things will change. go ahead. do. the young, guy. go ahead. >> daniel davis -- >> tina davis was a great man. >> is also my friend had >> he passed away. he was my friend. i think america has lost that american dream. what can donald trump do to bring that back? ..

>> you please explain your position on the second amendment? >> on, say what? >> on the second amendment. >> second amendment? all for it. you need the protection. you know, we had an incident in new york which was very interesting. the two prisoners, six months ago, seven months ago that escaped from a maximum security prison? a real beauty in new york, they escaped. and they went up, and people were really scared. these were killers and tough cookies, and a man and a wife were at home, and the wife was totally anti-gun. she hated that the husband had guns. and the guy was pro. he was a big second amendment guy, he was pro. and all of a sudden, they're waiting, and these two tough cookies, tough guys, bad guys are somewhere around their home

within a little bit, and she all of a sudden now is totally pro, because she felt -- she was so happy that her husband had guns. and they had the gun on the table, and the gun -- they were carrying. [applause] and you know what? they never had to use it, they never had to use it because, remember, only the bad guys use it. but they were secure. and now she's bigger than the husband this terms of wanting this. so i think that's pretty much what you want to hear. no, 100% pro second amendment. yes, sir, go ahead. [applause] go ahead. >> mr. trump, i'm a veteran of both iraq and afghanistan -- [cheers and applause] >> good, wow. [cheers and applause] good shape. were you hurt at all? were you wounded ever? were you ever wounded? you look good. >> an ied blast and a couple ground incidents -- >> well, you look great, go

ahead. >> thank you. i've seen a lot of human suffering both on the iraqi side and the afghani side. what, if anything, should the u.s. be doing for the humanitarian crisis that's happening in syria right now? >> well, look, you have a crisis that's massive, and i'm getting that question a lot as of about two weeks ago. you have hundreds of thousands of people. but, you know, there comes a point -- and we all have to have heart, and i think i have as big a heart as anybody -- but there comes a point where this country has to say we have to get our own act together. we have to do it. [applause] the other thing is when you're looking at isis and all of the problems that are being caused over there, you say to yourself, well, what happens if a lot of these people are al-qaeda, isis? you know? you could have, you could have 15 different things occur, you don't know. they don't know anything about 'em. now, with all of that being said is, europe, they've got to help themselves every once in a

while. it can't always be the united states. we have our bridges, our roads, our tunnels. [applause] we have problems here. we owe so much money, you know, we owe japan $1.4 trillion. think of it. they sell cars by the thousands. they come off -- i saw boats two weeks ago in los angeles, thousands of cars all over the place. we owe them money. how do you do that? they're selling to us, we owe them money. very simple. we have people that aren't very smart. china, we owe them the same amount of money, 1.4, now it's up, 1.4 trillion. we've got to straighten out our own country. with that being said, you have the gulf sates, saudi arabia, qatar, bahrain, they take nobody. nobody. you have europe, you have all these places, they've got to hope. what i do like, a safe zone. a lot of sand in syria, right. >> i do like the concept of a safe zone where you put 'em there, you build it out, you have security, you create a

little bit of an environment maybe until they can, ultimately, go back to their homes which which most of them really want to do. they're great people. i mean, they're caught in this horrible conflict. but the concept of safe zone is something that really makes sense. probably they even like it better. they stay, and we help them, but we have to help europe. and the gulf states have to contribute. you know, saudi arabia before the oil price -- but, you know, in all fairness so now it's a little bit less -- saudi arabia, saudi arabia was making so much money beyond anything and beyond anybody's comprehension. all of these cups have to get together -- countries have to get together, and they have to fund it. we can do something, but we have to get other people to help us. we can't be the patty every time there's -- patsy every time there's a problem. and in the meantime -- [applause] our airports are third world, our bridges are falling down. did you see the safety record on

our bridges, 62% are in danger? our roads are collapsing all over the country. we are a mess. so we want to build our country, and we want to help people on a humanitarian basis, but we have to do some things to help ourselves. i mean, it's time, maybe, for us to help ourselves. okay. in the back. go ahead. in the back. let's go. [applause] then i'm going to these people. they have the lousy seats. they're looking at the back of my head. [cheers and applause] but they, they see that it's real, that's okay. [laughter] >> hello, mr. trump. >> okay, go ahead. give me a question. >> do you plan to visit with the pope when he comes to philadelphia? >> well, the pope believes in global warming, you do know that, right? [laughter] hey, in this room it's so hot in here, maybe i'll start to believe it myself. [laughter] this room is hot! this room was not designed -- the air-conditioning was not designed for this many people. no, i like the pope. a lot of personality. good man. a good man.

yes, ma'am, go ahead. okay. >> hi name is helena sorenson, and i have a house here in hampton. >> good. >> i've worked very hard all my life. >> good. >> my parents came over during the berlin airlift in march of 1950. when they landed, they both had to work in the mills. my father became a carpenter, put us through school, and here we are working hard, getting social security. but my problem is that the people that are coming over here, they're landing on the shore, they have no problem going in, they get food stamps, they get housing, they get electric, they get all of this, and it's coming from our social security money! [cheers and applause] >> i know. >> and we're getting nothing! nothing! >> you're getting more and more excited, look at that. >> and carly fiorina -- >> you're right. >> carly fiorina, she put our company, lucent technology -- >> carly fiorina? say it again, because people might as well hear it. i thought i'd wait a couple of days before i expose her

business failure. [laughter] honestly, it's so ridiculous, go ahead, tell me. >> i invested in my stock. i worked for the company for 37 years -- >> and that was lucent. lucent. >> yes. >> and headed up by who? >> carly. >> that's right. that was before hewlett-packard. >> before hewlett-packard. i was buying stock to put into my retirement at $87 a share. when i was forced to retire almost 15, 16 years ago, my stock wasn't worst 25 cents. i lost almost half a million dollars. that's what i planned on retiring, and i got nothing. >> yeah. well, you know, the carly thing is sort of amazing, because a lot of people don't get it. because lucent was a disaster, you know. >> yes. >> lucent was a company that she ran prior to hewlett-packard. when she bought compact, she was heading up hewlett-packard for a while, little while, very short while, and then made the decision to buy come -- compaq.

people that worked there said that was such a great company until she made this horrible acquisition, and it just has destroyed the company, hewlett-packard. big story yesterday in "the wall street journal," hewlett-packard is dropping, what, about 30,000 jobs yet? who knows if they're ever going to recover. and everyone's saying she made a good speech yesterday, i don't know, i don't get it. i don't get it. but at some point, people are going to see. and i think it's going to be a very big roadblock, you know? now, when you look at trump, okay? trump. i built an unbelievable company, tremendous company, tremendous net worth which i don't want to talk about other than to say it's the kind of mentality you need in this country. [applause] at least for a period of time. [cheers and applause] at least. and, you know, as a businessman i help democrats, i help republicans, i helped whoever

because i want to be -- i did everything. i used all of the laws of the land. i'd buy a company, i'd throw it into a chapter, i'd chapter it. you bankrupt it, you beat the hell out of the banks. i'm a businessman, i have to do that. and by the way, you have many people in my position where they do the same thing, but nobody talks about. i'll give you a list of names. in fact, we're writing up the biggest business leaders in the country have all done the same thing, and nobody ever talks about it. but i've done great. and that's the kind of thinking you're going to have to need. and you know what? we'll make it rich again, we'll make it fantastic again. i'll leave, and then you what's going to happen? somebody else can blow it. but we have to save our country. so with carly -- [applause] she did a terrible job at lucent, she did a terrible, terrible, terrible job at hewlett-packard, terrible job. stories have been written that are legendary. the head of the yale business school, you know who he is, right?

right? he wrote a story that was so brutal. and, i mean, people are going to have to read this. they're going to have to read it. i just don't see how she can get over that hurdle. in addition to, what, she cut thousands and thousands of jobs, and they're stomach cutting -- still cutting them. and bottom line, she made a horrible purchase. it was a disaster. but a lot of people don't know before hewlett-packard, you had lucent. and lieu sent, probably, was just as bad if not worse, relatively. okay, yes. >> hi. mr. trump, i have not a question, but i just want you to know about the night hairs -- nightmares i have, isis beheading, young, foley. i'm having horrible visions of people i know, and, you know, everyone being loaded up into boxcars, you know? like another holocaust.

