the further notice. it proposes to adopt enhanced location and roaming support requirements and seeks comment on expanding text to 911 on other texting services. take for instance, the portion on delivering enhanced vocation information by text providers in a short time frame. nena states the further notice concludes and endorses adoption between the two year frame and seeks comment on such mandate. i am equally disturbed by the notion the commission could require the consumer's privacy settings be completely overridden to enhance location detection. lastly as my colleague pointed out, the cost benefits analysis contained in this item is seriously flawed. the item is full of conjecture instead of incredible facts -- credible facts. further, we do not consider the cost repercussion of our

actions. will interconnected text providers confer their offerings to non-interconnected providers? is the cost worth it? although i disagree with the majority of today's item, i thank the commission staff for their efforts in the chairman for the dialogue on this topic. >> as everybody has talked about, there are almost 2 billion text messages sent through carrier-based sms services every year and billions more sent through over the top. as we graphically heard from the simpson family example texting is now as important a function on a mobile device as talking.

and some of those text messages are cries for help. and some of those cries for help are from individuals who cannot hear or speak. yes, call 911 if you can. but if you can't, what are you going to do? i remember hearing i remember a meeting with the young deaf woman who told the the story of her sister having a seizure and she could not call 911. because she could neither hear nor speak. and she was alone. she forcefully had the presence of mine to text her mother at work and fortunately her mother

looked at the text message quickly and called 911. or there is the story of the caller in collier county, florida, a woman who called 911 three times but because of the physical impairment she was having that was threatening her life she could not speak. three times she called them. three times she could not get the words out. so she in a calm moment texted "help me" to 911. and the first responders came and saved her. fortunately for this lady, as for others, she was using a

mobile carrier who was voluntarily participating in the text to 911 effort. i agree with my colleagues in saluting those four national carriers who stepped up when we said we're going to do the right thing. but unfortunately, a lot of time has passed since those carriers stepped up and did something voluntarily and the other carriers serving the consumers of american did not. now, the regulatory seesaw says, ok step up. if you can do it, that's terrific. but if you don't step up to your responsibility we will

the message here is to carriers is that the volunteerism was fabulous. the way the four picked up on it was terrific. the way the others ignored it has then forced us to go across the entire industry. this item also addresses the rapidly expanding -- of over the top services like apple messages and text free an app on 10 million phones. in an a emergency the text message for help as a text message for help. a person should not have to worry whether the test mixes-- text

message is on the carrier or some over-the-top servers. but there is a challenge we face. some over-the-top services are i.t. faced rather than interconnected with the sms service. there are technical issues to overcome. that is why we are issuing a further notice on this topic. but the first step is that all carriers and all interconnected sms texting applications should be covered, and that is the step that we take today. i was reminded as i was listing up here of the observation that a journey of 1000 miles begins with a single step. i guess we could sit here and wait until everything is worked

out. i guess we could sit here and wait until the all i.p. next-generation 911 calls, but if one life is one too many, as we have heard today from this dias what are we going to explain to that life or to his o r her relatives? that we figured we would sit here and wait until the best of all possible worlds was possible. we are not doing that. i agree with the observation, by the way that the piece apps have a genuine important responsibility theuy y need to step up to. i think i need to address those

commas to the people who fund them. every one of us as our americans sees on our bills a line item that says 911 fees. we are paying for the best iteration that technology can deliver on our bills. and those who collect those funds needs to direct those funds to deliver on those expectations. thi siss is far from a playground. this is about people's lives. this is about the expectation that our first responsibility is to provide for the safety of americans. and this is a step to continue to fulfill that responsibility and it it s not the final step.

now let me just give pause for a second and respond to another issue that has been raised here just for the record and so everyone can understand. i think the point commissioner clyburn made about ross says was an -- about process was incredibly valid. it is one we have heard from this dias multiple times. it ias a bipartisan issue. and it is a bipartisan offender's issue. where individual commissioners are not able to engage until the 11th hour, thereby thrusting other commissioners into difficult situations. as i say everybody up here have

complained about it. and it is a bipartisan trigger on this. it's something we have to come to grips with. and it's something that i think we owe it to each other to do. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> as a reminder, if you have a specific question about the agenda items, there will be

conversations after this available with the bureau staff. with that, i will turn it over to the chairman. >> thank you. if anyone wants to leave, you do not have to stick around. i've got a quick statement with a couple of data points. first, the commission will be hosting a series of roundtables as a part of o of our open internet proceeding. as many of you know we've already received more than one million comments from the public in the nprm. and these roundtables, which will take place here in this room, will provide an opportunity for us to hear additional information to give people the opportunity to engage in dialogue on specific points. and for us to collect additional

expert tech -- testimony on important points. this afternoon, we will be releasing a public notice with more information on those roundtables. so heads up. also, i wanted to highlight a separate public notice we've issued yesterday that asks questions about updating our online public file requirements to include cable and satellite dividers. as most of you know, the public files make available community relevant information on topics like children's programming and political advertising in 2012. the commission voted to require broadcasters to make this information available online. rather than having to go to the station. this was part of the commission's work to harness the

