so -- fisc oversight that we have. not only was this program approved by the foreign intelligence court every 90 days but it was twice approved, the particular provision was twice reauthorize by congress with full information from the executive branch about the use of the provision. now, as to whether that should be codified separately or not, i think as a confidence-building measure, for all intensive purposes i think that the the date that we are having now affect rates the public legitimacy aspect of the program and we will see how it plays out and how the reform measures are taken. but i don't think a separate codification is necessary. but the point is well taken that public confidence needs to be ensured and i would only suggest to the extent public confidence is shaken in part that is as a result of historical secrecy, and in part it's a result of a large amount of misinformation and confused public debate and it's hard to separate the two. they are intermingled of course, and so i think it is the former that is

review and finalization by fisc.hat would be to sort of solved those problems and allow the government to act once they make the initial judge and allow for the subsequent retrospective review by fisc were without running into the -- in the bankruptcy context, the court has the power to issue the independent confirmation of the report. so i think that analogy would work it all the way out. >> when wha would you have the supply -- we heard the vast majority of what the fisc does is raise requests on the technological issues. we have a bankruptcy model approach on every single question of the fisc and how would you decide which it applies to? syndicate is to devise the classifications of the model would have been called core proceedings from the non-core proceedings. court proceedings might be analogous to the fisc cases the court does have the power to act finally. and without any appellate oversight. and it's only in the non-core proceedings in the bank of the context you have that review. so it seems to me that you

exacerbating these violations is the fact that the fisc changed the law in secret. we talk a lot about striking the proper balance between civil liberties and national security, but without transparency there is no balance. the legal standard devolves to nothing more than "trust us." senator leahy and i proposed the freedom act, not only because the intelligence community has lost our trust, but because we believe that the american people are the custodians of their government and have a fundamental right to know what is done in their name. title one of the freedom act directly addresses business records reforms -- ending dragnet collection under section 215. title one raises the standard the government must meet to obtain a court order for tangible things and ensures that the records the government obtains are in fact relevant to the government?s investigations. titles two and five adopt a uniform standard for federal collection by applying the heightened standard to pen register and trap and trace devices and national security letters. taken together, the provisio

fisc of this is the site of dealer number one. it was the discovery well from the cushing oilfield drill than 1912. the sexual well is a retrial of the original well because the other original oil would have had certain problems over the years. this would be a rotary hole here.

is there cause i adversarial process with the fisc? kid you talk to that? >> it depends on what type of application with the fbi or nsa in the field office office, a review of the fbi headquarters, a justice department, then coach souza fisc obviously there is no field some -- field office but the review and the meticulousness and the care is substantial. there is a lot of dialogue back and forth between every level. back and forth between fbi headquarters in the field and doj end nsa and a huge amount of back and forth. i always took as a huge amount of responsibility to maintain the credibility of the justice department so they were transparent so the court knew they cared deeply about the accuracy so when they made mistakes we brought them to the attention of the court. so the justice department is doing its job executing its responsibilities under the constitution into seed they are faithfully executed a and we will do our best. if we think the agency hasn't met the standard then they tell them xyz. so's this system will has worked extremely well so far

there was discussion on the back and forth that goes between the fisc lawyers and the government. should the government be privy to all of that likely would in a regular litigation context? and do you think whether the person has procedural rights or not dictates whether there is an article iii question or not? >> on the policy question, it is not obvious to me that the details of the procedural rights would make a major difference. and in part, that depends on what the role is of the special advocate and when they are brought into the case. i assume we are thinking of once in a while there would be a particularly significant issue of which we would want the special counsel or however -- >> at say they are only involved in the novel words in the cases. >> i think it's important they be given the full picture so they be given access to all of the underlining facts and earlier you talked about those challenges. but once all of the facts are out there for that counsel it is not obvious to me that there is that much of a need for the procedural rights as long as the issues are fully l

