements? >> when the inspector general from the department or another committee desires to make part of a report public, he works closely with the intelligence community to ensure the information is appropriately classified before it is publicly released. >> the inspector general has had it redacted. are you questioning the inspector general's knowledge of build -- of the law since january 21st, 2009? >> certainly not. proceeding out of abundance of caution in light of the fact inspectors general often issue both classified and unclassified versions of reports and i don't

have -- >> have you ever seen the unclassified version of the inspector general criticism of the fact that these orders were being a and you've never heard of this ever happening before? there were several cases, there were several instances in the same case which this has occurred. >> i'm familiar with the inspector general report on to 15 orders and familiar with the fact the business records provision like other parts of the fisa contain expressed protection for first amendment rights. >> okay now what about the fbi? how to you consider their ability to handle classified, unclassified and redacted information? pretty good? >> i think the fbi -- >> okay. the fbi went and issue a national security letter for the

same information and the inspector general described it as an appropriate. and i consider it much worse than that. now, here is the problem. it's very simple. what the court, the intelligence court and what the inspector general were complaining about is you could get a around the court refusal to issue order and a terrorist investigation by nearly doubling to the fbi, getting around them and the reissue a national security letter for the very same information. problem. that means that the court and the inspector general found that there was an abusive process and

handling this terrorist investigation, and i am going to have my staff supply you or your staff with all of this information all of which is public. >> thank you, mr. chairman. now that i am clear which reports we are referring to a few give me a moment to respond. in 2007 the general published its first report on the national security letters, which found a great deal of, found some sloppy record-keeping and out administrative errors by the federal bureau of investigation in part because of the byzantine nature and interaction of the five governing statutes. in 2008 the inspector general issued a follow-up report that indicated many of those issues had been fixed and provide recommendations for the government to make further improvements. since that time, the federal bureau of investigation has put into place a new data subsystem

governing nsl that prevents many of these administrative errors and insurers much of the record keeping that the inspector general found was an error in the 2007 report. in addition, the national security division where i worked increased oversight efforts and as national security review of fbi field offices on an annual basis, and of course congress and the inspector general maintains its oversight authority. >> well, clad your memory has been refreshed. that's wonderful. what we have here are a whole series of problems. this is just one case we've been discussing all this time. there are a great privacy problems. have you ever examined in the course of your official duties the american civil liberties

union's comments about our discussion about privacy? >> i'm certainly familiar with many of their comments and testimony today, yes. >> and do you find any serious disagreements with any parts of it? >> i do find myself in disagreement with some parts of their testimony, yes, mr. chairman. >> some parts you find agreement? >> certainly. >> if i could indulge the chairman's generosity for sufficient time -- >> without objection. >> -- to just identify the parts you find yourself in agreement with and the parts that you may not be so enthusiastic about. >> with due respect, mr. chairman you have asked me about the aclu positions in general -- >> no, not in general. >> with respect to these provisions and the patriot act i would note the testimony on the subject today is 35 single

spaced pages. i would be happy to -- i simply don't think that the committee -- >> i wouldn't want to do that, but let's use numbers. indicate to me how many things you agree within the 35 singles close printing that you found agreement with and how many issues that you found some disagreement with. >> mr. chairman, i didn't investigate the testimony with a mind trying to determine what percentage of the agreed with and what i didn't -- >> i can understand that. >> i agree with some parts and disagree with others. >> how will we find out which parts you agreed with and which parts you didn't? >> hopefully mr. trump and through the dialogue the subcommittee is embarking upon

-- >> how about sending an -- a minow in detail or as much or as little as you want since i will write you back if we need more. >> i would be happy to take that back to the department. >> i'm going to take it back to the department with you. thank you very much for your testimony. >> thank you for your questions. >> thank you. the gentleman from florida is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. hinnen, i also started my current employment in january, so hopefully this question is fairly simple. last week, senator feingold introduced legislation that amongst other things repeals title late of fisa which provided civil liberty liability, excuse me, protections to telecommunication carriers who assisted the government following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, a provision president obama voted for.