power of digital technologies to enhance transparency and make public information actually accessible to the public. yesterday's public notice seeks comment on expanding this transparency and and ensuring parity between broadcasters and cable and satellite programs. with that, i look forward to your questions. paul? >> you had some strong words early this year in the text to 911 proceeding about piece apps about whether they have stepped up to do it they need to do to receive text. simpson gave us the update on how many apps. since that point early this year, have a still not done enough? have they listen to you? 9>> i think the number has increased. the indication that additional ones are planned is forthcoming. the message i try to deliver today -- i tried to delivered

today is that it takes two to tango. we are doing our part. the industry is doing its part. and the piece apps need to be able to do it. i guess one of the things i try to be clear about today was to specifically direct my comments, not necessarily to piece apps but to those who pay for them. to say hey, this is the funding allocation question that needs to be handle. >> so state and locals. >> that's who funds them. >> about net neutrality. the president was asked about this earlier. he did not refer to the proposal of the open internetwork you guys are doing but he said "you do not want to start getting a differentiation and how accessible the internet is to various users." how does that square with what you guys have proposed and is that not a call for a ban on

pay for prioritization? >> as i've said innumerable times here, anything that interferes with the virtuous cycles and something that can and should be prohibited. i have said that prioritization in my opinion interferes with the virtuous cycle. . let me be really clear if prioritization, first consumer and -- hurts consumers hurts innovation, degrade service, it's d.o.a. >> so both you and the president agree that you would not like the idea of paid prioritization. yet your proposal could section the practice. i'm wondering why you think this section 706 route is the best way to ensure an open internet. >> so again what we did in the nprm west to say here are some

thoughts and here are a whole bunch of other issues that also have to be address before you reached a final conclusion. i've told you where i stand on prioritization. if prioritization hurts the virtual cycle, it should not be permitted. period. >> a lot has been said in recent months about the growing reliance of consumers on the wireless networks. studies have shown that for a lot of folks wireless is the primary access to broadband. do you think it is fair and appropriate to distinguish between wired and wireless networks when it comes to very broad and basic particles of nondiscrimination and no block ing of web content? >> are you talking specifically about the open internet rules. >> that is what i am thinking of. >> that is where no blocking comes up. >> when it comes to the basic principle of net neutrality, do

you think it is fair and appropriate to distinguish between a two? >> that is one of the questions we will be deciding. >> verizon's response to your letter on data throttling laid out why it thought practices were reasonable and cited another opponent -- a uynumber o f other companies. have you had a chance to review the letter? >> absolutely. you know, all the kids do it. was never something that worked with me when i was going up and it did not work with my kids. and i think what we have to be careful about is an attempt to reframe the issue.

around this fact that well, everybody does something to manage their network. um, i think there are three issues here. one issue is what exactly is reasonable network management? um, reasonable network management is a technology determination. it's an engineering determination. my concern in this instance, and it is not just with verizon. we have written to all the carriers. but my concern in this instance is that it is moving from technology and engineering issues to business issues.

business issues such as choosing between different subscribers based on your economic relationship with them. you know, the decision that verizon made or the announcement they made in 2012, when they said that we are not going to have unlimited anymore as a new offering but there are a million or more people that continue on unlimited. you can continue, but we are not going to subsidize your phone. you pay us the $695, and you can keep using the unlimited. you cannot turn around and say, you we will not allow you to use the unlimited. first the question is what is reasonable network management. second is the business issue. the third is the block issue in which c-block say you may not

block, degrade or interfere. and all of those issues i think we have to look at and all of those issues with the exception of c-block apply to all the kids. >> setting the c-block issue aside, is the implication here that if verizon expanded its programs to include not just the folks on unlimited data but also the folks on media plans, that that would be reasonable? >> we are not going to sit here and hypothesize and make rules or decisions on the fly. ok? nice try. sir. >> mr. chairman, respecting everything you just said about net neutrality, given the concerns that have been raised are you contemplating any substantive changes to your net neutrality proposal or is it you are -- your expectation that the proposal will remain largely the same? >> stay tuned. >> can you clarify that a little bit? >> that is what the process is

all about. he put out a notice. let's back up. one of the things we said early when i first came out, is that we want henceforth nprm's to go out with a rebuttable presumption that this is the idea we want you to focus on. to often commission nrprm's said hey, tell us what you think. you get back a miss mosh. we have been successful in meeting our goal in saying, folks, this is what you want to focus on. at the same point in time, here are all of the other issues. because those issues will go i nto informing what the final order looks like. that is the way this process works. >> but are you leaving the door open -- >> i have answer the question and told to that what we do is

propose an idea to say it is a rebuttable presumption. go rebut it. here are a bunch of things to occupants it appeared clearly people have responded. we will take all of that into account and go from there. sir? >> when it comes to prioritization not hurting consumers or herding competition, is there any thought towards providing concrete examples about what the limits of those present most? or are you thinking about using president? -- using precedent? >> you have to wait and see with the order says. >> on july 29 you want to time warner cable in concern about dodgers games in los angeles and some concerns about vertically integrated cable companies. do these concerns you expressed about the time warner cable situation in los angeles extends to the comcast merger, the

comcast purchase of time warner cable? to what extent will that affect your review of the merger? >> clearly the whole question of what is the integration in the cable industry is relevant to what goes on in the comcast merger. >> will you put conditions on the merger to prevent things like we are seeing in los angeles now? >> to you want me to go back? i can talk about this. come on. >> got to try. >> um, a 911 question. saturday i witnessed an accident where a care wiped out two motorcycle ridreers. it took me five times to get to 911. is that acceptable? >> i would find that very frustrating and very unacceptable. the challenge is when you are in an emergency the call needs to go through.

