Individual subscriber by going to a court and obtaining a court order and allowing the subscriber to raise whatever objections they have before the court. Its interesting that some of the testimony thats been given here and i think its very concerning from some issues of anecdotal evidence and real evidence and discussions especially on the s. E. C. Side when youre, you know, giving the your own report saying youre doing more than youve ever done here yet without this by choice or by decision however you want to do it. Mr. Calabrese, one last question for you because my time is now over. But in dissent from the ftc request the civil agency carveout they wrote im not convinced this authority is necessary to maintain the commissions effectiveness as a law enforce the agency now or in cases we can foresee. I am concerned that the civil authorities to obtain content from ecpa providers can have the potential to lead to invasions of individual privacy and in some circumstances may be unconstitutional in practice. Can you speak very briefly. Do you agree or disagree with his concern . I do worry that well create an unconstitutional or incredibly carveout for civil agencies and my hope is that we continue to push hr699 forward as is to a markup and we can vote and get it to the floor. I apreshiate it. Looking around how its me and the distinguished ranking member, this concludes todays hearing. Without objection all members have five legislative days to submit additional written questions for the witnesses or additional materials for the record, and with that, this hearing is adjourned. Up next on cspan3, a discussion on nsa bulk collection of telephone data, followed by a hearing on the proposed merger between anheuserbusch and inbev and sabmiller. And tonight in prime time, congressional history beginning with Senate Majority leader Mitch Mcconnell on happy chandler, Earl Clements and justin morton. Thats followed by an interview with massachusetts senator ted kennedy. At 1 30 the history of the Dirksen SenateOffice Building and Later Congress in the 1965 immigration and nationality act. Thats all tonight on American History tv in prime Time Beginning at 8 00 p. M. Eastern. Three days of featured programming this Holiday Weekend on cspan. Friday evening at 7 00 eastern, Congressional Republican leaders honoring former Vice President dick cheney at the capitol with the unveiling of a marble bust in emancipation hall. When the Vice President had his critics just go off the deep end as they often did, he asked lynn his wife, does it bug you when people refer to me as darth vader . And she said, no, it humanizes you. Saturday night at 8 30 eastern an indepth look at policing in minority communities. Speakers include former st. Louis Police Officer mr. Hudson, and washington, d. C. , chief police chief kathy lanier. Most people get defensive if they feel youre being offensive. So, you know, being very respectful, you know, in encounters and requests, if its not a crisis, if its not a dangerous situation versus demands, those things change the dynamics a little bit. And sunday afternoon at 2 00 race and the criminal Justice System with white house Senior AdviserValerie Jarrett and others. Then at 6 30, portions of this years washington ideas festival. Speakers include virginia senator mark warner former Vice President al gore and author annmarie slaughter. Weve got to banish the word hes helping at home, all right . Helping is not actually taking the burden off you. You are still figuring out what needs to be done, and you are asking him to help. He is not the agent, right . Hes the assistant. And if were going to get to where we need to go, men do have to be lead parents or fully equal coparents. For the complete schedule go to cspan. Org. Next a discussion about nsa Data Collection and surveillance with a guest from the American Civil Liberties union and former nsa general counsel, stuart baker. Joining us for discussion on the National Security agency and collection of information two guests this morning. The American Civil Liberties union, their legislative counsel. And joining us stuart baker a former nsa general counsel in the Clinton Administration 1992 to 94. Thank you for joining us this morning. Weve heard about this program known as section 215 a clction of metadata. To set it up for the folks at home, what does it mean specifically . The program which has now been ended collected metadata, that is to say, who you were calling and who was calling you on all of the calls inside the United States and into and out of the United States, put them in a database, locked up the database and said the u. S. Government can go into the database if they are pursuing a terrorist and they have a terrorist number and they want to see whos in touch with a terrorist. So as far as the nature of the information it took in, it didnt deal with content at all or was it more logistical in nature . It did deal with the content the program that was reformed. But we have to remember that this metadata is extremely revealing. It tells if you called a suicide hotline or a pizza delivery man. It tells you a lot about someones life. The program was extremely invasive and congress did the right thing by limiting it. Since you both brought it up, the limits on it, what limits were placed on this program . Well, what congress essentially did said, look, well have the program but well not let you have it be quite as broad. You cant collect all the records in america. You cant collect all the records in a particular state. But what they didnt do was say you can collect records if you have a reason to collect if you believe someone is connected to a terrorist