u.k. has not been invaded by a foreign body for over 750 years. shouldn't that in itself demonstrate just how successful the union has been? he is correct. thele vote no in referendum. they can we get knowing they will keep it down knowing that we will remain members of the united kingdom and retain the european union membership and they will know that brave men and women are looking after their national security and much more. tose are not subject negotiation. the united kingdom is successful

because we share our resources. money and a more prosperous .arts of the u.k. can be shared the size and sheer diversity means we will always have the sources of wealth from redistribution even when natural resources cease to exist and that ability to share resources coupled with the certainty of currency and international -- small nations cannot compete with. i worked with colleagues .nd friends

apart from the accent no different from walking down the streets of glasgow. people have got the same problems. we share much more than currency and membership of international agreements come away share history and the same hopes and aspirations for future generations. addition.an an eightmaria had pound for announcement be boy. mother and child are doing well. the child gets the same chance to grew up in the united kingdom is i have. >> i am delighted to follow the path of contribution. >> much of this debate is about the forthcoming referendum centered on the economic issues.

the bankess sector -- of scotland will move its headquarters doubtless followed by others. be the gift to decide whether an independent scotland could keep the pound but that case has been very strongly made. defense is another critical area. 12,006 hundred people are employed in the defense industry in scotland. many in the shipyards and where the largest washers ever built are being -- warships ever built are being assembled. article 346 of the european treaty, the british government is not required to

put out any contract for defense equipment. >> i am sure that he is aware since the second world war [indiscernible] for any defense ship and scot of the no longer part u.k., they will not get those contracts. >> the gentleman is right and it is important the people of scotland understand the in thisance of defense debate. i'm grateful were his contribution. if the defense were to be interested to a foreign country. this would be a huge danger. these are matters of the head.

to address matters of the hard. my father was born in the lancashire. my mother was a douglas, the daughter of a former my himself a border reeaver. scotland even if i do not have a scottish accent. my relatives have farmed that country for centuries. and are doing so as we debate this issue. my uncles together with representative issa from the northumberland side define the border between england and scotland in the 1950's. my uncle played [indiscernible] forrest.layed for jed greatest rugby

player. this is no foreign country. this is where large part of my the resides. one across border back into scotland i think of the words of sir walter scott. this is my own, my natie land. elsece my roots to know or but the soil of this kingdom. where have my soul resides. as [indiscernible] noble friend, no t covered by our newspapers, the for divorce. they want to in 300 years of a mighty and successful partnership. to which scotland has contributed a few -- a huge mark -- amount. alexander graham bell who gave us the telephone, the inventor

of the television. alexander fleming discovered penicillin. founded the who bank for -- for which i worked, standard chartered bank. all scott to enrich this kingdom. and today salix ferguson. possibly the greatest football manager of all time. j.k. rowling and the rest. that one man's personal [indiscernible] isput asunder that which gone for centuries. we work together and play together and we have fought to dash for freedom together. my uncles fought in the second world war to rid -- to return the freedom of these islands. scotland's influence would be virtually zero. i give way to my old friend. >> i thank you, honorable

member, forgiving way. does he agree with me that the unsettling and unnerving effect that a division in this wonderful union would have, that it would get the [indiscernible] off irish republicans in my part of the kingdom and would drive another wedge into the hearts and souls of people in ulster? >> of course emma the honorable gentleman is right to make that analogy and went to the consequences, the unforeseen consequences to which the scottish national party does not wish to draw attention. i entirely support him. of course,orce court the judges will be those of whatever nationality currently reside in scotland. the 800 thousand scots living in england have been disenfranchised and can only watch helplessly when others determine the fate of the land of their birth. spiegel -- people like captain eric brown, royal navy. akram typesn more than anyone else on this planet, who has done more ship think --

deck landing. who inter it -- interrogated herman during -- goering. nazielped save us from domination will have no vote because he does not currently reside in scotland. nor were there scots living and working overseas phentermine to the prosperity of this are kingdom. are we then to have separate passports? for i and my family on the other side of the border, or would you be divided in this way? i think this is monstrous. to you has been granted the exclusive privilege of deciding the destiny of this, our united kingdom. i say please vote to retain the unity of the kingdom in which scotland plays such a proud and distinguished part. it will be a tragedy if families

across the kingdom were to be divided in the way the separatists are demanding. >> thank you. congratulations for securing this important debate on scotland's place in the united kingdom. another, 2014 will be the year that scots will remember. the scottish people will vote to decide either to continue 300 years of partnership and shared prosperity or to go it alone as a separate state. upset some, i did not get over the constitution. i would rather we talking about how to build a better scotland and a better world. i am appalled by living pull [indiscernible] and i would rather the government would focus on its day job of improving the lives usinginary scots and

andic resources to remote s&p agenda. scots of country needed to one of the most successful and prosperous political unions the world has ever seen. whereas there is little doubt that scotland could be an independent country, the question the scottish people will have to consider is whether scotland will be better off by going it alone. my view is that scotland would not and there is a range of positive reasons why i believe that we are all better together. their rest linked to of the united kingdom socially, politically, and economically. the single -- i will certainly give way. >> very grateful to the honorable gentleman. scotland is linked to northern ireland. there are strong bonds across all those countries and it is important that we from those areas send a message to our

fellow citizens that we want them to remain part of the united kingdom and we cherish their part and it is important that we are not interfering in the democratic front and we send thankitive messages. >> you. i welcome that intervention and i recognize what you're saying. i understand and accept the major cultural links if nothing else between the people of scotland and the people of northern ireland. i have many friends and relatives who emanate from northern ireland. going on to say the single market within the u.k. for significant economic trade and employment opportunities for people on both sides of the border and our membership of the european union through the a vastkingdom provides marketplace for exporters. we have the place at the top table of the european council of ministers and wanted at the g8 four m and we are permanent

members of the united nations security council. to wieldich allows us unprecedented influence on the european and global stages. as a member of nato we have collectively in a fitted since the war from international security and defense corporation on a grand scale. when it comes to the economy scotland has an important relationship with the rest of the united kingdom. totland benefits from access a market comprising tens of millions of people within a single jurisdiction. scots are employed i firms based in the rest of the u.k. and the rest of the u.k. benefits from opportunities with scottish-based companies and these exports for the rest of itsu.k. are worth double exports to the rest of the world. i will certainly give way to my humble friend. border will become a barrier for business with the ?est of the u.k. --

>> the scots word to vote for that, the rest of the u.k. would remain within the european union and of course scotland would not so scotland could not benefit from the single market of the european union. that would be a great detriment to scottish business and to scotland overall. madam deputy speaker. it is great to see a scott in the chair this afternoon. reminded.n, i am >> in addition to the shared opportunities, the cooling -- pulling of resources allows .ewards to be spread the u.k. led by a scott injected

an amount of capital into the banks well in excess of the total budget of the scottish government. the pooling of resources also allows the different gas distribution on the basis of social need. that would place a major question mark over its ability to benefit at current levels and to meet state and public sector commitments. scotland has its own scottish parliament with significantly more powers to come as a result of the commission. it can be argued that scotland has the best of both worlds. also -- local decision making but under the financial umbrella of the [inaudible] thank you for giving way and for making a positive case.

