The senate about this bill . It isnt clear what is going to happen. There is going to be a push for amendments. There is senators who would like to see the United States send military aid the way of ukraine. They will probably make a push on amendments. There is others who would like to see us speed up the natural gas flow so that ukraine isnt as dependent on russia its energy supply. And there might be thinks related to Cyber Security or taking the imf language out. There might not be an aaagreeme at and then we will have to go back to congress. Guest there are concerns about what the approval might be doing to the United States budget. There was a tradeoff earlier this year with republicans wanting to see irs rules that govern the tea party groups, seeing the rule suspended for the imf language. And two bills passed on the house side and a bill to impose sanctions on iran. The House Foreign Affairs committee is taking up the bills again. Why are they doing this and who are the key supporters and opponents on the bill we should watch for on the house . Guest the Loan Guarantee went through the house easy. No one is disputing that and there is no quality to that because no cost for the United States for a Loan Guarantee. The piece on sanctions isnt very controversial. Increasing sanctions on russian isnt hard to get through. This bill has more sanctions piece than the Loan Guarantee bill. The imf laj language is out of the bill. And there is a bit of a spinoff over this one piece. It mostly breaks down along party lines but you see some democrats on the house saying lets pass the easy stuff and worry about the imf later. You see republicans saying the same thing for the opposite reasons. They are saying lets vote on the imf reform just to get help when will the house vote . They will vote tomorrow and there could be something on the actual house by the end of the week on the second ukraine bill. Host and where is the whitehouse on all of those efforts . Guest the whitehouse is in favor of all of the the pieces. They say they have the sanctions authority and they want the Loan Guarantee and the imf and the president has talked about wanting congress to keep the imf language in the bill and bring it to his desk. You can follow tim starks on twitter and find him on roll call. The senate voted to move ahead on sanctions with a vote of 7817. Here is part of the debate from the senate floor monday. When the senate last met, i introduced with senator durbin a resolution regarding the response of invasion of ukraine. That resolution received unanimous support in the senate called for a number of specific step to steps to punish and isolate russia. We called upon the president to impose sanctions for the people most responsible for the invasion of crimea region. And i am pleased the president has begun the process although i would have hoped the numbers would have been far greater. And i want to note the president is in the north netherlands talking with partners about the need for further steps and i trust he is going to be successful to reach a concensus to build a strong, united response to russian aggression. And i welcome support from the sovereignty, integrity, democracy and stability act of ukraine of 2014 which i hope the senate will work on tonight. I would note time is of the essence here. If we want to send the message to russia dont want to be bogged down by other nonrelated issues. And that is why senator durbin and why moved our position forward before the senate adjou adjourned before the break so there was an approved agreement on 15 measure that would get the message to Vladimer Putin and the russian that we take this very seriously. Russians that legislation also sanctions the russian responsible for the aggression by prohibiting them from coming to the United States and freezing their assets here in america. European allies have done likewise and we are together responding to their outrages behavior. But there is much more that needs to be done. We must recognize the enormity of putins crime as he is trampling on the territory borders that are vital to the postwar order. The International Response must be more vigorous if we are to prove putins behavior is unacceptable and cannot be repeated. A strong response now is the best way to reassure our al lies and friends that this outrage is going to be stopped, reversed and ended. To do little more than prevent a handful of russian officials from travelling abroad will show putin and his cronies that in the end we dont mean what we say. So again, i want to say, the International Response needs to be, has to be, much more vigorous if we are to prove that we stand together, united in one voice, claiming that the behavior of president putin is unacceptable and cannot be repeated. Now, when senator durbin and i trodeuces this we signaled we would work to craft more sanctions, including economic sanctions, targeting key sectors of the russian economy and i believe many of us in the senate want to do more. I suggested a range of things going at the russian export of oil and gas, their energy play that is contributing a significant amount to their economy and are dependent on and financial sanctions and others. I hope the president is discussing those very measures in europe with our partners as we speak. We are all aware that sanctioning key economic responsibilities carries the risk that the european allies could be affected at the same time. This is reason to be thoughtful not a reason not to act. It should not be the bases to stand back and say this could affects us financely at home. In the end, unpunisht, unconstrained russian expassion threatens us all to a greater extent. Standing up now could prevent something much more serious in terms of what we have do. Sound paolicy decisions must be given and that includes a clear picture of what the world laook like if illegal annexation of a county. This includes expelling russia from the g8. Not temporarily but ending the russiannato council. And i am proposing a significant economic sanction that will harm russian interest in a serious way with hopefully minimal, or no damage to their own. I am introducing an amendment to the ukraine act and ukraine bill. The purpose of this is to sanctions the stole system of defense weapons and related grids. This is a state corporation entitled to export the entire range of russian armors allowed for export. It was set up for that purpose, set setup by putin, it is sending russian arms around the world, some to bad actors. Many of the colleagues in the senate know of this agency because of russias continuing supply to the regime in syria. We call for him to stop all export for that reason. We now have a new broader reason for ending all coal operation with this agency. Taking steps to obstruct their work will become one of the most effective ways we have of demonstrating the russian action by force of arms. My amendment prohibits the United States government by doing any business with this agencies by prohibiting future contacts and canceling the present acts. It is true an act i supported was similar, but it has a work around that the defense is using to buy russian helicopter for afghanistan. This practice is met with objection. It was objectional when it started and more objectional as the russians continued to supply syria and now based on what they did in crimea it should be totally unacceptable. And i learned karzai supports the annex of crimea which makes this more outrageous. After all we have done to support president karzai and the afghans with u. S. Tax dollars and the lives to u. S. Soldiers, after all we have done, president karzai reaches out and supports the russian action contrary to ours. Russian is a nation that pivologed the country. We are there trying to save his hide with our tax dollars and soldiers lives, and he says this. So it would put an end to karzais business dealings with the russian. Karzai will have to buy his russian helicopter with his own money not ours. And i propose it would prohibit contracts with any domestic or foreign country of any company that works with the company in the design and manufacture of military equipment. Other dealings for nonmilitary benefits wouldnt be affected. We are going after the military exports; many of which go to our sworn enemys. And to deduct from foreign assistance programs any amount that they send on russian weapons through the company. These deductions would be made from Security Assistance accounts but wouldnt affect other aid programs. The president would be author e authorized to use the funds other where with congressional support. Amount from our assistance programs. They can buy russian weapons o they can buy russiann weapons o their own dime. Not on our dime. Taken together, i believe these proposals would be a useful addition to the ukraine aid act and give it the additional teeth it needs. It would harm the russian industry, the russian economy, the russian prestige and putins behavior. We need to harm the russian arm indu industry, the russian economy especially the energy part, the russian prestige and putin standing in the way. So i urge the leader to permit a full debate, and an up and down vote on my amendment and urge my colleagues to support it. I yield the floor i rise to support the ukraine assistance package which will be on the floor later this even. I want to thank senator mendez and senator corkers work. I was proud to put this together with senator johnson and mccain and many others. I come to the floor as i am sure others have and will to talk about the vital importance of a big bipartisan vote in favor of this legislation this evening. Having just come from ukraine, i was there with a number of colleagues, it was my second trip to kiev in the last three months. They are waiting for a strong signal of support from the congress that sends a message we will stand with our ukrainen brothers and sisters as they engage in this battle for independence, freedom and sovereignty. I will not belabor the und underlying details of the bill but the three components are all equally important to ukraine. We heard support for all three of the pieces while we were there. First and foremost, clearly we have to deliver on the process of economic