not all metadata. but a lot of that is used in routing or communication or something in the middle that if you remove that we just wouldn't be able to do those communications. so i think there's also sort of that kind of an angle where we've gotten a lot better at man week, doing pretty good, i was a little pessimistic last year but we're doing pretty good at encrypting things. encrypting the metadata you get into things like shuffling, tor which is an anonymous browsing tool where you route it through a bunch of ways and there are serp things you can't do that. it's very difficult to have real-time voice and video calling and that kind of thing because it's bouncing around the world. >> i don't think the -- i don't have a copy in front of me. but i don't think the word metadata is in the fourth amendment. and so but -- no, but my point there is the concepts change. and i think even the concept of what we consider to be met adita has changed over time and will continue to change. assemble ajsages of me

this was the lead from the inside but there is no secret that metadata, no point that metadata can reveal contents. >> the power of the technology allows analysis, leads me to the point, a it is important for all the other protections that are built around the use of the data under the program, the bulk nature, in light of the technology. from content information to the telephone calls. it can only be queried for counterterrorism purposes and then only if there is reasonable suspicion that the selection number or whenever is connected or associated with specified foreign terrorists. >> going into the legislation, in any event. >> i don't think that is right. 1861 subsection been requires minimization procedures because it reflects that it was understood that this tool could be used to obtain data that would relate to a number of u.s. persons so the statute requires the government propose that an element of the program be robust minimization procedures which was spelled out in detail in orders of the fifth but there would be protections are around the use and dissemination of the data. >>

that's all the metadata con zips of. there's no content and no identification of people. what that can be used for is if a suspect number is identified and a court concurs, then they can run that number against this database of numbers to figure out whether a terrorist had either been called by or has called a number in the united states. that's the only purpose it's put to that's the only way that it's used. that information in the hands of the government is readily accessible. if you rely simply on the carriers to hold it then there is no compulsion in this legislation for them to keep it at all and in fact, it's very easy to imagine them competing in eliminating or scrubbing this information in short order or in offering plans that don't require them for business reasons to keep the metadata. >> woodruff: but as we heard, james bamford lisa monaco acknowledged there is criticism of this out there, the president decided to make this modification, to say you have to go to a court if you want to get access to this phone metadata. your concern is that even that is not enou

but any kind of metada metadata. our central rules put them in a situation where one senator is able to delay this process. we are hopeful that the reformed bill, the house-passed bill, which would allow the other sections of the patriot act to continue, and the traditional uses of it, not this bulk data collection, would be allowed to continue. it expires at midnight tonight, and if the senate can't get their act together they could go several days without those laws being available to protect american citizens from suspected terrorists. >> you mention this one senator, and let's call his name, senator rand paul of kentucky running for the gop nomination, he promises the patriot act, what he calls the nsa legal spying program will expire today. listen to the senator's comments. >> there is no constitutional justification for the government to collect all of your phone records without your name on a warrant without suspicious, and not signed by a judge. your privacy is yours and your records are yours and the governm

metadata is who made the call what time how long was the call. it's not about content. never has been about content. i think the concern that he raised justifiably is that bulk collection metadata can provide sensitive and revealing information but at the end of the day if you're truly interested? the constitution and he talks about the founding fathers which i find ironic they said one of the primary responsibilities for the federal government is provide for the common defense and the founding fathers figured out a long time their successors can walk and chew gum at the same time. we can secure ourselves and protect privacy and the act does that based on a timeless principle if you have a suspicion. it's predicated on a suspicion. >> the freedom act as i understand correctly no longer is the metadata stored by the government. it's stored by the phone companies after the six-month transition period. >> right. >> it brings up an important point and you've written about this extensively. the patriot act was written in 2001. we're now applying 2015 technology to it. back i