to your knowledge, does the administration supports this proposal? >> congressman roomy, the administration has taken no official position on this or any other position on senator feingold's bill as you noted in your question the president did vote for the fisa's amendment as a senator and doj defended the provision in litigation. without forecasting an offical opposition, as the president has suggested, it may be more productive to look forward to meet the challenge is still before us than to reopen debate resolved in the past. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you. i now recognize the gentleman from georgia. >> thank you, mr. sherman. i think this issue -- >> using microphones, please. >> i think this issue is clearly

draws a distinction between the two basic philosophies that the supreme court would use in solving the case. would it be a strict construction kind of analysis, or would it be by chance the acknowledgment the constitution is a living and breathing document and has to be interpreted in accordance with the realities of the time? it will be interesting to see how the united states supreme court handles this whether or not it will be a strict construction or whether or not we will have supreme court justices legislating. but at any rate, the issue on

roving wiretaps enables the government to target persons rather than places, and places is the term used in the fourth amendment and, must, quote, particularly describe the place to be searched. are there any other impressions of the united states constitution or bill of rights upon which the administration would depend on for justified in the extension of the act with respect to roving wiretaps?

>> if i understand the question correctly, the administration fields roving surveillance authority is fully constitutional although the fourth amendment text speaks specifically of pleases the supreme court has recognized going back to the decision in which an individual using a telephone booth was found to be protected by the fourth amendment the fourth amendment protects persons as well as places. and so i think it is against that constitutional backdrop that consideration of the roving authority has to be undertaken having said that i think that the provision readily meets constitutional scrutiny. >> have there been any court decisions that have extended the definition if you will of place to be searched? >> to be described in

particularity? >> i think the fourth amendment jurisprudence has applied the amendment in a wide variety of places and contexts. >> has it ever extended that particular provision vision of the amendment? >> i am not sure why understand how -- >> in other words have there been any cases where the issue was whether or not an extension -- this is not a very artfully posed question but in other words, we have the fourth amendment that says search warrants must, quote, particularly describe the place to be searched. have there been any court

rulings that you know of which have extended the plain intent of the founders in that situation? >> i think my answers have been an artful. the fisa work in the past has recognized and given the specific needs of intelligence investigations a probable cause showing with respect to the fact the individual is an agent of a foreign power is sufficient regardless of the place to be searched or that kind of thing. in the roving authority it is important the government has to demonstrate to the court probable cause. but the identified or specific individual is an agent of a foreign power and i think it is that provision together with

probable cause requirement that the government shows the cell phone or facility will be used by that target that renders the roving of four pre-constitutional in other words it is the specific description or identification of the target that renders it constitutional. >> one last question if i may, mr. chairman. does the roving wiretaps and provision of the patriot act, does it allow u.s. citizens to be subject there to? >> the statutory definition that

roving relies upon refers to both parts of the foreign power definition in the foreign intelligence surveillance act, so it can apply if the other conditions of the statute are meant to a united states person that has demonstrated to be acting on our behalf of a foreign power. it can also apply any circumstance where the target is eight mullen u.s. person but meets one of the other statutory definitions. >> who would determine whether or not there is probable cause that would be the standard that would apply of probable cause to believe that a united states citizen was cooperating or being a tool of a foreign power or terrorist organization? >> the fisa port under the 78 legislation congress passed the fisa cord would exercise independent oversight of the

government showing with respect whether there is probable cause that individual is an agent of a foreign power. >> vowed to place before or after the wiretap if you will. >> with respect to the fact the individual is an agent for and power that probable cause is made before the wiretap order is granted by the court. >> say that again. >> with respect to the probable cause to the individual target an agent of a foreign power that determination is made by the fisa cord before surveillance is authorized. >> is that just limited to u.s. citizens, or is it also to be shown by probable cause with respect to a non-u.s. citizen? >> that is with respect to any surveillance under foreign intelligence surveillance act

and i should drop a footnote to that and mentioned that there is emergency authority provided by the statute pursuant which the attorney general can begin surveillance and demonstrate probable cause within seven days afterwards but in the vast majority of cases and standard the government must always demonstrate probable cause to the fisa corporation for surveillance begins that the individual is an agent of foreign power. >> thank you. the gentleman's time is expired. recognizing the gentleman from wyoming. >> i am plenty happy with biden and given my friend mr. johnson because he doesn't have to speak as quickly as i have to in the environment i originate and, neither to be the case for the new yorkers who can get it out as well. >> nobody? speaks as quickly as the gentleman of massachusetts. >> i thank but as for the testimony and i just ask if you are familiar with a case that is

