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. ..

>> we can file come ever talk about an ever talk about an investigative current we can file an enforcement action. but at the end of the if the customer refuses to turn the information over, we would have no ability under the pending legislation to get that permission. >> under the pending legislation? under which -- >> under -- >> 356? >> 356, yes. so that's a suggesting you have for improving at? >> yes. and wrestling the provision of

ecpa that authorizes voluntary information authorizes the content with consent to voluntary to become and what to make sure there is a parallel provision that allows the government to compel us. >> if the target investigation had intentionally used an internet provider will not cooperate with the ftc, so that target can pretend to consent, then in effect use the refusal of the internet provider as the barrier. is there anything ftc can do to penalize the target? if you understand my question. >> yes. we can seek to compel come if we are talking about an investigative demand. but ultimately don't have authority to penalize anybody. >> i welcome your suggestions for improving this legislation.

as you know i'm one of the original cosponsors of s. 356. i think it's important to strike a balance between privacy and law enforcement having been in law enforcement myself, having been a strong supporter of the work that all three of the agencies do. and very much welcome your suggestions here and any other thoughts that you may have. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thanks to the witnesses for your time today. we've had similar conversations where we are trying to balance privacy and enforcement. it's ongoing. i applaud your efforts and your leadership in debt. i look fort hood debating both ecpa and elite the leads act i o applaud the trend -- the ranking member and center lead for your hard work. ms. tyrangiel, quick question related to leads. as you just explained leads would create a will that government may use ecpa warrants

to contain content data stored outside u.s. but only if the account holder is a u.s. person. in all of the cases involving content data stored about them are the government to use the mlat process. doj has concerns. what should you on the provision of the bill that seeks to improve and streamline the mlat process of? >> thank you for that question. improving the mlat process on an incoming basis which is what the proposal is talking about is difficult and complicated and we very much look for to working with the committee on that. we do think it's not a one size fits all current solution. him and having provisions that apply for instance, to require sort of online intake we not all countries use government e-mail is sent in the request is the sort of thing that makes this hard.

we very much look forward to working with you to address those issues. >> can you explain that doj's concerns that a think doj has expressed regarding the effect of the leads act on domestic investigations, those involved in noncitizen who is in the u.s.? >> thank you. the department we be concerned with any proposal that would unilaterally take away a tool that we have in order to be able to obtain information about a u.s. crime affecting u.s. victims that historically has been in place for a long time and replace it with something that would take a really long time for international cooperation alone. and it would, proposal that would also make it more difficult to get information about non-u.s. persons committing crimes in the u.s. than it would u.s. persons is also a concern for us.

>> one last quick question. i want to go in the subpoena issue that was raised just a minute ago about your agency's ability to enforce the target of a civil enforcement action. as that particularly because the federal court decision is holding an individual can be required to comply with a subpoena to produce content it has been maintained by service provider. can you give me your views and let's verify that a little further if you don't want? >> our cities are not self-executing. so in other words, we need to if somebody objects to ask and we need to go to court and obtain a court order compelling. that person in that proceeding can raise whatever objections they have with a be privilege or other relevant subject is in the case was census is to show a proper purpose and if the subpoenas properly tailored that of the upheld. so in the circumstances we can obtain video from the subscriber

but the problem is the subscriber will often not provide you with full india because parents advise not doing. if you know we can't of india for the isp that further incentivizes enough to provide us with a full e-mail. >> what is your experience of targets for to provide information versus the want you to go get a want? >> a want or when we have the speed when you to go to the second step of trying to get the information. >> we have recorded brought subpoena enforcement action. in many cases would make the judgment of their resources constraints about bringing subpoena enforcement action and make a judgment about whether to compel a particular case. i was the our experience is that certain case cases subscribers provide for the males and others they don't. becomes clear because as you subpoena others who were involved in misconduct you sometimes find you the people supply you with e-mails that the

original subscriber did not and does you the original reduction was not sufficient. >> mr. salsburg? >> we have a similar process where our demands are not so vexing. we do need to go to a court to enforce them as well. in our experience i think most publishers would comply with our cats. if they don't get to the make a resource judgment culprit is it worthwhile to pursue an enforcement action which is pretty lengthy and may not result in us being able to get resource for consumers or do we forgo the information try to find in mr. information in another way? >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. salsburg, the ftc plays a key role in protecting america's privacy and americans understandably care deeply about

privacy other e-mails and other online documents. since the warshak decision, their expectations have largely been met in the ecpa amendments act to ensure that those continue to be met. i applaud senator lee and senator leahy for the efforts. i guess more senator leahy because he's my ranking member. so i do find, mr. salsburg, that the final portion of your testimony, a little surprising. i did not expect to the ftc's bureau of consumer protection suggesting that the ecpa amendments act be significantly rewritten to give ftc brought authority to obtain the a simple court order americans e-mail

content from third party service providers. and then this morning we received commissioner bersin statement expressing her concern about this proposal. commissioner brill notes that it is a quote exceedingly rare that it would be useful for the ftc to seek content through ecpa. she highlights the cost for america's privacy as well as the question of fish now the or potential -- obtaining content with just such a court order. or with just a court order. i realize your oral presentation today reflects only your views, but i'm interested in your views and data that you may have come

setting aside potential constitutional concerns for the moment. do you have any data, in case statistics to support your claim that india expansion of ftc the authority to obtaining meal content is needed to? >> let me first note that we have not sought e-mail content in the past. and the question is whether the economy is changing in a way, with data moving to the cloud computing, that we can see it being for siebel in a future. i don't have any empirical evidence of this but i think one of the major drivers of ecpa reform is this notion that it is being kept in the cloud with third party service providers and no longer being maintained two peoples, mostly on people's computers. >> okay, thank you. i'm sorry. i wasn't here for the beginning, so is it -- very good.

to me. under ecpa as written in 1986, subpoenas could be used to compel third party provider to disclose the content of a customer's e-mail if the e-mails were relatively old from more than 180 days old. now courts have take issue with it. personally i think that's not what the american people expect when it comes to the privacy other e-mails. we've been discussing the. but if i'm understanding your testimony correctly you're not satisfied with the ecpa stand up if you're looking new and broad authority for federal right to agencies like sec and irs to be able to obtain content without a warrant, without regard to the age of the information. in the last five years, as the sec sought to challenge warshak or to take action against

providers who refuse to comply with requests because of warshak? >> senator, we have not indifference to the ongoing discussions in congress, but when they would say is we are seeking is more protections than in the current ecpa. that is, the current ecpa allows an administrator said it was noticed to the we are proposing some additional proceeding where we would obtain a court order and to use -- a court order is essentially what a warrant is which is a judge signing off on endor that allows us to obtain anemia. we are proposing with notice to the subscriber so that the subscriber, unlike a warrant which exported, the subscriber can come in and insert any objections. we are proposing more protection first of all than in the current statute, and second thing in a warrant spill so you take issue with my just sent a court order? >> yes, i do, with all due

respect spent i appreciate the respect. thank you. >> thank you, senator franken. senator tillis. >> thank you, mr. chair and mr. acting ranking member. richard schiff, i also want to wish a happy birthday in advance. i think you're celebrating maybe the 32nd anniversary of your 15th birthday tomorrow. spirit that would make your 82, i think spending now that i'm 55 i started celebrating anniversaries about five years ago. i want to ask the question that they also be appropriate for the second got to go back to armed service committee so i will start the discussion here. i am concerned with your efforts when it involves an isp that's not within u.s. jurisdiction. and efforts that we would have fear to strengthen our ability to get to information for u.s.

domiciled isps, if the potential risk that could have for people who may intend to use this for the kinds of purposes that you going after. some may or may not be. would risk do we have gone beyond just the 180 day retention requirement, dealing with that and clarify the obligations of the isps with respect to the water requirements? what risk do we have of just having that snakes go to another past year and still be able to do what they want to accomplish our stability fall under that they'll and then put our isps at risk? i will open it up to the panel. stored down there. >> thank you for that question. with our providers they're doing business in the u.s., historically the courts have exercised jurisdiction over those individuals speed once the very build adipocyte or what has your experience been?

