and also the requester's right to appeal if they so desire. and, i'm sorry, crew had sued the fcc when it felt that the fcc's determination or what was they thought was a determination was not adequate enough and indeed the d.c. circuit court said the termination was enough and what true god as a result after 20 working days was over

was that they got an opportunity to go to court. and that's referred to as constructive exhaustion of revenues. and the plaintiff has an absolute right to go to court after 20 working days. but it's not clear that they have much other remedy. but anyway, judge brown, kettani brown jackson said that this case, the crew case basically stood for the proposition that once the agency had not responded in time you got to go to court. and that was it. epic argued largely because they had won this on similar situations in 2006, that there was a presumption that the agency would violate by not

responding on time and that gave them permission to continue the case process -- to have the case process. jackson basically said well now that the crew case exists, the crew versus fcc -- fcc basically the only remedy you have is to go to court and hopefully you can get the court to be more and amenable to your argument but you don't get to force the agency to respond any more quickly. basically under the processing provision the only thing you actually get this is to be moved into a separate queue, disaster q. and the agency has to respond as quickly as practical. that's the language in the statute, and judge jackson said that you know that's about it.

the next case, i will come back to this later on because apparently they want me to talk about this is an apropos of the law enforcement exemptions but this is a case denise gillman versus the department of homeland security, the case about gillman was a law professor at the university of texas. she wanted to get information about the home and securities assessment of how to construct the fence on this and that i'm one of the things she had agreed to do was to accept the e-mails that were being put together to respond to another piece of litigation again by the organization crew and she had agreed that because much of this review work had already been done, that she would accept that

as responsive to a request. well, one of the things that crew had agreed to do in a separate litigation was to not go after any e-mail attachments were part of the e-mails. gilman said oh no i want those attachments. the judge in this case said again you are basically restricted by the agreement that you made as far as accepting what was available in the crew's litigation. again, this is a strategic decision that plaintiffs frequently make to try to get some record that they know that they can get more quickly and wait for other records. so gillman although i know he probably isn't an experienced litigator basically again got stuck in the situation of having to accept something that she probably really didn't want to accept in the short-term. the other case, let's see if i

can find this one. the other case i wanted to talk about because there have been some interesting decisions in the last year or year and a half or a couple of years actually on what's known as exemption three. exemption three is a provision that allows other statutes that meet the criteria of exemption three to be considered as prohibitory to our restrictive provisions and provide confidentiality in their own right and they're applied through exemptions through foia. in this case, the argus, this is a case called argus media versus the department of agriculture. the argus leader which is the newspaper in sioux falls south dakota had asked for information

on foodstamp redemptions. indeed the statute protects redemption information, redemption data when it comes directly from retail. and unfortunately the district court said okay well this information is basically of that nature and i believe that this exemption applies appropriately. unfortunately when the case got to the eighth circuit the eighth circuit said that the exemption applied only to the redemption day supplied by a retailer and in today's world this information is aggregated and collected by the agriculture department through third-party processors and gary debit card that food stamps recipients use. so the eighth circuit essentially said the statute

makes clear that only information obtained under this provision which is submitted by a retailer is exempted. when the statute says obtained, it means obtained not can be obtained the district court reason. because the information had not been retained and not been obtained from the proper party the exemption didn't apply. the other, when i mentioned the exemption there isn't that much litigation under exemption and oftentimes exemption three statutes exist in many ways to serve the interests of various institutional interests not to various commercial and business interest to provide a more concrete sort of confidentiality for certain types of records. basically if you specify what the record is and it fits into the exemption benefits exempt.

oftentimes i think businesses in particular like exemption three statutes more than the business exemption because they think it's got more regularity once they understand what the parameters are. but there have been several several instances of the essay in the past year, one exemption three statutes that's been litigated up and down and now it has come back to be re-litigated is the export administration act which basically says that you can't get information about the export -- and the problem with that statute is that it expired probably 15 years ago. and nevertheless the d.c. circuit has ruled in the interim that no matter whether it has expired or not it still legitimate because of the way he continued to be implemented

through executive orders and whatnot but a judge in california said know now we are six to eight years further down the line and there still hasn't been any. there still hasn't been any move in congress to reauthorize the statute. again it's an exemption three statutes. the other three statutes that i thought were interesting, i think one statute looking back just a little bit at the beginning of president obama's administration there was an incident in which there was a foia case that was ultimately accepted by the spring court having to deal with the disclosure of the detainee photos from iraq and afghanist afghanistan. and to prevent the face basically from going to the supreme court, the obama administration and democrats in

senate democrats put together an exemption three statutes that allowed the defense department to certify that these records should be exempt and that they would be exempt and the quid pro quo was to pass a low piece of legislation that was known as the open foia act which basically states that you can't have an exemption three statut statutes. in exemption three statutes isn't valid unless it cites the freedom of information act. so recently and unusual statute was a statute passed during the bush administration to protect, to prohibit the bureau of alcohol tobacco and firearms from releasing any gun trace information. this is a statute basically that doesn't provide an exemption and doesn't provide the documents as

much as you can't spend any funds on dealing with it. this exemption was cited by the atf quite recently in the case against the prisoner and the judge ruled that because that's statute no longer doesn't cite foia which it is required to now, it wasn't a valid exemption three statutes anymore. he didn't order disclosure of the records but told the agency we will have to scramble for better justification than that one. the other statute that has a name that so long i can't even pronounce it, the statute that i just mentioned that came up to prohibit disclosure of these photos, and one of its downstream provisions was that the defense department can continue to withhold these records of every three years if certifies that there is a

security reason that outweighs the public interest in protecting them. the judge in new york decided after reviewing the affidavits that the defense department secretary of defense leon panetta had given, that they basically didn't do anything more than refer back to the case in 2006 and that they really weren't adequate to meet the agency's burden so he shot down that view so that exemption as well. again he said well you know this really is pretty sensitive material and i'm going to let the government come up with some other defense. but you know you can't just slam dunk as far as exemption three is concerned. i thought those were several interesting cases as far as exemptions -- as far as

exemption three was concerned. the case that got my vote as the worst case of the year is a case called, such a mouth full. i'm going to read it. it's called the public employees for environmental responsibility versus united states international boundary and water commission u.s.-mexico. this is the case with the d.c. circuit decided in january of this year. the case had made a request to this water commission, the international boundary and water commission for some records and the agency had withheld some records that dealt with assessments. the agency's jurisdiction is basically the rio grande river. i guess that's a media attribute terry and they had reports on

two dams, the vulnerabilities of two dams and then they had fled inundation plan which basically is a plan that projects scenarios of what might happen to downstream populations of something happened to a dam. they had withheld these and the district court upheld the government's claims completely. when i got to the d.c. circuit pier argued in part that these records, that this was not a u.s. section was not a law enforcement agency that could claim the records were exempt under law enforcement exemption. judge brett kavanaugh a representative for the court,

said that you didn't really have to show the agency had a law enforcement function. you just had to show that a record was created for law enforcement purposes. then what kavanaugh and the court did was to glom don to associate justice samuel alito's concurrence concurrence in a case millner versus the department of navy which was at about exemption to and their risk of circumvent -- circumvention in case to an decided that language does not accord with the statute language exemption and that provision that basically the court created a provision that existed for nearly 30 years was no longer any good. so alito out of the goodness of his heart decided to sketch out a scenario under which the

