coal g to protect our miners health and safety benefits and raise the minimum wage which my opponent opposed in the state legislature, making sure that a good education is available to everyone not just the wealthy. i always put west virginia first. who's going to be able to help the people of southern west virginia the most? that's the big question in this election. i can bring investments, highways and water and assuming construction and -- sueage reconstruction. i have broadened our tourism potential and aided our colleges and universities. strength agenda our veterans services, $16 billion bill we passed this year. or on the other side of the equation, who is going to be there doing the bidding for out

of state billionaires who have an agenda that is totally adverse to west virginia values? we don't need the extremes in the republican or democratic party. what we need to do is end the gridlock and disfunction to continue our -- rather than follow those hidden agendas. they are behind a hidden agenda. they are supporting all these efforts in congress to cut and gut programs that are so vital to our families in west virginia. follow the money my friends. when out of state billionaires came talking, my opponent went walking. that's what it boils down to. he'll do their bidding. i support coal. to support coal, you have to spot our coal miners. i have good democratic and republican friends. i do work across party aisles.

even in this very divisive congress, i can bring both sides together to make things happen in west virginia above party politics. i was born and raised here in west virginia. it's my home. and it will always be my home. it's where my heart is. you have honored me with your support in the past and for the sake of our state's future, i'm hoping and asking you to stick with nick again. keep the ball rolling. and i ask you for your vote. thank you for participating and god bless each other. [cheers and applause] >> applaud both candidates, lease. >> thank you. thank you everyone for being here this evening. special thanks to the candidates

for sharing your views and barbs with each other. but >> be part of c-span's campaign 2014 coverage. follow us on twitter, and like on facebook. to get debate schedules, video clips of key moments, debate from our politics team, over 100 bringing you senate and house debates and you your reactions to what the candidates are saying. stay in touch and engage by on twitter and liking us on facebook. services,and human homeland security and defense department officials will testify about the u.s. response ebola. we'll have live coverage from the house oversight committee this morning at 9:30 eastern on

c-span 2. here on c-span the commander of korea,es in south general scaparrotti will will southporters korea relations at 11:30 eastern. next, a debate for utah's fourth congressional house district, republican mia love is running against democrat doug owens for seat.en after 14 years in congress, democratic representative jim matheson is not seeking re-election. the district includes south salt and mount jordan pleasant. mia love narrowly lost to in 2012.an matheson this debate, which was held in salt lake city, is courtesy of commission.ate >> from the campus of the university of utah in salt lake city, the utah debate commission welcomes you to the 4th congressional district

andidates' debate. >> good evening. welcome to the studios on the campus of the university of utah highly f the most anticipated exchanges sponsored during the utah debate commission. we gather for a debate between candidates in utah's 4th congressional district. the seat is open. we will hear from the republican and democratic candidate. they have a two-minute opportunity. doug owens would have the first opportunity. mr. owens. >> thanks to the debate commission and thanks to my opponent. it's nice to be here on the university of utah campus, where i went to school.

i'm doug owens. i'm a proud father of four, married to my wife of 26 years. but she's got the whole gang here in the room tonight. i am a sixth generation resident for ah and been a attorney my entire professional career. some years ago when our boys were 5, 3 and 1, i took years off to stay at home while my wife finished her residency in pediatrics. i love utah. i love the history. i love the people and the gee oggra if i and i want to make a difference for all of us. the most important issues that i want to work on in this campaign are helping hard-working middle-class families who are being squeezed. helping to improve the quality of life and getting congress

back to work again to find commonsense solutions. utah deserves a representative who will go to washington and remember where they came from and who they represent, not somebody who will go and represent another ideology or vote a party line. i will go to washington and work across the aisle and take any good idea no matter what the party. our country needs nothing less than what the republicans and democrats have to offer. my utah roots run deep and i will always put the needs of utah families first as i think about those issues that come up in washington. >> now a two-minute opening statement from mia love. >> i would like to thank the utah debate commission and university of utah and my opponent for being here and for all the people watching. i'm the daughter of parents who emgrated to the united states

legally with $10 in their pockets. my parents taught me the value of hard work, education, personal responsibility and fiscal discipline. i have taken all of those principles and applied them both in the private sector and public sector. as a mayor and city council member, we balance budgets every year. is it affordable. is it sustainable and is it our job? sarah toga springs has the biggest bond rating. this is not about moving to washington but moving washington towards the principles we live by here in utah. rather than focusing on what happens in d.c., i want to focus on what is happening in your living rooms especially at the kitchen tables. i don't just see deficits and debt. i see my three children who ask

