when the fisa court has found -- even the fisa court has found again and again that it has done just that. so if the national security agency is interpreting what national security means, the secret court, fisa, is interpreting what national security means, of course, ambiguous terms. and in a secret institution, they gradually become corrupted over time. that's precisely how he ended up in in this. >> if you will, specifically -- yes, go ahead. >> we're not going to spy on angela merkel or david cameron. or the australian prime minister. sure. but let me just spy on everyone else they talk to. it doesn't mean anything to not spy on world leaders. maybe you can save a bit of pr flack if another edward snowden comes along. i don't think actually the spying on world leaders would cause pr problems. i don't see that to me as a real concern. the real concern is that when you have an organization as powerful as national security agency has become and its five allies and the cost of engaging in mass surveillance is decreasing about 50% every two years because of the cheapness of computers

act, the fisa surveillance, increased or decreased? >> guest: yeah. it's a great question. i think it's actually been increased. when president obama was a candidate, when he was running for office, he said no more national security that spy on americans. but now that he's president i think he sees the power differently. and he felt if he can be trusted with the dragnet powers. it sounds as if the fisa court allowed actually is an expansion and there's more and more material being collected in bulk and that what is being collected under the foreign intelligence surveillance act even though on americans has also increased. i think there's a possibility for another increase. for awhile until 2011, the government was also collecting e-mail addresses, internet dresses that we visit, the fisa court authorized that. and the government actually stopped collecting all of that information in 2011. but they could do it again because they're authorized to do that. this is tremendously broad power. >> and we're talking with susan herman. this is h

the foreign intelligence surveillance court, fisa.ly authorizes the government to conduct top-secret surveillance operations. this is the court that gives the nsa the okay to do things like, say, collect huge amounts of telephone metadata that the government doesn't really admit to in public. the fisa court is really, really powerful and secret. and this one guy, the chief justice of the court, gets to decide who sits on that court. he appoints all of the judges for that court. everything about that court is don in secret. the judges meet in secret, they discuss cases in secret, they make their rulings in secret. nothing is done publicly in this court. and no one involved in the court proceedings, this is important, presents the other side of the argument. there's nobody in those secret court proceedings, representing the public, for example. i mean, the government goes to this court and says, we want to do this surveillance thing, and then the judge just decides whether or not that's legal. nobody's appointed to make the other side o

march 28th is the deadline for reauthorization of the fisa act. and that would be lightning speed for congress to consider this. but when you look at the collection of data on foreigners, when you look at the national security letters from the fbi to the communications letter, the president promising more transparency and promising to look at reform, but i think a lot of people will be dissatisfied because there are very few concrete steps, but again, the essential argument facing the president and other policy makers, what you can do versus what you should do. what you can do, the ability is growing exponentially, and you heard the president talk about the capability of super computers versus what the united states government should do in gathering and having access to that information, del. >> mike i was truck struck by the similarities from another administration, it sounded similar to the argument that the bush-cheney administration was taking with regard to torture and enhance systems to protect this country. >> that's true. and there is an e

that's the step with regard to fisa and i don't have a problem with having advocates on fisa. that part is okay. but i don't know, i just don't want "the new york times" -- i think the foreign stuff is unbelievable. let me get out of here. dorian, mark, terry, jeffrey, thanks. stick around. we've got lots more for you guys to do, including the george washington bridge. but right now, we have to talk obamacare and medicaid. the white house continues to boast about the millions of people who have signed up for medicaid but those numbers are wrong. we've got three pinnochios from "the washington post" and we still don't have an i.d. system that works at the back end of the process but we have dr. bill grace. he's going to join us with a lot of answers. later in the show, a new study rates the fiscal condition of every state in america and it's a real red state/blue state divide. wait until you hear which state came in last. >>> meanwhile, from my standpoint, don't forget free market capitalism is the best road to prosperity. we need the rule of law but we also need to be security