>> scotland benefits from the the point is well made. that theve been told answer to the question would be in the scottish government's mine. i was half expecting next week's lottery numbers to appear in its pages. they were promising new testament but in said we have had the next election manifesto. the scottish government could chooses partyut

dividing lines further than improving the lives of the scottish people. in conclusion on september 18 the scottish people will have a choice to support the continuation of scotland in the u.k. with all the benefits that unfolds with the strengthening of evolution articulate into the unknown never to return. >> thank you. i am delighted to have an opportunity to speak in this debate to speak not just as a member of parliament but to speak as a member of parliament for carlisle. the city at the center of the united kingdom. a city that is situated on the english-scottish border and to speak as a scott. is one part of the united kingdom and that united kingdom of which scotland is a part has been successful for the

last 300 years. i would suggest that you live in a union that has a number of different parts to it but it is much greater than the sum of its parts. they you -- you get -- u.k. is superior and far more moressful than to our separate entities. that is why it is in the interest of all of us that we have remained part of a united kingdom. we live in a nation which has been successful. socially, and politically. we live in a wealthy and prosperous stable country. a country that expect -- respects the individual and respects the rule of law. i health services that is free and standard of living which is the envy of much of the world. scotland is a part of that. scotland has made a valuable contribution to the success of the united kingdom. it has helped create that

prosperity that we enjoy and he continues to do so. this most successful of unions could start to fracture and, part. it is my view shared by many in this house that this move to an independent country would not be in the interest of scotland are the people of scotland. detrimental toe the remaining parts of the u.k. bestt would be against the interest of the people in my constituency and the surrounding area north and south of the border. thatmentator suggested independence was won between the accountants and the poets. -- this is a debate between those on the concern [inaudible] 's continuing place within the u.k. can be supported

on emotional arguments and sentiment as well as on hard economic facts. the union has to be to the economic benefit of the scottish people. the real danger is independence will lead to significant stagnation and decline. scotland may not be a place for some sectors to invest or do do business. the union was as much of our economics as it was about politics. businesses do not like uncertainty. there is a certainty and continuity that scotland remains part of the united kingdom. in contrast there is uncertainty pursue and decides to independent course. [inaudible]

o'er the scottish dollar. and taxip with the eu regulation, especially the financial sector. as for the emotional debate i see no problem. as well as someone can call themselves welsh or much else. they're still british but they can and should be proud of both. the olympic games demonstrates the attachment most people have. that it hast forget important issues. there is a lot of work and shopping and family relationships across the border. there is a danger wind up with unnecessary competitions and difficulties which could hinder activity especially economic and business. daylight hours could be different. we could end up with someone

traveling across the border who needs to carry id and change their money and follow different regulations and pay different taxes and wonder if it was all worthwhile. -- i believe scotland's place in the u.k. is much like carlyle's and should be added center. [indiscernible] i would like to start in gaelic a great pleasure to speak in this debate. to be a full part of the un and thell and proper member of commonwealth.

not kept apart. certainly not knowing its place in the union -- [indiscernible] of imperialism. s -- places in the world. scotland will not be the first. nation isr independent but scotland is insulted by the word separate or separatism. we will be independent. [inaudible] independence is a one-way street. says withot much he rightness and joy. the fact is it is probably irreversible but the reality noneobservation is that who have gained their

independence to use to give it up. and we stopping children start making decisions for ourselves, so it works for countries. for people to make decisions for our country and this is true for scotland. . am very grateful these are very interesting points. onthere is a yes vote september 18, that sam subsequent date he would give a further referendum to allow scotland to go back into the united kingdom. they can do that. the facts are that scotland has only changed the government for six months since 1945. not -- it has not voted

two thirds of the time. claims that were made by the tory party that it would lead for labor being in power in scotland. friend makes a great point. scotland -- it will not affect the government 98% of the time. we have to make the lives of those who live in scotland better. this should not be the guiding light of any democrat. better quality jobs and more

and no more neglect. this should be our concern not the tory government but the needs of the people of scotland and the will of the people in scotland. scotland's destiny is in those terms. they this they are kept in the hands of people who are in scotland. do we have the courage to deliver a better future to succeeding generations? when the oil runs out the money went. the finances are good despite having attack system not designed to optimize or maximize scotland's potential but in each

and every one of the last 32 years, scotland has contributed more tax per person then the u.k. as a whole. public spending has been a long share of gdp. taking taxes spent together, public finances have been better by 12.6 billion. membership -- should listen to this. an independent scotland could suspect -- order. >. they should listen to this. an independent scotland should expect to start with healthier

finances. scotland can do it. it would be wrong to suggest scotland could be another successful and independent country. who do -- could disagree with those words? out who she is. notquestion is whether or scotland could exist as a separate nation. my real favorite. no economic case has been won by the [inaudible] side. her message is one of hope. spent anparents of

average of 27% on childcare. the childcare [inaudible] will dramatically improve childcare. it happens in sweden and it will happen in scotland. independence must happen. this is the cost. risking more poverty.in scotland must be independent. pounduld use the £ sterling. we keep the pound and the rest

of the world looks at us. we will deliver independence. >> thank you madam deputy speaker. what a considerable pleasure it is to follow the honorable gentleman. with such apeech terrible lack of facts and -- grace this hallowed chamber? clap trap.otional do sit down, dear boy. [laughter] it has been my intention when i put my name down to speak to stick to what governor carney called the dismal science. select committee chairman was the first to be called and did a job or better than i could. i was struck

listening to the words of the honorable gentleman. anch i thought was extraordinarily good and transient speech by the fact we should not run away from the emotion that is involved in this decision. i would like just first to touch a little bit on the heart issues before i return to the fact issues. i have the honor after -- addressing a group of girl guides who had asked me to come and explain the consequences of .r the -- independence i felt it was very important to try and give as balanced of you as i could and to explain both beforef the argument giving my conclusion as to why i stay in the union.

