very little about. in the 1970's, we did a lot of research about displaced workers. i don't think we have done the research for this population. i think they are different people with different circumstances and we need to know more. host: a tweet -- how does outsourcing affect job skills? are we shipping jobs overseas and eliminating the jobs for a given skill set? guest: it is potentially an issue. i would add that one of the things you mentioned, the skills gap at the high level -- one of the things we see in the united states is that the gap between the skills of the unemployed and the employed is large. much larger than it is in the rest of the world. which means a lot of employers will look at that and say our skills are below average, it is much easier for me to find some

yells or move my operations elsewhere then it is to take on this problem of trying to retrain, bring back into the labor market a bunch of people. they make those decisions individually, but it adds up. guest: there is another thing i would like to mention about that particular problem. i think this report confirms what we know and that is that if you are not in it, you lose it. that is two ways. it is performance and also language. people lose track of how to -- how are their skills now being talked about in the workplace? when they present themselves to an hr director, which is mostly automated these days, they are not using the right terminology to present themselves and therefore they get kicked out early in the process. i think there is some issue related to communication -- they are no longer mediated by people, they are very automated these days.

we are seeing lots of problems with those systems. guest: on the outsourcing issue, one thing we do see in this study, although we are being outperformed by many nations, there are still millions of americans with the highest level of skills. it is not fair to say that we don't have people in this country who can do the most challenging technical jobs worldwide range of jobs. >> a reminder, you can watch "washington journal" everyday beginning at 7:00 a.m. eastern or any time at www.c-span.org. take yourhis out to discussion about privacy and national security experts discussing the nsa's surveillance program and its oversight. it is being hosted by the congressional internet caucus advisory committee. >> to examine this topic, we have assemble it -- we've assembled a fantastic panel and a great moderator. i would like to thank the congressional internet caucus and its cochairs, congress the

goodlatte, congresswoman eshoo as well as senator thune and senator leahy on the senate side to make these briefings possible. the goal of the congressional internet caucus advisory committee is to have an informative debate on the most pressing issues on internet policy before congress. we do not take a point on any of these issues. the #for this cacnsa.s #i now i'm going to welcome our moderator, steve am a professor of law and also an associate dean at american. he also serves as the co-editor in chief of the publication "just security pickle -- "just security." >> thank you. welcome to today's reefing on

the nsa surveillance program. who has oversight and how transparent is the program? i thought i would start before turning over to our panelists by giving a very brief grounding in the terms that you are going to hear a lot of in the next hour because we are going to try to cover a fair amount of material while we are here today. we will start at the beginning. foreign intelligence surveillance act, was enacted by congress in 1978, and it was tocted partially in response concerns about surveillance abuses during the 1960's and 1970's. surveillance that had been conducted just about entirely under the auspices of executive order. that is to say there had been very little statutory or judgment law governing the foreignnt's intelligence surveillance practices or government the murky, gray area between foreign intelligence surveillance and domestic intelligence surveillance. in 1978was enacted really as a multifaceted compromise, and the idea was to give the government most of the

surveillance authorities claimed it needed in the context of foreign intelligence surveillance, but it does at legal safeguards, some judicial oversights, to help to ensure that the government did not abuse the authorities that congress decided it should have. so one of the centerpieces of the statute was the creation of er court system, the fisa court, which includes the fisc, or the fisa court itself, originally seven, now 11 article three federal district judges who hear applications from the government in cases arising under fisa and an , or thee called the fcr fisa court of review. now, fisa went through a series of reforms over the years, but the next big set of reforms and

the reason why we're having this conversation today involves a pair of programs that we are now privy to things to leaks by edward snowden. programs andbe the then describe the authorities. received so much attention over the summer is what is called the bulk metadata collection program under section 215 of the patriot act. this is basically the concern that the government is obtaining from phone companies all of our metadata, basically noncontent information about our phone calls, without a warrant, without individualized position, etc. that whole program is at least arguably justified by an amendment to fisa congress enacted as part of the usa patriot act in 2001, the so- called business record provision third one piece of this and the scope of the business record position and the oversight of the business records provision

and how well or not well that has worked. another program that we heard about early on is the prism program, which is we assume carried out under the auspices of section 702 of fisa, which was created in 2008 as part of the fisa a memo that. there will be a quiz, so be ready. and the idea behind section 702 was to look at a different set of intelligence information, to look at information involving noncitizens, outside the united states, who i suspect most of us know do not have fourth amendment rights. the idea was that here is an area where the government really does not need quite as much of justificationis a to obtain relevant information. the concern under section 702 is that in the process of locating all of this information about non-citizens overseas, the government is also obtaining lots of information by accident, or at least incidentally,

concerning americans. e-mail, other kinds of content, and indeed that the government may be tapping directly into the backbone of big companies like facebook, google, etc. these are the programmatic disclosures that have led to all of this conversation, all of the reform debates we have been hearing about over the summer. they raise fundamental questions not just about fisa as originally enacted, but about whether the transparency and oversight mechanisms that have arisen under fisa are actually effective. so the idea behind our briefing today to give you as both a sense of what those transparency and oversight mechanisms are, and why they either are or are not or are debatably working. indeed, since there is so much call for reform in some parts of congress these days, we will also give you a sense of the merits or lack thereof of some of the competing proposals.

as we see hearings in the senate judiciary committee on the subject next tuesday in another, the short version is now seems to be a time ripe for discussion about whether fisa needs fixing, and if so, how to fix it. so hence this breaking -- this briefing to talk about where we are and where we are going. i will now briefly introduce our for speakers who will hopefully not prove me wrong in the next 45 minutes. you have access to their full bios for the website to this event, so i will give you the short, short, short version. kerryng on my left is cordero, the director of national security studies at georgetown university, to her left is jim harper from the cato institute, to his left is ross shulman, who other being a former student of mine but lived to tell the tale is a commuter -- computer indications

petition, and last but not least is greg from the center for democracy and technology. we're actually going to speak in this order, and then hopefully debate a little bit. with that, i will turn things over to kerry cordero -- carrie cordero. >> do i feared i would talk about the oversight structure, and secular the nsa surveillance activities that we heard about in the recent months. let's get started. level: may the big take away is that the fisa is covered by all three branches of government, and it is over by a conference of and, mentoring set of laws, executive orders, attorney level, approved guidelines and procedures, court orders, internal agencies was a bit rules and procedures. then there are written reports required by statutes and court order. and of course there are briefing that are conducted by the intelligence community for members and staff. i think it is fair to say the

oversight structure likely involves hundreds of people, these includes lawyers, analysts, auditors, senior management, and leadership. the outside, judges, leadership advisors, congressional leaders and staff. at the first level of oversight, and this is with respect to general by the surveillance but row graham and 215 says steve mentioned. there is internal oversight within the collective agencies himself, this is within the intelligence community element. there is supervisory level approval that the operational lover for targeting decisions third there are offices of general counsel. there are compliance offices. there is a network of civil liberties and protection officers at and the faces of wickedness of the position they are creating specifically soon, but other intelligence community elements have these officials already. there is an intelligence community civil liberties protection officer. then there are inspector

general. i'm using be plurals because these are sort of the types of ops is and oversight -- offices and oversight personnel that exist in most intelligence committee elements feared once you leave the internal agencies that are collecting the information in those different oversight offices and personnel that are involved, then you look to second-tier of outside agencies, but still within the executive branch oversight. this oversight is comprised of attorneys, civil liberties and privacy officials, people with auditing backgrounds which are outside the operational entities, which is important because then they have some degree of independence. specifically with respect to the 702 and 215 programs, these include attorneys at the up department of justice, so simply the national security division, which conducts the oversight on behalf of the attorney general, and the office of the director of national intelligence, specific way through their office of general counsel, and their civil liberties protection officer, who is a nonpartisan,