the fisa's work itself is classified. it's important to remember that before the fisa court was created the president could do all of this entirely on his own with absolutely no judicial supervision. when the fisa court was created, the president no longer could do this on his own initiative he had to get court approval. this builds on that, when the court is dealing with an issue that is legitimately controversial there needs to be both sides represented. i believe the president will accept that recommendation. >> you are also putting out recommendations suggesting or protecting foreigners, people nonamericans abroad. is that police? people would say you know we're supposed to be spying on people abroad especially if it's in order to protect the united states. >> well, of course we are supposed to be spying on people who pose a danger to the united states. but we have a variety of different interests that are -- come into play in deciding how to strike the right balance. one of them is our relationships with other countr

i strongly support that proposal and i am concerned that merely allowing the fisa court to participate in time to time will publicrove nor rebuild product -- confidence in the process. if you think about it, we are having a debate about americans fundamental relationship with their government. the government exists for americans and not the other way around. is about the power to create massive databases about citizens. the feeling i would have regardless of who is the head of our government. i believe that we must impose stronger limits on government surveillance powers and i am confident that most americans agree with me. having said that, we want to do it right. today, we had ceoard clarke, who was a and the chairman of the board of governors. during his 30 years of public service, he was a senior national security advisor to george w. bush. they will have michael, the recently retired deputy director of the central intelligence agency after more than 30 years service. during that time, he served as the acting director and he got his degree from the university of a grin. -- akron. c

i will be interested to see if the fisa court buys that. i think the fisa court will say we have no statutorial authority to investigate these issues. then he says he will investigate how to move the data off site for the next couple months and then we will work with congress to figure it out. what that bhacecally means is reforms ono do minor my own, and if congress can design a system, or we'll give em some guideans, but -- guidance, but if not, we can keep living under the existing authority. so i think at one level, this is an adoption of the review group recommendation, but at another level, it does not seem to dramatically impede the ability of the agency, at least in the short term, to collect and query when needed the appropriate recommendation. 702 strikes me as a bigger win. 702 is a massively important program. it is a bread and butter collection program devoted to overseas intelligence targeted at nonu.s. persons. cam is absolutely right that the president for the first sometime -- and it is a very important statement at a kind

how does the fisa thing work? >> i think positive move, my colleague stepping up to the microphone and say we're going to moo changes. we're going to change the way we distribute it and how it's stored. what does that mean and how does it work. my segue, how is that different, how are they going torp see who is friendly and not friendly. fisa still secret. >> he also mentioned congress saying he was going back to congress for input. members have a lot to say, where does that leave us. >> separation of powers thing. president wants to take pressure off himself. >> want to go to monitoring of friendly people. not going to happen anymore. quick to point out we might spy on friendly people's advisers. >> my gut reaction, i think that's going to happen, pick up on increased transparency. doug says how do you actually enforce this. all very well increased transparency and coming up with new regulations, how do we make sure enforced and how do we make sure what's supposed to happen does happen. >> third party storage yet

the former chief judge of the fisa court has opposed such a move. fisa fatally joins us at nyues brennan center where she has been researching the court. thank you, fisa. >> thanks. >> first off, your thoughts on the president's announcement today or yesterday, in fact, that he is changing the way we collect information but not changing it that much. >> so he is not even changing the way we collect information as such. he is changing the way information is held which is different. the collection goes on. it's just a question of who se hands the information is going to be in. >> that's the major change that he has announced. >> is it enough of a change? >> i don't think so. i think, in fact, requiring private companies to hold information opens up a news gag he will of privacygagle of priv what he was asking to do was to stop the government. >> collection? >> to stop the collection. >> let's talk about that real quickly because one of the proposals that he is suggesting is to move all of that information telephone records out of the government's cont