i started by doing a little bit of history as the honorable gentleman did. i did point out that it was not that the northern isles came into the scotland we now now. actually, the administrative construct of modern scotland existed for less time than the union has existed. i think it is important to put that in context because so often, we are given this wonderful diet that somehow the great [inaudible] some distant to point in history and if we do not give scotland its independence, we will be denying it those millennia of destiny. the plain fact is that is a load of emotional tosh. we understand the true history. if you go back further, up to most people owed allegiance to the north side, to

the king of norway through the earl of orkney, one of my ancestors, i have to say that were scotland to find itself in the impossible position of being independent, i think i should be joining my good friends in the northern isles in seeking independence and going back to that earldom. really want to say is we need to assess the risks and we need to assess the risks as well as the benefits. i hope the debate will become rational. when i first joined the select committee, we were looking at globalization. you have to look at globalization to see what is happening in business so when we talk about what might happen to business, we do have to look at where best would companies be regulated and the financial services industry in scotland may think it is better off regulated in a different jurisdiction.

abouthave to think companies who have treaties with other sovereign nations and may not continue to build things in scotland when it becomes a separate country. we do have to think about people who wish to invest in the united , will they go to the rest of the united kingdom or will they in fact go to scotland and i suggest for many of them, the simple practical commercial decision would be to go. looking at the risks and benefits i have to say that the norfits cannot be marginal can they be uncertain. if scotland is to seek independence, those benefits must be substantial and irvine and that case has not been made. we are a braveheart nation. it is a great scottish characteristic but another great for cteristic is the time cannyheed. -- canny heed.

will the last person leaving scotland snuff out the candle? toit is a pleasure contribute today. i want to say a few words about the security of people. scots have a high level of security in a be injured -- in a very dangerous world. andre kept safe at home people like the security that the u.k. armed forces provide. because only 27% believe that if scotland is become independent, she should have her own army, navy, and air force.

we should combine our armed forces with the rest of the u.k. and there are very few clear,with a overwhelming majority in one answer in favor of another. people are wanting to keep the peace whatever happens. and the views of scots are not [inaudible] to ourt should happen armed forces. ourre also part of nato and membership is vitally important. we work with other countries to benefit from full spectrum defense capabilities. we have [inaudible] the snp, having dragged the party to long-standing

opposition to membership are in a real model on that issue. nato ifld only join they were given a guarantee that no nuclear summaries would pass through scotland's waters. in the white paper they say -- they would operate a don't ask, don't tell policy. but of these cannot be true. orher they would join nato they would drop it and they would be happy to join and operate don't ask, don't tell how see. is entirelyip unclear whether or not we would be a member and on what basis would they like to take them into nato.

[inaudible] the same budget put forward in the white paper is 2.5 billion pounds a year and that is seven percent of the total project every penny of which is spent protecting scottish families along with those across the rest of the u.k.. of a single procurement pledge in the entire way deeper. be defense structure cannot easily disaggregated. defense ofr the everyone who lives here. scotland received the full benefits of the protection of security afforded to the rest of the u.k.. we pool our resources and work together to keep the people of the u.k. safe. why we would -- why would we want to give that up?

i recall a thread of assumption that runs through the white paper. the exceptions are that the remainder of the u.k. would tearfully handover whatever equipment and independence scotland asks for. what if the remains are of the u.k. [indiscernible] what would an independent scotland do? we are talking about equipment that cannot be bought off the shelf unless you buy secondhand. u.k. -- from those who serve in the front lines to those and it getsndustry special preference. the u.k. does not build complex warships in other countries.

defense plan is a complete fantasy which would leave -- lead to closures. [inaudible] >> thank you very much. to followeasuarre the honorable lady. i am speaking today as a representative and as a proud citizen of the united kingdom who, as my honorable friend so eloquently said, cares deeply and loves the kingdom and its constituent nations of scotland, england, wales, and northern ireland. together with the vast majority a pollonstituents if that we took and conversations are anything to go by, we would wish to remain part of the

united kingdom. there is somehow the notion around the people in the rest of the u.k. are not concerned about this decision. that certainly does not accord with my experience. they do care. thes just that they respect rights of the scottish people to make up their own minds in this most important decision. , we stoodted kingdom united against fascism. we stood together for freedom and against tyranny during the cold war. and today we work together in tackling poverty and the causes of poverty around the world. it is not for nothing that the historic agreements about tackling poverty were signed in 2005 in scotland. >> the gentleman makes an interesting point. nations stood under the allied

banner. there were 40 nations under the banner and in norway. it is not just something for one nation. i think the honorable gentleman to say -- for saying that he is absolutely right and we must remember all nations that work together. we stood together as the united kingdom together with those nations absolutely. we now have as a united kingdom, a very strong voice in the world through the g-8. with our seat on the un's security council, our seats on the executive board of the world bank, the international monetary fund, and other organizations as has been tension. this has been vital for our interests and even more important for the interests of the citizens of the world. if i may just for a moment be a

little personal my late examplen-law is just an of the fundamental very important but personal example of the fundamental contribution of scots across the ages to our united kingdom trade working on radar for the royal navy during the war, he completely coincidently alongside my father who was there at the same time and so money from across the u.k. and indeed as the honorable gentleman said from other nations, played his role in protecting our vital supply lifelines in the atlantic and elsewhere. this just is another example of the intellectual seriousness which the previous beaker has referred to which scotland and scots often bring to our deliberations and our work in the united kingdom. as the honorable member for glasgow central said to my we are part of one family in the u.k..

like any family, we have our squabbles but like any family, we stand up for each other in difficult times, shoulder to shoulder. madam deputy speaker, i, and i believe millions of others in england and the other parts of the united kingdom care deeply about scotland remaining in the u.k.. we have done so much together, let's continue to do that. the debate is an interesting [inaudible] rest ofscotland and the the united kingdom. i do think that a danger in that sounded.

