neither of you though have talked about adding more money for the agency. a federal judge recently said that the primary problem with dcf is a budgetary shortfall and more than anything else. my question is do you think you can fix dcf without adding more money?

baker: i supported the governor's proposal for dcf in this past legislative session both the social records technology and for a variety of other pieces but i also think their management requirements set out to part of what happens there. i made reform proposals when jeremiah oliver case that tragedy broke earlier this year. i think in many respects dcf has a very difficult and complicated job. in some ways they are dealing with some of the most troubled families in the commonwealth of massachusetts and the fact that the commonwealth had an opportunity to move toward fixing this four years ago when they filed a case which was a very compelling case against the department and the attorney general and the governor chose not to move to fix that but instead to fight it was a problem. clearly borne out by what happened after that and in addition to that, and i have

said this before, you have a terrific record with respect to advocating for children. but to have that case in front of you and to stand silently by while the state of massachusetts cut the department by over $40 million is a problem and showed a lack of judgment on an issue that was right in front of you for several years. >> moderator: martha do you want to respond to back? coakley: the case is so compelling that the judge dismissed it. we did represent the government and that's my job and i do that to the best interests of the children in the families who need to represent. let's be clear about it. there were outside lawyers who are suing us with a one-size-fits-all solution. it wasn't the right solution for massachusetts. i thought i better use of that money to give to the dcf. i do believe we need to restructure the agency. i have had a plan for that and i have worked for that agency for 25 years. we have an agency that has a mission to protect kids allegedly but it's a mix mandate

and they don't do it right. the pendulum swings. we need to change it. there are lots of ways and i'm glad you're advocating probably these changes while you're running for governor but you have an opportunity as secretary and under secretary of health and human services to look at case closer look at technology and revert to million dollars when you could have used it for the caseload while i'm working in the child abuse -- >> moderator: is $30 million enough money? they don't have enough money and they have never had enough money. coakley: it's not just about money. >> moderator: is the same thing could its money. they don't have enough money. coakley: we give them more money in the problems don't get solved because the structure of agency doesn't work to give missions to the social workers there you have untrained social workers who don't get enough support.

i've worked with horrific social workers and i don't mean to criticize them but we need to change the structure of agency and then we need to say with an increasing technology and charlie would probably agree with a to better communicate with the mission of agency is what the workers are supposed to do and hold them accountable when they don't use those measures. baker: we fought that case and the lawyer who represented that case on the other side worked in the clinton administration. she was hardly what i would call partisan partisan and family the way described that as you said you'd do well is best for massachusetts. he should've done what was best for the children being served by the department. coakley: it was not settling the lawsuit by the one-size-fits-all result that the lawyers wanted. i absolutely refuse, the brief is bipartisan lawyers in the city would rather give a lot of money to outside lawyers to tell massachusetts what to do. i don't think that's a good solution for manager and i don't think that is what the governments they should do.

>> moderator: for the second time you have praised martha coakley's work with children and we have to play very briefly a snippet of two super pac adds. most parents tell their children to have to leave the room. let's watch a little piece of this. >> more than 50 children abused, neglected lives cut short although cut short although under the care the massachusetts department of children and families. martha coakley knew about mismanagement at dcf. how could we trust her again? >> baker heights payment is 100% raising rates an average of $3000 a year. baker eliminated nearly 2000 jobs in his company while tripling his own salary to over $1.7 million a year. >> moderator: very very quickly somebody who supports you the former attorney general says he did a great job. he say she has done a great job of children. i still don't understand. briefly why are you not in the

super pac -- super pac. please take that commercial off the air. it doesn't represent my values. baker: i said at the time i don't like the tone of a habit i still don't like the tone of the ad. >> moderator: still having insisted -- discussion and the broken agency became in many respects at the time and through those 40 and 50 million-dollar cuts. >> moderator: it makes it seem like she is a slasher from one of the slasher films. virtually everybody says that despite your criticism he let the saving of pilgrim. coakley: premiums went up. salaries went up. that is the difference between the two halves. there is factual inaccuracy. i think that as it's about dcf and not about me but suggesting

that i said -- children were killed. that's outrageous outrageous. as the campaign and i understand that unless and i asked charlie and he wouldn't do it, there's no way to control these ads. >> moderator: the first negative ad of the race was run by super pac the same week they started running the negative ad against me they gave thousands of dollars to to the attorney general or campaign finance loophole. to some extent she doesn't have any credibility in this issue. coakley: i disagree. >> moderator: let's move on. aquila johnson from the "boston globe." >> i spent about five days of summer reporting firm ferguson missouri which is a small suburb of st. louis missouri that erupted in concert protest after an african-american teenager michael brown was shot and killed. many of the officials in the city as well as the state were criticized for not understanding the circumstances that contributed to a volatile

situation. so my question is how would u.s. governor make sure that all communities especially communities of color have a seat at the table so disparities and education housing and, as well as health care that those gaps are closed? >> moderator: charlie and martha can you give me one example to address what she's talking to back? coakley: let first say i think we need combat policing that means having well-trained and diversified police department and i would propose putting men and women in our fire teaching police services by getting people involved in public service. >> moderator: charlie baker gave me one example of addressing her question. sigh. i'm proud of the fact that i was endorsed by the minority massachusetts minority law enforcement officers association because of the time and effort i have made getting to know the folks in those communities of color and huge part of my

economic development plan is creating opportunity and moving quality of education and public safety in a community spirit i was proud to stand with 4050 liters in those communities a week ago today at roxbury to talk about the plan and to gain their support. one other thing i would say quickly on this. i just happen to do a ride along the friday night of when ferguson was breaking and sergeant johnson. i wanted him to just take me around the city for five or six hours to show me what's going on in urban boston. the first thing he did was he took me to dorchester high school where they were holding practice and cooking hamburgers and hotdogs at cheerleading practice and he said this is what goes on in these communities on friday night which no one ever talks about. he knew every single coach and he knew half the parents who were there and i think one of

the things we have to do if we want to avoid situations like that is we have got to embed ourselves as human beings in human beings in this community so people understand that not only do we care about them but we get where they're coming from from and they can see us and they know if we make a commitment we will follow through on it. >> moderator: the district attorney -- i i'm glad you got the ride along charlie. it's important to have a good criminal justice system is fair to everybody. >> moderator: here's one more thing that's important communities of color and that's education and one of those issues as charter schools. i was stunned because no parents were there, no kids and i realized no one had come because so few kids could get in. it's depressing to go to these things are not yet called year after year. martha coakley you have been

supportive not that strongly for charter schools with 45,000 kids on the list and charlie baker baker has the divine the options of charter schools to poor kids is nothing less than a quote from him an affront to their civil rights. how is the wrong? coakley: this is where we differ because community is about education i think we have made this distinction between charters and noncharters. remember charters were the reason we were able to see what works and what doesn't work extended learning time early education which i support the charlie doesn't the ways in which will give every kid the best possible education. not about charters is about making sure we keep that promise to take those best practices from charters. we have pilot innovation schools we know work. >> moderator: before charlie response you mentioned bk. on primary night you celebrated your universal glia called the pre-k plan. universal plan has morphed into a plan for 16 or 17,000 people on the waiting list.