right now there is no other size being present: the fisa court's work is classified. before the fisa court was created the assumption the president could do this entirely on his own. with no judicial initiative. this builds on that and not only says you have to get a court approval. and when it is controversial both sides need to be presented. i do believe the president will approve that recommendation. >> you're putting occupy recommendations protecting foreigners, non-americans abroad. is that necessary? some would say we're supposed to be spying on people abroad, especially if it's protecting the united states. >> of course we're supposed to be spying on people who pose a danger to the united states. but we are a variety of interests that come into play to strike the right balance. one of them is the relationship for the countries. it's important for us, especially for our allies that they feel that they feel we're treating their citizens in an appropriate manner, partly because we want them to treat our citizens in an appropriate manner. and if we're treating citi

i'd like to know, for example, how does the fisa court come to these conclusions?out how the decision making process is going to go, how then could a privacy advocate intervene to sort of look out for the public interest and privacy interest? these are all questions that remain. >> one of the questions general hayden said this morning, chris, and i'm sure you heard it, he thinks he's g

fisa court was used in section 115 but the fisa court consists of 11 judges hand picked by chief justice john roberts someone with whom obama himself says he disagrees with many civil liberty issues. you are looking at a secret court with no advocacy for the adversary that has, at most, i believe, a 1% rate of rejecting warrant applications. so there's still this question of whether this court is actually providing meaningful oversight even in the cases where it is used. >> david auerbach, good to see you. >>> started with one man and millions of top secret documents. david shuster has the story. >> he is one of the most famous whistle blowers in decades. yet edward snowden began his leaks just seven months ago. on june the 5th glen greenwald reported in the guardian that the national security agency had been collecting the phone records of millions of verizon phone customers. next day the washington post revealed details of an internet surveillance program. nine companies including google, facebook and apple had been giving nsa direct access to all user data. die phi ant president obama

the difference between the fbi going to get a warrant in a regular court and the fisa court is the fisa court is entirely secret, we don't know who sits on it, none of its proceedings are open, there's no appealability, right? if you have a bad warrant process that happens in a open court, the defendant later at trial has a whole set of appeals they could contest. that doesn't currently exist, so to compare the two is preposterous and i suspect michael hayden knows that. the other thing, the power of the advocate is going to depend on the institutional culture of the fisa court. remember, when the fisa court was created, the idea was that it wouldn't be a rubber stamp, but what has it become? entirely rubber stamped. we know they basically don't ever reject warrants in decades and decades, they never do. it's totally possible you have an advocate in there and the same kind of process ends up where the advocate gives token resistance. >> that said, i'd rather have an advocate. >> completely agree. >> i want to see an advocate in there, because at least there's a chance somebody is going

say before going to the providers seeking the connections with a number, that if we go through the fisa court, we would get approval unless there was an emergency. there would be exceptions where you could go straight to the provider and get the information. if the court decides that was not a proper request, it would be expunged. that's what my bill would do it think it's consistent with what the task force recommended. host: what about the public advocate and the role they would play? a former judge of this secret court has weighed in and said if you put a public advocate person

-- nsa. >> it is true i wrote on fisa prior to that. we went to the fbi and the fbi longer stand us and we met with mr. comey last week. it was an extensive discussion. any criminal investigation, you have all the criminal powers, and you may have the nsl and foreign intelligence authorities. one difference is in a criminal investigation, if there is a mistake, that comes to light. if you have 50 years of secrecy, we do not find out what the government is doing. because of the risk of long- running secrecy, some safeguards are appropriate for these secret foreign intelligence things. that is one difference that exists. >> thank you. i wanted to yield to the chair of the senate intelligence 20. i want to place in the record a detailed report from the new american foundation that concludes the executive branch's effectiveness of the section 215 phone records is misleading, and other research that concludes that section 215 pulled records is only of marginal value. i will place this in the record. i want to say how much we appreciate that