passion, the reality of what the scottish national party proposes in terms of changing is obscured. that amean by that is rather peculiar notion at the heart of the nationalist case, that peculiar notion is that economic and social union between the peoples of these islands should continue but the political union should end. compare that -- examine that peculiar notion. the fact that the scottish national party believes a social union should continue and there is a white paper offering testimony to that desire, says something about how 300 years of partnership have brought the people of these islands closer together. surprisingrse is not

. we have a shared language and we have family ties, we have a have freerency, we trade, we have common trade unions across the united kingdom . we share preferences and a common popular culture which has -- reinforced when an issue comes together to watch. other things -- and it is important to recognize that the white paper is a testimony to all that. the s&p want to argue that all these things can be retained but the political unions disappears and why do nationalists [inaudible] come to that conclusion. ofply answered, 300 years

history cannot be washed away or forgotten. that is testament to that whether he believes it or not. believele of scotland they have mutual ties that bind us. a social andve in economic union. let's examine that little. [indiscernible] what is theut is best form of government across these islands.

if the union is to injure, i have -- the question becomes how will scotland's political interests be represented? the answer was a union. they came up in a diabolically clever scottish fashion to create a partnership between two countries. we celebrate william wallace. what we're saying is because scotland entered the union, we created a partnership. >> this is the case that the

proposals would lead to an incredible deficit. at the moment the people of scotland do not like what the government is doing. they can have their say. any negotiations would be intergovernmental. it would be up to what the scottish government could extract. >> it is difficult to have your cake and eat it. this is very important. [indiscernible] my response is very straightforward.

we do not [indiscernible] together. and of course that house is refurbished. it is not unchanging. the biggest change in this country, 300 years is the creation of the scottish parliament. the fact is this is our house as peoples ofe other the united kingdom. madam deputy speaker, that is the basis under which this debate must proceed. the ties that bind us even in a nationalistic set. and [indiscernible] social and economic decisions are made. that is the basis on which the currency of our interest rates and continuing social ties must proceed.

each wednesday that the house of commons is in session we bring you reddish prime minister's questions. this week him a prime minister david cameron is expected to get more questions about the scottish independence referendum vote which is gentle for september. watch live wednesday at 7:00 eastern on c-span [applause] c-span2. republican members of congress take part in the conservative party summit. a former israeli ambassador to the u.s. talks about the israeli-palestinian he stalks and u.s. policy in the middle east. >> we will talk to iowa congressman steve king who is a member of the [inaudible]

and some perspective on u.s.-french relations and french president françois holland's visit this week. plus your calls, e-mails, and tweets. . >> book tv is live in georgia for the savanna book festival. coverage starts at 9 a.m. eastern on roger ailes and fox news and continues throughout the day with canine warriors. and on woodrow wilson and deborah solomon on the life of norman rockwell. the savanna book festival, heart of a three-day presidents' day weekend life saturday on book tv. march 2, but power, the civil rights movement and the obama era. calls, comments, and

e-mails on c-span [applause] c-span2. join the conversation and go to book tv.org and click on book club to enter the chapter. >> now, discussion on privacy issues and digital technology. we will hear from matt salmon. this is the conservative policy summit. for being here and i am excited to be able to introduce color -- congressman matt salmon. 1994, mattrk year of was elected to the u.s. house of representatives where he served three terms. he grew a reputation as being a and a guy who went

after spending, real fiscal conservative. he remained true to his promise to self impose a term limit. he went home and retired his seat. after the passage of obamacare like a lot of conservatives easter to rethink what he needed to do for the country. at the same time there was massive government regulation that was rippling the economy in his district. to serve.d the call in 2012 he was reelected to the house of representatives. we are likely -- lucky that he was. he is the kind that we need more of. he is here for all the right reasons and he has a lot of experience having served those terms in the 1990's, he is someone his colleagues can look to for some guidance and to understand the history of the house of representatives. this morning he will talk to us about one of the big important policies that we are unveiling today.

the bill he will talk to us this morning is simple. it would ensure that the people have the ability to communicate with one another electronically without the government is dropping. a basic but very important. it is in our communications with that weher after all share ours and passions. in so doing, we form those voluntary associations that form the bedrock of american civil society. the government that is big enough is a very dangerous thing. please join me in welcoming the congressman to talk about how to address this problem. is wonderful to be here today. a wise man named edmund franklin once said those who can give up

essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. that saying is so important to me that i had my wife which it on my wall in my congressional office. this man was at the core of a generation to learn firsthand the cost of unchecked power. this experience came the hard way. fathers our founding insights on how to be held accountable. our founders specifically the right of people ,o be secure in their persons houses, papers, and effects against unwarranted search and seizures. the founding fathers were not simple men and they were not ignorant or naïve. they understood that the challenges that we would have to

face as a free nation, as a free state, they understood well that without security, there is no liberty and without liberty there is no security. balancee this delicate between liberty and security, the institute is the constitution and bill of rights as the foundation for this experiment in self governance with maximum liberty being held to the highest ideal. today we find ourselves in a as itof epic proportions relates to our individual liberties and their preservation. yesterday we see new story after news story chronicling the damaging effects of out-of-control surveillance states. last summer, edward snowden released a series of exposés revealing a series of surveillance programs such as prism, as well as the andrception of u.s. european telephone metadata.

these revelations raised serious questions about what we, the american people, were willing to trade for our security. those who stood with me in defense of our constitution and the fourth amendment were accused of being naïve. we were accused of being ignorant. by those advocates of mass snooping saying after all what do you have to hide? mass spying did not attack us marathon bombers or the christmas day bomber. it did not protect us from the times square armor, the shooting at an army recruiter center or the shooting at fort hood. when deputy attorney general james cole was asked how many criminal cases resulted from the use of this surveillance dragnet, he said there may be one. america's time of financial crisis with billions of dollars spent to support this gigantic

secret snooping operation, a simple cost-benefit analysis of these programs would determine enough toe effective warrant mass amounts of funding they received. i could think of at least one far-flung consulate in libya that on the night of september 11, 2012 may have been able to use some of those resources. there is aountry, strong case to be made for the use of honest and operations to ensure the safety of its citizenry. lawful covert surveillance program ride critical life-saving information to our service men and servicewomen defending us at home and abroad. we as american citizens understand these operations just as any other military offensive was -- must be targeted and well executed in order to be effective in saving the lives of our troops and innocent civilians. while the case can be made that secret operations may be

necessary in order to save lives , a case for the lack of congressional oversight cannot. transparency of argosy are the core of a republic. the republic commands transparency for the government and privacy for its citizens. today we reverse that with demanding transparency but insisting on secrecy for itself. said this.avorites if the natural tendency of mankind is so bad it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it the tendencies of these organizers are always good? do not the legislators and their appointed agents belong to the human race? they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? emselves are made out of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? of course there is a role for secrecy but there must be a role for transparency.