the number of people in need support. what happened? coakley: i still support universal pre-k. what i said we are going to start the 17,000 kids in $150 million immediately to get them into places we have. their parents that have that ability now. i'm trying to level the playing field and make that's start for the kids that we now needed. >> moderator: charter schools click. baker: the attorney general's position a minor basically the same and i'm glad to see now she's in the general election that she agrees with me and making targeted investments in expanding a participation pre-k. on the charter school question i spent a lot of time and a lot of city schools over the course of this ring. parochial traditional charter. what i'm looking for is excellent and there are many charter schools out there to do a great job in their 45,000 parents on the waiting list. those parents deserve choices, okay? when i knock on doors and

dorchester and when i knock on doors in springfield the first question that comes up when i'm talking to somebody who has school-aged kids is i don't have enough choices for my kids. these people, they are desperate when they talk about this. for anybody who has kids it kills you to hear the concern in her voice. there are a lot of great traditional schools out out there too. filled with great teachers and one of the things i've talked a lot about during this campaign is wanting to create relationships between folks who are actually doing a terrific job of educating kids in traditional public schools with other folks in public schools. we don't do the in-service type flirting and teaching and best practices that we should be doing. i'm going to make that happen. we have got to start doing that because there are stars performing in urban education and we are not leveraging that. >> moderator: we only have two

minutes left. we are going to move finish of his huge in this country income inequality inequality. two measures i want your thoughts on. when the minimum wage increase and question for which would give mandatory paid sick leave to anyone who works at a place with more than 11 people. do you support those? very quickly are you not concerned about the argument for small business that one or both of these things will -- coakley: the minimum wage has been passed. i think most people supported that. it make sense because we have families that are living from week to week to pay their rent or put food on the table and a couple that i met can barely afford to put food on the table. that's not right. the corporations they work for are doing quite well thank you. there's income inequality is we turn the economy around has to be for everybody. >> moderator: some states have mandatory paid sick leave

connecticut and california. we would be the outlier for became the third because small businesses it's a killer. coakley: i think it's absolutely a cost of doing business that they will be able to afford. this is a right for people who must people in this audience and many of our viewers don't worry about sick time. if they are sick or their kid is sick they are about to lose their job if they don't show up in it's a public health issue people are sick and it mostly affects women. minimum wage women have childcare responsibilities who don't have early -- early education. this is a fairness issue and i supported and i think the people of massachusetts supported. >> moderator: charlie baker quickly you had said early in the campaign he will consider bush or werder sub minimum wage for teenagers and people in training. are you still considering a? baker: i think we should pursue what has happened which i supported my minimum-wage legislatively but i also believe it would file a bill as governor advocate for small business tax

credits for small businesses so that they have the ability to absorb the increase in the minimum wage without taking hours away from people for jobs. >> moderator: what about the sub minimum wage? is it still on your agenda? quickly on question for you propose the threshold not 1111 employees or more but 50 or more. the national iteration of independent business and that means 120,000 businesses may be within the neighborhood of 1 million employees would not benefit from paid sick leave. it does not trouble you? baker: would be the same as the connecticut law which as you point out there only two states in the country that have this on both of them by the way of a lot more flexibility than the massachusetts law as written would propose. i support doing this i will work aggressively to get done but i worry a lot as we are all concerned about jobs and small businesses and their ability to grow and thrive and create opportunity here. this puts us at a significant disadvantage. coakley: 1.2 million people who would not get sick time under

charlie's proposal. >> moderator: both of you. baker: there a lot of people that will lose their existing flex benefits if it passes because they won't be able to access the flex benefits their current -- companies have put in place. >> moderator: both of you have been involved in questions. an organization run by the cochair of a finance committee with the prime beneficiary of a lawsuit filed against fannie mae and freddie mac said the think the public should be worried about this charlie? baker: is the chief law enforcement officer of the commonwealth and the overseer of the office of campaign of political finance i think you would have been appropriate for the attorney general to disclose that relationship especially since she had financial opportunities. this woman raise money for her as well and it was all beneficiary in the proposal. coakley: the premises of your question are false. that statute as i've been fighting a separate he knows are

the big barriers of fannie and freddie. the only person that statute was the nature that homeowners could say in their homes. it's not the only company that does that. it's an opera for-profit and we disclose everything we needed to and we did exactly what we should have done. >> moderator: disclosure of the woman involved. coakley: we checked again and all of her -- we did everything we need to do. >> moderator: let's talk about charlie per minute. charlie some critics have suggested pay-to-play gave $10,000 to new jersey gop and it took seven months before the investment firm looked at the executive residence and received 50 million bucks from the state's pension fund. by the way they recently sold that. should voters be concerned about back? charlie said he did nothing wrong or illegal. should people be and concerned about back? said to those facts indicate a lease from my point of view there reason to investigate he's under investigation.

he has said under 33 different times he filed -- and if that's the case than he is in violation of the law and if he is not then you should disclose his contra contract. >> moderator: if i can there are reports today charlie baker that chris christie and the treasure of new jersey who was appointed by chris christie is a supporter of yours is holding up release of the investigation about this pay-to-play thing until several days after the election in massachusetts. would you use this opportunity now to urge kristi and his treasure to disclose whatever the investigation is banned immediately prior to november 4? baker: i certainly can't control what they do. they are doing an investigation and i stay as far away from it as i possibly can get which i think is appropriate. they will issue report when they issue it but i will say this. 33 times i point out the fact that i was working with general catalyst. i've been completely transparent

from the beginning. never try to hide anything on this in one of the issues were raised about it i hired the former general counsel in the federal election commission and gave them all th the documentatn said if there is something i need to do here tell me. let me finish. i wrote a brief on it and i made that brief publicly available to anybody who wanted to see it. >> moderator: why would the governor of new jersey released immediately so the voters have an object objective? baker: the new jersey pension board will make their decision and issue their ruling when they finish their study. as far as i can tell based on the work we have done by the former lawyer for the sec had done nothing wrong. coakley: he could resolve this by exposing his employment contract. >> moderator: we are very short. baker: can i just point out that there's only one person that has paid --

coakley: i've been completely transparent when we have had errors of them pointed out. we fix them to be reverted the money to wear should have gone and i always have done that. that's a transparency and that's why i'm calling you to release your employment contract. >> moderator: we have three minutes left. >> moderator: let's hear from tie the "boston globe." it's a serious question about taxes. he's going to ask you one quick question. here he is. >> who would play you in a movie this campaign and who would play your opponent? baker: is not going to be made. >> moderator: who plays charlie baker? >> moderator: look at them look at each other. okay, forget that.

baker: clint eastwood plays her or you. final question same question we asked john connolly and margaret was before we ended the mayor's race. most the time folks -- let's talk about the power you don't have. pick one issue that you don't have a statutory power and you don't have increased funding that you would use the bully pulpit of the governor's office to advance. no statutory power just use her position as governor of massachusetts. what would that be charlie baker? baker: we desperately need to create more things at night for kids to do in urban communities. i would like to put together a coalition of folks who are involved in all kinds of recreational and community-based and athletic activities across the commonwealth involving urban communities and come up with things kids can do.

