says the president budget never balances ever. 's budget is not a compromise. it is a blank check for more spending and more debt. if that were the answer, and millions of americans would not be leaving the workforce and asking, where are the jobs? republicans are offering a better way. our budget will balance in 10 years and and the waste of taxpayer dollars and foster a healthier economy, delivering real solutions to help improve people's lives. here are what some solutions look like. our balanced budget pcs --ortunity to get america sees opportunity to get america back to work. like the keystone pipeline. second, we will peel obamacare -- we repeal obamacare.

patient reforms. finally, our budget lays down the groundwork for a fairer and simpler tax code. it would close loopholes and lower tax rates for everyone. it would mean more jobs and higher wages. have tohey would not be a anymore. these are good ideas. we are ready to act on them. we turned a deficit into a surplus and restored a aaa bond rating and help with the job creation. in the 1990s, president clinton work together with republicans to balance the budget. instead of the same old take it or leave it approach, president obama should work with republicans to find common ground so we can balance our budget, grow the economy, and improve the lives of american families. thank you for listening. enjoy the rest of your weekend. >> next on c-span, "the

communicators" discusses electronic privacy with grover norquist and laura murphy. series.r "first ladies" fourth amendment reads the right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched. this is "the communicators." our guests are grover norquist of american tax reform and laura murphy of the american civil

liberties. they have teamed up. laura murphy, what is this group you have formed? >> it is a combination of think tanks and advocacy organizations and major internet service providers like google and yahoo and at&t. it is a group of interested people who want changes in our electronic medications privacy ions privacyuniat law. we need to updated. the last time the electronic communications privacy act was updated was in 1986. a lot has changed. does theind of access government have to our e-mails today? >> right now it is not treated like regular snail mail. .hey can go into it

we need to update the law to go alongside the changes of .echnology instead of sending letters, we sent e-mails. of keeping the letter in your pocket or at your home, you might store it in the cloud. we can do that. we have updated these from time to time. technology changes. they have to do this more often because technology has been changing quicker. you can send someone an e-mail. that is like sending someone a letter. it is the same thing. the fourth amendment is still there. >> also joining our roundtable is from the roundtable. -- from the hill. >> why do you think this is important? >> americans for tax reform

have always been interested in regulating the internet and telecommunications. everything that deals with the size of government is of interest to americans for tax reform. you cannot keep taxes low if the government keeps extending what it does. such as questions of privacy and taxes. given economic issues, there are privacy questions in general. having a limited, transparent government that does things are -- that are mentioned in the constitution and does not do things that are not mentioned in the constitution. limited government constitution of law is really part of keeping taxes and costs of government reasonable. >> one thing i think a lot of is that they are surprise this is not already illegal. they assume the fourth fourth

amendment protects them. it was a court decision that did needed a warrant. -- oftenil providers police need to get a warrant. why is there a need to update the law? is it possible in the next year or two -- >> you know, there is a big organized crime scandal. it is not impossible for the fbi or other law enforcement entity that demands the production of records. these companies are doing it on a voluntary basis. there is no law protecting them though. just the company's protected, but everybody to be protected. we have medical records, transcripts, all kinds of things. legal documents that are online and held by a third party. we want our fourth amendment rights when it comes to online activities.

that is where the action is. we are not using snail mail as much as we used to. where not even using telephones as much as we used to. we want all of that to be protected with a warm rent requirement. >> with text messages be included in your view under the fourth amendment. >> they should be. >> yes. we have a reasonable expectation. certainly jenna petraeus but his privacy communications were going to remain privacy. we all should have that reasonable expect haitians that when we are communicating with one person, we are not communicating with the government. and that we're not laying our whole life to the government. we should have that privacy. >> we want a government that is trustworthy. but we don't want to tell people, trust the government. , you shouldproblems

pass laws to protect people's fourth amendment rights rather than say the government hasn't abused us yet. why are you concerned question mark -- why you concerned? while we're are here, let's make sure there is a law that catches up with the fourth amendment. >> what about mobile location data? this is an issue that has been introduced in a bill in house -- in the house to update ecpa. shouldhe view that ecpa be expanded to protect cell phone towers and the gps signal. is that something police should need a warned for? is that important to congress to address that issue? the coalition is not focusing on that. it is focusing on ecpa. from a civil liberties standpoint, and definitely legislation is needed to stop the unwarranted tracking of

individuals. just because they have the gps in their phone or their car. i think rover would agree that the law needs to be change. that is not the focus of the digital fourth coalition. cars, mobile and the cloud. does that affect how the law looks at the medications? if you are in your league car you can text on your phone or your car. does that affect the law? >> i'm not sure if it should. if you're using your phone in , but in-- not driving .he passenger seat i think it should be the same as if you wrote a letter in the car. , how often are police using these searches today? do we know? >> we do not have a way of tracking how often these

subpoenas are issued. but i think the internet service providers have hinted that it has been quite often and that they are troubled by the breath of the request for -- from law enforcement. >> how many times does the ip fulfill the request? since a decision that was issued last year or 2011 -- i think it was 2011, the companies have a third of their rights and said to the government, we are only going to turn this over to you if you have a warned -- warrant. but that can change. we want a law to protect their fourth amendment rights. >> their fourth amendment rights should not depend on somebody else being brave and send it up for the rights.