. >> i would say 15 judges in the fisa court, to judges, one in california and one in new york, have looked at this question and a determination that the 215 program is in fact constitutional. one judge and washington, d.c. has decided it is not. i think it only deals with half of the question. i believe they are correct that it is constitutional, it is inappropriate use -- it is an appropriate use. what the president has posed to us, just because we can do something, should we do it? >> a terror suspect facing trial

communications companies like microsoft to invent ways to get around the fisa program by telling people in europe that if they use microsoft as their carrier, the data from that -- that relationship will not be stored in the u.s. will be outside the reach the nsa program in the west. >> thank you. we appreciate you joining us

the fisa court elected me when this he decided to act on things they were never intended to do. the system failed comprehensively and each level of responsibility that should have addressed this abdicated their responsibility. so i'll start with you, chairman rogers. will anything change? >> first of all, i couldn't disagree more.

then the reforms today -- the most important reform that was done that is tangible is the fisa court reform, the fact there will be a public advocate in there. >> which the fisa judge said he does not like. >> that's a good thing. you should look at it -- you're supposed to be a little disruptive sometimes and it's supposed to be -- that operate looked like it was running too smooth. it sounds like it needs to be disrupted. many people look at that as a positive. on the bulk data, he didn't a lot of people say, no, why are we collecting this at all? that part of the debate as far as the president is concerned is over. we're going to do this. the question is how do we do it? and i'm happy to reform how we structure this and how we do it but we really aren't changing that much. it is really about process than it is about the actual gathering of information. >> but the process in fact is going to be very complicated. chris cillizza, there is no road map from where they are going to store these data. and if the president is saying we need to have the metadata but we're not going to colle

with regard to the public advocate, in my heart of hearts, it's not necessary and the fisa court has actually said that. but if there is an advocate, i think that is a digestible change, as long as the advocates activities are confined to those macro legal decisions that say this entire approach is lawful and consistent with the fourth amendment. if you put an advocate in there every time nsa wants to go to the court for an individualized specific warrant, you are now suddenly giving agents of a foreign power more constitutional protections than american citizens have when the fbi wants to go up against them with a criminal warrant. >> do you think those fisa court rulings should be declassified? some in congress want to see that happen. i'm curious about your view on that. >> yeah, i think we need a larger dose of transparency across the board. i know the fisa court judge, judge banks s a little uncomfortable with that because he doesn't think it will present a holistic picture and could be misinterpreted as you declassify this but not that. frankly, john, over the long term and in

he wants to make some changes in the fisa court that you have to have the approval of the court before you query. that the amicus concept involving a panel would come into being. but the important thing to me is the president very clearly said, we need this capability to keep people safe. now let me say one thing about mr. snowden. i heard him on television say that he went there with the

and the report also recommends creating an institutional public interest advocate at the fisa court. i strongly support that proposal. i'm concerned that merely allowing to participate in the fisa court from time to time will neither improve the substantive outcome of the proceedings nor rebuild public confidence in the process. and the stakes are high. quh you think about we're really having a debate about what are americans fundamental relationship with their own government. the government exists for americans. not the other way around. and about whether government should have the power to create massive databases of information about its citizens. and this is the feeling i would have no matter is the head of our government. i believe strongly that we must impose stronger limits on government surveillance powers. i'm confident that most vermonters agree with me. i believe most americans agree with me. having said that, we want to do it right. now, in our panel today we'll have richard clarke who's a ceo of good harvest security risk management. he's chairman of the board of governo

we had the chief justice of the fisa court say we don't need an adversarially system. it was stunning to me how a judge, the head of the fisa court, could just say we just want to hear from the government. that's our legal system is built on the fact that we have two opposing sides in front of a judge. kudos to the president for advocating that. now we need to make the legislative reform to make sure it comes about. >> the terms of the reforms, one thing i was struck by was sort of the gray area in the language in and around some of these forms. he talks about database can only be queried in a true emergency. these are open to interpretation. >> yeah. >> the obama administration may have one interpretation for this. whoever who is in the white house in 2016 may have a different one. >> that's why i paused after giving him the hug we just gave him for the fisa court. it's all in the details. we've been down this road before. there was enough wiggle room in the guantanamo orders that they were going to take their time in terms of how they were going to end it out or not.

