So it is important to keep that comparison in mind. Something more extensive on the National Security side than on the criminal side. I want to make that clear theres nothing special. You took a lot of my time. A brief question but a good question. Let me raise one last issue. The solicitor general, donald borrelia, assured the Supreme Court any criminal defendant who was being prosecuted losing evidence directly or indirectly through surveillance authorized by section 702 of the fisa amendment would receive notification of that fact. That kind of notice is essential, and the lawfulness of surveillance. And after mister borrelia made that representation. Is not informing, the defendants when surveillance was used to build a case against them. They have changed since then. Hope it is an easy one for you. The department of justice always in forms, the defendants in the case against them build on evidence gained through 702 surveillance. The standard in the statute is evident, obtained or derived from use of 702 against an aggrieved person in a criminal case and will provide notice to a defendant in the context so all those elements have to be met. It has to be an aggrieved person, the information used by the person in which case we would have no obligation to notify the person and have an interest and ability standing to suppress that information. We have to meet those requirements but we are seeing not being surveilled. Communications of other people could be relevant in that case, i would not give notice to them but other things could be relevant in their case if you are following me. Let me ask about section 205, department of justice we are two minutes over here. He took two minutes of my time but i will submit my questions. Section 215 did not have a notice provision. There is no event, no suppression remedy under 215 so it is a different thing so theres a notice mechanism. That is what congress is prescribed unlike other provisions. Thank you, mister chairman and thanks to all of you for being here. I have listened carefully. I know you have difficult jobs and i know your colleagues do as well and i thank you for the jobs you do. By and large you kept us safe and i appreciate that. I am not sure how much progress we are making today. I understand there is little you can tell us in a public setting. You will probably should be somewhat reluctant in a private setting. I understand that. This place leaks like the titanic, usually for political advantage. I really regret that. It would seem to me when we do this again, mister chairman, we could invite our very friends back but also the policymakers. Put yourself in our shoes for a second. We cant see what you see. So we have to assume the worst, that doesnt mean it is an accurate assumption. Senator lee made the point well. Government has been known to abuse its power. None of us want to look around one day and see that america has a social Credit System like china. We dont want you to become as powerful as facebook. For all i know facebook has our dna, but that is a separate topic. Let me give you an example. It was back in the late 60s president johnson had decided not to run for reelection. He was in the middle of the paris peace talks. He received information that then candidate and later president Richard Nixon allegedly was interfering with the paris peace talks for political reasons. I dont know if it is true or not, but there was credible information. But president johnson couldnt say anything, because he got his information to illegal wiretaps. We dont want to end up there again. I dont understand and in the little time left i hope you will help me. On our call detail records system, was it shutdown because of technical difficulties or because of costbenefit analysis . It was shutdown. It was suspended. We did a costbenefit analysis but couldnt do that in isolation, taking into consideration other factors like compliance concerns we faced. We dont operate in a vacuum so we would lay all the different factors to come up with a comprehensive and thoughtful position on how to proceed with the program. You are not a policymaker. I have been very impressed with your testimony and your candor given the circumstances. If you were a policymaker and perhaps you should be, would you renew the program . What i will say to that is that i support the administrations position because i believe it is the best position to have with respect to this program. Why is that . The reason that i believe that is as i mentioned before, the way terrorists communicate and the Way Technology evolves, it is not out of the realm of possibility to say we might find a new technology out there that we have never even considered or thought of. Terrorists might be using that technology and perhaps the way we could get insight into their context with metadata would be to leverage this particular authority and i want to have the ability to move as dynamically as possible in trying to get at those communications once a decision is made to say yes. We think the potential value of that authority and how we would apply leverages would outweigh the resource costs. We are confident in our ability to execute that authority in compliance with laws, regulations and policies. Thank you. Thank you, mister chairman, and thank you each for your patience and for being as candid as you feel that you can be in this setting. I will say i think most people looked at what transpired or what we know transpired with the 2016 elections and the abuses with the fisa Court Process and communications injections between stzrok and lisa page. Something needs to be done because we value our privacy and we probably should have years ago put in place some Online Privacy guidelines but congress has not done that. People are just now becoming aware of much of this. It is imperative that as we do these reviews the, we do them right and miss morgan, you just spoke to evolving technologies and we know terrorists pick up the phone and call somebody and say this is what im going to do. They are using signal, whats apps, they are using snap, snap maps. Things of that nature, to