aid. A billion in Loan Guarantees in this bill and they are contengent upon the signing of a new aagreement with the imf but it will leverage 15 billion from europe. Ukraines economy before this was fragile and this International Crisis has done nothing but further weaken the country. The ukrainians have a new government, one they believe in and one that will bring an end to the corruption that has been rife over the past decade. This new government will be undermined by an economic crisis that will occur, guaranteed, unless the United States steps up and provides this assistance. We cannot do it alone, though. So that is why the second part of the pilled bill allows to the United States to agree to a set of imf that will allow the country to provide to countries in crisis like ukraine. Every other imf member as signed on but the United States. Some people are categorizing this imf part of the bill as a political addon. That could not be further from the truth. When we met with the ukrainian officials they specifically asked to the pass the imf reforms because this is the only way they will get the 2030 billion in relief. And the imf will be more likely to agree if the United States steps up. And lastly, we need to send a strong message for what he did in crimea. We will show putin was wrong when he calculated a march into crimea would come at little to no cost to russia. I want to talk about what this tells us about the status of russia in the region in the world. I am sure my colleagues will talk about the importance of sanctions. But i have watched the media portray the events of the last couple weeks as a sign of russian strength. To me this isnt a sign of russian strength. This is a sign of russian we weakness. Putin has designed for reestablishing some sense of the old soviet empire by reasserting control over what putin calls the near abroad which are the former soviet republics and satellite states. His dream of reestablishing the soviet empire fell apart the day that the president fed ukraine. Ukraine is the crown jewel. If putin tried to recreate the empire under the Customs Union he knew he could not do it without the second Biggest Country in europe bordering on russia; ukraine. His invasion of crimea was a panicked reaction to this new reality. A ukraine now oriented toward the European Union. So it is important to understand the position putin is in. He has made a mess for the International Community to try to clean up through this his invasion of crimea. 90 of ukraine has a government in kiev just signed with the European Union. He has become a puryea. We should take russia out of the g8 and make it clear they dont have a place at the International Table along with countries like the United States, france and england to behave in this way. So the bill that we are debating today will give the president and the new government in kiev tools with which to address and end the crisis. This isnt about reestablishing the cold war. This panicked invasion of crimea occupying the nightlines of the news is a display of their weak display around the world after their failure to survive. Lastly, madam president , i want to talk about the broader history both looking in the past, but also looking to the future that we may miss when we focus on an hourbyhour bases on the crisis at hand. Having had the opportunity to visit kiev a few times in the past several months, i had the opportunity to learn a little bit about the history of the place of the people and there is a wonderful cathedral in kiev called the church of st. Sophia. It was build by ukraines greatest leader. He presided over an empire that was the hub of trading on the c continent. It took goods from the west and went east and went down to the mediterranean. Everything ran through the territory of kiev. It speaks both to ukraines past but its future. They have been set up with a false choice within the crisis of the several months. Join the European Union or stay aligned with russia. Kiev stands at the cross roads of east and west and north and south. That is ukraines past but it is going to be ukraines future as well. We are trying to deal with a russiarun by a leader whose Foreign Policy seems dictated by a desire to folk a stick in the eye of the United States, i ultimately think that viewing the force through the trees means acknowledging that russias future in a postputin area is about integration with the west as well. That was the direction russia was heading until putin took power. That conversation about how we realize the ultimate paparadimes for another day. But when senator mccain and i went to speak a million ukrainians that were protesting their government they were there to talk about dignity. For some it was about the corruption, some about the brutal violence, but moist people wanted to restore dignity to their lives and dignity is about the ability to chose for yourself what your future is. No country. The United States, the russian federation, should dictate to the ukrainians what their future should be. That is why in the wake of the invasion and years of economic ma manipulation we are going to extend a firm hand to ukraine and a firm hand against russia. S to go back to its historical roots and draw from east and west, but one in which russia realizes that their economic salvation lies not in setting up some new cold war but in full integrating themselves and their economy and their Political Institutions not only with countries like ukraine, not only with the nations of the e. U. , but beyond to american shores as well. Ats the future. But that reality will never exist for the young nation of ukraine unless it survives this moment. And we can send a strong message this evening that this body stands with that future for this young nation of ukraine by supporting the package before te president , madam president. President , madam president. I would urge my colleagues to not only vote on this particular measure but also vote to pass as soon as possible the bill that is before the United States senate that was reported out before we went into recess, by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on a vote of 144. Obviously it is intended to be an opening response, a beginning response, to the russian aggression in ukraine, specifically now occupying and absorbing crimea into russia, an act of aggression the likes of which has not been seen in a long, long time. In addition to that, now additional pressures are being put on as we speak the Ukrainian Government of raising the price of gas by canceling Ukraine Special price discounts, Oil Deliveries are slow. Border crossings for the delivery of trade has been closed, and the dirty tricks good on from the old kgb colonel, Vladimir Putin. This act is relatively mild. It will provide Loan Guarantees, which are badly needed now. The ukraineian economy is now even under greater pressure and greater difficulty, given the actions taken by Vladimir Putin. And it would stabilize the ukrainian economy. Just a beginning but a strong signal of United States support for this fledgling ukrainian democracy. The imf reforms are somewhat controversial by some of my colleagues. Bit the imf reforms are not the reason why this legislation is before us. The reason why the legislation is before us is because Vladimir Putin has now absorbed the crimea into russia. And i predicted that when the Ukrainian Government became a government of the people and thrown out yanukovych, he would do exactly that, because of Vladimir Putins view of the need to have sevastopol as a base on the black saginaw order to have access to the mediterranean, without which his visions and view of the russian empire would be threatened. So i say to my colleagues that right now the president of the United States is in europe. I hope he is leading in europe rather than Just Consulting in europe. And by the way, a comment by the president i still dont quite get there would not be a military excursion in ukraine. I have never heard that word used in regards to military action, but the most important thing is in my view, is to pass this legislation as soon as possible, fight about other less important issues later on, but send a strong signal to the people of ukraine, who are watching us as we speak ask as we vote today, as to whether were going to come to their assistance and at least take some small measures to punish Vladimir Putin. If we get hung up for another week or another how many hours because of our failure to act, in my view, sends exactly the right signals. I also speak again in the strongest terms that we need to send military assistance to this country. We need to help them defend themselves. Russian troops are massed on the border of Eastern Ukraine as we speak. I dont know whether Vladimir Putin will go into Eastern Ukraine. I did predict he would go into prime ya. Enough i crima. Now i believe he is watching carefully for the reaction of the west, led by the United States of america, as how we are going to assist ukraine, how were going to prevent or at least make the cost of further encroachment into ukrainian territory, very expensive one. We have military assistance programs with a myriad of nations. And we should be giving them the weapons that they need to defend themselves. Im talking about defensive weaponry. And its shameful for us not to do so. So i would i see my colleague from illinois here, who is was privileged and proud to travel to ukraine with, man who understands these issues as well or better than anyone in this body, and one who represents thousands and thousands and thousands of ukrainianamericans, who i know he has met with that are deeply concerned about russia. Id be glad to yield for questions. Id like to say through the chair at it was an honor to join my colleague, senator mccain, on a whirlwind trip to ukraine, 48 hours, maybe six extra to spare, two full days of working there, might with every leader of every level of go there, and sensing their concern over the pending socalled referendum in crimea and what russia would do next, and he and i stand together in a bipartisan fashion, urging the massage of this resolution as quickly as possible. The reason i came to the floor senator, i was on the phone with the ambassador from ukraine, and