organization. Mr. Baker, what about those changes . What did you think of them, to the program . The original program was full of protections. You could only go into the database if you had reasonable suspicion. There were only 20 people were authorized to go in and the number of searches done were 3 left hand to 500 a year. It was not a dragnet program. The collection was very broad but there were a lot of protections on going in. What the changed program does is essentially say the government cannot collect all that and put it in one place. They have to go to individual carriers, phone carriers, and ask each of them to look through the records that they happen to have collected to and stored. And thats what were doing now. Again, they have to have a reasonable suspicion with respect to terrorist numbers before they collect this information, before they collect it from the carriers. The worry i have about it is that its not anywhere near as fast, probably not as comprehensive, and if you look at what happened in San Bernardino, we would have very much liked to know immediately who those two terrorists were talking to. And have a quick set of assessment of their connections to other people, whether they were part of a conspiracy. The old program would have given us that. Now that data is locked away and not accessible. Can i ask what the justification was for the broad nature of the information taken and why it was such a wide scope of info . Because if youre trying to quickly determine who are these terrorists in touch with and who might the people theyre in touch with also be in touch with. You need to be able to do a search of a single database. Thats the only way youre going to get it quickly and thats the only way youre going to control how long you keep that data. The phone company will keep it as long as they find it useful, which is certainly not as long as a terrorist investigator might find it useful. Whats wrong with the broad scope of information especially if some incident happens and you have to get a wide scope of whom is talking to whom and things of that nature . I think theres two really important points, the first is when these reforms are passed the intel jennings ageligence a had it wouldnt undermine their ability to investigate terrorists. The second point that is important to make, this program had not proven to be effective. There were two independent oversight boards that looked at the call Metadata Program. What they concluded it had not stopped an act of terrorism. It calls in to question the assertions whether limiting the program will actually have a negative impact on National Security. The guests joining us if you want to ask them about the program, the nature of collection of information and things associated with that, 22 78488000 for republicans and for independents 2427488000 send your thoughts to us at twitter. Mr. Baker, what about that nature or what she just said the information that we take it in, its never stopped or yeah i am paraphrasing. Its fair to say it never stopped a plot that was that was it was designed to stop. But the reason for that it was designed to stop plots where careful preparation and recruiting and planning for an operation was carried out in a terrorist safe haven and then the terrorist came to the United States, coordinated here and quickly launched an attack which is what happened in 9 11. And the reason it never stopped a plot is that we wiped out those plots at the source by taking away the taliban and al qaeda safe haven. Whats truly troubling is were getting rid of this program just as theres a new safe haven emerging in syria and iraq and as weve seen in paris and now possibly in San Bernardino, the people in that safe haven are planning and recruiting for attacks on the United States and the west. And we have deliberately blinded ourselves to carrying out a quick assessment of possible attacks, identifying a possible attack just when we need the program most. What would you say about that . You know, it doesnt help National Security to divert Law Enforcement resources to investigating people who have no connection to terrorism. And thats essentially what the program did. It collected a lot of information about people who the government frankly didnt need information about. The reforms that were passed in june do leave space for the government to go to the intelligence court and request information when they have reason to believe they need it. And thats sufficient to allow us to respond to emerging threats and also to emergencies. I mean, there are emergency provisions that say that if the government needs information theyre able to get it in a timely fashion. First call for both of you is from mohammed. Mohammed is in milwaukee, wisconsin, hes on the independent line. Youre on with both of our guests, mohammed. Good morning, go ahead. Caller good morning, thank you for taking my call. My question is if the nsa was collecting all this data for the past several years and the San Bernardino killers especially the man was in contact with other people who the fbi and the department of Homeland Security say were on a known terror watch list, they were they were known to have been in contact with them. Why was somebody like this, they were collecting all this credit card data, telephone data, why was somebody buying all this ammunition online, using credit cards possibly, all the machine guns and everything, where did the the nsa, the department of Homeland Security and the fbi failed the United States and the public by not being able to control these people. What happened to the Data Collected on these guys . Let me address that first. The program that were talking