move. I do think it is important that you all be able to work and to evolve as these new technologies come into the marketplace and come into play. I would like for you as much as you can now, and then when we go to a quantify hearing, be able to expand on how you are evil thing and working with these new technologies and tracking the way adverse actors are using these technologies. Just a little snippet. Thank you for your insightful question and i will do my best in an open setting. What i would say as i mentioned before, the laws that Congress Passed and the authorities you give us give us different tools and options. Over time we apply those authorities in different ways in the confines of the law in accordance to law and regulations as the technology changes. The way we might have applied a law or authority when it was first passed is an evolutionary process. We need to make the appropriate changes, we need to give you the tools that will be useful. If there are changes that need to be made, we need your insight on that because we do not, as senator kennedy said, we dont know what you know so we are putting a platform in place, a guideline in place. The statute is in place and you are trying to come back in and plug what you are doing into those various holes and put those policies in place and then you all are taking your actions based on that so we need your help and insight on that. I do have one other question and we have lots of questions about section 215. I want to come i tell you what. Im going to wait and do that when we are in a classified setting with the question that i forgot on that. One thing i do want to hear from you when we go to a classified setting, mister chairman, the safeguards on the data that you are collecting and that you are retaining and the disposal of that, we need a little more information on that. It would be inappropriate at this point, i realize that, so we will look at that and apply the setting and i yield back. Thanks to all the witnesses for being here. Can any of you compare the amount of data, volume, type of data using these tools with the amount, volume of data private companies, specifically facebook, google, what are we looking at . Are they comparable . Has the government collected or will they collect more . Do you have a sense of that . Depends on the type of information you are talking about. If you are talking electronic information we can only get the information with Legal Process that is targeted in a particular case. It depends on the companies that a lot of Companies Maintain the data and full access for their own commercial purposes, access to much larger quantities of data than the government can get for Legal Process. Not least because you have to go through some sort of process depending on what you are collecting but google and facebook and ticktock and whoever else dont have to go through. Once they get users consent nominally which they usually dont ask for they have access to geolocation data, search data, phonebooks, messages. That is correct. Switching gears slightly let me ask about the Business Records position of section 215, how has the fbi used this authority the last couple years . Can you give me a sense and what would it mean for the bureaus ability to Counter Terrorism and other threats, give some perspective on that. Use it in a variety of ways, mostly as a building block. I said earlier today in the terrorism case often times, mobilized for violence, to secure weapons with a knife or rent a vehicle or bomb making material. To determine he is doing that we can disrupt him. We oftentimes use the Business Records for trying transactional records, who are you communicating with but not the content that has been helpful in counterintelligence as we try to build up the networks the Intelligence Officers we use that the same way. As far as this provision, what we are able to acquire would be limited to four areas, we would not have the totality, and in addition to counterintelligence cases we were able to get that communication transactional records through Business Records. They often times, a crime has not been committed, we would not be a to declassify that and go to grand jury for that. The standard for the Business Record would increase from relevancy investigation to something higher that this pertains to an agent and foreign power. The biggest change with the usa freedom act was the end of bulk collection of data and i wonder what difference was made operationally over the last four years and what if any changes need to me made to the Current System of requesting detailed call records. If i could level the programs, under both programs the providers, telecommunication providers give metadata limited to metadata and they give it to us in what characterizes and indiscriminate fashion. To nsa, and approval process to have a phone number and look into that data so that was the bulk program. Under the program that we are talking about today the process is different. The providers hold onto the records in bulk, our process is more targeted and an analyst might say i have a phone number and a reasonable articulable suspicion that the user of the phone number, International Terrorist activity, we would coordinate that with the fbi and the doj and application with the fisa court. Of the fisa court agreed we met the appropriate standard we may compel the telling munication providers to give us records, metadata records only associated with that particular phone number. When we look at the two programs there are some differences, one being that now we have a Court Approval process in place and that doesnt have approval processes in place especially one particular distinction in terms of compliance concerns, related to the underlying data we were getting from the providers we assess we have similar kinds of problems in the program as well so that is a mechanism by which you are getting that data. Thank you, mister chairman. Thank you to the witnesses here. In 2015 when Congress Passed the usa freedom act we were endeavoring to strike the appropriate balance between competing interests. The