nsa still needs access to this metadata. it's a question of where it's kept. this maneuver means it will go without that access for, what, 72 or 96 hours? it probably won't make a difference, but then again, it might. >> so you're troubled by it? >> yeah. >> on the other hand, does senator paul have a point, because three weeks ago a court of appeals ruled that the patriot act does not authorize this kind of bulk metadata collection and that the program, the specific program, is illegal. >> right. so, senator paul claimed that it's unconstitutional. now, the controlling legal authority there is a 1979 court decision that says, indeed, metadata is not, repeat, is not constitutionally protected. we have no reasonable expectation of privacy there. the second -- >> quickly explain that. what the court ruled is that if i make a call to you, perhaps the conversation between us is protected. >> absolutely. >> but the fact that my number calls your number, since this would go on a phone record, which i think in that case was thrown out in the mail and somebody could p

-- bulk metadata. allowing querying at the providers. he also noted for that approach to be workable with the speed and matter necessary legislation would be required. he thought it was important in his judgment, it was important to continue this capability. it has been reauthorized a second time with the next reup date. >> september 12 is the day. so i just think i will clarify this conversation. if i might turn to questions about the statutory authorization i think i will turn to the fourth amendment if that makes sense. our position is that the courts didn't conclude that these records -- >> let me tell you the problem i have with that. it is not just that those are the old days. i don't think i am using the mosaic approach. but, but doesn't there come a time, and this is what the plaintiffs are contending, doesn't there come a time when the old pen register that was used in smith versus maryland, where the amount of data that you have of that sort is so detailed and so extensive, that in fact it is

it is just metadata, the fact of the call. there have been countless terrorists tracked down and eliminated because of information this program gleans. if we're not able to do something like this is no doubt in my mind that americans will be killed eventually in attacks that otherwise could be prohibited. i hope that congress, i hope the decision will be appealed and supreme court will take a different interpretation or congress will choose to step in, reauthorize the program, with additional safety concerns, privacy concerns because we need to do this to protect the country. david: matt, the government and senator bayh say that the metadata that is being collected by the nsa and other agencies, it is not that personal stuff. therefore we shouldn't be that concerned. you say? >> as the second court said in it is ruling you can learn a hell of a lot of about people of metadata? david: how so? >> calling suicide hotline? intimate relations with someone you find that stuff out pretty quick. what the ruling this court did, let's b

administration would be, is continuance of the protections of the homeland using, you know the big metadata programs the nsa being

it is a telephone metadata program. mr. vitka: could 215 be authorized, be used to authorize internet data? mr. litt: probably not. thisere is some significance to the fact tahthat ist wasn't. it is not public knowledge that they instituted an internet metadata program that used different authorities. i think there was a reason for that. mr. vitka: i think that is fair. fritz, i just want to give one more chance for you to comment. parallel construction conversation, detailed, but what is striking is there such a profound gap between what is understood as legal or illegal. does that bring anything up for you? mr. schwarz: i believe the nsa had in addition to this program of picking up every telegram they had, they had a watch list program, and how people got on that and what happened to the data that was collected, i have the vague memory that two attorney generals looked at that and said they did not think the way the information was getting from the nsa to prosecutors was appropriate, and he tried to put an end to nsa pro

>> senator paul and i share similar concerns about the collection of bulk metadata. we think it's wrong for the government to be collecting phone records on every single american's phone calls. we do differ as to the strategy of how to deal with it, and although he and i share a similar concern, i don't agree with his approach and i have taken a different approach here, and i think the usa freedom act solves the underlying problem. >> but let me ask you this finally before i let you go. when this program, the bulk metadata program was revealed through edward snowden, the administration first claimed there were some 50 terror plots that had been blocked due to that metadata collection. that number was watered down. that talking point disappeared. senator pat leahy and others established that, well, in fact it was just one plot. $8,500 going from an american to al shabab that was directly connected to information collected in the phone metadata program. the fact is the government under this proposal won't hold the data anymore but the phone companies will. i mean the d