i just want you to know about that. you're welcome. [audio difficulty] >> does anybody have a ?owl. [laughter] towel? you know, i've lost a lot of weight. the good thing is running for president, believe it or not, every room we have is acted, and nobody has -- packed, and nobody has enough air-conditioning because of that. and i'm losing a lot of weight, so it's not so bad. go ahead. >> when will we meet your first lady? [cheers and applause] >> that sounds good. wow, that sounds so great. thank you, darling.

go ahead, wherever. >> my question is just simply, when you're talking about deportation of our illegal aliens here that are taking all the money out of the coffers, why is it that you don't identify how much it costs to keep them -- >> correct. >> -- versus how much it costs to send them back. >> what a great -- he's a businessman. [applause] hey, he's from new hampshire. what else is new. so it's such a great point, and i made it last night, but people don't want to hear it. they don't want to hear it. to keep -- we spend really, i would say, $200 billion a year, okay? $200 with a year on illegal immigration. i think the number's much higher than that. to get the bad ones out, to do the wall is peanuts. by the way, peanuts. you know, i tell this story all the time. the great wall of china, 13,000 miles long. against our southern border,

2,000 of which you really need a thousand because you have a lot of natural barriers and a lot of other things, frankly. but you need a thousand. they say, oh, you can't do it. and yet 2,000 years ago they had no problem. 2,000 years ago. he brings up such a great point. we have a cost of i believe it's in excess -- and we have numbers that go from 175 billion a year to 250, 260. the fact is nobody knows. nobody even knows how many illegals we have here because, you know, we've been hearing for years 11, 11, 11. it never moves, right? it's always 11. give me a break. [laughter] so it might be much more than that. but we're a country of laws. we're a country of borders. we have to secure our border, and we're going to clean it up. we're going to make our country so strong and so wonderful and so great. okay. okay. [cheers and applause] and you're right, you're right, there's a huge offsetting cost which, by the way, will -- which

will really help out. okay. [inaudible conversations] >> oh, boy. am i in trouble. am i in trouble. am i in trouble. >> [inaudible] >> okay, yes. yes, sir. >> [inaudible] >> thank you. thank you, thank you. go ahead. okay, thank you. thank you, thank you. go ahead, can you hear it? [inaudible conversations] go ahead. >> donald, my question is this:

if you're elected president, one of the things that's been happening over the last several decades is our congress hen and our senators voted themself huge pay raises and other benefits. [applause] if they are elected for one term, they get a lifetime pension, they get medical. they don't have to join obamacare. if you're elected, sir -- >> in fact, they don't have to use obamacare, isn't that incredible? >> that's correct. if you're elected, would you introduce a bill in both houses to roll back these excessive benefits? and then the people who don't vote for it or vote it down will be fired! [cheers and applause] >> you're right. >> come election time. [cheers and applause] >> so the first thing i'm going to do is tell you that if i'm elected president, i'm accepting no salary, okay? that's not a big deal for me,

but -- [cheers and applause] the next thing is when these guys go to congress as per, as per your question, when they go to congress, a couple of things happen. first of all, they get benefits that nobody else can even think about, okay? and they don't like to talk about it. but we'll work on that. we have bigger problems than that because that's peanuts in the relative scale of how this country's being hurt, but we're going to the would recollect on that very -- work on that very hard. but i will tell you this, we will have a system that is going to be fair to everybody. one of the things i'm doing that really has gotten a lot of praise, i'm self-funding. i'm not getting tens of millions of dollars, hundreds of millions of dollars -- [cheers and applause] and, you know, it's very unnatural. no, no, it's very unnatural for me. in many ways, i feel foolish because people come up, they want to give you lots of money; lobbyists, special interests, donors. and i keep turning 'em down. i'm the only one. i believe out of all the people

running, look, i talk about the hedge fund guys, they're going to have to pay. we're lowering taxes in this country for corporations, for the middle income -- [applause] you're going to love me. we're lowering taxes. we're going to simplify, we're going to lower. we're coming out in three or four weeks with an amazing plan. but we're lowering taxes in our cup. but the hedge fund -- in our country. but the hedge fund guys and others, the hedge fund guys are going to have to pay up. they're going to be paying. and you know what? that's okay. somebody said that's not very republican. i don't see anybody weeping in here. [laughter] i don't see anybody weeping. but you're going to be very, very happy when you see what we do with the taxes, when you see what we do with job, with economic development. you are going to be very, very happy. go ahead. yes. >> hello? >> oh, hi. >> everybody has -- >> don't get nervous. you're not getting nervous. >> everybody has awesome questions, very big picture, and i love that.

my question's a little closer to home. >> okay. >> i just spent the last two and a half years and $50,000 working to keep my daughter safe. >> wow. >> so my question to you is, and the result could have been better, under your leadership and authority, do you think that's going to trickle down all the way to the state level and our court system to help families like mine not have to endure what i went through? >> did you say safe, to keep them safe? >> what are you -- safe? >> the family court system is broken. so my question is -- >> i see. yeah, it is. [applause] very much so here, yeah, i hear it is. the whole court system is broken, by the way. not just family court. you look at what happened with justice roberts where he approved obamacare twice, okay? you're talking about more than local. >> right. >> but the answer is, yes. i do think that should be a local situation. i'll give you an example. jeb bush loves common core. he loves common core, meaning -- no, think of it. i do like that being local. i want to see local people

teaching your kids. i want people from new hampshire, from iowa, from south carolina, i want to see local people taking care of your children's education and working -- instead of people from washington that in many cases could not care less. [applause] so think of to it. jeb bush, and just to use him as an example because there's other guys that are actually ahead of him in the polls by a lot. but jeb bush is totally in favor and strongly in favor of common core, right? and he's weak on immigration. what -- how can you have him? you can't have him. you can't have him. so i don't think he's going to do too well in new hampshire or iowa or anywhere else. go ahead. >> mr. trump. [inaudible conversations] >> okay. go ahead. you go first. >> how you doing, mr. trump? thanks for coming. my question is we all know the gap between the rich and poor in this country is getting bigger

and bigger, and our american manufacturing is getting sent overseas with all these horrible trade deals. how do you plan on bringing back american manufacturing jobs, and would you repeal nafta, and how do you feel about the tpp deal? >> okay. your new trade deal with a terrible deal, and one of the big things that is hurting us is currency manipulation. it is a disaster, and that answers that question. [applause] that deal is not the deal that should be made. i've not been a fan of nafta. you know about nafta better than anybody, because your places have been stripped out of all of new england. and you know what's happened, they've gone to mexico, they've gone all over the place. but you -- i am not and i have never been a fan of nafta. we are going to bring our jobs back. we're going to have ford and these other countries -- companies instead of going down to mexico, and lots of other places, lots of other laces, we're going to have them build here. we're going to give them the incentive that they need to build here. go ahead. go ahead. [applause] go ahead, darling. >> hi, mr. trump. >> hi.