when you have secret courts, and secret judges, giving secret interpretations of the law to a point where its author can't believe how it's been misconstrued and then lie to the american people about it, we got a problem. and this problem could not have been more obvious to me as i sat on a classified congressional briefing that was being held in the wake of edward snowden's release of information about the nsa's secret spying programs. now in this briefing, members of congress asked specific questions about the size and scope of these secret programs. time and time again the answers given by the nsa went something like, we're not going to disclose that. and don't worry, we've got it covered. needless to say our own government does not seem to think it important to tell the american people the truth. last year senator ron wyden asked nsa director james clapper whether the nsa collected any type of data at all on millions

or hundreds of millions of americans. clapper, who was under oath, responded by saying, no, sir. we now know that this was a blatant lie. furthermore it could not be ignored that the author of the patriot act, representative jim sensenbrenner has been quoted on saying on multiple occasions that congress would never have passed or twice reauthorized the patriot act had it known the full breadth of the nsa's snooping operation. the fact is, as usual, when you give the government an inch, they take a mile. we simply can't afford to play around with our most basic, fundamental human rights. back in may the 4 -- before the revelations of edward snowden came to light i introduced legislation to restore transparency, accountability and confidence to our national security apparatus. hr-1847, the electronic communications privacy act, is designed to increase protections

for electronic communications, including personal e-mails, of u.s. citizens, and addresses the privacy concerns raised from the recent position that the irs took that the fourth amendment does not apply, and does not protect the privacy of personal, unopened e-mails because internet users do not have a reasonable expectations of privacy in such communications. clearly there is a need to ensure the privacy of personal e-mails. in the ever-changing world of our technology our laws must be updated to ensure our congressional -- excuse me our constitutional rights are protected regardless of what mode of communication that we use. my bill requires the government to obtain a warrant or explicit written consent to read e-mails, text messages, or any other form of private electronic messaging. we have a duty to uphold the constitution that freed us and the rights it provides and this

bill is one way to achieve that responsibility. i'm proud to sponsor the house version of the electronic communications privacy amendments act of 2013 because it will properly update the current version of the electronic communications privacy act and affirm the fundamental right of every american in regards to their privacy. at times, when we feel most betrayed by our own government, it can be all too easy to focus solely on it, label it as the problem. and ignore the many other real threats to our liberty that confront us on a daily basis. to maintain a proper perspective on those threats to our freedoms at home and abroad can be difficult. on one hand, it's imperative that we remain vigilant. focused and willing to confront our enemies wherever they may be. on the other hand, we've got to be careful not to forfeit the freedoms that we set out to defend in the first place, in the name of temporary security.

but i believe that we are, as americans, are up to the challenge. this challenge will require us to be educated, unintimidated, and something you probably don't see a lot here, reasonable. it require us to act pro-actively, and with precision, rather than with emotional responses. my friends, never. has it been more important to stand and be counted among those who recognize that our natural rights of god-given, not given to us by any government, we've got to stand together unintimidated in defense of these natural rights to ensure that the founding ideals of our great nation survive for many, many generations to come. our views are not foreign out of naivete or ignorance, rather they're borne of a deep understanding of history and human nature, and by the virtue of understanding we as independent self-reliant

americans maintain a healthy distrust for centralized power. we understand at the end of the day that we are free men, and free women, under god, and that our rights are not ours to give away. thank you. >> congressman salmon is going to stay and participate in our panel. and if our panelists could come up now, that would be great. we are going to spend a few minutes talking about this. katie mcauliffe is the federal affairs manager and executive director for digital liberty at americans for tax reform and paul rosenzweig is a busy fellow here in our edwin meese center for legal and judicial studies, and we're excited to have them for this discussion. so we'll open it up for questions in a few minutes, and i think i'll join you all. >> good. we can start off, i think i'll direct a question to paul to start with.

paul, talk to us a little bit about the constitutional history in this subject area, so we kind of have that background. >> well, as the congressman rightly pointed to the fourth amendment of the constitution as the ground for our discussion of the reform act, the text of that protects american people's reasonable expectations of privacy. it protects them against unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, houses, papers and effects. the quintessential ground for that amendment is the searching of private correspondence. the classic cases involved, james otis, who was a publisher, and was subject of search by british authorities prior to the revolution, under what were then known as general warrants, which are essentially orders to permit searches without any specificity, and without a finding of probable cause.

these -- this case, and others like it, were widely known and famous throughout the colonies at the time of the founding, and formed the basis for the traditional historic suspicion of unchecked government authority to access your papers. your personal papers. if you would have asked any founding father at the time of the framing, you know, what was the two classic things that were protected against intrusions without -- by the government by the fourth amendment the first thing he would have said would have been, they can't come into my house. because a man's home is his castle was a classic english common law principle. and then the second thing would have been, and they can't read my mail. they can't read my private correspondence. fast forward to today, or fast forward to 1986, which is the

dawn of the computer era. i mean think about where you were in 1986 and the power of computers. e-mail was still really in the future. and the electronic communications privacy act was written at a time when the idea of actually storing e-mail was impossible. it would be delivered, you'd read it, and then it would disappear. so, congress, not, you know, not with any bad intent, but simply because of a lack of the ability to predict the future, which all of us share, simply didn't come to understand that gmail, and other cloud-based mail services, would become the post office of the future. and that we would now communicate more in our private letters, through electronic means than we do through paper and pen. and so the equivalent of what we're looking at today is a search of the desk in your house, where you keep your personal love letters from your

husband, or wife, or your -- the personal mail from your daughter or your father or your mother, but now, instead of storing them in my desk, place and the way and the form in which i store them is different, but the nature of what is in them is exactly the same. and so that's the kind of constitutional transition from the fourth amendment to 1986,