senior executive professional that reports directly to the director of national intelligence. oversightnal layer of within the executive branch is now we have a reconstituted president civil liberties and oversight board, and i think we will see more oversight conducted by that entity as we go forward. 702 to drill down specifically on the702 collection, -- to drill down physically on the 702 election, that targets non-us persons reasonably believed to be outside of the u.s. specific andy detailed mechanism. the attorney general and the dni review compliance with the targeting minimization procedures under section 702. they do a joint report that divided to the judiciary committee spared the government recently declassified the august 20 13th version of this joint attorney general dni report, and although parts of it are still classified, it provided a good insight into the types of oversight that take place. for example, it indicates that the review teams review

compliance at all three of the intelligence community elements that have been identified as for dissipating in 702 collection or analysis. they've review compliance with targeting, this is reviewing targeting decisions and justifications and documentation. they review compliance with minimization, which is a term regarding what procedures and rules the intelligence committee uses to protect u.s. person information. the oversight process i would argue has been an effective check on compliance matters. statistically what is contained in the august 2013 joint assessment is that nsa's current rate of compliance in these programs is less than .5%. for example, it is a as opposed to tell the department of justice and the director of national intelligence about a compliance incident, but they make that report a day late, then the implants rate drops 25%.to about

this is all the oversight of a place within the executive branch. many have the judicial branch, the fisa court, which steve mentioned, the courts review -- there are the judges themselves, and then there are independent legal advisors who work for the courts. and the court can request any additional information. there also is congressional oversight primarily through the intelligence and the judiciary committee. fisa has always included a requirement for a detailed semiannual report. the intelligence community is required to fully inform the intelligence and judiciary committee from that report. there are additional reporting requirements that are specific to section 702. the 215pect to oversight, it is a similar situation with respect to the review that takes place, but it is somewhat different than 702 in that because there is no content, there is a different

framework and also a different from was required by law. different framework as was required by law. the complaint team -- the compliance team reviews in 702 oversight the substanctive information about how they are made and then the report to make sure compliance with those rules. 215 a structured with specific restrictions and rules that are imposed by the court. any 215 program, the data collected upfront, which are laid out in the court order about how the data can be queried, the court order provides a detailed rules by which nsa can quite read the the data andquery how the data is used. department that the just as and a director of national intelligence conduct be , whichht specifically includes the office of general counsel and again the civil liberties protection comics use, which include nsa general

counsel's office and nsa director of compliance, this is ar level, butranul also at the offices of general counsel and civil liberties protection, also participate in periodic reviews, if not at the same time of granularity as the 702 program. i think i am out of time. >> fantastic. that was impressive. carrie pays a thorough picture. that sounded like a lot of oversight. what do you think? wechsler might save arguments that i saw developing over years that privacy is not the information in the control of data subjects, that is you and me keeping control over information but rather privacy would be a system of oversight with sufficient boards, sufficient government self- regulation that preserves privacy. my own mixer and a member of the department of homeland security -- committeecy and

bill i said you. the dhs chief privacy officer came to see the role as one of largely defending the agency rather than insisting on privacy. i were to talk a little bit -- we can come to that certainly during the discussion. thisvery pleased to be on panel, in particular because i worked both on fourth amendment issues and on data transparency issues, particularly with respect to congress and the executive branch. i have a paper called publication practices for transparent government, which i will not detail, but the first element of making information transparent as having an authoritative source. a secret court system cut that -- that verystan first and most basic transfer and security transparency is a wide array of information practices that permit appropriate oversight.

at the risk of being too simplistic and speaking like a country lawyer, and our tripartite system of government, there are checks and balances, and each branch of government supposed to be able to see the other, that is transparency should be sufficient to allow each branch of government to oversee the other. but it takes more than that. the transference he systems that exist in our constitutional structure are more thoroughgoing than that. the right to due process, for example, in a way of speaking, gives affected parties a right to oversight. that is to participate in the tribunals that affect their rights. the article three case or controversy requirement requires the participation of adverse parties, either real or potential, and there is no actual case under the constitution if there are not parties who are adverse to come in this case, the government feared that is chisholm versus george appeared that is a case

so old it is not one of those u.s. cases, it is before that. adverse parties are not just there for no cash for their own interest. there are portals -- they are tools of the court. they do not know to ask for things unless there is an adverse party working hard to make sure the information relevant to their case is available. smith versus maryland is a 1936 case in which one man obviously suspected of burglarizing a man and making phone calls to its occupant was found not to have a fourth amendment interest in the telephone calling information because pope leo -- because police knowing of his car license number and knowing who he was went to the telephone company had ask. the telephone company phonearily observe his calls and give it a police who use it to get a warrant and found information further incriminating him. that case is the case of the government relies on to say that none of us have a fourth mm interest in any of our telephone

calling data. none of us, i believe, are currently suspects, and the selection of bulk data about all of us is far more revealing of all of our relationships and comings and goings than information about one person who actually is a suspect. but the fascinating thing here substitute pollute -- conclusion is what allows the fisa panel to make a decision about whether we are allowed to participate. that is the argument is that all americans do not have a fourth amendment interest, so they cannot even come in and argue for it. that is a failure of transference to because we do not have access to the deliberations of the court and for the most part we have not had access to the rulings of the court. this is why i generally argue against calling in a court but rather calling it a panel. there is not a lot of good, academic research on what a court is because we have not seen in the concept of a court tested quite so much as we have in this case. but courts do have judges. fisa panel has judges.

well-meaning judges, experienced judges who we respect, but judges don't alone constitute a court. a court requires some kind of public appeal. that puts judges in a position frankly of being susceptible to shame if they get things wrong. presentrse parties legal, factual, other arguments that improve the quality of the corporate obviously public decisions allow oversight on the part of all of us. these kind of transparency measures are the actual things that make up a legitimate court. call it a panel. it is certainly a panel. i do not think there is any argument about that. this is not a credible, actual court, certainly not under article three. i think it is important to think big about reforms. remember that the fisa law was passed at a time when the soviet union was the major contest or for power with the u.s. the soviet union was a highly sophisticated governments, and

it also pose a threat of nuclear annihilation. as a child, i am not -- you may remember this, but as a child we did duck and cover drills, and i anticipated that i would learn about my impending death from a flash of light off in the distance. today, we suffered no such threat. there are certainly sophisticated parties, sophisticate actors and governments that challenge the u.s. government, but even today, right now, there is an event going on at my thinking, the cato institute, called dangerous world, inviting some more thinking about whether we suffer under the threat that we did at the time the fisa law was passed. we could reconsider fisa entirely, reconsider whether we need a pseudo-court system as the fisa panel to adjudicate the cases when there may be a necessity for secrecy. this fisa panel is not transparent. in fact, by denying oversight, it is something of an attack on democracy. >> thank you, jim jordan let me ask one follow-up -- when roberts road section 215 -- when

congress wrote section 215 and 702, they were perhaps mindful of your concerns, so they included the adversarial process your it under section 215, the recipient of an order is allowed to come and challenge the order. section 702, the electronic medication service provider, google, facebook, whomever, is allowed to do a claim. in your view, have those proven to be ineffective? >> yes. relied on a frame of reference that was run at the time it is proven more wrong, and that is the idea that information we share with third parties is not an interest of ours. our talented -- our telephone indications providers -- our telecommunications providers in austin in our shoes. many, if not most, have dealings with the government and are regulated by the government, so they have plenty of reasons to not stand up for our interest when they are in court.