government could claim that all these records murder -- for law enforcement records and basically the argument he made was that any records that deal with security issues are clearly created to be used for law enforcement purposes. and so if any record fits into that category, then down the line it can be used, be claimed as an exemption. he also said in an even earlier supreme court decision to case called john doe corp. versus dawn joe agency in which the supreme court decided that an audit that had been conducted by the defense contracting auditing agency just a plain-vanilla audit that was more or less publicly available was created. qualified as a law exemption

record after it became part of an fbi investigation of the contractor. and the argument was that the statute said no to be covered by exemption seven it has to be created for law enforcement purposes and the court agreed that no it must be compiled for law enforcement purposes. so the court as i say with alito's concurrence basically said okay well anything that is compiled for law enforcement purposes, all of this information qualifies and it is kind of like if they say in my mind like a disaster waiting to happen. i think this expands the category of law enforcement records to such an extent that almost anything that pertains in any way to security or resource management or anything could

possibly be law enforcement. so we now have this case on the books. unfortunately at least nobody hardly has used it. but the other case i wanted to mention quickly again was the gilman case. the homeland security also withheld records about its analysis of where the fence ought to be built in texas under exemption 7e which covers investigative methods and techniques. gilman said well you know much of this stuff is really public information and it's about the observable geography of the border and whatnot. it's not about techniques. what howe said was the discussion of publicly available information itself reveals what information customs and border

protection considers when analyzing vulnerabilities at the border and this analysis itself is not publicly known and may risk certain provisions of the law. so she essentially said even if the agency was using information that could be categorized as public information the fact that the public information along with public information it did fit under exemption 7a. with that i will conclude and take things up later. [applause] >> for those watching on c-span the critical factor here was asked the agency specifically for what you want, recognize the hate he is an incentive not to honor your freedom of information requests. if you are really bored and it's late at night and you are

watching c-span switch over to the cable channel is running monty python and the holy grail. they are the ogre asks the poor traveler what is your name. what is your quest? and of course you can answer the first two but you can answer the third and you wind up in the chasm of death. similarly the agency has its ways of dealing with foia requests that it doesn't really want to honor. with that bit of cinematic metaphor we now are proud to have with us allen butler. allen is one of the leading thinkers from the electronic privacy information center. i mention at the very start of my introduction the bbc radio program this morning spoke of that data for spooky uses in the

era of edward snowden. we are about to go into the subject of who in the private sector is gathering big data. who in the public sector is listening to you and informing data about you and all those issues in electronic privacy information center's has on its agenda. allen. >> thank you. that's a lot to cover in a brief amount of time but i'm going to focus today my talk on development in the last year in and issues of nsa surveillance and transparency and oversight related surveillance. just to give a brief background on what we are talking about here, you have heard about a number of different programs likely of the last year if you have been following the nsa stories and i will just give sort of a quick overview so we

have some common terminology and framing here. so there is really a number of different authorities that the nsa has used that we have learned about over the last year. the first planned section 215 of the patriot act which talks about section 1861, title l the foreign surveillance security act which is known as the business -- this is the provision we heard most notably last year and subsequent discussions on disclosures that provision relied upon by the nsa and fbi to acquire all telephone call detail records both local, domestic and foreign records. so this is a provision that was in the initial patriot act and subsequent amendments that provides for the authority to obtain business records for tangible things that are relevant to an ongoing

international terrorism investigation. when the provision was initially enacted there was a bit of backlash because people saw through the library records provision. people thought it was going to be used to get people's library reading records and there was a amendment that limited the use of this provision to obtain information on a u.s. person based on their first amendment protected activities or one is focused on library activity and no one knew that this provision was being used to collect records in bulk so to put concrete details on what that means the primary order from the foreign intelligence surveillance board procedurally what happens to the fbi filed a provision with the surveillance court through a panel of judges by the supreme court in that panel sits and waits for applications from the national

security department judges. they review those applications in secret in an expert taste session in a judge warned decision. the court there we found out last year and we subsequently found that issued an order to verizon network services which is a subsidiary of verizon former mci business network asking for all call detail records and defining what's included in the call detail record but basically phone information. call time, numbers dialed to and from, duration of the call come identifying information about the phone etc.. they asked for verizon to produce that information on an ongoing basis for all calls they process. that's what we mean by bulk collection. so 215 in this case is not about a specific investigation. it's being used by the department of justice and the fbi to collect all call records

available in the united states. we know from public statements by officials that these orders were just issued to verizon. they were also issued to at&t and spread to three providers in the united states. the whole theory behind this program was that in order to find what's needed in a investigation the fbi and nsa had to get the haystack. they literally had to collect all the telephone call records they could in order to subject them to querying and analysis which means taking a phone number and querying to find out what are all the numbers that phone number is called in the last five years and what are all the numbers that phone number has called in the last five years etc.. so that section 215. then we learned about programs that have been referred to as prism which is actually a program authorized under section 702 of the fisa amendment act of 2008 which is

also codified in 2015. 2015 and this is a programmer and the attorney general and director of national intelligence go to the fisa board on annual basis and apply for the authority to issue what they call directed to internet service providers. what this means is they go to the fisa court and they say we have a program we would like to implement to acquire communications that we reasonably believe are foreign communications from service writers in the united states and we would like to for the next year implement that program with what they cost minimization procedures meaning procedures used to process the communications collected. the court approved this program and then basically the fbi can issue these directives to service providers like skype and microsoft etc. and say we have the authority to obtain this

communication that we believe is foreign and related to our investigations. please give it to us so we found out last year that they had been doing this through direct access to these internet service providers and there has been a series of developing stories about that. 200 fisa provisions from last year have been discussed are the national security letter provision and they pen register provisions. these are provisions that exist in multiple places in the code. there are national security title xv versions and regular criminal versions of title xviii of both of these provisions. the idea is with the national security letter its subpoena issued by the fbi to a business for certain information relevant to investigations. because of the subpoena there is no oversight and because it's a national security subpoena its

attached to not disclose information about that order. and the pen register provisions governs the use of technologies that obtain routing information about communications so traditionally with phones that have been call record information. numbers dialed to and from but now with internet communications becoming a whole variety of other information including information about what servers are communicating with each other and what sorts of communications are being passed between servers and e-mail routing information and the like and specifically with the pin register program we learned up until 2011 the government was using the pin register authority to collect in bulk communications records about

basically communications routing information about entire sets of e-mails related to investigations into terrorist organizations in this included e-mail routing information about domestic e-mails within the united states. and then finally there is another area of surveillance that we are beginning to hear more about which is pursuant to executive order 12333 and when you care about 12333 what's happening is the fisa governments electronic surveillance has defied the statute and basically what that means is the fisa government surveillance activity that takes place within the united states under certain definitions. there are surveillance activities taking place outside of united states both in other countries and surveillance that takes place at facilities for example where transatlantic cables connect and

communications are routed through the united states and other countries in those activities are not directly regulated by fisa. so they are governed executive order by president reagan in the 80s and provides for certain limitations on the intelligence community activities. basically that anything that's outside of government 12333. with that background i will mention really quickly building on what harry said that there have been a number of cases challenging the 215 bulk programs. these cases specifically, the main cases have been brought by three different organizations, one here in washington d.c. and one is being litigated by eff and other groups in the ninth circuit. all these cases arise from basically the same background which is the entities bringing this suit either individual or

an organization like the aclu are all of verizon customers. it's not purely the case that they are collecting everything so they must have collected our call communications. we know of the nsa for rice and medications. we are for rice in customers and therefore are communications records have been collected and they allege both statutory and constitutional violations. in the statutory realm the aclu case for example section 215 itself does not authorize the nsa to collect in bulk records from u.s. companies. the basic argument there is the statute requires that a record be relevant to an ongoing investigation and their argument is basically that all records cannot be relevant, otherwise relevant has no meaning.