we were talking about the situation there, and i said, senator mccain is on the floor. Id like to say a word, and he said, the people in ukraine are watching what were doing. Theyre watching what congress and the United States is going to do. There were some differences between us. Theres some differences between the parties. But there comes a moment, and always has, at least in the past, where we decide were going to stand together as a nation, particularly when it comes to issues of Foreign Policy. This resolution does not address every issue but certainly addresses some key issues we both agree on. We both voted for this in the Senate Foreign Relation Committee and we both want to see this move, the sooner the better. I want to salute my colleague from arizona for returning to the area in kiev where 103 ukrainians lost their lives, demonstrating against the former government and asking for change, and i will tell him that our experience together, visiting that country with a delegation of eight senators, i hope sent a strong message, there is bipartisan support for ukraine and we will not tolerate putins aggression at the expense of innocent people. I ask for consent to engage in colloquy with the senator from illinois. Without objection. I ask my friend, isnt it true that the people of ukraine are watching in a way that is hard for us to understand here, before an empty chamber, but more importantly, whether we act and act quickly, that signal to them as they face these additional russian aggression, maybe not military aggression but already trade borders have been closed, price of their energy has been raised. In other words, putin is putting more and more pressure on them. They look to us. Isnt it a fact that they wont quite understand if we go another several days because of some additional issue that really does not affect whether were coming to their assistance or not . I would ask my friend from through the chair i would respond. I couldnt agree more. I think it was significant when the new Prime Minister in ukraine was scheduling his first trip outside the country, where did he come . Here. Washington, dc. Whom did he meet with . The president and the leaders. We sat together with him. Just in a room downstairs, Senate Foreign Relations Committee room. He came here because he wanted to bring the message to us of what he feared would happen if putin0s aggression went forward and he wanted us to bring the message to the world that the United States stood by him. How can we possibly explain to these people, who are worried about the survival of their nation, we got tied up in a political squabble between the house and senate or two political parties. Its important for us to move quickly, and i would say to the for senator from arizona, he understands this as well or better than most. Many of us come from countries which were once under the yoke of the soviets, and we remember what it took to finally get independence and democracy. Vladimir putin today is fighting to save a failing soviet franchise. And where he cant win the hearts and minds of neighboring nations, he instead uses masked gunmen, troops, barbed wire, and energy extortion. Thats how he works. He is not winning this battle. But he is telling to the world, this the only way i can keep my, quote, friends in line, is with pressure, and the United States, and i hope other selfized nations will join us in saying that is unacceptable. I thank the senator and i agree with him. Now is the time to act in the senate. I note the presence of the chairman of the Foreign Relations committee on the floor, who i want to thank for his rapid leadership in getting this legislation approved by overwhelming majority of their committee on a bipartisan basis, and i know hes waiting to speak. Just one more comment i would have for my friend from illinois. I understand you have just met with ukrainianamericans in your home state of illinois and chicago. Isnt it true they dont quite understand why we have not acted more rapidly in face of naked aggression, which is incredible acquisition of territory which the russian government guaranteed as part of ukraine when ukraine gave up its nuclear inventory, which happened to be the Third Largest in the world, and i see the chairman waiting so i wont ask anymore questions, except to urge my colleagues, lets have an overwhelming vote to move to this legislation and get it done as quickly as possible. Madam chair. I ask nance scent that chris landberg, from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, be granted floor privileges for the consideration of any legislation related to ukraine, support act of 2014, the original request comes from my colleague, chairman bob menendez from. Without objection. Madam president. Senator from new jersey. Madam president , first let me thang my two colleagues, both distinguished member0s of the smart Foreign Relations committee, senator mccain and senator durbin for their work and leadership on this issue that created the type of bipartisan spirit that is incredibly in important in general, and certainly in Foreign Relations, and they both add greatly to the legislation that couple out that we are considering before the floor in the straw bipartisan vote of the committee. Madam president , last week some of my colleagues in the chamber were sanctioned by Vladimir Putin for standing up for the ukrainian people. Standing up for freedom. Standing up for their democratic aspirations, standing up for the sovereignty of the ukraine, and as i said in brussels at the German Marshal Fund this weekend, if i have been sanctioned for those reasons, i say by all means, mr. Put put, sanction me. And i would urge my colleagues to support the legislation. They may be sanctioned but thats what standing up for the ukraine is all about at this critical moment. When we look around the world we realize that every so often we face a critical juncture at a time of great upheaval and change. With the backsliding of russian leadership to a pre1991 posture, were at such a juncture. Vladimir putin seems to view the pre1991 soviet unions expansionist authoritarianism as a presentday goal. In the last two decade, which saw the formation of new and independent states as a departure from peter the greats expansionist aspirations. From ukraine to georgia to the middle east were seeing a new russian leadership bent on using its military authority, Economic Resources and diplomacy to serve its parochial interests at any cost, despite violations of its own legal commitments and those it has made to the International Community. Russias flatout extortion of ukraine, supported by former corrupt leaders of ukraine, forced the political explosion which russia then exploited in syria president putin is actively propping up president assad and perpetuating the worlds worst humanitarian dollars in iran the ink of the joint plan of anxioused signed last november was barely dry when reports surfaced that tehran and moscow were negotiating an oil for goods swap worth 1. 5 billion a month, and that they plan to build a new nuclear plant, all steps that only aid iran in pursuit of Nuclear Weapons while diminishing the sanctions that forced that country to the negotiating table in the first place. Its no surprise that put a putin and his krohnfullys already threatened to derail syria and iran talks if their countries dont step back from punishing russia for its annexation of the ukraine in geneva, as talks continue, we can only hope the crisis in ukraine will not have a Ripple Effect in russias participation. But in my view mr. Putin has miscalculated. He has reignited a dangerous pre18991 soviet game style of russian roulette with the International Community, and we cannot blink. We must understand that we will he must understand, should say, we will never accept his violation of International Law in the ukraine. Thats why we passed this legislation in committee. And an aid package for ukraine that provides loans for economic stabilization, supports planning for upcoming democratic elections, aids in the recovery of stolen assets, and expands Security Cooperation between the two countries and it holds moscow accountable for its aggressive stance against ukraine. First, this legislation provides for ukrainian Loan Guarantees consistent with the billion dollars announced by the administration recent days. It mire roar mirrors the housed legislation. Second, it assures the Obama Administration can assist Ukrainian Government to identify and secure and recover acts linked to the corruption of yanukovych, members of his family or other ukrainian officials, third, offers funds for democracy, governance, and assistance, and 100 million for enhances security for cooperation of ukraine and other states in the eastern europe. Fourth, it mandates sanctions, complimenting the president s recent executive order against ukrainians and russians alike responsible for violence against antigovernment protesters and those responsible for undermining the peace, security, stability, softenty, or territorial integrity of the ukraine, as well as imposing sanctions on russian individuals complicit in or responsible for significants corruption in the ukraine. And, fifth, it allows the administration to broadly sanction corrupt russian officials officials and go after putins allies and cronies who are engaininged in corruption to the detriment of the russian people. Finallily it provides needed reforms to the United States participation in the imf which would allow the United States to leverage significants support from the imf for ukraine today and for similar enfor unforeseen crisises in the future. Its the imf that is leading the effort to stablize ukraines fragile economy, and theres a chance to reach a peaceful solution to the standoff. Congressessal ratification of the imf reform would increase emergency funding to the ukraine by up to 60 , and it would provide an additional 6 billion for longer term support, setting an important marker for other donors such as the eu and the world bank. Failure to proof approve the reforms would undermine both the imf and the International Standing of the United States. Some countries are happy to see u. S. Global influence diminish. Failing to approve the reforms