google and other citizens have delete information if individuals requested. we expect to start momentarily. live coverage here on c-span.

>> good afternoon.

welcome to the internet caucus. thank you for joining us today. we are here today do discuss the european union's right to be forgotten. i am stepping in for tim lord and today. before we get started i would

like to take time to thank the cochairs of the congressional internet caucus for hosting this briefing in conjunction with the advisory committee and this entire series of briefings with the advisory committee. namely congressman bob goodlatte. senator patrick leahy and senator john boone. the series is a great platform to debate and discuss internet policy issues. privacy experts and regulators have been discussing the right to be forgotten for several years now. in may the european court of justice reached a decision that many say found the right to be forgotten within the existing european data protection directive. the bottom line is search engines can be asked to remove links to certain websites from their search results. we have a distinguished panel to tell us what this all means for us as internet users -- i would like to introduce our panelists very quickly.

our first panel list is mike godman, who is a senior policy advisor with interviews. he was also the former general parent organization of wikipedia, which will be interesting and relevant here. >> from the center of democracy and technology. the next panelist is david hoffman, the director of security policy and the global privacy officer from intel. the next panelist is rob, a columnist with yahoo! tech and many of us followed his writing for several years on tech issues. we have joe to rome who is policy counsel with the privacy forum. we are very fortunate to have a distinguished journalist here today.

i would like to have rob kick us off with a nice clean english summary of the european court of justice decision and give us a little context of what is going on in europe. then we can dive into the public policy implications. >> i will do that as the token non-lawyer on this panel. i write on a fee -- on a freelance contract. i read marissa mayer's tweets. that said i read the court's ruling and it walks down a few steps that you could say makes sense. acts as all google data processor. they don't show it without editing. search is not this algorithmically -- this algorithm. in thea legal presence eu. it has been establishment and does business there.

they found long ago that citizens have the right to have incorrect data removed. therefore the court decided that figure,re not a public which they do not define too well, you have the right to petition a search engine to have correct relevance or no longer notvant search results in -- and not response to cash and not respond to queries in your name. a whole lot of people have taken google up on this result. other search engines are also covered by this. receivedld the du they 90,000 requests for links not be shown in response to name searches. 53% of those quiet -- those requests were granted. 32% they said they could not help you.

some cases cited people wanting coverage for crimes committed as teenagers. these people were recently convicted of the same crimes as an adult. it seems like a strange request for journalists to make. that is where we stand. would anyone like to add to or amplify his summary? >> i think that is an excellent description. there is one important factor we need to consider in addition, which is that the court actually the processingg of personal data standard and that it had to be adequate and

relevant and not excessive. provision existed in the legislation they were specifically being asked to interpret. that clear language existed since the mid-90's. court was referred questions from the spanish high court and asked can you give us your interpretation under the european law how certain issues should be interpreted? they came back with a narrow determination based on the fact they were given of the clear language within that erected. that does not mean that clear language does not have substantial and profound public policy, particularly in the area of free expression. we have to separate what the court was trying to do versus what do policymakers need to do now that we have recognized that some of this language has existed since the mid 90's.

>> i can add to that mme see if i can do it quickly. it's true the court's interpretation of the privacy directive is not outrageous. are few outrageous act specs about it. difficulty is the underlying directive of language is quite broad. -- it was it is broad not followed by the european court of justice. the directive was written in the pre-google era. what the eu thought they were doing was creating a privacy framework in which the major entities being regulated were essentially private databases, -- european equivalents of

to theybe a reaction national security states, like east germany that made a fetish of monitoring citizens. what you have instead is the internet revolution, which suddenly empowered everybody to seek information in new ways and to create information in new ways. that is what google and other search engines and the explosion of web and blog content and social media have been about. that is the amends marketization of the ability to, in the language of 1948 so universal declaration of human rights -- the right not nearly -- not merely to express your opinion but in that language to impart

information, which is something we all have the power to do now. i'll just refit -- briefly touch upon this. general advises that european court of justice to go the other way. just because the world had really changed the fundamentally democratizing way, saying search --ine is another innovation why it went the way it did in a way that penalizes google is something we may discuss here. >> i think it is important to what the court was answering here in terms of a particular set of information and the man who brought the case.

they considered the newspaper who had originally written the article and they are posting that online. they said this information was still lawfully posted by the newspaper online. this wasnot say that information that should be taken down at the source, which i think is the right outcome. then going the next step and may havesearch engine an obligation not to link to --t information cup information, true information that is lawfully posted online and yet it may be unlawful to link to that. that is a real change in how we think about information that is available on the public web. that is not something we had to consider before and thinking of different ways to structure and link to information online. i think that is one of the big motivators and thinking about why this decision is so unsettling to so many people who care about keeping a free and open web. this is calling into question

some basic underpinnings of the web, the idea that you can link to information and if it is lawfully posted it is lawful to link and access. >> this is an important thing to keep in mind. i know couple of commenters got lost on this. we are not talking about what google does. this is not about ad tracking or behavioral profiling. this is stuff other people put on the web even if it advantages from google's index altogether. >> i guess i wanted to add that i feel like it is -- this decision kicks off a conversation that will be continuing. though the ec j is the highest court in europe and this is effectively like a cream -- like a supreme court decision, the european parliament is already engaged in conversations about a new data protection regulation could clarify and expand on this. we need to understand that this

directive is from the 90's. it is from before the internet came into bloom. these laws are not necessarily out-of-state of date they are being strained. there is an opportunity if policymakers are truly outraged by this decision to engage them in conversation and to sort of clarify what this right to be forgotten or what the data protection principles we want to see happen will be put into the new regulation. >> i just want to add one thing. if you read through the opinion, which is a long opinion, one of the things that becomes clear is if the court is wrestling with what is it a search engine actually does, is a search engine just an information media area that provides links to content? or is it doing something more for an individual that is doing a search query? is it making its own

determination of relevance? is it telling you what it thinks is most relevant for the information to come back as a result of that freeze -- of that search by going out and not only technology to scan webpages over the entire internet but to also then sell advertising and pair that advertising to the search term and to the results. the case would have likely come out differently since that was a hadr reason the court established that decision. if in this individual instance where they came back -- google came back with search results with 16-year-old data about tax for real estate, they are saying you did a bad job of determining the -- determining results that

were relevant. that creates also is of implications -- it makes a little bit of sense why they are trying to apply it here. it creates a concern about who -- --the best position who is in the best position. the justice was wrestling with an issue of what google does. was a terrible wrestling outcome for the european court of justice. it is hard to find an intellectually coherent argument that distinguishes what google does as an advertising base revenue generator and what the thisapers, at least in case, that were spared from the ruling. they were advertised into readers.