the arguments we have seen in breaches from the government that have been released from the fisa court on the other side essentially an argument of necessity. we have a need to collect all these records because in order to get the needles we need the haystack which is not really an argument about relevance so much as it is an argument about necessity and again white is the case that necessity should be sufficient for the statute is relevance of us ongoing issue. a second issue that is being briefed is whether the collection of all these domestic phone records without any suspicion or probable cause violates the fourth amendment. the main response from the government and the fisa court opinion in those cases is call detail records are not protected by the fourth amendment because of the case from 1979.

so the ongoing issue there especially now pose the supreme court's recent decision riley versus california weather smith versus maryland is still applicable to modern telecommunications networks of 2014 and that will be an interesting issue to watch going forward. all of these cases are pending. the case will be heard in a few weeks and the smith bee obama case will be heard a few weeks after that. the aclu will have an overall arguments of those cases will be very interesting to watch and many people who read the tea leaves predict that issue on depth in the supreme court with the next three years but we will see. i'm going to talk about a few more developments in national security law and transparency over the last few years but well into four different categories. the first is imaginable that is transparency in this area releases of the information that we are learning about in the second has to do with the

president's reaction to the leaks in his decision on how to change the program moving forward. a third is about congress's reaction and where congress stands on these questions and forth is about the biggest new issue going forward which is 12333. first on classification and transparency regarding texas surveillance there has been a few significant developments here. the first significant development to highlight is the fisa court, which existed for many years, since the late 1970s and has heard for a long time on applications for individual surveillance based on reasonable suspicion that individuals were foreign actors are agents of foreign governments was really an area that most people didn't pay attention to until much more

recently and especially over the last year. but now the fisa court as a public web site and the public docket. they are releasing information about public cases and the docket has 200 entries now. those are only entries that are dated after 2013. in addition to that we are also getting on an ongoing basis troves of historical fisa court opinions that have been withheld for years and years on classification grounds that are now being declassified under national intelligence. there are really too many to go over in the short forum but most importantly i will highlight a few things that have been declassified over the last year. one of the most important things that was declassified was the original fisa court opinion authorizing the internet metadata program. this was an opinion issued by judge gordon kelly in 2004.

this is really the seed opinion for all this bulk collection. what essentially happened in on a related point another thing that has been released this year and a case organization brought is the memorandum of the office of legal counsel written by jack goldsmith and others that preceded the metadata opinion so this is the analysis that said basically if the metadata program is legal by the fisa court and they subsequently sought approval from the fisa court. what really happened in terms of this timeline was these programs were developing in an ongoing sense in 2001 basically after 9/11 that they were conducted within the bush white house and with the nsa in secret for a number of years. they were sort of a ripple within the white house and the department of justice over

authorization of these programs and they were subsequently transitioned over to the fisa court under the pin register provision in 2004 and then in 2006 they applied for the first business record call metadata order from the fisa court. that fisa court granted that application. without a written opinion and they didn't write a written opinion because the judge appointed in may 2004 court said this is about internet metadata under this other provision of the law, exactly what we are applying for a goodly metadata 215 k. so that sets the context for this debate over the legality of the program under the statute and also constitutionally. another thing that is relevant to the transparency issue is that the director of national intelligence also has a public web site where publishes

declassified documents. interestingly enough it's a tumbler page. it's actually an interesting resource were for declassified documents in this context. there's a lot of historical historical information they are historical information there now and they are continuing to publish more and more information there as well. we have also had public reports issued by the liberty oversight board. one report finding that the 215 metadata program was in fact illegal and it was also an effective and in a report by the president's review group that was appointed last year to review intelligence programs made a similar finding about effectiveness and make other significant recommendations. there has been a lot of reporting going on in a lot of transparency there. there has also been a battle between internet service headers that are subject to the authorities and the government over what they can release in

their annual transparency reports. another -- a number of internet service providers yahoo! and the like went to fisa court and brought their own brief seeking the provision of the court to release the aggregate numbers of the fisa orders that they had received and governments responded and they had a litigation settled out of court in that case with a new set of principles that allow them basically to report in bands of zero to 500, 500 to 1007 and how many requests they were receiving. more recently in the last few weeks twitter brought suit in federal district court seeking to disclose more information. twitter is not subject to that order and they want actually to be able to release even more information in the annual transparency report. so then moving on to the

president's speech the president gave a major speech on nsa surveillance this ear in january and it really addresses two issues in that speech. the first was he made a pledge to end the suspicionless bulk collection program as we know it and they began to implement that program with certain self-imposed restrictions within the first few months. basically the doj went back to the fisa court and they said okay we still want authority to collect all cell phone records from at&t and sprint but we are only going to query those records when we bring the court evidence that we have a reasonable suspicion that the number we are using to query the records is related to international terrorism investigation. they refused to stop collecting in bulk until congress passed a new bill that i will talk about in a minute that would change

the regime it would operate under. the other thing the president announced as he would impose new restrictions on foreign communications data he had collected and that proposal was public policy director 20 that he published and released and in fact pursuant to that policy director one of the first orders was for the intelligence community via the coordination of the director of national intelligence to develop new procedures were the handling of the data that they acquired and that report, the first report by the dmi on that process was just released this morning. so now there is a new report there at the dmi that is focused its inquiry on next steps for the intelligence community agency on how they are going to modify their procedures and what new rules will apply. one thing that i will sort of

mention the big picture of pbd 28 is the efforts of the administration and the director of national intelligence here are entirely focused on the minimization rules and restrictions on the use of data that they have already collected. it's the administration's position that with respect to data, communications data acquired outside of the united states not on specified individualize persons that they basically don't want any restrictions on collections. so they are focusing all of their energy on talking about restrictions on the use of that data, how that data might be minimized or sort of processed after they have collected it. they don't want to accept any restrictions on their ability to collect data. so moving on to what's happening in congress right now are originally following the disclosures were to build

supercomputing bills that were developed in the house and senate coming from different sides. one coming from intelligence community from pundits and one coming from liberals and anti-surveillance members and now what we have had is a kind of combination of groups. we have had a coalition, coalesced to unity behind one bill, one in the house and one of the end one in the senate called the usa freedom act which is actually backed by the administration and the dmi as well and that bill has gone through several rounds of revisions that attend significant but in a detailed way. but what we have now now is a version of that bill that's pending in the senate, and it's probably unlikely that it will pass but it's certainly a possibility and more interestingly the strategic perspective if it doesn't pass this year next year when the 215 authority so there will be a

sort of forced decision there from congress as to whether to extend that authority are not and that will raise additional points about these authorities. just to give a brief outline there are a lot of detail provisions in it but the basic structure of the bill is there a certain substantive changes to the rules of section 215 which is similar to the national security letter from them and those changes specifically are within section 215 to kind of codified the nonbull called details records provision that would basically allow the government to rather than collect from telephone company all records and query them themselves they would actually have the government go to the telephone company and ask for queried records from the telephone company. please give us all the contacts