>> moderator: bully pulpit, what you do? coakley: i'm the most concerned about kids and others and not for-profit settings that are not the resources boys and girls frankly to get what they need not just sports but social work mental health that they need. there are a lot of trouble kids in the state who need help. >> moderator: charlie baker, martha coakley thank you both. we really appreciated. [applause] that's all the time we have. i think charlie baker and martha coakley. >> moderator: thank you all for tuning in tonight. [applause] ♪

last month a liberian man who later died was diagnosed with ebola in dallas. two nurses contracted the virus while treating him. friday the house oversight and government reform committee holds a hearing to examine the ebola response in the u.s..

you can see the hearing live starting at 9:30 a.m. eastern here in c-span2. c-span's 2015 studentcam competition is underway. this nationwide competition for middle and high school students will afford 150 prizes totaling $100,000. create a five to seven minute documentary on the topic "the three branches and you." videos need to include c-span programming, show varying points of view and must be submitted by january 20, 2015. go to studentcam.org for more information. grab your camera and get started today. >> now the final debate between candidates for d.c. mayor. councilmember democrat muriel bowser faces independent at-large councilmember david cantania and independent carol schwartz. this hour-long debate is courtesy of wusa nine. ♪

>> wusa present campaign 2014 the final d.c. mayoral debate with moderator bruce johnson. >> moderator: good evening everybody welcome to the historic anaheim high school in southeast washington. we are here for the final of the debate of the mayoral campaign. while a lot of you have are decided on few are going to vote for you know there are a lot of undecided people. they are in the audience, they are watching us on the web and they will be watching the broadcast. let's respect them, let's respect the candidates. now opening statements also decided by lot. going first of the democratic for mayor muriel bowser. one minute per opening statements. bowser: thank you present good evening everybody. i m. muriel bowser and i'm running for mayor of my hometown. i'm very proud of the progress

that we have made together in the city but i am also concerned that not everybody in our city is enjoying that progress. that's why is councilmember i have fought for common sense solutions that help everyday families all across the district of columbia. my kids ride free on metro bus which has allowed thousands of families to get to school. before kids ride free families are paying $30 per month per child just to get to school. the school in the neighborhood had been closed and another score to close the next. families have been able to keep money in their pockets to get their kids to quality schools. i fought for saving d.c. home foreclosures to keep families in their homes and i'm going to keep fighting for all the district of columbia with your support. [applause] >> moderator: ms. schwartz.

schwartz: good evening everybody. i'm carol schwartz a former at-large member of the d.c. council. some of you may remember me from my 16 years on the council as well as my two terms on the board of education. and you may also remember that i lost five and half years ago my re-election for the council because i gave sick leave to workers. i'm very proud of that even though i've been threatened by some in the business community that they would come after me if i pushed ahead. i think it's important for people who have part-time jobs and to work to have sick leave so if i had to do it all again and have taken his this leave of absence because of it because i lost my election i would do it all again. i want to come back so i can continue doing things for people who need it, helping our vulnerable population getting affordable housing, helping our

homeless, giving drug treatment and alcohol treatment to those who need it. thank you all very much. [applause] >> moderator: thank you very much. mr. cantania. cantania: thank you and i want to thank everyone for being here and organizers for arranging this. we have a big decisions to make a couple of weeks from now that is who has experience in the values in the vision to lead our city? for the last 17 years i've been privileged to be able to get up every day and ran towards her city challengers and i'm also proud of some of the things we have been able to champion differences during my chairmanship of the committee on help it for the affordable care act we reduced the rate of uninsured for the second lowest rate in the country. we were able to cut our hiv infections by 50% and our death by 69% and through some rough tenacious efforts were able to invest $100 million to the united medical center and save it from closure. for the last 21 months i've chaired the committee on education and threw 100 50/50

conversation with school leaders have been able to end social promotion the biggest investment in our city's history and we are now on the road of fixing special-education that i'm running for mayor because d.c. can do better. thank you. [applause] >> moderator: thank you mr. cantania. the order of responding to questions also decided by lots in the first question goes to carol schwartz. ms. schwartz can you name the single biggest contribution you have made tour dates? schwartz: i think probably i would say the sick leave for people who needed to have it. the department of environment, trying to clean up the anacostia river which can negatively impact the neighborhood. i also in my private life not

just my public life bruce but in my private life i have done enormous amounts of volunteer work including coming out here having been on the board of the metropolitan police force and having worked at the center out here for all those years several decades ago. so i think in my political life and my community life i think have benefited from above those activities. i'll so if your member chair the committee that had public works under it and we were able to do far better at trash pickup and we were able to make -- better. unfortunately it's fallen back since i don't chair the committee anymore. >> moderator: thank you very much. ms. bowser the same question. bowser: i would say the biggest contribution and what i've heard from residents across ward 8 is the transit the free transit for schoolchildren. as i mentioned in my opening its

made a real difference in everyday lives for families who were leaving their communities to go to school and had to pay to do so so that's very important. i think that i have also made a tremendous contribution in working with park southern. i'm sorry. >> moderator: excuse me, please. we are early into this debate. you disrespect all of us when you do that. ms. bowser please continue. bowser: as i started i wanted to say that a problem was brought to me about violence in the community on metro bus that surrounded a community called parkway overlook. i worked with all of the housing agencies to make sure that building could be saved and it was most recently purchased by the housing authority and will be converted to hundreds of units of affordable housing. >> moderator: mr. cantania

your single biggest contribution to ward 8. cantania: thank you mr. johnson. several years ago when i became chairman of the committee on health united medical center was borrowing pharmaceuticals from a free hospital as well as bandages. nurses routinely walked off the job or failure to be paid in the radiology department have been burned down. he was operating as barely more than a clinic when i became chairman and was proud of leading the effort to invest over $100 million into that facility. a nuke equipment new radiology new one care new dialysis but most importantly the new united medical partnership with children's united medical center which brought a pediatric er to the site that will see 40,000 children are lummis here. i'm proud of the fact that while not perfect the hospital were closed. many say was offended or waste of money that i believe that people miss community are intact for the same quality health care that i expect to my neighborhood

and that's why he led the effort and i'm proud of it. the hospital as there was 1000 jobs because of it. [applause] >> moderator: now we have random questions. we will start at this end. first question is for all three candidates. you are elected mayor and marion barry is complaining about the reduction in the assistance broken pinky take the call and give it to a department head. mr. cantania. cantania: you can't not take a call from marion. marion cannot be deferred. we have had a storied history. sometimes we love each other and sometimes we don't but i have to tell you no one can diminish marion's legacy and work. just one minute? >> moderator: that was a one-word answer. cantania: i would take the call. schwartz: of course i would take

his call. i had the great privilege and i will never understand exactly why marry him before he went for his kidney transplant operation i just got on the council on the council on i was out of town. i got a call from marion barry at the university hospital. >> moderator: that was a yes or no question. schwartz: of course i would take his call. >> moderator: ms. bowser? bowser: yes i would take yes i would take this call an event that took five calls a day talking about what's important to the residents of ward 8. [applause] >> moderator: okay we will keep it at ms. bowser and work her way back. we would like one minute responses. education reform. everybody says he or she is for education reform. specifics please. you become mayor what's the first thing you will do?

bowser: we are all for education reform and we have to decide how fast government is going to make equality and education vestments a party. we have worked hard from her former boss governors and we have made a lot of progress some of it very difficult and some of the decisions very difficult. now we see parents are choosing d.c. public schools again. we see our numbers growing en masse because they have confidence in leadership. i think that we have to have continued leadership in our schools that's going to be strong for closing educational gaps. the biggest thing that i think remains as making sure our middle schools are ready that we are telling parents we are going to have great buildings great leadership grade curriculum and their students are going to be ready for high school and care career. when they graduate from high school they will be prepared to go to college and get great jobs so they can afford the great life in the district of columbia.