>> i'm megan, i'm a volunteer with the league of conservation voters, and i'm here to ask you what you're going to do against pollution that is endangering public health? >> that's an interesting -- let me ask you a question. let me ask you this, okay? take it easy, fellas. how many people, how many people here believe in global warming? do you believe in global warming? who believes in global warming? who believes in global warming? who believes in global warming, raise your hand. wow. not much, huh? do you have your handç up? a little? no? no. nobody?s one person. >> well,q sir, that's -- >> you believe, right?

youmy believe -- >> [inaudible] >> okay, we're going to do two more questions. two more questions. let's go. go ahead, right here. go ahead. >> just last week one of the other candidates said that he thought the brac, the base realignment and closure system, was good because it kept workers on their toes. do you believe the way to make people more efficient is to take away their jobs, our military and those who sport our military? >> and your saying that's what's happening? no, i know that. i heard that yesterday, actually. not a good situation. okay, one more question. one more. make it a good one. make it a good one. go ahead, ma'am. right here. right here. you, go ahead. go ahead, give her the mic. give her the mic. go ahead. make it a good one, other side

we'll have to do one more. >> i would like to know what your plans are on social security. >> we're going to save social security. [cheers and applause] we're going to save it. we're going to save social security. that was your deal, right? we are going to save social security. we are going to make life for the vets better than it's ever been in this country. we are going to build up the military. we're going to end, terminate, repeal obamacare and replace it with something really, really great that works. [cheers and applause] that works. ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much. it was great! thank you! thank you! [cheers and applause] thank you. thank you. ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ >> and this afternoon more road to the white house coverage with 2016 republican presidential candidates taking part in a forum hosted by heritage action for america. those expected to participate include jeb bush, scott walker, ben carson, ted cruz, rick santorum, marco rubio, rand paul, carly fiorina, bobby jindal and chris christie. you can watch the event live at 3:30 p.m. eastern on c-span.org, and you can also listen on c-span radio. >> all campaign long c-span takes you on the road to the white house. unfiltered access to the candidates at town hall meetings, news conferences, rallies and speeches. we're taking your comments on

twitter, facebook and by phone. and always, every campaign event we cover is available on our web site at c-span.org. >> so the senate's out of session today, but earlier the house passed two abortion bills. one would defund planned parenthood for one year while congress investigates the activities of the organization shown in recent videos. the other measure would add criminal penalties and extend protections to an infant born alive during an attempted abortion. the chamber is done with legislative work for the week, but members return next thursday to hear a speech from pope francis is, the first time in history a pontiff will address the house and senate during a joint meeting. see the house live on c-span when members gavel back in. >> tonight the senate armed services committee holds a hearing on ways to combat isis.

centcom head, general lloyd austin, says he welcomes a recent defense department investigation involving possible skewed intelligence by u.s. central command. see that hearing tonight at 8 p.m. eastern here on c-span2. and right after that remarks from u.s. ambassador to the united nations samantha power on the upcoming meeting of the u.n. general assembly. she also spoke about the syrian refugee situation and u.s. efforts to combat isis. the event was held at the christian science monitor, and we'll show it to you at 10 p.m. eastern also on c-span2. >> on your screen representative jim hiems, a democrat of connecticut, and before we get into some of the congressional issues happening, congressman, you probably heard a little bit of our earlier conversation with americaie regarding ahmed moham, the ninth grader arrested forme the homemade clock. thoughts?our >> guest: he had had the ninth

grade day of all time, right? starts out in a trouble, and wis up with mark zuckerberg and the president. we've sort of got to drill into these things, but on the one hand, terrible what happened to this kid, on the other hand wein tell people if you see something, say something. be vigilant. ..remember this is this is a nih grader who had an amazing day. host: wall street journal editorial this morning criticizing the event for leaving just rates where they are. do you agree with their decision? guest: i agree. i know betterhat than most of the fed governors. they came from. there's a lot international volatility out there. yill prices are shockingl

low. -- oil prices are shockingly low. the wall street journal has been criticizing. the result that have achieved are pretty remarkable. former vice your president of goldman sachs had. do you approve of what >> guest: we been at zero interest rates effectively for seven years. they were pretty clear rates are going up this year is what, three months left in this year? title to the point in getting into a huge argument about whether the right month was this month or next month after seven and zero interest rate. but a lot of uncertainty. the economic recovery has been pretty solid. they did the work and i think they're probably are at a smart decision post is a government going to shut down traffic i get asked that asked a lot these

days. what you're going to see plan in the next couple of weeks makes me crazy. we are now eight legislative days away from a government shutdown, and this week the house of representatives thank you to the republican majority has been focused on planned parenthood come has been foced on trying to reduce what they consider out of life lawsuits. we should be working 24/7 on a budget. let me answer your question. this is a political fight between the far right wing of the republican party and the john boehner more establishment wing of the republican party. i think it's likely that they'll have to throw a bone to the conservatives and watch the government shut down. i would argue for a limited. of time. they tried this before. we have a 17 to shut down that was enormously costly on the us economy, hugely ultimately costly for the republicans. my guess is you'll see a brief shut down and people like mitch mcconnell and john boehner the

resort themselves. >> host: to this planned parenthood issued from has it been politically damaging to the democrats at this point? >> guest: i don't think it has, peter. like a lot of issues, immigration, or the national headlines are not really about what's the right way to solve a complicated problem, there are about donald trump calling mexicans rapists and criminals. my friends on the other side of you just can't resist the temptation to take this a lot further that needs to be taken. and so i think there's a lot of people who are anti-choice, really upset and they get there. those are tough videos. on the other half the people in this country are women and their watching a bunch of guys who look like me in ties and suits, middle aged white guys talk about their reproductive rights. i think that does a lot of -- an

awful lot of damage politically. >> host: you have submitted an amendment to the planned parenthood bill that's going to be debated today to what is your amendment? we put the numbers up on the screen if you want to participate in our conversation dragged my and then it says that set aside this conflict we've had for a very long time over pro-choice versus pro-life. i happen to be pro-choice. strongly but have a lot of respect for people who see the world differently. this is an issue of conscience and values and one i think we can legitimately disagree. mike cunning is based on idea if you're pro-life let's be pro-life, meaning let's not cut off the funds to planned parenthood into medical experts can look us in the eye and tell us if you cut off funds to planned parenthood you're not going to seek more abortions can you not see more women dying in childbirth, do not see more women dying of breast cancer, you would not see more women dying of aids.

once that's to come once we know this act will not kill more women, then let's let it through. the reality of course is if they succeed in cutting funds to planned parenthood, i will be respectful to those people who oppose abortions, more abortions will happen because few women will get access to birth control, to the kind of education and training. my point is simply that you will achieve the exact opposite of your objective by defending player. appear to be more abortions and more deaths from things like breast cancer and hiv. >> host: one more topic before we go to calls. is on the front page of "the wall street journal" this morning. -- what arews what are your views? >> guest: i've been pretty frustrated for a long time by our strategy in serious. i would almost even put the word in quotes because if you think

but what we are doing, you saw that sentiment testified this week. would try to train up the department of defense, so-called moderate rebels against assad. we are telling didn't go in and fight assad and by the way, fight a sister isis and assad are fighting each other so what does that mean? we are on both sides of the middle east and civil war. it's bad enough to be in once i. we are on both. we haven't made a lot of progress. but we need to focus on come and i'm making a bit of noise on this point, let's get at the root cause. let's get everybody who has swayed in the region, and that includes some pretty unsavory characters like vladimir putin, clinton arenas, veterans, the iraqis, everybody is going in the region to get them around the table and make an attempt to stop the civil war. he almost had to do the on a

moral basis as long as people dying every single day and as long as thousands are dying in embedded training showing up in hungry come answer be. we can talk about the tricky problem until we're blue in the face of this more think would be to get in there and stop the war that is causing it. >> host: should we increase our quote of? >> guest: the president has proposed 10,000 refugees in the country. i happened of late but that number is way too small. a nation of lebanon which is about the same size as my state of connecticut has taken hundreds of thousands of refugees. the idea we can't help more than that is a little miserly. >> host: let's take some calls. carlo is calling in from rockford, illinois, honor independent line. you are on with the jim himes, democrat from connecticut, good morning. thanks for the culprit about planned parenthood and all those arguing for the funding -- defunding and shutting the government down, it seems like the main argument is that a crime was committed and that

there is profit to be made. i had to ask people, what is the cost of procurements and transportation of that tissue? because in order to claim there was a profit being made, that $50 or whatever their monetary value was that i talked about in the previous has to be more than what the cost was. otherwise there is no profit, no crime, no argument in my opinion. >> host: any comment transferred well, karl is exactly right. it's worth remembering in the messiness of this debate that there is zero evidence, zero come out of a number of investigations that planned parenthood committed a crime. they are reimbursed for expenses, which are not inconsiderable, associated with donating fetal tissue for research.

