yet brought about the capability that coming with our commercial program. forpresident's budget calls $800 million. we are not halfway there. job is to try- my to persuade the congress that the plan is good and we will be efficient use of the taxpayers money. i have not been successful. we are up to 525. as i have told every member of theress, $820 million in budget is vital if we are to make the 2017 date. americans are transported to space again on american spacecraft every >> more with nasa administrator charles bolden. sunday night on c-span. >> c-span created by cable companies in 1979. but you as a public service by

your television provider. >> this week on "the want to talk," we about some of the telecommunications legislation being introduced in congress. joining us is jared polis, a democrat from colorado. we want to ask him about. could you start by telling us what is the epa, the electronic privacy act? werelot of these laws written before the adamant -- the popularization of e-mail, --er kinds of medications, communications. for instance the irs ability to read e-mails specifically in the patriot act we have other provisions. there are several things that hit at once on the front.

we have several bills. anyone that addresses different aspects of this. essentially, digital communication that includes skype which is replacing telephones, conventional e-mail is becoming commonplace. that is replacing telephone calls. aroundrent set of laws protecting privacy. even though they are essentially the same thing to the consumer. >> represented polis, as postal , are theye calls treated the same abide the law when it comes to privacy? >> postal mail is a different category. physical parcels have in fact the most severe penalties for temperate. continuum, telephonic conversations which typically require a warrant to listen into

under the patriot act with issues, thathave is putting it aside. when two americans are talking, that will be the most part taken. a lot of the digital communication whether e-mail or skype currently fall somewhere in the middle. what i argue it should be more similar to telephone conversations and the level of protection we have. what has be a reasonable due lawess around any enforcement interception. >> did you introduce this legislation in response to some of the revelations about the nsa? >> yes. it is a different issue. the nsa issue is not around listening to conversations. it is about phone records. phone records of americans talking to foreign nationals. it is permitted under the patriot act. i opposed the patriot act in part because i knew this sort of violation of privacy was

allowed. i do support either propelling the patriot act or if we want to find a better balance between privacy and protecting our country. i know that we can do it. look, there is no doubt of the intelligence side of things they would rather have access to everything. if you were a totalitarian state, we would be safer from terrorist attacks area you do not want to give out what makes your country special home a your freedom. that's how the terrorists truly when terry if we give up -- truly win. if we give up our freedoms. i would like to talk about going in a different direction. fix corrupted the specific revelations of snowden. ,> to go to the e-mail question are our e-mails private at this point? do they need to be subpoenaed?

biggest concern we are addressing around e-mail has to do with the irs ability to look at old e-mails. again, that is without a warrant. they are able to do that where get are not a court order phone calls or recordings or things of that nature. have thatd do not same protection. what we are trying to do their is great some sort of due process around e-mail communication which would include video e-mail communication, a skype or a peer to peer network communication. anything over the internet. , itlieve, a similar level would not be exactly the same, attention to anything you do over the telephone. what procedures in place that worked and are tested for when the government was a lot enforcement or any other entity nbc get a phone records.

there are ways to do it. it will not impede criminal investigation. we need to apply a similar set of relations to how the government can access e-mail. what is the significance of 180 days? >> it is simply in the law. there is no greater reason. we are talking about e-mails that are older than 180 days in the different procedures are brought accessing them. i do not know how they came up with that kind of point. >> what is the opposition to protecting the e-mails? general, anybody on the law enforcement or intelligence side will argue it is quicker in web access to everything. why not listen to every phone call was work -- call? it is a slippery slope. of course it is better from a law enforcement perspective if

every tracker and every person, you know where they are at every time. is that the expense of our liberty and travesty. thechallenge is to strike right balance. where we have safety, safety into account, we also allow privacy and freedom. again, i argue we are too far towards the police state to tell a terry inside to inefficient governmentbalances, finding phone records, those sorts of of things. we need to balance in a way similar to what we have done traditionally even during the height of the cold war. higher as when crime was in the 1980's. looking at a balance between the two, a similar standard for what we have intercepted phone calls. or a search warrant of somebody's home. >> with regard to your e-mail legislation, is it a bipartisan was work -- bipartisan?