how will this happen. i promised you that i would run a positive campaign and conduct myself in a way that is worthy of your support and your votes. you are going to see a contrast tonight and what you are going to see i'm cutting through the clutter. ending the disfunction while representing your values, finding solutions and attacking problems, not people. thank you. >> utah debate commission has established a format that allows candidates 90 response. these questions were drawn from voter input to the debate commission's web site. mia love, you will have the first opportunity. at least one media outlet has identified as the continental divide, what do you view as the proper role of the federal

government in public education and robert of salt lake city asks, do you oppose or favor national common core standards? 90-second opportunity. >> as a parent of three children, public schools education is important to me i trust utah parents and teachesers to do what's best. a lot of our funding is going into washington bureaucrats and too little funding is going into our classrooms. what we need to do is get that decision making back into our states. we need to eliminate the disparities between the education of them and teachers. e need a one size fits all and innovative teachers and need to make sure we are getting as much local control of schools as possible. i want standards. i want high standards. but i want utah to be able to control them, tweak them, change

them, make them better without being blackmailed by our own taxpayer dollars. . >> you can respond. > we all believe investment in session the best thing we can do for a path forward. it's the west bay to -- best way to help middle class families better educate their children for the future. i'm not satisfied that utah is dead last in expenditure pers pew till pill and i have an opponent who will make that worst by eliminating the department of education and 12% of funding that comes from federal sources. i meet on the campaign trail young people deciding not to go to college because they're afraid they won't be able to pay back student loans when they get out. i'm not satisfied that if you re from an advantaged economic

background you're four time more likely to get a degree than from a disadvantaged background. my mother was a teacher, my great grandfather the first our history. big business today is demanding that we educate our children so that they can be driving forces in the global economy. i want to make sure we do that for utah. >> you're both leaving time on the clock and leaving unaddressed the specific question of robert of salt lake city. oppose or favor national common core standards? i want you each to take 30 seconds to speak right to common core standards. >> i oppose common core because i believe that we are being black mailed with our own taxpayer dollars. utah's parents and utah's teachers should be able to have the decision making when it omes to utah students. >> many ostpwhens

>> i favor local control. we know how to educate our children here in utah. it's a fact question whether or not no child left behind is a national standard or a state standard. the attorney general recently reported the results of his investigation and found that it was a locally agreed to standard, not a federally imposed standard. i do not oppose the common core although if i twor determine it was a federally oppose -- imposed standard i would oppose that i think here in utah we can educate our own children. >> our next question takes us to the rem of foreign policy. it's a virtual certainty that the new congress in january will find itself dealing with threats by forces of the islamic state referred to as isis or isil. already there are misgivings about the effectiveness of an air campaign to control isis' territorial ambitions. if seated in the next congress, at are the criteria you will

need to support adding ground troops to our u.s. and allied strategy? >> we need to make sure that our borders are safe and that we are safe from terrorist threat. isis represents a new threat on the planet a terrorist organization that has control of the apparatus of government and that has control of territories, that has control of petro dollar income. we need to make sure that we address that. i watch it carefully. i hope that the plans with air strikes will be sufficient and that another ground war will not be necessary. i take that, i would take that decision extremely seriously. i would listen to military advisors and others who are more expert than i am. but i would be cautious with american life, of course. i think we owe it to our vets. i want to thank them for putting themselves in harm's way in the last two years that we're trying to extricate ourselves from. i want to make sure we have the resources to take care of those veterans. i would watch it carefully and listen to the experts and make a

careful judgment about it. >> your thohts on the subject of military use in response to isis? >> understand that when we're dealing with terrorist groups, we're dealing with people who do not value human life the way we do. they've shown that they're willing to hurt their own women and children for what they a great er -- greater cause. when we send men and women to harm's way we are sending our neighbors. several things have to happen before we take military action. number one, we need to make sure it's approved by congress, not by just the president. number two, we need to make sure that there's a clear american threat, a threat to american lives. number three, we need to make sure that we have a clear objective, a mission, and number four, a way out. i have to tell you, i go to a lot of these events with gold star moms and people like jamie, i need to look her in the eye and say, your son cody did not

die in vain, he went in for the right reasons and he'll never be forgotten. we owe a great deal of gratitude and respect to those men and women in uniform. they have sacrificed quite a bit. we'll never be able to give them back what they've sacrificed and we owe a great deal of gratitude to the families of those who did not come home. i want to say thank you for your service. >> rebuttal time. you have the first opportunity, mr. owens. >> this is the northeast and the situation there will be -- the middle east and the situation there and we have to make peace with the core issue, the dispute between israel and palestinians. there's an opening, i see, for an avenue to make peace, help foster peace. it's going to happen, going to be up to the israelis and palestinians. but the united states can foster peace, do things on the sideline to help that. one thing i want to do is help with humanitarian restruck -- reconstruction in gaza to make