freedom act also ends the metadata collection program" in place new reforms. the government will no longer hold the records. telephone providers will. it also provides more transparency to help build confidence among the american people that your privacy and civil liberties are being protected. if congress does not act by tomorrow at midnight, these reforms will be in jeopardy as well. it does not have to be this way. the u.s. freedom act reflects ideals from policy experts and national security experts. it passed the house of representatives with overwhelming bipartisan support, republicans and democrats. that does not happen very often. a majority of the senate voted to move it forward. so what is the problem? a small group of senators is standing in the way. and unfortunately some folks trying to use the debate to score political points. this should not and cannot be about politics. this is a matter of national security. terrorists like national security and isil will not stop plotting against us tomorrow and we should not surrender mutuals that keep us saf

metadata programs the nsa being enhanced advancing this. >> what would you like to say to governor bush now that the courts deemed the program illegal? >> i think as he gets out around the country, he's going to discover that not many people agree with him. i think most americans think that you shouldn't have your records collected. now the second appeals court thinks the same thing. really your records should be collected consistent with the fourth amendment. a judge should write a warrant, your name should be on it and they should have probable cause. but i think people who think that we're going to indiscriminately gather up all the phone records, they're not talking to the americans i'm talking to. i'll have 1,200 kids at arizona state, and i'm sure none of them

what the government is doing requiring the phone companies to give them what's called metadata. records about phone calls, numbers dialled, length of call and so forth. virtually every phone call in the united states. the government says it can do that because the patriot act allows them to ask for tangible record to be helpful in investigation. the court says that's the trick. there has to be an investigation. you have to be looking for something specific when you ask for this information. you can't ask for everything now in the hopes you'll find something later.

in place of the current bulk telephone metadata program the u.s.a. freedom act creates a targeted program that allows the intelligence community to collect noncontent call detail records held by the telephone companies that only with the prior approval of the fisa court and subject to the special selection term limitation. the records provided to the government in response to queries will be limited to two hops, and the government's handling of any records it acquires will be governed by minimumization procedures approved by the fisa court. the u.s.a. freedom act prevents government overreach by strengthening the definition of specific selection term. the mechanism used to prohibit

it is the metadata. you might fall on your cell phone receipt that phone numbers that you call, the length of time, in addition, where you were at the time that you called. host: we touched on the 2016 candidates a little bit. are there differences out there? we talked about senator paul. guest: we talked about the three options that congress could do going forward. let the authorities just expire, which is where i think senator rand paul feels more comfortable. you have people like ted cruz. or you can keep all the existing authorities. you have people like senator marco rubio. these are the presidential candidates who are in congress who might have something to say about this issue. so you have this wide variety of issues on the republican side. one of the things that most distinguishes the republican field is not the issue of economic policies. it is education, national security, and how far the candidates are willing to go on the in delicate balance between privacy and security. host: he is not a pre

this bill which passed the house with a big bipartisan vote, we are about to bring it up again bans metadata collection and storage by the government. senator matsui: it was unbelievable in the sense that people understand that the internet should be free. they should not be people who get faster access or not. when that occurred, that whole energy that happened with that when chairman wheeler, because of the overturning of the open internet order, when he had to have a new proposal out there he hinted that there might be paid prioritization. what that means is from the internet provider to the end-user which is a customer in essence, that they may have to pay for faster speeds or whatever. that was unheard of. >> monday night at 8:00 eastern on "the >> american history tv is featuring the c-span series "first ladies" through the rest of the years. she's been produced this with the white house historical association. with only stories -- we tell the first ladies. more dolly madison. this is about an hour and a half. >> dolley was both socially adept and politically savvy. madison is just not

to assign it, and it does not authorize the telephone metadata program. now with section 215 set to expire on june 1 we have the opportunity and the obligation to act clearly and decisively and end the program that has infringed on our rights for far too long. a vote in favor of the u.s.a. freedom act is an explicit rejection of the government's unlawful interpretation of section 215 and similar statute. put another way, a vote in favor of this bill is a vote to end dragnet surveillance in the united states. the ban on bulk collection contained in this legislation turns on the idea of a specific

