rk city where the public showcases their books. and then live for the chicago tribune literary fest with lawrence wright and your phone calls. that is this spring on c-span2's book tv. coming up on c-span2 "the communicators" features members of congress on the debate of the nsa collection of data records and then joe manchin talks to us. and we talk later about the trade agreements between korea and the united states. >> c-span created by america's cable companies 35 years ago and brought to you as a local service by your local cable or

satellite provider. this week on "the communicators" we talk with members of congress about legislature they are proposing and about technology and communications issues congress is debating. one of those issues is the patri patriot act. they have used that act to collect bulk phone data from americans and parts are set to expire june 1st. first up is thomas massie. >> host: representative thomas massie republican from kentucky but a republican from kentucky with a tech background. what is your background? >> i have an electrical engineering and another engineering degree and been in this for the first 20 years of my career. i own a company. >> host: what is company? >> i invented a virtual device

that let's you connect with it and print it. >> host: is the company still in business? >> the company has been sold a few times but it is still being used. >> host: how does your background in technology help you in congress? >> sometimes it does. sometimes people care about the facts and numbers and sometimes it is based on emotion and in tuition. >> host: this week the house is voting on a substitute for the patriot act. what are your thoughts on the act and the substitute? >> i don't like the patriot act. i campaigned against it. i said we need to repeal it.

so i am against it. i think it infriges on the civil liberties too much. the freedom act the bill that would reauthorize the patriot act is a thin veneer of reform that surrounds the reauthorization of section 215 of the patriot act. the decision is is there enough to rewarrant reauthorization and to me the answer is no. >> host: when you talk about section 215? what does this mean? >> that talks about the bulk meta data. we found out the second district federal court agreed that the patriot act never authorized these programs and they are illegal. the nsa will say they were

authorized by section 215 and the fisa court proceeded to write a warrant that covers every american citizen. i think the founding fathers would be appalled. but section 215 authorizes the bulk data collection and has the lone wolf clause that lowers the threshold from probably cause to reasonable suspicion. and probably was since the 4th amendment was made part of the constitution. there is 200 years of jury verdicts and court decisions that establish what probably cause is. well the intelligence community finds probably cause inconvenient when they want to track someone so they lowered the threshold with reasonable suspicion. i have a problem with that.

>> host: what is that problem? >> my amendment i proposed would shut the backdoor loophole that allow allows the federal government to search the content of your phone calls and e-mails. this amendment was offered last summer passed by 293-123, a veto-proof majority. we came back and said let's offer this amendment again. the freedom act since we know it will pass and let's get real reform in there. unfortunately last night the rules committee decided no

amendments to the freedom act. >> host: what is a backdoor? >> a backdoor is a loop hole. there are two types of loopholes in the national security surveillance. the first time is where they are going after foreigners. they are not covered by the constitution they say so they can collect it. but guess what? they are scooping up your data too because your e-mail may go to iceland our candidate. -- or canada. the director of national intelligence found out they are going into the hay stack and

using this incidental data collection. congress >> >> host: has technology lessened our privacy? >> it is not the technology but it is the government. the technology makes it easier because the technology exist. just because it is easier and less intrusive because they don't pick your locks and come in and take papers out of your draws like they did 200 years ago. it doesn't mean it is constitutional or moral even. >> host: also i want to ask you about the bill called the end warrant list surveillance of americans. what is that? >> this is a bill that ed

lockren and i introduced and we are worried about the warrant warrantless surveillance happening. we don't even want to keep you from searching the data but we want you to have probably cause and a search warrant. that is what the bill would do. it would require like the constitution does probably cause and a search warrant. it would get rid of the authority given to the intelligence committee under 12333 which is an executive order a president made and every president remakes. we don't know what that authorizes even because it is classified. but our bill would rein that in

as well. >> host: congressmass massie mitch mcconnell is supportive of the current patriot act. have you discussed this with him? >> guest: i have not discussed this with the senator from kentucky. this is an issue we disagree on. >> host: thomas massie thank you for being with us. >> you are watching "the communicators" on c-span. we caught up with suzan delbene a former microsoft executive she talks about laws regarding e-mail privacy. >> representative suzan delbene from washington representing the third district in her third term. prior to coming to congress representative you have a tech background. what is your background?