if >> let's talk about the implications of this in terms of companies that the data on the internet. you go why into this is a concern or maybe why the concern is overstated. >> i think this goes back to the points you are making about relevance. one of the big questions that search engines is how transparent can they be about the fact that they are changing the list of search results that they otherwise would have provided because a third party has requested they take out a link. think one of the complicated questions that the court was sort of wrestling with in the ainion -- this is not just question about the relationship between the data subject and the

search engine. there are at least two other parties involved in this -- in providing a search query. users who say they want to find information about this term. then there are the content hosts, the people who have posted the article and information. and really focusing in on the relationship between the data subject and google, i think there was not as much consideration of those other two interests were you really start to see the free expression issues raised. the court is actually constrained by the data protection directive itself and not thinking of the user providing the search term as an entity to consider in this case. is actuallyvidual using a search engine to find information, they have some basic idea about what they expect the search engine to return. toy think they are going

return information that the search engine has decided is relevant. that decision will get affected by a third-party being able to say, you might think this is the most important thing to but -- and most important link about me but i disagree, then you start shifting. the search engine acts as a information retrieval system for one user. that is not something that i think is expected. you go to their linkedin profile or some other website. looking for a not personal assessment about what is relevant, then you are going to search engine. >> i think that is an excellent comment. i think there are aspects of

that where everyone believes the sky is just cloudy in europe and we don't have a potential storm here in the u.s.. if you look at the recent report that came out of the federal trade commission, they are concerned about exactly the same thing. they talked quite a bit about concerns around people search whatases for 40 years and the privacy implications of those are for individuals. the concept that all information ort you have either provided others have said about you is accessible atand any time by anyone in the world. remarkably changes the relationship between the individual and the collective democratic society. what does it mean to have all of that information available? directive was aimed at there should be some limits

to that. i think we have done the same thing. they have borrowed some concepts we have originated in the 1970's, particularly around the fair credit reporting act but many other areas where we set here are some individual pieces of information that we inc. actually shouldn't be accessible . this particular piece of data -- it should-- we think be aged out after seven years. is a lot of other areas where we would also say, here is the convictions of minors. we are going to expunge that after a certain period of time because we don't think that should be used anymore. how are we going to wrestle with this with the technology of where we are heading. >> he knows we disagree about how to compare this to the fair credit reporting act.

they gather data privately and distribute it to subscribers. it is not primarily an advertising-based. they don't share with everybody. what the search engines do is they are not even producing this data. primarily they are providing index of links that they try to steer towards relevant results for individual searchers. their model really is advertising. they are much more like newspapers than at the fax. , even if youhat thought it was worthwhile to age -- old financial records because we spent seven years with a clean record. i think that is a fine idea. the fact is that wasn't aged out of the original information in this case and the european court of justice. the newspaper content is still there. the right to be

forgotten in wikipedia or a search engine, you will eventually lead to references of this case, which will lead you to the data about the guy who was seeking to have the data removed. that the newspaper was excluded from the decision. you can actually go to the newspaper, look in their search box, still find the same content. that is not like a fax removing data from your credit report. it makes no sense except possibly it makes political sense in the sense that the european justice may have found it more politically acceptable. they may have found it easier to penalize google rather than penalize google plus the newspapers. anwould have at least been intellectually consistent decision, even though i would have been unhappy with the newspapers had been censored.

>> let me pull out a couple of contradictions. one is this whole exemption for newsgathering purposes. newspapers think that google news is competition, they wanted to pay a tax for reproducing excerpts of their stories. google does not have ads on it. should that be an exemption from this ruling? this whole definition of public figures and the right to know, googles letter to the eu makes a lot of good points about this. it is a lot of work. they can't count on people to tell the truth. how do you determine someone is not likely to be a public figure? you have to do some research. you will have to assemble a large database about what they have all done and what they might do later on. >> i haven't done a great job of winning you over yet. news i would say google

isn't implicated in the facts. have been going out and making their own policy determinations. i think if you are looking at the language of the directive and you are looking at how does this side with the overall concept of free expression, along with the directive they actually have the european convention on human rights, which has two different articles. andcle eight covers privacy article 10 covers free expression. cases that number of wrestle with how do we optimize for both of these values? how do we optimize for providing a personal life while also providing for free expression?

those cases articulate a set of criteria. one of the things that is interesting to me, if you look at a case like axel springer or east germany as a great case to look at. google actually went to the european court of human rights. they filed this saying their human right of being able to provide the information and their -- and they are being restrained, where would that court come out in balancing all of these different -- i actually think that if they are looking at 16-year-old financial data and given the criteria that they have articulated, one of the being is it a comp tradition to a debate of general interest -- a contribution to the date of general interest?

that is a fairly controversial statement that there is a good basis for it. >> i think there is a lot of unknown implications in this case. was a narrow decision that opens up a lot of different questions. we can spend a lot of time tweeting about what those indications are for the united states. we are all about advancing practical is this practices around data privacy. our initial impulse was this will be complicated. it is now the law. i think it is obvious, certainly from a european perspective, we our more tools to manage management online. google does a decent job try to muddle through the implications of this decision. but i think them through that it behooves -- i think it behooves

them. europeans are skeptical of american coaches -- american approaches to privacy. we need to figure out ways to address those concerns. i think one way to do that is give users more tools. approachtly american is the right to reply. that is something that is easy enough to implement and it has worked in other various legal regimes we have had. there is nothing stopping people -- we all have things on the internet we probably would like to get rid of i always think about the fact that i have a bad review on ebay from 1999. i also have a response that tries to give my explanation for why someone gave me a bad review.

>> i have this entrepreneurial idea that i want to bounce off of you. i am a lawyer interested in free expression and privacy rights. what i want to do is start an online database that will be advertising funded. i'm not going to add a lot of content to it but i certainly want to optimize the results for anyone who queries my database. delighted to operate? -- do i get to operate? >> what happens is you have the streisand effect. suddenly it is subject to .nother discussion a lawyer says -- it is still the case that his lien comes up.

he is now famous for having beaten google. he lucked out. >> if we grant that people have -- are we just playing a game like data lack of mold? how exactly do we get to that point? fantastic that is a point. in this conversation you are starting to see if separated into three categories. the policy implications that people now realize for what the and the directive. the third category is how would a wood -- how would we operationalize this in an effective way? how would other search engines

and data brokers and entities implement this? i have an advanced an idea that should continue to have discussion, what if the search engines get approval from the u.s. and other places that it was ok to come together and said we don't want to be in the situation of having to make all of these decisions about what is excessive, what is relevant. we want there to be a centralized body that has the right participation that can make the right determination. we will do that if we are immunized from liability from following that direction. i like to call it a centralized obscurity center. though wes like that should stop talking about? if we continue to think in an environment where everything

people say, things that you do, where you have been is accessible by everyone. what other free expression implications of that? how much does that she'll free expression? they are concerned about taking opinions and ideas in class because of how that may be represented and what they're saying about them later. a i worry about what that means. we don't quite know -- the nsa?e arguing for >> what i am doing is saying not saying this is necessarily the model everyone needs to follow. what we have done in privacy law, and this is not about

suppressing public information but suppressing information that was understood to be private, we have defined a set of wrongs that are civilly actionable and have to do things that have to do with things like misappropriating your name or misrepresenting you, even with a truce date meant. if you say that this is the substantive thing that we are trying to fix you have a body of think the procedures get easy for search engines. even wikipedia. what will be difficult in the next directive is that they are .sing language like relevant

no two of us -- like relevance. him know of us agree what is relevant. one person may not be relevant in a query about another person. it is very subjective. because the rule of law requires predictability, clear understanding of what the results should be, clear understanding of the obligations, it has to be how do arity? that cl i don't think procedural agreements among service providers or social media is going to get us there. we haven't got that agreement yet. of >> one interesting case playing out in the u.s. involves what is called mugshots sites.