wrur for telephone metadata that allows the government, upon court approval, to query the data that telephone companies already keep, something i've long advocated. it increases transparency by requiring a review of all significant fie phi sa court opinions and requiring the government to provide the public with detailed information about how they use these national security authorities. and it provides for a panel of experts to advocate for privacy and civil liberties before the fisa court, also smag i've advocated for quite some time. at the same time the u.s.a. freedom act of 2015 preserves important capabilities and makes further national security enhancements by closing loopholes that make it difficult for the government to track foreign terrorists and spies as they enter or leave the country clarifying the application of fisa to those who facilitate the proliferation of weapons of mass

>> senator paul and i share similar concerns about the collection of bulk metadata. we think it's wrong for the government to be collecting phone records on every single american's phone calls and we do differ as to the strategy of how to deal with it, and although he and i share a similar concern, i don't agree with his approach and i have taken a different approach here, and i think the usa freedom act solves the underlying problem. >> let me ask you this finally before i let you go. when this program, the bulk metadata program was revealed through edward snowden, and the talking point disappeared, and senator pat leahy and others established in fact it was one plot $8,500 going from one american to al shabaab and directly to information collected in the phone metadata program, and the data is still getting collected, and why is that necessary? >> the phone companies will hold the records because they are the phone company and has a record of who calls who, and the nsa will be able to reach out to the phone companies to get the calling data that is relevant to the

it affirmatively ends the indiscriminant bulk collection of telephone metadata, but it does much further than this. it prohibits the bulk

possible sunset in order to ensure it does not engage in any unauthorized collection or use of the metadata." lee says the senate should just approve the house act that passed last week. >> this will not only allow us to keep the government safe it will actually i think be more effective than the system in place right now under the patriot act. >> yet other republican senators say the house measure's too weak and worry phone companies will not want to store phone records as long as the government would like. if the senate cannot pass the house measure, it would move to a 60-day extension. speaker john boehner isn't showing his next move. >> the house has acted. it's time for the senate to act. if they act, we'll certainly look at what they do and make a decision about how to proceed. >> the white house is trying to convince senators to back the house plan but it doesn't sound like it has the votes. the thinking on a two-month extension is it would give time to correct weaknesses in the house bill. and as i mentioned at the top senator richard burr the intel chairman says if all else fails h

by metadata and do the analysis that was done in smith. right? he did so -- it was sort of a -- he said that it's third party and it's like similar type information. but wouldn't -- doesn't the, doesn't it require that actually he -- well, should it require that determination is made based upon if you're talking about a right to privacy. you look at each part of the metadata and make a determination at that point. why shouldn't the court have to go through that exercise? >> i think that the record in this case reflects that if you're talking about the type of information that's at issue that we are talking about the same type of call data record -- call detail records at issue. so the number call, number received. the routing information, time and duration of the calls. we're not talking about name or address or financial information or cell site location. >> the question is whether the technology hasn't changed so much that the analysis that it's just a pen register doesn't work anymore. >> the next two points i would make on that are, on

bans metadata connection -- collection and storage of the government to>> if you saw the -- government. >> if you saw -- that was unbelievable in the sense that people understand that the internet should be free. and there should not be people who get faster access or not. so, when that occurs, that whole energy that happened with that -- when chairman wheeler because of the overturning of the open internet order, when he had to have a new proposal out there. when he just tinted that there might be prior to station, -- prioritization, and that really means the internet provider to the end-user, which is a customer in that sense, that they may have to pay for faster speeds or whatever. 4 million comments? that was unheard of. >> monday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span two. >> ahead of the federal aviation -- the head of the federal aviation committee joined the committee on a recent security breach of the gyrocopter that landed on the white house lawn. the witnesses ask how the aircraft was allowed to fly into restricted airspace. this is just over two hours. >> [indistinct chatter] chai