do you have cosponsors? >> will talk about the e-mail and the phone records. they are all bipartisan event each one of them. -- bipartisan. each one of them. found,publicans have they said guess what, we have a chief executive that we should not trust or like and what did we give them all of this power. i ask all of my friends before assigning all of this power, relies we do not have -- you controlwe do not have over future successes. with to make sure we have the right checks and balances. we should be very wary of assigning blanket authority. it should come as no surprise that when authority is assigned, they will use it. >> verbs and a polis is in his third term in congress. is inresentative polis

his third term and got -- in congress. what is your background? >> i served on the school board. veldo you find congress' le of understanding some of the issues, where do you find it was it? -- findin >> the growth of the internet, putting private information on the internet. people do not know where it is going. people will be hesitant to share from nation because they think the government might be getting a hold of it. it hurts the entire internet economy. people of congress are getting more web savvy. i see people with iphones and devices that are doing things and running apps and using skype . it is not universal yet. i do not think congress is to far behind.

ask you aboute to another piece of legislation you have introduced. of 2013cking technology act. what is that? >> another bipartisan bill that overturns a decision i the librarian of congress who works for us that criminalizes cell phone unlocking the if you can believe that. this is basically when you buy a cell phone and sometimes you have an obligation that criminalizes the act of the locking your own cell phone are putting in another card are changing it to a different number. absolutely absurd. it is very popular in many countries. there are legitimate reasons that somebody might want to do that. they might want to have two or three numbers on one phone. mike depends on service. -- it might depend on service. those are criminalized. in the innovation around cell phone applications that is being

developed area it would simply overrule the decision of the librarian act of congress and prevent people from going to jail. >> why is the librarian of congress involved with cell phones? >> like a lot of members, i was surprised to find that we had a librarian who a these kinds of powers. i knew we had a librarian. i knew somewhere there was a librarian. i cannot relies they had is this kind of broad authority. the argument you will hear is this is to -- is because treaty obligations we have it because of an interpretation of laws that congress has passed. not a necessary decision. there was a specific date. you unlock cell phones prior to jane byrne 2013. if you have an unlocked cell phone before that date, it is legal. phoner unlocked cell

prior to january 2013. i do not know if attorneys make this based on looking at statutes or what. i was hoping there is, since that can prevail and we can repeal that. >> is there a sense and congress that this is something that should pass a smart -- pas? get enoughould attention. with that a lot of calls. they love the digital groups they are engaged with this. it has to get on the agenda. -- we have the digital groups, they are engaged with this. many countries who do not have any criminal penalties such as europe or elsewhere. putsore, if the congress people in jail, that would attract attention. this something that prosecutors can do. it might take a few cases of a

19-year-old unlocking their cell phone and they find themselves in jail. public attention could be focus and that way that would force congress to act. >> representative polis has introduced a cell phone unlocking the bill. could you support good let's bill?-- goodlatte's >> there are several ways to get there. i am happy to look at other members. happy to work with senator goodlatte every nobody should go to prison for unlocking their cell phone with no criminal intent or other crime committed. we look at some the other telecommunication legislation on capitol hill, with the joined by jared polis. cell phone unlocking and imo privacy. thank you for your time. -- and e-mail privacy.

.oining us now is justin amash berbers and attempt before we sucked specific legislation, what was your he -- representative, what was your opinion on specific legislation what was your reaction? >> i was outraged. we had feared it was going on. we did not have strong evidence. in the first time we are seeing the government is overreaching and collecting phone records from americans might not just journalists, but all americans. in trying to use it to track our whereabouts -- and trying to use it to track our whereabouts. what reaction to that, legislatively have you propose? what's with introduced the toll for records -- >> we have introduced the telephone records