these sites indexed them. you can search and see who is there. it never actually works. a really good site started .overing this a while ago google eventually decided this violates the webmaster guidelines. we don't highly value sites that's great copy content at no actual value. off -- getlly get kicked off the first page in search results. no laws involved. should there be some? it is not a surprise that sometimes people were off -- were wrongly arrested. >> the mugshots database is one of the best examples of looking at how what difficult kind of

societal and policy implications we are talking about here, with information being accessible online. there was a new york times article about mugshots databases and the conclusion was this reporter called up google and let them know things were happening. suddenly the results were off the front page. that is one way to go about getting information suppressed. of it seems like a generally pretty good thing. terrifying. it is a way information can get manipulated without having a broader public conversation of should databases be online? we have the ability to see what is happening in a particular locality. who ends up having a mugshots taken of them. there are other times he interests and potential for a mugshots for a crime that someone was never even charged

with. it could really impact someone's ability to get a job and otherwise participate in public life. these are really the focal questions that we do not generally have come to a conclusion about. rather than go with the intermediary, which seems the easiest place to stick a band-aid on the problem and move make, rather than saying the search engine change results and i will fix the problem, i don't think it addresses the fundamental tension. i agree with him on this. one of the things we can note from this is once again the court did not create this new right. it interpreted the existing law and google has been working to try to comply with that law for a long time. of they have been doing these processes. the different search engines and data brokers are trying to figure this out and they are incredibly important issues for discussion about what

information or people will be able to get access to and what gets obscured as these tools become the way we largely get information. what we need to do is break this down. and said of saying there is a court that created a new right to be forgotten we have to say there are some really important issues around privacy and free expression. we need to have some detailed conversation about how we want to make these decisions optimized for both values in society. >> one of the things most of us agree on is these processes when implement it by google needed to be really transparent. we need to be just as transparent in how google is responding to the right to be forgotten commands as they are in responding to -- as they would like to be with regarding to search warrants or regarding to subpoenas pursuant -- for user information.

we think search engines have settingngly been standards of very positive behavior of trying to disclose the facts that governments are demanding certain things of them, including their home governments. seenf the things we have the mastectomy in the debate about the right to be forgotten, some european regulators say it is so unfair that google is disclosing the fact that they were being blocked. myust read an article that former employer is be in criticized and it was responsive to the demands to have links removed. of i think transparency is the only way to make sure that whatever policy we build around the right to be forgotten or privacy interests or any interest, those have to be

maximally transparent. if we don't do that the culture is one where stuff is forgotten. don't knowow why, we when, we just know it disappears. i would like to come away from this panel with the right to remember. that is a good call for organizations to put together more guidance and guidelines. google is trying to muddle through this decision. i think they need a lot of help. it would behoove us to do that here in the united states. not just to comply with european law but also offer american consumers and users more insight into what is going on. i don't want to start lumping in other terms. obviously we start getting things like big date. there really is a need for more transparency. this case shows how the individual eu citizen and in

some respects american citizens, individual citizens do not know what is going on here. they do not understand how the internet works, how these search engines are getting their data. how all this information that is public about us, how and when it gets onto the internet. organizations of business need to do a better job being transparent across the board. look forward a look at from building on this conversation. we have talked about difficulties with implementation. agreed we have all standards in europe could be more clear and easier -- easy to implement. are you better off if europe actually specifies the right to be got -- with the right to be forgotten in their protection regulation and takes with the european court of justice did and make it more specific, so we

have more specific standards? out, au see this playing similar debate playing out in the united states. debate over the free-speech invocations of sopa and pipa> -- and pipa. can you talk about that? >> there is this unpleasant reality that the internet is a global medium. this onmplemented at specific sites where they say all but 5% of the search traffic occurs in the eu. if you go to france or germany or whatever, you get the unfiltered results. suppose they decide they do not like that. you can show those results to people outside that you. suddenly you have this regime to

stop people from being embarrassed. this really strikes me as the equivalent of area, a court took an older law and did not quite know how to edit. >> one of the things -- one of -- although it was a tense moment in some ways -- one this.favorite cases was of two convicted german murderers have served their .imes they served their time and got out on good -- died out in good behavior.

what happened between 1993 and 2008 was search engines happen. even though the german system was theoretically quite humane in allowing ex-cons to reintegrate into society -- they are much better at it than we are. any employer doing a search on the internet about these guys discovered they were convicted murderers. this, sinceto wikipedia doesn't have anything like legal resources that google or bing or you have, i ignored it for as long as i could. i said what will happen is the german lawyers will go get a judgment against us and they will try to enforce it in the united states. my sec and answer was this, they were so annoying that i was just going to give this story to the

new york times, which i did. the new york times went and interviewed the german lawyers and published their names. i said this is ok. i demonstrated the stories of public interest. it is a public interest issue for when people try to erase their history of murders. then i realized that instead of searching wikipedia -- instead of suingwith a big -- wikipedia they have to sue the entire audience. new york times has very good lawyers. they are very good. i was very comfortable with that. and i am looking at this european court of justice decision that says we will exempt newspapers for reasons that do not make sense but we will go after search engines. what is wikipedia more like? it is not like an artistic or literary site. it is not like scientific

research. basically it is an excitable petey a hobby that people have created. solution would not work anymore. you really care about wikipedia. could much anybody in this room -- if you care about that stuff you're upset about the fact that some thatight take might take something away. if you are troubled by this and you don't want to socha-like -- to to a sopa like blackout, but you have is a german policy insight throughout europe and the rest of the world. internet is not sort of territorial. it is not geographic. it is something else.

we are going to have to live in a world in which a lot of data is searchable. a lot of citizens have a right not only to express them selves but to seek and impart data according to the international human rights instruments. >> i agree. i think this is the conversation that we need to have. it is actually not what the language and current revisions of the regulation actually does. that would have to be taken off of there, which would really get to forgetting. we are talking more about the .imited rights i do believe that the language, the right to be forgotten has

misled a lot of people. it protects against unfair and deceptive trade practices. an unfair and deceptive trade practice? how can we figure that out? it is completelydiss -- subjective. a lot of scholars say we are now developing a common law of privacy. guidance a lot of work the ftc has done to provide their opinions about how they would come out on particular issues. you need to start having that conversation with the europeans

about how would we interpret these kinds of standards. >> a quick question. the right to be forgotten is really catchy and easy to understand. so are things like a racer buttons. we need a good pr term. i don't know if you have any ideas. >> i think that is rob's business. . -- goinggoing to root to mention the right to reply was recently mentioned. it already exists. a lot of this discussion assumes that people that show up in google or search results have no agency of their own. you have the right to reply. there's a problem when you attempt to correct the record

through one search engine -- a lot of people do not know how to argue online. somebody made up a lot of that. issue. a competitive we needed no court ruling to say that your right to say something online -- >> he sued in the privacy regime. he wanted the records of his aggregate see. >> first name mario. what he didsale and was he wanted the record removed from a spanish newspaper.

secondarily he wanted google to remove any links. he understood. he had clarity. it argues for the coherency of his intellectual position that everything a reasonable person would want and the court did not give it to him. of the ec j did not give him the conclusion that he was asking for. someone who is he would have to admit that he wanted more than what he got. difficult to be intellectually consistent about the result for google. up on ated to pick point data -- on a point.