unfolded in new york applied against grand central terminal and the transfer of information and people from denver to new york the communications that are the background of that and the gentleman can advise the committee whether the patriot act was utilized in any of that investigation. >> thank you. i am familiar obviously with the case as we have discussed today and as the supreme court, the fisa court and congress repeatedly emphasized secrecy is critical to the success of national security investigations , and it is unfortunate when those investigations are jeopardized by the case has resulted in those articles i am afraid that because the authorities used to investigate that case or that may have been authorities before the fisa cord i am not at liberty to discuss in an open hearing. >> would you clear to reiterate?

nothing prevents me from speculating or speaking in terms of hypothetical scum and i will just ask you to go to wherever your limit is and we will accept that. as i read the news on this particular case, and i can only contemplate what might have happened if the case hadn't been broken, and we can imagine that there may have been an attack that took place already or one that was unfolding that we would have no knowledge of that could have detonated more devices at grand central terminal or around locations of new york city. i am very grateful that there have been a significant number that have been broken open and are part of the security personnel across the spectrum of law enforcement from top to bottom and sometimes we got lucky when we got regular american citizens the weighed in

on that little tip. we have been safe for a long time. but if one were to try to imagine a case that would have similarities to this one or maybe one that you can testify on can you paint a scenario by which we would not have been able to gather the data necessary to break a terrorist plot? without the patriot act? >> if i'd understand the question correctly, yes, i think there are circumstances that are not difficult to imagine some of which i refer to in my opening testimony which the absence of any of the three investigative authorities up for renewal this year would hamper the government's ability to effectively investigate a minute plot. >> let me pose the question this way as i listen to chairman conyers talked about it and ask you to go on the record as to the parts of the report you agree with and the ones you

disagree with, is it possible for you to present to this committee as a matter of request in a list of the plots that have been broken since the patriot act was passed? and the success of the patriot act and then point to the sections in the code that were utilized among those not currently under investigation so you could die for alleged that information in a public fashion as this committee we is the idea of free authorizing the patriot act i would think we should be able to weigh the success of the patriot act as well as be able to point to the calamities that might have taken place had we not had the patriot act. would that be possible? >> i think something along the line would be possible and i take the request back to the department. >> i respect that given their interest in the reauthorization there will be eager to provide the information and without belaboring the point but watching the clock, i would point out that as i sit here and

listen to the cross-examination and the discussion taking place i can't help but think what if this hearing were taking place in the middle of smoke and dust coming out of the ground at grand central terminal? what is there be an entirely different tone to this discussion today is the patriot act had saved at this point hypothetically, but uncountable american lives we have been able to avoid a domestic attack of any significant success in the united states since september september 11, 2001, so i just ask if you can contemplate if they had been successful how this discussion might have changed. >> i would hope, a congressman, the tone of the discussion would be careful and deliberate and designed to ensure the intelligence investigative authorities that resulted were ineffective and gave intelligence officers of the tools they need to do their jobs while at the same time

protecting americans privacy and civil liberties. so i hope that although we would have reason to grieve or more of that for the case the tone of the debate and substantive of the debate would be similar to the one that we are having right now and i expect the other witnesses will have been they have an opportunity to testify as well. >> in conclusion i thank the witness and point out because we don't have a calamity to discuss this, we need to make sure that we eat dog debate within the light of what might have happened. i urge that consideration to the panel and i would thank the witness stand yield back the balance of my time. >> the gentleman's time is expired. i thank the gentleman and to we have anybody else? ai thank the witness. we look forward to you providing us with the information that you said you would and

currently what principal consulting group of counsel to where she advises clients and issues related to national security. ms. spaulding is democratic staff director for u.s. house of representatives select committee on intelligence and started working on the security issues 20 years earlier 1983 as senior counsel of legislative director for arlen specter. after six years at central intelligence agency, where she was assistant general counsel and legal adviser to the central intelligence nonproliferation center she returned to the general counsel for select committee of intelligence. she served as executive director to congressional mandate commissions on terrorism chaired by ambassador the third and to assess the organization government to combat proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. chaired by deputy secretary defense and cia director john