also not an illegal thing. people leave their body to science. fetal tissue research has led to cures of a number of diseases. you can say that's wrong and that's a question of values and ethics and though i would disagree our treaty people who feel that way with respect. but the fact is planned parenthood it appears committed absolute no crime. effect is under the laws of the united states of america a woman has right to an abortion if she chooses to exercise that right. what's happening is the opponents again from the standpoint that i think is legitimate even if i disagree are seizing on every possible opportunity as a practical, not a legal matter come to reduce the availability of reproductive services to women. so in addition to this whole planned parenthood thing, you see laws in states which are designed as a practical matter reduce the number of clinics where a woman can go to get an abortion, to reduce by the way the kinds of education that may prevent a woman from getting

pregnant in the first place all in the service of trying to reduce abortions. the problem is that if that succeeds you are likely to wind up with more abortions. women don't have access to planned parenthood, they don't have access to birth control, that don't have access to the kind of educational things that i think serve, i don't think i knew this room the total number of abortions in this country. >> host: this tweet has come in from the sea of tranquility >> guest: i happen to disagree with it. whether it's all of the state rules that are being put in place to make it harder for a woman to get into a clinic that are focusing on come on give you another example. today on the floor of the house of representatives and will be able to assist is an aborted

fetus is alive subsequent to that abortion, that medical aid must be rendered. now, who disagrees with that? yes. why are we talking about that? because like a lot of medical procedures this is not something that you want to talk about over the breakfast table. it is like autopsies or anything else. but the fact of the matter is that tissue research has contributed to medical advances come to the development of cures for helping an awful lot of people. you can be squeamish about that and you can oppose abortion, as i said that's a respectable position i happen to disagree with, then you out of the conversation and use the mechanisms of the law and use the supreme court revisited. if you believe abortion is wrong, go back and revisit roe v. wade. don't watch these campaigns that will be due actually more abortions. >> host: if you'd like to text

the comment you can do that as well. (202)717-9684. if you happen to send a text come if you could as a ask for callers to do what income if you could include your city and your first name that could be very helpful. dennis is calling in from katy texas on the republican line. hi, dennis. >> caller: how y'all doing? good morning. i'm curious, seven years democrats have had the house and the senate and y'all have had a budget yet. that you said other talk to like y'all have been doing that everything is been perfect or the y'all haven't done anything. you have spent more money than anybody i've ever seen. as a business person i think is absolutely crazy what y'all have done. as far as the president goes, he has done a terrible job. i'm sorry. >> guest: well, dennis, i guess i agree with half of which

is a big you're right, the congress has been dysfunctional and has not done a budget done. the only thing i would change is that you started by saying that the democrats have had the house and senate for the last several years. of course, republicans took control in 2010. it's been a republican congress a century since 2010 and then a little later when the republicans took the senator i couldn't agree with you more that the failure to produce the budget, th the fact were probaby quincy government shutdown, the majority of the republican party, elements of it are calling for shut down in favor of planned parenthood is beyond irresponsible. the fact is since 2010 the house of representatives has been run by the republicans. so i'm with you. we got to change that i try to make this institution a lot more functional than it has been the last couple of years. >> host: robert, illinois. good morning, good morning c-span and representative himes. i they come at a question about the va. i'm very disappointed with the

so called customer service i received at the g8 while the patient and there. reese witherspoon a lot of talk about liza mattering. according to what i heard -- lives that it. currently 300,000 veterans have died while waiting for health care at the va. i'm normally a democrat and i'm very interested in supporting ben carson for president because he's interested in abolishing the theater i wonder if you could comment on the scandal at the va recently, and give me another veterans an idea of what we as veterans can expect from the va in the future? thank you for your comment. >> guest: thank you, robert, and, of course, thank you for the service that gave you access the va services in the first place. you are absolutely right an and this sort of came to light a

couple years ago when it became evident that certain hospitals and part of the va were really incompetent, even corrupt. you ask what's happened. as audible and then as general shinseki was, and as much as he served his country, i think a lot of us arrived at the conclusion that on his watch pretty bad things happen and so now we've got a new head of the va. a lot of senior managers at the va have moved on. we have seen progress in terms of building out the systems which saw some the problems we saw in the hospital. i point out in this is funny. that's in every state in the southwest whether these were just beyond belief. and my own state of connecticut the west haven va struggles with a lot of volume, a lot of people but the services quite good. i make a point just as they it's not the organization as a whole. certain elements of it and, of course, those elements were

stressed by the fact a lot of people don't realize this but what is really causing the bulge in the python in terms of demand, our vietnam veterans are now reaching an age, in their 60s plus reaching an age where they need a pot of health care just at the time of course a lot of our younger men and women are coming back with injuries and other trauma associated with both afghan and iraq wars. robert, you're good to remind us all of the need to stay focused on the va. i do think direction things are turned a corner and over time you'll see a lot better served in those areas that we are falling short. >> host: attacks on the 330 area code. i think the rate should stay until congress does something about a jobs bill to help us get out of poverty. >> guest: i assume that means the interest rate. so i think, look, i'm not sure who that came from but i think

kind of nice human nonfederal reserved terms that sasha what the federal reserve said yesterday. they said all the uncertainty internationally which would translate into less demand for our goods was a little concern to them. when you say less demand for our goods, what you're saying is jobs for the people who make those goods. but what i really agree with, what i would say with respect to a jobs bill, where i come from we have highways that are falling apart, bridges than to fall again. we missed a huge opportunity i think in these last six used to make a major national commitment to an investment in our infrastructure. you talk to any of the engineers can forgive the democrats and republicans, talk engineers have people who understand, they take the builders can act as used in the trillions of dollars.

we have zero interest rate, a lot of people out of work if congress gets its way to do program which bring all of our highways and our roadways into the 21st century could've borrowed the money and use it as your%, we could put millions of more people that we get back too work. icl does not just castigate where we were but we could still and we will do this, i would hope we can bring the focus of the congress a little less planned parenthood come over for the roadways and the railways at a failing my constituents and much of america. >> host: levon your financial services committee have and your former governor at goldman sachs and tell us why did the markets respond negatively when the rates are capped at zero? >> guest: explaining financial markets. if i was any good at this i would probably be doing something different. but no, so market behavior is not so much about the facts as it is how do the expectation of

what was going to happen, in fact correlate to what happens. so where were expectations? a lot of time you see a company reports 25-cent per-share profit and the stock goes down because the market expected 30 since bigger probably people out there who are betting on a rate decrease. they didn't see that. they sold whatever they bought to try to play that game. the point is tha the data they k and julie are not that important relative to the much longer-term. >> host: what is the new democrat coalition that you are a part of speech cracks? >> guest: it's a group of some 50 democrats, a lot of us have business experience and, therefore, we are very open-minded i like to encourage them think about what you do to help new and innovative businesses get started in this country. i had to summarize it coming would be the word innovation.

what educational systems, what infrastructure, what do we need to make sure that the next google or the next microsoft, the next facebook, the next tesla, that those world leading companies are here in the united states? we focus on things like immigration. what we do to make sure that every huge brain that's going to start the next intel is here and not in china or not in germany? i would call it sort of a pragmatic policy oriented innovation oriented democrats prospect next call comes from kelly in rome, georgia, republican line. >> caller: thank you for taking my call. i have three questions i just wanted to point out. i just had one question. it seems like a lot of barack obama's successes seem to be coming off of what people really don't understand our republicans giving him successes. i wonder why democrats, would they oppose the trade deal?

y'all were not called racists and bigots. you opposed him on policy. however, whenever republicans oppose obama, we are called racists and bigots. we didn't do it on policy. we did it because, because his skin caller to my next question would be about planned parenthood. i live in a county that offers almost 10 clinics that do not perform abortions and they offer services to women who are poor and cannot afford health services. and if i'm not mistaken, doesn't obamacare also now offer free contraception? you need to tell me out of 40 different ways of contraception, that abortion still needs be offered in this country? no. if you need planned parenthood, they should only offer, they should only offer what, the

services that you say they should offer. if you need an abortion, and let another company offer it. but the tax funders, those of us who are against it and we should not have to pay for it. and every single one of these that think that you are for an abortion, those walk to one of those clinics and watch the women walked out -- post we believe that those two comments. that's a lot on the table. >> guest: thank you, kelly. first, i do think anybody, republican or democrat, is for abortion. the question is should a woman who chooses to end a pregnancy have the right to do so? and that's a fair argument. and as a said before i happen to think the attitude that question is yes. i happen to think that middle aged men which make up most of the united states congress and most of the state legislators out to be really humble about telling women what they can and can't do with their bodies.