weakens the United States and emboldens our competitors. The imf is strengthened at no cost to u. S. Finances or influence. The United States retains its executive board seat and sole veto power at no net cost, since the 63 billion increase in u. S. Quota is fully offset by an equivalent decrease to a separate emergency facility. Other countries, however, put in new money, increasing imf lending power. The fact it, it is a pure win for the United States. We will pay for the 315 million budget impact of the bill from reel cuts and from funds that were underprofferring. Given that the imf helps to stabilize country, often precluding need for military action, the relatively minor costs are paid back. President s reagan, clinton, and both president s bush, backed legislation to increase imf resources, and president reagan called the imf, quote, the linchpin of the International Financial system. These efforts combined send a message to the world that the annexation of crimea will not stand. Let me close by saying were in a dangerous moment in history. With global consequences. And the world is watching. If the west does not act, what will china say when its looking at its territorial desires in the South China Sea . What will iran say when were negotiating in vienna about Nuclear Weapon friday what will others in the world say, north korea whose march to Nuclear Weapons on a greater scale is still in place. All of them will be looking at what we in the west do or do not do in making a decision about russias brazen move into the ukraine. They will be watching to see how far they can go, how much they can do. There they will be asking, what can i get away with . The fact is, as a matter of principle, ukrainian sovereignty cannot be violated for simply looking westward and embracing ideals rooted in freedom. These ideals must always remain first and foremost in our Strategic Response to international events. When i was in brussels last week at nato and the German Marshal Fund, said the broader question that faces us is this. Can a united transatlantic vision and our collective commitment to bold actions in this century match the vision and the commitment of those who created the International Institutions which brought peace and prosperity to millions in the last century . I believe that if we livelead, and govern, guided by shared values and united by our common concerns, we can lead the world through this transformational moment in history and prevent further russian aggression from taking us back friar what was that 1991 world. Thats the choice before us, madam president. I urge my colleagues to strongly support the cloture motion and so we can work to a statement that will do exactly that. Senator yield for a question . Id be happy to yield. Senator from arizona. I think its very clear that Vladimir Putin has massed forces in eastern the border of russia and Eastern Ukraine, and right now he is calculating as to whether to move there or even into moldova, where the region is now occupied and has been by russian troops. Also theres pressure on the baltic countries that is being exerted as we speak. A lot of it in defense of russianspeaking people. If we dont send this message now, with this package, and a bipartisan and strong manner, putin will be encouraged to act further acts of aggression against crimea and the region, and i would ask my colleague if he doesnt agree with that assessment. I think the senator is spot on. Right now, putin is looking at whether or not he proceeds in Eastern Ukraine. He is looking at moldova. He is calculating and he is calculating what are the costs, what will the United States and the European Union do . And from my perspectives, president putin only understands strength and that strength is either in a military context, which now one is speaking about at this moment, or an economic one. And that is why this package is so incredibly important because it takes every single dim mention that the distinguished senator helped, aids the ukraine Loan Guarantee, and its sanctions the senator was engaged in elements of that elements of the russian hierarchy for engaging in corrupting the country, the ukraine, and at the same time for invading its territorial integrity. It prepares assistance for that election that is supposed to take place in may that is critical to be fair, open and transparent, and at the same time provides for the greater resources through the imf. So all of these elements are critical, and also include a very clear statement of greater defense cooperation which is also critically important. So these are all the elements of sending a strong message as putin is calculating what will be the cost. And if the cost isnt high enough, he may very well proceed interest Eastern Ukraine or to those part of moldova, and that is an action we can ill afford and the action that others will look at across the world, they will calculate the west is not willing to take the actions necessary to stop my design, and if that is the case, then i think we are in a world of hurt choose the globe. I thank the chairman for his eloquent statement. I yield the floor. Madam president , i yield the floor. A house panel will work on an aid package for ukraine which includes sanctions against russia. The house legislation is different from the senate resolution, which allows the International Monetary fund to move billions in aid dollars between different accounts. Well have live coverage tomorrow from the House Foreign Affairs Committee Markup start agent 10 00 a. M. Eastern on cspan3. Later the chairman of the federal communications commission, tom wheeler, will testify about the president s fcc budget request for 2015 during a House Appropriations subcommittee hearing. You can watch live coverage of that at 2 00 eastern, also on cspan3. Up next on cspan2, connecticut senator Richard Blumenthal talks about making changes to the foreign Intelligence Surveillance court. Then a hearing on the president s 2015 budget request for u. S. Drug control policy. Cspan2, providing live coverage of the u. S. Senate floor proceedings and key Public Policy events and every weekend, book tv, now for 15 years the only television network. Cspan2 created by the cable tv industry. Watch us in hd, like us on facebook, and follow us on twitter. Next, senator Richard Blumenthal talks about making change those fisa court and the need to protect both National Security safeguard privacy. The connecticut democrat took questions at an event hosted by the constitution project in philadelphia. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the National Constitution center. We have the pleasure to have at this wonderful institution, those of you who have been here before know, is the only institution in america chartered by congress to disseptember disseminate information about the u. S. Constitution on a nonpartisan basis, and as part of our inspiring mission, were a museum and americas town hal, the one place where citizens can come to hear the best arguments on all said of the constitutional debates that are rifting the country, and make up your own mind. We have had a spectacular series of programs. Last week there was a discussion on whether the president has the Constitutional Authority to target and kill american citizens abroad. On march 27th professor deerwitness will talk about the issues at the hart of his newback and today were going to gathered to start one one of the most click tated and necessary to debate questions, and that is reform of the foreign Intelligence Surveillance court. The fisa is responsible for authorizing secret warrants to collect data outside of the ordinary criminal justice process in the service of National Security, and we will discuss the arguments for and against reforming it to do so were proud to partner with the constitutional project based in washington, dc. The constitution project is a Great Organization that, like the National Constitution center, brings together experts from all sides of the political spectrum to make recommendations about constitutional and legal reform. And its my great pleasure now to introduce the senior counsel for the constitution project, katherine stern, who wail make some introductory words and then introduce our honored guest speaker, senator richmond blumen Richard Blumenthal. The for that generous welcome, and many thanks to the staff of the National Constitution center for working so hard to help us put on this event at the museum of, we the people. Were going to try to do something very difficult here today, something maybe even impossible. Which is not to balance National Security and Civil Liberties. Im talking about being both entertaining and accurate about the foreign Intelligence Surveillance court. Well try to be frank and open and at the same time deal with the tough questions. Helping americans understand what is at stake when our constitution is at risk is the core mission of the constitution project. Our organization brings together policy experts, government officials, and legal practitioners from across the political spectrum. To foster consensusbased solutions to some of the most difficult constitutional challenges of our time. And one of the most puzzling of those challenges is how to continue our tradition of individual privacy in the digital age. At a time when the governments capacity, as well as private industrys capacity for surveillance, of our citizens is massively increasing, and the technology for collecting information are for outpacing laws that protect us. Jeff rosen has taken up many fascinating aspect0s this problem so were thrilled to have him here and with representatives from all three branches of government to shed some lying on the issue at the center of the nsa surveillance controversy. I want to thank our distinguished panelists for bringing their expertise and delightfully diverse points of view to this debate before we hear from them its my honor to introduce United States senator from connecticut richards blumenthal. Senator has along railroad of sending our country and the state of connecticut as the u. S. Attorney for connecticut, a state representative and state senator, and as a fiveterm attorney general. And its my understanding that the very day after the