[applause] >> moderator: ms. schwartz one minute and again my question is specific. is there any one thing you would do that you in mind that isn't being done now to speed up reform? schwartz: i am a lifetime in working on education reform. my own children or by d.c. public schools. one of the things that called for my education plan and i hope you will look at it at carol schwartz d.c..com is a call to service. we have a lot of retired educators not only in d.c. but throughout the metropolitan area and i want to literally bus the men to go to our schools where there are large number of students so they can do one-on-one tutoring to get those children some tender loving care and attention so they can get caught up at very early ages. i also want wrap around services

at those type of schools so that their parents can go in for adult education classes and evenings and on weekends. i have very specific plans of how we tackle this terrible disparity that we have with the test scores of our children. >> moderator: mr. cantania specifics. cantania: thank you mr. johnson that i would continue to build on the work that the committee started months ago. we need to make sure children are at grade level. we would expand the arab risk weight which i authored the largest vestments are the city for at-risk youth, $80 million amid continued work on special education. the one thing we are missing a stability in our leadership in our schools. this is a perfect example. the school launched a terrific principal last year and dr dr. robert but this illustrates a point. there's a system that illustrates perfectly what i'm saying. you have simon, cramer and

beaulieu all in front of each other across the street from each other and everyone of those leaders this year has changed. they lost in elementary school they lost a middle school and a principal school leader. unless their stability and leadership our schools are going to improve and i would make that a focus. [applause] >> moderator: mr. cantania a follow-up question talking talking about the absence of leadership. are you referring to the chancellor or the mayor? cantania: i don't think it's important to focus on blame. it's important to realize we need stability the top and her chancellor but also stability in our schools so that reform can matriculate and so reform can take root. when we are changing school leader says we are doing every year we lose 20% of our d.c. kids and principals every year. we are not giving our schools a chance to get setup to succeed and that's a problem. [applause] schwartz: i also think we need stability in our teaching staff.

when they did their their reform they threw out the baby with the bathwater. there were a lot of veteran teachers that were really good and instead they brought in all these teach for america young people, all good, all good but, that they usually stay for two or three years even if you look at the web site at teach for america, to three years. we need teachers where one child will have them and their brother and her sister will have the teacher and we also need of veteran teacher and start throwing up a bit with the bathwater. >> moderator: you you want a crack at that or can we move on? bowser: we need stability and we also need continuity in leadership of the topic they would set set goals of working with the chancellor. retaining principals that are -- for the school. i would set goals for retaining

teachers and teachers were affected for the school. what is most important is we are moving our children along and every adult in the building can demonstrate how they are helping in that case. >> moderator: one more question about schools. this is on school vouchers. seems to me all three of you are punting when it comes to the issue of school boundaries. you want to put it off and talk you were an officer let me ask you this. let me give you an example. let's talk about -- right now residents of crestwood can send their kids to wilson junior high school in and the mayor's plan they would send their kids to roosevelt. does anyone have a problem with that? bowser: it is in my ward but we are in ward 8 so let's talk about the impact of the boundaries on word eight neighborhoods first. [applause] and what the boundaries on the table would do is say to

families who are in ward 8 is that there's going to be a line down the anacostia river and you are not a boundary for anything across it. their families right now who are in boundary for eastern high school so i will not support a plan and i do not think the plan is ready that exacerbates educational inequality. the same is true for the neighborhood you mentioned that i had the privilege of representing right now drawing a line down rock street park is also not acceptable and exacerbates educational inequality in our city. [applause] >> moderator: i want to redirect the question. coakley: i would like to answer that question too. my children went to the d.c. public schools and one of the reasons i wanted them to go is because i wanted the glorious diversity that is washington d.c. for them to have that experience in school as well and they did. now i think some of the

boundaries, the things that are being proposed are going to integrate a school system. i'm not going to allow a brown versus board of education to go backwards on my watch i can assure you. [applause] >> moderator: mr. cantania. cantania: i appreciate congresswoman bowser's focus in ward 8. deree boundary of the redrawing has an immediate effect and impact on this community. you know simply taking mode in elementary away from johnson and moving it to cramer is going to cripple johnson. we know a couple of years ago there was an effort to try to close johnson. they are currently four elementary schools. mode is the largest responsible for 42 of the 100 incoming kids. moving mode and to cramer is going to cripple johnson. it will be the predicate to its closing. it's this remaining schools aren't enough so when people say do you support at their part to the program that i do support

but there are parts where to look at and understand it can be a domino effect with how this is being implemented. i think it's not important to do it quickly. we have waited 40 years. it's important to do it thoughtfully and important to understand the decisions are made today are going to have a cascading domino effect. [applause] >> moderator: one of the well-known committee leader senator talking about this very issue says is almost moot point talking about diversity. you don't have that. what do you do to make sure the children here are receiving a diversification? schwartz: one of the things that is done through the boundaries that i do like is that every school will have an out of boundary -- elementary schools will be 10% of middle schools will be 15% in high school secondary schools will be 20%. i actually would make those instead of 10, 15 and 20% i would make them 15, 20 and 25%. that is how we can get the kind

of diversity that i think we should all have. i mean one of the reasons i think washington is so special now that we are such a boomtown and people are being priced out, but i want us to be able to not only have our diversity but to share that diversity among each other. schools are certainly be appropriate place to do that. >> moderator: mr. cantania how do you bring about diversity? cantania: other question is how we make the schools better quickly as the source time talking about boundaries and we need to be talking about is how we set our schools up for succeeding. anacostia high school is a perfect example. last year only 36% of young men and the school graduated on time and only 49% of the young women. but only 43% of our kids are graduating on time. that's a state of emergency. diversity is very important but what is also important is making

sure our schools are absolutely resource so they can meet the kids as we find them and in the can have success. >> moderator: mr. cantania a lot of people believe the right correlation between -- the status inequality the school. cantania: people may believe that but among our top performing schools. >> moderator: ms. bowser what would you do to bring diversity to the school's? bowser: i think it's important i actually think mrs. schwartz and talking about the outer boundary of allotment is right in making sure we protect a clear out of boundary allotment and it's also important that our schools like the school without walls and ellington are recruiting east of the river and making sure that children east of the river river have this excellent opportunities as well. it is and i will support having

a specialty or application school. i think there have been a lot of discussions about specialty and application schools east of the river where children from all over the city can apply and get in. we spent a lot of time talking about proficiency and it's important that all of our children achieve proficiency. it's so important that they move move forward other ways that they're responsible, they are learning and improving and supporting each other that they are fulfilling themselves they're athletic and academic talent and supporting children along the whole spectrum. >> moderator: thank you very much. let's move on. [applause] let's move on to affordable housing every candidate who has ever run says he or she is four for the housing. pity to be defined for us what you are talking about when you say affordable housing in what you do to make sure there's more of it and not less? schwartz: i would like to jump in and deal with that. listen i've been gone for five and a half years as i said

earlier and has affordable housing has become them less and less the movement of this government to get more of it has also become less and less. and so i think those who have sat here in a five and a half years i have been gone should've been moving more aggressively in the area of affordable housing. one of the things i want to do is bring back public housing and if we can't get the feds to be part of it we will do it ourselves. what we will do is we will make sure, and i'm talking about affordable housing, public housing is a 30% and below of the ami. so we are talking about really people at the poverty level. we need to be able to give them decent housing and also behaviors that will keep up that

public housing. >> moderator: what would you do to bring about more for the housing? cantania: i believe ms. schwartz is onto something in public investments. they are there any measures up to 600 that are vacant or not utilize. we have a homelessness crisis in our city. as recently as last week when i was walking through fort lincoln i saw 40 banking units and these are single, double, triple four-bedroom apartments and there's no reason in the world that we have habitable -- habitable units that are empty. we need to govern with a sense of urgency. this. >> moderator: ms. bowser how would you create more affordable housing? bowser: the target is that no person should spend more than 30% of their income on housing and we know thousands and thousands of d.c. residents are