but then they're connecting metadata to other metadata to create social networks of who you are. you should be alarmed. you should be in open rebellion saying enough's enough. we're not going to take it anymore. we should be in rebellion saying to our government that the constitution thatting protects our freedoms -- that the constitution that protects our freedoms must be obeyed. where's the out rage? i tend to think young people get it. young people, you see them, their lives revolve around their cell phone. they realize if i want to know about their life, i collect data from their phone. not the content of their phone calls, if i collect the data from their phones that i can know virtually everything about them. do we want to live in a world where the government knows everything about us? do we want to live in a world where the government has us under constant surveillance? they'll say we're not looking at it. we're just keeping it in case we want to look at it. the danger is too great to let government collect your information. and i think there is a valid question whether or

it is a telephone metadata program. and that's all it is. >> but could 215 be used to authorize an internet dragnet? >> probably not. it -- i think there is some significance to the fact that it wasn't at the time when they instituted the telephone metadata program i think it is public knowledge that they instituted an internet metadata program that used different authorities and i think there was a reason for that. >> i think that is fair. fritz, i just want to give one more chance you for you to comment. parallel construction conversation, detailed, but what is striking is there such a profound gap between understanding of whether or not it's legal or illegal. does that bring anything up for you? i mean -- >> the only thing i thought of is not precisely relevant to -- but i believe the nsa had in addition to this program of shamrock of picking up every telegram, they had a watch list program. and how people got on to that and what happened to the data that was collected i have the vague memory that two attorneys gener

and he said, without question you get more information with a warrant than you do through the metadata. when someone commits an act of atrocity there's no question we would get a warrant. but i would go even further. i would say that i want to get more warrants on people before they blow things up. i would say that we need more money spent on f.b.i. agents analyzing data and trying to find out who we have suspicion for so we can investigate their records. i think we spend so much money on people for whom there is no suspicion that we don't have enough time and money left to go after the people who would actually harm us. the people who argue that the world will end at midnight tonight -- the presiding officer: will the senator please suspend. order in the chamber please. please take your conversations off the floor. thank you senator. mr. paul: the people who argue that the world will end and we will be overrun by jihadists tonight are trying to use fear. they want to take just a little bit of your liberty but they get it by making you afraid. they want you to fear and give up your lib

the specific program we are talking about is the bulk metadata collection. there is an aspect of this program, section 215, the expires tonight, and that is the roving wiretap law, and that of action give the government the power to listen in on phone calls. this is specific terrorist among others who they are given court approval to monitor. they can monitor phone calls, but not in the bulk form. host: live coverage on a companion network, c-span 2. herb is joining us from north carolina. caller: i have been listening to your conversations. i will put it to you plane. you cannot stop what is common. the patriot act -- i don't care what you do. you can pass it, thrown away. the fact of the matter is that the border has been wide open for a long time. he let the entity in here because you stop the surveillance on the ground. you cannot stop what is coming. you couldn't stop september 11, and you know about it. guest: there are over 300 million people in this country. there is a lot of debate about the southern border of this country. it is very hard to preven

s metadata a programme out of business. the way to do that is to pass the u.s.a. freedom account. >> what that bill would do is end nationwide collection and the ability of the government to get large amounts of records about a zipcode or state. what it couldn't do is stop the government going to some companies and request large amounts of information, much of which could be irrelevant and people would know. >> what is argued in the u.s. at the moment is basically that the telephone records go out of the government's hands and into the hands of the telekom agencies. i don't see this as being a big problem if the u.s. government is out of the telephone connection and pass it is to the companies. most in the community would be relaxed about that providing the information could be accessed in a quick manner >>> against a backdrop of congressional deliberations a gathering was held across the atlantic. some called it a secret meeting, the org nightsers preferred to call it -- organizers preferred to call it private. it happened in britain, and brought tech giants toge