sure that when there are -- that there are adequate controls in place to make sure that construction materials aren't diverted into war making processes as they were in the past. we saw with the way the tunnels were built that construction materials had been diverted into that use. so i think that as a member of congress we can make sure that when humanitarian aid is voted to gaza that very stringent requirements are put in place to make sure the resources are not diverted and that can be an opening to help get rid of hamas and get a better government there that will be more likely and willing to make peace with israel. >> i'm not a very essential member of this exchange tonight but one thing they have charged me with is keep an eye on the clock and i admonish both candidates to do the same. mia, you have a one minute opportunity to speak to the subject as broadly defined now by mr. owens to include middle east peace. >> first of all, i think what we need is certainly better leadership in the white house. it's hard to flex your muscles

when you haven't worked out. it's hard to continue to draw lines in the sand when you haven't shown that you can actually be strong with the first line you've drawn. i think that it's important to have a strong national defense. national defense doesn't just help us in times of war. it helps us prevent -- helps prevent war. that's what we need to focus on, making sure we are strong. >> mia, you'll have the first opportunity respond to this question. you both allude to it in one fashion or another in your opening statement. the partisan gridlock problem in washington is obvious to any observer. there are differing opinion -- differing opinions on thousand move forward. last year political differences led to a government shutdown. would you have supported the government shutdown, yes or no, the questioner asks. why or why not? you have the first 90-second opportunity. >> i'm going to be clear about this. i would not have supported the government shutdown. what i do support is defund og

ba macare. i think a great indicator of what someone will do in the future is what they've done in the past. in saratoga springs, we didn't run around with r's and d's stamped on our foreheads. when we had tough things to deal work we had to deal with them. we had to have collaborative efforts to deal with them. we balance our budgets every year. we made sure that saratoga springs as the highest bond rating available to a city of its class. i couldn't do this on my own. i want you to know that one of the things we do, that washington doesn't do, is live by the policies we create. 10 i'm going to make two promises right now in terms of ending the dysfunction. one is thing as a member of congress we should live by the policies we make. i will oppose any special exemptions from the law for members of congress. number two, i will get the decision making as close to people as possible. when you get the decision making close to people, you see party lines go away. i think that washington can learn a lesson from what we've

done in saratoga springs. every member of congress should ask themselves, is it affordable, is it sustainable, and is it the gob of government -- job of government before make anything new decisions. >> mr. owens, your opportunity to respond to the subject of gridlock. >> i would have opposed the shutdown. i have personally discussed this situation with business owners, hotel owners near national parks that were shut down, lost tens of thousands in booking fees. that was a $40 million hit to the utah tourism industry. i have personally discussed this issue with seniors. some with tears in their eyes. telling me they were concerned about not getting their social security checks that was their sole means of livelihood. i believe it was a breakdown and politics at its worst. we're on record -- we're on the road to be the -- to have the least effective session of congress in the history of the republic. i would look to my father's example, he was a man named wayne owens a member of congress from utah he work aid cross party lines to get things done

for utah. he worked with orrin hatch to get legislation to benefit those affected by aboveground nuclear testing and worked to fund the central utah project completion act. if you turn on a tap in salt lake county or utah county, one third of that water comes from a bipartisan friendship between wayne owens and jay garn. it can yield tangible benefits for utah. we need to move the country forward based on commonsense, bipartisan solutions rather than going to washington to vote a party line. >> rebuttal opportunity for you, mia love. >> i would like to say that i too appreciate the work that jay garn has done. he endorsed me in this campaign and i'm happy to have that endorsement. i've worked with quite a few of the mayors in the past and i've gotten the majority of their endorsement also. along with state legislators, county commissioners, we have done great work in the state of utah. my job is to make sure i represent you to washington, and not the other way around.

>> doug owens, your 30-second opportunity. >> there are so many issues now. reform of social security to stay in place for our seniors, reforming immigration, energy policy, we have got to take the governance seriously. congress needs to become the deliberative body of our government. i have a native instinct as an tern to -- attorney to to help people dig into details and reach common ground. if you look at our records you'll see a distinct difference between the candidates on our ability to work across party lines. i will put utah first, think about the hardworking middle class families and will not go to washington to vote a party line. >> mr. owens, you have the first opportunity to respond to this next question which comes from michael? south jordan. comes from a small business own whore maintains that government regulation is a significant challenge -- business owner who maintains that government regulation is a significant challenge. he asks each of you have you learned of a regulatory burden