they managed to put some real meat on those bones. this really points to the need for data protection authorities .n europe we see goal is putting together an advisory council. obligation that they need to comply with. i think that is their best effort to figure out how to balance these free expression rights that are at stake. that is not a private shop right company to be doing. that is the responsibility of government. there was not enough guidance in the ec j opinions. it is now on the data protection authorities to provide guidelines not just for the googles and things and yahoos of

the world did he kept mentioning all the great different lawyers that all these different major companies -- it is great they have them and they're working hard to figure out what to do here. a smaller company is not immediately -- that starts out with a couple of engineers and doesn't immediately think we need to have regulatory affairs lawyer ron on staff, they are going to have a difficult time trying to figure out how to operate in europe. the responses could be don't going to the market or a response to every request they get without evaluating it. it is so cumbersome to try to figure out how to implement this without any guidance. it is on the data protection authorities now to figure out what is this careful balancing of public interest. what are the scope of these different terms? >>, at one point to what she said he echo the example is a popular blogger like andrew is a reallythere

popular blog. there is a request to take something down and it is just easier to take it down. they don't have the capacity to do anything else. >> i think her point is a fantastic one and it is worse than what she said. i think it calls out how something needs to be done about the system in europe with the directives. ist we haven't talked about the directive has a floor, not a ceiling, about how they protect the data. beyond and above and they can interpret their own implementations in their own way. systemu have now is a with 28 authorities who can come up with their own definitions. the draft regulations has been a top priority. need a robust,

predictable, and harmonized standards and enforcement. the draft regulation has made attempts to do that print we need more conversation about how we get there. to the endoming down of our hour and i wanted to leave a little time for audience questions. if you have any questions someone will come around with a .ic >> i am with the center of copyright integrity. the conversation is greater and it is global. they are stealing it at a cost to people. people's names and identities are their brands. this should not be a conversation period. all search engines need to pull back and pay for content they

use without permission. people always been able to remove data. question --is a >> to bring it to a close, you need to have all the search engines to ask people permission. they build models that people are going to be paid for content. i am a brand, you are a brand, he is a brand. else have a question? >> this question is a little -- it deviates a little from the conversation we had but it is still very much within this space. what you think the impact this will have an this discussion the research, nates? -- research communities? search -- if a researcher webpage thata

posted mugshots as a research tool and they want to scrape that they do in order to publish in a scholarly journal, what impact do these privacy regulations ultimately have on scholarly research abilities? is not at allh privileged. it is not called up by the regulation as it stands. the specific callouts are journalism and literary and artistic expression. i agree there is a role for that. it is not called out. the analogy that has been used is it is like torturing the card catalog at a library. all going to still

be there, it is just going to be hard to find them. applies tolation card catalogs by its own terms. >> it is funny you wanted to protect journalism in terms of not making newspapers takedown stories. >> we have a question over here. described isat >> a tax on the public domain in terms of large and small entities trying to comply. hanna softwarea recognized consortium of all search engines? war to an official body subject potentially to political control -- or to an official body subject to political control make one's skin crawl? >> it would depend on what level of transparency there is and

what level of oversight and public oversight there is of a body like that. is your skin not already crawling that these organizations are not making this decision read that decision in a transparent way. -- this decision in a transparent way. the >> very low barriers to entry. anyone who thinks of what the next google or wikipedia looks like can just join at a nominal price. >> on a better response to the question earlier, maybe we could talk about this as axis for access forrposes -- security purposes. >> we have time for one or two more questions. >> one of the points made is the internet is not or should not be territorial.

it is clear there is a different understanding in the u.s. it is enshrined in basic treaties. it is the basic building block as opposed to the u.s. where it is more difficult. there is interest in getting the e.u. to go one way on the date of protective directives. coming from the e.u. and having experienced the debate from within, that is most likely not going to happen. will havese companies to deal with 20 different directors. practical be the guidelines or tools you would suggest they start using? >> let me answer that as briefly as i can. thing i founde hardening is we are now recognizing the long-standing data retention requirements are now being recognized as violative of fundamental human

rights. in the united states, we have not had data retention as a requirement. now we are pushing for it. some are pushing for it. one thingnalyze this, you have to say is the u.s. has tried to carve out places of consensus where there are clear understandings of what the privacy interests are. even if it is as small as video rental records, that we have a separate log for as you may know, but i think there is someplace in the middle that does not have the notion of data retention for eventual possible police purposes and also does not have the inconsistent private of capturing information under the u.s. system. i think we are going to have to have a multinational dialogue about it.

it is one of the reasons some of us are looking at internet governance models trying to think hard about them and especially to have multi-stakeholder models to make governmentnot just advancing government interests but everybody advancing every stakeholder interest. as we seek convergence on internet governance in the next decade, we will begin to see some particular issues emerge and international consensus on them. say the absence of a one-stop shop model happening in the regulations, but we have is the article 29 working party's been able to come together. there are think tanks like the future of privacy forum that do a phenomenal job of generating a multi-stakeholder dialogue to make recommendations for practical privacy guidelines in situations like this. let's have that dialogue. let's bring that to the article 29 working party. let's let them do their job of

providing opinions on how to and existing requirements in the directive. >> on that note, we are out of time. we are going to have to cut off further questions. i would like to thank everyone for attending in the middle of august recess. i would like to thank our panelists, both the audio podcasts and video will be on the internet caucus advisory website as well as the video on c-span. thank you once again for attending. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> is this even comes to a close, a quick reminder you can see it any time at www.c-span.org. coming up tonight on the coverage of the recent western conservative summit and the faith and free to coalition obamar resizes the administration foreign policy in the middle east and ukraine. here is a look. thehe middle east, bloodiest and most dangerous and most unstable region in the flames from tripoli across the board of africa all the way to the mediterranean. in syria, a bloodthirsty dictator.-- dspespot a this president drew a red line and said if he crossed it, you he would pay and

then retreated at the behest of vladimir putin. that dictator has slaughtered 160,000 of his own innocent civilians in order to keep our while this -- keep power while this administration sat in the cheap seats and watched it happen. catholic priests and evangelical ministers have been beheaded by al qaeda terrorists seeking to overthrow administrations. in egypt, the muslim brotherhood took power. immediately began to destabilize the sinai peninsula turning it into the wild west. it has now been replaced by a military regime. in iraq, isis and al qaeda affiliates preside over a radical muslim caliphate that stretches from the syrian border all the way to the outskirts of baghdad. and by the way, over 60,000 christians in iraq, the last

remaining christians left in that country have literally had to flee for their lives. mocking theists are entire free world and essentially spitting on the graves of americans who gave their lives to liberate that country. and this administration could not do anything other than send 300 military advisers. >> all of this session featuring ralph reed and south carolina will air tonight starting at 8:00 eastern. news from the auto industry today from the associated press. motors'troubles with recalls have surfaced in another case with the company recalling a group of suv's for a third time to fix switches that can catch fire. that problem revealed in documents posted this week is so

serious g.m. is telling customers to park outdoors until they are repaired because they could catch fire if left unattended. the recall covers 189,000 vehicles in north america, mainly from 2006 and 2007. parts will not be ready until october at the earliest according to g.m. we will have highlights from congressional hearings on g.m. recalls. we will show you that tuesday, august 19, at 8:00 eastern on c-span. c-span2 this weekend with books on marriage equality in the autobiography of marion barry, jr. interviews former counsel for president nixon on the watergate scandal. of the newnt and ceo york public library sheds light on the library's past, present,

and future. tv, television for serious readers. while congress is in recess, c-span's prime time programming continues with the western denver onve summit in the situation in ukraine. on sunday, the ronald reagan biographer. hawaii month, the final senate primary debate was held with the candidates focusing on veterans health care, operations in iraq, nsa surveillance, job creation, and sovereignty for native hawaiians.

