Judgment that i would not be responsibly carrying out my oversight powers if i did not press intelligence issues to clarify what the nsa director said repeatedly about the data collection. So i decided that it was necessary to put the question to the director of National Intelligence and i have my staff send the actual questions a day in advance so that the director would be prepared to answer. The director said the answer is no, the nsa does not knowingly collect it on millions of americans. After the hearing, had my staff called the Directors Office on this matter and urge them to correct the record. Accordingly, the office decided to let this inaccurate statement stand. My office made it clear in my staff said clearly that this was wrong and unacceptable to leave the American People misled and we continue to warn the public about the problem of surveillance law over the following weeks with the june disclosures. Now, given after those disclosures, there has been an effort by officials to exaggerate the effectiveness of the old phone records Collection Program in one way they do that is to inflate it with a collection of Internet Communications under section 702 of the fisa stature. It has produced some information of real value and i will note that at least on one occasion this collection violated the Fourth Amendment in a way that affected undisclosed numbers of americans. The court also said that the government had violated the spirit of the law as well. So i certainly think that section 702 needs stronger protections for the privacy of lawabiding americans. And i think that those protections could be added without losing the value of the statute in the collection. Meanwhile come i havent seen any indication of the Bulk Phone Records Program that yielded any unique intelligence that was available to the government for less intrusive means. When government officials refer to these programs selectively and we have seen that on a number of occasions and say that these provide unique intelligence without pointing out that one program is doing all the work and the other is along for the ride, in my judgment that is also a misleading statement. There have been a number of misleading and inaccurate statements made about section 702 and the program and its collection as well. Last month, senator udall and i wrote that the nsas official fact sheet contains misleading information that may protections for the privacy of the people much stronger than they actually are. The next day the fact sheet was taken down from the front page of the nsa website with the misleading fact sheet that was still up there and would still be of that we hadnt pushed to take it down to correct the misleading statements of the National Security agency, that may well be the case. So how do you walk it through this secret law interpreted by a secret court that has secret surveillance. The obvious question is what is next. A few weeks ago more than a quarter of the United States senate or the director of National Intelligence and have a public answer additional questions about the youth of government surveillance authorities it has been two months since the signers of this letter, including key members of the Senate Leadership and Committee Chairs in the senate with decades of experience, we have made it clear that a quarter of the senate is not going to accept any more stonewalling or misleading statements. The patriot act reform legislation has also been a centerpiece of this effort that would require the government show demonstrated links to terrorism or espionage before collecting americans personal information and senators have also proposed legislation that would ensure that legal analysis interpreting surveillance law is declassified in a responsible manner. Im collaborating with my colleagues to develop other reforms that will bring openness and accountability with adversarial process in this operation of the most secret court in america. Most importantly my colleagues and i are making it clear that we are going to keep the public debate alive. We have exposed this and we are Holding Officials Accountable and we are showing that liberty and security are not mutually exclusive. And the side of transparency and openness is starting to put some points on the board and make some progress. Many of you are now aware that the nsa has a bulk email Records Program that was similar to the Bulk Phone Records Program. This program operated under section 214 of the patriot act, known as the register provision until fairly recently. Senator udall and i are very concerned that this program had a Significant Impact in privacy rights and the liberties of our people and we spent much of 2011 pressing the Intelligence Community to show actual evidence of its effectiveness. It turned out they were unable to do so and the statements that have been made have significantly exaggerated the bulk email Records Program. The program was shut down and i was a big win for all who care about Civil Liberties and privacy and senator udall and i wished we could have talked about it at the time and at least you know that there was an effort that contributed to a significant step forward. More recently when the annual intelligence authorization bill is going through the Committee Last year, it included a number of provisions that were meant to stop leaks that would have been disastrous for the public right to know. Among other things that wouldve restricted the ability of former government officials, even about unclassified Foreign Policy and it would prohibited intelligence agencies for making anyone outside of a few highlevel officials available for background reasons again, even on a