deutch. i think i am -- [inaudible] she advised for terrorism involving weapons of mass destruction, the gillmor commission and president george w. bush's commission on intelligence of the united states regarding weapons of mass destruction, the world silver and commission. she is a member of the csis commission on cybersecurity for the 44 presidency. in 2002 appointed by then virginia governor mark warner to the secure commonwealth panelist after the attacks of september 11 to advise the legislature regarding preparedness and response issues to the commonwealth of virginia. she received undergraduate from the university of virginia. tom evans representative of

delaware from 1977 to 1983 served as co-chairman operating at the republican national committee. deputy chairman of the finance committee and republican national committeeman from delaware. also chairman of congressional steering committee ranking for president committee served on the executive committee of the reagan-bush campaign and was the vice-chairman of the congressional campaign committee with responsibility for white house liaison. tom evans also served as an informal group of the kitchen cabinet that directly regularly advise the president on a broad range of issues in congress he was a member of the banking committee and more submarines committee. he has a be a and llp from the university of virginia. tenet weinstein and i hope i pronounced correctly, is a part of washington, d.c. office of the white collar defense corporate investigations practice. he focuses on civil and criminal trials and corporate internal investigations. he spent 19 years and the department of justice from 1989 to 2001. he served as assistant u.s.

attorney both southern district of new york and district of columbia. 2001 he was appointed director of executive office for attorneys to read the next year he joined the federal bureau of investigation served as general counsel and later chief of staff to the director robert s. mueller. two years later appointed and later confirmed as u.s. attorney for the district of columbia. in 2006 he became the first assistant attorney general financial security of the justice department. in 2008 mr. wainstein was named security advisor in the portfolio covering coordination of the counterterrorism homeland security infrastructure protection and disaster response and recovery efforts. he has a b.a. from the denver city of virginia and from the university of california berkeley. mike german is a policy council for the civil liberties union washington legislative office prior to joining the aclu he served 16 years as a special agent with fbi we specialize in domestic terrorism and covert operations. he served as an adjunct professor for law enforcement in

terrorism at the national defense university and as a senior fellow. he has a b.a. in philosophy from wake forest university and jd from northwestern university law school. i'm pleased to welcome all of you. you're written statements will be part of the record and it's in their entirety i would ask you to summarize your testimony to five minutes or less to help you stay within the time there's a tiny light at the table when one minute remains the light will switch from green to yellow and then when the five minutes are up. before we begin it is customary for the committee to swear in its witnesses if you would stand and raise your right hand to take the oath. >> do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury the testimony you're about to give is true and correct to the best of your knowledge and information you believe? thank you. let the record reflect the witness answered in the affirmative. you may be seated. our first witness is suzanne spaulding was recognized for five minutes.

>> full committee chairman conyers and members of the kennedy, thank you for inviting me to participate in today's hearing on the u.s. a patriot act and related provisions. earlier this month we marked another anniversary of the attacks of september 11th. in the eight years since that manifestation of the terrorist threat we have come to better understand respect for the constitution and will fall is a source of strength and can be a powerful anecdote to the twisted were of the terrorists meredith. in fact after spending 20 years working terrorism and national security issues for the government of the am convinced this approach is essential to defeating the terrorist threat. given this national security imperative congress should use this opportunity to more broadly examine ways to improve overall domestic intelligence framework including a comprehensive review of fisa, national security

letters attorney general guidelines and applicable criminal investigative authorities. i would encourage the administration to do the same. this morning however i will focus on the sun setting provisions that are the focus of this hearing. section 215 and 206 have corollaries in criminal code. unfortunately import and safeguards were lost in the translation as these moved into the intelligence context. section 206 for example was intended to make available an intelligence surveillance the roving wiretap authority criminal investigators have. this was an essential update. however there are specific safeguards in the criminal title three provisions that were not carried over to fisa. requirements to provide safeguards designed to protect fourth amendment rights of innocent people. their absence and section 206 increases the likelihood of mistakes and possibilities of misuse. in addition in the criminal context where the focus is on