>> in order to be able to get something that needs to be a basis for jurisdiction. and so one of the things that concerns us about proposals to talk about data stored abroad is making that data where there are people even in the u.s. unable to use traditional legal process to compel that information that they made stored elsewhere to come back to the united states. >> this is a very challenging question, and the commission hasn't taken any position on the lead to act. i think it's fair to say that we would have difficulties on the civil side as the law is now, if we were trying to compel information from a foreign isp that did not have presence in the united states. >> i don't want you to respond to concern i have is making sure that whatever we do, as long as there some other place in the globe, the internet

infrastructure is a global infrastructure subject to several different jurisdictions. how we balance policy to make sure that we're not just kind enhance the busines businesses o the benefit and to your detriment to isps abroad. mr. ceresnay, we will let you comment. >> i would just say we share some of the same concerns as the department of justice has about elites act. it's an authority issue and one that needs to be worked carefully. >> mr. ceresnay, thinking if making them in the bin in your opening comments, subpoenas quickly falls short of getting the evidence they want because oftentimes the targets either delete the information or the abscounded. what is a lease working through congress right now that you think culture address that issue, or what kind of things to have to look at help you have that tool available? >> what we are seeking is some

limited authority obtained under circumstances like the one you just cited were individuals have deleted e-mails or other was not produced. some ability to obtain those the nose on the isps. what we propose to some sort of course order under some stamp duty to meet with notice to the subscriber so they could come in at a check. that's the limited a 40 we are seeking, and the idea is in circumstances like the one you just suggest what individual has deleted e-mails, we are able to obtain a. without also do is incentivize people who are producing enough pursuant to our subpoenas to comply fully because if they know the we can go to the isp it for the incentivize them to provide us with a folding it spent because i've only got 25 seconds i will just make a comment. i know on the one hand want to provide you all and the next battle which has law enforcement on with all the tools you need to get after people that may be doing things we don't want them to do.

on the other end where talking about extending some these capability agencies who right now such as the irs, i don't think it was mentioned by think he would extend to agencies like the irs, they give us some pause to give them more capabilities than the already have. so we've got to work o on the kitchen we've got the right kind of controls in place as we move toward with a policy. thank you all for being here. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, chairman grassley, and for your leadershi leadershs ever ask the appropriate questions and having an opportunity to discuss this very big issue. those offices have been involved in law enforcement for a long time are very well aware of what sounds like some good theoretical idea can have a major and detrimental impact on the ability of the people of the united states to have order, to avoid multiple frauds and fans

and computer abuses and violations of their privacy's and things of that kind. and i have ordered a publication not long ago and within a few weeks i get, i'm how many more so many different kinds of publications of a similar nature. so somebody is sharing information all over. president obama was widely congratulated for his brilliant ability to target voters because then you all kinds of things about them come where they went fishing all this thing summit is available to private sectors, political candidates. we have to be sure that we are not placing too much of a burden on law enforcement as they try to do their duty to protect us from fraudsters and sex abuse and child kidnappers and terrorists. i just think we've got to be careful about it. i'm glad that she is looking at this and we're asking. the law enforcement that i've talked to indicate that they

have certain problems that we have to deal with in the legislation. one is that often for long delays between the issue of a request can subpoena order to the actual reduction of the document. number two, we are to consider what happens if you have a ratio of these documents within hours even. -- erasure. is that appropriate we talk about that in phone company records, as i understand. and third i think it's critical to anybody who's been involved in law enforcement, i can imagine indicators investigation, particularly, you've got to be able to effectively not tell the suspect that you are on to him and have somebody call him and say, fbi just subpoenaed your records and boom, they flee the country or they hide other evidence that

may be available. i think the law enforcement request need to be considered. ms. tyrangiel, so you can issue a subpoena for a telephone pole record that has the person's name, address, the length of the phone calls, the numbers that they called without any content that you can get that with a subpoena, is that correct? >> yes, that's correct. >> actually be a candidate with an administrative subpoena and so can the irs, without even asking a prosecutors approval. prosecutors issued them routinely also. what about getting an e-mail address? it seems to me that's quite a lot, huge difference between just giving who the person has been e-mailing, just like you

want to know who they call on a telephone, as opposed to the content of the e-mail. can be obtained? why should we enhance significantly the ability to get that information? >> thank you for that question. the standard is currently different as i note in my sfr, the department does support equalizing those standards and bringing them in so that you can use the same standard we've been using our traditional telecommunications like telephone records to obtain that too from material as well. >> that's a huge thing in investigation are some of the sentiment to disperse and they've got 50 e-mails over 25 phone calls. i didn't talk to him on the day of the killing and there's 25 phone calls that day. these are hugely important and actually protecting the american people from criminals. then you've got the standard for

content. ms. tyrangiel imagine that a court order isn't much different from a search warrant or other. so we have a little less standard to get the older e-mail content come is that correct is that e-mail content you first get to the 120 days and older? >> under the current statute, for more than 180 days we can obtain into an administrative subpoena with notice to the subscriber. but as i said in terms of an amendment to the statue over the support of some sort of judicial proceeding with notice to the subscriber that allows us to obtain those e-mails. content. >> and you can request, you can request, ms. tyrangiel, the confidentiality and no notice?

>> we are not seeking that authority to obtain them with no notice. in fact, our general practice is to first seek them from the subscriber. if we did not obtain e-mails come and go to this mechanism recognize that are important privacy issues and we are trying to accommodate those while preserving some ability for us to obtain the contents of e-mail. >> i think we've got to be careful about not having an ability to protect against disclosure to the person. because i don't, that's not true in other areas that you can get a nondisclosure order. it can be critical companies are investigating a terrorist and they know you are onto them, this could be a life and death issue. thank you. >> thanks to this benefit i appreciate it very much and will probably be in touch with you with some follow-up questions. i'd like to call the second panel now.

and while they are coming, if i can have your attention, i want to introduce them to be efficient. richard littlehale is the assistant special agent in charge, tennessee bureau of investigation technical service you know, special agent little hail is responsible to coordinate the use of a wide range of technology in support of law enforcement operations, including using communication records in the sport of criminal investigations. he testifies on behalf of the association of safe criminal investigative division is. he received his bachelor's degree from bowdoin college and a law degree at vanderbilt. second is richard salgado. users as google's director of law enforcement and information security.