world learned about the nsas secret program to collect and analyze all americans phone call records, senator blumenthal began working on the legislation well hear about today. A comprehensive effort with broad bipartisan support to bring more Public Knowledge and civil rights representation to the workings of the foreign Intelligence Surveillance court. The fisa Court Representations im sorry. The fisa court has been approving the National Security agency surveillance programs behind closed doors, in hearings where only the executive branchs interests are represent ted. Senator blumen alcohol to ensure the publics privacy rights are enforced. So were delighted he could join to us tell us more about thus important effort. Mitt its me great pleasure to introduce senator Richard Blumenthal. [applause] thank you so much, katherine and jeff, and thank you for having me here today when jeff was introducing the constitution project and its bipartisan mission, i was reminded of a story of al smith, the onetime governor of the state of new york, some of you of a certain age may still remember him, as i do. And the story is told that he went to sing sing, the personality in new york to give a speech, and he ban his speeches by saying, my fellow democrats but he wasnt sure every inmate was a democrat so hey had a fallback line, which was to say, my friends. Again he wasnt sure that every prisoner was a friend, so he had one last line, which was to say, home glad to im glad to see so many of your here tonight. So im glad to see so many of you here. Republican or democrats or independent. This issue is one that should bring us together or divide us without regard tomorrow to partisan issues and were their talk about this difficult issue, difficult to be both entertaining and accurate, but by comparison to what the gentleman did down the street here, relatively manageable even if challenging. You may recall that about a week ago, one of my colleagues, senator dianne feinstein, spoke on the senate floor to lay out a series of very alarming allegations that put the country literally on the cusp of a constitutional crisis. In a very cogent and powerful speech, senator feinstein described her belief that the cia has circumvented the Senate Intelligence committees oversight efforts in a number of ways, by stonewalling the committees attempts to obtain certain documents, searching committee computers, to monitor staff activities surreptitiously seizing material, and most disturbingly, accusing the Committee Staff of criminal misconduct in an effort to intimidate them. Now, were very early in the investigation. There may be actually several investigations underway. At least one by the department of justice, and i am reaching no conclusions here as to what the merits are of her allegations, but certainly when such allegations are made by someone of senator feinsteins stature, especially someone who has been so supportive of the intelligence committee, they have to be rather as credible and significant. And they allege facts and potential violations of law that have to be addressed. Certainly the looming issue concerns not only the violations of law that may be involved there, but also how the rule of law is really imposed on the Intelligence Community, which operates in secret, and sometimes has shown that it seeks to operate above the law. Looming ahead is the broader question of whether the Intelligence Community, which has been afforded so much deference over the past decade, can operate within the apparatus of accountability that a portions power between the branches of government as the founders south to do, and more generally we have to ask how much unchecked and unmonitored intelligence activity can be consistent with the rule of law. And those questions, very simply, cannot be long delayed, in part because of their urgencies to maintain our Constitutional Values and in part because a lot of the key statues spire on june 1, 2015. So when youre asked will there be legislation . Yes there almost certainly will be legislation, or a serious attempt and a bipartisan attempt to reach legislation because the statutes some of the key statutes expire on june 1, 2015. The rule of law as we know, particularly here, had been the bedrock principle of american democracy, the loadstar of our republic, and living under the rule of law means there are certain lines that cannot be crossed. As much as a guarantee of safety might be attractive, were not willing to pursue it if it involves abridging certain rights. In fact under the Fourth Amendment, we are prohibited from pursuing it through a wholesale sacrifice of liberty and privacy and dignity. Police cant search houses on a hunch. As i know from my Law Enforcement days. There is a procedure to obtain warrants before theres a search, as maybe the cia might have done through the fbi before it searched the committee files, if indeed it did so. And government agents cant simply listen to our conversations on the phone because they believe there may be something threatening. Arbitrary unconstrained governmental invasion of privacy was a reason that the gentleman literally down the street got together to rebel. And to write the declaration of independence. And part of the reason was secret courts, operating in secret, like the star chamber, which was an anathema to them, and i spit respectfully so be an anathema to us today. The fisa court is such a court, making secret law through secret opinions in secret proceedings in many respects, having an impact on our lives that is unknown to most americans, but has huge consequences for the future of our nation, and part of my frustration, i will tell you, right up front, is the lack of attention to these issues on the part of the American Public. They seem so on technical, difficult to comprehends, and yet theyre so consequential for our nation. Our current system, with that secret court, is the result of a committee commonly known as the church committee, named after senator church, which was formed in 1975 with hearings that reveal how the cia secretly opened americans mail, gaged in campaigns of harassment in design to discredit vietnam war opponents and bugged Martin Luther kings hotel room. Among other activities. In Response Congress passed the foreign Intelligence Surveillance act, which we know as fisa, in 1978. Fisa allows for domestic electronic surveillance when the government can show probable cause for an individual that that an individual or organization is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power, and those are quotes from the statute. Fisa also created a twotiered court system, composed of what we know as the fisa court, the foreign Intelligence Surveillance court, and an appellate court, the fisa court of review. These courts are where the government has to make its argument for surveillance or for collection of information. And the question really now is, how should the fisa court be reformed, if you agree it should be in a way that makes it more robust, more capable of protecting individual rights and liberties, and of course, this task is challenging because the nature of surveillance and communication has changed dramatically just in the last two or three decades. Again, going to the founders of our democracy, who met in this very town not far from here, the idea of the telephone would have been unimaginable but the internet was unimaginable to us just a short time ago, and the dramatic explosion of means of information and communication would have been certainly unimaginable to the original writers of the fisa act in 1975. So, there is a task of reform, and i believe we have to address it. Again, the act will expire, certain key elements will end, in june of next year, and we have an opportunity and an obligation to address these issues. All of you know that the fisa Court Hears Arguments from only one side. Operates in secret. Hears arguments from only one side. Namely the government. So, the central change i propose is that there be a truly adversarial process as a litigator but really as a lawyer, anyone here who has been through the Legal Training and you decent even need that training to understand, just the Kitchen Table is a good form to comprehends it. The airing of debate happens best when different sides are presented. And judges generally agree. Patricia walled, women questioned when she was a witness, said she benefited as a judge by hearing both sides and often missed an argument if it wasnt presented. A judges nightmare is a defendant representing himself. And judges will insist on appointing a counsel for a defendant if he or she is unrepresented, as a prosecutor, as a u. S. Attorney, i dreaded defendants representing themselves. Because the issues could not be aired. And debated, and considered sufficiently without an advocate. For that individual. And of course, the Supreme Court agreed in gideon v wainwright, where it in effect disagreed with judge mchari, the child judge in mr. Gideons case, who said that he had given every opportunity to mr. Gideon to represent himself to air his arguments, and he had tried to be sympathetic to those arguments. The court said, he needs a lawyer. And he got a lawyer, and the result was different with the lawyer than it was the first time around. So, there is a lot of practical experience that confirms this idea that the adversarial process works better when it hears from both sides and judges reach better decisions when they hear both sides. Last summer, in one of his first comments on the metaData Collection, president obama said he believed that the fisa court would benefit from the addition of a Civil Liberties advocate. He was somewhat vague at the time but i took it as confirmation that he agreed that there should be a special advocate or an adversarial process, more robust than what we have now. But the form of advocate he has endorsed i think can be improved. And i thank him for his very thoughtful attention to this issue, but i think that the advocate can be made more effective if we in effect give it a certain form. As i see it, initial advocate must, for example, be able to proactively request participation in fisa court proceed examination to engage the fisa court of review appellate process for significant