>> which may explain why there has never been a single recipient other 215 or 702 who has ever availed themselves of that process. >> if you are a smart executive, your job is to increase profits for the firm, not when on civil liberties grounds. >> cool, thank you, jim. >> thank you, stephen, and also thank you to the icac for putting on the panel. i work for the communications association, so we represent companies you were just talking about. quite the segway was a little deliberate or >> i wondered about that. was a littleue deliberate. >> i wondered about that. we actually know now that yahoo! actually was a company that went back to the court and fought, actually up through the appellate process there him and

eventually come unfortunately, lost the case that they had brought under the protect america act. >> right. not under those particular sections. that is true. we are talking about transparency today, interest rates he is certainly a thing onto sinceas latched before snowden, but definitely cents snowden, we have been talking transparency going back a number of years under fisa that weon and testified in the past and so forth. but certainly since june of this year when we started learning a lot more about what is going on, we have been talking about the need for transparency, we have sent letters to both the president and congress, in a number of our memories have actually filed a suit in the fisk against the government -- thehe fisc against

government under the first amendment for the ability to talk to their users and the customers about what is being collected and how it is being collected and the sheer amount of numbers of collection orders that they receive. vocal inlso been supporting a number of bills here on the hill, both on the senate and the house side, that would call for greater transparency on the part of companies and on the part of government to talk about what they -- what they are collecting and how much information is actually being transferred. we are doing that because we think it is very important for companies to be able to talk to their users about the scope of the collection that is happening. in the online marketplace today, trust is of the utmost importance. if your users do not trust the service that you are offering, they are not going to put stake in it, particularly in the a modern age when so many of our

online services involve handing over a certain amount of your own data, whether it is your e- mails or documents you are storing in a cloud service somewhere. whatever it is, you have to have trust that the service that you are working with is going to protect the information that you have given them. i keep my tax returns on a dropbox service, which is probably a bad idea. but they are encrypted, so it is ok. but that kind of information is the sort of information that we are talking about. it can be very personal information. it is e-mailed, the cookie recipe that your grandmother sent you yesterday, but it is also details of your life. the refinance on your mortgage that you are discussing with your wife over e-mail. it is very, very personal information that we are talking about. if the users do not have a trust, then they are not going to partake in these services, and the services are great they create

efficiencies, they make it easier for people to go about their lives. mail from anye e- computer in the world and is secure and i know i can access it. these services form the fabric of our lives today. facebook is a place where people go and meet their friends and talk about all sorts of things. these services have become parts of our lives in ways that it can sometimes on a day-to-day basis be almost invisible, but when you step back and think about it, they are really quite vital. transparency keeps those services in our lives, kind of on a day-to-day basis. a lot of people, you know, the government has talked about -- well, we can talk in general , the the services collection that we are doing, and maybe that will be enough. our point of view is that that is not going to be enough to solve this particular problem. the greater the precision here,

the better. , if we try tolly hide certain pieces of this, that is going to lead to a further breakdown in trust as people say you told us about that part, but what is behind the curtain? total transparency is really fundamental right now. for aalso important greater societal reason, which is sort of less tied to the real concrete commercial aspect that i have been talking about. about to embark on having a national conversation about what the correct use of surveillance is over the internet and having that conversation without the data to back it up is dangerous. i don't think it is the right way to go about it. people will get the wrong ideas. the truth of the matter will be inflated, either by the fresco or by fears. or it can be artificially deflated in some places as well.

that is dangerous. in order to have this conversation and do it right we need to know what it is we are talking about. that is another reason transparency is so fundamental right now. i want to make a quick note about oversight since it is part of the topic. oversight is fundamental. a lot of people have talked about in depended advocates at the surveillance court did we think that is an interesting idea. we think it definitely needs to be implement it properly, however. funded. to be properly who you put in that independent advocate space is vital. notcheed to have top- lawyers, top-notch technologists, people who understand the internet, ho understand where it works, where the points of failure are -- they need to educate what is going on there. it isu need to make sure

not captured by the various groups it is meant to advocate against. you cannot go out and hire a bunch of staffers and say we have oversight. >> even edward snowden? >> even edward snowden. he will testify to congress via skype and that should be interesting. heard some concerns about oversight. what is your reaction? >> oversight failed. that is the bottom line that we have learned. all of the things that he talked about, all of the things that were put into place to protect privacy, oversight failed. how we need to figure out a way to reconstruct that. i think when you start to think about how to reconstruct oversight and how to make it all work, you have to look at the causes of failure spewed one of the biggest causes of failure -- intelligence

officials repeatedly misled congress. they did it at open hearings. whether they did behind the scenes as well we do not know. there were misleading statements. they misled the public about what is going on. the even misled the fisa court, the court that is supposed to be deciding what they are supposed to to, what they want to do, and what they have been doing. it is hard to get oversight right. -- oversight right when the people who are contributing the information to make the oversight work are not telling the truth. this is a big problem. nobody lost their job over not telling the truth. what is the cure? i think jim was onto something. oversight that works best and zip being transparency. it ends up being disclosure. people toat allows say this is what is actually happening. that is what gives congress

members the information they need to ask the right questions about a surveillance program. said the same thing about this. when they have a briefing from intelligence officials about one of these programs it is like playing 20 questions. askdo not know what to because you did not know what is going on. if you do not know what is going on it is hard to know what to ask. it seems to me that transparency the biggest and most important piece of the oversight puzzle. kerry mentioned that the fisa mentioned thate the fisa court a proved the standard under which the government does queries of this metadata.

what she didn't mention was that most of the queries of the database do not involve any evaluation of that standard. most of the queries had no finding of reasonable articulable suspicion because they were done outside of the rules. the fisa court did not know this for years. and yet that is the way the program is being conducted. had the court known, it might have been able to ask the right questions. it might have been able to stop what was essentially an unlawful based on the order that the court had already issued. it wasn't given this information. reformse some important that are in the works that would be helpful to reining in these intelligence programs. one was already talked about, the special advocate.

he or she does more than just argue the other side of the case. a actually have a role in transparency as well. the special advocate, as it has been conceived in the legislation that has been introduced, would have the ability to argue about the thatacy of the opinions the court is releasing in terms of whether they are disclosing what they need to disclose. in other words, if the government to man's a lot of retractions that are unnecessary , not because the information is classified but because the information, the government wants to hide what is going on. thehat is going on -- special advocate can argue about the adequacy under that which is released under standard. the special advocate can also invite amicus participation. the special advocate can also trigger appeals. there is a lot of help at the

special advocate can bring to these proceedings that goes beyond just arguing the other side of the case. with respect to transparency, there are two sides to it. the numbers of surveillance orders that companies received and the numbers of orders that the government issues collectively, to be pieces of the debate on the volume questions. will the government be able to mush together different -- orders under different surveillance authorities and issues obscure how many -- how many orders are being issued under the different authorities. and will there be large ranges to make it so you do not know what the true number is?

will companies be allowed to disclose national security letters, only that they receive between zero and 1000? that is not very useful. what would be useful is a little bit more granularity. another reform that is important goes to the guidelines under which sector 702 program is being conducted. approve court does not whether a target is up to something wrong. it does not approve anything about the targets. it just approves targeting guidelines. those guidelines allow for only a 51% likelihood that the target is brought. that seems to be good enough for determination. goodhing that would be a

mechanism for oversight is what is being called back door searches loophole. you close it by prohibiting a search of that data. it that data sure for an information about an american unless you went to the fisa court and got a full quarter -- got a full court order. i think that would be an important reform in this regard and no matter how much oversight there is, at the end of the day there is no substitute for legal limits on the authorities that are being put in place to -- put >> i have two very quick question for you. i suspect some who might be less skeptical about the existing oversight and transparency regime might say that part of way we know about the misrepresentations on the scope of the program is because there

was internal reporting to the -- andhat culminated disclosed in october 2000. there are times you have misled us, stop doing it. that all happened before we knew anything about this. is that's not evidence that there is at least some kind of meaningful oversight within the internal secret process? >> he got so mad that he was yelling at his opinion. who was he yelling to? the wind.eaming in he was screaming in the wind because nobody could hear him except for the government. it just does not matter when that is the case. >> i guess they larger question is how do we reconcile what is the fundamental tension between your suggestion as the only real cure is more of the transparency and doing all the stuff in the

dark? -- in the was just old days the government would come to the court and say we have a guy who we respect as a bad actor. can we surveilled him or not? weise -- we think he is an agent or foreign palate. now the court is making much more involved decisions. they have constitutional implications. they resolve questions of law. they are making unusual it was never debated. in that world we do have to have more transparency. i do think that some of the measures being proposed now would give us some more transparency and without compromising national security. the government is going to decide what is classified and

what isn't. >> with me ask you. you heard all three of the other panels talk about potential reforms where reforms are needed. if you have a response on the existing oversight and also your thoughts on -- notwithstanding that, some of the reforms being kicked around. >> i think it is worth pointing that some of the points jim and greg are making are really calling for much much rotter overhauls -- much much broader overhaul of the court system that is in place and some of the current proposals pending in congress. they are questioning the very foundations of the existence of a fisa court. bodyxistence of a court that conducts its business in secret. that is one set of arguments, that the whole system ought to be thrown out and that the entire system is illegitimate.