but i did it. this is a fair debate. nobody is pro-abortion. however, it is the law of the land, two things. number one, subsequent to roe v. wade in the 1970s, it is the law of the land that if a woman wants to have an abortion she has a legal right to get it. you can if you disagree work to change that law. i would suggest that there better ways to work in shutting down the federal government and hurting the economy and hurt the american people but you can work to try to change that law. secondly, get the point of view is what is that there is under the hyde amendment your taxpayer dollars, a matter of law that go into the performance of abortions. the medicare program, the health care, that government does a lot of work and help the area under the-minute, your use of taxpayer dollars go to the performance of abortion. so the foot comes down to what we think about the attempts to

reduce, the practical attempts. let's make it almost impossible for clinic to get started somewhere that performed abortions. you know, as long as it is legal as long as women want to exercise their legal right, i think it's wrongcome instead of try to change the law to try to do things like get rid of planned parenthood or get rid of the clinics that provide these things. that's not the way to go about this. if you disagree with abortion, i respect that point of you even if i don't agree with it. but the fact of the matter is that taxpayer dollars to don't go to the performance of abortions. obamacare by the would also have an exemption for churches, the catholic church, for example, which, and other religious institutions that oppose abortion from there was a workaround so health insurance that they offered would not accept a debate even for birth control, forget about abortion, that that would be gotten through a workaround that didn't

put the church in a position of having to directly provide that for birth control. >> host: we've heard a lot from republican candidates running for president about tax reform. something you're interested in. how would you reform the current system traffic gosh, i hope it's not just the republicans we're hearing about tax reform. tax reform is a problem come is urgent for everybody in all sorts of different ways. the tax code is about as inefficient and uncompetitive as it can be. it is way too long, way too complicated. it incentivizes the wrong thing. our corporations have hundreds of billions of dollars trapped abroad because we have a high corporate tax rate. sthe one they keep the money in ireland or elsewhere? the code is also riddled with exemptions and exclusions and credits that allow corporations the longest they have a big enough tax department to bring the high corporate rate down. the answer in brief in my

opinion is make the code a lot simpler. get rid of so much of that gone, the credits, deductions in favor of a lower rate. get rid of those credits and deductions. by the way many of which most of what we call the tax expenditures go to credits and deductions that people can take advantage of, most of those credits and deductions go to benefit the top third or so of the income distribution in this country. so the wealthier people are getting the benefit of that complexity. the are exceptions to that, the earned income tax credit which helps lower income people but you have an inefficient code which is benefiting people who don't need to benefit as much as others. we ought to start from scratch, have a lower rate, a lot less complexity and the code. i will make a lot of americans have become it will make our businesses a lot more competitive abroad. >> host: calling in florida says what has happened to the artist scandal? it seemed wrong to brought forward, that is a.

whenever a resolution estimate costs, i don't think there has been no resolution. the ims has been pretty badly beaten up over the last couple of years over what i think was some pretty irresponsible behavior in one of its units with respect to making judgments about which political groups, they scrutinized more than others. in fact, just in the last couple of weeks either as people have been in front of congressional panels testifying. i saw the chief of the irs just yesterday in the capital. the other thing so that's important in the irs is that they are getting squeezed badly. so in other words, people are angry at the irs cut their budget. is like a little counterproductive. you may not like the irs, you may not like taxes, most americans are in that camp but at the end of the day we need that revenue for our armed forces, medicare, social

security, highways, schools previously were angry at the iris angle cut their budget, you don't need to be terribly smart businessman to know that will result in less revenue collection, more fraud, was of an ability for the agency to be as good as it should be. >> host: brought in is in waldorf maryland. >> good morning. i think it's rich to listen about it on the tv be shocked that janet yellen to raise interest rates. any intelligent person who had a mortgage would recognize it had a 0% mortgage, why would you want to raise your interest rate to 1% we are 19 to in debt. what in hell makes you think this woman is going to raise the amount of interest on her that she has to pay? and secondly obama would never allow the industry to be increase on the people. he's not going to allow the banks to make more money on charging people more interest. the interest rate will not go up

at least a minimum until after january 20 of 2017. there is no way that will ever take place. i heard you say something that you want to have more of these so-called refugees as you use of the word come to this country. i take it you know military knowledge at all. why would you want to allow an enemy which we are at war with come and free without even a gun and began to invade our country come to unleash 20,000 enemy troops into our country? why would you want to unleash that on as? and thirdly, a woman does have a right to choose. just a choice to make if you do not want to get pregnant, keep your pants on. that's how -- >> host: bright and waldorf, maryland,. >> guest: brine, of all the things he said, the thing that troubles you the most is what

you said rabies or flame war zones like and syria are the enemy can i do know about you but i've been looking at the pictures of these people. these are baker's and please been and firefighters from places like aleppo who are leaving god awful war zones with the kids and crossing deserts and getting shot at and just want to survive. these are refugees. they are not the enemy. my own faith traditions as you look after the least amongst us. so your characterization of these people i couldn't disagree with most of this country sounded, where i come from just south of me as a huge statue in new york harbor that says something that i think is part of our american values. bring me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses. ..sses so why would we turn we willnd say sorry, contravene the fate from tradition of many of us and needy people but we will change this country so that we slammed the door on people who need help

coming from the rest of the world. i could not disagree more with the way you articulate that. obama has nothing to do with interest rates. the interest rates are set by the federal reserve. one of the strong points of this country apart from our traditional immigration stance is we have always isolated the interest rate decisions from the meddling of the president and the congress. what happened yesterday was a good example of one of the strengths this country has which is guys like me who may have an at 1600r guys who live pennsylvania avenue don't get a vote. host:

the that the pope frances francis will visit the white house starting with the welcoming ceremony then thursday september 24 makes history on capitol hill becoming the first letter of the house of representatives and the senate during a joint meeting. follow all of that life coverage of the historic visit to washington. watch online at c-span.org. >> the senate holds a hearing on electronic privacy and the

possibility of updating a statute in light of recent concerns over e-mail privacy. this is two hours and 20 minutes. today's hearing is intended to help inform the committee about the most recent reviews of a wide variety of stakeholders concerning the need to reform the electronic communication privacy act or as we know it around here. since then numerous proposals have been advanced by members of the kennedy. in 1986 congress enacted ecpa to provide the government to access communications and related

records and circumstances. however, dramatic changes in the use of communication technology have occurred since 1986. americans now depend on e-mail, text messages cost social networking websites, web taste adds and other communication methods on a dalia basis. more than ever the communications are being retained in some form due to dramatic reduction in the cost of storing data in the cloud. these communication technologies are enriching all of our lives. they are a great help to keeping in touch with constituents in iowa and for the most part we have companies that pain for this digital revolution. these are now a significant engine of growth by creating an increasingly global market for

these communication technologies but of course these technologies are also being used every day by those who intend to do our society great harm. terrorist scum of ireland drug dealers, predators, environmental criminals and you can go on and on. these technologies create a digital vendors to justice. in light of these changes, there is a growing consensus that ecpa must be modernized to address this new landscape and whatever updates to the law we make of course must be consistent with people under the fourth amendment. the privacy and technology communities have criticized ecpa for failing to provide sufficient privacy safeguards for individuals stored in the

electronic communications. electronic communications. indeed given the way that americans use e-mail it would hardly make sense that the privacy protections for an e-mail should turn on whether it is more than 180 days old or whether it's been open. at the same time, law enforcement officials have expressed concern with certain aspects of the current ecpa framework and how it works in practice and they are concerned that reform efforts to statute they use every day do not hamper the ability to investigate violations of law. an example the department of justice has addressed concerns about concerns to change ecpa and requirements to provide targets with an unprecedented amount of information that could compromise ongoing

investigations. both the department and civil law enforcement agencies have expressed the need to address the emerging gap in their authority if the target of an investigation fails to respond to the lawful civil process. they contend that this could allow offenses such as civil rights violations, security fraud and consumer fraud to go unpunished. in addition many state and local law enforcement officials are frustrated in the current timeliness and quality responses by providers. unlike traditional search warrant, law-enforcement agencies cannot control how quickly they obtain evidence. they rely on the providers who conduct the searches for them to these officials any heightening

of the legal standard. it is the delay in important cases for example they are able to access it quickly enough. as we said at the last hearing, the reform that we discussed in 2011 if we are considering

changes in the legal standard is working to ensure that the same problems. about how the process has proceeded. the conditions there for is a complicated and potentially far-reaching endeavor that sits at the intersection of --. it's a complicated and potentially far-reaching endeavor.