legal decisions. That we about a real reform, not just cosmetic tweak to the current process. Giving this power to the advocate herself rather than leaving its entirely in the hands of the court to invite an adovcate on occasion when the court things its important is very, very Important Health heard from the privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board that at least some of the judges on the fisa court believe they already have the fewer call upon third parties for alternative views but have never exercised that power. So giving them the option or the choice is ineffective in my view. The structure requires the advocate to make decisions about when the opposing view should be presented. And that is also why i believe that the advocate should be a permanent position with an established office and staff, not an occasional, oncall observer status that the court hears only when it chooses to do. So 0 my proposal would grant the advocate powers of any council, present legal argument0s the court and take cases through the appellate process, much as appoint public defender do now. Theyre available whether or not the judge thinks a defendant needs a lawyer, when the defendant needs a lawyer, and this special advocate, some may call them a constitutional advocate would have the responsibility to protect our rights and liberties whether or not the court thought it was necessary in that case, because courts may not appreciate the importance of issues when they arise, patricia wald, a distinguished jurist, said. My proposal would bar the advocate from delaying or undercutting the fisa process. Very importantly, it requires the advocate and her staff to obtain appropriate security clearances and maintain confidentiality, just as any other member of the fisa bar would have to do, and it allows the fisa court to grant a warrant. Without necessarily the participation of that advocate before the proceeding. The challenge could be brought after the warrant is grandded and after the surveillance is initiated. If there is an exigent circumstance that justifies the warrant being grant, much as now happens in everyday life of the criminal law across america where the u. S. Attorney does what i did for years, and others countless others have gone, go to a judge, sometime friday in the middle of the night, and have the legitimacy of the warrant tested afterwards. Here theres no way of many of the targets of the warrants testing its legitimacy because they dont even know its happening. And they wont know its happening without there being a case in court, resulting from a prosecution, or some other proceeding. So, the idea is that adversarial arguments improves the process, protects our rights, and accountability results from it as well. Accountability also requires Greater Transparency. So, another aspect of my special advocate proposal would require the fisa doubter disclose and release decisions that constitute a significant construction or interpretation of law. A significant construction or interpretation of law. Like the metadata warrant, which was never disclosed until the tapes indicated that this information was being collected. Secret law, made secretly, faithing our constitutional rights, again, we should not tolerate unless there is a greater showing that somehow our National Security requires it, and then for the period of time that is necessary. The releases of this information, of the opinions and rulings of the court, could be redacted or summarized to protect classified details, but release of them and the adversarial process would accomplish a key goal, if you agree on nothing else today, we can reach a consensus that confidence and trust has been eroded and needs to be restored. Obviously the snowden tapes have played a significant role, but the American Public needs the assurance that the rule of law, the rule of law, will be more than a phrase when it comes to intelligence gathering. Public trust also comes from appearance and perception, not just the reality, of a balanced and unbiased court making these decisions. Unlike other courts the judges of the fisa court are all appointed by the chief justice of the United States Supreme Court. Without any oversight or confirmation. Theyre all article 3 judges so have all been confirmed by the senate as well as appointed by the president , but not for this role. And, again, without any disrespect, without a scintilla of disrespect for the Supreme Court or the chief justice of the United States, americans may hesitate to trust a court whose members are picked entirely by one man without any kind of review. None. No review whatsoever. A court picked by one man will inevitably be more homogenous, less diverse ideology include, as well as in ground, than one aassembled by multiple sources and Extensive Research has in fact shown that judicial decisionmaking is negatively affected by homogennity. Thats why way have different ethnic and religious and economic backgrounds serving on our court and the move toward greater diversity is one that i have supported passionately, and aggressively, and fortunately this president has done as well, and that applies to ideological perspective as well. Adversarial process and protection of libertieses is best begin teed by the diverse gash guaranteed by that diversity of viewpoint. So thats why my proposal to reform the court focuses on its composition. The fisa judge selection reform act authorizes the chief judge of each judicial district to appoint a member of the fisa court subject to review and approval by the chief justice. Its really a pretty modest change when you come right down to it. After all, the rhetoric is stripped away, it is a very modest change because we want to preserve the confidentiality of the court and we want to in my view, stick to judges who already have been confirmed. The alternative of having them reconfirmed i think raises a danger of politicizing the process, and im very sensitive to that concern. This reform, though, would ensure that the judges on the fisa court represent the broad mainstream of judicial opinion, and its designed to give greater diversity on the fisa courts without undermining their independence from political pressures. From congress or the president or anyone else. Let me close by saying something that i think goes without saying. I have the deepest respect for our Intelligence Community. They are dedicated, patriotic, able americans, who serve, sometimes in harms way, with great courage, and they perform a Vital Mission for our country. I have two sons who have been in the military, one in the Marine Corps Reserve serving in afghanistan. He is back now and is in law school. Another son who is a navy officer. In training out on the west coast. Im a member of the Armed Services committee as well as the Veterans Affairs committee. I know well and appreciate deeply the threats this country faces. And the courage of men and women in uniform and out of uniform who serve in our diplomatic service, as well as our military, and the ways they benefit from the intelligence that is gathered by the agencies that too often we take for granted and too often we credit size criticize unfairly. Im simple thing at the sympathetic to the challenges they face and i want to make the system worthy of them. I want make the best it can be just as we expect them to be the belles they can be. Our Intelligence Community and our Legal Framework must be not only worthy of them but worthy of this place, and of the constitution that it symbolizes. And the rights of privacy, speech, assembly, that here today we exemplify, and i believe that it is possible, and necessary, to achieve those ends. I believe it because of my years in the courtroom, not only as a prosecutor but as a defense attorney, and my days in the legislature, because our values and ideals dont disappear simply because of enemies like al qaeda. In fact, really, who you think about i, the threat of al qaeda makes those ideals and values all the mow important. Its what those brave men and women seek to uphold when they put. Thes in harms way. Theyre the reason were here today, and by undercut organize undermining them, we make the system unworthy of them. Those are high ideals, and i know theres hard work to do to match the system with those ideals, and your work today, your dedication to those ideals, bringing us together today, are very much appreciated and im personally grateful for this opportunity to be here. Thank you. [applause] and im happy to take a couple questions. You have a really smart panel ahead. So im not going to take too long. Yes, sir. Two questions. First off, where is the fisa court at . It is in washington, dc. If youre referring physically where it is. Its in washington, dc. The judges come to washington, dc. Okay. The second question is, most americans can tell you who is on dancing with the stars or who won the voice or who is on walking dead or anything like that but they cant tell you anything about the fisa court. Do you view the Mainstream Media as more of a distraction to keeping, how should i say, the public dumbed down . Theyre not interested in the fisa court. Theyre interested in who is going whats going do be on tv who are has been eliminated from this game show or Something Like that. All of us bear a responsibility for the lack of public attention to important details like that one. Who is on the court, where do they come from . There have been some good journalism, theres been good reporting, on the fisa court that indicated homo generalate of the background of the individuals. Its matter of public record. So i dont blame any one in particular. I think it is a failing that all of us have to address, and one way to do it is through this kind of forum, and i think thats why its so important. It toly agree with you on the ed a sir sayreal procedure eded a sir sayreal. Slow the process. May not have been clear but, again, no delay should result from this adversarial process. And then that backed by the government is tested later. This same principle would apply here. It could be completely in secret and, but the new we advocate an, the constitutional advocate or special advocate could end and unwed challenge him a ruling by the court, either before the