the fisa court would argue they consider both sides in every decision.if you add in another advocate and another side. >> here he is. the president is now at the justice department, getting a little bit of a standing ovation before his remarks. let's listen in. >> thank you very much. thank you. >> thank you so much. please, have a seat. >>> at the dawn of our republic, a small secret surveillance committee born out of the sons of liberty was established in boston. the group's members included paul revere. at night, they would patrol the streets, reporting back any signs that the british were preparing raids against america's early patriots. throughout american history, intelligence has helped secure our country and our freedoms. in the civil war, union balloons, reconnaissance tracked the size of confederate armies by counting the number of campfires. in world war ii, code breakers gave us insight into japanese war planes and when patton mauf marched across europe, they helped the troops. nuclear weapons only increased the need for sustained intelligenc

but julian, the president will demand the nsa go to fisa court before accessing the data. and hayden expressed concerns, comparing it to the way we operated before 9/11. here's what he said. >> the president will now demand that the nsa go to the fisa court before they ask the data a question. i was a director of nsa on september 11th. that procedure reminds me of the way we operated before the september 11th attacks. that makes me uncomfortable because in addition to this specific thing, it sends a message to the bureaucracy that we're trending back to the old ways of doing business. >> julian, this is clearly a man that understands the ins and outs of how and why the spying programs do what they do. what do you make of his concerns? and the idea that we are actually taking a step back now on the war on terror? >> i don't find this very compelling at all. it's pretty clear that the problem before 9/11 had very little to do with insufficient intelligence collection and everything to do with insufficient intelligence sharing. it's not that nsa didn't have the resources to k

and finally back to the fisa court.e say he is proposing putting an advocate for the public within fisa court, so there will be someone there to speak up for the public's right to privacy, del. >> mike thank you very much. >>> and the president also talking about edward snowden. he says the public concerns don't take away the damage that snowden did. >> the sensational way these disclosures havement come out has often shed more heat than light, while revealing information to our adversaries that we may not know the effect of for years to come. >>> he is one of the most famous government whistleblowers in decades, and yet edward snowden began his leaks just seven÷ acrd the official tally is still 1700 today. it is 30% contained, which is a good figure. they do these reports twice a day, so we'll get a good growth on that figure probably by the end of the day. a lot of people here. they have helicopters, fixed-wing aircraft. this was really a dicey situation yesterday morning. this fire started at about dawn. it was start

so it would have been possible in a very timely manner to get a warrant from the fisa court. >> wasn't that one of the things that the senator graham and his review committee found, that it was a sharing? >> that's exactly right. the joint committee. the two intelligence committees of the house and senate found that the information was in the government at the time. it just wasn't shared. >> thank you. now, i raise the issue of national security letters or nsls. and as you know, for those who are not familiar, they permit the government to obtain certain communications and financial and credit report records without a court order. also, as i raise, the fbi can impose a virtually permanent, permanent gag order on nsl recipients. number of us have been trying to reform that. your recommendations on nsls haven't had as much attention as other topics covered by the report but i think they're just as important. and so, professor swire, how did the review group arrive at its conclusions regarding nsls? >> thank you, mr. chairman. well, we arrived at it. the group amongst us includes three la

by we cannot get around that creating an additional five the courtposition -- fisa position? >> you would have to add external, judges, positions. fundamentally, this is what we do all the time, and there are great protections and having them overseas, why there should not be connections adopted like this as well. >> thank you. >> thank you mr. chairman, and for this report as we try to improve our privacy and surveillance loss. youage 124 of your report free people need to make up their oats by -- make up their own minds. a strong support of the business community which has roundly .ndorsed the principle when we met last year, i urge -- to support the suburb reforms in by bill, and i am pleased that your report endorses the same measures that are at the core of my bill. i'm going to focus my questions on the transparency reforms that we agree on. my first question is on government transparency. seven months after the edward theden links, -- leaks, government has failed to provide even a rough estimate of how many american individuals have had their information compromised. m