the key is to strike the right balance. on the topic in 2011. it must carefully balance the privacy rights and security. i now recognize the senator. >> on the electronic communications act. i was talking to the former editor of the fbi last month in vermont.

trying to bring law-enforcement outfit he passed it but keep in mind. the call waiting was known to the e-mail but we did figure did figure there would be no electronic communications and they thought they could provide that but now there are reasonably could have anticipated communicating and the privacy rules concerning this or simply outdated. they rethink the government agencies to the content of the e-mail without a warrant if the e-mail is more than 180 days old

we expect them to use the fourth amendment protections for more than six months old in the e-mails and other documents. now tomorrow, it is a major historical date. senator grassley's birthday. it is a day of public rejoicing but if i sent a note that is written into the path of note at his desk somebody is going to have to have a warrant to go and get it.

the bill was 22 other cosponsors on the committee. they both support the bill. they support this bill and the american tax reform the center for democracy technology, heritage action, the aclu come into the representatives of the people have to have an arbitrary to get on an elevator but they all agree that dell has been reported from the committee for the last two congresses and to use a technical term they are

passing this is a no-brainer. five years ago the court of appeal to the sixth circuit was in the content of e-mail that was protected by the fourth amendment regardless of its age. and that is effectively become the rule nationwide. major service providers no longer turn over the content of e-mails and the legitimate exceptions. as of the senator knows we simply codify the current practice. some raised the regulatory agencies. but there's nothing in the constitution that says only certain agencies have to follow the constitution and others don't have to.

i'm disappointed in the commerce department is asked to join the administration panel. the house numbers have joined on this. they are outlining concerns of the current reform proposals from law-enforcement agencies so i will name a nice little association of the assistant u.s. attorneys in the federal law enforcement officers and associations. the major sheriffs association and the national district attorneys association, the iowa counties attorneys association. so i would ask the letters be

entered into the record. the first witness is the principal deputy assistant to the attorney general. she also serves as the head of the department of justice office legal counsel prior to joining, she worked in the office of the white house council and served as assistant u.s. attorney. before that, she was a policy counsel for the national park or ship for women and families and has an undergraduate degree from the university of michigan. the second witness who currently serves as the director of the division of enforcement security and exchange. before joining fcc, he was a partner at the federal where

he's practicing white-collar criminal investigations and prior to that he served as the attorney in the southern district new york and received the law degree at yale. the witness is the chief counsel of the office of technology research and investigation bureau of consumer protection act the ftc. previously he served as assistant director of the bureau of consumer protection and before that the senior trial attorney for the commodity invasion of enforcement and he received his undergraduate law degree at the university of pennsylvania and i want to thank all three of you versus the fighting and we will do it in the order to proceed. >> thank you. chairman grassley, ranking member leahy and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the department of justice

regarding the electronic privacy act. we appreciate the opportunity to engage with the committee on this topic which is of particular importance to the department you look forward to discussing how the department uses ecpa and how the statute might be updated and improved. in the civil and commercial enforcement missions while safeguarding individual privacy. it is important that the reform efforts remain focused on maintaining both goals. electronic communications play a vital role in the government investigations and indeed as technology has advanced and has electronic medications and electronic day elite can data storage have augmented the means of restoring information and appropriate governmental access to upholding the law enforcement and national security responsibility. ecpa is critical to tracking down investigations into murder,

kidnapping, organized crime, child exploitation to identity theft on terrorism and board. but criminal investigations are only a subset of the circumstances in which ecpa applies. the statute also applies when the government acts as a regulator or an ordinary civil litigant. they should address for the statute applications. we agreed that that notwithstanding the efforts since its enactment in 1986 statute about the line do not account to the development of the technology and the ways in which we use electronic communications today. for example there is no principled basis to treat the e-mail less than 180 days old and an e-mail listing 180 days old. similarly there is no reason for the statute to give less protection to e-mails that have been opened and two e-mails that remain unopened. how to account for changes in technology while maintaining privacy protections and

providing for public safety and law enforcement entered his remains a central challenge of the reform effort. we use other e-mail technology stitcher personal information and wanted to be personally protected. we will focus on a proposal that would require law enforcement to obtain a kernel search warrant based on probable cause to compel the disclosure of the stored e-mail and similar stored content. from a public service provider this is a sensible approach provided that the congress consider crafting the limits of alternatives for certain investigative functions. for example, civil regulators and litigators typically investigate the conduct that while unlawful isn't a crime but criminal search warrant on the available if an investigator can show probable cause that a crime has occurred. the civil investigators enforcing the civil rights and environmental antitrust and a host of others will be left

unable to obtain the content of communication from providers. as the information is increasingly stored electronically and they take steps to shield information from the civil investigators, the amount of critical information that is off-limits to the government regulators and litigators will only increase. efforts to update can reflect the considerations and at the same time incorporate strong mechanisms that protect individual privacy and ensure appropriate judicial oversight of government access to individual communication. any proposed changes should address the ability of civil litigators and regulators to ask the court to compel the disclosure of information from providers. the department also had several more technical yet important concerns that we believe merit consideration. and although they focused on the standard for the governmental access to store content information we also believe that there are other parts of the statute that are noted that

would benefit from further examination. i would also like to speak briefly about the government access to the data stored abroad which some proposals would significantly alter. the administration will study the proposals. the department of justice appreciate the virginity to discuss all of these issues with the committee and i look forward to your questions today. thank you chairman grassley and members of the committee. on behalf of the electronic indications privacy amendment act pending before the committee. i share the goals of expediting the collection procedures and privacy protections to account for the digital age poses a significant risk to the public by impeding the ability of the other civil offers agencies to investigate and uncover the

financial fraud and other unlawful conduct. i firmly believe there are ways to offered the privacy protections and observe the constitutional boundaries without frustrating the legitimate ends of civil law enforcement. they tried partridge mission is to protect investors and maintain fair and orderly and efficient markets and facilitate the capital formation. for the federal security law recommending the commission bring action against the other wrongdoers and litigate the enforcement actions. the strong enforcement program is critical to the fcc efforts. electronic indications often provide critical evidence and the investigations as the other content can establish timing, knowledge or relationships and awareness when we conduct

investigations we will seek e-mails from the key actors to the administrative subpoena. so the e-mails are responded to that request or refuse to respond. those are often reluctant to produce evidence of their own misconduct and so the e-mail account holders cannot be subpoenaed because they are beyond our jurisdiction. it would require them to predict a warrant from the secret contents of e-mails from other isps because the law-enforcement agencies cannot obtain terminal words we've effectively not be able to gather electronic evidence directly from the isp regardless of the circumstances

even instances where the subscriber deleted his e-mails, asserted that the damage or fled to another jurisdiction. it would be less forthcoming and responding to investigatory requests because an individual who knows that they lack the authority to obtain to the e-mails may be emboldened to destroy or not produce them. these are not abstract concerns for the investors that we protect among the type of scams that we investigate our market and integration schemes as well as inside trading violations and these type of fraud are likely to be communicated with personal e-mail accounts and parties are more likely to be non- cooperative in their document productions. technology has evolved since the passage and there is no question that the law should evolve to take account of the advances in technology and protect the privacy interests even when significant law-enforcement interests also implicated. but there are various ways to

strike an appropriate balance between these interests as the committee considers advancing this important legislation. as a part of the balance of any reform can and should afford a party whose information is sought from an isp in the civil investigation noticed him an opportunity to participate in the judicial proceedings before they are compelled to produce the information. when seeking e-mail content in the past, the division provided notice to e-mail account holders in keeping with a long-standing reaffirmed supreme court precedent. if the decision was so structured and individual would have the ability to raise with the court and a privilege relevancy or they're concerned over the communications provided by other civil law enforcement maintains a limited avenue to access the existing electronic indications in the appropriate circumstance from the isp. such a proceeding would offer greater protection to subscribers than a criminal warrant in which the subscribers receive no opportunities to be

heard before the communications are provided. thank you again for the opportunity to be here before you and we look forward to working with the committee on ways to modernize without putting investors at risk and in getting them to enforce the federal security. i'm happy to answer any questions that you have. >> chairman grassley, ranking member, i am the chief counsel and the office of technology research and investigation to the bureau of consumer protection. let me begin by noting that my statements and responses to questions are my own entity do not necessarily reflect the view of the commission or any commissioner. having said that i very much appreciate the opportunity to present the testimony and explain how the proposals to amend ecpa could impact the commission's civil law enforcement mission. the ftc supports the objectives of the reform and understands the need to account for technological advances and to protect consumers privacy.