for data from the seed. patella communications companies would be delivering the data. there is also new reporting requirements, new requirements of inspector general reports that would require the government to account for things like the number of queries they are submitting and also provide descriptive accounts of how they are limiting their querying and their analysis of that data. and finally there is a provision for the creation for the special advocate or amicus at the fisa court and the idea here is that there would be either a dedicated individual within the federal government or a panel of

expert attorneys that would be available to provide arguments on the other side of fisa applications where significant interpretation of the law is concerned. so the most current iteration of this proposal has basically the fisa court agreeing on a clear panel of attorneys in the fisa court making the decision when to bring the attorneys in for a briefing if there's a question under the law. the current proposal, congress considering it has certain strengths and weaknesses. the primary strength is that it would fix the narrow problem of the bulk collection of phone records in a sense that it has a provision which clearly says the government cannot collect all telephone numbers in bulk and weight's been doing and instead of a system or the phone company delivers the query results to them. another strength is that it would require declassification

be ongoing declassification of significant fisa court opinion. the classifications of those opinions in the past is a huge root of the problem we have seen where there's a disconnect between the intelligence community and congress and the public in terms of what they think a lot is and how that lot developed. finally another strength would be the addition of adversarial amicus panel, special advocate. i do think there are significant weaknesses to the proposal as it's currently articulated. it doesn't limit what they call backdoor searches under section 702 and what that means section 702 is a program of what you might call bulky collection in the sense that they are certainly not collecting every electronic communication that ever gets transited abroad but they are collecting large categories of communication. it's not narrowly tailored to a single e-mail address or a single term and once they collect that information which

they have to target to communications they believed to be foreign they are going to necessarily acquire communications that are purely domestic and include the communications of the united states person. the question is once they have that data in the database who can search it and how can they search it? what can they search it for specifically the backdoor search question can they search that information once they have collected it for the name where the seat of the u.s. person. can i take a persons e-mail address and search the 702 database for communications of that person once they have collected them and if so do they have a reasonable suspicion so that the law does not address back? it also doesn't address the bulk collection under section 215 of records that are call letters. for example there's a pretty strong theory that the government is collecting financial data in bulk and if

they are not collecting financial data in bulk that would not be covered by the provisions in the current version of the bill that governs collection of policy. also the transparency version is somewhat limited in terms of how they're reporting would actually be accomplished and specifically the fbi which is one of the major actors on the domestic side of this that's completely exempted from a transparency requirements. finally looking forward to the looming issue and the issue that others have been discussing is the issue of surveillance under executive order 12333. this is surveillance that has for the most part fallen outside of the traditional oversight mechanisms that have been in place for fisa and as a result surveillance that the public and i think most members of congress know very little about. there have been statements made

by a state department official john tied who is now an active whistleblower in the area he says the way that eo12. 33 is being, specifically what he is implying is there's a great deal of communications data that's collected outside the united states that involves communications of u.s. person. it's easy to understand me think about the nature of the internet and talk medications networks. internet communications transit the club in many ways. they likely transit the globe even if we send it within the united states depending on how the packages are rugged and also the companies that provide these services like google and yahoo! have servers outside of the united states for redundancy purposes many times transferring the data back and forth over the border. so a great deal of domestic

communications are subject to collection outside the united states beyond the rules of fisa and when those communications are collected we asked the same questions that we do about 702. who can access them, what are the rules you can search them in to oversee that process? that really sets up the main questions going forward in that area. with that i think we can turn it over to questions. [applause] >> thank you allen. a quick administrative point. as you head out and when you are ready to go for the break please pick up the thumb drive which has the document to which bernie and harry made reference. if you didn't pick up the print versions for thumb drives are available at the does. secondly we have that valuation she's also available so please

consider rating our presenters. i'm very pleased with the presenters and the quality of the excellent work they have done. now it's your turn. unfortunately we only have five minutes so i welcome your questions, please. >> please give us -- please keep confidential your identity. >> i've a question for mr. butler about the usa freedom max that impose some limits on surveillance and collections and monitoring. one, either time limits on the record retention? >> yes so traditionally the time limit had been five years and i believe they use current act retains that five-year. map. >> another question as to both the house and senate versions of this legislation now agree that there should be an amicus panel or special advocate?

this is something that was contested by a u.s. district court justice john bates. >> the house version and i will clarify a little bit, the house version has passed. it was passed by the full house and the senate version is different and i believe being considered by the senate judiciary committee. regardless it is not passed in both versions i believe have an amicus panel at this point. but you are correct that judge bates had been an outspoken advocate and contentiously he has written in his voice as the administrator, administrative office of the executive court. he is sort of spoken for the judiciary on this question and he hasn't necessarily been operas do that and other judges

have written about that, somewhat upset. >> i have a vague recollection of a a statement or initiate an executive order that foia and the administration should be more generously and broadly interpreted vis-à-vis how it's being handled in at the time of the foia request. your sense do you think that is come to pass or not? >> the 2009 document for which you are referring was issued soon after did not duration of president obama. it was attorney general holder who was replacing with the george w. bush administration and attorney general passed so the holder memo in january or february of 2009 was extremely supportive of full disclosure. one opinion about how effective that was because dogs barking cow's moo and administrators don't like to disclose things

regardless who's at the top of the agency. from my perspective as a viewer the holder memo has not been implemented that i encourage your colleagues -. >> i don't have a strong feelings about it but i think it would be hard to me -- to be more conservative to provide a document from the bush administration. my feeling is that the administration is not all that willing to provide documents that they have a argument under foia. >> kerry. >> jim i think this is a perfect example of saying he talks the talk but he does not walk the walk. i would say that the holder memo which implements a memo that came out under obama's signature

i don't think an executive order, but his administration has said some of the best stuff about for you that any administration in memory has said that when push came to shove they have performed much better than the other administrations. i think a lot of people thought that this administration was considerably more open and actually there is a legislation that passed the house and is currently being tinkered with in the senate and probably will not passed during this congress but one of its features would be an amendment to changes the process privilege largely because it's considered by the foia community to be one of the most abusive exemptions using government and the abuses have not been any better under the obama administration.

so basically a lot of people would say this is more talk than action. their talk is an extremely elegant. >> you can make your own judgment. when you read the holder memo is significantly open. when you work as i do on issues involving natural gas fracking and you look at it and you say why won't the army corps of engineers tell us what they are doing to support the drilling under the legs, one memo has one line does this let us know how our engineers can help you. the utility sized railcars are full of material coming through the rail line in a community. we are trying to find out what's

in there and how many of them are there. how many are coming in when are they coming and the answers we can't find out. we get frustrated by the local officials not be able to get information. i will spare you my grief and turned to alice. >> is a foyer litigator and requests are we have not experienced a wealth of transparency and it is a administration i think partially what has happened there has been a -- by the obama administration towards open data endeavors. so they have done a lot in terms of creating new portals for foia and portals for opening day the government sets that they haven't done much to improve the foia process for requesters are litigators. i also think there's a disconnect between also between how foia is handled by the

department of justice versus how it's handled by litigators in the civil branch. we have seen some really strange claims by government lawyers that i don't think even the department of justice approaches would support. >> it really is remarkable what the obama administration is that on paper and what they are allowing the statute to do. we have time for one more question if anyone would like to ask a question. well, thank you very much. on behalf of the committee we would encourage you, please join the committee on government information privacy because it's really relevant stuff. it's very significant. we need your wisdom. thank you very much and have a good afternoon.