currently placed on businesses that you would like to see changed or repealed? what would you do to help small business owners like me make it in this economy? >> that is a great question. i have been a business defense attorney for 25 years. i have made a living in part because business gets hit with regulations that you can see why somebody thought in washington that might have been a good idea but by the time it hits the back of a business here it causes unnecessary consternation, waste of money and doesn't fulfill the point it was launched for. i believe in the free marget. i believe it's been the greatest engine in the history of the world for lifting people out of of poverty. i would have a great sense of humility as a legislator in washington in terms of when i would feel it appropriate to interfere with the free market. i strongly believe in education as the way to help people be full fledged participants in the free market. i would have, i do encounter this situation with businesses who have met regulation. you know, dodd-frank, for example, callers in writing of

over 150 regulatory rules. only half of them have been written. i have personally talked to bank presidents who -- a bank president who said it is ruining his business with extra expense. i think that needs simplification. you've got parts of dodd-frank coming out of department of labor and the securities and exchange commission that conflict with each other. i want a predictable, sensible platform for businesses. congress, if it can get its act together on any number of fronts would give businesses a stable platform to work on and that would be a benefit to our country. >> mia love, your opportunity address this. >> i can tell you right now, the improvement in the economy is not because of washington, it's in spite of washington. our paychecks aren't keeping pace with the rate of inflation. when we go into store well, see that the packages are getting smaller, the prices are getting -- prices are going up.

when we go to the gas station we realize the dial won't stop turning when we're putting gas in our car. we need to do everything we can to make sure that businesses can thrive in the united states. and again, particularly what you asked about what we can do is lower the unnecessary regulation that's killing jobs. we need to, when it comes to road, there's project labor agreements, davis-bacon laws, buy american laws that make the cost of building roads that much more expensive. we need to make sure we lower the federal corporate tax, the business tax, which is 35%. points highertage than any industrialized nation that the world. we could do a better job. as you can see, burger king moving to canada, astrazeneca and pfizer moving to europe. we need to make sure we instill confidence back into the american economy. grow our economy. and we'll do a much better job with businesses that way.

>> mr. owention, our opportunity -- your opportunity -- mr. owens, your opportunity for rebuttal. >> some addition reform that's needed is obamacare two. businesses told me they reduced their plose' hours to 30 hours a week to not have to buy that insurance. i strongly believe in decoupling health insurance from employment. we have to be able to employee our people. we're the only western country that still does that. there are a host of other problems with the affordable care act, obamacare, i would like to fix. >> i do have to indicate time. mia love, your 30-second opportunity. >> that's an area where we agree. i would like to repeal obamacare. but more importantly than repeal og ba macare we need to know what we're going to replace it with. i think we need to replace it with broad, free market reforms. put the decision making back into the lands of people. again, we need to make sure we are supporting pro-growth ideas that give everyone opportunities

to achieve the american dream if they're willing to work for it. >> i promise affordable care in the second half of our exchange. >> i'm sure there's lots to talk about. >> i have an interesting question that came from lincoln of salt lake city. the children's health insurance program, chip, has contributed to reducing the number of uninsured children in utah and in the nation. funding for the program ends in 2015 and faces re-authorization by congress. do you support chip and its re-authorization? why or why not, and mia love, you have the first 90-second opportunity. >> i do believe we have an obligation to care for those, especially our children who cannot care for themselves. our own governor has stated that if you give us half the regulation work half oh the funding we would be able to do double as much. this is an area where we see health care reform has presented too much of an expense, so much so we need the supreme court to

come in and intervene because the federal government was force feeding our state with medicare, with medicaid, excuse me, and some of the chip programs. what we need to do is we need to allow the states to get these levers back. i believe the people that can do a great job with providing for our children lies right there in our state legislators and right there in our governor. and so i would love to support them in making sure that they make the best decisions possible for our children. >> can you give me that clarification on the re-authorization, aye or nay from your standpoint? >> i would say aye but give more of the decision making to the states, yes. >> doug owens, your opportunity to respond. >> i would say yes on the re-authorization of chip. there are a lot of needy kids out there. my wife is a pediatrician, we talk about health policy over dinner. there are a lot of needy kids who need that coverage. my understanding is that there is a bit of oa loophole, there's

a gap in coverage, there's a bill pending in congress to fix that gap and re-authorize chip. i support that congress, again, needs to work on commonsense, bipartisan solutions and not get hung up because harry reid is mad a at something mitch mcconnel did and mitch mcconnel is mad at something harry reid did. elections end and people need to roll up their sleeves and go to work together especially for the middle class families that i think are increasingly pressed. i would say that -- i wish utah had simply taking the medicaid expansion. we are losing $800,000 a day in health insurance that would be paid out on -- to benefit utahans who are economically disadvantaged. i would like to see that come back to utah, we paid that in taxes. having said that, if the governor isn't going to accept that, i'll go to work in washington to make sure that the governors healthy utah initiative gets through congress. i can support that initiative.