staff, that is not really the proposal that are the four members right now. there is a continuum of the types of proposals out there today. for the most part, the proposals that exist in congress today are about making changes to the current system, perhaps with respect to an outside advocate, with respect to more transparency. maintaining the overall integrity of the fisa court as it exists. another point is i don't agree that the current record supports the assertion that the government intentionally misled either the court or congress. perhaps reasonable minds can disagree about that. the record that has been released with respect to the court orders and opinions indicate that there were

compliance incidents and there were corrections and things were discovered later than they should have been. certainly the court was not pleased with that. there is not a record that establishes any sort of willful malice seasons on the government point. what are the various types of concerns one may have about the system? first there may be a concern about institutional strategic level, top-down, abuse. what we think about when we think about the 1970s overbroad, no controls, no oversight and not reporting to congress. there is that level of abuses. then there is the second category of things people might be concerned about. off -- a the one person in the intelligence

community does something they are not supposed to do. >> let's talk about classified information? >> you have been dying to get that in. incidentsthe types of that are contained in the report that he sent to senator anssley, which talks about nsa employee doing something they're supposed to do. it does not represent widespread abuse. the third category is compliance. thattatute contemplates there would be compliance incidents because they would have to -- because they have to be reported to the court and congress. not every compliance incident is created alike. there are run-of-the-mill compliance incidences and then there are whammies that we saw in some of the judges order.

existence of those compliance incidences, which were brought to the court pause attention, as painful as it was for the government to do, never appear to concern intentional wrongdoing. >> the merciful -- the work misleading is not mine. i don't know if we impute willfulness and to that. it does suggest something more than a compliance incident to me. >> it is very frustrating. them, i amen tells going to ask you whether the nsa is collecting records on the tens of millions of americans. get ready for it. the hearing comes up, wyden asks the question, are you collecting records? clapper says, no. not willfully. wyden says, really? he says not wittingly.

they were. he later admitted that. judiciary committee tookng, senator leahy alexander to task. he said, you are saying there were 54 plots foiled through this program. that is not right, is it? no senator, it is not. that we can expect congress to do a good oversight job. the way to get the truth is not to throw out the court or to throw out the process altogether. i am not adjusting that at all. what i am suggesting is that transparency is root towards the truth. we need more of it. nolet me ask you this. recipient of the order has ever challenged. it seems like part of the

conversation at the public discourse level is not just about the government but about private sector firms. do you think part of this conversation should be looking at reform of our privacy laws and not just reform of what the government is doing but maybe reevaluating private sector information sharing? >> that has been the topic of a lot of conversation. i think our general approach is that -- i am not opposed to having a conversation about laws, governing what looked -- governing what companies are or not allowed to do -- i think it is important that we do not -- that we divorce the two conversations and not milk -- not meld them into one big monster. that is a very dangerous idea. angry at the government, angry other companies if we want to, but we

should not be angry at the companies because of the government. i would like to jump in on the point of how the issues are being framed on capitol hill right now. staff here to you on are your choices or are your loss of choices constrained by the bill that has been introduced so far. the first amendment rights of companies that are hailed before the panels, what i am talking about, the fourth amendment and due process of all americans. those are on the table. i am going to do my best to make you hear about it if you buy into the tiny marginal proposals that are out there right now. it is surprising to me that the house and senate leaders are proposing their reforms. they need to get reformed.

think about the whole suite of issues that are on the table, put more on the table because of what is under discussion right now. >> i want to give the audience if you moments for questions. i suspect other panel members may want to weigh them. use a constitutional issues, i say courts. if there were constitutional problems, the courts will ride him. justice will ride in on his white horse and say the day -- and save the day. there are now several pending suits. there is the aclu versus new may, do you think this permit some of these reform conversations are actually putting the court in the position of answering these constitutional questions in a out the way iash suspect you want them to. >> i do not know if -- i do not

know what the word pride are meant means. i do know that justice khalil will ride in on a horse of the time the constitution was adopted. that the hopeful courts will step in here and begin to reassert rights, helping congress along. very art -- very often the argument is made that the legislature should take care of these problems. not aurth amendment is hopeful instruction to the legislature. of people inright the united states against unreasonable searches and seizures. decisionse mistaken should be overturned so we can have a discussion in a context recognizing the people have fourth amendment interests and information they shared with .thers >> to other members want to jump

in cap the >> i do agree. to the extent that the courts are looking at this and even to the extent that the courts completely come down in a way that i would have absolutely no fault with, i don't think that means there is no role for congress. even if the supreme court were to overturn tomorrow, which i i thinkrow a party for, that would still mean that all of you would still have a huge amount of work to do in front of you to fill in a fourth amendment, saying that it does not apply to information. it leaves a lot open questions. >> a narrow point. smith could be convicted without use of the traffic -- >> it is also to say it could be easily extinguished. >> to cook points, what is

pertaining to something people were talking about earlier, which is the ability of the fisa court to conduct oversight. a few things the court can do. thefisa court does have ability to modify requests made by the government and added in requirements to its orders. testimonycan witness with additional packs or technical briefings. it can require that additional procedures be carried out or add additional minimization procedures. my experience, the court can and does all of those things. point, onethat follow-up from the discussion you were just having is ross mentioned a few minutes ago the protect america act appeal that went up to the rape that went up to the review, it was an interim statute before the fisa amendment statute of 2008.

it enabled surveillance persons outside the united states for foreign -- for foreign intelligence persons -- it sort of pick that up and added more persons infor u.s. the laws that became more permanent. a provider did challenge the protect america act and that went up to the fisa court of review. the fisa court of review upheld the government surveillance under the protect america act, which arguably was less restrictive than the fisa amendment act is. and even went a step further and infirm that there is a foreign intelligence accepted into the requirement. the supreme court has never ruled on the point but it was significant in 2008 when that review opinion was released. >> we have about five minutes for audience questions.

up people andall wait for the mike to come. right here in the front. >> you cited the conversation between senator wyden and director clapper. the brings before it to angela merkel controversy. think the intelligence community's default mode is to keep quiet about stuff until it either leaks out or it is discovered on a back channel? >> i think there is some history that suggests if that was the case we would never have this discussion about surveillance had information not week. there have been steps by the intelligence community. i don't think they are nearly enough. it is not that they are coming forward and saying that this is what we are doing, we want to show people that will we are doing is proper and that we are

targeting bad guys. istead what we are getting calvert disclosures that information came out and it is embarrassing. now we are going to disclose information to counter it. >> let me move attention away from the court process into a more fundamental distinction in one of the big things that is true now that was not true a couple of date decades ago with the ability to collect massive amounts of information and the into the has gotten process, it is tension between collecting information and looking at the information. has sullied the distinction sometimes in the reporting by the administration of what is .oing on

what is your view about the protection on a massive election of information with a proposal that it is a separate decision to look at that information and what the criteria ought to be for both of those? focusthere a way to say on collection authorities separate from abuse authorities? why don't you go first? >> i refer to this a little bit in my discussion of what privacy is. it means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. the heart of it is having control over information about yourself. of theternative view world is that you still have privacy with information that was within your control and is taken out of your control. it is subject to rigorous oversight. viewing the cameras, subject to restrictions and oversight and all kinds of things, that still

violates privacy. you have a legal right to keep other people out. you are in control of the information about what happens inside your bedroom. were there to be a camera system in bedrooms, the control over information about what happens there moves from you to the government, no matter whether information is collected, used, or not. it is how privacy has been redefined, to say that we have the data over here, we are keeping it safe for you. you still have your privacy. >> let me take your analogy and push back. --pose that you actually did suppose that google puts a camera in your bedroom. isn't that closer to where we are? at that point doesn't my expectation of privacy in the bedroom, in which a third-party places cameras in my picture with my consent, affects your --