can you tell me more about your experience? >> want me to tell you now? or to you want me to talk about off-line. you know me. i'm hapypy to talk. >> i am just dying of curiosity but kim won't let me ask. >> nancy, did you have a question? >> sorry. >> [inaudible] >> my question -- my answers i have not taught them through. - -though them through. >> [inaudible] >> that's one of the issues that keeps getting brought up in the whole net neutrality debate. and the so-called two-sided -- yes, that is something we have looked at and have considered

and will be addressing. i think you will be able to see a response to the kinds of questions you ask in the rule, yes. >> all right. >> ok, great. >> next an advising committee talks about online privacy. after that, i debate between the candidates running the virginia senate race. live at 7:00 a.m., your calls and comments on "washington journal." >> this week while congress is in recess, watch american history tv in prime time. each weeknight at 8:00 american history tv will feature a variety of topics on the early american republic am a jewish history, world war ii, sports history, and let us know what you think about the programs you are watching. call us at 202-626-3400 or e-mail us. join the conversation.

like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. for over 35 years c-span brings public affairs events from washington directly to you putting you in the room at congressional hearings, white house events, briefings and conferences and offering complete gavel to gavel coverage of the u.s. house all as a public service of private industry. we are c-span, created by the cable tv industry 35 years ago and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. watch us in hd, like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. >> the congressional internet caucus advisory committee hosted a discussion on online privacy rights. the panel follow the ruling in may by the european court of justice that google must consider requests by citizens to delete information about them. the policy is known about the right to be forgotten. privacy advocates and lawyers defeated the ruling and its potential -- debated the ruling.

this is just over an hour. >> 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 panelist is mike godman, who is a senior policy advisor with interviews. he was also the former general counsel parent organization of wikipedia, which will be interesting and relevant here.

nine we have emma lanzo. 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. first of all google acts as a data processor. they don't show it without editing. search is not this algorithmically -- this algorithm. it has a legal presence in the 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 if you are not a public figure which they do not define too well, you have the right to petition a search engine to have correct relevance or no longer relevant search results in not

-- 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. google told the du they received 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 was not creating the processing of personal data standard and that it had to be adequate and relevant and not excessive. instead that provision existed in the legislation they were specifically being asked to interpret. that clear language existed since the mid-90's. this 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. there are few outrageous act specs about it. the difficulty is the underlying directive of language is quite

broad. the reason it is broad -- it was 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, the european equivalents of -- plus maybe a reaction to the 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. the advocate 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

engine 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 look at 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. they did not say that this was information that should be taken down at the source, which i think is the right outcome. then going the next step and saying a search engine may have an obligation not to link to

that 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. even though the ec j is the highest court in europe and this 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. if 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 using their 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 major reason the court had 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 is in the best position -- -- who is in the best position. >> the justice was wrestling

with an issue of what google does. it 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 newspapers, at least in this 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. could 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 comes up in 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. i think one of the complicated questions that the court was sort of wrestling with in the opinion -- this is not just a 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. there are 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. when an individual is actually using a search engine to find information, they have some basic idea about what they expect the search engine to return. they think they are going to return information that the search engine has decided is relevant. if 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. if you are 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 databases for 40 years and what

the privacy implications of those are for individuals. the concept that all information that you have either provided or others have said about you is now available and accessible at any time by anyone in the world. it remarkably changes the relationship between the individual and the collective democratic society. what does it mean to have all of that information available? the european 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 -- we should -- we think it should be aged out after seven years. there 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. having said that, even if you thought it was worthwhile to age out 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. if you look up 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. you will find 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. a 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. it would have at least been an 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. a lot of 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. first i would say google news isn't implicated in the facts. the court would 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. article eight covers privacy and article 10 covers free expression. there are a number of cases that 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. it 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 need more tools to manage our 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. a distinctly american approach is the right to reply.