[applause] ..

>> >> in getting results. >> the montana senate debate is light tonight on c-span 2 at 8:00 p.m. eastern. said in a conversation on baseball in american life we will hear from baseball fans and supreme court justice alito and david brooks of "the new york times". in colorado first term senator mark udall is running against cory

gardner. this year colorado holds the first all mail election for officials have until friday to get the balance in the mail and voters are asked to mail them back by the wednesday before election day. senator udall and representative gardner debated last week in denver. this is one hour. ♪ ♪ >> moderator: did evening it is almost cliche that the u.s. senate could hinge on this race but it is no less true. the august and has a great fun dash has agreed to refrain from applause to maximize the amount of time for discussions but they will break their silence

after words. we have senator mark udall and congressman and cory gardner. [cheers and applause] the rules agreed upon by the candidates one minute answers and rebuttals at our discretion there is an opportunity to question one another in closing statements. you can participate from home for one of the topics we discussed with more depth. we're talking about issues of the day with the spread of ebola, economy, affordable care act the you will determine which we will circle back to. text of the word ebola economy to the number 25543 it will appear on the screen throughout the hour.

now brandon will katchis up on the race for senate. >> it seems larger than life because it is bigger than colorado but could decide control of the u.s. senate. that has special interest shoveling money to the rocky mountains. >> 99% of the time. >> cory gardner. all the ads but the incumbent mark udall when he first won his senate seat in 2008 was considered one of the closest races he helped the newly elected president obama with his agenda with the affordable care act. >> overtime he will see the affordable care act work for more coloradoans. >> but that is not encouraging at the core of the campaign a war of women's strategy then don

interfering with women's access. on the flip side cory gardner gave up the state seats in the house for this run. and his views on conservative issues have given a mission to democrats including the current status of the co-sponsor of a person could bill. he is out to honda live with that denial with fact checkers a.m. supporters. he campaigns on a plan to offer birth control pills over the counter but he also has connected that women's issues are not part of the campaign. energy and inflation in health care the ballots are in the mail and each candidate will get their chance to see them tonight in the studios tonight.

>> moderator: i have the first question we will begin with the news of the day. discouraging headlines about the ebola virus the second health care worker in texas infected have lot of passenger jet the president called divergency cabbage meeting. as it stands how do evaluate the federal response? >> i took time today to call dr. freedman then head of the cdc to get a briefing directly with him the virus is the enemy spare no cost if a project the public health workers but acknowledge the great courage of not only the people here that are facing this virus but troops we're sending to western africa and the aid workers there already. in the end we have to understand we have more to do and we ought to listen to

the doctors and health care professionals. if they believe we should restrict your borders or close the flights let's listen to them. senators and congressmen should not make the decisions to support those decisions. >> moderator: how do feel we have done so far? udall: we have the best medical system in the world. we will be up to this challenge and be focused to remember if we don't support the operations like cdc we cannot meet this challenge the way we want. this is the difference between congressman gardner and me who has voted to cut almost to a hundred $70 million from the cdc including 300 million of direct response. we will not beat a bullet by cutting back the cbc that is the difference between the two airbus. >> we ought to have an immediate travel ban and not

tomorrow but now we must have an immediate travel ban in effect from the affected areas. the president is not willing to put into place a travel ban than one into% screening of people coming from the affected areas. right now 96% will be screened. but that is not good enough the was make sure they're screened to protect the health of the american people is a very dangerous situation if we don't put into place all the necessary steps to safeguard the american people. as to work with wa joke around the globe to make sure we're coordinating responses. i spoke to winners either dead children's hospital to make sure they were undertaking the kind of steps necessary the. >> moderator: one more time. how have we done so far?

gardner: listen to the cdc they said mistakes were made. we lack a strategy in that has been clear in the news. tomorrow i will attend the hearing at the energy and commerce subcommittee to make sure we addressed those needs. secretary burleson we could have done better but to talk to senator udall charges he voted for the same bill he accused me for voting for so i know you have talked about things we have done together then try to criticize me several forget you voted for the same measure. >> moderator: we're talking about the current ebola virus. senator udall deal on the administration has a history of full confidence in its people buy it up and tell the moment that it doesn't. news said he spoke with tom

friedman head today deal would have full confidence in him and he believed he can lead us through the fight? udall: i have full confidence in dr. freedman and the cdc they are a public health agency the world looks to them for the expertise when we stand together we will meet the challenge of virus is the enemy with congressmen -- with all due respect to congressman gardner we both voted for sequester cuts but it's congressman gardner cast a vote and as if they were in place today we would be more on our heels even more than we would be right now congressman gardner. >> moderator: news said talking about a travel ban

that health workers could be afraid to go there so are their health experts telling your travel ban is a good idea and the cdc is wrong? >> what we know is people traveling from the affected areas as has already happened is unacceptable danger that is why i believe we should have the trouble period the with the overwhelming majority believes we should put this into place the gentleman coming into the united states that the man did not tell the true story he had been a mecca happen we need to make sure we have the trouble began to prevent people from coming in the first place but just to remind senator udall what went into effect is the very thing he voted for but perhaps the cdc should quit spending money on jazzercise

and urban gardening and a massage therapy to direct it to where is appropriate for the health of the american people. udall: $770 million of cuts to the cdc. he voted jazzercise is a small part. >> moderator: would you keep that? udall: with the cuts that congressman gardner proposed we would not be able to respond if our professionals think we should have the travel ban that is great we're not public health specialist we need to isolate the virus. >> moderator: the view of congress says we cannot get g things done with us glasshouse. if you are reelected and democrats keep control of the senate what would you do to make congress more effective and how was that

better than republicans working together to direct negotiate with the white house directly? udall: i can share some sybil's with you of the $770 million we directed to the state to recover from the floods. the firefighting capacity is we have with tankers in the best trained firefighters and being on the front and to prevent them in the first place. and work with senators from the upper midwest at the with industry is strong. that is what we do in colorado we are rugged collaborators. neither party has all the right ideas but look at congressman gardner record is the tenth most extreme record in the house. you get that extreme record by voting to cut medicare and social security and voted against tracking sexual predators' and by going against women's

reproductive freedoms. >> moderator: but what is different? udall: the senate pass comprehensive immigration reform and send it to the house and they have been sitting on it 18 months i have been waiting congressman gardner to show leadership to move that bill to the finish line. every business leader whereby comprehensive economic immigration reform and certainly the labor markets. the senate has been getting things done by the house is missing in action patina. >> moderator: the tactics used by yourself and fellow republicans in the house were seen by voters as the cause of the government shut down but that play book called for taking a bite out of obamacare. why share your party be rewarded with control of the senate with a cause of the gridlock? gardner: never believed it was a good idea in the first

place to get the criticism i took from my own party refused to sign on the strategies are plans to results of the government shut down and voted for every measure that would have reopened the government for a guy voted to make sure refunded the government. at the end of the of fiscal year from passed a measure to go simply to a conference committee to try to work together to avoid any lapse in funding by harry reid and senator udall refuse to bring that to the senate. but what can we expect from the next six years that would be different from senator udall? >> devotes lead a percent with obama and healthcare and failed policies on energy. increase taxes and regulations. while he votes 99% of the time with obama i will vote 100 percent of the tide with the people of colorado. leadership matters. over the next six years the