legislation was bipartisan legislation. Senator lee took the lead in passing it. I was proud to work alongside doing so. And to protect the civil rights of american citizens and to prevent the bulk collection with american citizens who had committed no wrongdoing and there is no evidence they were engaged in wrongdoing. The usa freedom act took a significant step back in terms of the authority for government to survey a innocent american citizens, to enhance the tools to go after terrorists, to go after criminals, to go after those who pose a real threat to the health and safety of americans. That is the right balance, we want Law Enforcement, focused on the bad guys and not focused on lawabiding citizens. That distinction is at the heart of the usa freedom act and the right distinction to have. I am not one who is interested in d thanking our Law Enforcement ability to go after terrorists and surveilled them effectively when theres evidence of wrongdoing. At the same time we should not sanction the widespread violation of privacy rights of american citizens. My question to the panel is a general one which is we now have several Years Experience under the statute, bipartisan support passed into law, how is it working if Congress Strikes the right balance . Are there number one sufficient protections, privacy rights and number 2, sufficient tools to go after people who pose a genuine terrorist threat . I open that to anyone who cares to respond. Let me address ordinary Business Records of lone wolf and roving authority. The authorities are appropriate, they have been reviewed by the ig multiple times, the committee has full access to all the different uses of the authority. If anything novel is done that is reported to the committee so we had strong mechanisms in place to ensure they are used appropriately. They are not used all that often either. The authorities are used selectively in these negotiations so we have a lot of process to authorize these tools. One could quarrel whether there is too much process but we are comfortable with what we have. Dont know if that answers your question. When i look at the provisions we havent used a lone wolf but the other traditional Business Records, 215 a solid track record, there are enough checks and balances most agents would complain it is easier to get a grand jury subpoena if you could do that in that case. The most recent ig report, the main complaint from agents is it takes too long so they would use other authorities, those are easier to use. Thank you for your question. From our perspective it did strike the right balance and we have had challenges implementing the program, took steps for those challenges and selfreported to all 3 branches of government for our overseers. I would like to think it struck the right balance. A solid record of results, Something Like that, can you elaborate in terms of the benefits . We had solid compliance and there have been beneficial to us, given how Intelligence Services train Intelligence Officers it has given us the ability to keep pace when they switch vehicles, switch phones, switch hotels in regards to the Business Records, a valuable tool in helping us build our cases, gives us the ability to get ahead of those things earlier than if we didnt have the tool, especially when there is classified information. It gives us the ability to protect americans. Thank you, you have gotten a good job in forming the committee, some tough questions and we will do a classified hearing to dig into the information and what we should authorize and what we shouldnt. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] thank you all. We have adam klein, chairman and member of the privacy and Civil Liberties oversight board, jamal jeffers, founder and executive director of National Security institute. Anthony Scalia School of law at george mason university, codirector of liberty interNational Security program and the center for justice and mister klein. Thank you, happy to be here to testify today. Keep it a couple minutes and it would be great. Im chairman of the privacy and Civil Liberties privacy board which is an independent bipartisan agency dedicated to ensuring efforts to protect against terrorism are balanced with the need to protect privacy and Civil Liberties. I want to mention my remarks are in individual capacities as chairman and do not reflect the views of my four other bipartisan colleagues. We talked about the contours and origins of the cdr program so i will skip those things which i think are wellknown and talk about what our board has been doing and what information we can provide the committee. The upcoming reauthorization deadline our board received records under the usa freedom act, that involves months of factfinding by expert staff and Bipartisan Group of board members. We held a public forum to receive outside views, we submitted a draft report for accuracy and classification review. That draft contains a comprehensive account of the technical and operational that occurred during the programs life. I think staff are hard work on the report. At document remains classified but we are prepared to brief any senators and staff at any time including immediately after the hearing in a cured setting on details which are factual questions today and we understand the committees desire to receive that information. We will provide some topline conclusions that an unclassified level based on what we found in our review. We found no malfeasance or abuse of this authority nor did we find any instance in which official thought records that were prohibited under the statute, we found no evidence that nsa received any prohibited categories of information under the statute and those prohibited categories would include the content of calls or addresses of subscribers or Financial Information or gps coordinates. And we looked at this in great detail and are prepared to answer the operational use of the authority in a classified setting. And if they chose to suspend the program after considering its relative intelligence value against other factors and i can say my view based on the