>> rebuttal opportunity. any further comment on public health care, child health care and the chip program? >> we talked about the chip program and making sure we get the levers back to the state. again, i know the legislators personally, i know our governor, we voted them in and we can do -- we can make sure we give them the levers so they can specifically take care of our kids in utah. >> doug owens, your 30-second opportunity. >> i don't have any further comment on chip, ken but happy to wax on about health policy if anybody is interested. >> again, i promise a return to the theme in the second half. as we near the mid point of our time tonight, i want to welcome you once again to this live debate between candidates for the fourth congressional district. we are in the studios of kued on the cam noifs university of utah in salt lake city. this is the final debate in a landmark nevert voter information with media joining together with the citizen based initiative to provide statewide debate coverage for utah's federal and statewide offices. tonight's questions are drawn from those submitted to the utah

debate commission at their website, utahdebatecommission.org. we encourage you to visit the site to learn more about the commission and to sprueview the previous four debates presented by this collaboration and we welcome your feedback on this inaugural season of the utah debate commission. 10 many of the questions that came into the debate commission had almost a plaintive quality about them a sadness. here's another one that comes from a young man, and this is patrick in harriman. mr. owens, you'll have the first 90-second opportunity. as a college student i'm concerned about rising tuition costs and the debt that students face to attend college. what's your plan to address this problem and what do you believe is the federal government's role in assisting students who are interested and committed to pursuing higher education? >> first of all, i want to keep student loans in place and available to people. again a big difference between

me and my opponent on the availability of student loans and pell grants. 80% of utah students are going through college with one of those forms of assistance. we can't pull the rug out from under those people. i do strongly believe education is the best investment we can make in the future themselves best thing to work on as democrats and republicans together, it should be common ground without reasonable people being able to disagree. i think that -- i support the governor's initiative on 2020, where 66% of utah students to have them have higher ed degrees by 2020. we could not possibly make that goal if we did away with student loans and pell grants. i went through law school on student loans and pell grans. i had a mother who is a teacher and a father who is a public servant. i benefited from those lones. i want to make sure they remain in place for those who can't afford education out of pocket. we do need to lower the cost of higher education. there's a great proposal that we take the senior queer of high

school and turn it into a free year of college. it wouldn't cost the state much money to do that. make that the first year of a two-year a.b. degree. there's a standard and poor's study out that says if every american in the work force had one year more of education, the growth in our domestic product over the last six years since the recession would have been a half point greater. s the best thing we can do to help hardworking middle class families and grow our economy. >> mia love, what would you say to patrick? >> i've never called to do away with student loans. i am convinced that an unlimited flow of federal dollar into colleges has caused the rate of tuition to rise faster than the rate of inflationing making it difficult for middle income families and lower income families to receive a higher education. i have taken student loans, i have paid them back and i can tell you i understand the pain of paying those back. the school i went to was $20,000

a year. today, without the benefit of a better education at the same institution, it's $44,000 a year. how long is it going to take for a student going to that college to pay back those student loans today? better yet, those of us who are sending our kids to school in the next five to 10 year, will we be able to afford college tuition when it's $80,000 to $100,000? i'm not the daughter of a congressman. i doubt that many of us are. but i can tell you right now, at this rate, higher education will become only available for the rich and the elite. and as a parent and a representative looking to represent this district, i cannot stand by and allow that to happen. >> both of you seem to allude to the fact that it's controlling the expense of attending college, not just the availability of fund. so how do we control the expense of our higher education which seems to be driven by market forces?

>> well, i think i addressed one issue where i'd like to see experiments conducted, they have begun around the country, to turn the senior year of high school into the first year of college. but i don't see how you can pull the rug out from under people who need to pay for the expense right here and now before we figure out how to rein in the expenses. toicht serve on the education committee. i'm anxious to figure out ways to reduce the costs. again you need to keep it available. it's the single best thing we can do to help people better their situations. >> mia love, how can you control market forces? >> i think if you are actually able to allow students to, or allow colleges to compete for students, that will help bring down the cost of tuition. i think that we need to stop federal government from taking over those college loans. one of the things i allude to when i go and speak to some of the businesses, they would love to get involved in education and making sure that they can help

out with programs, help out with grants and help out with some of these -- some of the tuition costs so they can achieve, can get the skills they need from students graduating from college. >> mia love, you'll have the first 90-second opportunity to answer this question from jorge in bountiful. should there be a path to citizenship for undocumented residents? do you think undocumented people who speak english have no criminal record, pay taxes and have lived in the u.s.a. for more than five years should be able to get a permanent legal work permit? mia love, the first 9046 second opportunity on immigration. i want everyone to know i'm committed to immigration and legal immigration. i -- i'm the daughter of parents who immigrated to this country. my father said his proudest moment was when he became a u.s. citizen he learned how to speak english. he studied american history and the american constitution. and he said that not only when he pledges allegiance to the