which, you know, the mac was just 2 years old, right, to today. thank you. one more question. then we'll open it up. katie, you've been working on the coalition on this, on this issue for quite some time, and what struck me about this coalition is, it is strange bedfellows to say the least. but i think that that says something about the power of the issue. can you talk about the coalition members, talk about the dynamics of the coalition. talk about where you see this going, what the chances for passage are, et cetera? >> sure. so there are a few different coalitions that are very supportive of this. i'm a member of both digital due process and digital forest along with heritage, american civil liberties union and center for democracy and technology, we're all working to the very actively to move this forward because the fourth amendment is something

that everyone can support. you're talking about domestic law enforcement, going in to your service provider with a subpoena so they can read your e-mail, without your knowledge. they would have to come to you with a warrant, we think they should also have to come to your service provider with a warrant, with your knowledge, so that you can find out what is privileged and what's not so that you can go through the process. this is something that doesn't -- doesn't impede law enforcement's ability to do their job, which is something that's also very important. which is why, you know, we all support this. for passage it should be very simple. right? we're all concerned with privacy. there have been a few other things going on and electronic communications, privacy reform, common sense is something that should be easy to pass right now. but for some reason, the fcc and other civil agencies, investigative agencies, think that they should be able to read your e-mail. and that is what is holding this

back. they came forward, and they said, wait, wait, wait, we're a civil investigative agency, the fcc says this, and if you change it then we can't read people's e-mails anymore and we kind of want to be able to do that. there's really not an instance that i can think of very easily where there would be a civil investigation that was, i mean so important that there wasn't a criminal investigation going alongside it. where they couldn't leverage some kind of warrant need. so this is kind of an outlandish thing that if it were to pass with any kind of amendment that would allow the s.e.c. or any other agency, you name it, computer financial protection bureau, epa, it just goes on and on and on, s.e.c., fcc, you know, they would all want a piece of the pie, and that would actually weaken where we stand right now. so we would be backtracking with any kind of amendment like that.

and the coalition has been working very hard to keep this out, because if that kind of amendment is added, then i mean, what's the point? >> good. thank you. i think we'll open it up to questions. right here. >> as a firm believer in the fourth amendment, trying to understand the government's position as to why they need this information, has there been any discussion about, you know, there is software technology out there that could be used by the separate service providers that could essentially index the metadata, and keep it in, you know, essentially 20 or 30 silos, rather than the government's argument of having all haystacks in one location under government control? has there been any discussion about this kind of technology or

keeping the metadata with the service providers, and only being granted that sliver of information when a warrant is issued? >> well, that's a little bit different when you're talking about metadata versus content. and not to go down the rabbit hole on this, but metadata is often used to build the -- build a case to get to the content. if we're going to talk about metadata there should be a discussion as to what metadata actually is and what should constitute that. whether a web address, or who is sending who what at what time, you know, who's sending who what at what time? you know, what's the problem in seeing that. that's how you build a case to get to the content but the content is really what we're talking about here. and being able to subpoena the service provider for the content without the target's knowledge, that's the major problem. [ inaudible ] >> -- in one location? >> they don't have that with

electric communication privately with the way that -- when we're talking about domestic -- domestic law enforcement and them building cases and how they get to that, they don't have huge stacks of data somewhere that they go tap into. >> another question over here. >> hi. i script my notes otherwise i don't remember them. two points and then a larger comment. one, people need to remember that the service providers are private companies. we're already abusing our metadata. two is the issue of aliases. i think it's a word that's got to be brought up into any act addressing communications and privacy. are aliases are our twitter handles, our e-mail names, et

cetera. my greater point is, congressman, i'm not hearing your bill address the underground activism funded by the state department that started under hillary clinton. she's been -- state es quite public that their funding with millions of dollars underground groups like tor who will then steal the identities, the isp identities of people domestically. and knowingly their identities have been stolen when they cross the site, and then an underground volunteer of this daisy chain that's been established takes that person's identity overseas, probably even to locations like benghazi, that are used then to spark unrest. so the identity of the overseas activist actually is someone possibly in wisconsin. so i think as you're discussing the electronic communications of what goes on with the nsa, the reach would benefit with what the state is doing quite actively. otherwise they're working against what you're trying to

accomplish in my estimation. >> okay. good. i think what we found in actually moving legislation here on the hill, that we do think that a step by step process -- i'm actually sponsoring or co-sponsoring what i would consider to be many pieces of fourth amendment type legislation. we also have a fix on the patriot act that co-sponsored, as well, the liberty act that i'm co-sponsoring as well. and so the more we try to address in one bill, the less its chances of passage. we almost have to take it on a step by step. this bill was introduced after the irs said that because of the 180-day rule, that after 180-day rule e-mails were fair game and they didn't need warrants to go in. my bill revokes that 180-day

rule, and also requires that they get warrants for any. but i think the more specific we get on a piece by piece approach, the more likely we're going to be able to get it done. we find that omnibus legislation generally speaking where you throw everything in and the christmas tree, especially on something like this, probably wouldn't stand a very good chance of passage. >> right here. [ inaudible ] >> -- digital privacy and sort of an effort to call for reforms? >> the tech industry is very much interested in maintaining the privacy of its consumers. that's a promise that they want to make. and they've been wounded in terms of their business model by

suggestions that they are subject to government compulsion to give away the private information of their own customers. they are, therefore, large members of the coalitions that katie was talking about, and broadly support the idea that government access to the data that they hold on your behalf should be limited to the maximum extent that is consistent with good law enforcement practices. i mean, they're not trying to sit behind walls, and say the government has no role. but broadly speaking, the, i guess it's not the digital court, but the other one. >> digital due process. >> has like 100, you know, tech members of every way, manner, shape and form. digital fourth is limited to the four -- >> four activist.