facts we reviewed in great detail that decision was well supported by Available Evidence and we looked at the compliance concerns that led nsa to delete data or suspend the program. Our review of facts surrounding those incidents confirm the challenges were inadvertent and not willful. It is important to note when nsa receives information that raised questions about the scope of what was allowed to collect under statute the agency chose to follow a narrower understanding of its authority rather than a more expansive interpretation that would have given a greater leeway and supporting the judgment in a classified setting, convenient for senators or staff members. We hope the process will be quick through an unclassified report and potentially a classified document to the committee and congress as quickly as possible. We are grateful to the Intelligence Community officials who have been working hard to respond to our many investigative requests and assisting in the review process. Thanks for the invitation and look forward to answering your questions. Chairman graham, Ranking Member feinstein, and we are 40 years out. And and the lone wolf program which is not been unified and where it will go away. The oversight enhancing measures put into the usa freedom act. Congress needs to act in the next 40 days and take action to reauthorize these provisions and make modifications necessary. You heard the relative value of lone wolf and roving, it seems like those seem like sensible thing to reauthorize. As of 2 15 a base program of 2 15 where the government obtained a variety of records well beyond the original version prior to 9 11. It was not controversial and given they are noncontroversial, any abuse of those programs in the last 18 years with the exception of lone wolf which was in less time, it is not just to reauthorize those to avoid having to run to the situation after the deadline and having a concern about losing authorities. And then the final authority which was the topic of much discussion it was the issue in the 200 teen program that generated the freedom act and a Debate Program and led to changes that were made in the program. Why reauthorize the program if in fact nsa has chosen to d authorize the program and no longer using it. It is an important question. The threat we face from terrorism is different from 9 11 and the aftermath, it feels different than it did in the days we saw what was happening, we put terrorists on the run for the last 20 years by finding them overseas. And attacking allies abroad, attacking americans wherever they are. Isis remains strong regardless that they took out their territorial habitat, in syria and iraq. Isiss leader is gone today thanks to the good work of Law Enforcement, intelligence and military communities and they remain committed to attacking us here at home. Al qaeda remains a serious threat too. Lets not forget the threat iran and its terrorist proxies pose to the nation. We gotten tough with iran in 2 years and they remain committed and have begun to attack us and our allies overseen with us drones, the attacks against saudi arabia and we have seen additional threats by iran against the United States of the threat of terrorism with iranian proxies directed to al qaeda or isis remains strong so the question is what about a tool we might utilize that is being utilized today. Do we take it off the table and remove it from the toolkit our operators might need on a day they find a threat or do we look at it carefully and tell us if youre going to use it let us know, how are we going to compile the law . Seems the right approach to the problem is leave the authority available. It has been modified from what it was. They have been addressed. It takes place even when you assume that, it can be addressed through careful sentences. It is embarrassing the Justice Department was unable to answer the question, we tried to avoid things like that. They happen on occasion but it is not acceptable. Not except w had members of the government come before you and not able to give you examples of the quality of the programs. The justice apartment has given us previously a dozen unclassified examples, this is prior to the usa freedom change. They demonstrate examples. None of them are silver bullet. And senator feinstein knows that from her time on the intelligence committee, this is all about building blocks. You will not find what you are looking for. It is dangerous and would be a mistake, when it remains high and substantive. Members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity to testify. The usa freedom act was the most significant surveillance in 40 years. It was a compromise and experiments. Several things were dropped or weakened to obtain support. Moreover. Moreover the Congress Innovation to private collections, the specific selection was a bit of a gamble. It was less openended which raised concerns that might allow collections that is not but collectively bulky. It has been in operation and thanks to the insights of how it is working. The bottom line is the law is not serving its intended purposes. It is a failure and im going to go a little faster. And authority might be useful and compliant with the law in the future, it is an argument to give the government Unlimited Authority because you never know when authorities might be useful in the future. It is time for congress to pull the cut on his noncompliant and ineffective program. The sst mechanism is not working as congress had hoped. Under each authority including section 215 and the National Security letter. A number of unique not National Security letters, the number of unique identifiers captured is orders of magnitude greater than the number of actual targets. What this suggests is the government is choosing targets and or ssts that encompass hundreds or thousands of people such as Large Companies or ip address is the cover Large Networks of people. In doing so the government is inevitably going to be sweeping a large amount of information that have no relevance. That is the definition of bulky collection. Furthermore, since 2015 several fisa Court