>> congratulations, senator. welcome. >> he became senior senator in 2012 after retirement. >> it is not just the loss of tenure, but those relationships. >> he was a state representative before losing the campaign for congress and thousand six. chairnced back as party and was appointed. but this is the first time people of hawaii have a say in who should serve out the remaining term. >> she gives up the house seat she has held since 2010 after 12 years in the state senate. both candidates say ultimately it comes down to trust. >> trust and who they know will -- >> becomes down to getting along

with colleagues. working with them, establishing trust. >> tonight, a senate showdown. good evening and welcome treated i will be your moderator for tonight's debate. to oural thanks candidates for joining us. each candidate will have one minute for answers and 30 seconds for follow-ups. we will be watching the clock closely to make sure they get a fair share of questions and time to respond. the candidates will field questions from each other, social media, and the panelists. stephanie will be joining us. she is in the web center asking questions from social media. can you tell us how that will work? out forll be looking your questions for the candidates via twitter,

facebook, and our station e-mail. is easy to get involved -- it is easy to get involved. you can also send us e-mail. we will be looking out for your questions. back to you. >> i have the honor of the first question for both tonight. 7%une gallup poll says only of the american people have great confidence in congress. you are part of that body. they are talking about you. are the american people wrong? senator schatz first. >> thank you. thank you for putting on this important debate. they are not wrong. people have a right to be totally frustrated with the performance of congress. it is not just that they have not gotten important things done. we have work to do in terms of infrastructure, clean energy, immigration policy.

especially, it was not just that we did not accomplish much. it was that we inflicted harm on the economy. we did that through sequestration, through the shut down, the threat of default. so i think people's frustration is well justified. what i try to do is work across the aisle where we can find common ground. i have been able to work with colleagues across the country and across the aisle to find ways to collaborate and get things done and that is what i think this senate race should be about is who is most effective in getting things done for the state of hawaii. >> representative hanabusa, the same question to you. this is the lowest in history that we had confidence in our congress. your response? >> it is unfortunate but it is true and a lot of it is because they look upon us as a totally

not in touch with anybody and not hearing what the people want. one of the most amazing things about this particular race and how it affects us in hawaii is people seem to be so engaged. and i think it may be a variety of reasons. one, they feel that this election is very important. so i think both a national feeling when you take these national polls but there is also a sense oh locally as well. i think that what people need to feel more than anything else is a sense of hope and that is what we are here to do. at the end of the evening we are asking people to trust one of us to represent them because i believe trust is what this whole election is about. not trust of colleagues in congress but trust of the people. that is what we have got to build up and that is what is going to make the difference for the upcoming election. people have got to get in gaged -- engaged and i'm hoping that an election like this will be exactly the impetus that we need. >> now to the panel. grace lee the first question for representative hanabusa. >> good evening to the two of you. the question is for representative hanabusa. now, one reason the governor said he did not appoint you was his fear that a republican could

win your seat in the house. that scenario is very real. with a strong campaign. will you accept responsibility for the damage that can inflict on your party if that seat in fact goes to a republican in the election? i think that i should be as responsible as the governor was. the governor actually triggered the special election and he stepped down to run for governor. and that is when we have the special election that put him in the house the first time. this is an issue of who the people want and who the people will feel should either succeed me or should succeed nor innoy -- senator inouye in the remainder of the term that we have here. let's not forget that. this is an election that people will have the first opportunity to say who should succeed thetor in weight the mesh mesh senator -- senator inouye.

senator inoway. i have full confidence in the people of the state of hawaii that they will vote who they leave believe is the best person not only o succeed but also to succeed me. i know all of the temperature -- democrats who are running and i have confidence that they will mount a campaign and i hope to see one of them succeed. >> it was your choice to run nor the senate seat as opposed to staying in the house and that is the question. do you take responsibility if your current seat goes to a republican. this isn't necessarily about the governor. >> as i said, it is really the people's choice and the people will make that decision. if it is a republican, if charles for example wins and seat, it will the be the people's choice. this is not a matter of which party has to stay. it is a matter of who the people of the state feel confident in and want to have represent them. >> one minute to respond to the initial question. >> i think it is critically important that we democrats at

-- after the primary rally behind whomever is the nominee and that is something that i will make a priority for the democratic party. i think it is really important that we help nancy pelosi and try to buttress the democratic current minority in the u.s. house. but look, colleen can run for any office she wishes to run for and i think people ought to have choices. so i don't fault her for making this choice. i think this race ought to be about one simple thing. which is our records in the congress. she has a record in the united states house. i have a record in the united states senate. i believe i have shown that i'm more effective than colleen in the united states congress in terms of building the relationships in terms of garnering the appropriations that are important and in terms of representing the values of the people of the state of hawaii. and i think that is the ground on which we ought to have our debate. >> well, let's move on to the next panelist. your next question is for senator schatz. >> despite the faith placed in you by governor abercrombie the

campaign website makes no mention of him, no photos of him. deliberate omission or not? what does this say about highway the bush how -- what does this say about how you value loyalty? >> look, i am running against colleen hanabusa and colleen hanabusa is running against me. there are other races going on. they are important to lots of people across the state. but we both have to stand on our own. colleen has to stand on her own. i have to stand on my own. this is an important race and i think the basic question in front of the people of the state of hawaii is who has been more effective in the job. i have been more effective than colleen in the job. colleen over the last threend a half years has been not a terribly active legislator. it is not just that she hasn't passed very many bills but also that she hasn't necessarily focused on key areas that i consider to be important like social security, like clean energy. like college affordability. you have to legislate and work hard and i think that is the

ground on which this debate should carry forward. i continue to be highwayial to -- i continue to be loyal to my friends in politics, but that is not what this race is about. this race is about who is best going to represent hawaii in the senate. >> we have to cut you off there with time. and representative, i feel you is her a chance to answer that. >> thank you. i will think that brian should acknowledge the fact that he was appointed by the governor and what it means. he would not be in the united states senate today if it wasn't for the governor. maybe it is just the way we are raised, and how we look at loyalty and honor. but i think that says a lot about the candidate. brian goes off about being in the senate. when you are in the majority it is different. i will put my record next to his any time especially when it comes to who brings it home for hawaii in the one area that has been able to stablize our economy and that, of course, is

for example, federal spending and the military as well. now, to say that when you are in the majority of the senate that you feel you are more effective, that is not the challenge we face. the challenge we face is how do you perform under all circumstances and i have the best record and the best training being a member of the minority party. >> richard has the next questions directed for representative hanabusa. >> hello to both of you tonight. representative hanabusa, in you r campaign commercials and during the campaign you stress the fact that you were a legislative leader. give some examples of legislative leadership and what specifically you did? >> first and most important i'm the first woman to be elected as the senate president in the history of the state and the first asian nationally and the

first woman to head any house in the hawaii state legislature. before that when i first got elected rice versus kyatono was decided by the supreme court and we took hearings statewide for the first time with the senate. in a addition when the state was faced with the investigative committee and consent degree i 504, iit -- decree on led that investigative committee. when we were facing the crystal meth problem and that special task force and came up with pieces of legislation that we believe turned it around at that time. and when the youth correctional facility was in trouble we did that as well. in addition to that health changes, civil service changes, all pieces of legislation which have my fingerprints on it. those are examples. >> senator, one minute to respond. >> i think you will notice that focus really zeros in