>> four activist groups here in the district that are kind of more political driver types, i guess. including heritage action. so, yeah, i think the basic answer is is that in terms of privacy, and support of individual privacy against government intrusion the tech companies are pretty much on board with everything that's happening. >> right down here? >> the fact that they have this information, use as an example the post office, and the courier, they did not go in to our mail or scan it, so is there something, congressman, in your bill that mandates that the private company cannot share that information. you're talking now about them having to be subpoenaed to give up the information. but what if they want to voluntarily give it up? >> under the legislation that we're proposing, that information cannot go to a government agency without a

warrant. right. >> i'm sorry, to a publisher? >> they have contractual obligations, right? i mean you -- when you soon up with google, they -- or yahoo! or microsoft, i don't want to pick google, it's just the easiest name to pick, you have terms of service that you've agreed to that both authorize them to use your personal information in some ways and prohibit them from using it in others. there are, of course, it's a completely separate issue that a lot of consumer advocates are talking about, about whether google should be and microsoft and yahoo! should be able to use your information in some of the ways that you've agreed to. but that's kind of a private sector contractual problem, where what we're concerned about here is really the far more troubling possibility of governmental abuse. >> and the constitution is clear

when it comes to the government seizing that kind of information, private interchanges are, as he mentioned, through contractual relationships. >> we're dealing with kind of three different layers here. there's domestic law enforcement privacy. there's the privacy concerns that you have contractually with yourself and a business, and then there's also kind of, you know, with things that have been going on, there's international, there's fisa, and these are all under different regimes. what the congressman's bill does is protect our domestic communications, our law enforcement so that a warrant is needed for your e-mail, just like for your letters. so you can't company the postman to get my letters without my knowledge. you have to come directly to me. and so that's really -- that's very important. it should be a very easy, commonsense reform. there was a petition that over 100,000 people signed for the white house, the president has not responded. you know, this is something

that's easy for congress, for the administration, to show that they care about privacy. while dealing with more complicated issues. this is an easy step and they're stalling it because agencies still want to be able to read your e-mail without your knowledge. it's crazy. it's really -- that's just what it is. >> this doesn't apply to foreign nationals, either. and foreign governments. they are not protected under the fourth amendment of the constitution. the bill of rights strictly deals with american citizens. >> right down here in front, jerry. and just before you go, jerry, i would ask to let folks know that you're trying to get on the wi-fi the pass word is benjamin harrison, all one word, capital "b," capital "h." >> good morning. glad i came today. i'm learning some new things. metadata i think is a separate thing from what you're talking about. i was unaware that there were a number of units or elements of the federal government that

could actually read my e-mails. and i think i heard that correctly that there are. so under what authority are t the -- they doing this or have they been doing this and how long have they been doing it? >> the authority generally, for the administrative agencies, the irs, the s.e.c., epa, osha, i mean, every alphabet soup that you want, has civil investigative authority to examine the violations of the osha regulations, or whatever. and that has generally been construed to authorize them to make investigative demands of -- of your service provider for the contents of the e-mail. a typical thing that the s.e.c. would say, i mean, i don't buy this, but this is their argument, is you know, we're investigating complex financial frauds in the banks, or in t the -- or in the stock market, and we need to, you know, get

the insider e-mails that do the inside trading, and that's all communications, and we should be able to get that. because the electronic communications privacy act from 1986 essentially says that you have no privacy interest in any mail that is stored on your server for longer than six months, which is a lot of mail, right? then, because congress hasn't carved that out, or has excluded that from protection, the s.e.c., using its generic authority, investigative authority, can go to your service provider, microsoft, yahoo! and say, here's an administrative subpoena, please provide me all of jerry's e-mail. and the service provider is currently legally obliged to do that. to answer that, just as it would respond to a grand jury subpoena if you were under criminal investigation in the exact same way.

the virtue of the congressman's bill, it revokes -- would be to revoke this. >> right. and so your question is how long have they been able to do it? they were empowered to do it since the 1986 electronic communications privacy act. we're trying to amend that act to say that they can't do that. that if they want to get your e-mail or your private electronic communications, they have to have a warrant. >> -- certain individual has no place here. >> the probable cause not with civil investigations. with criminal investigations, yes. and that's where metadata comes in to build a case, and then you build a probable cause case to get to the content. but with civil investigations, that's a completely different track, and it's hard to think of an instance where the s.e.c. is going through a case that's, you know, as i said where it wouldn't also be criminal. so they don't need particular authority, and also, if you're dealing with the biz or an individual within a business,

and it's internal e-mail, you can go to the company and request that information. so, i can't think of a situation where they would actually need this, something they've brought up is, you know, those who are deceased or something along those lines so they can issue a preservation order to service providers until they can work through those issues. so dlz not really a case where they need broad access to your e-mail. it's just, there's too much paperwork. >> it's actually a useful historical point that it goes back to the late 1800s that the court said that the probable cause -- supreme court said probable cause requirement would not apply to civil investigative demands, even if that information might eventually be passed along to the criminal investigators. so, the purpose for which the demand is made at the time,

assuming it's not a fraud, and that there's a legitimate, the court said we will permit civil investigative authorities to act without the probable cause requirement which applies only in the criminal context. and so that's -- that's a very old, probably changed view. incorrect view. but i can't undo everything. right here and then we'll go there. [ inaudible ] -- under obamacare you don't have -- you sign up, and your medical records could be communicated electronically and you actually have to sign a statement that says, it's okay, for outside agencies to get your records. >> -- obamacare, this is specifically addressing the 1986 law that basically allows

government agencies to come in and get e-mails. this is very, very, very targeted. as i mentioned, earlier, there's a broad swath of what i call fourth amendment issue pieces of legislation. i'm co-sponsor to many of them, and there is one being drafted, and i can't remember the bill numbers that it specifically addresses this, actually has been drafted. i'm a co-sponsor of that, as well. >> great. up here? >> to the chap from heritage, i think you owe everybody to explain that the t.o.s. or terms of service are moving targets. if someone doesn't know when to go in to see if there's been a change, they're not going to know what the current terms of

service is that they're found to. and in terms of obamacare, people are being tracked the second they come to the page. if you are talking to people who have gone to the page, and not entered data, they're already reporting that they're getting hit with solicitations. and i think a prime example of what needs to be aware of is facebook. because facebook is a great example of someone who came out way after the fact, and then said oh, by the way, everything you're giving us has given us is now ours to sell, and that they fail to disclose to people that the goal of their model was to capture data. i do paper trails. i am tracking data to foreign countries. i'm tracking algorithms of our data in england. i'm tracking things like yumpu who are taking our information, these are french and german and austrian foreign nationals who have our data. you can go on to your own