before working at google, mr. salgado work at yahoo! antarctica served as special counsel in computer crime and intellectual property section, doj cookies also been a law professor at stanford, georgetown, george mason. he received his undergraduate degree university of new mexico, law degree at yale. next is mr. calabrese, vice president of policy for the center of democracy and technology. before joining cdt he worked as a legislative console, american civil liberties union, washington office. before that he was legal counsel massachusetts senate majority leader. mr. calabrese graduated from harvard and law degree from georgetown. finally, ms. espinel, president

and ceo, the software alliance which advocates on behalf of software industry before governments. she has previously served for over a decade in the white house under both republican and democrat administrations including being nominated to be the first u.s. intellectual property enforcement coordinator. she graduated from georgetown's school of foreign service, has an lom from the london school of economics, and a law degree from georgetown. i want to thank all of you for appearing and let's do it in the order that you are seated, left to right. my left to right. >> chairman grassley, ranking member leahy, senator franken and members of the committee thank you for fighting me to testify. i'm a tech of investigator and a somebody committee of the association of state criminal investigative agencies.

i'm pleased to speak on behalf of the state and local enforcement officers who work the majority of investigations iin this country addition to criminal investigators perspective on the challenges to law enforcement faces when working today's digital crime scene. the challenge of lawful access to electronic evidence is top of my everyday for those of us in the trenches. while we agree the law should be updated any effort to reform ecpa should reflect its twofold aim of protecting privacy and ensuring law enforcement ability to obtain digital evidence lawfully authorized to do so. i have three points for your consideration. first we have some concerns about the pending legislation, senate 356. it might be counterproductive additional stored content, but this bill creates greater protection for store digital content than for illiterate in somewhat suspect wringing continue to polish up with the physical and digital worlds on the same plane did not favor digital over physical. the notice provisions also seem one-sided it's hard for investigators to understand

either no requirements for quickly service providers must respond to our legal defense for evidence we should be required to notify customers that the records have been obtained as quickly as three to 10 days. we urge the committee to carefully balance the need for notification against the resource burden it places on us. time spent complying with timelines for notice means less time investigating crimes in a word digital evidence is a factor in the investigation. we have grave concerns about challenges and we been vocal about a which of the legislation does not address whatever legal standard congress decides to impose, the public as a powerful interest in law enforcement ability to get that information once we comply with the law. legal barriers are not the only barrier to obtaining medication records. non-technical barriers and lack of access to legal framework governing service provider response to cell our efforts as much or more. i urge you to ensure that whatever standard of proof you decide is appropriate you ensure law enforcement can't access the

evidence we need. there's a requirement in ecpa or the bill before the committee today imposing structure and how service providers to article today. this is clearly problematic in emergencies and it and prevent us from processing large volumes of leads to consider a full to consider a full of cyber tips from the national center for missing and exploit children that may contain clues to the location of a child being victimized or pages of online ads that could hide sex trafficking victims. it may be an emergency into somewhere but we can't know about until we get response back from the service providers. speed is important in all investigations. requirement for automated exchange should be considered not only with with this helps the access that could provide a great deal of transparency in government entities access to records, companies and law-enforcement and congress. governing law -- governing access to emergency records shoulshould be revised to a joit agrees that law enforcement

should have rapid access to communications evidence in a life-threatening emergency but that is not always the reality. the provision is voluntary for the providers that may be triggered if an emergency access is granted there's no guarantee we'll get the records immediately. we can't even get someone on the phone and in other cases to provide has chosen never to provide evidence. in an effort to better inform the committee, i solicited feedback on this on technical barriers from a wide range of law enforcement agencies to specialties and investigative focuses. the replies underscore the frustrations of investigators regarding routine turnaround times from some providers that are measured in moscow the inability to speak to his human being and uneven access to records in emergencies. we appreciate the current bill's

requirement to look at those issues and hope to find a way to tell our story. these are the day-to-day realities of professionals working for digital crime scene. that public never has but these things. those of us who spend our days and nights gathering digital evidence to find criminals need congress to understand and think about the implications and possible solutions. i want to read the site so important aspects of ecpa are. we are well aware of the role in balancing privacy public safety. we depend on as a critical tool and set of rules that guide to we obtain the digital evidence that is a key to increasing number of cases. urge the committee to balance both goals as it all worked to get reform right for the 21st century. thank you for having me and i look forward to your questions. >> chairman grassley, ranking member leahy and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. as director for law enforcement and information security for google, i oversee the companies

compliance with government requests for users that including requests made pursuant to electronic communications privacy act of 1986 otherwise known as ecpa. and it hasn't worked on ecpa issues as senior counsel in the computer crime and intellectual property section in the department of justice. google strongly supports s. 356, attempted an imminent act of 2015 which probably has 23 cosponsors, the house companion measure to the e-mail privacy act now has 292 cosponsors, more than any other bill that is pending in congress. it's undeniable. it's unsurprising that there is strong interest in online ecpa with the fourth amendment, and users reasonable expectations of privacy. the original disclosure rule set out in ecpa back in 1986 were foresighted, given the technology that existed at that

time. in 2015, however, those rules to longer make any sense. users expect as they should the documents-based or online have the same fourth amendment protections as they do in the government want to enter the home to seize the documents stored in a desk drawer. there'there is no compelling po, no compelling legal rationale for there to be different rules. in 2010, the sixth circuit opine in the united states versus war shocked at ecpa violates the fourth note violates the fourth and it takes to get us to our law enforcement to obtain a warrant for e-mail content. in doing so the sixth circuit struck down contents 180 day rule and the distinction between open and unopened e-mails as irreconcilable with the protections afforded by the fourth amendment. google believes that sixth amendment interpretation a more shot is correct and we require a search warrant in all instances when law enforcement seeks to compel us to disclose the contents of gmail accounts and other google services.

were shaq plays by the constitutional infirmities with the statute and underscore the importance of updating at the to interest a warrant is required and governmental entities seek to compel third party service providers to produce the content of electronic medications. were shaq is the law of the land today. it's absurd by governmental entities and companies alike in many ways as 356 as a modest codification of the status quo and implementation of the sixth circuit conclusion in were shaq. between elastomer testified in support of updating ecpa in march of 2013 and now, the supreme court issued a landmark decision in writing versus california where unanimously held that general offices must obtain worked for searching the content of a cell phone incident to arrest the chief justice roberts noted the regime was very -- carveouts quote

contravenes our general preference to provide clear guidance to law enforcement through a categorical rule. to reinforce the constitutional imperative for clear rules in this area chief justice roberts concluded his opinion with unambiguous direction to law enforcement. he wrote the fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such information in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of protection for which the founders thought out answer to the question of what police must do before searching a cell phone seize incident to arrest is accordingly simple. get a warrant. notably this committee is being asked by some today to jettison precisely the type of categorical rules of the supreme court held were impaired in riley. doing so would undermine users result expectation of privacy and encroach upon the privacy protections afforded by the fourth amendment. we urge the committee to reject such pleas and to codify the standards that reflected in the bill sponsored by senator

lincoln senator leahy. ecpa no longer reflects usual expectation of privacy the love comports with the fourth amendment. s. 356 represents an overdue update to ecpa that would ensure electronic communications content is treated in a manner commencement with other papers that are protected by the fourth amendment. it's long past time for congress to pass a clean version of s. 356. thank you for your time and consideration and i'd be happy to answer any questions you ha have. >> thank you, chairman grassley, ranking member leahy, members of the committee. thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the center for democracy and technology. cdt is a nonpartisan nonprofit policy advocacy organization dedicated to protecting civil liberties and human rights including privacy, free speech and access to information. we applaud the committee for holding a hearing on electronic

communications privacy act and urge the committee to speedily approve has 356. senator lee and senator leahy is electronic communications privacy act information act. everyday whistleblowers reach out to journalists and members of this committee, advocates plan protest against injustice and ordinary citizens complained about their government. all of these activities are crucial to our democracy. it also relies on our long held constitutional guarantee of private communications secure from arbitrary access by the government. this is true whether the communication happens in the form of a letter, phone call or increasingly an e-mail, text message over a social network. as our technology has changed the legal underpinnings to protect our privacy have not kept up. when ecpa was enacted in 1986 that relied on balancing three policy pillars.