public advocates to represent consumers before the fisa court., the aclu came out with a statement about the president's proposed changed saying this, the president's decision not to end bulk collection and retention of all americans' data remains highly troubling. the president outlined a process to study the program further, but it should end, not mend, the government's collection and retention of all law-amadie biding americans' information. let's bring in our panel. charles? >> well, the aclu and rand paul are right, which is why it was a terrific speech. it was 90% smoke and mirrors and very little substantive change, which is what we need. in fact, it was the best use of obama's rhetorical powers of dazzling with very little content since the '08 campaign. look, obama knows he has to retain the program. it's extremely important. but he made enough rhetoric and enough nods to the other side, at least philosophically, and enough cosmetic changes to make it look as if he did something, but if you look at all the points you mentioned, they are

keep the capabilities that allow it to be queried with an order of the fisa court. the problem is that, of course, that's actually very easy to say and very hard to do. and so what he did, which is clever and the question is whether it's too clever, by how, if he said all right, we will intimate part of it now, which is to say we will limit the number of analytical talk people are able to take right now. i can do that on my own. he also said he could do on his own, requiring that they get an order from fisa court to query it. i don't think that's right and i'll be very interested to see if the fisa court buys that. i have a feeling the fisa court was a weir we have no statutory authority to entertain such orders. but then he says i'm going to study the problem of how to really move the data off-site until, for the next couple of months and then we will work with congress to figure it out. what that basically means is i'm going to do minor reforms all my own, and then if congress can sort of design a system, we will give them some guidance about what we think they ca

church led to the fisa intelligence court. that has failed, has been a rubber stamp operating in secret. what we have to have is kirk leavy of the nsa has said, a panel picked by congress reporting to the congress and the judiciary and the nsa with full access and full clearances. people who have never been hired by the intelligence community in the past. we need in other words genuine oversight for the first time in a way the nsa has never had it, within or outside the executive branch. >> but still you would trust the judgment of a 29-year-old contractor over senators, the president of the united states, the oversight from congressional committees that already exist and intelligence officials? >> pardon me. the president's own committee which had the judgment that they expressed not only to the president, but to congress just two days ago, these included the former chief of counterterrorism in the white house, richard clark. morel the former head of the cia. another person who was actually the one who hired -- jeffrey stone

the fisa court is putting the ability to make a decision? people that have human failings. in some areas, especially in emergency areas, you have to be -- have the most confident group of people there that we can trust and there's going to be shortfalls in that, ed. there has to be, but it's scary to be able to see if you live in a community full of crime, you want all the locks and security in the world, but you don't want to jail yourself in as if you're an inmate. >> the president, i thought, made the case that our laws are archaic to deal with technology we have to do. he's known these things have taken place. >> listen, we have staff. we have experts. these issues have to be brought to the congress. but the president just can't make decisions and we don't understand the impact it's going to have on the american people. >> you think we can keep this country safe with the laws we have and the process we have? >> i have no idea. when i see the mistakes that have already been made, when people like snowden can have access to the type of inf

. >> president commented on congress to create this panel of experts to advice the fisa court as well. it will be interesting to see whether that's something that congress does -- >> look, there's a proliferation of boards and reviews that have happened. of course, there is the civil liberties board which hadn't met for several years until the snowden revelations happened. the proof is in the pudding and it is in the eating and the eating is legs lating. it is -- without a congressional legislation reforms of section 215 of the patriot act and without prescribed statutory limits on what can be done, that is what matters in the end. we'll see if this is the first step towards getting that. >> let me tell you about these boards. i'm not as concerned about it because this stuff is complicated. i mean, we're -- contrary to what some may believe, member of congress very busy person. some of you -- you know, i would say most of us and this stuff does merit legitimate studies so the fact is i don't think that this thing -- this solving this problem is giving a sound bite. then there's anothe