protection act. it will require a court order. i have worked on a bill with the ranking member of the judiciary committee and well put together a bill called the liberty act. what we try to do is narrow the scope of the patriot act so we are only targeting people who are under investigation a rather than sweeping the records of all americans. it also creates more openness so members of congress can receive the classified court cases, court opinions that are being released by the fisa court. having unclassified summaries of those cases available to the public. >> in that liberty bill you just talked about, narrowing it to the person under investigation. what is swept up now? >> the way the government is interpreting the patriot act,

they are treating all telephone records as relevant to the investigation of terrorism a real and they are gathering and creating everybody's telephone records. they can use it to track americans. they claim they are not. it is more as a policy provision on their part. what we want to do is prevent this kind of collection, we believe if violates the constitution and before amendment. we do not want this kind of information being held by the government. you and john have access to the same information? he has been here 40 years or so. give the same levels of clearance? >> technically, all members have the same level. because of administrative decisions thomas on the par of congress and the obama administration, not all members of congress have access to all of the court opinions. not all members of congress have

access to the classified documents. would we get the opportunity for classified briefing -- when we get the opportunity for classified briefing, we often get an empty room and a huge stack of papers that went to sift through. documents with no assistance. that is not really the kind of disclosure would like as members of congress. want to revisit our constituents. and to do that, we need fair disclosure. >> when it comes to the liberty bill,, how many cosponsors? to 38.re up we continue to added them every day. it is a bipartisan bill. it is members of congress who are high-ranking democrats. you have republicans who are high-ranking. reconcile members on both sides. >> what is the opposition? opposition will say the

collection of these records is constitutional. they point to a court case from the 1970's which is not on point at all. it is distinguishable from this situation. the government was going after one person who was under for aion in the operation pedal of time to go after his phone records using a primitive device we do not use anymore. a pen register. we have computers that can at thete expensive data government is sweeping up everybody's record. it is not on point. it is distinguishable. i am very confident the supreme court would strike down what we are doing right now. >> does it take to your bill any teeth out of fisa and the secret courts? >> and makes court more transparent. it was not change what the court is doing.

the provisions to the patriot act, we would narrow it from relevant information so the government can come -- concurrently go under relevant information. right now, they are sweeping up everybody's information. it allows them to search all business records. we would change that to relevant and material the government would have to go after the information. the information would have to pertain to the person under investigation. that would narrow it so you can only get the records that are connected to somebody who is actually under investigation. >> have you gotten reaction from the leadership? >> i have not heard from the leadership. hopefully they will provide support. it is bipartisan. there are senators who was introduced similar legislation in a bipartisan manner. with jared polis, you have introduced the telephone

records protection act. how is that different but smart -- different? >> it deals with the ap phonorecord issue. currently, the government has to give a subpoena. that is an internal thing. what we would require that bill is for the government to go to a court and get a court order showing what the material, the information is relevant and material to an investigation. that was and never will the scope of the search. it was to provide the government with the information they need if the judge said he needs it. the judge can provide the authority. -- current laws withpaddle -- compatible future technology? >> no, that is part of the how the we are facing. apply theof how to

constitution to current technologies. the original meaning of the fourth amendment would be that your papers are free from government searches. now most of our papers are digital area they are kept on third-party devices or servers. how do we apply the constitution to that information? i believe the founders would say that is information that is still private as long as you agreement with the third-party provider that will keep your permission private home a industry -- private, it is true as your private place government can i change it. >> what is the liberty caucus? >> it means every couple of weeks. it is a group of about a couple dozen members. we probably get a dozen members who show up at any particular meeting. sometimes we have special guests. we will have janet a. napolitano on this week. is a group of members who are

trying to get the information out there about bills that are coming up to make sure we have april liberty perspective -- pro-liberty perspective. >> when talking with justin amash -- we have been talking with, justin amash. , aning us is michael capuano democrat froma messages. i want to ask you buy a couple of bills. starting with the we are watching you act. what is that? companies toequire put the devices in your home such as a cable box capable of having cameras and microphones and 3-d imaging to build to determine what you are doing in your home. on the watching you in your own home. people would be informed that they are there. an option to get out of that. if anything is being recorded,