state needs leadership not more of the same from senator udall. >> moderator: your continued to deny the federal life that conception act which you sponsor is a person could kill it to end abortion it is a fact we will the debate that per your co-sponsors and you're planning an independent fact checkers say sell but what this may say about your judgment. it seems as a charitable interpretation is you have a difficult to with it when you are wrong and less charitable that you do not tell us the truth. which is it? gardner: i do not refer the personhood amendment that i support life. will repeat the words. >> moderator: and nobody thinks that. gardner: i have to answer the question multiple times looked at "the denver post" colleen senator udall issues obnoxious focus on one

single issue but the people of colorado deserved better and more than a single issue that senator udall is attempting to give them. >> moderator: we will talk about that but i am asking it appears to be the willing suspension of the facts. people to agree on the issue of life thank you are wrong have you are describing the bill everybody has a cohesive idea with the exception of deal isis will agree with my opinion and people don't i voted for a life in exception but that bill is a statement that i support life provided an answer this question multiple times but i will repeat the words of senator udall would he change his position on the marriage that a good-faith change of position should be a virtue not a bias both those of the words from senator udall. >> moderator: you are on

the bill and personhood is the rights of normal human beings on the unborn. that is what it says d. jedi support life that is the statement i support life but the people of colorado deserved more than a single issue. and based on fear is an inspiring hope that is what we ought to talk about. >> moderator: said denver post calls your obnoxious one issue campaign in an insult to women for our reproductive rights really the most important issue or is this about gathering enough female votes to push you over the edge? udall: i would like to respond to congressman gardner. the person could kill it is a bill by this statement. taliban most common forms of contraception. be clear.

and coloradoans deserve a straight shot in the chair is in but yet you have yet to give us straight in answer to the questions. the reproductive freedoms are important to millions of colorado women and families. "the denver post" does not think so but that is okay. >> moderator: not that they don't think so but it is overplayed. udall: the freedom to control your body is the ultimate frontier. congressman gardner built his career on reproductive freedom that is how he got the tenth most conservative record and you have to be extremely useful against medicare and energy and across the board. and i am proud to stand for the women of colorado for president for post doesn't

that is their business. being on the ballot for the third time they have spoken over and over we all believe in personhood and women should make their own decisions roe v. wade is on the ballot and. >> moderator: putting it another way with more than half of the ads are about this issue but does not think -- rank as issue number one with any opinion poll. is at that level to be at the top of your campaign? udall: 50% of the ads and it is part of it we have rallies coming debates, editorial boards, letters to the editor, march on the state state, half of the ad is about economics and raising minimum wage. making college affordable, those are

important issues but congressman gardner built his entire career on limiting reproductive freedoms. he is the social issue where -- warrior. what a woman stars your career deciding to start a family the should be her decisions not by of boss or congressmen. >> moderator: two-thirds disagree with your view. two-thirds. your position is extreme. use support sex selection abortion and partial birth abortion. that is in extreme record. udall: i support respecting women of the state to make their own decisions that over 70% of coloradoans have voted twice to defeat the personhood amendment and it is back again the old women of colorado will make decisions about their reproductive health

teeeighteen president obama said his policies are on the ballot this fall and republicans jumped all over that saying that the president's term is up for a vote back to the president was talking about his proposed policies for the next two years. specifically which of the proposed policies a you prepared to vote against? >> lenovo the list of policies i ready to vote for the minimum-wage that women are paid for the same job or may college more affordable or for tax credits to keep the jobs here. that is a difference between congressman gardner and myself. i am prepared to continue the work i have done to rein in the national security agency. >> moderator: but the president is not running on the nsa policy. you picked out a few agenda items but my question is the

items on the agenda that you don't support? udall: i support moving the country forward and focusing on the economy did not read the president's speech. i am focused on this race i have a colorado compass. when the president is right, we want him to succeed i will stand with him he came here to console the victims of aurora can spend time in the fire areas of colorado springs we welcomed him. when he did not stand up for simpson-bowles and continues to give the green light to the nsa to spy on americans' eyes stood up to the president. i will do so with a colorado compass and a point of view of colorado and my mind's eye. >> moderator: you have expressed skepticism humans are contributing to climate change than to hold the position at odds with the scientific community.

how did you arrive at that view? gardner: to address what senator udall he seven the president is right he will go with the president you believe he is right 99 percent of the time? udall: you'll like to talk about you are the tenth most conservative record in congress. >> moderator: for redirection how did you arrive at your odds of? gardner: but not to the extent as reported in the news they do think there is disagreement and refuse to destroy this economy as a senator udall is willing to do. i supported measures to increase energy we have to reduce pollution and support the energy efficiency and make sure we look at alternative energies. the production of tax credit extension and geothermal and

i created the energy efficiency caucus where we have worked together with vermont but i refused to burden the people of colorado with a carbon tax that senator udall supports in he will not say how much it will cost. a refuse to pass on to farmers and ranchers that captain trade bill that is $79 per year for people agility bills refused to say 250,000 jobs should be lost because of the views of senator udall will not allow the economy to absorber $50 billion economic it because of the plan to follow the president reagan% of the time. udall: congressman gardner continues to not answer the questions. climate changes happening colorado is ready we have the lowest energy prices in the world we will leave behind expect the senator to help the colorado if he does not even believe in climate

change? >> moderator: short questions and god willing short answer is. [laughter] main a democrat you voted for. >> no. >> moderator: a republican you voted for? udall: not in the last 10 years teeeighteen the last time you fired a gun? >> a shotgun maybe i hit some skeet. gardner: duck hunting this fall. >> moderator: the engage in conversation right now about a board member the student should not engage in civil disobedience have you ever in gauged it in civil disobedience knowingly broken the law to make a point? >> i was involved in the vietnam era protest i was never arrested but i admire those parents and students

in jefferson county to stand up. it shows elections matter and extreme positions is not where the state's is and as an example of what you have with extreme members and the elected body you have policies but don't move colorado floored. gardner: other than disobeying my parents by having a pepsi after 9:00 at night betta story in his glove led an effort with the governor for education funding for role schools we had 1,000 students from eastern colorado join me when i was a junior talking about issues important for education but this matter we need to keep congress out of the classroom. >> moderator: should call a repeal bill lot of recreational sales of marijuana? >> i opposed it but our

founders intended to be a laboratory of democracy in your deepen the laboratory. >> we need to work together to make sure the federal government lets us continue this experiment. >> moderator: shed congress grant colorado the exemption from the controlled substances act as it applies to marijuana? udall: is shed and we should for a number of reasons particular leave of cannabis industry needs access to the banking industry and that access is not available and is a public safety hazard. we will get the job done to let this continue. >> moderator: eight exemption from controlled substances act? gardner: congress' overall has to look at the regulatory system to make sure colorado is allowed to follow what it passed for banking issues and regulatory issues as they arise at. >> moderator: which member of the supreme court today

is a model jurist? pemmican the supreme court justice that follows the law. >> moderator: not a philosophy but a justice. udall: the king --. gardner: justice kennedy our justice alito or roberts i don't know if i can say this is the '01 that has stunned the best but i admire and respect their service. >> moderator: is there anybody on the bench today that you could not vote for? mimicries the people i have disagreements with. summer justices i disagree but the fact is they have gone through an arduous journey to achieve the status of a supreme court justice and deserve our respect we will follow the rule. >> moderator: what about justice ginsburg? gardner: that is not a vote we would ever have.