in bringing the civil law-enforcement actions to protect consumers, we rely heavily on our ability to conduct thorough investigations of the company's business practices. as a civil law-enforcement agency, they are concerned that that recent purchase of proposals to update could impede our ability to obtain certain services in future cases. under the recently decided proposals, to obtain the constant service provider the government would need to obtain a criminal warrant. even though there is expectation of privacy we are concerned that a warrant and the situations could impede the commission's future effectiveness. the first of these situations concerned previously public commercial content that advertises or promotes a product or service. we are talking about things like no longer running advertisements, old versions of

websites, previously sent to spam and in pleading ads that may appear on the device. this content is critical to many of the investigations. before determining whether the target has a false representation, we need to find the advertising promotion was eurail that contains the presentation. in many instances, especially fraudulent cases, the scam artists change websites in the electronic marketing materials frequently. when the commission staff investigate complaints about a website, the website currently is viewable to the public and may be different from the ones that the consumer complained about. current ecpa allows us to produce marketing materials in some circumstances. we haven't used this too often. most of the time our investigators are able to track down the targets old marketing materials without needing to seek the material from the provider. but the increasingly fleetingly driven advertisements and now the device may only appear for a few seconds for instance makes it quite likely that we will need to compelled the

advertising and promotional materials from a provider more often. the exception from the colonel warrant requirement in the proposed that decision for the decision for the previously public commercial content that advertises or promotes a product or service would enable the commission to obtain such commercial content. at the same time such an exception would have no impact on privacy rights because the material would be purely commercial. as a result of target wouldn't have a reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to government access. the second situation should be exempt contained in the recent proposals is content with the consent of the customer. as cloud computing becomes more widespread it will be increasingly important for the civil law-enforcement agency to be able to compel the provider to disclose content to the civil enforcement with the customer's consent. for example they may want to offer this to obtain documents directly from its cloud

computing account if the records are voluminous or the consumer victim who deleted a message from a scam and they want them to obtain the message from the consumer's e-mail provider. under current legislative proposals however, if the customer was ever consented we couldn't compelled to computing service to release the customer's content. when a customer consents to disclosure of the government, the customer has no reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to the governor's access. third, the criminal warrant should not be needed when they've compelled the target to produce content that is held by the cloud service provider and the target has refused or failed to comply with the demand. under these circumstances, the ftc should be able to seek a court order direct from the target provider to produce the content. in conclusion, thank you for giving the commission an opportunity to discredit the importance of the electronic communications investigations into the ways in which the proposed updates while externally important could hinder our law enforcement

actions. we look forward to working with the committee to address the commission's concern as the legislation advances. >> thank you all for your testimony. and i will start and then the senator will be next with the questions. we will start with you. the chair has told us that the ability to carry out enforcement responsibilities and conducting the investigations has been significantly curtailed as a result of the decision that but we have been told that they've not provided any examples or it would be impacted if the bills were enacted. can you provide any example of any example of the type of cases were investigations due to the

providers requiring the content in the civil investigation. >> i can't talk about the details of the ongoing investigations but i can say that there are a number of investigations in which if we were exercising our authority to obtain e-mails we would do that in furtherance of the investigation for example manipulation schemes, touting schemes and cases where if we have the authority would certainly do that and i can't necessarily say that it would produce e-mails that would dramatically further the investigation because right now i am not able to know what it is that we would obtain through that process but i can definitively say that there are investigations ongoing and there were prior to the case where we were exercising the authority. >> on those same lines in your

testimony you suggested that a warrant requirement for the electronic medications from an internet service provider could create obstacles in further civil law-enforcement cases. would you provide us examples of the type of cases and situations they are concerned about that would create obstacles to the future civil law-enforcement cases? >> of course, senator. the type of cases we are talking about are those instances where the target or the defendant is trying to be evasive and isn't responding to discovery or two our civil investigative demands. so, how does one class we can't get the information direct from the target. the other is where the target is an outlet fraud, fly-by-night scam and we don't want to

contact indirectly. we contact them directly, they may flee and destroy evidence and records and hide assets and keep us from the nipple to get money back from consumers. >> this would be to any or all of you. there is a perception from the privacy community that what you are asking for is a mechanism that lacks judicial oversight and the investigation without any notice or hearing. in fact the written testimony provided to us from google state that agencies can ultimately bypass the target or even potential witnesses and civil investigations for any or all of you is this a fair characteristic of what you are

proposing? >> senator, no it is not. we are asking for a mechanism to allow the courts to compel this information from providers and as it has been mentioned this is information that he tried to get from subscribers where we can't get it from subscribers we really do need it and there are ways of protecting privacy out of ensuring that that there's appropriate processes and safeguards for civil liberties and privacy. >> i would add a mechanism that we are proposing which is a judicial proceeding that we would make a showing we would give notice to the subscriber and allow them to come in and offer objections it from our perspective that is more protection than the proceeding where it is the subscriber not present. >> do you have anything to add to? stack the mechanism that we are proposing would require two things. one is we would have to go to the scriber first and only when

we are unable to get the information from subscribers can we then go and seek a court order. so it is too additional protections we would first have to try to get it from the subscriber then there would they would be the intervention. >> we have things in the record and a great deal of consensus and these letters will be placed on the record. they range from the tender commerce with a leadership conference on the civil rights and many others. they seek the content of e-mail communications and criminal investigations is that correct?

>> that is correct. >> so, this bill couldn't change the procedure in that regard. >> the bill would change the procedure for the criminals obtaining disclosure to a third-party provider regardless of the age. >> thank you. >> the privacy protection is afforded to e-mail or text messages. should that change if they are older than six months or if they've been opened? >> we don't think that there is a reason to treat e-mails differently depending on the age >> we talked about the fact that

the same question. since that ruling has the ftc obtained e-mail content to the third-party provider? >> we have not, senator, but we have done so in caution and deference to the reform discussions that have been ongoing in congress. our view -- the sixth circuit case which hasn't been overturned. >> the review is the administrative subpoena from our perspective that involved a grand jury subpoena with no notice to the subscriber for the supreme court and other circuit

cases that say they can play comply with the fourth amendment. >> we haven't sought from a provider either before the act or sends for the legislation changed from congress in the past five years. >> we haven't sought a solution until now. we've obviously offered over the last few years to have ongoing discussions. >> you give me a copy that you made i don't seem to recall that. >> we've had discussions in the staff about this issue over time >> beginning five years ago or since the senator did anything past here?