classified basis. These provisions intended to stop leaks and im certainly against leaks as well. But it is clear to me that they would have encroach on the First Amendment significantly and lead to a less wellinformed public debate on Foreign Policy and National Security matters. This went through the Committee Process and the bill was agreed to by a vote of 14 to one. In the bill then made its way through the senate floor. At the time, myself and everyone else did not even know how bad or how flawed the bill was because in the course of the committee consideration, we could not talk to anybody on the outside. We knew it was fraud to take when Peoples Pension rights without due process. But once the bill came out, it was eviscerated by all concerned, regardless of Political Parties come to the point where people who had been supported when even contribute to oped articles and other communications about their views. I have put a hold on the bill to get discussion going within a matter of weeks all of this with the broad kind of language that the public would like to know. A few months later my colleagues and i were able to get the opinions, laying out what the government believes the rules are for the targeted killings of americans. This, of course, is not even being shared with members of congress on a classified basis, let alone being used to have a debate with the American People. I have said it before and i will repeat it here, i believe every american has the right to know when their government believes that it is allowed to kill them. For a number of us on the committee, we fought publicly and privately to get these documents and use whatever procedural opportunities were available, and eventually we got those documents and decided that this was the oversight that needs to be productive by intelligence committees. Since then we have been looking at the documents over and working out the pertinent portion of those documents to be made public. I dont take a backseat to anybody when it comes to protecting genuinely sensitive National Security and information. And i have already told you that i think Government Agency needs to conduct secret operations. But they should not rely on secret law were secret courts. That is why i think that now we are at a truly unique time in our countrys constitutional history. The growth of Digital Technology and dramatic changes in the nature of warfare and the definition of a battlefield runs counter to everything the Founding Fathers imagine and those forces together make for a combustible mix. At this point i usually conclude in mentioning ben franklin and often joked about a ben franklin caucus in the senate. It is good enough for government work. Anyone who gives up security liberties for security really doesnt deserve that either. That is certainly true. But today, i thought that a different founding father would be appropriate for wrapping up. James madison, the father of our constitution said that the accumulation of executive and judicial power is the very definition of tierney. Madison went on to assure the nation that the constitution protected us from our faith. So my question today is by allowing the executive to secretly follow a secret interpretation of the law under the supervision of a secret and nonadversarial court and occasional secret congressional hearings, how close are we coming to James Madisons very definition of tyranny . I believe that we are allowing our country to drift a lot closer than we should. And if we dont take this opportunity to change the course now, we and all americans will live to regret it. Thank you very much. [applause] the senators schedule is about giving back to the hill, but that is a fine statement for many very important ideas that embody a lot of work. So we will do two or three questions. Because we know that he has to get back. I would also like to note for those watching on cspan as well as our video streaming that we will be on the website and in addition i just want to acknowledge that the senator is presenting a paper about intelligence gathering written by our colleague, peter deuel, that is available on the web website today as well. Knowing how time is tight, we will take two or three questions and i want to thank you for coming and thank you for an excellent statement. Right there in the second row. Thank you very much. Senator, i was hoping that you could talk about some of the Surveillance Program through the funding mechanisms. I have not seen what the congressman is actually proposing. But the fact that this has made it to the floor of the house of representatives is unquestionably good. It is another step, as i have outlined in the march to a real debate. We would not have had that seven or eight week go of it. We would have been, as i tried to outline, just chipping away and as i read of late last night, this debate will be on the floor of the house of representatives and later today we are going to see members of congress start debating the real issues. I assume, very early on a discussion about what i call the soft toys come where you can have your security or your liberties i dont think that is the case. I think that as elected officials we can have both and it is unquestionably very good for the cause that we are outlining today. Thank you. Homages go to the center. Please identify yourself. Hello, im a student here. We are so glad youre here. Thank you. Im so glad to be here with you. I have one question. The department of Homeland Security does data mining from some publications and they stated that they have not yet adopted the notion of balancing privacy against other values, because that is a paradigm that results