on the state legislative record and i think the question in front of voters is how have we performed in the congress. colleen, you have introduced 28 bills and about 3 1/2 years that is a bill about every six months. four or five of them have been ceremonial in nature and exactly one of them has passed which is to rename a post office. you do not have an active record as a legislator in the congress. you do not have a distinguished record as a legislator in the united states house. on the other hand, i hit the ground running. i'm now the chair of the tourism committee. i am the chair of the water and power committee. i have been able to garner appropriations that are key for hawaii like the east west center and when it comes to values i have been prioritizing things like sores security and clean energy and college affordability . you will notice that colleen wants to talk about her record in the legislature rather than her record in the u.s. house. >> since you are both talking about record and effectiveness, i think i counted the word at least five times here. can you each give yourself a letter grade on how you have

performed and grade your opponent as well. senator first. >> i'm not ready to grade myself. i have hit the ground running in the united states senate. certainly you have to learn the ropes specifically when it comes to the senate and when it comes to the procedure because there is no place quite like the senate in terms of the arcane rules. but the other thing that i have been able to to is make friends. you can't run people over in the u.s. senate. you can't team roll people. you real hi have to -- steam -- you have to develop the relationships and there are a few freshman senators i have become chose with but some of the more senior members who have taken me under the wing. >> and grade your opponent. >> my basic criticism of colleen for the time in the u.s. house is she has not been terribly active. it is not just a question of not passing bills but also a question of not even legislating at all. not even introducing legislation in areas like clean energy and social security and areas like

college affordability. she has plenty to stay about what is wrong with the legislation i have introduced but has not done much in the key priority area. >> ile take that as failing grade of your opponent. representative, same question. a letter, please. >> i think that i would have to grade brian, give him pretty high grades for just simply saying things because he doesn't have the record that he claims he has. he claims to be the chairman of the tourism committee. he had one hearing. he was appointed 2014 in february of 2014. one hearing. one of the most critical issues that we faced in hawaii. and look at what happened. no bills out of that hearing. now he says i don't have a record. lock at the national defense authorization act. you don't need to have a bill like his social security bill that he says that he wants people to sign on to that he only convinced two other senators to sign on to. look at what actually passes for hawaii. i have taken firm positions on

the pivot to asia pacific and the portions of the national defense act that incorporates it. that is what it is and that is what counts. >> no letter grades. and perhaps on social immediate -- social media, you would like to take the time to grade the congressional delegation. let's check in with stephanie who is manning the web center to tell us what people are asking on facebook and twitter and hawaii news.com. >> pretty busy. we are been getting a number of questions, and even comments about the candidates. and for the candidates. here is a question from our hawaii news now e-mail. katie asks would the crisis consider the crisis in gaza -- with the crisis in gaza escalating what is your position , on u.s. involvement in the monetarily.nd u.s. aid to israel is already in the billions. >> one minute response first to senator shots.

this is escalating quickly. there is already a ground invasion of the israeli defense forces in gaza and certainly israel has a right to defend itself. we hope it is limited in scope and time. we hope their objectives to shut down the tunnels which were the conduits through which materials for the properties were transported and if it is narrow and time limited, then that would be the best case scenario. it is not in israel's best interest, certainly not in the interest of the people who live in gaza or in america's best interest if this is a long term occupation. the best case scenario now is int egypt plays a role brokering an initial cease-fire and eventual peace. but we are a long way from that. limitedthe idf meets objectives and pulls out. >> your response representative?

, >> the way we have to fix gaza is there has got to be a cease-fire. no question about that. and i believe the country that can broker it is egypt. and the reason why is not because of the tunnels that are going from gaza to israel. it is the tunnels that go from gaza to egypt. when the egyptians shut the tunnels down where a lot of the trade goes through when they did it by putting sewers in it, this is when we began to see the problem and conflict arise. so egypt plays a critical role and that is why you see even the vice president and secretary conceding to egypt. we need to have that steps being taken. they need to step up to the plate because they are the ones who can actually affect it. there is no question israel has a right to defend itself but we need to stop the killings and we need to stop the bombings so we need to have someone who really has what gaza wants, to bring them all to the table.

>> another facebook question. this will be first for representative hanabusa. here is a facebook question on sovereignty. would you as senator support the department of interior's efforts to crowiate a distinction as a tribe for federal recognition for native hawaiians? what about the native hawaiians who disagree? >> i do not believe that the native hawaiians should be treated as a tribe. i do know on the department of interior's website it did occur and something was put there for a couple of years that sid there would be four tribes. that is not also what i believe the department of interor is here to do. they are here to ask the question. should we re-establish the relationship of a government to government with the native hawaiian communities. that is the question. it is not the creation of a tribe. so the next step has to be that the department of interior must come back. this was an advanced rule. they were asking the question

whathe fine -- define would be re-establishing and that nation to nation relationship and who are the native hawaiian communities? we still have many questions to be answered and those who disagree with any of this you must participate, you must make your feelings known because that is the only way the department of interior will actually at least make the right decisions. >> you also have 60 seconds. >> this is a question of justice. a question of making sure that native hawaiians are on an equal footing legally with the american indian and alaska natives. it is good that the president and the department of justice and department of interor are moving forward, but they cannot move too quickly. they can't move in front of the native hawaiian community because self-determination means self-determination. in other words, the configuration of the native hawaiian governing entity has to be determined by hawaiians in

hawaii and there is not consensus yet. we may never get the consensus but with others working hard to listen carefully about what the best configuration of a native hawaiian governing entity. and how that into tea would interact with the state and county and federal government, i have confidence that we will be able to move forward. this will take several years to get to the place we need to go. it is good the president has started this conversation. >> time for more questions from our panel. richard has the nest -- next question. >> the national journal recently rated you as one of the three most liberal senators and the nation. do you think that stance accurately reflects the philosophy of the voters over the last in hawaii? >> we joke about this ranking on the senate floor. i am a strong democrat.

i believe strongly in the values that people across the state of hawaii believe in. let's be clear, that ranking had elizabeth warren at 36, bernie sanders at 37, i think those rankings get a little goofy sometimes. i will tell you this. i believe in democratic values. i also believe that sometimes you have to lay down your partisan arms and work across the aisle. i've been able to do that on the defense bill, native american veterans act, which was passed into law. there is no doubt that i have used that are left of center. i have shown i can work with republicans. >> how does that reflect your constituency? do you think you are more or less liberal?

>> it sounds like a poll question. i am not sure how to answer that. i think that hawaii believes in progressive values, clean energy, social security, shall -- social safety net. i don't always agree with our president. we are proud of him. we agree with him on many issues. i reflect and take those values to the united states senate. >> representative hanabusa you have one minute. >> do you have a ranking for me? without a ranking, i would assume one of the things that i have done is to remember that we have to act in a bipartisan manner. bipartisan has taken on a negative connotation.

i am the ranking member of the indian-alaska native affairs committee. not because they created the committee for me, but my colleagues felt that is who should be there. in addition to that, when it came to looking at the pivot to asia-pacific thomas the request was made that i be the ranking member. i'm not the most senior. but it was because i am most passionate about those issues. i believe i represent what the people of hawaii want and believe in. >> grace has the next question. >> you have just loaned your campaign $117,000. you are trailing heavy of a the mesh heavily in raising funds. unless you are trailing heavily in raising funds.