>> guest: >> guest: i did research in college and worked in a biotech company and worked in software at microsoft and ran a startup and helped innovate new technology and ended up here afterwards. and i think that unique combination to under technology and how it works and having policies that allow innovation and protect consumers is something i bring to the table. >> host: what did you do at microsoft? >> guest: i worked in e-mail in the early days. probably before people used e-mail. and then embedded systems like software and things that are not computer and we think of the internet of things more so. but they were not connected devices. worked on windows '95 so i guess that will date me. and then on mobile devices.

the last year i worked with what you think of phones now but the early days of mobile devices. >> back in that time was there legislation or congress involved or regulations as to what you did? >> guest: i don't think there was as much focus on policy at that time. the devices were relatively static in that you had a computer and you kept your computer and your information was on your computer. i think the difference we are seeing today is the amount of data being exchanged the amount of information stored in the cloud or on other places and that created a huge new set of opportunities but also it means we have to make sure policy is in place to protect privacy, make sure there is appropriate security, and even international implications for data. >> host: is congress aware of

it? is congress up to date you think? >> guest: i think our policy is far from up to date. we have policy that is actually out of date. we have copy writes from 1976. we have the electronic communication privacy acting done in 1986. i started working on e-mail when people could send e-mail mostly to people they work with. and now it is one of the most poplar forms of communication and we still have a situation where a piece of paper in your desk draw is held to warrant standards. law enforcement would need a warrant to access that information. but in e-mail that has been stored chowd for a 180 days isn't subject to a warrant standard because we have not updated the laws since 1986. many areas need policy up to date and works to way the world

works today. >> host: what are you working on legislatively? >> guest: we have a couple bills making sure we have a similar warrant standard for electronic communications. there is one addressing electronic communication in particular with a warrant standard for e-mails and things in the cloud and make sure information stored in the cloud, your documents and such should be held to a warrant standard. we also have a separate bill that i am a co-sponsor of to make sure we have the same standard location. everyone is carrying a phone with location information and we want to make sure that information is protected by warrant standards. there is two bills. one protects the electronic communication side and the other does electronic communication

and location services together. >> host: has technology lessened our privacy? >> guest: i think we have seen with bulk collection from the nsa and people are sharing information and maybe not realizing what the implications are. they may not realize what is or isn't in place. we need put new rules in place and make sure information is treated appropriately. >> host: congresswoman del you have become caucus chair. what is that? >> guest: i founded the internet caucus and highlighting we have different types of devices that are not pc or tablets or your phone. there is a wristband, a thermostat in your house, a crock pot your car, many

devices are connected and they have information they are sharing. we want the policy to be up to date to support innovation in these areas but also making sure we have appropriate protections for consumers. >> host: do you find colleagues coming to you because of your background? >> guest: i think are lot of complimented.

one of the authors of the patriot act. having been accused of storing data and making sure we rein in the nsa and end bulk collection is important. the boundaries of this so we end bulk collection and make sure

there is transparency and the process of what is acting in the foreign surveyillancesurveillance. and we have a public advocate. someone in the court to make it more adsisary and arguing the other side so it isn't just one side going in and arguing their case. that is a big part of making sure we put the balance in place between security and civil liberties. >> host: suzan delbene democrat of washington thank you for your time. >> and representative doug collins of george talks about regulation of the internet. >> host: doug collins is our guest on "the communicators." congressman collins, i want to start with net neutrality and a statement from chairman tom wheeler.

the internet is too important to allow broadband providers to be the ones making the rules. >> guest: i think what is interesting is the evolution of his own statement. that is one of the interesting things over the past year. we have introduced a resolution of disproval. that says if congress the house and senate pass it, it goes away with the recently passed rule. i believe we should use more to rein in what we believe is agency law. that is the way we are looking at it. but going back to mr. wheeler's comment, if you go back a year ago he was the exact opposite of this issue feeling they don't need to get involved. after talking to the whitehouse and other issues from the administration they decided to dive into it. we decided it is better left to congress. this is far reaching to every day people and needs to be decided by elected officials not

by groups sitting in an office building in downtown washington, d.c. this doesn't change the law. >> >> host: so a resolution can be made from what the fcc did? therefore let's say it passed and you have co-sponsors on both sides. i know the chairman of energy and commerce, chairman upton and

others, have said let me hook at ways that will affect resolutions. >> host: net neutrality and title title ii for broadband, are you in support of that? >> any time the government is involved there is an open ended pandora box. they are basing this question on what their own rule is. they have really no consequences

from the election populus. that is what we are doing. the chairman two years ago sitting over the chairmanship said we will look at an overall copy write division. it has been needed. it is music and publishing and the whole realm of copy write. we have found in 30 hearings there is a definite need involved in the copy write laws and how we relate to that. there are issues with how it e relates and it can't function in a role its should. but the other function is music live. and it is very interesting to see the way revolving way we listen to music.