they really need to be self enforcing. the law needs to catch up. of abuse, youlot need the law. if there's not much -- they are both arguments for reforming the process. is the president of the fbi agents association. he has been listening to the conversation. we invited him to listen to the conversation. [laughter] how are fbi agents and other law e-mailment folks using searches? how often are they doing it? is pretty broad. it covers the whole range of government. it is a fairly complicated answer. from the fbi point of view, we are conducting general criminal and national security investigations that followed are one type of legislation, but also civil inquiries that fall

under different regulation. center asking about the fbi, for the most part, we are seeking content from service .roviders that is not necessarily true for every branch of the government. it has to be between criminal investigations and civil investigations. i'm afraid there is no one-size- fits-all answer really. there are different types of categories. >> are they valuable? >> the searches are valuable. it certainly can be. >> when you talk about a civil inquiry, what is that? , the fbistance investigates criminal and national security violations. you might have the fcc or the environmental protection or the civil rights division of the department of justice conducting

a civil investigation. it is still an investigation. they might use a subpoena to obtain data. for the criminal side, with the because at the moment, he worked in the department of justice, they have a policy. is required at this point. the hill.guest from he also has a question. >> the way that ecpa is currently written, there is a distinction whether e-mails are 180 years old or whether they have been opened or not. does that still make sense question is that something congress should change? >> ecpa was under review during a prior congress and is under review by this congress. i think there is no doubt there'll be certain modifications made. i also know it is the position

of the department of justin -- justice of the 180 days distinction is an artificial one. i think the issue from our perspective, from my perspective embark together, because the question is complicated, if you update and change the laws, more changes will be in place that will make the job for investigators more difficult. it hosted change a lot to make the process better. what other things are in play in terms of the changes? there are disclosure issues and emergency exception issues as well that have to be addressed as this goes forward. >> grover norquist has a question. >> do you think an e-mail should have any less protection than a letter under the fourth amendment? >> well, now you're asking me -- again, that is my personal

opinion at this point. tivoli here to discuss the policies. i'm not able to get into my personal view as far as how i feel about that. the department of justice itself -- we have to follow the regulations -- is treating the content of e-mail communications as requiring a warrant issued by the court. >> that is common sense. what is the argument that an e- mail is different than a letter? the government coming in and reading people's mail? .> it is a point of view content older than 180 days, that was very specific. law is concerned,

it is not treating it differently except for content that is older than 180 days. that is being looked at differently right now under present law. that is why folks are seeking to make adjustments. now under present law and policy, anything that is 100 days or older is treated the same way as a written communication in a letter. >> i just want to clarify for the average listener. it is our understanding that subpoenas are used for e-mails that are older than 180 days. the justice department has not implemented a new procedure, even though they have said on record before the judiciary committee that there is no principle distinction. that came out in 1984 when people were only allowed a certain number of e-mails and they were stored for a limited time and downloaded onto your private computer.

forthe e-mails are stored an infinite time on the servers of the internet service providers. the law is too old to fix the current circumstances. i think his point is a good one. what is it about e-mail that deserves any less protection than your file cabinet? anyone who wants to search your file cabinets, they need a warrant. >> but at the letter is sitting for months in your house, and the government come in and get it without a warrant? how does an e-mail lose its fourth amendment rights when it gets old? >> i'm not sure the government is making that argument. i think it is saying it will go ahead and take a look at this. of thekeep our concerns

most elect ensure we do not anate an impediment to investigation while the update this and take into account the new digital age. >> is this a conversation that you and other fbi agents have regularly about e-mail? not from the philosophical perspective. we are more focused on the practical aspects. the practical aspects are if you are seeking content and the instructions are to obtain a wa rrant, that is where the effort goes in furthering the investigation. we carry out the instructions of the government and the policies. that is what we follow. >> one follow question from our reporter. >> one question on the digital 4th. there is a distinction between what civil agencies should be able to obtain and the criminal investigation.