exacerbating these violations is the fact that the fisc changed the law in secret. we talk a lot about striking the proper balance between civil liberties and national security, but without transparency there is no balance. the legal standard devolves to nothing more than trust us. and that's trust us but you don't have the tools to verify. senator leahy and i proposed the freedom act, not only because the intelligence community has lost our trust, but because we believe that the american people are the custodians of their government and have a fundamental right to know what is being done in their name. title one of the freedom act directly addresses business records reforms, ending dragnet collection under section 215. title one raises the standard the government must meet to obtain a court order for tangible things and ensures that the records the government obtains are in fact relevant to the government's investigations. titles two and five adopt a uniform standard for federal collection by applying the heightened standard to pen register and trap and trace devic

virginia has a national reputation for strong fisc will management -- fl

instances within which an application should be submitted to a legal advisor, but never submitted to a fisc judge for consideration. should be too, registered and recorded and published. , but jim,rcentage, no would you agree with me that fairly regularly cases would come off docket yet >> or they would come off and be replaced another week because they were trying to resolve and finish the analysis. >> right, but i don't think it would be difficult to give every read copy a number. and then if it comes off-topic -- off docket and they decide never to presented, then nothing else shows that the rate of rejections in terms of the overall operation of the court is higher than a simple turn down by a judge. but to say that these are law -- they occupyow a unique role. they work for the court, but in a very important way they help to ensure the decisions that we make. very often, they would write a memorandum for us about some aspect or other. and then we would sit down and read these things. and they are not two-page search warrant applications. they are 40, 50, 100 pages. they are very thorou

instances within which an application should be submitted to a legal advisor, but never submitted to a fisc judge for consideration. should be too, registered and recorded and published. , but jim,rcentage, no would you agree with me that fairly regularly cases would come off docket yet >> or they would come off and be replaced another week because they were trying to resolve and finish the analysis. >> right, but i don't think it would be difficult to give every read copy a number. and then if it comes off-topic -- off docket and they decide never to presented, then nothing else shows that the rate of rejections in terms of the overall operation of the court is higher than a simple turn down by a judge. but to say that these are law -- they occupyow a unique role. they work for the court, but in a very important way they help to ensure the decisions that we make. very often, they would write a memorandum for us about some aspect or other. and then we would sit down and read these things. and they are not two-page search warrant applications. they are 40, 50, 100 pages. they are very thorou

fisc of this is the site of dealer number one. it was the discovery well from the cushing oilfield drill than 1912. the sexual well is a retrial of the original well because the other original oil would have had certain problems over the years. this would be a rotary hole here. talks about her discovery well. >> host: after the cushing well was discovered with this place look like? >> guest: cushing was the only one in existence. right now there shamrock that sprang up overnight because of this well discovered here. it was as you drove through you noticed all the hills. it's very hilly and would have been a nightmare tried to plan the city but it was like gold fever here. the black gold rush was on and off these things sprung up overnight. >> host: how much was the cushing well producing in his haiti. >> guest: in 1950 was the largest oilfield in the world and produced 350 barrels out of a five by 15-mile area which is 75 square miles and the whole state of oklahoma does about between 20300 so it produced more than a whole state d

this program is realized every 90 days by the fisc -- >> can i stop you there? i am asking about the effectiveness of the program and not necessarily compliance or whether it continues to meet legal requirements. as a counterterrorism tool, with their rapid response has characterized or preventative as a the effectiveness of the program. >> every 90 days we have a program both from the nsa and the community that articulates of the need for the program and how it is part of the development standard to meet the relevant showing needs to articulate why such telephone records are helpful in the counterterrorism mission to put it in layperson terms. at a minimum of 390 days there is a mechanism built-in to revalidating program. converse has been adding legislative funds to the profession. regardless whether one thinks that is a good or bad idea, that is a built in idea that congress should be evaluating the effectiveness of intelligence programs. the 215 programs randall frye twice in the last five years and apart from current efforts in to 15 so those are the natura