>> two very different questions. one is whether to complacent camera in your bedroom, you cannot. is whether google can place a camera in your bedroom, they cannot. there is this awful term, the cloud, which seems to suggest that the information on the information on the internet is in a cloud. share information with google subject to legal limits that you may be very forthcoming with google, but that does not mean that the data is in a soup. >> the very tough question, the government wants the data from the third-party. do we want a world where the government gets automatically? i think the world we have to

-- if there is a collection of data that is going to be accessible to the government under one way or another, you have to have some kind of wall. you have to have some kind of rule about how you over the wall -- you go over the wall. i don't want the government collecting everything and decide when it gets to go over the wall. i think we have to have limits on collection and limits on use. >> just one very quick point. she specifically talked about the importance of the procedures and rules about akron -- about accessing the data. word not for all of those rules and procedures in place, the court would not be able to find the collection. >> i suppose one could then say

that if the procedures are so important, why not codify them? >> with respect that one program? >> the minimize issue procedures are government created in competition with the fisa court. they basically are regulations. >> i understand the argument for that and why there may be a logic to it. my caution would be that because we know that law follows behind technology, you could write in the exact place procedures today and six months from now the technology will change and unity government will figure out a new way to conduct technology that is more private see -- more privacy protected. that thegument is reason to not codify it is because it is not privacy protected? >> a reason not to codify it, the specific rule, is because

the technology could change and then you are in a position where the technology has changed and the rules are in law and you need an act of congress to be able to change or process. >> i think we have time for one more question. is there one more question before we break? all the way in the brack -- all the way in the back. >> this is slightly philosophical. what we now know about what the and assays doing after these is doing aftera these leaks, is it your view that the and is a was working with in the direction and under andlaw, under congress's the executive branch's decision or direction? or was this its self running a muck? >> i will jump on that grenade first. that is a hard question to answer.

there are distinctions between compliance. there are examples of individual officers that are violating the authorities that they have my own view is that for the most part, the nsa was doing what the fisa court had signed off on. a few exceptions we should be far morebout -- the alarming thing is that the fisa cart signed up on an can be veryon that seriously questioned. that is my own personal view. >> i'm sure the others have more to say. my view is that the activities were conducted lawfully under the court supervision. the government is doing a lot to try to continue to correct those. there will be compliance incidents. it is part of the nature of the business. they are acting under the law.

>> the first public policy anate i participated in was initiative campaign out in california. i learned through that experience that parties of good faith can come to diametrically opposed conclusions about what the law says. that was my experience there. secrecy theyle of can come up with interpretations of section 215 that are flatly wrong, from my point of view. it is the failure of transparency and the failure of oversight that causes these views to not be reconciled and allow them to continue for years . we discover them now and we have to have a debate about them now. >> i think the answer to your question is yes. the nsacircumstances was clearly operating outside of the law, particularly in our analysis of 215.

i don't see how you can get to the and is a position. as it was pointed out, people come to opposite conclusions. i think the more port in what the nsa was doing was completely legitimate under the law that -- under the law as it stands today, what is it -- should it be changed? >> the nsa went beyond what the law permits. ironically it now argues that the members of congress am a who authorized the law without knowing what the and essays doing, have ratified it. >> i will assert the common law professors alternative to say nothing is definitive until five people on the supreme court say it is. damage thatt of the part of the diametric opposite problem is that the fisa court

decision has no presidential value.-- presidential the big legal questions, the ones from this panel, really are, for all to live and purposes, still unanswered today. let me say thanks again to clara internetongressional caucus. thank you for joining our panel for this lovely discussion. [applause] >> if you have additional questions you can tweak at our panelists. the twitter hash tags are in the package right here. >> and your tweets may be recorded. >> and used by the government.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] of thisu missed any discussion or any of our coverage of the nsa programs, you can find lots more on our video library at c-span.org. to live coverage, our road

the white house 20 16 coverage with texas republican ted cruz, speaking at the annual iowa republican party reagan dinner. the des moines register says it is his third visit to the state in less than three months. tonight, a pair of congressional profile interviews. manchin and joe washington were presented of cathy mcmorris rodgers. representativeon cathy mcmorris rodgers. here is a brief preview. >> i was single when i was elected to congress. for me, the best thing that has happened since i was elected was meeting brian rogers and getting married and becoming a wife and then a mom, and then our oldest was born with down syndrome. it isn't what you expect. it isn't what you dream.

i am a better person because of cole.- because of i have a new passion. when you first get the news is some of the most difficult news you receive as a parent. i look back on it now and i was immediately welcomed by the disabilities community. people across this country who have been through similar. since just reached out and said it is going to be ok. iti guess i looked at through the eyes of -- i always thought when the chips were down, it was always country first, state second, politics

third. i would have always thought that. that is really not what i see. i see a lot of good people in the senate. i do. have anybody that i do not like. i like everybody. i try to get along with everybody. i would question some motives and reasons. go back to john kennedy and i watched that speech on television, ask not what your country can do for you but way you can do for your country. for yourat you can do country. the constitution says "we the people." you have to take care of it and it's like owning a car, you have to change the oil, routine maintenance, take care of it. and now it seems like we have a country where people are saying ask not what your country did to you but what you can do to it. that is a long way in 50 years.

>> those profile interviews run back to back tonight, beginning at 8 p.m. eastern on c-span 2. >> i saw firsthand the tragedies that children face when they are not cared for by loving parents. it was in the sheriffs office where i first witnessed the horrors of child sex trafficking. it convinced me that we needed to do more to protect our youth at risk of abuse. other youthnd many in care, we become accustomed to being isolated. by adopting to multiple moves from home to home, this allows us to easily adapt to when traffickers move us multiple times from hotel to hotel, city to city, and state to state. ofse go without fear punishment due to the lack of

attention when young people go missing. no one looks for us. i want to make this clear, no one looks for us. >> when they hear the term child sex trafficking, most americans think it happens only in other countries or that foreign children are brought here to be sold in large cities. in fact, we have learned that most of the victims are american kids who are trafficked in small towns and large urban areas. if people were not aware of it, they are not looking for it. >> this weekend, house ways and means looks at changing foster care systems to prevent sex trafficking, saturday morning at 10:00 eastern. on c-span two, spent two days in austin, life at the texas foot -- texas book festival. that is saturday and sunday on book tv. on c-span 3's american history tv, in a country deeply divided, how did candidates lincoln solve

the moral dilemmas created by the issues of slavery? sunday at 7:30. on,s each generation goes we have less and less dodd -- less and less god. what are we becoming? >> in the end i am trying to change the world and become a better person and create a better place for all of us. >> they are three teenaged upper-class middle -- upper- middle-class white boys. what we wanted to do in the film the baselineplore political realities in the country by looking at what is happening for the boys who are avatars for traditional leaders in america. i think people come to the film -- come to any film about young leaders and they expect to see a multicultural tapestry of what america really looks like. i think our country is really still want -- still run

politically by the upper-middle- class, relatively privileged, white men. i think reacting to that is really what i am trying to do. >> jonathan goodman levitt leads a political coming of age story. here more on sunday night at 8:00 on c-span's q and a. >> the bipartisan policy center created a coalition of political reform to and participle -- to and partisanship in politics -- two and partisanship and politics and government. present detailed limitations to the president, congress, and the american people on the election reform, congressional reform, and increasing access to public service. from the electoral swing state of ohio, this is an hour and 20 minutes.

thehe cofounder of institute for the united states senate, vicki kennedy. [applause] the cochair of the commission on political reform and former at the cultural secretary -- former agricultural secretary -- former governor of ohio, bob task -- the first woman speaker of the ohio house of representatives, joann davidson. former governor of ohio am a ted strickland. former texas congressman, henry -- agriculturetary of

-- review's -- nal [applause] full bios of our panelists online or in the program. we invite everyone listening to join the conversation. if you are physically here, you can take one of the carts right out of question. we will read some of those. , send are digitally here us a tweet. #engageusa.se the "american unity, is it still ?"ssible we ask americans what they think about some of the proposed solutions. let's watch a video.