if it is an antitrust investigation or civil rights investigation, they may not even authority in investigating a crime. should they be able to search e- mails with a subpoena? those agencies with subpoena power to continue using that subpoena power. they do not have the authority, as you say, to produce warrants. -- when it are given comes to criminal investigations, we think, you know, the law enforcement should be required to get a warrant. >> and the government come in and read your mail and try to put you in prison -- a reading your mail violates your privacy rights. there are some simple questions. the government is getting in and

telling you how you can run your life and what you can do, that is a pretty big deal. i would tend to say if you want to look at people stuff, get a warrant. >> i final word from you. >> i think my final world -- word that the i as a whole has enough work to do. they really do not devote a lot of time or any time whatsoever lookivolous or tempting to at people's e-mails. we are not allowed to do that. we cannot do that under present policy and we do not do it. >> thank you for your time today. laura murphy, what did you hear from him? >> i heard overgeneralization about their procedures. we know for example that the fbi has placed certain

communities under survey once -- surveillance and interest groups like the restroom -- and them -- like the russian community. they have surveillance powers. we think that surveillance goes beyond the fourth amendment. i do not know that there is always a criminal. ensure there is not always a criminal predicate before the fbi opened an investigation or seeks information that most people would consider private. >> grover norquist. >> i was glad to hear him say that we are not doing those things. -- to go intong people's mail and to read their mail is an incredible intrusion and a possible threat to the fourth amendment rights that people have.

it ought to be if not difficult, ,t least present a hurdle which is pretty have a reasonable expectation any reason you're doing this in the and a a government -- reason the government has a reason to do this. i was glad to hear, we do not do it. then you should not mind if we pass a law that says you will not do it. the more specific as we try to get specific with them. he said it was above his pay grade. that is fine. bring another guy into the room and give it your best shot. let's have that kind of discussion. . need the legislation let's look at it and talk about it.

let's revisit this every few years as technology makes it easier for the argument to peak over your soldier -- shoulder and make sure we're not losing the second amendment -- >> fourth amendment. [laughter] >> i'm sorry. fourth amendment. >> the house judiciary subcommittee held a hearing on the issue of ecpa and that acting assistant attorney general was testifying. here is a little bit of the testimony. [video clip] >> someone suggested the best way to enhance privacy under ecpa would be to require law enforcement to provide a warrant. we believe this approach has considerable merit provided that congress considers contingencies for limited functions for which it can be made a problem.

civil legislators typically investigate conduct that while unlawful is not a crime. warrant authority, may violate antitrust and a host of other laws. >> laura murphy. >> we're not talking about getting rid of all subpoenas. we are talking about in the course of criminal investigation, not civil investigations, although i think you made some great concerns in that area. in the course of criminal investigations, why shouldn't you have probable cause before you go snooping in somebody's text messages or e-mail messages or medical records or financial records? why shouldn't you have probable cause?

why should you use the resources of the federal government to investigate unless you have solid reason to do so? i think the justice department concerns are addressed in the legislation. there's a carveout for national security and a carveout for how to file investigations and a carveout for those civil actions subpoenas that do not result in a criminal sanction. but if you're going to be investigated and the path that you are on may lead you to lose byr liberty by jail or even the death penalty, it seems to me the government should have enough information before they pursue that trail to probable beforeo get a warrant they go through your property and goods and e-mails. a question ofng

what you think the likelihood is that this will get done this year in this congress and what the purpose of the new group is and what actions you hope to take to get this enacted? >> i think we passed something very close to what is in the senate this year. they be go as far as the house bill, which goes a little bit further and with a restrictive. i think the biggest challenge is that immigration just nation. that will take up everyone's bandwidth. i would rather do this first and then immigration. as long as it happens this year, i think we will be in good shape. >> yeah. i agree. this is a breathtakingly broad coalition. to the chamber of commerce the aclu, you do not get that .ind of breath we speak for a lot of americans who want their privacy. i cannot see any major arty opposition -- party opposition.

in the future, maybe time limitations. and the folksnt acknowledge that yes, something like this needs to happen. watch out for certain concerns we have, which we argue are being looked at. meet andhy committees look at that stuff. nothing should be rushed through. .hese are old laws past it.y has moved it makes us more vulnerable. >> what about the internet service providers? have they been resistant to these requests for electronic communications? does it make them uncomfortable? >> i think it does make them

feel uncomfortable. people are now going to cloud services in europe because they have higher privacy protections. they are uncomfortable because it affects their bottom line. they cannot guarantee to their customers the privacy of their information. that is a big deal. there are a lot of people who took themselves off of facebook until they change certain privacy policies. i think to the extent that it affects businesses bottom lines, they are highly motivated to see the law updated. >> grover norquist, final world -- word. >> it is a very broad, center- right, centerleft coalition where everyone is concerned about privacy. the great thing about the constitution is what we organize the country around. atiticians can throw rocks each other about various things , but on fundamentals, we are on

the same side. they do not want to abuse the relationship with the american people anymore than we want them to to have the ability to be abusive. withover norquist americans for tax reform and laura murphy of american civil liberties. this is "the communicators" on c-span. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> c-span, brought to you as a public service by your television provider. >> lady's seriesirst discusses sarah pulte, followed the centrals on " park five."