you've managed to raise only half as much as senator schatz. is that a sign that more people believe in him? >> i don't believe so. i think it is a sign of what it means to be an incumbent. he is ranked because, when you look at what he votes for, i think he votes with the leadership. not necessarily in the best interests of hawaii, but he votes with leadership. that is something you get rewarded for. i don't do that. i am not an incumbent. brian was elected by one person, governor abercrombie. i am not an incumbent. i will have to go and raise funds from those who believe in me. the fundraising component is not what is going to make this election. it will come down to the people. it will come down to how they feel. it comes down to whether you have grassroots out there. whether all the different islands will be there for you. that is what this campaign is about. it is about the people of the

state. i have full confidence in the voters. >> senator, one minute. >> it is overwhelming that the idea that 3000 people across the state of hawaii have contributed something financially to the campaign. sometimes you get the $2 check. sometimes you get something bigger. 3000 people across the state of the hawaii believe in the message we are carrying. but it is not just the donors. it is people on facebook, twitter, pounding in yard signs. some people every weekend six hours a day in the hot sun pounding in yard signs. i can think of all the people who are walking the streets getting sunburned, getting turned down and yelled at. that is what a campaign is about. i am so thankful for the support that we have been able to garner.

we do not take it for granted. we have 23 days left. we've got to work hard. i am honored for every bit of support that i have been able to get. >> 23 days. early voting starts even earlier. >> senator, you just mentioned that you have support for president obama. his approval rating is flagging based on what you read. can you name one major policy difference between you and him? >> i will name a couple. i think everyone knows i am a strong supporter of the president. when it comes to offshore drilling, we have a difference. i do not know what he is going to do with respect to the keystone xl pipeline. i oppose that. fast-track trade authority and the transpacific partnership which would have given the authority to an international trade agreement that supersedes federal law. , i opposed all of those things. you can be a supporter of a particular political leader, but

not necessarily agree with them. i have been able to find time to support his agenda. that tends to be the majority of the time. but there are certain important issues where we differ. that's what it means to be a good united states senator. >> representative, you can respond. >> i did not support him from the beginning on issues such as libya, syria, and iraq. the only amendment that passed in the house military appropriations was an amendment that i proposed which says if the president invokes the war powers act, he must come back to congress and seek approval. i also felt the same way when he proposed syria. the limited bombing of syria. i said he did not have the authority. he changed his position and said i will come back to congress and ask them for their authority. i did not support his tpa request.

that is the trade promotion act which gives him the ability to censor congress on the up-and-down vote. i did not support that. i believe we have our differences. i always vote for one thing, what is in hawaii's best interest. >> it is time for each candidate to ask a question. representative hanabusa has the first question. >> being a leader means you have to stand up. not support sending troops to iraq. it is a sectarian civil war. i took action and my bill passed the house. with no exit strategy, why do you support president obama's decision to send troops and helicopters? >> there is no military solution to iraq.

the only difference is you are running ads about it. there is no military solution in iraq. the future of iraq is up to the iraqis. but we have an embassy. that is the way you express diplomatic efforts. to be engaged in diplomacy, you need an embassy. to have an embassy, you have to protect it. the idea you have a few apache helicopters in case you need to evacuate and have servicemen and women protecting our embassy personnel makes perfect sense, especially in light of what happened in the gaza. let me be clear, there is no military solution in iraq. there is no difference between the two of us on this issue except that you seem to be really focused on criticizing the president's foreign policy. not just iraq. you find a way to never agree with the president on foreign policy. >> representative, 30 seconds.

>> you cannot say you need troops to support an embassy. if the embassy is in danger, you should support the withdrawal of the people. not saying you can add another 1000 troops, helicopters, d rones. look at what the president is doing. he cannot put the people there in with the shia because he does not know if they will kill us or not. sign on to my iraq amendment and let us end this once and for all. >> 30 seconds to adjust that. we pull upsuggesting stakes and withdraw our embassy? there are two choices. either we have one and protect it or we don't have an embassy. if you are proposing we withdraw is ambassy personnel, that radical position. it is not a mainstream position. it is not a responsible

position. if you are proposing we keep on but not protect personnel, that is a quite radical position. senator, it is your turn to return the favor and ask a question. on the way times veterans are facing, you wrote a piece that a new hospital in guam can help veterans. veterans i talked to do not understand this. can you tell hawaii's veterans how a time-consuming project on guam could help them? >> i don't know which veterans you are speaking to. the one thing i know for is they wanteak to all veterans to be taken care of. the most recent numbers are 303 still on the waitlist. there's still a lot of time. are from guam.

think about what it takes for them to get serviced. note that the guam hospital idea is how we fixed this whole issue of serving our vets. let's not take our eyes off the bouncing ball. the most important thing is how , do we get service to our vets? the waitlist issue is one we can resolve. how do you explain 303 still there. 83 are from guam. >> 30 seconds. >> it seems to me 83 is too many. it is not worth building a new facility in partnership with a naval hospital on the island of guam. we have 127,000 veterans in the asia-pacific region. 117,000 of them are in a white. -- are in hawaii. we've got to invest in doctors and nurses in hawaii and not guam. it will take forever.

it will get hung up in the review process. it will take forever to happen. in the meantime, our local veterans will be waiting. >> that is not true. you know there will be a bill for money, doctors, nurses. we already have the facility on the books. look at what you're saying. we have a situation, and to make the misrepresentation that we will not be a will to do it is incorrect. the hospital is already there. we need to modify it a little bit. they are already seeing three veterans a day in guam. how can you say that it would take more money and each along? you should know the facts. >> grace lee has the next question. >> you have been criticized for wasting your time in office as a senator. what is the most important thing you have accomplished in this office?

what is something you constituents can say i have this , today because of senator schatz. >> one of the things that makes me most satisfied is not the policy and politics. sometimes you can make a difference in people's lives. three or four months ago people , from united airlines were being told that they're going to have their jobs cut. 220 people. they were going to be asked to do the same jobs for minimum wage. they were making $60,000 a year, and many worked for 30 years for the airline. they were told it was going to be minimum wage from then on. we intervened. we used the senate commerce committee. we got involved. we told them there would be oversight. last week, they announced they have a new deal. 220 jobs across the islands have been saved. it wasn't perfect. people can now support their 220 families. that is why i love doing this

job. sometimes you can get something done that israel. >> when you said your opponent was wasting time, were you implying that he was lazy or ineffective? what did you mean? he says he has these committees, that he got the appointments, but it was february when he got the appointment. also, he had one hearing the whole time. on an issue important to hawaii. the tourism committee, one hearing. there are no bills offered from that committee. that is what i was referring to. when we serve our members, people of the state, we need to be cognizant of what is important to them and how we serve them. i spend a lot of time looking at

economy anduild the what jobs we can create. not just pie in the sky ideas. concrete ways that people will feel there is a better tomorrow for them and their families. >> are you saying he is exaggerating the roles or lying? >> i don't think he lies about it. i think he may embellish and exaggerate. for example, when he talks about the social security bill. he says he has offered it. it has not had a hearing. i said i would look at it and i have. i can tell you there are only two other senators who have signed up for. there are more members in the house who have signed onto a companion bill. why? if you're working so hard, this is an important issue, why? >> just to be clear, i did get appointed to the tourism committee because of a chain

reaction when max baucus became the ambassador to china. the position became available. i have had two earrings. we are marking up an important piece of legislation. we've also made progress in terms of preclearance for customs and border protection. on the japan side, visitors would be able to do customs in japan and arrive in honolulu, get their bags, and start spending money. we have made progress. >> let's move on to our panelists. your question goes to representative hanabusa. >> congresswoman, you have said in the past that you disagree with the demise of eric shinseki at the v.a. now that you know the extent of the problems he faced with a white with the worst we times to still feel, do you he should not have been held accountable?