spending more than 50% of their income on housing which means they are house poor. so that is the definition of affordable housing. i would do several things. the first thing that i would do is commit to $100 million every year sustainable to create and preserve affordable units. the second thing that i would do is commit, commit to making sure that we are renovating our public housing. this is the thing. we have 8000 units in and just about everyone of them means -- needs investment. in this government you are rig right. are we going to step up to the plate as a local government use some of our trust fund for public housing? essayist. >> moderator: we would like to talk about the family shelter d.c. general. mayor gray came out with a plan that a lot of people feel as though -- what would be your

timetable for closing d.c. general as a family shelter? cantania: the mayor has established a one-year timetable. i don't know candidly if that's doable. there are so many moving parts but rather than worry about what we are going to do next or we need to understand we have a problem this year. we have experienced 820 families that will be seeking emergency services and as recently as this week we understand we only have accommodations for about 409. about half the families that are going to need emergency shelter this year this winter don't have it and we are behind the eight ball. we have not budgeted for hotels this winter and we have quite a crisis on our hands. what we need is an emergency ever right now to begin finding the hotel accommodations and the budget capacity for this very winter. longer term the mayor is right we need a longer-term strategy. we would have had a longer-term strategy. we would have had a longer-term strategy which would include the

hebrew home an award for but that was stopped by my colleague from work for. >> moderator: one minute. [applause] ms. bowser one minute to respond. bowser: will thank you and i'm glad my colleague brought it up because i will tell you in a buzzard administrations and we won't replace d.c. general with another big shelter that does not work. what we have learned is that large shelters are not suitable for families and raising children in that we will not support it. what we will get at spring grove because i have let it work with the community new and old and people who have been there for five generations of people who have been there for five minutes. with the old hebrew home will become is a wonderful mix income property where people who are exiting homelessness will live, people who are teachers and firefighters and police officers will live and where we might even have the opportunity for people to buy their first home

and that is my approach to dealing with d.c. general. >> moderator: ms. schwartz. schwartz: i think we have to look for good examples. the second street shelter which has had its good days and bad days. i can tell you i have been there visiting recently and i have seen that they have some exemplary services they are, where they are really doing it right. and so i think we would have to look at those kinds of examples. i do believe that obviously d.c. general with its rat infestation in itself obviously has to be closed and the sooner the better. but i do believe as you look in the future for renovating d.c. general are looking for something comparable because i do believe families who are homeless and hopefully this will only be temporary, should be

housed where they can have total wrap around services and the children can have playgrounds and the mothers and parents can support each other as they try to work their way out. >> moderator: i'm asking you again to be specific here. a lot of the building trade industry a lot of i.t. folks say the reason why people in this community and others aren't getting these jobs is because they don't have the skills. a two-part question. do you agree with that and how do you make sure d.c. residents have the skills so they can go out and compete with the bergen residents and others for the jobs that are here? schwartz: at firsters of education. we have to have a better education system so they will have the kind of reading and writing and skills they need to go anywhere. they think are vocational education program that we have expanded within the schools are very very important like the

hospitality and high school. those kinds of things are giving them a jumpstart. >> moderator: is there enough of that? schwartz: i think we could use more of that and in addition i think we have to do job training that is going to be specific to the jobs that are out there. so i think there are lots of areas we can do. bobby brown and die when i chaired the committee on government operations and workforce development we actually did a first source law and he said if they didn't give us a 51% they were supposed to the people that got contracts with the city would have to pay a huge fine and that worked to guess what? painted up in court. >> moderator: ms. bowser would you do to put people to work? bowser: the first thing to do is make sure we have real laws and enforcement support for returning citizens in the district of columbia. we know that we have a high

number of people who have served their time they completed their debt to society. their home and they want to be productive and we have made changes to the love that i think are going to be helpful but we also have to have the support of the office of ex-offenders and i think that's important. i think the government as has a role to play in helping people gain skills and be trained while they are working. i will create a department of general services academy and the district of columbia. what that will be focused on is how we train people for the jobs that the government creates. those jobs include carpenters and people who cut that is what everybody here is focused on, how to get people back to work. we can talk about affordable housing and that's important but the closest way to get the affordable housing is giving people a good job. >> moderator: mr. cantania how

do you get people the job training? [applause] cantania: this is an area that i am particularly sensitive about. my own mother was in a situation very similar and i think many people find themselves in the city. she was orphaned at 16 and didn't finish the tenth grade so finding a job to raise a child by herself without a high school education was very tough. it was tough then and it has got no easier. they are unfortunately too of our people and our city for one reason or another raven finished high school and lack the skills. we have to get very aggressive about having re-engagement centers where young people can come back into the school where we can get them on a glide path so they can have the skills so they can actually support their families. now we have done a couple of things but there's another that i'm proud of. a few years ago i authored ago i authored a bill that required 35% of all hours on d.c.

government-funded projects go to d.c. residents and create demand for young people so much so that with the o street market project in the markey hotel project is your 60% of the apprentices. >> campaign 2014 the final d.c. mayoral debate debate. you are watching wusa nine. we will be right back. >> welcome. >> welcome back to wusa nine campaign 2014 the final d.c. mayoral debate. >> moderator: u.s. attorneys investigation into corruption in government. the investigation is ongoing and a lot of people wouldn't be surprised if the mayor -- and each of you to comment on this investigation and how it should be handled. is everybody okay with how they handle it? cantania: i think the timing looks awfully suspicious. the timing ripe for the primary. i may have had a particular point of view about the whole

shadow campaign but i think the timing of the plea bargain with jim thompson a couple weeks before the primary. it appeared appeared as is the bomb was placed on the scale and there was an impression that there was immediate action being taken against the mayor. when it didn't calm it leaves many of us wondering whether or not it ever will and whether or not the mayor was unfairly treated. >> moderator: ms. schwartz. [applause] schwartz: will i think mayor vincent gray was unfairly treated by my two former colleagues on either side. immediately even being noticed in the shadow campaign they both stepped out there and said he should resign. and you know i think you are innocent until proven guilty. and here we are three and a half years later and the mayor has not been indicted much less proven guilty, so i think that you all have to get the ball

rolling with our u.s. attorney and i think what he did before the primary three weeks one day before the primary was unconscionable, unconscionable to act like he just had something ready to drop on the head and here we are, what is that? seven months later. not a -- nothing so i think he should either put up or shut up. [applause] ..

>> >> i will sign it into lot of the voters agree. schwartz: i will vote no to initiative 71. i voted for medicinal marijuana with the expedition into different illnesses for those you need it and i also think congress should get that bill to be stopped didn't congress and

voting for the decriminalization i thought it was obnoxious is even worse than that so many young black males were in jail because of it, thought it was terribly unfair but on this i will vote no. we already have a lot of people intercommunity that need sobering up we need to add another drug that will meet that even harder. >> moderator: thank you. how will you go to on this measure? catania: i will vote yes along with muriel bowser. prohibited as the works has led to an underground

economy and the violence that comes with that. marijuana should re-read -- regulated like alcohol we need to protect children to make sure we protect ourselves to ensure public safety officials are not engaged in the practice. but there is a good deal of common sense that comes with making sure we can taxman regulate use those revenues for good purposes. >> we don't need to be a laboratory. >> moderator: know the answer the november 4th if you cannot vote for yourself anybody would go for? catania: i will decline that. schwartz: i already said i

will vote for myself and if i was not on the ballot i would write to in my name. [cheers and applause] bowser: what she said. >> moderator: coming into elected office says the republican the constitutional amendment among other things you're the independent now decide himself as progressive what if your republican background leading cal led to the view is still lined? >> conlon. please.

i paid actually do not recognize that party is completely different i don't identify battle with the existing republican party. schwartz: the party that i belonged to for many years is so far to the right for me to stay there but i do consider myself a fiscal conservative. cannot take more money from the taxpayers that i am willing to put to good use hate waste fraud and abuse. the coming to the social issues that have boys categorize myself as a moderate to liberal. then looking at with the most liberal policies is giving to workers and i'm very proud that i did.