american flag, not only did he know exactly what he was say he, meant every word of it. if we are going to fix legal immigration, there are three things we have to do. one, we have to secure the borders. not just for legal imdepration but from terrorism. weapons. drugs that may come into the country. we also to sr. to track people not just people who are coming into the country but also people leaving the country so that we know effectively exactly what we're dealing with. how about a system that allows people to pay a small fee to come into the country and then they get the majority of that fee back. and last but not least, it is congress' job to create a uniform rule of naturalization under article 1, section 8, it is their job to make sure we have a front door in and close the back door. in order for us to fix it and give people opportunities, whether they want to become citizens or want to have just legal status, we have to fix those three first. opportunity,, your

what should be the pathway for someone who is here and wants -- wants to contribute? >> let me address that in one second. one important thing about the debates is to understand where candidates are on position, to get below the 30-second tag line. i made a reference to my opponent's position on student loans, i hope people look it up, i think it's abundantly clear. on immigration, i support compassionate and fair reform on immigration. senator hatch voted for legislation that came out of the senate. i support that legislation of that kind. first of all, it secures the border. we need to have a secure border. i strongly feel we should not have an illegal immigration process, we should only have a legal immigration process. we also have a serious issue with drug trafficking that i think a better controlled border can do a lot to address and i hope we get to talk about ebola, i think there's another serious issue on that issue. but i do think that we do have

an issue with 11357b9 million undocumented people, we're beginning to have the makings of an underclass in our society. that's not the american way. it hurt ours economy because they can't be full participants in it. they can't access education the way i would like them too. -- like them to. i would favor legislation that was voted out by the senate that allows people to pay a fine, get square with the line and in appropriate cases have a pathway to citizenship. >> mia love, off 30-second rebuttal opportunity. >> this is an area where we can show our compassion as americans and make sure we fix the problem permanently instead of band-aid solutions that cause more families more heartache. if we fix it permanently, we would make sure that our families don't have to go through some of the difficult situations they're going through and they don't know where to go right now. i find it interesting that my opponent claim he is wants to end the dysfunction yet with the other hand he does everything he can to attack.

i want you to know that i think you have a choice in what you want to do, whether you want to have somebody who is going to attack or have somebody that will find solutions for problems. >> and you'll both have extra time. right now, mr. owens, 30 seconds for rebuttal. >> i don't think it's an attack to point out differences on issues. i have high respect for my opponent, anyone who would throw their hat in the ring, i have high respect. but i do feel it incumbent on me to point out differences on issues. some of these are extreme issues that i think do not reflect utah values. on immigration, this is congressional dysfunction. community, civic and religious leaders are calling for reform. congress can't get itself together to do it. we need to return that control to sensible people who women work on a bipartisan basis. >> i promised an opportunity to return to a theme you'd each addressed in your own comment the affordable care act. 2,100 pages of existing

controversy in some people's opinion. with that said, give me a specific element of the affordable care act the you take issue with. if you find a part that is worthy of praise can you identify the upside of the affordable care act assuming that you can? i'm going to give you -- mr. owens, the first opportunity to explain your stance. it is lamentable we had a major piece of legislation that rushed through congress on a one-party basis. with a bipartisan effort. we did not get the benefit of both parties. it is a futile effort to

continue to call for the repeal of obamacare. that is not realistic. the debate and actually moved the ball backward on getting reform and places we need. i do not like tying the provision of health insurance to employment. i think that is a mistake. they cut and 40 hours to not have to meet the mandate. another thing hits utah unusually hard, the tax on sales of medical devices. we have the medical devices industry in utah. i'm upset that harry reid would refute that amendment to that provision out of tax reform legislation. i would like to see that repealed. there are some things that we , that parents can keep their children on their insurance policies, pre-existing conditions. ite of these solutions, seems obvious. let's keep the parts we like and

work at what we don't like on a bipartisan basis and not have it polarized dialogue. criticism ofrpest the affordable care act? >> the affordable care act is not affordable. it is not sustainable. that is the biggest problem i have with it. it was meant to fit as many people on insurance as possible. we have fewer people insured today than we did before. from ally got an e-mail lady who got kicked off of her insurance and had to be forced onto the exchange. she was elated to find out her cause were going to be $134 a month. then was dismayed when her deductible was $6,000. she would not be able to afford to go to the doctor. we do need to afford -- we knew