individual privacy, legitimate needs of law enforcement and support for innovation. changes in technology have eroded this balance. the reliance on trusted third parties for long-term storage of our communications have left those communications with limited statutory protection. this void has greater legal uncertainty for cloud computing, one of the major business innovations of the 21st century and one in which u.s. companies excel. at the same time information accessible to the government has increased dramatically. e-mails and text messages provide invaluable leads come insight into criminal activities and plans, and demonstrate motive and intent. most if not all of this information would not have been available in 1986. in combination with a vast new stores of metadata it's clear that for law enforcement this is a golden age of surveillance.

in the face of an outdated statute, courts have acted, recognizing cases like u.s. versus warshaw accepted by the result expectation of privacy in the e-mail and at the same time invalidating key parts of ecpa. but that patchwork is not enough on its own. it continues to lag behind technological change and harm smaller businesses that lack an army of lawyers. it also creates uncertainty around new technologies that relied on the used relied on the use and storage of the content of communication. reform efforts also face a concerted assault from the civil agencies that seek to gain new powers and below a huge privacy opened the bill. agencies of block reform despite the fact the sbc has confessed to never using subpoena powers. no less an fbi director comey told the house judiciary committee that in regard to ecpa the change would not have any affect on our practice.

criminal investigators have suggested that changes be enacted so that companies turn over the entire content of users inbox whenever an emergency is asserted to however it's not clear that this is a problem. major companies report only a few hundred of these requests every year. more troubling approximate 20% of them must be rejected because they failed to meet the emergency standard. support for privacy reform is deep and abiding. more than 100 technology companies, trade associations and public-interest groups have signed on to ecpa reform principles. signatories include nearly the entire tech industry, spans the political spectrum and represent privacy rights, consumer interest in free market values. a companion bill in the house has more than 290 cosponsors including a majority of republicans and democrats took the committee has consistently

sought to solve these problems through strong reform measures passing nearly identical legislation to pass 356 and both 2012 and 2013. post-warshak and one for content has become the status quote. nonetheless, it is critical for the committee to approve as 356 in order to cure a constitutional defect in ecpa, protect individual privacy and ensure that new technologies continue to enjoy robust constitutional protection. thank you. >> thank you. good morning chairman grassley and members of the committee. i want to thank the chairman and ranking member leahy for having a hearing on this important issue. i appreciate the opportunity to testify today on behalf of esa, the software lives. with a leading advocate for the software industry in the united states and around the world.

we have a keen interest in today's data privacy. we support efforts to update ecpa and we didn't send a delete and leahy for the leadership that we urge the committee to advance legislation to better protect privacy in the 21st century. we have longed work with cbd, google, and many other members of the coalition in support of this reform. our board of directors sent a letter to congressional leadership this week highlighted a series of legislative efforts needed to address data policy issues at the top of the list is ecpa reform. when ecpa was enacted, most people had no conception of the internet or e-mail. congress though had the foresight to great a framework for giving law enforcement access to data by protecting privacy. for reasons that made sense in 1986 but do not today, the law makes it easy for law enforcement to obtain access to your old e-mails and is to gain a letter injured desperate this

is important because customer trust is important to us. ensuring that customers have faith in mr. damphousse other e-mail and and other online dating is vital to ensuring their trust in digital services. simply put, if consumers do not trust technology they will not use it. we support the bipartisan amendment act because will aid in restoring the balance. and to quote ranking member leahy from earlier, we believe this is a no-brainer. today, in addition to the inconsistent requirements of ecpa the law is unclear on how to govern fear that crosses international board a lack of cool -- clear bosoms opened the door to his law enforcement demands that could undermine user trust around the world. a case argued last week in the second circuit court of appeals could set a significant and damaging precedent. decades the department of justice is seeking to compel

microsoft to turn over the content of one customer's inbox. the problem in the case is desperate to customers e-mails are stored in ireland. the same way the u.s. please cannot simply fly to ireland and not kind of suspect star to raid their own, law-enforcement jurisdiction online must be respectful of borders as well. it would be an obvious invasion of ireland celebrity. -- sovereignty. the bipartisan leads act led by senator hatch, kuhn said hello with 12 bipartisan cosponsors provide the way of addressing this issue and we commend them for their attention to these important questions. bsp supports the ecpa and in its act and the leads act because we believe it is critical to modernize u.s. privacy protections in order to address three important goals.

first, protecting global privacy by setting strong consistent standards. we should require a warrant for all digital content and we need to create a framework for international cross-border request. we will be in a better position to protect the privacy of american citizens if we are not setting an example for foreign governments to reach back into the united states. second, increasing transparency and predictability. for consumers and for companies and for law enforcement. we should help bolster consumer trust by enabling companies to clearly committed to the rule around the privacy and the security of their data. and third, enhancing the ability of law enforcement to work together across international borders. we need a new forward-looking framework to address these requests and we need to improve the mlat system. it is a misperception that u.s. law enforcement has unfettered access to data stored by u.s. companies. it is only a misperception that misperception is doing real harm

to user trust. the effort should begin here with legislation pending before this committee. and if i may, i would like to close by wishing an early happy birthday to the chairman as well. thank you very much. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you very much. i'm going to ask my questions last because i want to accommodate senator sessions. but after that it would be white house and then hatch and then senator from minnesota -- >> i think i will put my on the record, mr. chairman, but thank you. >> go ahead, senator sessions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i do have a commitment at lunch. you introduce a federal officers association letter. which notes that law enforcement relies on electronic information quote to generate leads to identify suspects, exonerate the innocent can and privacy by

individuals and terrorists. so i would offer that a note that many others are sharing the same comments including the fbi agents association, fraternal order of police can the national sheriffs' association, national district attorneys association and major cities chiefs association to name a few. idb laid -- i do believe that you obtain a subpoena to an individual file in a bank and there is a letter in that file from the customer, then you can obtain that at least under current law based on subpoena and that's been part of history of the country. however, i will acknowledge that the ability to obtain all the

e-mail traffic goes to another level. to be consistent with the supreme court and the reality that people are entitled to a degree of privacy and expectation of privacy in the contents of the e-mails. so i do know that that's required by the constitution. maybe the supreme court says is it. i can understand that and i think we can work with that. mr. littlehale, you are on this panel, i believe the only law enforcement strong advocate. but let me ask you. is there a problem, a realistic problem, briefly, with computer companies and so forth the laying answers to legitimate requests from law enforcement? does that at time place people at risk? >> thank you for the question. yes, indeed. an example that mr. salgado