udall: congressman gardner is a friend of mine but you can hear the lawyer in him when he asserts those questions. sotomayor is a hero i had the privilege to vote for her and just this case again and take their responsibilities seriously and they have been well served. >> moderator: you could not vote to confirm? >> i believe justice scalia is out of the mainstream and i respect him for his service but when you look at citizens united decisions and resulted in the avalanche of campaign money. >> moderator: back to the short answer. senator the biggest non issue that congress debates

needlessly? udall: benghazi states and the family is of this country deserve an answer on benghazi it is outrageous people died and senator udall refuses to provide answers. >> moderator: an issue that congress is debating needlessly? gardner: there are a number of republicans to continue to dash renewable energy. i have spoken and time again to support renewable energy but go back to the issue of benghazi that is outrageous outrageous, he does not believe that is not worth looking into. >> moderator: you can raise topics later see you may return to that if you would like. now the short question. senator udall if you were invited by a friend to go to a same-sex marriage would you go?

began the libyan officiant would you attend? gardner: yes people deserve to be treated with dignity and respect as it comes to the supreme court i will respect the decision of the court. >> moderator: not officiating? gardner: i would attend. >> moderator: should there be term limits? udall: there should be that is why i am running for office november 4th. six years. i support term limits that it's a good decision. it has to be cool between the house and senate but you could set that at two or three terms. colorado passed a term-limits bill but we have to make sure they don't disadvantaged as state. udall: and respect the term limits already in the

constitution but over the last six years since i was elected we had a 50% turnover if i am reelected my seniority will be below 50% y i will chair important subcommittees'. read on the term-limits they're already in the constitution. >> moderator: and a question for both the view the senate is under scrutiny than almost anybody can filibuster anonymously. you will be in the minority party if elected his they're any filibuster reform you would support? gardner: the founders got a right with our constitution to create a system that was described by the founding fathers that said the houses like the cup venison is like a saucer that is one of the founders have said that what

senator udall has signed is he has broken the rules to change the rules to quiet the voice of the minority to allow his team to stack the deck against with the founders intended to be free and open debate this the people of colorado give me the privilege and honor i will not break the rules to take advantage of the political process. >> moderator: that is the no? udall: the senate can change the rules because the teapartier element with ted crews of the senate so if you cannot kill your human-resources position or

the cfo position we change the rules to put people in place. pipetted is undercut by the fact when we haven't moved legislation they use the filibuster if you want a filibuster like senator graham and paul and i was pleased he made the case about drones but there is the silent filibuster were the minority the sound and in the majority has to try to break it, that is not the way to regain greatness >> moderator: you cannot keep the affordable care act pledge if you like your doctor you keep your doctor that was a central promise of a controversial piece of legislation. looking forward how can you assure coloradoans with a neck sweeping piece of legislation comes you have a

better idea how it will work? looking ahead. udall: when i realized the insurance companies were breaking the agreement to carry a policy for word the offered a piece of legislation to make the case with the white house and the governor here. coloradoans can now keep their plan is to elect their plan. that is my focus the affordable care act fixed a broken system but congressman gardner has voted 50 times to go back to a system where women were discriminated, you can get coverage is somebody gets sick. >> moderator: why did you miss that handle on that legislation? udall:, that was the intent but the minute it was clear that was happening the was right there to make sure every coloradoans could keep their plan and we have over 400,000 coloradoans that

have coverage they did not have one year ago, expanded medicaid think about why we need the affordable care act not just because women were discriminated but they cannot leave the job because they cannot get coverage with the individual market. >> moderator: there are pieces of obamacare people support like supporting praising conditions to one to keep that how you do that without the individual mandate? it was made clear premiums would skyrocket and as everyone was in the pool. gardner: that is why introduce legislation on that matter. i have a bill it is only 5060 pages not 200700 page bill that senator udall supported. as a result of his broken promise not only did thousands of coloradoans, as they could keep the three --

340,000 coloradoans loss their health care plan and it is not true senator that people could keep it because they're losing their health insurance over this summer after the change it to a defect people have lost their health care plan. thousands over the summer have lost their health care plan that the senator said would never happen. senator udall had a chance to vote in 2010 to prevent this from happening, to prevent people from losing health care plans and if you read the bill he would know the consequences of his actions but instead he did not lead he went against his word to against the bill or amendment that would allow him to keep his word. >> moderator: back to pre-existing conditions there is not a giant people to defray the cost. udall: this is where we would create the high risk pools the federal government

can assist to make sure these premiums are long enough those that can get coverage for pre-existing conditions and that is important. recognized that senator udall had promises of obamacare that are simply not true. he had a chance to correct in refuse to provide the leadership necessary. >> remember congressman gardner would take us back to another system when it discriminated against women and voted 50 time should tell the government last fall. to talk about what he might support but no replacement. >> moderator: you're showing a willingness to engage one another so do that on schedule.

gardner: thanks for the opportunity to be year senator udall you voted with the president 99 percent of the time you voted with him when you believe he is right as you believe 99 percent of the time. was a policy to you regret? udall: the number you don't want to talk about is number 10 in the house of representatives you earned the distinction by being too extreme for use sponsored a national personhood lot and voted to privatize medicare. gardner: senior cut? udall: i would love to talk about that. gardner: go-ahead. udall: what's congressman gardner is referencing is a redirection of medicare through the affordable care act to extend the lead stand close the door and whole. udall: you cast a similar vote to take that same into

billion dollars to direct those into tax cuts. you are cutting medicare was extending the life teethed --. gardner: gee regret that? udall: you do you directed those dollars with a billionaire is in millionaires of my bill read directed medicare advantage money to extend the life of medicare. udall: we talk about personhood but you still sponsor the life that conception act that is a federal personhood bill that bans abortion common forms of birth control but the house agrees with that characterization but do you deny that the bill exist at all and in fact, it is personhood and also did an interview with a leading

political journalist reese said the bill did that even exist. please explain to us here why they're wrong. gardner: senator udall the bill you're referencing is the statement that i support life. what we have seen from the campaign the senator udall riches to focus on nothing other than social issues he is a social issues lawyer that has defined his campaign in time in office i support increasing access to contraception and i believe contraception should be made available over the counter without a prescription. we need to fix the lobby past that prohibited that funding from those being reimbursed. we ought to increase access. and pueblo colorado a few days ago he refused to save you supported increasing access it is a rages to think someone would want to be an birth control and "the

denver post" has described your campaign as obnoxious and insulting to the people of colorado because of your focus on a single issue. i received your endorsement as we work together to have jobs in the economy in focus what people continue to talk about. >> moderator: my next vivisection you can see what it is like to ask questions and not get straight answers. [laughter] next this is more of a clarification senator udall has criticized the nsa but do you take issue with his specific criticisms? or are you together? gardner: i appreciated the senator's work on this end i believed we were together on these issues important to coloradoans that is why i supported the amendment of the house floor and the senator did as well but i

think he would. was a co-sponsor of the usa freedom act when originally written because i thought it would bring it in by voted against on the floor because they watered it down to take up the protections of the american people with privacy and changed it. i believe we have done a good job to work together and will continue to. >> moderator: voted against the keystone xl pipeline that we should wait for a review with "the washington post" called the delay absurd and embarrassing. you are frustrated but could you outlined the steps to have taken to push your allies to expedite keystone? udall: we have bested the above energy sector where we develop our energy in a safe and responsible way. that is all i was asking for

with the keystone pipeline. i can tell the viewers if this pipeline was built to eastern colorado the farmers want to know it is done safely and responsibly to not pollute the offer. this is a decision the president will make but in the meantime book is what we do here. this was past the election. >> if you look at the history of the keystone pipeline there is a case in the nebraska supreme court to respect the people of nebraska to get the best decision the focus on what we're doing here rather than turn this into a political issue as others have teeeighteen what is the one attainable thing congress can do right now?