>> 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 another 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 a right to -- are we just playing a game like data lack of mold? how exactly do we get to that

point? >> i think that is a fantastic point. in this conversation you are starting to see if separated into three categories. the policy implications that people now realize for what the language is 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. other ideas like that though we 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. a i worry about what other free expression implications of that? how much does that she'll free expression? they are concerned about taking controversial 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 -- >> you are arguing for the nsa? >> what i am doing is saying that -- i'm 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 law -- i think the procedures get easy for search engines. even wikipedia. what will be difficult in the next directive is that they are using language like 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

we get that clarity? 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. >> 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 covering 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. they hopefully get off -- get kicked off the first page in search results. there were no laws involved. should there be some? there were 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. it is also 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 along, rather than saying make the search engine change results and i will fix the problem, i don't think it addresses the fundamental tension. >> i agree with emma 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. instead of saying, hey 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 demands as they would like to be with regarding to search warrants or regarding to subpoenas pursuant -- for user information. we think search engines have increasingly been setting standards of very positive behavior of trying to disclose the facts that governments are demanding certain things of them, including their home governments.

one of the things we have seen 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. i just read an article that my former employer is be in criticized and it was responsive to the demands to have links removed. i think that strarnse 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. we don't know why, we don't know 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. data brokers have been coming up in the conversation. 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. >> let's look forward a look at from building on this conversation. we have talked about difficulties with implementation. i think we have all agreed standards in europe could be more clear and easier -- easy to implement. going forward are we better off if europe actually specifies 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? also how do you see this playing out, a similar debate playing out in the united states. we had a huge debate over the free-speech invocations of sopa

and pipa. can you talk about that? >> there is this unpleasant reality that the internet is a global medium. google implemented at this on 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 the e.u. suddenly you have this regime to stop people from being embarrassed. which seems a bit excessive to me. this really strikes me as the equivalent of area, a court took an older law and did not quite know how to fit it. said we know this could be

exploited or used but we're sure theg figure it out in prague. -- they will figure it out in practice. >> one of the things -- one of my favorite -- although it was a tense moment in some ways -- one of my favorite cases was this. of two convicted german murderers have served their times. they served their time for having killed a jerman television star. they were eventually -- served their time and got out on good behavior. they were convicted in 1993 and released in 2008. 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. my solution to this, since wikipedia doesn't have anything like legal resources that google or bing or yahoo have is this. i ignored it 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. then i'll come back and win in a federal court. they second 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. go figure. then i realized that instead of suing wikipedia, they would have to sue the "new york times" first. 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 encyclopedia hobby. my solution would not work anymore. you really care about wikipedia. i know pretty much everybody in this room has been on a

wikipedia page every day. if you care about that stuff, you're upset about the fact that somebody might take some that might take something away. once again if you are troubled by this and you don't want to have to resort 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 themselves, 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 limited rights. obscuring the data and making it harder to get. limited rights have profound implications. i do believe that the language the right to be forgotten has misled a lot of people. i would say we have done things like this before as far as implementation goes. we have taken flexible, vague standards and defined guidelines

and case law underneath it. it protects against unfair and deceptive trade practices. what is an unfair and deceptive trade practice? how can we figure that out? it is completely subjective. we'll never determine it. a lot of scholars say we are now developing a common law of privacy. they give 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 eraser buttons.

we need a good pr term. i don't know if you have any ideas. >> i think that is rob's business. not mine. >> i don't do p.r.. i was going 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. that is a competitive issue. 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 forced sale in bankruptcy. >> first name mario. it was a forced sale. what he did is he wanted the record removed from a spanish newspaper. secondarily he wanted google to remove any links. he understood. he had clarity. he didn't want it harder to get

to. he wanted it gone. it argues for the coherency of his intellectual position that he asks for 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. i think while he is probably rejoicing in his new fount popularity, he would have to admit he wanted more than what he got. it is difficult to be intellectually consistent about the result for google. >> i wanted to pick up on a 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 in europe.

we see goal is putting together an advisory council. they have this 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 job for the private 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? >> can i just add one point the what she said he echo the example is a popular blogger like andrew sullivan -- there is a really 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.

what we haven't talked about is the directive has a floor, not a ceiling, about how they protect the data. they can go above and beyond and they can interpret their own implementations in their own way. what you have now is a system with 28 authorities who can come up with their own definitions. the draft regulations has been a top priority. in we 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. >> we are coming down to the end 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 mic. >> 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. it has just been that easy. >> i'm sorry. we're a little short on time so if there is a question. >> 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. >> anyone 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 do you think the impact this will have an this discussion will have on the research, communities? if a researcher wanted to use a webpage that posted mugshots as a research tool and they want to scrape that data in order to publish in

a scholarly journal, what impact do these privacy regulations ultimately have on scholarly research abilities? >> the research is not at all 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. >> there is no question this has an impact on researchers. it is like stortturing the -- torturing the card catalog at a library. the books are still all going to be there, it is just going to be hard to find them. >> the regulation applies to 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. >> i think what

>> described is a tax on the public domain in terms of large and small entities trying to comply. doesn't the idea hanna software 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. and participate in the standard setting. on a better response to his core question to me earlier, i would say is that of the right to be forgotten maybe we can talk about this as access for security purposes. >> we have time for maybe one or two more questions. >> one of the points that has been made is the internet is not or should not be territorial. it is clear there is a different understanding in the e.u. it is enshrined in basic treaties. it is the basic building block as opposed to the u.s. where it is more difficult. let's put it that way. i understand 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. all of these companies will have to deal with 20 different directors. what would be the practical guidelines or tools you would suggest they start using? >> let me answer that as briefly as i can. in the e.u. one thing i found heartening 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. when you analyze this, one thing 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 coverage of capturing private 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 sure it is not just government 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. >> i would say that absent a one-stop shop model happening in the regulations, what we have is the article 29 working party being 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] >> next a debate between the candidates running in the virginia senate race and live at 7:00 a.m. your calls and comments on "washington journal." >> all weeking watch book tv in primetime. monday at 8:30 p.m. eastern and tuesday through friday at 8:00, book tv features a wide ring of topics including foreign policy, law and legal issues iran,