it would scroll the words we are watching you. i thought it was science fiction when i actually -- when i first heard. i pulled some the patent applications. in the applications, they are describing something that is very scary and should be scared to anybody who cares about privacy. >> verizon is one of the companies that has a patent. >> they are not the only one area i am not mr. technology. -- they are not the only one. i have heard the xbox is how some of these. some tvs have the built in. to --tent is to be able verizon is no different to any bios. if this device sees what you are -- see say you are drinking a beer, they will target you with a budweiser ads. if you are cuddling, you might

get an advertisement for contraceptives. those are directly out of the patent applications by one of the most famous international corporation. i would argue that average person should know that it's happening just the choice to get out of it. -- it does this technology exist today? >> i do not know. it is relatively simple. it does not take much effort to put a video camera into any device. they could do it. it is cable ready. these areee technologically science fiction anymore. it is a matter of whether they do it. if they do, to make sure we the consumers are informed. is there a good side to this technology if we have this in our home? >> i do not have to worry about it. not understand it.

it is your prerogative. if you want to have a micro- targeted at -- ads. i cannot personally understand that kite -- that type of livestock. i do not understand it. we wanted people to know what was happening to them. >> what does that we are watching you act do? >> it requires the consumer be clearly notified and have the option to get out of it. and if they choose to, they have the same options. if the cable comes a few get out out, you will only have certain channels. that is not acceptable. these devices would probably be on 24 hours a day even when your tv is not on. we do not unplug tvs. on, you haves

something scroll across the bottom of the screen that says we are watching you. it's is a catchy phrase. it is true. it is happening. i would want to know about it. >> before we ask you about your other piece of legislation, you have a certain philosophy about all of this watching and privacy issues. >> i am a very private guy. my telephone, i turned the gps off. it is a matter of privacy. that is all. instance, i have a transporter that allows me to go down the tollway. is about the person being able to control their own lifestyle. we all come to understand their are cameras of the public street. when it comes time to cameras in your own bedroom or living room, i certainly think that should be your choice. >> the black box protection act.

what is that? is required to have a black box device. most cars have them now. the current use is what triggers the airbag system. it senses when you have a crush. the problem is, under current rules, there is no limitations of information that goes into the device. if you have an accident, the police, the insurance company, anyone can pull this device out ,ho knows what they are doing they could pull the device and know how fast you were going, with your ciba was on. whether you apply the brakes. it does not bother me because is a safety feature. most people do not know these device are in their cars. you do not have a choice of turning them off.

there is no limitation of who has the information. there is nothing in the law that developedt could be here. right now, it is a few seconds before a potential accident. it is nothing that said they cannot decide to maintain every ounce of information from every minute you are driving. all this does is notify consumers and allow them an option out. and identifies who owes the information. when you buy a car, it is yours. it is your car. anything in it is yours depending on what the radio station. any information out of a automobile should be yours. any information that is possible, you should know about. it should be subject to a work if it becomes necessary. that is what this is about. -- should be subject to a war rant if it becomes necessary.

>> both piece of legislation, did you consider trying to outlaw the technology or use of the black box information? >> i did not. i am not against technology. it is a great thing. i'm not trying to tell you are any bios how to live. it is your choice. -- i am not trying to tell you or anybody else how to live. you should have the option. it should not be a company. no one else should know what is good for you other than you. that has been my focus. it is not trying to prohibit technology. as a possible to do. it is not smart in the long run. -- it is impossible to do. some people do not mind this technology in their lives. >> in regards to car, insurance companies are getting into the act of monitoring, aren't they? >> they are.

they would have an obligation of determining who is a good driver, a bad driver, a safe driver. i understand their business needs for wanting that information. if it is available, i cannot blame them for doing it. >> what kind of response have you gotten from your colleagues on this? garnered some support lately. some people look at and they look at the way i did. we have to figure it is a joke. it is science fiction, a million years away. that is why the releases are put out. attached copies of the patented cell. i did make up these quotes are these examples. this is out of an official patent fired -- filed by a major corporation.