could he have been holding back information even from you? >> my position has been that i believe that the president should have afforded him the same courtesy he allowed kathleen sebelius by allowing him to tender his resignation. sebelius' n resignation was not accepted. his was. i would have liked to have seen what the general could have done. this is not something that occurred overnight. about.a problem we know people got to see it with the phoenix situation. no excuse for the phoenix situation. notwithstanding, i think that he would have been able to address it. he would have been able to hit the ground running. he would have been able to have the same courtesy that sibelius had. >> if this did not happen overnight and he would be extended an opportunity to fix

it, it would have taken time. how much time should he have been allowed? >> i think kathleen sebelius was given a year before she resigned, from the time we knew there was a problem to now. the regional head said in three geths he would be able to our wait time in hawaii down to 30 days. general since checking -- general action seki should have given a chance to give his benchmark as opposed to saying the opportunity to fix it. >> >> i don't think they are the issue. the issue is what is effective for veterans. the issue is these people put their lives on the line. they come home and they have to wait in line to get basic medical care. that is what we have to be zeroed in on. not the politics are what republicans and democrats say

about leadership. the question is what we are going to do now. i support doubling the clinical services on the island. it would allow hiring new doctors and nurses and allow us to fire incompetent or dishonest managers. we have a tendency in politics to try to play the blame game. decidedgeneral shinseki he would be a distraction. that is between him and the president. our job is to focus on veterans and getting them the care that they need. >> richard, the next question goes to senator schatz. >> we are exploring the iraq war question. if the president announces increased troops on the ground, what is your reaction? >> i do not think there should be additional troops on the ground. i think they have sufficient troops to keep the embassy safe.

i think anything else would be in the category of potential mission creep. i would not support it. there are two thresholds. first, the total number of troops. now they have enough to protect the mission in terms of the embassy. second, whether these men and women are engaged in hostilities. if either of those triggers are met, i would be among the first to oppose the president's proposal. i don't think president obama has any appetite for increased military engagement in iraq very . this is something she is talking about but not something meaningfully on the table in terms of foreign policy or congress. >> let's be very clear. if the embassy is in danger, they should be withdrawn but we

should not put in troops to try to protect them because you do not know what the situation will be. if brian would look at what is going on, he would not make the statements he did. we have 1000 troops. many are to train commandos. many are there to help with different anti-terrorism actions. that is what they are there for. if you think that 1000 troops on the ground does not mean that we are there to put boots on the ground, you are wrong. look at what he has proposed. look at what he is doing. why do we have drones? why do we have apache helicopters? they want to use them. they just don't know who to use the drones on. >> onto another panelists question.

280,00020, an estimated of our residents will be 65 and older. the rollout of obamacare has been unpopular. >> the one thing that we have not enforced is a precision of obamacare thatof says it will be reinvested into medicare and go to the reduction of premiums for the elderly and the provision of service. if you remember the 2012 election the one thing that mitt , romney and the president agreed to was that there was a $700 billion savings attributed to medicare. what happened to that money? people tend to put it into reduction versus what it was intended to. on medicare, if we can hold people's feet to the fire, the

savings will keep medicare alive. >> how will it do that? >> the $700 billion. they all use it for deficit reduction. if they follow the law obamacare , says it shall be reinvested in medicare. and reduce the premiums. that is what it says. if both sides say we will use it and have $700 billion, they will be doing a great disservice. that is the reason why i felt that obamacare would assist in the preservation of medicare. >> senator, one minute. >> on a basic level, the affordable care act is beginning to work. people with pre-existing conditions can get health care, you can stay on your parents plan until you're 26, a number of other provisions have been good. healthcare.gov was a debacle.

the arithmetic doesn't work. we have too few people for -- participating in this. my view is that they have to reconfigure their business model. if not, they have to pursue exemptions at the administrative or legislative levels to try to reform the connector. they have brought down a little bit more than $200 million from the federal government for the implementation of the connector. they need to stop spending money. there are policy choices to make. there are operational choices to make. at least, they should not have good money follow bad. >> senator, the next question from grace. >> there has been a lot of scrutiny on the nsa. a lot of americans are concerned about their privacy. with good reason. where would you draw the line on the issue of domestic surveillance and data mining?

what is ok? what is not ok in your opinion? >> we need a surveillance program, but this is an area where we have different opinions. i voted against the final reauthorization of the foreign intelligence surveillance act. the basic reason is that it did not protect privacy rights under the fourth amendment. i supported certain amendments that ended up failing, but they were bipartisan. they would have provided more transparency into the fisa court. they would have established an advocate position. there would always be someone in the secret court system who represented regular people, our privacy interests. in this court you had the nsa , submitting something and fisa rubberstamping and approving every request for a wiretap. they were able to jump and jump entireveille nearly the

american public. we need to protect ourselves from people who want to do us harm could but we have got to protect our fourth amendment rights. >> time. >> representative, one minute. >> i don't think he answered your question. he talked about the connector, but your question was about medicare. when we talk about the nsa, the most important thing to remember is the patriot act. remember the patriot act? when i first got into the office in 2011, i voted against the extension of fisa, section 215. the patriot act. we have had recent bills in congress where i voted again against it because of the fact that it extends the patriot act. in 2015. expire this bill took us to 2017. i don't remember the senate voting on that. the amendment that brian talked about is completely different. the amendment he talks about was

because he was extending the right of the president to act like george bush and dick cheney. you cannot have that. it is worse. it is worse than anything else. >> time. you have a chance to ask each other a question on any topics. >> in 2011, you voted against epa air quality standards. that was to limit the emission of mercury, acid gases, and soot. these would have prevented over 1000 premature deaths and over 5000 heart attacks her year -- per year. >> i voted against it for one reason. i thought the rule was ill-conceived and would have caused the demise of the last

sugar plantation we have. they did not comply with the standards. if you really understood this bill and what happened, you would also know the epa has subsequently in 2013 change that rule. they said they did not want to do it but were sued by environmental groups said they had to implement the rule. implemented a specific rule that takes into consideration ther which will keep factory and 800 jobs alive and well. you have to understand what you are talking about before you make these statements. >> senator, 30 seconds. >> i understand the issue perfectly. we have a disagreement. the disagreement is this. you say we have to choose between air quality standards and the survival of this company. the proof is in the pudding.

your amendment did not pass. the epa standards got implemented. i understand you saying there were amendments in 2013. in 2011, this got implemented. they have had a couple of successful years. it goes to prove that you don't have to choose between the economy and the environment. >> 30 more seconds. >> that is where you are absolutely wrong. when we passed that amendment, we passed it after discussing it with the senators in the senate. they said this will send a message to the epa that they cannot willy-nilly enforce or create rules. that was what this was about. it would have killed them if that rule went through. in 2013, they were able to delay it. they came up with a rule that saved them. you are the one that does not understand.

>> representative, your question. >> the abercrombie administration wanted to balance the budget on the back of others and propose a tax retiree pensions. when it mattered, you did nothing to stop governor can't you just stand up to your mentor and disagree with him publicly? how can we count on you to be an independent vote in the senate if you can't even do that? >> well, this is an area where the governor and i disagreed. i opposed a pension tax. i continue to oppose a pension tax, but, colleen, this is another example of your desire to talk about everything under the sun except your record in the united states house and my record in the united states senate. look, you had the opportunity to serve for 3 thave years for the first congressional district. you have introduced 28 bill