now, what's metadata? they're not listening in on the contents of your call. >> they find out who you called, what time, that kind of thing. >> by looking at that, they can tell a lot of things. for instance, if you were calling a suicide hot line. if you were calling a terrorist in another country or in this country, they would know that. so it reveals information about people. >> a lot of stuff that we consider to be very private. so just technically speaking, this second circuit appeals court has said you can't do it, you won't do it, so unless you go back to the drawing board, congress, and rewrite the patriot act to make it more expansive, then you can go ahead and do it and we'd be good with it? >> well, what the second circuit has said is you have to stop doing this. you have no right to do this. that is, gather this metadata. and we're sending it back to the district court, the lower court. remember, this is a federal appeals court but a very prestigious one. and they're say to the local judge who

it is a telephone metadata program. and that's all it is. >> but could 215 be used to authorize an internet dragnet? >> probably not. it -- i think there is some significance to the fact that it wasn't at the time when they instituted the telephone metadata program i think it is public knowledge that they instituted an internet metadata program that used different authorities and i think there was a reason for that. >> i think that is fair. fritz, i just want to give one more chance you for you to comment. parallel construction conversation, detailed, but what is striking is there such a profound gap between understanding of whether or not it's legal or illegal. does that bring anything up for you? i mean -- >> the only thing i thought of is not precisely relevant to -- but i believe the nsa had in addition to this program of shamrock of picking up every telegram, they had a watch list program. and how people got on to that and what happened to the data that was collected i have the vague memory that two attorneys gener

host: metadata. guest: yes. the supreme court has been clear and the past that those are not records that get into the private communications of individual and reveal -- individuals and reveal contents. the point of the program is simply to create a database to find connections between foreign terrorists and agents who may be plotting attacks on the u.s., inside the united states. it does not tell us anything about the communications or the content. it simply provides a lead for investigators at the fbi to follow-up on as part of a counterterrorism investigation. it is true that it is an extraordinary program in terms of the breadth of the record. perhaps it would be appropriate for the president and congress to come together on legislation that would address and authorize that program, with certain limitations. i think it is unfortunate that to be that program has become synonymous with renewal of the page react. our basic tools that the page react provides that could expire. host: many republicans want to see

it bans metadata collection and storage by the government. it still protects our national security in many ways. they are also interested in issues like making sure that brilliant young people who are educated at america's universities are able to stay here and work for good companies are start businesses here and create more jobs for americans. lots of issues that judiciary committee deals with that are important to the tech sector. >> you were talking with google and qualcomm. google has an issue in europe. will our committee -- representative goodlatte: we have communicated with good people to say that in the united states, our antitrust laws are focused on protecting the consumer and not on protecting businesses here we are fearful the europeans may be envious of the environment we have in the u.s. for the creation of new businesses like facebook and google and so on. they are chinese antitrust laws to disadvantage these companies. -- they are trying to use the antitrust laws to disadvantage these companies. for about two weeks, you could

the so-called metadata is a tiny percentage. i am not saying that this is a very significant thing trying to take the database away from the nsa and cia and fbi and everybody else which most people ignore. the program is so massive that there is no way come anywhere for any terrorist to go to hide. i know. i've been trying to find a shred of privacy since 2006. stanek and i will attest to that as well. [laughter] >> i want to put this out because this -- do think this phone metadata which is that the administration has basically focused everything on this as a red herring to keep you from looking at everything else they are doing. everything that he has revealed. there was e-mail metadata which they also claimed now that they stopped even though it was the most productive program. while my contention is that they have not stopped it. they almost certainly moved it out of the courts because the requirements were too expensive. it was too expensive to do with the way the court wanted them to do it and they moved it into the sectio