>> hi, i'm susan page, bureau chief of will usa today. it is hard to argue with the idea that washington is broken. this year the bipartisan policy center and usa today have been looking at the addition -- looking at the issues of partisanship and division division. the bipartisan policy center and usaid today sponsored a nationwide survey about some potential changes in the way elections are run. it was conducted by a republican pollster and democratic pollster. here's what we were told. should we change the way legislative districts are drawn? a declining number of districts are competitive has few of the partisan the putt -- makes compromise more difficult. open toricans are changing the way districts are

typically drawn now, which is why statement stitchers -- which is by state legislatures and governors. 30% like the idea of a bipartisan commission. 22% say the state courts should draw the lines. should we change the way primaries are run the? -- are run? putting independence in boost themay candidates. two thirds of americans think independents should be able to vote in the primaries. that includes 70% of democrats and 72% of independents. should we make voting easier? the view is bipartisan. 67% of republicans, 75% of 81% ofdents, and

democrats. and for, should we make voting harder to build faith and integrity in the ballot? there was overwhelming support for the voters to show a government issued photo id. that has been controversial in some states. but not in our survey. 94% of republicans, 85% of independents, even 70% of democrats. there was a buyer that there was a partisan divide on some of the issues. face a priority on preventing voter fraud. onocrats place a priority making sure every individual voter can vote. it wouldn't be politics if we agreed on everything. here's a question to our online audience, you can vote at bipartisanpolicy you can join

our conversation by posting a tweet to ask a question. please use the hash tag #engageusa. i thought out of that i would post this to our to ohio governors. role iner, given ohio's national elections, can the state drive towards greater bipartisanship? and how? >> one of the problems we have is that the moderate middle is disenfranchised in part because of the way the district lines are drawn. congressional districts in ohio, about two are competitive. it is that way across the country because of gerrymandering. that means there is no competition for the middle. the competition is for the right or left. that drives our politics in partisan and very divisive directions.

i think that one step that ohio can do and is looking at -- we have a commission looking at the issue of redistricting. voters who are not empowered to have any choice in the congressional election. most districts in ohio, there is no choice. that is not good for our system and is particularly not good for giving a voice to those who are moderates in the middle. they may not participate in the primaries. rightmpowers the radical and the radical left. that is what is dividing our party so much. >> as you know, even though the state is pretty evenly divided, the congressional delegation is not evenly divided. >> it is very lopsided. house more votes were cast for democrats for the ohio house and yet republicans control the house by very significant numbers.

the governor is absolutely right. my democrat friends don't want be to say this, ohio is a slightly center-right straight, socially, culturally, we are center-right. but we are a swing state. legislature does not reflect the real nature of ohio politics right now. >> when the voters had a chance to go to less partisan redistricting systems, asked your they defeated it's pretty handily. go down?hat initiative >> i think change is frightening to a lot of people. i think people are unsatisfied with the conditions that currently exist. they are fearful that change will bring something that will be even worse.

there is a lot of education that needs to take place. i andk governor taft and others would be one to try to move us in that direction. pledging aur bipartisan drive for redistrict ing? >> it is starting to happen. we are looking at that issue. [applause] >> let's go to our first online audience question. in the 2012 election, did you vote for members of just one political party? for one floated political party, 59% voted for more than one political party. question, dosecond you believe having early voting on election day holidays -- or election day holidays will make you more like the to vote? we will report on those results

in just a few minutes. this question, given the obstacles that independent voters face in fully participating in elections and running for office, how do you attend -- intend to address the issue 40% of americans identified as independents? what is one of the way you are engaging those 53% or 59% of voters who are voting in one party? >> it is not clear to me. some people would characterize the fact that we have closed primaries in many states as a barrier to participation. another view is we have freedom of association. if you belong to a member -- if you belong to a political party you remain a member of that party. that reflects the idea that membership ought to matter. lost so much influence,

that is not entirely in good faith. if these associations were more active, perhaps fewer americans would identify as independents. is thatsue you see there are many barriers to minor political parties. i think that maybe one way to -- which barriers to we have in mind? to these barriers have some other attractive purpose? >> a lot of americans thought this was an idea. a lot of americans ought to be able to choose who their nominees are. where do you come down from this ? >> this is a complicated question. problem with primary races right now is that people do not have reliable information when they are making choices. partly because the great value -- that meaning

generally applies to national politics. if you think about republicans in a state of massachusetts, they are very different from republicans operating at the national level. the same party jurisdictions we have used at the national level are used in municipal races, in my city and new york city, they are used at state-level races. the quality of the information the voters are getting through party labels isn't always very high. how do we improve the quality of information that voters get in different elections? one way to do that is include more information on ballots, including primary ballots. these are technical questions. how do we give voters, who do not always have a ton of time to particularly in small- scale races, how do we make it easier for them to make coherent and sensible choices that

reflect their value? the able independents to choose democratic nominees? >> i think there is an overarching theme, people are that they are elected officials or that the our political parties speaking to them. the reason we have so many independents is that they are feeling that the message they are getting from the democratic party isn't speaking to them. i think that goes to the whole polarization. personally have no problem with what we do in massachusetts where independents will pick up a democratic ballots or a republican ballot and shoes in the primary how they are going to vote. --etimes you will lean sometimes the independents will lean democratic. that is the way it is. we have a difference of opinion on that. you works fine for me in

know when the candidates are running in a general election they have to appeal to the independent voter. you have to get so much percentage of the independent vote. my husband used to get a majority of the independent vote. a lot of democrats don't get an majority and can still win. ithink we have to look at maybe on a state-by-state basis. i know we personally have no problem. >> anybody else have a strong view of independence that independents voting in primaries? >> we are trying to figure out how we move people a little bit to move -- to work with each other. it is going to be more and more difficult for republican and democratic candidates to win unless they can appeal to that growing number of independent voters. of the balance we are looking for is coming from the fact that that is a growing group and that they do not tend

to be of one extreme or the other. they tend to be people that are balancing the issues. toy may pay more attention the political party that may take it and follow it. i'm not sure i have a strong feeling one way or another. vote in ahio bipartisan situation. they have the ability to go in and determine when they are there. they can declare themselves as a republican or democrat and vote. make that decision. >> here is a question. what you think? the question i think that the elected

representatives are about as polarized as the political partisans in each party. those are the folks that are making a difference in the primary or the potential primary. that is who they are listening to. i would like to the former congressman on this .2. i think there are some congressmen up there who would like to move more to the middle. they may be inhibited from doing that from the threat that some independent super pack will come and run someone from the right or the left and a primary. >> that is with the primaries do. you will see people that do not want to take a position on a bill that is even remotely controversial because they might offend their core voters. do you understand that?