court or possibly honor tune. Now and then the issue of, for example, is the broad collection of telephone numbers, all telephone numbers authorized by the statute . Is there sufficient need for it that it would be justified by the statute . All of those legal contentions could be tested and argued to the adversarial process. In the meantime if there was a need for the government to be surveiling an individual planning some terrorist act, that surveillance could go forward. Question is well taken. It is a point that has to be addressed, and if that is not the way to do it, some other way ought to be devised. I have no pride of over any of these. If someone has a better way to do it, i welcome it. I simply think that there ought to be an institutional me place for the advocate to be on a fulltime basis with the power to raise issues at some point that guarantees our rights as well as our security. Thank you for being here, senator. You mentioned snowden from some people see as the villain, some people see as a hero. What do you think allowing a court toward the fisa court to be open to third parties who have a desire to disclose what they believe is a legal government activity and having the court ruled on whether or not that disclosure would be protected and if it were then the person who would not be subject to criminal penalties. I think that is a separate sort of set of issues that may need to be addressed. I would want to see exactly how the system would operate. If there are complaints about lawbreaking, in effect was so long that could be brought up to the fisa court through an advocate, special advocate or constitutional advocate, that by me that might be a means to do so. The main purpose of this advocate really is to forestall violations of rights and an nine that later would be how the subject of complaints by whistleblower. In other words, much better to prevent any questionable legal activity before it occurs than have it be the reason that i was a blower comes forward. Whistleblowing is a deeply established and some brightly when one esteemed tradition and our government has attorney general i came to know firsthand the importance of whistleblowers in protecting our rights, and we need to guarantee that they are not subject to some either retaliation or some other kind of film bad action as a result of their blowing the whistle. Mom i am referring to whistleblowing in general, not just one. And nothing i say here should be intended to be should be interpreted as condoning approving what he did. Well, just as jackson said that the constitution is not a suicide pact. One of the things within the constitution, however, is to let the sunshine and as a means of cleansing. Would you consider putting a requirement that over time the cases before the fisa court would be reported . I think reporting of cases, disclosure of rulings in new should be done, when possible and when the rulings merits it, regardless of time and be done in a way that preserves security redacting classified information , may be in a faction of summarizing the rulings of the court them so that they could be raised and other kinds of challenges. You cannot know whether rights have been in pain is in the world electronic communication with abcaten mccourt in effect giving some indications that it has been done. The Fourth Amendment was framed at a time when men generally there were actually physical witnesses to the english soldiers some breaking down a door and rummaging through be a persons house where taking salt into custody or some other violation of what the colonialists, the founders about was their basic rights as englishmen. You know, i was not that they thought these rights were novelist or original. The rights of people who live in a free country which they thought they didnt as citizens of the colonies of england. Sudden villages think we want to protect the rights we think we have right now. Those rights are no longer comes all that can be done be and it is really mindboggling. So we need to match that challenge with a court that issues opinions wind can do so consistent with our security. You would not want the court saying we just of the rest is surveillance of some one soul who we think is about to blow up the building arm takeover a plane or whenever. I mean, i am restating the obvious all of you. Even though these principles seem obvious need a regionwide. [applause] ladies and gentlemen, i just want to thank Simon Blumenthal again for a speech that was topple, eloquent, nonpartisan, and in the best traditions of defending the United States constitution. Thank you so much. Great to be here. Let me thank the panelists behind me here. As they come up i will introduce them. It is such a superb group. You will be thrilled to your the variety of retrospectives we have. Absolutely. Please sit right here. He is the retired senior counsel of National Security and director of the intelligence issue group for the fbi. Next we have dug, and james robertson, a former judge on the foreign Intelligence Surveillance court. Member of a constitution project liberty and security committee. We have Alexander Joe who is the Civil Liberties Protection Officer for the office of the director of National Intelligence the director of Public Policy. Ladies and gentlemen, senator blumenthal has given us three countries and extremely important proposals for reforming the fisa court. Percy says that we should that congress should create a special advocates to create adversarial proceedings. Second, he argued for Greater Transparency of the Court Opinions and disclosure of their existence. Third, he called for a change in the way the members of the court are appointed and said that rather than the chief justice appointing all the members, other judges should be. I want to debate and discuss each of those proposals. I want to begin with judge robert smith. Youre not long ago did something that i can describe from a constitutional perspective as quite principled and even heroic. Namely you resign from foreign Intelligence Surveillance courts because you thought it was not acting consistently with constitutional principles. Historically there is a small and distinguished grupo judges to resign from the courts on grounds of constitutional principle. There are the judges during their pre civil war era who resigned because they did not want to it in force laws. Comparing the six precisely, but you are not small company. Tell us what precisely resigned from the foreign Intelligence Surveillance court them what you think of senator blumenthal as proposals. You have just given me leave to talk for the next hour. I resigned because the bush administrations and the nsa were conducting this kind of predecessor of the 215 program without bringing it to the fisa court. They bypassed the fisa court. And this seemed to me that the fisa court was supposed to be acting on issues like this. For them to the hold up the fisa court as the protector of our liberties and freedom at the same time to an end run around the fisa court with this in as a program it seems to me was to make the fisa court into something of a pretend village just as they pretend operation. And i refuse to go along with that and have resigned. I did not try to solicit other judges to resign. And did not think that was proper either. That is the answer to your question of why i resigned. Now what i think of the senators proposal, first of all , the nation ought to be very gracious riffle ford center blumenthal and his lead and focus and interest in this subject. Somebody from the audience mentioned that the country does not know much about this. It is important that the country know more about it and think more about it and talk about it. It is wonderful that we are having this discussion. I disagree with the senator on a couple of details of his proposal. Let me work backwards because the third proposal has to do with the way judges are selected i frankly dont think theres anything wrong with the chief justice appointing them, but if it makes people feel better to have them appointed by the chief judges of the circuits with the approval of the chief justice of the United States that i agree with the senator. That is a pretty minor change and could make people feel better. Thats fine. There are 12 circuits, 11 circuit judges. We would have to add one. Thats the detail. With respect to the senators proposal that there be more transparency to the rulings of the fisa court, i think everybody agrees with that general proposition. The problem is in the detail. The whole snowdon problem, of course, was that he revealed the capability the government has. It is hard to your make the decisions that of the fisa court transparent without very nuanced declassification protocols which, by the way, under our system it is the executive branch of government which controls classification. Congress does not do it. The courts dont do it. The executive branch does. That is the way. That has been set in stone for a long time. So the executive branch would have to figure out what is classified and what is not classified. In principle i am in favor of it. We ought to have some words in their s in mccourt to be more transparent. Indeed in recent months of the last year the court seems to have been doing that. It is getting more transparent. The main point on which i disagree with the senator has to do with the with the establishment of a office called the office of public advocate. I dont think we need another office or another bureau or another permanent appointee of any kind. Most of the work of the fisa court has to do with individual warrants, just like ordinary everyday search warrants that are issued from courts all over the country. I dont know what the percentages, but i would bet it is north of 90 percent of the work that the fisa court does today. When i was on the fisa court, thats all we did. Where we need the adversary is to look at and approved and steady and argue with the court about what is generally referred to as the programmatic work of the fisa court. We can get into the weeds on what the fisa court does, but then i really would be taking in our inner think its already time for me to shut out. Suffice it to say that there are a few areas in which the fisa