>> may i add ims democrat and private eye what everyone to know not by accident but because i believe in the values that have made our cities strong. and never went to nominate george did the bush says the president and never tried to give receipts at the table. but drop the bomb as the first african-american president. even to go to that electoral college i am proud of my democratic roots but i am very resentful of the fact my opponents make fun of it. they stated they are puppets that is their choice to be

in the republican party and they should be respectful of hours -- hours. [cheers and applause] is. >> moderator: you have been identified as a protege of not doing very well that the last election the still consider him a political ally? bowser: my name is muriel bowser to be a friend and supporter of everyone of my campaigns i learned how to get things done it and learn how i to set high expectations.

but that lesson was to never lose touch with the people. and then to cut to the community but with those decisions. >> a couple of questions. >> moderator: if i could get a couple of questions from social media. what is the biggest professional mistake you have made and what did you learn from it? it is a question from social media. catania:.

>> can we remind everybody there are young people in this audience. their young people here. their young people here. i hope all of us adults can be respectful of the children who are trying to learn of the democratic process. [cheers and applause] if we cannot respect each other that least respect to be an example for these young people. [applause] >> moderator: we will try. [inaudible conversations]

>> moderator: do we want to continue? bowser: we do want to continue again the question from social media. please. [inaudible conversations] >> moderator: maybe it is the question and let's go to another question elected what will you to address gentrification? >> there is no stopping progress but we can do a better job to set a presidents to succeed and compete. after 40 years a one to put

statistics out there we have the average household income is $30,000 in the other is to do those in there 17-point 5% unemployment. collegial percent have bachelor's degrees and in ward three is 83 percent. the most sure-fire way to reassure residents can stay here is by giving them a high-quality education to set them up so they can come home to stay here that is the only long-term solution. short of that the only way to make our city affordable is to make it unsafe. schwartz: i have a specific plan which is to bring back warda number nine. in my affordable housing you

can read though whole thing. for those individuals who used to live here that many left because of the education. you know, what i mean by warda number nine? so i will bring them back. with a tax credit they will have to show that they were here. there will have to show how long and the length there would have had to be away so we don't have developers jumping in to grab this bet. >> and other things they have had the investment that they need. it is public and private

investment. i am committed to appointing a deputy mayor with the income gap, education, and that economic development from warda number seven in warda number h. teeeighteen chanting. >> now we have specific questions from this audience this city has experienced over 2500 murders since 2000 that is in a small neighborhood with a disproportionate number what you do to stop the violence? >> i wanted it to the

authorized remember when you had foot patrol said officer friendly programs? with the boys and girls club so the police officers did young people got to know each other so there was not as confrontational thing going on and actually established a relationship. and also those who are handling the cameras we have ferguson but we think we do but they will make sure everybody acts the way they're supposed to. but i drove here in a convertible i always drive here in a convertible and i think we all need to be on

the streets to also help the criminals. catania: murders are up in this ward. for the last year 33 homicides and the year before that it was 20 to 50% increase of one year. 46% of the crime happens on 4%. we hired a number of officers in 1989 and 1500 that is eligible for retirement in the next three years with an immediate all hands on deck issue we need to recruit. something else. there is a sickness in our community coming to violence and it is pervasive part of the south capitol street measure was to make sure to build the capacity in our

schools. to work through the violence to help us for what doesn't afflict all of us. [cheers and applause] >> with many parts of the city and it has been said already that we know in this community only recently a young man was gunned down right in our local establishments. but i've course that'll think that is half of the equation think focusing on the community group to understand when the violence is about to happen to stop

it before it ever happens. that is a missing link right now with the public safety strategy. >> moderator: we now have closing arguments it was decided by lot to. bowser: thanks for coming out to listen and for everybody for bringing their passion and their aspirations to the district of columbia it is my great honor to campaign across this city over the last 19 months for every ward and neighborhood talking about how we can move forward together. this is an important election for the district of columbia my pledges to make sure we continue our prosperity and build on the prosperity to make sure more people are included in the prosperity we get there by eight equalizing people investments with schools and

affordable housing by what we can trust that is why a man asking you to vote on november 446 and will be the mayor for all towards -- ward. schwartz: may have your attention please? the key very much. i think many of you in this audience have no need for many years on the board of education and test scores went up by served on the council and things got better in taxes got lower now i am asking you to bring me back to run our cities

with your help in many of you even when i was a republican and i am meeting you halfway. also i want to say i married a democrat and i raised three of them see you should be tolerant of the. [laughter] i am asking you those of you in the audience is voting for mayor one time before the story you have not given me that sometimes you wish you had in the years i have then gone to all join together but will try to be a very good mayor for all of us. thank you. catania: i would you think everyone for coming out. but this is no question this

ward has it to see the prosperity that is experienced throughout our city. in 40 years of promises made and broken the only way to bring opportunities to reelect a mayor who can get things done. looking at 17 years on the council to extend health insurance to 30,000 people 37,000 for those going back to school of $100 million investment up the road and others had given up for one day we need a mayor who has a job that will get up every day 17 years i have done that asking your consideration. thank you very much. [cheers and applause] >> moderator: thank-you very much.

all love you for coming and for watching. monday starts early voting. get out and vote. goodnight. ♪ ♪

>> i was listening to the debate campaign of 2014 with representative scott peters and it is politics as usual. what we need is the politicians to make decisions of both power and money and votes. i am to the point if there is any type of political events both republicans and democrats and any of the party that wants to get involved from the get-go learning to work together at this event to show the

american people they can work together and reason together on all the issues that americans are concerned about. and to get the best decision by reasoning together we win and you lose. >> i just watched the governors' debate and embarrassed to it met with a first of the candidates on the stage, i thought it would be a circus but i watched. i was really impressed with some of the candidates and the suggestions that they made is to the benefit of

our country we should not charge kids to go to school and put them into debt. and the senator refused to debate that did not include everybody on the ballot. we don't have to choose their are 100 political parties in this country. but thanks c-span for airing these debates.

>> with the public hearing will the work of the intelligence and security committee inquiry and taking evidence from the secretary on numerous occasions and has been given to this committee with public sessions.