website here, internet here and search your name, and find out what's been disclosed of you. i think the conversation cannot just be focused in on one area. it's a model. i tend to draw things back to model and i'd like to hear clarity when you go in to your act that you're looking at the model. the same model that's being used by the nsa is a model that was established by these private entities who know everything about us what we're doing, where our finances are, et cetera. >> well, i mean, as the congressman said, there is no doubt that commercial services use data, as well. but he, i think, quite rightly is going in a step by step way. if we had a large -- the gentleman here asked whether or not the tech companies were supporting this legislation, to

which the answer is yes. if you add it in, they will -- if you added in something that started to talk about commercial issues, and their business model, which are fair -- i mean your points are very fair. i'm not disagreeing with your points. but in the art of the possible, you know, right now there are i don't know how many sponsors you all have and all but on the senate side they've got 52 or something like that. we can actually make a change, and so i'm kind of focused on success. >> and it's kind of not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. this legislation was not born out of necessarily consumer protection. it's about civil rights. it's about the relationship between us and our government and enforcing the bill of rights. when you're dealing with private companies. i agree. i think there are egregious things happening and companies

are -- private companies are overstepping their bounds, i hate the cookies. you know when you go check a site and then you get all these e-mails, and advertisements from different groups. and that should be addressed, as well. we have to remember that we're dealing with a fourth amendment issue, and that's what we're trying to correct, and we're going to try to get it as one step at a time you mentioned that politics makes strange bedfellows and there are some strange bedfellows together on this kind of legislation. the more you put into it the more it complicates and the narrower that group of supporters is going to be and the less likely you're going to get anything done. >> i did want to ask you, congressman, you're working with a lot of folks on the libertarian side of this position in the house of representatives, you have a liberty caucus that's forming, guys like justin and others, and

i know that there's a lot of focus in that group on these types of issues. i also know that talk to chairman of the study yesterday who wants to put to the some legislation on this kind of issue. what are the areas going forward that on top of the bill, i think you're right this is low-hanging fruit but where do we go after the low-hanging fruit? >> this was low-hanging fruit because it's a no brainer. everybody understands that the technology has changed and this is the snail mail of our time. this is how communications are done. i think over and above fourth amendment issues religious liberty is going to continue to be an incredibly important issue for those of us who are civil libertarians and freedom of speech issues. i think private property rights has been enshrined in the fifth

amendment of the constitution, that's got to be something we focus on and let's not forget one of the most important ones we come back to time and time again is the testimony and the fact that all powers not delineated in the constitution are reserved for the people and the states. and i think that's one that the general welfare clause in the constitution that's been so overplayed, and overan viced to justify doing things at the federal level that our founding fathers never would have envisioned being done here, and so that's just to name a few. that's not all-increwsive. i'm sure there's other things. but i think those are the things that are going to not only be a focus in congress i think they're going to be campaign issues. >> absolutely. time for a couple more questions. >> agreeing that your bill is a no brainer that it should pass,

what is your prediction? when will it pass, and who are the no brainers in the senate that won't support it? >> i don't know about you know who is and isn't supporting it yet, as it is moving forward, it will need to go before the judiciary committee, and you know, my frustration i think is the same of any of you in the audience and any in the area mat we don't do anything of any substance in election years. that's a crime. we're elected to do the hard work of the american people, and you know, problems don't take a holiday. and we have a responsibility this year to go in and dig deep, and i mean i'm hoping this year, i'm not holding my breath, there are a lot of no brainers that have been on the docket for years and years and years that should have been done. another no brainer is why in the heck haven't we done anything about entitlement reform knowing that our nation is going broke? and there's no way we can cover future obligations for people

that are going to be retiring. but, i wish i could give you that answer. and it's very, very frustrating to me that what is clear to the american people doesn't become necessarily so clear here. i wish i could give you a date and time. but, i can't. >> did you want to weigh in a little bit there? there are one or two things that could break the logjam right now. >> you know if there are enough co-sponsors for this particular idea to go through then it's something that can't be ignored, and there's been a large large groundswell of support for electronic communications, privacy or reform in the house. this is an idea that is very much supported, and really on the senate side, it did pass out of committee, without amendment. it passed out clean, and then once the hearings came up, that's when the s.e.c. started

to make their case and started to have meetings because they saw this passing. so you know it's something that really should go through and more support from people who care about this particular issue, who care about privacy to focus on something that can get done right now. without all of the other distractions. and you know, those other things are very important. there are other bills that are in the house right now that do address these. there's a location tracking bill, which is another complicated issue that should pass. but there's a lot of discussion that needs to go on on certain, you know, certain areas, and that's almost worked out. but electronic communications, privacy reform, has been discussed. it has been worked out, and that's something that should move forward easily, and i think it has the strongest chance in the house. and once it's cleared the senate should have no reason not to act. >> i think one other real shot in the arm to give a plug for heritage is the fact that they're profiling it today on a list of ten different issues that they're going to make a

priority. heritage has quite a following nationwide, and i'd like to put a plea to all the folks who are associated with heritage across the country to let their members know, because the one thing that they actually do pay attention to is people that vote, or will not vote for them based on an issue. and i hope that they hear strongly from the american people that you have a job to do, get it done. and this is one of the things that can and should be done this year as part of your job. >> thanks for the plug congressman. we are hopeful that today really is the start of an agenda that we can wrap our arms around as kvs and push across the house floor and we intend to push it with all our muscle. maybe one more question. anyone? right here. what do we have, greg? about 30?

okay great. going once, going twice. last one. sorry, one last one. hearing that so many federal agencies are getting access to our information, and that the lady behind me saying about how the service providers are possibly misusing our information for commercial purposes, do you have a recommendation of a service provider who is least offensive? >> pass. pass. no way we're going to touch that one from up here. that's unfair. but if you talk to me offline i'll give you my personal. okay well thank you. please join me in thanking the panel and the congressman. folks just one housekeeping note

and then we will break for ten minutes to get ready for the next speaker and panel. we are -- we've had senator cruz had some flight issues this morning, so we are going to move senator cruz's speech to 1:00. which means the health care panel will go before the health care speeches. so the health care panel will be around noon. and then congressman's roe and price will speak after the health care panel at 12:30, and then senator ted cruz will speak at 1:00. let's take a ten-minute break and we'll bring in the next panel.