, as iing has to be done mentioned earlier, to take this out of the hands of the hatfield and mccoy's and allow a percentage of voters in the middle that want to participate. we think about the roughly 40% in the presidential election that you not vote. and, even ifhow up they did not feel like they could make a difference, they can make a difference in the end. it is really up to americans to get off their you know what's and express themselves more. otherwise, you leave it in the hands of the extreme ends. >> i agree with what everyone has said here. most americans are not radicalized at all. they want to live their lives, help their kids, do their thing, and have a happy life. >> i am for all of those things. >> that is right. but when you engage, the system can become very tribal.

it is cultural. i went to a college up north of here. i hate to tell you this. however, it was a beautiful school and i was treated very nicely. i think it is wonderful. ohio state is a wonderful school. [applause] we are encouraged in summary parts of our lives to radicalize our approaches. it is true. it is true in school, sports, and politics. the problem is that it is dangerous and politics because good governance and consensus building is usually always gravitating towards the middle. that is the history of our country. when that does not happen, it is a danger sign. >> i would just like to throw up something for the others. i want some feedback. i think that part of the problem is that our political parties have been weakened and are no

longer really in charge. there are so many special interests of one kind or another that are dominating our political scene. i think that we would be in better condition and have more civil politics and maybe more moderate politics as our political parties were stronger than they are. >> i saw a lot of heads nodding. >> i definitely agree with that. that is one of my central preoccupations. one thing i would say briefly is that when we're thinking about this, it is important that those who are alienated are not just those who are moderate. it is often voters to find themselves on one side of the spectrum are another. when you have staunch progressives, they often motivate voters. earlier on, you mentioned that someone said we should fire every member of congress. he takes a clear position. he is a strong view. that is something that led him

to represent voters not only in vermont, but also across the country. they identify with him. it is important that not all of the alienated viewers share that view. that is one reason why we generate problems. there's a lot more friction in congress because these politicians represent constituencies that have felt neglected in the past. they do not go quite as neglected. i think it is absolutely right. through successive campaign regulation, the system was meant to become better and healthier. the erratic outcome has been that the parties have become weaker. it is difficult to achieve accountability when you have strong, coherent parties. to add that ie agree on both of those statements. wereampaign-finance laws drafted to restrict the political parties. they cannot do what it is their job to do.

if we were ever going to examine something, we need to take a look at those. >> you also talk about more minor parties and third parties. our system does not seem to allow that to happen, at least not easily. it is very hard for a third- party candidate to get elected. true, but in my home state of new york, we have a system known as fusion. it allows minor parties to nominate candidates of other parties, including the major parties. there is a left-wing political party in your state call the working family party. they have had a lot of success in influencing democratic primaries. they have shifted the parties of the left. as a republican, i do not necessarily feel that it reflects my desires. it is a group of people who have felt more alienated and have felt excluded from the process.

they have been able to exert some influence on the democratic rd in new york. i think if other stout -- states allowed fusion, that might help development as well. >> you are all party animals and have thrived in the partisan system. have you ever voted for a third- party candidate? >> now. -- no. >> ok. [laughter] david on comment from twitter. that we should emulate other democracies and allow independent rejection creating -- redistricting commissions. we talked about that earlier. the previous panel talked about it as well. one doctor called this the big sort. people increasingly live with people who vote the way they do.

does this suggest that redistricting might not have much of an effect? it would still be overwhelmingly republican or democratic. is this a solution? >> i don't know if it is the solution, but it is an important one. it is certainly on everybody's mind. it goes to the integrity of the whole process and it gives people a certain level of comfort to know that the districts would be drawn properly. just google redistricting and you will see how many articles there are throughout the country. editorial in the boston globe on sunday was on redistricting. i thought that was quite amazing. whole notion of gerrymandering actually started in massachusetts in 1812. interesting that people want to feel that the

process is done properly. it is the beginning. it is that touchstone of integrity in the process. i think it is important. >> what do you think? >> i agree, but i would not put all of my eggs in the basket. it does not matter where you draw the district if you're electorate is uninformed. people have some idea of what is going on, or else we're in deep trouble. be a bigot going to part of the solution. it isn't important part. >> how about the state legislature? you have a lot of experience dealing with that in ohio. if you had independent redistricting, with the legislature look different in ohio? >> i do not know about that. it would solve problems within the operation of government. i think that we are counting on

too much. 20 years ago we went through the same thing with term limits. many state legislatures have term limits and they think this would solve the problem. we have term limits in ohio and every other state that has them would agree that they have created more problems than they have resolved. i get concerned when we think that we could draw more competitive lines that would resolve everything. i think it is time that we take a look at this. it has been on the ballot twice and was defeated both times i more than one daily -- one million votes. if you're going to create something that is the bipartisanship, you have to do it carefully. you have to not overreach and you have to have both parties agree. >> why do you think it was defeated twice? >> both of them were overreaching and what they were trying to do. one was trying to have nothing

to do with anybody political. it was not related to anybody in politics. it is a political process. that was too limiting. the other issue was part of a different issue. it was a little confusing. that we havee see a resolution that would put it on the ballot. it passes by a 31-1 vote. there is a bipartisanship at some level. we will work hard to get there. not endorsing this. i am intrigued by what they do in iowa with the legislative staff. they draw the districts without partisan information. the plan has to be approved by the state legislature and the governor. there is a check and balance in the system. it is not a panacea. you want to respect municipal county boundaries. there is also another issue that

should be looked at. that is the federal voting rights act. you cannot dilute minority districts. districts can be packed into a very small number of districts with very high indices allowing for more gerrymandering. you have a lot of constraints on the process. i am not positive that if we went to a system like iowa it would change that much in ohio. something that some people think might have an effect. it is a different kind of primary, a nine -- a nonpartisan primary. republicana very district, you have a choice of two republicans. what do you think about that? is that a possible approach? i am a californian and we just voted that in. we did two things. redistricting

commission and we also created an open primary were anybody could vote in the primary for any of the candidates. the top two go into the runoff. there may be two in the same party. i do not think we have had enough time to analyze whether the ultimatet results are. we just did it for the first time. it is a significant shift in the way that people now are able to vote. we had districts in california that went from a very tough end of the state to the very middle of the state. the gerrymandering was ridiculous. we had a situation in my home district where congressman had a contract thursday -- a controversy. they reviewed the district so he could win.

i think that the public was tired of this. they won a nonpartisan way of drawing district. that is what they tried to do with this in california. >> i think that the preliminary results of the jungle primaries depend on your perspective. if you believe that the elections will yield more moderate candidates, that does not appear to have happened. what appears to have happened is that people have limited information about the names on the ballot. they cannot differentiate who is a moderate and who is not. if you are addressing the issue of competitiveness and representativeness, i unfortunately think that the best way to address that would be something that everyone would -- is-- except for me unacceptable. this is something that we have experimented with in the past. when you are thinking about the conflicts that you have an

legislatures, part of that flows from the fact that you have more conservative lawmakers representing rural areas. you have leftist lawmakers representing urban areas. there effectively -- they are effectively disenfranchised. if you have an arrangement with the multimember district and you have three members, one is a republican, it could change the dynamic and more accurately reflect the opinion. that really does address the concerns about competitiveness. i think that would be a big leap. it is not very attractive to incumbents. >> that means it is difficult to get passed into law. unless you're a state like california with a lot of authority to do it. does anyone else like the idea of a multimember district? no. no one likes that idea. >> we have been in ohio and they

did not work out well. i did not catch with the speakers and a moment ago. time, there was a federal mandate in ohio, where you elected people at large in major can't tease. -- counties. everyone ran at large. a the concern is that this is way of denying african americans opportunity to beer presented. now, one could argue that minorities might profit from this. when you want to have the majority or minority district, you also make a larger playing field less competitive. you would address this issue through a different strategy. >> the consequence of the voting -- is it has been this time to change the provision so that this does not happen so