offered once divided decision record a search warrant for a cell phone. if i get a search warrant for cell phone i did on how quickly i executed. want to have the search work i can execute the search right away. in the instance of a search warrant for a service provider we are dependent on the service provider to process to work as they see fit under existing law and we suggest that should change. >> anja as a practical experience you have had would you consider law enforcement, what they consider inordinate delays in responses on vocations the? >> that is the sense of us to do this everyday for a living, yes spent in to work with child exploitation experiences and to meet oftentimes for the need for the most swift response. are you concerned we may be moving into a world where everything is erased very quickly from the time is happening and what impact would that have? >> the concern that even when they get the process required

records are no longer there is a concern. part because of the limits of the technology in the absence of requirements that govern how long those records live on the servers. they may disappear. is also now a commercial incentive for providers of service to remove those records in a timely fashion to assure their customers that the records are private. >> the legislation is as written has nothing on either one of those two issues to improve in? >> that's correct, it doesn't. >> and briefly are you concerned about the ramifications of customer notification and the dangers and problems that could pose for law enforcement? >> we are indeed, both because of the danger it may pose to our investigation and because of the burden that a scheme whereby

when moscow every 90 or 180 days and obtain delay in notification order after delay in a world where a unit like mine has tens or hundreds of legal demands outstanding at any given time. >> some of them are life and death investigations. i thank you, and finally to what extent does this preempt state law? are we getting just with federal law enforcement or are we impacting every police officer, sheriff and prosecutor in american? >> you are indeed, federal law is set up -- states are free to set more protection but we must conform with federal law where it supersedes state law. >> thank you all. it's an important issue we need to rustle through it and try not to do any damage because people should not treat lightly the difficulties of investigating

criminal activity in how you prove a case. the idea that you can just get it by more police officer shoot other is always false, and some of these information so gathered could be critical in saving lives and stopping crime. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator whitehouse and senator hatch. >> thank you, chairman. trent nine, he -- ms. espinel comp you have been a witness before this committee. white the warrant requirement and not a court order required when a warrant is a court order and it's actually a court order up a particularly pro-government kind because it is ex parte and has quite a low standard relevancy standard likely to lead to the production of information? >> just to be clear, i assume your question is not about the 180 day distinction but --

>> it's a question about getting access. wouldn't the companies you represent the of the willing to comply with a warrant comply within the willing to comply with a court order to? >> i wouldn't want to imply that our companies are not linked to comply with any type of appropriate legal -- >> from a legislative point of view the articles to a court order. >> in this case would lead to civil agencies have other tools at their disposal and we did not believe it is appropriate to extend either an exception to the war as you know or this type of course order to them. >> you realize that put you in the position of saying that if the department of justice goes before a judge and get a very pro-government ex parte proceeding against the work of you are okay with that. is the same doj goes before the same judge anthony contested proceeding with the subscriber has the right to be present and

litigate the matter and then the obtain a court order you are opposed to that. that's at the center left with, are you not? >> i think our position is that civil agencies have the tools that they have. we very much appreciate the job they do everyday so i should be clear about saying that but we -- >> except it makes civil fraud and civil racketeering and things like that potentially uncontestable if the target as not done a good enough job of hiding its other trade list spent i think it that is the case we would not take addition we have. it is our belief that the types of war and -- >> in order for that to be the case you have to argue there's no case in which access to information by direct request to the service provider contributed in a material way to an investigation speak with it's

difficult to be categorically that hypothetical situation. i would not want to say that. but i will say i think on balance, balancing the loss companies of law enforcement with privacy. we believe that the best, the best outcome to this is the civil agencies work with the tools they have rather than extending this new power to them. >> but you agree and accept that a contested court proceeding in opencourt with the target of the investigation present is a more rigorous judicial safeguard that they warrant application rendered ex parte? >> i would agree it has different types of protection than a warrant does. i don't necessary said i would agree it is a more rigorous standard. >> really? that would be a novelty, okay. >> i would agree there's different implications for privacy involved in the to cut of course order.

>> mr. salgado, who has a graceful expectation of privacy against court order to disclosure of information? >> we think that the user certainly when issued a court order is going have the obligation to enter the account, pull the data out and produce it. in the context the user's expectation of privacy has been satisfied, can control -- >> you don't think anybody has a reasonable expectation of privacy in this country against a court order divulging information, nobody thinks that they have a right to ignore court order in terms of -- >> make sure we're talking who has the right if the court order is issued to the user, tim pawlenty user to take action and to use as an opportunity, notice and opportunity, that's classic rule of law, good process. >> so you think the recent expectation of privacy on the

part of a position -- person with respect to the own information depends on whether request is made? >> i think in part it does. >> a novel view spent am not sure if this. you can think about the sbc's proposal here in a slightly different way and see how it works out. if you had a situation where a user had records secret in their home and was refusing to comply with a court order, but it was clear they had these documents or the was a least some reason the suspicion whatever the standard would be for the civil order, the fcc would have us do is issue an order to allow the sec to enter the home to go get the records. in fact, slightly different. the order would be issued, perhaps a landlord or someone else who could go into this protected area and look at the records and produce it. i think i don't think we would

stand for this in the physical world. we would say to the user what this case a home owner can have the obligation to comply with this order. your failure to comply will meet all sorts of enforcement sanctions. that's it. and appointed going to have -- >> such as if all your hypothetical through you would be comfortable with a court order in which the owner of the information was present in the courtroom and the court directed that owner of the information to require you as the custodian of the information to provide it to the law enforcement? ..

>> >> that's right. that is what is done now. >> i am over. my apologies mr. chairman. >> thoughtful questions. thank you. senator hatch? >> currently the u.s. government if they can compel a technology company with the data located anywhere belonging to a citizen of any country as long as they can be accessed in the united states. how does our government's position affected the global

competitiveness of the companies that you represent and how? >> first, i am proud to say usc's it in technology that is the case and they will -- to think that will continue because of the policies that congress has put in place that we do have concerns off with the situation that exists right now undermines customer trust it is undermined if they don't trust u.s. technology providers of redo have real concerns with the outcome of the case will risk customer trust with the impact of the ability of the companies to compete overseas the worst case is a day prohibit

companies to use u.s. technology. >> do you agree that position puts our privacy a greater risk by foreign governments? >> yes. we do believe there is a serious risk this will create an example that other governments will use. in fact, in my testimony referred to a case last week that was argued in the seventh circuit this issue cannot add of the arguments so they took the position that it does not regulate the e-mail as long as it takes place overseas. let you take the argument to the logical conclusion as the department of justice acknowledges the u.s. law

cannot stop before the government from reaching back into the united states for the data up or emails from anyone sitting in this room. we have concerns and an issue that should be addressed. we need to have some sort of remark that is easy for law-enforcement to understand we believe congress has a role to play. and we support the act as a way to address that concern. >> does that promote data localization? >> we are opposed to this date localization we have been opposing or discouraging governments to put policies in place around the world we would not support this legislation if we believed it with the two localization.