-- we do need to repeal obamacare. but we need to know we are going to replace it with. my plan improves patient experience and outcomes. we need to make sure that we allow people to buy insurance across state lines. we want to remove the berlin and for decision-making in the hands of patients and doctors. we need broad free-market reform to health care. able to align the incentives with the outcome. if we are able to do all of these things, it will give people access to health care. opportunity for rebuttal? >> we need to roll up our sleeves and go to work on a bipartisan basis. we had the polarization that resulted from a shutdown into any discussion of reforming it. it is lamentable. there are many provisions we need to fix.

i talked to my wife about this all the time. there are mandates on outcomes rather than processes. i believe strongly that we can leave it up to medicine to govern itself if we set those goals. we need to address affordability. >> your opportunity? >> i agree we need to remove the medical devices tax. it is killing jobs. i want to address this notion of extremist. of debt, the hijacking of 20% of our economy through obamacare without bipartisan support. extreme is ignoring the rising cost of to wish in an attacking your opponent for trying to find solutions. to one of the you more beautiful corners of the fourth congressional district.

carlquestion comes from who lives in spring city. he says the narrows project in central utah is important to the residence of the county. please tell me what your position is on the narrows project. , what you would do in congress to advance or kill the project. >> i can tell you why it is such a long explanation. they have been fighting this for 90 years. it is a long time to fight for this project. have ait sad that you city that cannot have water for farming. they are actually rationing out there water. i find it disheartening.

this project was held up in congress for the past few years and it started up again and they are having problems with the environment process. i think we need to do everything we can to support these projects and understand that water and transportation is a lifeline to any city. if you do not have it you cannot drive and continue to grow. i support the project. only my going to help get that project through i'm going to do everything i can to expedite that project. >> doug collins. a beautiful corner of the district. i have visited several times. i support the project. it is time to get that water turned around. this is a function of congress is not think the field. wasll mention my father

heavily involved in the utah water project. . love the details i am well-suited to get into that and help the stakeholders come together and work on a solution. even things we couldn't disagree on. to fixroken and i want it. it is in my nature to bring different people together. , the washington board whererness they brought stakeholders together, got a sensible , so i think that we -- it puts the interest of utah hard-working families first and i'm going to go to work on .hose solutions that we need wexler may exercise my

prerogative and give you each one minute. in my district it is critical infrastructure. but if it is built in your state it is pork politics. how do you differentiate between the proper appropriation of federal dollars to benefit your district as opposed to weighing ratio andnd benefit other locales. >> i can draw directly from my experience. in put on aed priority level many projects. funds were coming back from our taxpayer dollars and those funds projectng to a specific that the federal government wanted to put in. the same project that would cost us $260,000 cost over $1 million for the federal government to put in the project. what i would like as a former mayor and as i speak to mayors

across the district, they want to release the handcuffs. it is the government stopping them from doing. stopping them from addressing the issues that their constituents want. as i go to the district they have all specific issues. that is something i want to make sure i removed. the public good and investing too much? >> it is part of the role of a congressman to look after his or her district three i favor into the -- investment in tracks extension. i support that. i will go to work on issues that will invest in business and growth in my district. you need to have the punch is notic interest at heart and engage in things that are wasteful. sometimes this is a simple

congressional dysfunction where we see congress has to punt its functions because congress on theextricate itself decision. sometimes that make sense to do that. i would rather see members of congress be responsible if their best judgment is not adequate for the district. if a congress member cannot explain it to the district. there is a larger public duty to take into account. part of it is helping your district with investments in the future. , the realml question of national security and surveillance. the question comes in several parts. to begin with, what is your view on the national security agency surveillance activity? would you support a law that prohibits mobile phone manufacturers from producing phones that cannot be easily

monitored by nsa surveillance programs? government be able to listen in? >> as an attorney i appreciate the liberties enshrined in the constitution. i have litigated many of them. i think the nsa should be entitled to survey citizens if they get a warrant. i support that. i don't know that making a cell phone that could never be surveyed would be consistent with the need for government if a proper warrant is obtained to to go after cell phones. i don't think i would support that legislation. theour opportunity on government conducting surveillance. >> i cannot support it. i do believe that you are willing, one of our forefathers mentioned it, if you're willing to give up freedom in the name of security you are worthy of

neither. the things that makes this country great is the ability for people to make decisions, to have their privacy. inhout the government coming and listening in on their conversations. privacy is incredibly important. if there is clear evidence that there is someone threatening the life of americans, it is important for us to be proactive. ofn it comes to privacy every individual we need to make sure we protect that. i am going to protect those individual rights and every other right that is enshrined in the constitution. >> are questioner had a distinct follow-up. i'm going to give you 30 seconds. do you consider edward snowden a hero or trader -- traitor? why do you think that?