the scandal in the bush years there was a scheme in place called fisa that the bush administration ignored it. both parties got together in 2008 and did nothing about it other than pass a new law that makes it retro actively legal. it is important to have this stop being done behind the wall of secrecy. the only real check on the abuse of power is if we the public knows what they are doing. >> glen, you mentioned having confidence in our reforms, and you are doppelganger here said: >> samuel says: >> then zachary says: >> you know, glen-- >> go ahead. >> you know, i was going to say there are a couple of changes, and he's proposing that are decent ones like putting an advocate in the fisa courts. but the history of the united states in the last 50 years and the history of president obama in particular is when there is some sort of controversy. the approach is to pretend you're changing things to placate public anger and not actually change it. i think it's a big mistake to look at as the end of the process, the very most its just the beginning. of course there is not going to be serious ch

of fisa opinions.t man is my next guest, senator patrick leahy of vermont. it's not every day that we have the man who's third in line to the presidency on our show. senator, good morning to you. >> all that means is that i used to pray for president obama's safety. now i pray for joe biden and speaker boehner, too. but so do they. >> fair enough. senator, i want to start with what we're learning, and i know you've gotten some briefings from the white house. is it fair to say that the president really is basically announcing very tepid reforms? >> well, i haven't seen what he's going to announce yet. i did read the article in "the new york times" this morning on it. but we do need reforms. that's the most important thing. the reports are that he would agree with the position i've taken and several others, like congressman sensenbrenner, and others, to have a public advocate in the fisa court. >> that seems to be the only thing he seems to be endorsing. >> but it's a significant one, and i think it woul

but i still don't think that protects us. >> with the judge's order. >> the fisa judge. >> the fisa judgeip into that data, you need this. i too -- >> but today you don't need that fisa judgment? >> the nsa doesn't need that. they have their own protocols. they can decide on their own to do this. you can make the argument. you can trust the government, trust the private contractor or trust verizon or not trust them. the question is whether the government should be doing this or not. to me, there has been so much focus on the metadata plan or program, we have lost sight of a lot of the other edward know citizen proclamations. how the nsa has been getting into the internet back doors. very little of that in the president's speech tonight. personally, i care more about that, about surveillance programs that may affect the internet and online, more than i care about a gigantic phone book and records and whoever holds on it. >> let me go back to joy on this. it seems to me the united states government has so much potential. well tracked bin laden, for example, i don't think he could go anywher

there are also those who would like to see different changes to the fisa court than i proposed. on all these issues i'm open to working with congress to make sure we build a broad consensus on how to move forward while upholding the civil liberties of every american. let me now turn to the separate set of concerns that have been raised overseas. and focus on america's approach to intelligence collection abroad. as i've indicated the united states has unique responsibilities when it comes to intelligence collection. our capabilities help protect not only our nation but our friends and our allies as well. but our efforts will only be effective if ordinary citizens in other countries have confidence that the united states respects their privacy, too. and the leaders of our close friends and allies deserve to know that if i want to know what they think about an issue, i'll pick up the phone and call them. rather than turning to surveillance. in other words, just as we balance security and privacy at home, our global leadership demands that we balance our security requirements agains

in addition, it was run under the direct service and -- supervision of the fisa court. separation of powers between competitive ranges of government, this was the trifecta. by to president, legislated by covers, and twoseen by the courts -- president, legislated by congress, and overseen by the courts. existing laws to protect civil liberties. we known that there was an inspector general report that was conducted in 2009. it said that there were certain limitations that the department of justice lawyers wanted to put on the nsa, but they had failed to implement that. what is your thoughts? >> the interesting things here is that general hayden briefed me on this before i became the central intelligence committee chairman. there was full transparency, at least at a time when i was the lead republican on the intelligence committee. ranch --the executive branch, always give the only informed. there were at times a spirit of debate as to what the executive branch wanted to do, what general hayden wanted to do, and the latitude that congress was able to provide to him and to