it happens for lots of reasons. many are protectionist to keep technology companies out of the market's. we do not believe the outcome of this bill would be deleted but what is a greater risk to the building to address the issue with the framework of these requests leading to a situation u.s. companies are locked up of markets or where other governments use that as a roadmap to reach back into the united states as a much greater risk. >> i agree. do you agree there is a need for legislation for a legal framework how and when law-enforcement can access data stored abroad? >> i can speak for google on this. we think there is a need for

legislation that addresses the access by u.s. law enforcement from users not in the united states or u.s. citizens. the focus on where it is stored doesn't make sense and could lead to bad results but putting aside that one feature we think there are ways to structure this today to localization. >> do you agree? >> first i appreciate your support for the bill has added to but this is a complicated area. cdt believes he starred in incredibly important conversation those that our invaluable every believe we

can fight in answer that gives everyone a proper access to information overseas we worry about the china and russia of though world for information held by u.s. companies and we appreciate your efforts to avoid that. >> the process facilitates evidence between united states and foreign countries. unfortunately this has proven slow and cumbersome. how important is it that congress improve the process to make it more transparent and streamlined? >> thank you for that.

proven to be very valuable mechanism critical for ruth lovelock with international cooperation with data collection also proven to be very slow hindering legitimate investigation is overseas causing non-u.s. governments to take aggressive legislative action because they don't have a good mechanism to get the information they need from u.s. companies and data stored in the united states in the effective way so i agree we have to find a way to improve the cross border exchange of evidence was as good for the users and the internet and rule of law but the actual steps there are things we can do to streamline some of those are rather obvious to do

training on how to use that process the funding provided to the department of justice that will go a long way the bureau said sep a unit so there are many practical -- practical steps taken to improve the treaty process and the time to take a look at alternatives that may not be necessary with not so much control of data exposure lots of discussion to be had there but we appreciate the leadership trying to find ways to make this better. >>. >> but what we have on our

books is a constitutional provision. we have a very elegant way that takes care of this. it doesn't actually change and the way they have been florida last five years.

knows better in the rather long debates but i am afraid i wouldn't this be distractions to do the right thing to pass this bill without further delay without some of these other issues worthy of discussion may not hold to the change that is needed. >> mr. calabrese what should congress be aware of when it considers the international zero rules for privacy or rough - - reciprocity or any other concerns moving forward? >> i will apologize up front something that has been discussed a great deal that i feel needs to be corrected on the record for? promise to is your question but i need 30 seconds. what has been said is we have completed two very

important things today one is some type of court order based on a subpoena one is a probable cause warrant they are not the same thing. a subpoena gives access to all information that is relevant to lease a full investigation traceable in fraction if you make a mistake on your taxes that is a potential civil infraction nothing that has been put forward by the sec would do anything put the -- but the dramatic expansion of their authority to get at the ordinary people's in boxes. those people had everything that was relevant to read investigation. with a probable cause of the evidence that is the

troubling privacy invasion and has nothing to do with the underlying bill. i apologize for hijacking the question but it is important for you to understand we're talking about age huge power grab by the agency's. the is incredibly important through the process you updated because we have the strongest i believe the privacy protections in the world based on probable cause by a neutral magistrate. right now we see companies excuse me other countries come to us to meet that standard is important that we keep that in a continued to meet that standard one of the best ways is to have a quick streamlined process to give us the information we need it and we can have everybody around the world

free in their standard up to that probable cause standard >> am glad you're able to testify today i am grateful when we're long and effective leadership and now with these issues in front of us worked with senator dash and dash catch with at that clarifies achill warrants cannot be compelled for searches and they think this would enhance trust and transparency but some law-enforcement have argued extraterritorial is needed because of other processes are too slow. can you speak to that concern how your members strive to be good partners without the need to obtain a warrant? >> i would be happy to thank you for your leadership.

to be clear, we do not want to make the job of law enforcement and the harder we appreciate what they do with the notion that they have. of to help support that mission. we have talked a lot today we support reform, i would be happy to elaborate why we do and what could be done to improve the system but that is not the only way that u.s. law enforcement can work with for law-enforcement to give a practical example a terrific attack in the office is in paris in the case law enforcement working with french law enforcement when to microsoft and ask for e-mail information relative to the band with at that time it was in the love

tonight on the west coast and in 45 minutes the emails role there in the hands of french law enforcement is shows it is a tool be think should be improved but not the only tool they have to work for law enforcement we do believe it is important to improve the system to elect as many ways possible to enhance cooperation with law-enforcement. >> to the entire panel. >> as you know, from earlier this summer our judiciary committee held a hearing from the fbi director and others some of that technology was sophisticated encryption technology to turn over

customer contact information with emails and text messages that made us authorize warrants that they are not worth the paper they're printed on. does google employ this type of encryption technology that prevents it from responding to court authorized wiretaps or search warrants for text messages or emails or photographs? if not our your systems were flawed or insecure? >> mr. chairman, we are working towards more encryption with our products and services as part of a larger plan to make sure the data services we provide are secure and users can use them knowing the information in that they entrust to us is safe this is an effort we have taken on many years as

processing power increases it is our intention to improve the security of our systems many ways encryption is just one technique to make sure the data is a secured state. of there other ways i think there is that consensus that the encryption is fundamental and critical way to protect users status pfiffner for the identity theft cases and privacy intrusions that law enforcement are interested in investigating. if that helps to prevent them in the first place has a net result is positive where it makes sense. >> as you know, when the police searched a home or business will give a copy of the orange to reveal the basic types of investigations whether

terrorism or drug for medicare fraud but the police don't have to say anything more perrine told law-enforcement has serious concerns about a provision in the bill that changes the notice provisions to require law enforcement to go beyond that to divulged specific detail to a target to share these concerns? >> we do. because we are both concerned that providing greater protection for evidence because it is in digital form is not bringing dead till evidence in line with evidence in the physical world and because when a search warrant is such -- executed in the physical world we control the access to the warrant so notification provisions are

wind concern and the other is we need access to that evidence that approximates the time as if they were in the physical world. >> by last question, this country is facing a crisis of undocumented workers i'm dead deeply concerned this puts us burden on the undocumented workers this bill with the mitt the enforcement of u.s. warrants a change to obtain the information of u.s. persons unless it is stored in the united states to act as they get out of jail free cards or in other undocumented for immigrants do you share my concerns? should we prevent the local police from searching police -- emails with a search

warrant to bin e-mail provider happens to restore those in another country? >> i share your concern if we depend on the current process that will take a lot of streamlining. just one example in the golden age of surveillance there was a case in texas there investigating a homicide looking for records from a canadian provider last year and it took nine months for those records to be returned through that process in a friendly neighbor country so we do have deep concerns. >> their record will remain open for one week. thank you very much. [inaudible conversations]