Opinions have been disclosed showing systemic noncompliance by the government with limits that are in place to protect americans privacy and constitutional rights. When case carries the serving echoes of the book collection, they were batch queries, and each query is supposed to be reasonably returned for intelligence crime. On the theory that these queries and aggregates would return ahead. And with respect, you are not correct that there are no privacy or civil liberty concerns with the roving wiretap which i will get into later if we have time. In short time has revealed significant gaps established by the freedom act and congress should take the opportunity to fill those gaps. As discussed in my recent testimony they should end the detailed records and tighten standards for collection under section 215 recognizing some over collection will continue to occur, congress should act strong minimization requirements. Backdoor search loophole underlies the queries and other warrantless searches of american communication. It should implement the Supreme Court holding in carpenter versus United States, something the government has failed to do by barring warrantless collection of geoLocation Information was similarly sensitive data. It should prohibit surveillance based on race or religion or other characteristics like surveillance predicated on First Amendment protected activities and fill various holes in transparency and oversight provisions, allow the little provision which should never have been used in 15 years to expire and amend the roving wiretap provision so that it matches the provision so i look forward to your questions. We will keep going as long as we can. The cdr program, do you recommend it be reauthorized . I want to say i agree the terrorist threat remains it is recommended. I agree it was the correct decision to suspend the program whether it is useful to keep the Authority Waiting around depends on a few predictive judgments. Will be useful in the future . That will depend on how terrorists are communicating. We heard testimony in the public forum that is different from the latest classified information. What should be reauthorized . Unlike the things we can rest of the judgment on based on retrospective look at the program the key factors are how are terrorists going to communicate, things like that. People still use phones, but the classified setting and other agencies whether terrorists are sticking it with multifaceted authority where communications might be useful and theres the issue whether technical challenges that can be fixed. I will talk to you in a classified setting to explain our view of what those issues where. A great team. A scenario where somebody is coming in on the Refugee Program or a foreign national. We find on their website urging people to embrace jihad, what do we do about that . That on its own urging people to embrace jihad depends on the level where it is a true threat or incitement to violence. The profile of this person is concerned . It depends on profile. It has to do with race or religion the no but if it has to do with action they have taken that suggest what should actually be involved in something that is solid. Absolutely. The challenge is you cant get a traditional fisa court order unless they are an agent of war power. Or lone wolf. The loan wolf provision, what it does is allow the government to get an order from the fisa court where there is probable cause that a person is involved in national terrorism. If you have probable cause a person is preparing for International Terrorism you can get a warrant. What would you say . A criminal warrant that is exactly the point. The reauthorization probable cause is a standard you have to meet. To believe they are involved in International Terrorism without a crime has been committed. Mister klein, at the cdr program, in terms of having handled this. The most notable is this was based on a publicly debated statute that laid out the contours of what the government would do under the program, we judge that those issues they are basically selfregulating. There is a compliant infrastructure, any large human enterprise will involve mistakes and how do you respond to those mistakes . Do you take them seriously . Your original question . How do we explain our constituents to reauthorize a program that has been shutdown . What do we day would we say the day after an attack . We did everything in reason to prevent the attack . If you had to say, what is the wise decision in terms of hedging your bets to keep the program around . With respect, for several years they determined it wasnt worth this and we look at the juice and squeeze and the right choice in whether it was worth keeping that authority in the future depends on whether they think they can squeeze the orange better in the future. I sit on the intelligence committee. There is no question that we should keep our protection devices up and people who would harm us if they could. I am categorically not for taking away any of the safeguards this country has put in motion. I believe it is our obligation to protect us and we watch carefully, i read the intel, there are a lot of problems out there. How do we keep them from hurting this country and i directed to my california constituents. I am not for canceling out any program that exists. How we run it better, yes. How we run it more efficiently, that is fine. But to begin to remove these now with all i know is going on in the world i am not going to vote to do so. I want to make that clear. Can you sort of split this thing up and from my view the three authorities, it all makes sense to me, the cdr program has not lived up to hopes and expectations. You could permanently reauthorize, the other condition two years from now, to not reauthorize it permanently, but give it a chance if that makes sense to you, senator lee. Lets start with you. In your prepared testimony you refer to recommendation in 2014, which is really good, in response to that we added language to the usa freedom act can a section requiring a fisa court to select amicus jerry to present arguments in