want the private sector to retain it and if the government can overcome a threshold to convince the fisa court, i'm perfectly comfortable. i don't want this automatically be swept into the cloud and we'll get around to it when we need it. we're data rich and knowledge poor. i still am trying to figure out how we can be a little more strategic. >> i think you're correct about data rich and knowledge poor. it didn't go all the other forms of collection. so we need the congress to step in where the president started off, and i was at the speech. and i saw him grappling with the civil liberties issues and the need for security. and i felt he had a level of emotional investment in the speech that i haven't seen in a long time. i think he's hearing us. but i don't think he can go far enough as president because if he does anything that stops these programs, the next president can come along and reverse them. so congress has to change the law. >> one of the challenges i think we have associated with the notion that you're not going to retain the data, if we announce to nation states that are en

and i think it may be well worth considering having junior fisa judges if you will.em on top of federal judges. >> thank you very much. that does it for this edition of "andrea mitchell reports. "tomorrow, kristen gillibrand. my colleague tamron hall is back and a look at what's next on "news nation." >> wow, you have been on fire the last few days, my friend. >> thank you, andrea. i'm happy to be back here on "news nation" and msnbc. >>> we're following breaking stories. what could be the most important speech of chris christie's speech. the governor is expected to discuss the bridge scandal when he delivers the state of the state address. that's happening in about an hour. we'll talk to the democrat lawmaker, who will give the democrat response to christie's speech. >>> plus, that massive settlement with the nfl and concussions has just been rejected by a federal judge who says $765 million is not enough. justice correspondent pete williams will join us. >>> and los angeles officials are searching the home of justin bieber right now looking for evidence linking him

the fisa court and contours of the program were reviewed on a regular basis and the fisa court as we have all learned since some of its decisions have been made public has disapproved some things and nasa has -- nsa has deleted data that was collected not in compliance with the program but this program has been looked at a number of times. federal courts have looked at it. there was a conflict between two courts right now, the d.c. circuit court thinks the program is unconstitutional and other the district court and another district court thinks it is constitutional. so probably this thing will go back up to the supreme court. my own view was and still is, that the program is constitutional but that's only one piece, the second piece is politically, does it make sense and in terms of u.s. security, to have a program which is creating so much dissension in our own country and certainly in a country like this one, switzerland, germany, where davos meeting is being held. and causing u.s. communications companies like microsoft to invent ways to get around the fisa program by telling peo

court and i would like to see these fisa courtditions be made public so that we can examine what isecided in secret and whether or not it comports with our understanding of our constitution. right now we are in the dark and behind closed doors. i would like to hear the president say i'll sit down with lz and amy and talk about the nsa. >> he has my number because of the nsa. >> that is true. he is listening to everything that we say because of the nsa. is this going to haunt him in 2016? lz? >> absolutely. and i think any conversation to try to suggest that who ever ends up running against him is not going to use footage in that press conference for lying to the american people or being ignorant. the 2000 pages, there have been plenty of conversations with more top officials about concerns about the brimg bridgeg closed. we are looking at a situation that we know that the administration was aware that there was distintion in the ranks. one emailed him saying my husband got a new job and was 40 minutes late because of the lane closures. >> amy bring us home. well, i'm calling this co

some of the former fisa judges have said that could slow down and constrain the process.s? >> i think it's a step -- well, you know, i think it's a step forward. but then again, who are those advocates going to be, to have that type of security clearance? are you going to have people advocating for the public who are really strong believers in constitutional rights and privacy rights? but i think it is -- it is a step forward. >> okay. how about edward snowden? this is a man who said that his objective was to create a national dialogue. expose the programs. let the american people decide what is right. do you think yesterday's speech was a sort of mission accomplished for him? >> well, this is what i think. i think two things about snowden. i think the revelations that he provided not only the united states, but people all over the world, was usually important. no question about that. and would the president of the united states have made the speech that he made yesterday without snowden's revelations? of course he would not have. on the other hand, i have to say that whe