coverage of book fairs from across the country and from the best sellers of this week and let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. call us or you can email us us at comments at crmp span.org. >> now a debate between the major candidates in this year's virginia u.s. senate race. mark warner and his republican challenger ed gillespie face off on a range of issues. they discuss same-sex marriage immigration and the border crisis, the healthcare law and plor-sponsored continue seppings. it was co-hosted by the virginia bar association and held last nopt white silver spring west virginia. judy woodruff moderates this debate. [captions copyright national

cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> i am delighted to be year, i am honored to be here, i want to thank the virginia bar association for sponsoring this, for inviting me to be part of it. i want to thank senator warner, ms. could -- mr. glass before participating. i want to thank the greenbrier and the state of west virginia for hosting us. i think maybe we will set a new trend, holding debates in the state next door. the candidates have agreed to a format that gives them as close to equal time as possible for my and we're going to do our very best to stick to that. i'm happy to say the pbs news hour is live streaming this debate, along with the vba. we expect a large audience to be watching in virginia and across the nation. if you miss it, it will live afterwards at our website, that is pbs.org/newshour. now, let's begin. before we go to questions, each of the candidates have a two-minute opening statement and we will begin with you, mr. gillespie.

>> thank you, judy. thanks to the vba for hosting us. mark, its good to be with you today. i'm running for the senate because i want future generations to have the same opportunities my family has seen. my father came to america from ireland because my grandfather found work here as a janitor. my parents did not go to college, but insisted that i do. i took out student loans and worked a lot of different jobs. i was even a senate parking lot attendant to earn my degree. over time, i became a counselor to the president of united states. what a country. but i fear that we are losing that kind of economic opportunity and upward mobility as a result of president obama's and senator warner's job killing policies. our economy shrank by new three percentage points last quarter. for every net job created three people leave the workforce

entirely. more businesses are closing and opening. his is not somehow a matter of faith, it is the result of the governor that ashe of a government that is going to bake, squeezing too many virginians between lost jobs or stagnant wages and higher prices for health care, energy and food. i appreciate senator warner's service to our commonwealth am a but unfortunately his votes in the senate have tightened that squeeze on hard-working virginians and made it harder for the unemployed to find work. in voting with president obama 97% of the time, he has not been the senator he said he would be. instead of being an independent voice for us, he has been a blank check for president obama. i will be a check on the president. i will have a simple test for every senate vote i cast. will this ease the squeeze on hard-working virginians if it does not, i will not vote for it. have a five-point economic growth agenda to create jobs raise take-home pay, lift people out poverty, hold down health care costs and reduce energy

prices. i look forward to an opportunity to fight for it and for us in the united states senate if you give me that chance. thank you. >> thank you, mr. gillespie. senator warner. >> thank you, judy. hello to all my friends at the virginia bar. ed, it is great to see you again. is been the greatest honor of my life to serve virginians. first as governor and now as your senator. like ed, i was the first in a family to graduate from college. my first two businesses failed. the third went pretty well. what brought me to public service was a recognition that in america everybody ought to get a fair shot. we can't guarantee success, but in america everybody ought to get a fair shot. that is what i have tried to do my public life. first as governor, where with it two-one republican legislature we managed to turn deficits into surpluses and virginia got recognized as the best managed state for business.

in the senate i've tried to bring the same approach, whether it is wrestling with issues around debt and deficit, whether it is trying to advance policies that will bring jobs back home. whether it is my recent work on trying to deal with some other crushing amounts of student debt. on these issues and many others, i have worked in a bipartisan fashion in a town where it is not easy to do. my opponent has a different approach. he spent his entire career as a d.c. lobbyist and a partisan operative. he views every issue through the lens of republicans versus democrats. he even went on tv and called himself a partisan warrior, his words, not mine. i worked there. the last thing washington needs is another partisan warrior. i believe virginians want leaders who are willing to work for the common good, work across party lines and get things done.

that is what i have done throughout my whole career. if virginians give me the honor of rehiring me, that is what i will continue to do. >> thank you, senator warner. we will return to questions by drop. the first question does go to senator warner. you have voted with president obama most of the time in the senate, including for the affordable care act. your opponent, as we just heard, says this proves that rather than being an independent voice for virginia, you are in lockstep with the white house and you bear responsibility for the problems with obamacare, especially since you vowed not to support a measure that i quote you, takes away any health care plan that you like. how do you answer? >> judy, let's set the record straight on the statistic that is used. independent political observers have called it misleading and not representative of my record. the national journal ranks me in

the center. one of the reasons why senator john warner had this job for 30 years. when i disagree with the president, i stand up with him. whether it is on oil or support for the keystone pipeline, whether it is supporting tort reform and that is a hard thing to say in front of a group of lawyers. i've taken arrows from both the left and the right on my efforts to deal with the debt and deficit. on health care, what i hear from virginians is that they're tired of this issue being used as a political football. they actually want to see it fixed. they don't want to go back to the days when people with pre-existing conditions could not get health care and women were charged differently than men or seniors had to play a higher price for includings. -- drugs. the obamacare -- i wait out for plans and how we can improve