the best way to describe the metadata is old phone bills, phone records. and the supreme court in 1979 ruled that these are business records, they are not covered by the 4th amendment. i think most people would agree that a pile of old phone records under the care of the national security agency to be used only in the case where there's suspicion of a terrorist is not a great invasion of their privacy. the second category within this personal conversations, personal phone calls, actual communications are covered by different sections. they were covered by the supreme court in the kat's case, they are covered by fiza and are different statues and sections of the law. the third category, which is highly important right now are things that are placed on the internet by people. in social media, posted on facebook, posted on twitter, where people vol tare by put things out into the - into cyber space to be viewed by anyone including the law enforcement and national intelligence agencies. you have several categories of data and you need to tease them apart and s

citizens metadata that we have been hearing about in the last few years unless there's a simple majority vote that is unlikely to be allowed. section 215 we are expecting to expire and then procedural measures later on, in a few days time on the freedom act once again but tonight we do expect that symbolic ex prays of section.215, that prevents the dragnet of metadata. >> explain how big the issue will be if it does expire? >> repeating a line from the obama administration and republicans and hawks that terrorists are watching all of this very closely. john brennan the director of the cia was saying these sorts of tools were very useful in counterterrorism. there's no proof that three have been. 215 in a particular time period had almost no impact on counterterrorism investigations, this mass dragnet of metadata. congress after 9/11 many sed said no, almost no difference. wasn't getting any results. so what people like rand paul and others are saying look, before we pass another act u.s.a. freedom act although it addresses some of the issues, still allows all sorts of other surveillance

>> and authorizes the metadata collection, ostensibly authorizing -- last week we found out that there is a second district federal court agrees with the justice that this patriot act never really authorize this. they're illegal. but the nsa would tell you that these programs are authorized by section 215. and the court receded to write a warrant that covered every american citizen. it authorizes the bulk data collection, and also has a lone wolf provision in it. it lowers the threshold. i have a problem with this, and i don't hear people talking about it. it lowers the threshold from probable cause to reasonable suspicion. probable cause has been with us since the fourth amendment was made part of the constitution. there are 200 years of jury verdicts and court decisions that establish what probable cause is. we find it very inconvenient when they want to track someone. they lowered the threshold to reasonable suspicion with the patriot act. this is a problem in the freedom act. i have a problem with that. i think we should respect probable cause. >> it sounds like the freedom act is

s bulk collection of american phone metadata. but this isn't just the first time that the legality of the bulk data collection practices has been collected. a 215 report from the privacy and civil liberties oversight board, which is a nonpartisan independently privacy board found that section 215 does not provide authority for the n.s.a.'s collection program. the report raised serious concerns that the n.s.a.'s program violated the rights guaranteed under the first and fourth amendments. the report states under the section 215 bulk record program the n.a.s. acquires a massive number of calling records from telephone companies every day potentially including the records of every call made across the nation. yet section 215 does not authorize the n.s.a. to acquire anything at all. and the report concludes -- and i quote -- "the program lacks a viable legal foundation under section 215. it implicates constitutional concerns of the first and fourth amendments raises serious threats to privacy and civil liberties as a policy matter an

the president could ask for a new order authorizing the metadata program but, jim the white house has said he won't do that. >> axelrod: julianna goldman in our washington newsroom. thank you. heavy rains continue to swell rivers in texas and oklahoma. this is what the red river looks like today in elk city oklahoma, flowing over the tops of roadways. it is still rising and not expected to crest until next week. a california sod farmer explains why drought shaming is unfairly hurting his business. and tonight, she is going to party like it is 1899 when the cbs evening news continues.su >> so i asked my doctor about victoza. he said victoza works differently than pills and comes in a pen. victoza is proven to lower blood sugar and a1c. it's taken once a day, any time. and the needle is thin. but it may help you lose some weight. victoza is an injectable prescription medicine that may improve blood sugar in adults with type 2 diabetes when used with diet and exercise. it is not recommended as the first medication to treat diabetes and should not be used in people with type 1 diabetes or