>> the themes are overlapping and ross perot there was ted different personality the celebrity factor the way day attract people to trumpet. day trop for his autograph the power of his personality that ross perot did not have

but outside of the republican party the relationship with donald trump is rocky this year i broke the story the couple months ago to say toning down on immigration. she did not now he has signed a pledge but to nose with that is worth it is a political document we can see what happened with ross perot have been to a trump. if anything he is unpredictable and could easily run as an independent regardless of the pledge. >> live coverage from washington pope francis will visit the white house starting with a welcoming ceremony on the south lawn followed by a meeting with president obama then on thursday september 24 he makes history on capitol

hill the first pontiff to address the house of representatives and senate during a joint meeting. follows our live coverage of the historic visit to washington and live on tv or online at c-span.org. >> last date of leaders of canada said major political parties participated in the debate from calgary recur from the prime minister harper in the party leader and the liberal party leader justin trudeau. this is an hour and a half. ♪ >> my biggest concern of the canadian economy. >> we focused on oil and gas

to mackinac before prop. >> our failure to and invest in infrastructure. >> employee mitt opportunities for young people. >> is getting canada authorial -- off oil. ♪ >> the economy is the most critical ballot box issue making it the clear choice of the topic of the 2015 leader debate. >> get the economy on track turn this economy around. >> if they would employ a people with him living wages what could you do to help them the competitive and a global economy? >> it is to transition into

retirement to be sure there will taking care of. >> given the widening gap between the wealthy and the rest of us what specific measures will your government take for these issues? i thought the best investment was poverty. >> they seem focused on the old economy. >> this would be the perfect time to make bold investments of our collective future. ♪ >> now welcome the moderator ♪ ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the debate on a the economy coming to live with a studio audience joined the viewing audience for the next 90 minutes as

we discuss the key issues of this campaign. we have the three party leaders here tonight we have stephen harper, mr. mulcair mulcair, from the liberal party mr. trudeau. [applause] little doubt this election is about the economy. with the country struggling to find a the economic mojo we have some tough questions. first deals with six topics jobs, energy and environment environment, infrastructure, immigration, and taxation. each area begins with the question from me to one of the three leaders with a follow-up question to the same leader i will then press the question and to assess such get the leader for a quick question.

only the broad themes of the questions. and then to be randomly drawn let's begin. the reason we're here tonight is to come to grips with this country's challenges part of a first country - - question goes to prime minister harper. canada is facing structural rather than cyclical change you have a jobs plan for industry. >> if you don't mind let me begin by saying because here in southern alberta wanted take a moment to give my condolences to the families on the terrible deaths. they are senseless acts and i know the thought sam prayers are with of families.

watching our approach is multifaceted. to make sure we have a practical investment that our affordable and including particular intervention and sen though labor market and then do open up the trade agreements and to protect the economy. >> but the dream to be the energy superpower for those who worry about jobs of the future what comes next? >> we are living in a challenge of global economy

with enormous economic stability. with a 1.3 million new jobs since the end of the global financial crisis. there are still challenges and then to make sure the investment so with the international market with the running deficits that is not the way to protect our economy to make specific investment to build manufacturing and other resource industries to make sure the budget is balanced.

>> but jobs you have to do more than support the manufacturing sector, what is your jobs plan? >> tavis sent carefully to your question but mr. harper cannot go beyond resource extraction he'd put is eggs into the basket than dropped it. manufacturing jobs were lost on his watch now 300,000 more canadians without a job than one the recession hit 2008 you want to kickstart the economy to grow manufacturing with a medium businesses and ellen to help people get ahead. and to balance the work life that is why both - - we began some affordable quality child-care credits

good for the economy but also for women. >> mr. trudeau please leave this open part of the debate. >> it is great to be here. i want to start with a few questions, are you better off now than 10 years ago when stephen harper became prime minister? is the country better off? better job prospects? confidence your kids ever brighter future? but with the of canadians across the country i know canadians are worried about their jobs. >> but mr. trudeau. >> that is why we have a plan to give it a kick

starter to put more money in canadians pockets. and to lower them for the middle class. it starts again with transit and jobs. we are very clear. those are the types of investments mr. harper has not made. mr. harper is your guide if you need a change the liberal party has a plan. >> to be in a stable environment but in the last 10 years where word you rather have been? rather than canada? where would you rather be than canada?

but for our cuts to small businesses. but a large percentage of small business is just wealthy people avoiding taxes. but the backbone of the middle-class and the canadian economy. >> mr. harper. mr. harper. you know, true well that the liberal party plan to cut a small business taxes from 11 down and & we have a plan not only to encourage small business but to invest was small business needs like reliable transportation , and mr. harper and not only has the worst growth record on jobs since world war ii but the worst on economic growth

>> between the dean dome between these two where are you? >> mr. harper thinks of the betty is just fine and then to dump tens of millions of dollars of debt on the new generation and the prime minister was to hit the snooze button but mr. trudeau is hitting the panic button and. canadians need to know what they're voting on. without a plan yesterday frankly it is reliable and sustainable be put out numbers either will do the same. >> talk about cutting taxes that we are already moving forward with. they propose to hike payroll

taxes. that you were 10 times bigger than the tax cuts promising small business that is where the canadian federation of independent business has come out against the plan. so that mr. mulcair tax increase will cost to under 50,000 jobs you don't protect our economy and moving forward. >> demonstrating once again that canadians need support the fact talking about pensions and taxes when people retire they get the pension money back they don't get the taxes back. mr. mulcair it needs to hit the wake up button.

>> mr. harper quickly respond. >> we have tax incentives for people to save. or for these tax hikes $1,000. >> okay mr. harper. now we will go to mr. mulcair for the final word. >> that was a very long sentence the average canadian knows a pension plan is necessary that canadian pension plan is the attacks as far as mr. harper is concerned we consider that an investment. , to dump the massive ecological and social debt of the backs. >> thank you very much that is a the end of the first

topic now we move to the second of the energy and environment. mr. mulcair in the last campaign of cost of $21 billion on the card ben pricing policy which is your current proposal would is a cost for carbon emissions? >> thank you very much we know a dynamic and energy sector is crucial for canada for the years to come and canada has international obligations though liberals saw a kyoto with no plan. that is what they have one of the rest - - worst record in the world. this is exactly what we are talking about. we believe it is the

cap-n-trade system. to have a very successful model when it was causing acid rain but above that there are tens of thousands of jobs that rely on that sector irresponsibly as sustainably what is the cost of your car bin mission proposal is is similar to cap-n-trade? what is the cost? >> the carbon taxes attacks the cap-n-trade system can guarantee was sustainable development you can now. >> but does that not create revenue in alberta with

quebec and ontario? >> that is not what happened but of course, you can make sure you are reinvesting in greek energy technologies of $5 billion spent on green energy technologies and the last for that is not part of it because the government takes the of rip and ship approach to send it to other places to add jobs here in canada. >> of course, as you know, that was proposed before. >> for your plan it looks like a lot of it is left to the provinces. how do the the country without a canadian policy? >> we have a canadian policy that recognizes over 10 years under mr. harper with

no leadership on the environment, moving for 86 percent of our real economy is committed to putting a price on car bin. but with mr. mulcair proposal makes that so unrealistic. there are already moving forward with though weld renowned carbon tax working for them that is completely nonsensical we are committed to working with of provinces to encourage them to hit the targets needed so we can contribute as a responsible country once again to reduce emissions. we can go to paris for the climate change conference to talk about how we will be to the responsibility we collectively share to prevent a to a degree increase.

>> let's go to the conservative leader. >> this is the first time in canadian history that has been able to see a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions at the same time see the economy grow and we are proud of that. the was not through a carbon tax schemes because they are raising revenue for the government in one form or another that is with the other parties are proposing where we actually know the cause and effect of putting in new regulation to reduce emissions so it is not left to chance. is a very important driver of the canadian economy having a significant downturn in now with the energy prices. we want to see this grow and develop.