it. it cheaper plan called the copper plan. working to try to get rid of some of the overly bureaucratic regulations, a plan that has been supported by a lot of small businesses, including all the national retail federation. why don't we allow insurance companies to ensure with appropriate consumer protection to sell products across state lines. what virginians want is get this health care working in a way that is fair and efficient. >> a couple of things. first of all, independent fact checkers have declared a 97% figure accurate and true. when it comes to offshore drilling, senator warner just said that he supports it. i know that he is said that, but in 2012, there was a vote for drilling for more oil and gas throughout the outer continental shelf. five democrats voted for it, including jim webb. senator warner voted against it. in 2012, despite saying he's for the pipeline, there was an amendment to move it forward for approval. 11 democrats voted for it, including jim webb, his own

democratic colleague from virginia, and senator warner voted against it. on health care he voted to kill an amendment that would've prevented cuts to medicare advantage, which over 170,000 virginians are enrolled in. senator webb voted against killing that amendment and senator warner voted for it. it is part of a pattern. as part of a pattern of not being a senator he said he would be. his press releases are very bipartisan, but his floor votes are very partisan. that is a difference. i will make sure that we replace obamacare with policies that work, that allow us to keep the insurance we like, that make health care more affordable, does not kill jobs and when it comes to energy of a part of my five-point economic growth agenda is to unleash american energy and actually fight for lifting the moratorium on our drilling off of our deep sea coasts and to make sure that we do get the keystone xl pipeline approved, along with the number of other proposals in that plan. >> senator warner. >> i think my opponent has to get his facts straight.

on keystone, i support that. i got protested against in harrisonburg. on offshore, i have had legislation for that for years. i believe virginia should have a share of the royalties. the bill that ed mentioned did not include that. the question that we didn't hear, we have heard my opponents criticism of obamacare, but we don't hear a lot of talk about before obamacare and before romney care, there was gillespie care. both a lobbyist and in his book, my opponent was a big supporter of the individual mandate. it is key to the obamacare approach. somehow he seems to have forgotten that. even today, the richmond times dispatch has said that my opponent has said he is against obamacare but not laid out specifics. i laid out specific areas where we can fix this law. i think that is what most virginians want.

>> can i give an additional 30 seconds? >> that is not true. i never lobbied for an individual mandate. never called for an individual mandate. fact checkers have disputed that as well. i fought obamacare every step of the way. senator warner did not just voted for it, but he strong-armed his colleagues to vote for. i warned of its damaging effects. i said it was going to end up killing jobs, raising the costs of our premiums and harming the quality of our care. on one of the most important issues, i was right. senator warner was very wrong. >> let's move onto the next question. this one is to mr. gillespie. you are running on a progrowth economic plank. he championed more tax cuts, less regulation, no increase in the federal minimum wage. in today's economy and the current tax system, corporate profits are booming.

wall street is enjoying record success. many working class americans, as you said, are still struggling. critics say your plan is basically a reprise of the policies of george bush under which the census bureau shows median household income declined, poverty increased and childhood poverty increased even more. are they right? >> no, judy. let me share with the people here what i'm talking about when i talk about e.g. squared, which is ed gillespie's agenda for economic growth. if you're for growth, you are for me. we've seen the job losses as a result of obamacare, which senator warner work to pass. it will mean 2.5 million fewer workers in our economy over the decade as a result of our disincentives to work built into that legislation. i believe having the highest corporate tax rate is responsible for having other companies go overseas.

we saw just recently when a medical device company purchased a company in ireland it engaged in what is known as inversion. i believe we need to simplify and bring down the highest corporate tax rate and incentivize american companies to bring profits from overseas and invest them here in the united states. i believe policies like unleashing american energy, replacing obamacare with market oriented reforms, education reform which i believe is progrowth, and cutting wasteful spending could result in a doubling of our economic growth rate, which is low after a recession. if we doubled our growth rate for percent on average, it would mean 10 million new jobs in our economy. that would mean 3 million of our fellow americans would be lifted out of poverty and it would mean we would be able to reduce our deficit by one third. >> judy, there's no issue more

important than getting our country's balance sheet right. $17 trillion in debt goes up $3 billion a night. simpson bowles, not perfect, but i built a bipartisan group that would have taken on entitlement reform, tax reform and would've done more for job growth than any single program. what i didn't hear from my spos opponent was any acknowledgment of the fact that he was a cheerleader for the bush/cheney economic policies, policies that put two wars and the credit card, that added to entitlements, that provided tax cuts that couldn't be fully paid for, that increased the debt 86%. i don't know. if that is my opponent's policy, i'm not sure we can afford e.g., much less e.g. squared. >> senator gillespie? >> when senator warner first ran for the senate, he said he supported balanced-budget