often? >> we have been involved with the voting rights act for many years. i believe that it is discriminatory. all states treat equally. in some cases, it belongs to cases where there have been no record of discrimination for the years. it is almost a tradition that they will not let go of. it allows what i call professional minority groups to use the legal system to try to self impose certain districts and certain parts of the country. governor taft mentioned earlier, it takes away the ability of the states to be more like iowa. they have an independent commission and they have -- you cannot split counties. it almost has to go and an ideal way, block by block by block, without gerrymandering. when you have that voting rights act, it does not allow one to do

that because it is thrown out by the justice department. take it a step further. my life started in the housing project in a hispanic neighborhood. i think that we need to get away from counting people by ethnicity and skin color. that is what the voting rights act requires. >> there is a proud history, to be clear. the controversy now -- do you think it is time to change the way the voting rights act works? >> i'm a big proponent of the voting rights act. it opened up the franchise to people in an enormous way. it has tremendous benefits in this country. i think they're restricting the franchise that we are seeing across the country in so many ways is still a real problem. i think that anything we can do to increase voter participation and increase the ease with which people can go to the polls with

integrity -- that is where we need to be headed. not restricting the ability of people to exercise their right to vote. lines ofas along the the second online audience question we asked. let's see what our results were for that. we asked if having early voting would make you more likely to vote. here's what you told us. 77% said yes, 23% said no. that is a big endorsement, especially for early voting. let's pose our third and final audience question. here's what it is. are you more concerned about the dangers of election fraud than the ability of eligible voters to access the polls? which would be your priority? you can vote at our website. , whod a comment from donna writes in from north carolina. this is a state with a lot of

controversy this year in terms of new voting laws. she writes, pay attention. voters want integrity and voter ids. it is true that 82% of african- -- a small sample of african-americans -- say they would be affected by a voter id law. what do you make of that? >> i think he goes back to what i said earlier. people want integrity and -- in general across the board. i was struck by something that was said earlier today. they said that there were 20 people who had voted in two states. out of how many millions of votes cast were there 20 people who voted in two states?

i do not mean to suggest that there may be other evidence of fraud, but that was so startling to me. when you are balancing the issue of access to the polls in getting the most number of people -- i agree totally that we need a civics education. we need to know the political process and want to be a part of the political process. this is a multidimensional issue. there is a much bigger forest here. i think access is the number one issue. that is what we need to focus on. >> i agree, but not 100%. anytime you have a poll with 80% of people going one way, it means there is a thread of common sense working. here's how i look at it -- it is true that you need to id to do anything in this country. i cannot get on a plane without an id. >> do think that only people who

can get on an airplane should vote? >> of course not. the people who fly as much as i do probably should not vote. here's the thing. the question -- the worry is that this form of id will be used by people in enough areas way to keep them from voting. way to keeprious them from voting. electionthink that fraud is an enormous problem in the united states. however, as a principal, i do not have a problem with people having some form of common id. are a country with sophisticated technology. we use it in banking and so many other things across the board. we question is, how do prevent the insidious use of prevention of access? i think it's a society we are

capable of dealing with that problem. hopefully we are. i want to respond to dan. voting is different than nearly anything else that a citizen does. it is a right. if we are going to require some keepof id, then we need to it from becoming a poll tax and provided to everyone. we need to do it freely. [applause] -- either way, and an effort to increase access, i think the two issues could be pulled together. you are right. there has to be a format of doing this. it cannot be used as a deterrent to voting. >> i think that the brief conversation that we have had here illustrates some interesting larger issues that we face. we have the contentious issues. when you look at how this has played out, some people think

that this is a commonsense idea. some people think this is essentially racist. some people find themselves in their corners. you do not have people do what we have just seen now. there may be some legitimate concerns, even if fraud is limited. perhaps there is some way to move forward. her house we do need a universal id. we need to have a proper conversation. people are often marginalized and isolated from public services. this is an issue that you would think that people might actually care about. when you try to use that to say that we are not going to characterize advocacy as nefarious, let's see if we can work together on this. a poll tax would be dangerous. is there some kernel of concern here that is legitimate? can we trust that rather than go to corners?

i think that ohio has a pretty good balance. it is not perfect. there are all kinds of different identifications. people can use all kinds of things for identification. i think it is good to deter fraud. we need to also promote and encourage access. i do want to say that there were only 20 interstate cases, but there were other cases that were investigated in ohio during the 2012 election. i do not think this is a huge problem, but you do not want it to be. contrast, in texas there was a controversy because you could not use your student id, but you could use a gun permit. tell us about what texas said you could use to vote. >> it is a big controversy in

our state. there are good points on both sides about the right to vote. there is fraud that needs to be dealt with. it may be minimal, so you have to pass a global law and show your passport or whatever to vote. i think that this is one of those visceral arguments. no one is ever going to be able to solve this. we have to keep in mind that anything we can possibly do to -- i'm going to bring up that point from earlier. 40% do not even vote. that has nothing to do with voter id or whether there is fraud occurring, because no one has been able to show it is a significant problem. however, if a state like ohio or texas wants to implement such a thataren't we a nation

allows states to conduct their own elections and make those decisions? >> i agree with henry, this is a solution, part of any and the access problem is have much -- is a much greater problem. >> an interesting thing we found, the experts agree voter fraud is a small problem, not something that is changing the outcome of elections, and yet when we ask americans if they notght people who were citizens voted, whether that happened frequently, about one out of four americans said y es. so maybe voter id goes to ushering people the integrity of the ballot, that elections are something they can believe on and count on and not speed. you would disagree? >> the conversation of the previous panel was helpful in ways to assure the integrity. i thought the good voting lists and going to government sources to help it good voting lists and

the sharing of information across state lines and using government lists was fantastic. and i think that helps. that is one of the ways of getting non-contentious across the ideological spectrum, a way that something that everybody can wrap their arms around, say it is a good way, it helps with the integrity of the process, and helps prevent fraud, it helps with access. i thought that was a very positive solution. we have to assure people that their vote does count, and whether or not there is truth to the fraud, it is one of these kind of games like people spread it around. people had any inclination to not vote, those kinds of things leave an impression in their minds, so if there is a way to resolve this by getting people who need identification identification, then we need to do it. we need the security of the

ballot, the fact that you want them to know that their vote does count, these types of things discourage that. people mightasons be supportive of showing voter id, is seven out of 10 -- nine out of 10 people said they voted, which is not what turnout shows, and i am not saying that this happened to polls. in any case, 70% of people who said they voted said they already had to show the voter id, and i suspect that means in some places people are requiring a footer id although the law does not tarry. maybe they imagine they do. you see older people in manhattan showing their id, but it seems intuitive to many people. >> this was an issue on which there is a huge partisan divide. lots of the issues we asked about in this poll, he found pretty bipartisan sentiment on

one part or another. when we asked where the priorities should be, voter security or voter access, republicans were inclined to say voter fraud should be the first priority, fighting voter fraud, the crest and to say making sure that every individual who has a right to vote could vote, was a more important priority. not a surprise, dan glickman? issue herethe real is that access to the polls is a right and it should be encouraged, a positive response. voter fraud is one that tends to require a preventive or negative response. i think people always want the more positive response, and look , i can't characterize the partisan separation on the fact that immigration -- democrats see a lot of their voters were not registered that they see access that will help them politically, and perhaps republicans see most of their voters are actual registered and

are not encouraging access. that is not accurate at all because we have seen people switch from the right to the left all the time, based upon all these situations. good access is important to both political parties. >> we found republicans were much more likely to say that voter fraud is a big problem. four out of 10 republicans said it that noncitizens freakily vote. republicans are a suspicious bunch, governor taft. >> apparently. i think a major problem is motivating people to vote and providing them information so they are informed when they vote. that is the major problem in the country. i do not think fraud is a issue. in terms of being able to -- one out of three people said voted earlier one way or another. ballots to every voter in the state. if you want to vote, you could