certain cases, an order that is going to evolve significant interpretation of the law as determined by the court, in your view does the fisa court utilize the president as opposite as it should . It is essential to increasing the credibility of the court by Federal District court judges so it should be credible but we have the adversarial process and we all assume and agree that that improved the quality of decisionmaking. If you look at the number of appointments you will see an upward trend. My personal inclination would be to try to assure that the amicus is involved as much as possible including every matter, a significant programmatic decision made. One example and this is purely in mind the visual capacity i have cited in the past, the annual certification proceedings that take place under section 702, that is different from title i, and what they have done, a programmatic judgment for largescale Collection Program and the situation that should by definition have the participation of the amicus. Most fisa Court Proceedings are analogous to proceedings that take place in normal courts around the country and judges, Federal District court judges are used to hearing those things, that makes sense for various reasons. Some of the concern underlying what you are describing could be addressed, a carve out for cases, that is a different question. I have some questions but before i get to those, i sensed you wanted to respond to one of the argument being made with regard to the loan wolf provision and probable cause showing. Do you want to get to that . I want to make sure we understood we are talking about probable cause, not lower than probable cause, probable cause that a person is preparing for or engaged in acts of International Terrorism. If you look at the definition of International Terrorism, the point you might take, the notion that somehow that would not be enough to get a criminal warrant doesnt make a lot of sense. Second isnt borne out by the record. Not the government hasnt been getting the information it needs but getting the information through other means because the loan will provision is necessary. It least as difficult without the president ial track record of other mechanisms already made available. Is that what you are saying . I have it on the books because it is never used and is not likely going to be used because it doesnt plow any new ground. It removes this principle of connection to a foreign power or agent of a foreign power that is the unifying principle behind when we use the fisa process. It opens the door to gradually degrading the rights that are available to nonus persons who are lawfully in the United States. Creating a danger that is unnecessary given it hasnt been used. How do you think carpenter applies in the collection process . The court in carpenter held there were certain types of information that are so sensitive and what they reveal about a persons like that the fact they are held by a third party does not a mystery the persons Fourth Amendment interests in that information and in that case it was several months worth of cell phone location data. The court was careful to say was limiting itself to the fact of the case. It said this would not apply to, quote, other techniques that are used in the foreign intelligence and National Security areas, but if section 215 is used to collect Location Information that is the same technique so carpenter would apply and the court is not responsible for applying its general principles to cases that are not in front of the congress cant avoid that and the government cant avoid that. You need to figure out before reauthorizing this legislation how you think it would apply to the other technologies and information we know the government is obtaining through section 215 orders. There are certainly other types of information, other ways of obtaining geolocation other data or information that is similar in what they reveal about a persons life that carpenter would hold. That is Something Congress should be looking at when it reauthorize a section 215 in large part because the government has failed to do so. In march we get answers from the director of National Intelligence saying there has been no Intelligence Community wide guidance on how to implement carpenter and congressional requests for Additional Information have gone unanswered. Theres nothing magical about the words National Security that create some sort of loophole in the Fourth Amendment. You have things the government may do and things the government may not do but doesnt turn on whether you are the words National Security or put it in the context of foreign intelligence investigation. Certainly and congress has in the past made the decision that protection of a warrant or Something Like a warrant should apply when Sensitive Information is at stake. This has been a great hearing. We will classified followon about the program and end with this thought. There is a difference between them and i understand the difference. We will preserve the tools necessary to hit the enemy before they hit us within our constitutional democracy but there is a fundamental difference, trying to prosecute an individual and prevent attack on our country and that is what this is about so we will have a classified hearing and talk about what to do next so thank you all. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] the house will be in order. For 40 years cspan has been providing unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the Supreme Court and Public Policy events from washington dc and around the country so you can make up your own mind. Created by cable in 1979, cspan is brought to you by your local cable or satellite provider. Cspan, your unfiltered view of government. The chair of the federal reserve, jerome powell, testified on Monetary Policy and the economy before the joint economic committee. He says he expect the was economy to continue growing at a steady pace with the strong labor market so the federal budget is on a unsustainable path with high and rising debt
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.