>> we have not built 1 kilometer of pipeline and it is easy to understand why he gutted that the environmental laws we don't have the assessment programs left in the country the public is not on board. he thought he was helping the energy company's but he is made their lives tougher. but every year for the three years i was minister of environment it can be done. it is the toughest in north america but it can be done. as polar opposites that you have to work on both at the same time. >> the only leader in canadian history to argue that the development project >>.

>> hold on. 40,000 canadian jobs exported to the united states with keystone xl pipeline. not our figure but government of canada's figure. i want to leave those and canada and add value to our natural resources here. >> and i remember at that time he was proposing gulf water export that is something we're not interested in. europe gave the speech on its. look at the record. he presents there is a choice between environment and economy he chooses to say you cannot build a strong economy if you are

protecting the environment that has ben his bill your right here in calgary. he talks about the best friend that calgary has ever had but he doesn't have the pipeline built he makes the orioles and as an international pariah. >> pre-back. what is the cost of care plan mr. mulcair? >> our plan for sustainable development brings in an overarching legislation regulus -- rigorously enforced with the company works of the environment. he talks a good game but he has done everything his power to stop under nafta to yvette and measure the pollution going into the environment and that is his track record. we will apply the legislation fair and equal and canadians know we will stop leaving the massive ecological debt to the

future generations. >> you asked about cost but only do we move forward with pricing of carbon in a responsible way is committed to investing $20 billion over 10 years of green infrastructure. it is investing in kreme jobs to make sure to the renewable energy we need to their resources to market it is a fundamental responsibility but in order to do that to move an irresponsible way with the future really think to our kids. >> what we're not doing is imposing cost we are in a fragile global economy. we hear the same old story that says we will fix says with a platform yesterday

for the energy and mining sector this is the same story we have to fix problems for raising taxes now when no trades people better getting layoffs because employers are paying higher taxes. >> mr. mulcair? >> but by tens of billions of dollars of the largest corporations of that was such a good idea how did we lose 400,000 manufacturing jobs and have 300,000 more employed today than when the first recession hit? [bell ringing] >> the third topic of infrastructure. mr. trudeau, you committed to taking us into deficit to find your infrastructure plan. spending money is the easy

promise what does success look like? >> canadians in -- understand to renovate your home because you are adding to the family you take out a bank loan and you know, you can invest in your future because that is what confident and optimistic countries do. mr. harper thinks the investments he has made are enough but they are not. with the worst job creation races' world were to read the worst growth rate. queeney to work on the transit to do there right now. talk about putting things off that is not what we need we're the only party to say yes we will run three deficits because it is time to invest once again to give the people they need to work with renewed a - - principalities to identify the necessary projects to

get them built because we will invest in the future. >> infrastructure bank is depend on the pension fund they have not chosen to do that because they are too small. >> that is not true we are proposing a new infrastructure bank to help barrault at the rate that the federal government has. working to think -- to encourage pension fund we have to have a robust participant in the federal government. over a decade mr. harper has under invested infrastructure well he is running fiscal deficits also increasing the infrastructure. canadians stuck in traffic across the country know that we need a plan and not a

decade from now and not at all like mr. harper has been doing. that is why i will invest in the future of our country. >> mr. harper is mr. trudeau on to something? >> absolutely not. [laughter] here are the facts. this year, our government puts more into infrastructure, a 15 times more. that is how much we have increased federal infrastructure investment. our plan to create jobs rand growth has $80 billion of the unprecedented amount of money put into federal infrastructure across the country. the easiest thing to do is say let's spend more but we have managed to do this without raising taxes or borrowing anything. mr. trudeau says let's run a

deficit. running a deficit is not the protection and our economy needs right now. the managed to return to a balanced budget for the second year of many countries have not done so that is an asset we should continue to pursue we don't need to spend more just for that sake. [bell ringing] >> we're moving to the open floor. mr. trudeau plan is reckless municipalities across the country are asked to assume the cost of 60 percent of the cost without 81 dash with 8 percent of the tax base that is on sustainable also the liberal approach to go tens of billions of dollars of debt on future generations we will be a reliable long-term partner we don't need a short-term thinking we need money invested long-term over 20

years 1.5 billion per year in infrastructure 1. 3 billion per year. >> teeeight bond dash mr. mulcair design realized long-term starts right now not in 20 years or a few mandates. that is right now. the fact is we have a situation right now we're interest rates are low they have never been cheaper said debt due gdp ratio that has been flat for 10 years now there are thousands of canadians if this is not the time to invest said would be? cost of municipal investment is down 20% this year compared to last year because of the circumstance

we are in. this is the time to invest in the future of our country and canadians know this silly people who don't are those on the stage. >> gondolier be pursuing of large scale infrastructure plan this year we are proceeding with a $6 billion plan to eliminate the federal infrastructure deficit entirely going forward and without raising taxes. mr. trudeau says he would not raise taxes but mr. mulcair is the same playbook from british columbia and alberta the same spending we can finance that by raising taxes on corporations but by putting people out of work to slow the economy and kill jobs that is the reality of the plan whenever it has been tried. >> you are wrong about that.

>> he has chosen not to. >>. >> we will not be raising taxes on individual canadians. but mr. harper and mr. trudeau our of one mind talking about taxes the billions of dollars but when we do raise it is reasonable still way below under the liberals under the conservatives also be will make sure we close the loopholes like this stock option brought in by the liberals that will insure people are effectively paying more not the radical with the of the polls to fall back on the difference is the liberals want to raise taxes personally but we will not do that i don't think it is fair that

someone looks at the pace of to see 58 .7% is gone in income tax is already. >> mr. mulcair talks about corporations are not the only ones paying their fair share they when dasheens the wealthiest 1 percent are not the look at the past 30 years the wealthiest 1 percent increase by 70% it has decrease by 32 percent. i don't think that's fair we're the only party asking that wealthiest 1 percent to pay a little more to cut the taxes. >> teeeighteen and the creation of another bank is an answer? >> it infrastructure bank debt loans to municipalities and provinces to take advantage of the up preferential rates of the government, yes. another way on top of the $60 billion of investments we're making in the

investment. and it is time to invest in the country. he cannot see that because they are stuck in a political way. >> simply not that kind of money. to exaggerate how much through a few tax hikes. it is over $1,500 a person. coming right out to pay the mortgage to fund your kid to education. >> with that stock option

tax loophole. >> now going to mr. harper all parties agree that it is central to counter the economic strategy. what about those seeking reunification? >> we have maintained the balance of those categories two-thirds of those people are related to extremes others are related to unification. but the first government in canadian history facing a recession did not cut immigration. so a the demographic pressures that a long-term program is why we're looking

at the long-term. with that economic sanctions are more oriented to get results. for example, now we have expressed entry targeting those applications in the job market and it is the transformation. >> should we increase emigration numbers? >> we have maintained our numbers over 250,000 per year there is room going forward to increase that but we want to make sure we get the right mix because there are significant settlement funding costs that come along. it is a possibility going forward but the main thing to make sure we're maximizing the economic benefit.

and that is the credentials we brought in as a pilot. to upgrade the qualifications. so there are lots of things we can do to improve the system. >> thank you very much. . . country that has benefited from people coming from faraway lands, building a better future for themselves and their children and community then they could anywhere else. that is been the strength of this country. we are strong not in spite of our differences, but because of them. one thing that mr. harper is hisinued to under invest in family reunification.