i used to save to go to the record store. but now it is digital and streaming. when we dug in for me there was a bill called the song writer equity act and it says the folks who work behind the scenes writing the songs we know and love there are three ways they are able to be paid. two of which the government controls, one dating become to the early 1910-1920 piano bill. and the government has finger prints on two and not on one. you can guess which one the song writers get the fair and equitable value. it is time for government to get out of this market and let the market based approach work. we are seeing that with the copy write office. they have been wonderful at giving ideas. i think we will see hopefully ideas move that will bring our

laws into 21st century now. >> host: our song writers supported in this? >> guest: very much so. it doesn't say you will get x-rate but when they go to rate court they can take in royalties from the artist. they are not able to do so. and why are we not allowing evidence that affects the price not be used. it goes out with section 115 and says let's them have an ability to do a fair market or what the market rate will bear. it doesn't say more or less. it just says let's make it fair and let them compete. one of the song writers said this is what i do to feed my children. i don't make things.

i create things. and that is something we have to come to grips to. our property is something we have to value and trust and reward those for taking the risk. >> host: congressman collins how does the music bill affect those who may use spotify? >> guest: you have a model right now we are good friends and use their products and pay for that. simply saying the business model they grew up with will have to evolve and change. we are seeing an industry affected by an artificial parameter by the government. for the conservatives we feel that is not a role for the government. if the market place can bear this and we are working with the mc to come up with a path forward that is fair and equitable. >> host: we talked about how the digital technology is changing to many different industries.

it is changing a lot of laws we may not be aware of it. >> guest: it really is. if you think about it my generation talks about buying an album and later on cd's. but buying the album and hard product is not something my children relate to even anymore. there is a market out there still. part of the rate structure goes back all the way to the early 1900s. we are talking roosevelt and taft and wilks. it was made for the player piano. in the new economy we have to look forward to bringing it up today and dealing with that. it is not something for song writers. we are seeing the evidence from taylor swift and garth brooks. they are recognizes the facts that the way the laws are setup it is not fair. we will see a lot of that coming up in the next little bit.

i think it is great thing fl committee to take a part in and look for it. it isn't just the music. it is all kinds of issues being brought up. so i am proud of them for bringing it up. >> host: do you see this legislation working through the house, senate and to the president? >> guest: we think over time it will. it may come in pieces. there was discussion of one big chunk but i think it will be pieces. one of the things coming out is the issue of the copyright and how it is structured. some of the issues there we are working through that have developed and maybe we need to take a look at their structure and how they are functioning as an ex executive branch and the role they provide. the hearings provided us to look at how the government works and serves. for us and our experience, it

it has been a good one. >> host: doug collins, republican of georgia. >> guest: thank you so much. >> c-span, created by your local television station 35 years ago. >> president obama has banned the transfer of military style equipment to local police forces to stop the divide.

he talked in camden new jersey today. here is a look: >> today we are reliefdoing policies on the military equipment that has been provided to state and local law enforcement agencies. we have seen how militarized gear can sometimes give people the feeling like there is an occupying force as opposed to a force that is part of the community that is protecting and serving them. it intimidates residents and can send the wrong message. we will prohibit material made for the battlefield that is not appropriate for local police departments. [applause] >> there is other equipment that may be needed in certain cases but only with proper training. so we will ensure departments have what they need but also they have the training to use it.

we are doing these things because we are listening to what law enforcement is telling us. the overwhelming majority of police officers are good honest fair, and care about their communities and put their lives on the line every day to keep them safe. their loved ones wait and worry until they come through the door at the end of their shift. we should do everything in your power to make sure they are safe and do the job the best they can. what is interesting about what the chief has done and what is happening in camden is these new officers who i have to confess made me feel old because they all look like they could still be in school, the approach the chief has taken in getting them out of their squad car, into the communities familiar with the people they are serving they are enjoying their jobs more

because they feel as if overtime they can have more of an impact and they are getting more help from the community because the community has seen them and knows them before this crisis. before there is an incident. it is not just this response. it is not after the fact there is a crime, there is a dead body there is a shooting and now we will show up. it is we are here all of the time and hopefully we can prevent those shootings from happening in the first place. [applause] >> tomorrow a senate judiciary subcommittee will look further into police and law enforcement with a hearing on body cams. it gets underway live on c-span3. the new congressional directory is a guide to the