>> it with the direction of national security. >> thank you very much. to make you aware the committee asked me to conduct the inquiry about security and the associated issues related to that. we have taken public and private evidence we have been here for one hour with the opportunity to put questions to you and your colleagues and the evidence is being given from a wide range of agencies and members of the public so if i may go straight into this session are there any comments? >> thank-you chairman. to be part of such a historic occasion with the

responsibilities of the challenge the we're all seeking to achieve. we face enormous numbers of threats and cyberattacks organized crime and proliferation. we have just seen today from canada the need for diligence every year completely conscious of the fact floor with a preference of privacy when security does not appear to be an issue.

at the time we face great security challenges to get the correct balance between that security to make sure of what we have judged to be those to paramount requirements. if your inquiry will make a significant contribution of how they're doing. >> thank you very much. . .

yes i think it's probably true to say that when i was appointed to secretary asserted to see material and exposure to the agency they started to understand much more about how they work than i had done previously and some of my other colleagues will understand. if i had understood as well the very important judgments that need to be made with balancing

privacy considerations against security considerations essentially when exercising good judgment about proportionality and a certain date whenever intrusion into privacy is to be allowed. i would say that i have also seen the incredibly important role that the work of the agency plays and ensuring our security and having that insight is clearly crucially important in making the judgments the secretary of state to make in signing the certificate. >> does it come to a surprise to the potentially the agency intrudes on people's privacy? >> no i don't think. i think what i have seen is the very careful safeguards that

they are in place which are not just the legal safeguards, robust as they are, but the oversight safeguards. there are multiple as you will note and this committee knows multiple layers of oversight of what goes on. but there is also a very important safeguard provided by the culture within agencies which is the exact opposite of what some movies might like to suggest. the agencies are extremely cautious, extremely focused in their responsibility to maintain the culture of proportionality and sensitivity in everything they do. there is an atmosphere in agency which is very vast from a gung ho approach. it's very cautious and i think that should be a great reassurance.

>> thank you very much indeed. i would now like to move into more specific questioning on those aspects of capabilities that relate to your responsibilities. >> foreign secretary your reference to the oscillation in the public mood do you think that greater intrusion into people's privacy is justified when the threat is greater? >> broadly speaking i think that is right over the long term. i don't think we should treat that as a reason to change levels of intrusion into privacy on a weekly, monthly or even annual basis but looking at the level of challenge that we face today particularly the threat from terrorism and i think the mood of the public is that they want to be secure and they recognize a certain level of intrusion is required in order to deliver that security and

polling consistently shows that the public recognizes that there is a level of intrusion that is required that is proportionate and is justified. >> in relation to your responsibilities, intrusion within the u.k. is not only the responsibility of the security service and the secretary, in view of your responsibility to sis which mainly operate overseas could you tell the committee whether there are any intrusive activities within the u.k. which you authorized sis in bcs q. to undertake? >> section 81 which authorized intrusion against persons in the u.k. are signed by the foreign secretary so there are occasions when perhaps it was unnecessary. >> it is clearly an interest in

that. has the secretary consulted with vc hq under section 81? >> not necessarily. she will be consulted when she will have an interest and we talk regularly about masses both domestically and -- where we have interests in areas of responsibilities. some of the section 81 warns that i will execute will not have any particular relevance to the secretary and i wouldn't routinely discuss them. >> thank you very much. there are controversial aspects of the work we are doing which is the issue by the tch -- gchq and very relevant by others.

mark field please. >> that there is extensive evidence sessions in recent weeks and it has been noted forcibly by a number of external groups that agencies do have a broad range of capabilities already and therefore do not need this bulk interception. how important do you feel full conception as to the agencies and could they do it out of? >> bulk interception is as a tool but it's at the heart of the agency's ability to do what they do. i think he described it as building the haystack within which you can then search for the essential needle which protects our national security. being able to acquire data on a large-scale and filter it down and it is a very radical filtering process. the overwhelming majority of days required will be discarded

and destroyed immediately or within a very short period of time. but it does allow a series of filters and cross-references to be run automatically to identify that tiny element of data within the bulk data required which could be worthy of further analysis and filtering and ultimately of a review by a human pair of eyes. i should emphasize that it would only be a tiny, tiny fraction of data required that will ever reach a human analyst. >> the development of that haystack is gchq has described it leads to it and concern that somehow we are open to mass and indiscriminate surveillance and that particular phrase was used by several groups by the

secretary in recent weeks. how would you respond to the allegation notwithstanding the fact that much as you say anything other than discarded and doesn't see the light of day if you and i had done us the capabilities that gchq has to provide a deep concern to those who have a strong civil liberties the end? >> well i would reject the allegation that bulk data collection amounts to mass surveillance and while i think there are two answers to the question if i may. the ability to collect, does the ability to collectible data at least in theory provide the ability to carry out mass surveillance? the answer in a country like ours is certainly not for reasons of resource. it is impossible to conceive of the level of resource being made available that would allow even

a tiny fraction of the bulk data to be analyzed or used in any way. in other countries that devote very much larger resources at this stage to surveillance of course different considerations may apply but in democracies where the resources available are distinctly finite there is a practical technical reason why this should not be seen as a threat but there is also of course a huge safeguard in the layers of rules, controls and oversight that is in place. mass surveillance is illegal. it would always be illegal under our framework. there are strict rules in place to make sure the data collected is not abused in any way. there is rigorous oversight to ensure that those rules are

complied with and even if there was practical, which it isn't for resource reasons it wouldn't happen because it's illegal in the system is designed to prevent that kind of illegality from occurring. >> so not only do we not have mass surveillance but selective surveillance and that culturally works but also she say in the confines of finite resources. >> absolutely right. as a citizen my greatest reassurance is the resource one. it's simply impossible even for the most intrusive state in the world. it's impossible for that state to mass analyzed communications of individuals because of the sheer volume passing across the global communications system. >> thank you. some of our witnesses would not

necessarily did disagree with the fact that you have shared with the committee but have still indeed argued that the very fact that very large numbers of e-mails or other communications most of them belonged to perfectly innocent respectable people are collected and are analyzed and verified by computer is a significant intrusion in privacy which they have argued is unacceptable in a free society. how do you respond to that? >> i would reject that notion. i think the automated application of selection criteria by a computer and then the immediate discarding of 199.999% of the data collected does not give rise to intrusion. i would argue that intrusion arises at the point of interrogation of the data not at the point when it's collected

and filtered according to an automatic filtering process. i don't think anybody has anything to fear from what in many cases will be momentary acquisition of data before it is discarded as not having satisfied any of the criteria for further examination. >> we have inadvertently entered into your territory. >> not at all. you have enabled me to take a step further. i want to take issue briefly about what you said about the reassurance of citizens generally ought to have on a knowledge of sheer resource. this date -- bulk data you're saying is so great that obviously can't look at all a of it. i'm sure critics of the collection of bulk data would suggest for a moment that the state has the ability to look at all of it all at once but what they do have the ability to do is to search through all of it in any way that they choose to do it unless the legal

constraints prevent them from doing so. so surely the key point about all this is that while you say the mere collection of the haystack is not a matter or should not be a matter of concern for civil liberties groups challenge that. the key point surely is in what direction you direct your searches of the haystack because you can just as easily direct them to it that an unacceptable use as to the purposes for which it will be carried out. >> that is of course true and in the case of the u.k. we have very strict protocols and procedures in place, criteria for the filtering and selection of data for further analysis set out in the warrant as well as having to operate within the legal framework, political judgment is exercised by the secretary of state in question

authorizing such bulk data collection to ensure that the filters that are used are appropriate and the question i ask myself is not just are they necessary and proportionate which they must be for the action to be lawful but what they stand the test of public opinion? would the public if you were able to see the criteria that were being used and away the work is being done with it accept that this was a reasonable proportionate thing for us to do in order to keep them safe? >> what you were saying isn't if i were rogue agency wanted agencies and i have this haystack there is no way that i could abuse that is something i shouldn't search for? >> that is correct and i'm drawing them out of my briefing but something i remember when

someone asked precisely that question when i visited gchq but they are in fact technical protections in the system to protect someone who is authorized to access the system from using it in a way that would be abusive. >> in the united states they had typical methods for preventing that from happening but sadly didn't work. are they in fact effective can't fact effective pet? >> if you are referring to this note in case with the data dealing stolen i think the question was specifically about whether the selection criteria which are carefully defined and are subject to political as well as legal judgment could be ignored by an agent with access to the system and replaced with a different selection criteria and i think we have seen over time that we have very robust --

to identify any attempted abuse of the system. >> robin. >> foreign secretary may we assume this issue of the selection criteria for a moment. the power in section 84 it to collect overseas intelligence are very wide and then there is a narrow down warrant signed by the foreign secretary which limits the selection to certain categories. can you say, tell us anything about how many categories there are and how tightly drawn they are and perhaps even give us an example of the sort of category there would be. for example in present circumstances might be every e-mail sent from syria or would it be a more narrow definition than that? >> i think that might be a subject that we might discuss further in closed session that would be all right.