that actually passed with people in their room how would you get that done? >> a comprehensive immigration reform accretes labor markets in every business leaders says this is important the right balance of border security and employer responsibility. of legal status and citizenship of the people who were here in to enhance national security, it means we don't have a difficult situation that we have earlier this year and it outlines the difference between congressman gardner and me is that he opposes comprehensive immigration reform that we ought to do with insteps but he has not taken a single step. he made it clear that

they're here illegally. that is not how to move the economy forward. >> moderator: one attainable thing congress should do? gardner: build the keystone pipeline with people of colorado were in charge and would have to create thousands of jobs around the country. it is interesting senator udall will defend the people of eastern colorado because of his concern about the keystone pipeline but in 1989 he actually suggested that we move nuclear waste to eastern colorado city is not willing to build the keystone pipeline even though it does not go through eastern colorado but move -- a link to move nuclear waste progress someone who lives in eastern colorado we don't appreciate your willingness to move nuclear waste into our backyard. udall: that is laughable i was helping to clean up the

rocky flats. with global nuclear waste we have a prime example of collaboration it is now a wildlife refuge. >> moderator: describing yourself as a new kind of republican yours is the most conservative in the house. deal have a changed position are just a new way to talk about the standard conservative agenda? gardner: it is about representing the fourth congressional district that represents the people of colorado. i will continue to grow when henderson of the time for the people of colorado. this violence against women went against my party to vote against the house measure because i believed it was watered down voting for the senate measure only one of 33 members to do so. i support renewable energy believing it is important that i will continue to pursue those ideas.

and being a new republican is that we are four solutions and ideas to put up possibilities to address the challenges. the people are tired. we are avid government to solve problems meeting government of big ideas. >> moderator: senator discussing your focus and female voters but the largest gender gap is your deficit among men. why is it you have had such a tough time to gain the support of men? udall: i support the entire electorate to make the case and i will continue to do so the only poll that matters is on election day when coloradoans men and women understand my record of accomplishment seven edges $70 million for flood recovery, standing tall for the went industry to make

sure we have the greatest firefighting capabilities possible i will have a broad coalition to reelect me to the senate. >> moderator: both talk about the need for tax reform for our viewers who have been voting tonight selected the economy as the issue we return to that as we wrap up the hour. talk about tax reform for closing loopholes nothing is done but special-interest lobbyist run the show so which cooper industries that supports you are you prepared to deliver hard news to tonight they need to compromise? a group that is in your corner? udall: i have a lot of groups in my corner. aerospace, renewable energy energy, everybody has to give a little bit teeeighteen be specific. udall: and was a strong supporter of simpson-bowles is strongly disagree with

the president he missed a good opportunity to a breeze -- a race that approach with that 25 percent with a competitive tax rate everybody has to give on the revenue side and deductions and tax credits that that is the duty of simpson-bowles everybody is up the table like comprehensive immigration reform. >> moderator: someone who is in your corner? t --. gardner: we need to increase taxes but settled think we shouldn't tell the government can spend money appropriately. we are facing a deficit. we just talked about the cdc spending money on urban gardening and jazzercise instead of their mission. we should have a

comprehensive tax reform. we should flatten the code for everyone in the country. but the representative from maybe tennessee said the tax code is longer than the bible but there is no good news. >> moderator: you are biding their time to ask each other questions again. >> turn into the situation of the midst -- the middle east to get briefings on an ongoing basis that led me to call for action in serious to prevent them from getting a foothold at the same time he made a statement suggesting to flat out say what happened in syria was not in our national interest. were you paying attention? retaking the time to understand the serious

threat that exists in the middle east or do you not care? gardner: i'm glad you brought this up because i do believe the islamic state is a thread intersections to plug -- deposed an imminent threat. when you tried to accuse me of things why the president did not have a strategy ask the president were his strategy is. we are in this mess because the president that you go with 99 percent of the time said we don't have a strategy to deal with these terrorist. somebody called them university and this organization resulted in the heading and killing and capture of americans. you said you did not believe that they were a threat but then later stated you don't believe they're plotting against the united states. we need to protect the security and safety of the american people that is why

i will continue to do in congress and in the united states senate. udall: if i may respond. we have a strategy. we voted for it purview and two pars were someone to protect americans. gardner: senator udall i will state again as a rebuttal but you told the american people you don't believe they are in imminent threat and that is just wrong. the question and have for you is this purdue support a carbon tax i oppose it. what in dollars is the amount every electricity bill will increase under your carbon tax? udall: in the market will set the level. carbon pollution is real hit all believe in and climate change. the market will set a price just like it did when the first president bush put in

the clean air act to lower pollution that long run benefit did the nation. the private -- the price we're paying for your denial is very high. colorado is ready to meet the challenge to reduce carbon emissions and we have been preparing for it. i wish to listen to the scientist to understand this is our future. this is something that is there for the taking under my leadership that is why wilt -- what we will do. gardner: there is no market price for the carbon tax. let me finish the question. there is no cost on electricity bills today what would that be in dollar terms? udall: the market will set the costlier cost is too high. >> moderator: time for closing statements

congressman gardner you are first. gardner: it has been an honor to travel around the state of colorado to visit with families to a struggle to make ends meet to talk about ways we can increase their opportunity. to make sure they have a brighter future that we believe is an obligation to accomplish said the next generation has a better starting point that what we inherited from our parents. throughout this campaign it is an honor to travel with senator udall to talk about our e economy, energy independence, doing what we can to protect and preserve our environmental quality to make sure we increase educational opportunities for people across the state. but leadership matters. we have not seen the kind of independent leadership that we need for this state. i would ask the people tonight do you know, of one

major accomplishment that senator udall has accomplished over the last six years? because i cannot. i believe we must act now to shake up the senate. when my party does something wrong i will say peppergrass something was broker will fix it. i will make sure we provide a new generation of leadership because what happened the past six years to the people of colorado was unacceptable. udall: it is the privilege of my life to be a united states senator from the special state. we have been through trials and tribulations floods, fires, drought and the shooting but we're up to the response to those strategies and challenges. we work together and i'm a leader to make sure we have $71,970,000,000 to recover from those floods and a

leader to make sure we can fight fires and recover when necessary. i am proud to lead the effort better wind energy industry is strong and ready for the future. i am proud of our economy will come back to show signs of life there is more to do. pass the minimum wage, the major college is affordable and those are not given tax credits for moving jobs overseas. elections are about the future to provide a choice there is a clear choice in this race and congressman gardner talks about a member of the new generation but they believe in marriage to quality, they believe and immigration reform, a new generation believes in raising the minimum wage and respecting women's reproductive rights. congressman gardner does not believe in any of those. of the new generation is with us. i humbly ask for your votes

because working together we will keep colorado moving for the next six years. >> moderator: senator udall thank you and also congressman gardner also to our respectful audience to night to. [cheers and applause] . .

>> moderator: we present the only tellvised debate of the campaign here in 2014.