it doesn't include metadata from e-mails. if there is an al qaeda cell in the united states, communicating with each other via e-mail we wouldn't see it. we would not see it. if there was another 9/11, and they were communicating via e-mail, the american people would say why were you not monitoring? i think it should be strengthened. i also think that -- i was on the review group on snowden. the whole chapter in the great war of our time on this. we recommended that the program be kept would be reformed. the reforms that we recommended -- that the government not hold the data. and we recommended that the government be required to get a court or every time they wanted to query the data. not just be able to query the data anytime they wanted under one broad portal. so those of the reforms we recommended. those reforms were accepted by president obama. that is what the obama administration is pushing on the hill. it's essentially the bill that was passed through the house. i'm a supporter of the bill. and i think that the reform

and to me, the founding error in the metadata program was that when president bush instituted it and president obama continued it, he did not have an open discussion about whether the country should have such a program, and actually that seems to run through a little bit of yesterday's opinion by judge lynch. even dick cheney -- this is a that i discovered writing this book and nobody had seen before -- when he wrote his dissent in the iran-contra matter, he said if you have a hard foreign policy or national security issue, a wise president first would not engage in excessive secrecy, and, second, a wise president would have a full and open democratic discussion in which he would attempt to persuade the public of the need for validity of a broad program. mr. vitka: the concept delineating between the number of people affected or how targets are picked, versus the program itself, i think is valuable, and it gets to a question that i would like a from everybody on. there is a trust problem that now exists, for whatever series of reasons. an example of a concern that i have was revealed

metadata is very informative, and the "metadata" indicating all the people you contacted, all the people that you contacted at a given time, how long you spoke to them et cetera, et cetera, reveal your associations, reveal your behavior, and the argument goes that knowing that this stuff lacks fourth amendment protection, you will self-edit you'll self-sensor. so i think that's a strong argument. there are plenty of cases, though, where the same kinds of what we think of as privacy invasions were the same kinds of invasions don't have any communicative first amendment relevance so i think the fourth amendment should also stand on its own, that is your argument shouldn't rely on the fact that there's a first amendment value at stake in order to get protection for information. the information should be protected as such independent of its communicative substance or meaning under the fourth in fact there was a section, an article i published with the american university law review that the subsection is titled four plus one does not equal four. >> and just looking at the cases in this area,

this program -- the metadata collection program has been going on for many years. it wasn't until the leaks occurred that it ended up having standing to be challenged before a court of appeals. what is the alternative if not transparency and frankly an adversarial system that produces an independent decision on whether or not this is lawful? >> whether or not what is lawful? >> whether the policy decision to develop technology that converts speech to text. >> there is nothing lawful or unlawful about a technique that converts speech to text. >> the implementation of it then. >> what is lawful or unlawful is what communication nsa collects and under what authorities. that's what we have been much more transparent about than in the past. that's what is fully known to the intelligence committees who are the authorized congressional overseers. but the exist -- how it is that nsa is able to implement its lawful authorities can frequently be the kind of thing that does, in fact cause a -- cause damage when it gets out there. i'm not specifically acknowledging or denying

the changes would stop the government from collecting the metadata, instead, the administration would have to request it on a case-by-case basis from the phone companies. senate republicans, including majority leader mitch mcconnell objected to the house bill calling it untested and potentially harmful to national security. as a compromise, republicans proposed a short-term extension of the current law, but that was blocked by a member of their own party. >> i object. >> reporter: kentucky senator and presidential candidate rand paul has made his objection to n.s.a. spying programs a pillar of his campaign. >> our forefathers would be aghast. >> reporter: he opposed blanket collection of american phone records but the white house supports the house bill, on friday, press secretary josh ernest said its passage is the best way to balance civil liberties and national security. >> i haven't heard a rational satisfactory explanation for why the vast majority of the united states senate, democrats and republicans, won't do that. >> reporter: there are limited options. mcconnell could try to