is now doing work that i believe theyre ought to be an adversary in there, but i would be happy with a panel of attorneys selected by the public by the privacy and Civil Liberties Service Board which insists on calling itself people of and if they would set up a panel then the fisa court could reach out to them when they wanted to. I would make one argument. There is provision in the fisa law for the court to set all 11 judges together, but it is limited and when they can do it. To my knowledge and never have. I would require that the fisa court said in panels of three judges whenever theyre dealing with whenever they are dealing with programmatic issues or new legal issues that have to be sorted out. I think a lot of the it has been said that the fisa court is a rubberstamp. Some people say it is an echo chamber, but the fact is the 215 program that everyone is worried about has been sequentially approved by every single fisa court judge who has looked at it over the last many, many, many years. If you had three judges of proving that it would have some chance of the judges argue with each other. Was the judges argue with each other they will invite lawyers and to make a more nuanced complete our human of the subject. I thinkto stop talking. On hogging the time. That was superb. Would you have hopefully done is we will dig into the details of the proposal and debate them on this panel which is next in terms of background. The general counsel of the fbi. I want your thoughts on the senators proposal to create a special advocate and in particular, do you think the judges are equipped to deal with this . Would a special advocate help them make those are decisions . I have sent literally thousands to the court. I it has been my experience that many judges have rubberstamp something. It was often like pulling teeth trying to get warrants over to the court because they had such oversight from the justice department. This proposal has been around for more than 20 years. Not this particular one, but the idea of public advocate. I never really opposed the idea. I think it is fraught with implementation programs. That also think more importantly that if we had started Something Like this 20 years ago it would be totally dismissed today. My reason for that is technology is rapidly changing. Everything that we do is changing. Our social nuance, what we think is private and what is not. Let me give you a short example. In 1928 there was a criminal case called homestead in which a Police Officer who was running at the time was convicted primarily on a telephone conversation the at. He appealed to the Supreme Court saying that there should of been award. And the Supreme Court said, no, the conversation is not tangible. We cant all that and i and, grab it. That is not within the Fourth Amendment. Youre going to jail. Thats the way things were for a long time. And through the years we have been getting gradual changes. Just recently there was a case before the Supreme Court in which has slapped on beeper to our car, gps transponder was put on. The person was convicted of a crime. It went to the Supreme Court. A unanimous decision, the Supreme Court said you needed a warrant to put that on. That overturned 60 years of practice. What im getting at here is, im concerned more for the courts ability to understand what is going to happen to them with technology. We had a case that was called operation shamrock that lasted for about 30 years by which the nsa was it looking at foreign issues. And it started out perfectly legally based. Because of advancing technology the legal base change that through the decades no one ever did anything different. There were always telling exactly the same thing they have before. The fda was getting information for the nsa from nsa analysts were doing the analysis they dollars a ton. Nobody changed their job of the technology changed. And it changed the basis from which there were doing things. There were actually doing something illegally without knowing it. Think about the 215 program. This is the mega data. Today they are collecting volt data. When we established the 215 program we never imagined we would collect polk data. We thought it would be something where we target one person. Now going to get jefferses typewriter or is computer. And what has happened now i think is because we have the ability to do something that we did have to and 15 years ago, we did have the ability to store this information 15 years ago. But today we have abilities that we have never had before. The 215 program has morphed into something that we were not thinking about when it was created. My concern is that were going to have this issue,. In that case that the sense was Justice Brandeis who said two things. He said, one, this telephone thing is new. We dont know what technology is going to bring us tomorrow. To, he said the fundamental purpose of the Fourth Amendment is to keep the government out of your business, out of the individuals business so that the right of the individual is left alone. So my concern here is that we have the ability somehow further court to understand what the consequences are of the types of decisions that they may be making and the court is made up of a fairly senior article three judges who are not technicians, not engineers. The one place that i would disagree with judge is that im not certain i want a whole bunch of lawyers debating this. I want somebody who understands the technology and not only the technology but where it may lead is. Wonderful. You have invoked Justice Brandeis is dissent. My favorite document whenever we have hard question here at the constitution center, what would brandeis to. You said he would have insisted on technological sophistication. The question on the table is, what a special advocate actually solve the problem . Spike bowman just said we never intended the authors of the patriot act to authorize both Data Collection what what a special advocate help that problem . How do you allow for this expertise . I believe he is a person who would get as part of the way theyre allowing for third parties to comment. Participate and allow for special advocates to indeed advocate for participation by third parties. The way we cant know what we dont know. So we have to have more sunlight we need to have a mechanism for oversight. I have been concerned about suggestions, having the court itself as an overseer is inappropriate. That think that certainly we want the judges to a have full information, but there has to be congressional oversight. There has to be public oversight over avalon is being interpreted and so the Bigger Picture is this whole universe of secret law in which we live where it is clear that we are not meeting both the needs of keeping a safe and secure and protecting our constitutional right. And so how do we lifted the veil . Not just through the fisa court, not just to a public advocate, having more disclosure the congress and the public, but in general how do we challenges over secrecy that truly is threatening our way of life . Well said. Alexander, you are the Civil Liberties Protection Officer, office of director of National Intelligence. First of all, tell us about your position. I think this is relatively newly created. What are you doing . And what insights could be brought to bear . And i really want to thank you for hosting as an inviting me year. The Civil Liberties Protection Officer for the director of National Intelligence. The report directly to director clapper, as a director of National Intelligence. Have held this position since the office of director of National Intelligence was created following the 9 11 Commission Report to help the officer of National Intelligence to help better coordinate and lead all of the intelligence agencies in our federal government so that we could Better Connect the dots, cored and our intelligence activities. My position was created reporting directly to the director said that we would have an office looking out for peoples privacy and Civil Liberties as we also look tougher peoples National Security. I would like to quote one of my favorite documents which is the constitution which i have always carried with me. The cato constitution. I know. We have all bonds. We hand these out and constitution day. In the preamble it says you dont want me to advertise this. It says provide for the common defense and secure the blessings of liberty. Those are two things. So we always try to find ways to do both. There are differences of opinion about how you go about and do it. I think that the activities being carried out really do engage with all three branches of government that were established by the constitution. I think thats important. The judiciary in the form of the foreign Intelligence Surveillance court cannot periodically reauthorize and the authority. We have a robust reporting an oversight. , office of the general counsel, office of Inspector General throughout the Intelligence Community and we have established privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board which is an independent agency in the federal executive branch that is also looking at these things very critically and independently. We are working hard to support their oversight and their review of these activities. We have what i would call a system of many layers with many players. Now were trying to think about how we address the challenges that we are facing today potentially by adding another layer and another player. And my own view is that you have to be careful with doing it. I think it is great to hear the diversity. Its a values certainly in the Intelligence Community, not just professional ethic. The very much encourage diversity of thinking as well as all forms of diversity in the Intelligence Community. We understand how important it is to analysis and value alternative approaches. Of course from the legal tradition we have heard wont repeat what you have already heard, skillfully and foley argued. Those are all important. We think it would be enriching to any analytic class. They have the wherewithal to see the nations most important secrets and they are doing it in a way that can be trusted by the nations leaders so they are looking at very sensitive intelligence sec