>> i can only speak to the two and a half years that i've been the director of enforcement debate we've had discussions throughout the period of time. we've been discussing proposals from the agency. >> our view is we want to be responsive to the proposals that congress is providing answer to and so to the extent that staff were particular senators have offered for they are thinking about we have offered them our thoughts on those proposals. >> are you seeking authority for the civil investigations? >> no, we are not. >> but you'd want to be all to read e-mails without a warrant. >> what we are proposing. it would be a set of standards that allow us to obtain e-mails with notice to the subscribers

as a part of the proceedings so they could raise any concerns that they have. we are not seeking to wiretap authority that is something the criminal authorities have that we do not. how many state and federal agencies have civil regulatory authority to allow them to issue the subpoena for the record? >> thank you for that question. certainly the department of justice there is a number of civil enforcement functions including the antitrust environment, civil rights.

they've been unable to get the content from the roviders of this has hurt their investigations and made it difficult in the instances they they couldn't obtain information from the subscribers. >> my time is up. i will have a couple of questions for the record. thank you. >> leading read here they are at the fall of the gavel then it would be perdue and then i assume that it would go to the democratic senator. >> am i pronouncing your name right? >> in the written testimony you stated that the department had concerns about legislative proposals and the safeguarding that about you actions.

the electronic medication privacy act is silent on the privacy standard u.s. officials must satisfy in order to access data. yet the federal government has taken advantage of this to its own standard. what is the basis for the agency to obtain the data and stored overseas? >> thank you for that question senator. there's long-standing legal framework that allows the government to serve compulsory legal process on united states companies to require them to bring back information that is stored abroad and the concern with proposals that would change the framework is that it would take away an option that has long been available under the framework and would replace it with international cooperation which is not an adequate

solution because those agreements that kind of cooperation doesn't exist everywhere only about half the country as we have agreements with when we can use those it takes a really long time and can delay investigations. we needed to establish a legal framework for law enforcement to access the data stored abroad. my bill is trying to help your efforts and i would appreciate any suggestions that you might have that could make it a more workable bill or help you on your work. >> we look forward to working with you. >> the the federal officials campaign e-mails stored anywhere in the world simply by serving a warrant on the providers object for the u.s. process. nothing stops the government and

other countries including china and russia from seeking e-mails. the lawyer that is litigating the case on behalf of the government acknowledged last week. it should be of some concern. the consequences of the governments current position on the extraterritorial reach of the u.s.. >> this is a challenging issue that the department is actively considering. whatever the solution is, we don't think the solution should involve deciding conflicts of law in a way that always works against the united states. historically the chords have been able to weigh the interest

of the u.s. victims and governmental interests and other factors in coming to decisions on these issues and the concern is any regime that would decide all matters of the conflict of law against the u.s. in every case. >> the process of facilitates between the united states and foreign countries. do you agree the process is proven slow and cumbersome? >> it is slow and cumbersome for us to get information from other countries which is part of our concern. the incoming process we agree there needs to be progress made and we are working on progress of technological and otherwise and have -- i know the administration has requested resource is in aid of that effort to improve things. >> in your view what can congress do to improve the process and help us another

country access data stored here in the united states. we look forward to working with you on them and one thing that is clear in the process is that it is not a one-size-fits-all kind of issue if people work differently all around the world and because it is so complicated it requires an approach that takes into account the way that it is operating now and we very much look forward to working with you to streamline the process. i hope we can streamline this process and make it work. >> senator white house. >> thank you mr. chairman. in evaluating this question of civil access to content maintained by the service provider i have a ticket to the question of a criminal warrant

to the criminal warrant is obtained by a government official going before a federal judge on an expedited basis and getting the judges consent to get access to the material involved. it's there because of the immense power that criminal law enforcement gives the government. however instead instead to be in frustration. even have a federal death penalty. so, from the very beginning but founders constructed a process that when they did the information when they had those terrible powers in its hands. does the government had any such power with respect to the civil enforcement? >> it does not. civil enforcement lacks the warrant authority. >> and what you are opposing us just like a warrant, the government would have to go

before a federal judge in order to get access to the data for the civil enforcement since. >> there are a number of ways to do it but yes, having the courts be able to compel the evidence. >> the court order. >> and in a number of circumstances, your colleagues on the panel have suggested that the subject might also be notified first whatever might be noticed to the subscribers would be an expert wouldn't be an expert tied proceeding. it would be a proceeding in which the individual has privacy interest was involved to appear is that correct? >> that's right. >> what happens in the case that you talked about where for a variety of reasons you don't want to reveal to the misbehaving party that this investigation is underway because they are likely to hide assets or destroy evidence or whatever. do you want some form of expert

tied process like a warrant provides with the civil agency could say look these are extraordinary circumstances. this is why we need access to this information to try to convince the judge of that? >> we are not actually asking for that authority. >> why are y. r. u. talking bout the -- why did you'd use that example of the importance of the? >> i suppose i completed the previously held content when we are talking about content where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. >> do any of you seek a proposal under which the government would be able to begin showing about an expert at provision of necessary in go forward without notice to the subscriber? >> we are not from our perspective in fact we typically will seek the e-mail from the

subscriber first subscriber first and if we are not able to obtain a little tv that we legal tv that we have obtained for e-mails we will go. >> even if the constitution allows the requirement to rely so much the expert tied you are not requesting that? >> we are looking for the unlimited ability to obtain appropriate cases where we just can't get them. >> the same judge you might have to go before to get the same warrant. >> in this case but they have every right to defend the party interest? >> that's why i said in my oral statement it is better than the warrant provides. >> i have a net left before i yield back my time. just to be clear, i think that the chairman asked you this but just in case you didn't come through as clearly to you i would be interested in looking back at the cases that have come

to a conclusion whether it's a disclosure of the case where you can take a look at the case and say this piece of evidence actually helps make the case, and we've got it because we were able to have access through the service provider to that information and not an ongoing case of china was a delicate circumstance for all of you but the closed cases looking back just so we can see whether or not this has made a difference in that i will yield back my time. thank you for holding back the time the searcher man. >> thanks to all of you for being here. >> you know, updating the electronic indications privacy act has been a priority of mine ever since i read in the senate. i figure for about four and a half years and i appreciate how difficult it can be to bring about a change of law but basically everyone agrees the

overwhelming majority of the american people and by overwhelming majority, i mean 99.9% of anyone that mask agree that government ought to have a warrant before it goes after your e-mail. the content of your e-mail. number two, the same number of people that agree i think i have the same ratio it off not make any difference whether the e-mail was 179 days old 181 days old. whether or not the government has to get a warrant. so this is a simple principle that ought not be that difficult to legislate in order to but in order to work on this legislation, i introduced the senate bill 356 to bring the wall into the conformity with expectations and members of the public that seems to be widely practiced today.

to sort out what i want to ask each of you a simple yes or no question does your agency believed that it should under normal circumstances to the warrant requirement should be required it be required to get a warrant in order to get the content of peoples e-mails regardless people's e-mails regardless of the age of the e-mail lacks the department indicated that we do not oppose the requirement for our criminal entities when they are obtaining information from third-party provider to the public but notice some concerns about that like the civil investigations. >> we believe that judicial proceeding to object is an

appropriate mechanism for obtaining e-mails. >> do we agree with the position? while there are a few people in washington, d.c. who can understand what you're saying the american people would be very disturbed to hear that the question cannot be answered with a simple no the government shouldn't be able to get at people's e-mails. the content of your e-mail without a warrant. now, let me correct the question your way. i am concerned that the department of justice once it has obtained e-mails may use those e-mails for any investigations related to the initial reason for the acquisition or not. so if you obtained e-mails on a

subpoena in the civil investigation, what if anything would prevent the same e-mails that you obtained without a warrant in the context of a civil investigation but would prevent the department from using that in the criminal prosecution? >> certainly it wouldn't be acceptable for things to be obtained for the purpose of trying to use on the criminal side when things are in use they should be done according to the authorities that are available. however when colonel evidence becomes apparent, that information can be shared and we are not proposing a way to get out of the requirement without any privacy protections into that there are ways of protecting privacy both a standard and by process and so what we are talking about on the civil side is a process protection. >> what kind of safeguard what they propose to prevent a civil

agency carveout to avoid the warrant requirement, you can understand how that could easily be manipulated in order to avoid the requirement. >> thank you for that question. i don't believe this instance is any different than the other evidence that can be obtained in other ways. these are issues that exist to all investigation, prosecutors and they are held to a standard to obey the rules and hold to those in the fall of the process but i'm happy to get back to you if there are further questions or to answer further questions. >> i see my time is expired mr. chairman. >> since the senator asked me to

be here as the ranking member, i will consider being involved in this because i am forced to be here. [laughter] >> i want to thank the senator for his courtesy. i am curious in your testimony you've expressed concern about what would happen if a customer can consent to turn over e-mails turning over e-mails but the service provider nonetheless refuses, can you give some examples of how and when the customers is okay as service providers is no when and how might that occur. >> let me give you two examples, the first is assuming that we are investigating a business

into the business is readily willing to turn over but it maintains into the cost of the customer of the target. they would rather have that happen. is that going to have it all the time that the target is willing to turn over its information and match the government? no. the commission should be able to say they use the compulsory process to get that information from the provider. ..