>> i just wondered whether there was anything you could say that would reassure the public of the narrowness? >> whether it will reassure the public i can't say but what i can say is we are acutely conscious of the need for a friday of reasons, public reassurance and proper application of political control but also we are acutely conscious of the need to define criteria as narrowly as possible. if you think about it given the limited resources available if we define the criteria to widely we are planting the surgical in german that we are seeking to use and that would absolutely not be in the interest of what we are trying to achieve. what i don't want to do is give any pointers in open session to the type of selector so we should use because we have seen

already that when information comes into the public domain it allows people to identify any aspects of the tradecraft use. they will modify the recording and it's less effective. >> thank you. that's understood. in the united states the national security agency has given some figures about the extent to which they amass material they collect his filtered down and the figures that i have are that nsa has stated publicly that it collects 1.6% of internet traffic which of course is a very large volu volume. only 0.0004%, think i've got that right of what is picked up. can any similar figures be given for what gchq puts out publicly

to dispel this fear that people people have a mass intrusion? >> i don't think i can give any figures in the public session but i can give more information the closed session. >> i hope you will explain in closed session while you are unable to get give these figures publicly the united states is not have such an anxiety? >> perhaps i would make a general comment. just because something has come into the public domain about the way the united states does things doesn't necessarily mean we think having that information the public domain is conducive to optimizing our national security. >> if i'm not mistaken i think the united states in the nsa announced this. it is their own decision. >> chairman you are very strong

on pithy questions but this one has four elements. i looked to the chair's indulgence. it's all about the distinction between regarding communications as internal to the u.k. or external and this is obviously important because there are tighter restrictions on examining internal communications then there are external ones. for that reason the legislation draws this distinction. in the past it was quite easy to interpret what was internal and external so a letter posted overseas or an international telephone calls was an external communication but this is much harder certainly when it has to do with internet activity so i have my fork samples that i hope you will help me navigate. first of all in terms of an e-mail it's obvious that if one

or both of the sender and the recipient is overseas than i would be an ex-journal communication. can you confirm that if both the sender and the recipient are in the u.k. it would always be treated as an internal communication even if it's rooted -- routed overseas during its journey? would you look at that one first please? an e-mail from me to you in this country even though as a result of the arrangements it may bounce back and forth with servers overseas. >> i invite my colleagues to step in if i get this wrong but you are absolutely right. because of the technology that exists these issues have become more complicated. an e-mail which originates or is

received in the u.k. whether both of the parties are in the u.k. or only one of them is in the u.k. is an internal e-mail. >> i don't think that can be right. >> in terms of access to its content would require a warrant under section 81. >> is treated as an internal committee patient. >> but if only one and is in the u.k. would it would still require section 81 warrant to access the content. yeah? >> yes but that's an external communication. >> let me finish the train of thought and if i'm being unclear or will correct myself. my understanding is that because of the technical nature of the

internet it is possible that in neither case it is possible that such a communication could be routed through service outside of the u.k.. it is possible that data so rooted could be intercepted as a result of a warrant under section 84 but it would not be possible for that communication to be examined are analyzed without a section 81 warrant them being issued because the persons involved are one of the persons involved is in the u.k.. now if i've misrepresented that please correct me. >> yes but the point i want to establish is that different warrants allow different levels of intrusion and you do have to have warrants of one sort to

deal with external communications. that is from somebody within the u.k. to somebody outside it but if that person is communicating with someone within the u.k. that requires a different sort of warrant. >> my understanding is that the section 84 words will allow external communications between two parties outside the u.k.. or one party. >> external one party. >> okay then that requires a 16.3. so for practical purposes the point i'm trying to make it through a combination of the use of section 81 warrant in section 16.3 warrants it is the case that however it is

originally collected if an e-mail as a party to it either the recipient or the sender who is in the u.k. than it will require a further warrant to be issued either section 81 or section 16.3 before that e-mail can be examined whereas if it is an e-mail passing between persons both of whom are outside the u.k. they could be examined and data authorities granted under this section 84 warrants. that is not an open-ended e-mail. section 8 for warrant warrant itself with the finder filters that have to be applied for the examination of section 81. >> so what you are saying is that an internal communication as i understand it, and internal communication applies not only

if both the sender and the recipient are within the u.k. but even if only one of them is. >> i'm sorry i have misled you and my use of terms. i was trying to be helpful but i fear i've been unhelpful. it's an internal coup indication of both the sender sender and the recipient or in the u.k.. if one of the senders or recipients through the u.k. is an external coup indication but poor to be examined because either the sender or the recipient or in the u.k. it will require a section 16.3 to the issue before that the medication can be examined. >> i think 16.3 is described as a modification. >> that you'll be pleased to know is the easy one. now let's go to browsing the internet. if i read the "washington post" web site i am deemed to have

communicated with a web site that is located overseas, is that therefore an external communication according to the existing legislation even though all i do is looking at a web site which happens to have been posted in a population a broad? >> my understanding is that would be an external predication but again because one of the past two and is in the would require what the chairman has rarely described as a modification to be paid in order for the content of that activity to be examined. >> i suspect the answer will be the same which is a particularly controversial one which is the case of social media. in recent evidence to the tribunal charles f.a.r. from the home office has caused some anxiety by suggesting that

facebook posts are external communications, so can you clarify the situation here and i'm not of course talking about posts that are made on facebook with no restrictions because obviously they are available for all to see. what if i were to post something on facebook and if i had adjusted my settings with the intention that this should be read only by a restricted group of my friends, and this is the key point, all of those friends were based in the u.k., surely that should be treated as an internal communication rather than an external one. >> now i think if you post something on facebook and the server is outside of the u.k. it would be treated as an external

communication but as i said in my last question i suspect as you would expect my answer to be in this it would require 16.3 to enable agencies to look at the content of that activity because one of the parties to what it was in the u.k.. >> and if in fact neither party when the u.k. then there would be a lesson authorization records look at it. >> that is correct. the authorization as already attached to this section 84 are defined in circumstances in which the content could be. >> what you are saying is actually its not the end of the world by any means if something is cast as an external communication even though the people are british citizens in the u.k., one or both, the

sender or the recipient, because that very fact will trigger a further safeguard in order to ensure that it's not examined any more freely than it could have been classed as an internal communication. >> that is exactly the case. i should be clear, it's not about being a british citizen and the system is blind to citizenship and nationality. it's where you are when the communication takes place. if you are in the u.k. when the communication takes place then that both of you are in the u.k. the section 81 warrant would be required required. a point of view is in the u.k. under section 8 for warrant an authorization to access that data would require modification under 16.3. ..