amendment. after he was elected to office he voted against it. 10 democrats voted for it, including senator joe manchin from west virginia. again, bipartisan press releases, partisan votes on the floor, i believe that we can spur economic growth, but not with the kind of intrusive government regulation and mandates and taxes at senator warner has supported, again, nearly a trillion dollars in tax increases since being elected. $7 trillion in new debt and support for mandate after mandate, including, obviously, the mandates an epa rule that i believe will result in devastating our coal industry further than it has artie been devastated in southwest virginia. >> i gave him a chance to respond the last round. >> what i find is folks who had

to pay for the balanced-budget amendment, it is usually people that don't have a plan. california, new york, their balanced-budget amendments. if anyone here thinks that is how they got balanced budgets, i don't believe that is the case. on this issue, we have a record. i was governor. i turned deficits into surpluses. he was part of an administration that turn surpluses into deficits. >> we will move onto the next question. this is for senator warner. it is on the environment. both of you have already raised. as you know, there are trade-offs between protecting the environment and economic growth. the obama administration's environmental protection agency has proposed new carbon emissions regulations at the chamber of commerce charges would cost thousands of virginia jobs, would force the closure of existing power plants in the state, and cost consumers at least $200 a year. do these proposed regulation go

too far? >> judy, one of the great success stories of the last decade has been the explosion of american energy sources. we are the largest provider of oil and gas. i have supported consistently and all of the above approach to energy. renewables, fossil fuels conservation. that includes use of coal. i do believe we have to find ways to use it cleaner. that is going to come about from american innovation and american technology. regardless of what we do, there will be 800 new coal plants built in china and india over the coming years. they ought to be using american cleaner coal technology. on these new regulations they're in the midst of a -- period. we ask for that additional time and they should give it. my opponent has never been willing to acknowledge the

science around climate change. and that man has an effect on it. i would love to take my opponent to -- where the virginias rising so much, the navy has spent tens of millions of dollars just raising the piers. my opponent does have two energy credentials. he lobbied against increasing fuel efficiency standards. and as a chief lobbyist for enron, lobbied for regulations that basically allowed enron to gouge consumers all over america. >> this is another example where senator warner is not being a senator he said he would be because he says he's going to stand up for coal miners and are very important coal sector in virginia, yet when there was an amendment to offer on the senate floor to prevent the epa from regulating carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions

nine democrats voted for it. jim webb cosponsored it. once again, senator warner voted with his party leadership against the interests of virginians. i was just out in southwest virginia as i often am, campaigning. i visited with a gentleman my age, and he was telling me about the difficulties he has found since being laid off his job as a minor. -- miner. and fact, he is not helping to support his family. he has three children like i have. he's now mowing lawns and doing odd jobs to help support his family. i respect him immensely. for doing that hard work. but the wages he is making are a far cry what what he was making. we are seeing all across southwest virginia the damaging effect of senator warner's policies in support of president obama. i, too, agree we need to offer

cleaner energy and cleaner air. we are all for clean air. when you shut down one third to 50 percent of her coal-fired plants in virginia and you force production overseas to places like china, india and indonesia where they don't have the same high air quality standards that we have, you're not going to enhance air quality, you may damage it. >> again, i'll go back to what i said. i support and all of the above, including coal. we need to handle the enormous challenges. we need have a coal industry that leads the world in cleaner coal technology. in carbon capture and increased -- i think it is a smart pro-business approach. what i'm curious with my opponent who talked about the gentleman who are know is had his circumstances changed, a lot of the folks who circumstances change are now on minimum wage. my opponent made some comments about minimum wage recently. he said minimum wage is a place where you learn the social aspects of work and afterwards you go play softball or drink a

beer. otto, there are an awful lot of folks around virginia that are on minimum wage. more women than men. we can debate the statistics but most folks say about 20% of minimum wage earners are the breadwinners for the family. i don't understand why he refuses to acknowledge we have to increase the minimum wage. we can debalte bait about time and implementation, but i do think his comments are disconnected. >> i believe the senator knows a context of his comments because i said a lot of first-time jobs at minimum wage jobs, which they are. i'm sure there are many people in this audience whose first job was minimum wage. what senator warner supports is destroying between half a million jobs according to the cbo and up to a million jobs. you're right, there are 20%, little bit less, of minimum age earners who are head of the household and responsible for the family.

i agree with you, we need to make sure that people were working full-time can support their families. and be brought above poverty level. i don't think we should do it by making the working poor the nonworking poor. i would support a work incentive tax credit that allows people to keep their jobs and get the supplement -- to supplement their income so we can help people have a livable income as opposed to increasing minimum wage in a way that kills jobs and continue to work. there is human dignity in work. more people to experience that. >> the minimum wage, when i started it was one dollar and -- it was $1.70. it had less purchasing power at seven dollars and $.25 today. >> first, mr. glaspie, do you believe that science proves that

climate change exists? >> i believe there is ample scientific evidence of -- that contribute to climate change. where don't believe it is i'm not entirely dismissive and sneering against those who have a different point of view and have different evidence. in my view, the evidence i've seen is that there is climate -- look, norfolk is the only -- with rising sea levels. people can debate what contributes to that. it is indisputable, 2.5-5 years. we need to help norfork and the region adapt to that and deal with that. >> senator warner, a quick follow up. do those epa relations go too far? >> i'm not sure if my opponent agreed that man is a contribute to climate change. i think science overwhelmingly says yes. i think we have to go with the science. we ask for additional time so we can try to get them right.