about today is designed to catch people who are in touch with terrorists by phone outside the United States. And so we dont know, at least i dont from the reports, whether the contacts were online or in an encrypted form or whether they were actually phone calls. If they were phone calls, then this should have shown up. But if the phone call occurred after last saturday, the programs over and it would have been very difficult for the fbi or nsa to identify those contacts and quickly determine whether there was a broader plot. Yeah, you know, i want to respond to that. In a case like San Bernardino, theres still a lot of facts we dont know. But based on what has been disclosed, it wouldnt have been impossible for the fbi to collect information. They knew purchases the individual had made. They could have gone to the courts and gotten an authorization. You know, the idea in a case where you have reason to believe someone is going to do something and commit a terrorist attack, you know, the government has ample authority to get the information they need, including call records and other types of tate data. Again, the topic is Data Collection by the nsa a program that got changed or received changes as of sunday. What happened to the information that had already been collected . Where does it reside now . Does it reside with the phone company . Did it get eliminated . Before sunday. The database still exists but its been locked away. The government has asked for authority to run searches to compare how effective the new program is compared to the old program. So far they have not gotten that authority. In fact, i suspect the aclu is litigating to prevent that. Is that true . Its very important to remember that a federal court ruled that this program was illegal. It went beyond what the law allowed and so, you know, its still the subject of litigation, whats going to happen to all of this information that was collected by the government illegally, you know, it should be destroyed. The court the government didnt have authorization to do what they were doing. And theres legislative efforts to keep hold of that information and allow the fbi or the nsa and others to gain access to it. I think senator cotton and senator cruz have proposed that. Or senator rubio, im sorry. In the says of San Bernardino, would this information have been shared with the fbi and others . Is it easily interchangeable amongst the agencies that need it . Yes. There is ability to share it. Republican line, hi, there. Caller hello. Youre on, go ahead. Caller i am . Yes, go ahead, please. Caller okay. Here i go. I am hearing were going to put you on hold. Well go to another call and come back to you. How about that . If you wouldnt mind turning your tv down. Well go to tommy in texas, democratic line. Caller how are you doing . Good. Go ahead. Caller i was a member of nsa for over 40 years. I know what the program is like, and i know it works. Theres Nothing Better than getting raw data, then you can work on immediately than waiting three or four days to find out what that data is. We protect our sources and our means of gathering that information. The other important thing is that with us its like a tree. You know, you find out where the root is, and then from the root you lead to the trunk and then from the trunk to the branches and the branches to the leaves. What this Program Change has done is prohibit the nsa from finding out its source and then tracing it up without going to private companies to ask for the information, which could be compromising the information. You want to start . Sure. I mean, youre exactly right that the information will be in the hands of the Telephone Companies. But the reforms that were made still leave ample space for the government to go to these companies and request information and get it in an accelerated manner if theres an emergency, so i think youre still going to have the ability to connect the roots and the trees, youre just going to have it in a way that doesnt result in mass surveillance that collects millions of americans information who have no connection to terrorism or terrorist activities. Mr. Baker . I think thats like saying to somebody, were going to take google away from you, but you can still go to the library and look up the information you need. And were sure youll find it there. Maybe so, but it wont be as fast. It wont be as effective. And it will put people at risk. From connie, lets try her again. Roth, oklahoma, republican line. Hi, connie. Caller hello. Go ahead. Caller what i was calling about is everybody in my community is just really upset about what the president ask Loretta Lynch said today, they just seemed like they was more concerned with muslims being harassed and everything than they was the American People. And i just dont understand that. Okay, connie, well move on to matt. Matts in emerson, new jersey, independent line. Youre on with our guests. Go ahead. Caller thank you, good morning, and i believe that the gentleman, mr. Baker hello . Youre on, go ahead. Caller yes, thank you. Good morning. I believe the gentleman, mr. Baker, is correct in his points. However, the first responsibility of a president is to protect the American People, and this president has failed miserably by his deliberate refusal to confront isis. And thank god the french, the russians, the brits, and the germans are doing this. And one question for these good people here, is why is turkey allowed to support isis by buying their oil and letting terrorists go freely between syria and europe . And last point, if i may, please, obama supporters the only thing they have left is to falsely accuse gun owners who want to protect