in a zero sum outcome and privacy is also diminished at the expense of security. So im just wondering what can we do about this as well as the nsa . Are you quoting from this Homeland Security document . Thing that it diminishes the importance of privacy . Yes, there was a footnote in the practice of principles. Thank heavens there are students out there that read footnotes. [applause] john from my office will get that in about three or four minutes and you will see the following and i am stunned that there would be a government document as a matter of agencies to unravel what the Founding Fathers wanted to do. So i want to make sure. He is coming. One moment. Thank you very much. Thank you for those remarks. How concerned should we be that this information that is collected could be used to influence members, certainly people in the business community. It is very important that we know what fundraising activities are. Are you hoping that this can be planned in a way and we support those who support the Intelligence Agency and fight those who oppose it . Are plenty of ways in which you can envision how this would be viewed. And i want to tap the argument that is made on the other side. We are not listening to this today. We are talking about what amounts to is a human relationship database. If you know from example that someone called twice after midnight, that tells you a lot about the individuals and i can have enormous ramifications. Certainly ramifications in terms of employment and i can envision all of these things. This idea of metadata is not a big deal if not consistent with how you can extrapolate about people who they call in with a call from. Snuck a gentleman in the front and a gentleman in the back. Earlier you said that Edward Snowden revealed some of the programs. Are there still actual Surveillance Programs which have not been disclosed but you feel the public would or should be part of . That is classified. When you unpack the language of patriot acts, the authority of the government is essentially limitless and i cannot talk about how it is actually used because that is classified. I can tell you that the authority is essentially limitless. Right there for the last question. I think this is a very important amount of information. This is very much on the mark. Only one point . [applause] important of the internet to our world is phenomenal and the internet is part of the freedom for people to communicate the u. S. Governments ability to advocate and that it has been undermined. I would like to think that the administration didnt consider that risk would be part of the decision that will now be one in the last comment that you have made some great references to our Founding Fathers and i would like to suggest that the secret surveillance state is coming. Thank you for the case. I will make this a be paid topic. Because they have wonderful work as well. What i wanted to do this morning was to say of our generation, this unique time in American History doesnt take these surveillance authorities, it has earned an awful lot about this and we are finding a way to show that we can secure both our liberties and our public safetys and i think that we will regret it because we do, in fact, we do expand on this date. And we need smart phones that everyone has in their pocket and i am grateful that not everybody were reading their us while we were talking. But these can be used in this test the authority to do significant cell phone and this is a unique time in our constitutional history and for all of the great work that you and the senator have done. I very much appreciate this program and i hope that all who are here and all who are listening in or going to see what has been done. And that we will be starting a debate in a few hours. We havent had this ever on these kinds of issues. It couldnt come at a more appropriate time with these Digital Technologies that we have been talking about. Thank you, everyone for having me. [applause] in a few moments, the preview of the 2014 Midterm Elections with charlie cook and publisher of the political report. In about an hour and a half, hearing went president obamas two nominees and a house judiciary subcommittee looks at how to deal with children were brought to the u. S. Illegally. Battle of the first lady, she becomes the chief confidant and the only one in the world who has a job. So they have all done now. They are all strong as they accompanied strongmen to where they were. But i would say that that is their main role to the president s original series about the first ladys examines the public and private lives of these women and their influence on the presidency. From Martha Washington to ida mckinley. 9 00 p. M. Eastern, starting august the on cspan. A look at the 2014 Midterm Elections with charlie cook, publisher of the cook political report. This is a little less than an hour and a half. This is the first one of these and i thought that we should just sort of get back and think about how we ought to look towards 2014. One way of thinking about it is sports analogy. Whether it is for baseball, football, basketball, hockey season, you know, you kind of look forward to this season and youre not sure how which team is going to do or what the season will be like. You dont really know for sure and somewhat painfully we know that the Washington Nationals were struggling to get up to 500. And so we didnt really, you know, we kind of maybe overestimated a little bit of how the season would be enough who it is right now about midway through in terms of the next election. We dont even know what will be about. We could have feelings, but we ultimately know that what we have to d