i think one of the key things administration said it is are they going to use 2005 baseline or something else. all across the state, we are both ends of the barbell, what i do believe is, part of the energy mix in america and the world going forward is going to be coal. let's find ways to use it cleaner. >> the e.p.a. regulations go too far. i want to make sure people know my opinion on that. >> next question for mr. glaspie has to do with immigration. in 2012, president obama gave some undocumented children in this country a shield from deportation. if they arrived before 2007, if they had a clean work record and had graduated from high school they were given work authorization. now, senator ted cruz of texas is proposing to overturn this executive action. if elected, would you vote with senator cruz to repeal the protection from deportation for

these so-called dreamers? >> it is an executive order. i think it is an executive order. by acting you -- unilaterally as a president has come i believe he is contributed to the crisis we are seeing on the southern border today. what we're seeing there is because people in guatemala and honduras and el salvador and other countries saw the president and it created a spike in people coming to the border. i believe we need to secure our border. and enforce our existing law. the something senator warner said when he was running for this job six years ago. unfortunately, when there was an amendment brought to the senate floor, after saying we need to secure our border in 2009, senator warner voted against the requirement of a fence to be completed by 2013. it would have been completed by now if that has been implemented. 21 democrats voted for it. jim webb was one of them. senator warner, after saying it should be the first priority voted against it.

he has not been the senator he said he would be. i do believe we need immigration reform. my father is an immigrant to this country. i'm proud to be the son of an immigrant. i believe that the reform that -- the reforms we should enact legislation that would allow us to keep out those who don't want to enter illegally or allow us to bring in people that we do want to come in legally. >> would you vote with senator cruz? >> i have not seen the bill. >> he would repeal or overturn what the president signed. >> i would like to have a bill that has different pieces prooned visions that addresses border security. i haven't seen senator cruz's bill, but i think that president obama overreached when he issued an executive order in this regard. i think we're seeing the consequences of it today. >> i think the tragedy at the border is an example, one more example that our current immigration system is broken. it is why in a bipartisan fashion and a bill that was fashioned by john mccain and

lindsey graham, the senate passed a comprehensive immigration reform that would've doubled border security. i'm not sure if my opponent says they're not tough enough on the border, but we want to put in place a process that would deal with guestworkers and dreams and others. it was broadly supported by business, by labor groups, not a circumstance in central america we need to do two things. we need to speed up the processing of these children. that was going to require additional judges. many of these children will be sent home. we need to intervene, stopping the flow. we met with those ambassadors is -- this week and we said you have to tell you people not to come. cut out the drug smugglers and coyotes. again, what is curious is, a year ago, a bipartisan bill passed in the senate. my opponent said it was good policy and good politics.

i don't know what has changed. is it bad politics now? is it bad policy? why were you for it then against it now? >> i said it was a good approach. i also said as you know, the time, that we needed more border security provisions to be added to it. i supported those steps by the house as well. my position has been consistent on this. senator warner believes that in addition to the reforms, some of which we agree on in terms of the reforms of immigration system going forward. i do not believe as a son of an immigrant who came here legally, was processed to ellis island, that it is in the country's best interest to grant citizenship to those who are here by virtue of having broken our laws. it is not fair to those who play by the rules. the same time, i do not believe that we will deport

10 million to 12 people people who were here in this country and favor a reform in our visa system that would allow them to have fresh fees is after meeting some criteria, for example criminal background checks and self-sufficiency and other measures. my position on immigration reform has been consistent throughout. >> ever follow up for both of you. right now there are about two dozen undocumented immigrant children being house about 100 miles from here in stanton, virginia at a juvenile detention center. some of them came in from central america just in the last couple of weeks. should these children be deported? senator warner? >> i think these children, 20% of these kids are under 11. the process they go through the border with a get health checkups, immunizations and other things, i think they are due somewhat of a process. that process will result in sending some of us kids back

but they ought to have a process. i've been concerned with the administration's approach. sneaking children turned wire into lawrenceville. they didn't inform the community and i said we shouldn't do this. i believe there is a humane, appropriate process. that will require conference of immigration reform. it will require more judges so children can be processed, many of which will be sent back. >> mr. glaspie, these children in stanton virginia. >> this is heartbreaking there's no doubt about it. i can imagine. my father king at the age of 8 on a two-week boat journey from ireland. but with his mother and brothers and sisters. the notion of turning a child over to a coyote to go through churches territory to come to this country, can american should -- imagine with his parents go through in this children go through. the compassion responses to make clear, don't keep doing this. don't keep sending this children

here because they are not going to be afforded american citizen ship as a result of that. we do need to get resources for more judges, about 40 more from what i've heard. i support that. again, let me be clear. the most compassionate thing we can do is to 17 and afforded a process under the expedited, the need to be returned. >> next the format is the candidate question. mr. glaspie has a question for senator warner. >> it has to do with health care.