successful prosecution the exclusionary rule's serbs deterrent against abuse one that is largely out since and intelligence investigations where it prosecution may not be the primary goal. this highlights the care that must be taken when important criminal authorities into the intelligence context and why it may be necessary to include more rigorous standards were safeguards and i have suggested some in my written testimony. similarly section 215 governing orders for tangible things attempted to mimic the use of grand jury administrative subpoenas in the context however criminal subpoenas require some criminal nexus fisa section 215 does not. moreover the patriot act amendments brought this authority beyond business records to allow these orders to be used to obtain any tangible things from any person. this could include order compelling you to handle fer

door personal notes, your daughter's diary or your computer. things which the fourth amendment clearly applies. again in my written testimony i tried to suggest ways to tighten the safeguards for section 215 without impairing the national security value of this provision. and in the interest of time i will move to the low will provision for years ago wire urged congress to let the provisions on set and reiterated that today. the ad and a station that it's the lone wolf of 40 has never been used pleads for continuation just in case. the problem is this on necessary provision comes at a significant cost, the cost of undermining the policy of constitutional justification for the entire fisa statute. a statute that is extremely important tool for intelligence investigations. the legislative history court cases before and after the enactment of fisa and toole including two cases from the fisa court make clear this departure from the normal fourth

amendment warrant standards is justified only by the unique complications inherent in investigating the foreign powers and their agents. unfortunately instead of repealing or fixing the lone wolf provision congress expanded by adding a person engaged in the international proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. there is no requirement this person even know they are contributing to proliferation. and on u.s. person working for american company involved in completely legal sales of dual-use goods that unbeknownst to her are being sold to a front company for use in the development of chemical weapons for example could be considered to be engaged at the proliferation of wmd thereby have all of her communications intercepted and homes secretly searched by the u.s. government. as former legal adviser for the intelligence community non-proliferation center and exit of director of congressional and mandated wmd commission on a fully understand the imperative to stop the spread of these dangerous

technologies however there are many tools available to investigate without permitting the most intrusive techniques to be used against people unwittingly involved and was activities are perfectly legal. let me close by commending the committee for the commitment to ensure the government has all appropriate necessary tools at its disposal in this vitally important effort to counter today's threats and that these authorities are crafted and implemented in a way that meet our strategic goals as well last tactical needs. with a new administration that provokes less fear of the misuse authority it may be attempting to be less insistent upon statutory safeguards. on the contrary this is precisely the time to seize the opportunity to work with of the administration to institutionalize appropriate safeguards in ways that will mitigate the prospect of abuse by future administrations or this administration in the aftermath of an event. thank you very much. >> thank you, congressman evans.

you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman inviting me today. it is a pleasure to be here. it's always good to be back and it's good to see my friend the chairman of the judiciary committee the gentleman from michigan, mr. conyers, and ladies and gentlemen of the kennedy it is a privilege -- >> would you pull the microphone closer? pull the microphone a little closer, please. it's not on. you have to press something. >> i still have five minutes?

>> we are resetting the ploch. >> it is a privilege to be here and i am delighted to be invited and i am delighted to see my friend the chairman of the committee the gentleman from michigan, mr. conyers, and on and on our to represent the security and liberty and security committee of the constitution project today. you have my previously prepared statement and attached is the liberty and security committee statement on reforming the peach react. one word about the makeup of our committee, it is a truly bipartisan. bipartisan in nature we address issues not as republicans or democrats but we need more of that i think in this country and here in washington. our membership is broadbased and includes a number of former u.s. attorneys, some distinguished judges, former judges, professors of law, deans of law school, even a publisher, mr. conyers, who is a publisher of the detroit free press, mr. lawrence, and i might add

foundation chairman and senior members of the administration, and i also want you to know that there are a number of conservative republicans. i am a moderate republican but there's a number of republicans on this committee, including several who were members of this body, constitutional scholars both. in the wake of the terrible tragedy that's been pointed out of the september 112001 our nation clearly needed to mobilize in order to respond with a new and powerful counterterrorism strategy. however, our bipartisan committee believes there was an overreaction in the superheated fear surrounding washington and our country at that time, and we should strive never to let your lead us to