he release classified information to the international surveillance programs involving .he united states mr. owens? to the accounts i have read he has committed crimes dream he has released government secrets to the public . i understand it has endangered particular individual. i don't want to use harsh terms but he sounds like the accusation that he has committed crimes against the country. on the opinion high-profile case? >> one of the things that is unfortunate many americans do not have trust in the government. the trust in the administration is not there. it is hard to differentiate what information we are given is true and which isn't true. it is hardly you not have a transparent government. i would say that i certainly

ape if this person is just -- weeblower he is not would be able to protect his rights and be able to bring him back home. i hope that we would be able to protect his individual rights. >> as frequently happens, we have fallen into a gray area. not enough time for another question but perhaps enough to extend your closing comments. note, i'mn just one 92nd to extend you an u opportunity. >> thank you. thank you for tuning in tonight and getting informed about the election. it has been a privilege to go out on the campaign trail and get acquainted by so many fine people and hear about their aspirations and hopes for the future of our state and country

great we haven't had inherited a great country. -- our state and country. we have inherited a great country. i want to go to work to fix issues. i want to end the gridlock in washington. i will work with both parties to get things done. i think we have got to get congress working again in a way that works for all of us, commonsense bipartisan solutions. you tony to representative who can go to washington and put utah first. best that each party has, and take those ideas in a meta-repair i find them -- to take those ideas no matter where i find them. we have to have a sense of humility. take in account different viewpoints and find common sense solutions and bridge gaps between those who have different viewpoints that are trying to address issues hitting us every

day like the social security reform, obama care, immigration. i hope as an independent voice i be suited to find those solutions and work together to change the attitude in congress. i'm not interested into playing by the rules. i will be a strong and independent voice for utah. >> our final opportunity. ando i believe that we have obligation to care for those who cannot care for themselves? i do. luckily that we have the resources a i believe that we need federal government to force us to do what we already know we should do it is the day we are not deserving of the title americans. this is a great country conceived in liberty and american exceptionalism were people all over the world are

willing to risk their lives to come to. we have an opportunity to do something area special here in the state to represent utah's voice and bring people along with us. i am not going to washington to be one of 435. i'm going to washington to make sure i represent your values. i amis not about who running against. this is about what we are running for. we are running for our children's way of life. we are running for freedom. we are running for our state. we are running for the ability to make decisions in our home. i am not asking you to trust washington. i'm going to washington to tell them to trust you again. i believe this is a great state we can be a great example in this stage. i am asking for your support in representing our values. i'm asking for your vote on november 4. god bless you, god bless utah, god bless our independent united states of america. your timek you for

this evening. special appreciation to the university of utah. since this is the final debate it is appropriate to thank all the media partners and television for printing support to these debates print it is a long list of people behind the scenes that labored to bring these debates, pacific lead the howell, theytt have all played important roles. the utah that they commission reminds you election day is tuesday, november 4. good evening. [captioning performed by

national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> are you saying there are so many racists in the republican party you couldn't remain a republican? >> i'm saying that element exists. my parents are republicans and they don't have a racist bone in their body. what is at work here is a

pretty simple thing and if you remember back with me to 2008 and some of the e-mails distributed about the president by some members not all of the republican party, they weren't exactly flattering. i think you probably can research and find out what i'm talking about but it wasn't right. i can tell you that the reaction i had gotten from some in the republican party -- leadership -- wasn't tolerable to me. it was pretty clear to me it wasn't just because i was willing to work across the aisle with a democrat to get the recovery funds to come to florida. it was also pretty apparent to me because he was the first african american president. it's not what is fun to say but i'm going to tell the truth and those are the facts. >> charlie, you are a divider. you're a mud-slinger, you're a divider. the entire time you've been in politics what you've done is -- >> you have spent -- >> millions of millions --

>> if you could. >> you are a divider. look at what we want to have. we li in a wonderful state. we are the best melting pot in the world. we have so many wonderful people here that have come from all over the world and you want to try to divide people. i want everybody to have the same shot i had to live the american dream. >> well, nothing could be further from the truth. i reached across the aisle when i was your governor. i worked with the president. this governor won't work with the president even to get high speed rail which is so important to central florida and the whole state would have been $2.4 billion to florida some say 60,000 jobs. he will not lift a finger to get medicaid expansion done. as a result, 1 million floridaens watching tonight aren't getting health care again today as a result of that inaction on rick scott's part. plus it would bring 120,000 jobs. >> first off, charlie, your

high-speed -- you left me with a $3.6 billion budget deficit. you borrowed everything you could and then you left a project on the table that would cost us billions. if you want to talk about medicaid, why didn't you get it passed right then? i actually have worked with the federal government, an as example something you wouldn't do, we settled a decades old lawsuit over the ever gladse. >> florida republican governor rick scott facing former overnor charlie crist. up next on c-span canadian prime minister steven harper addressing his country. then british foreign secretary

testifying about threats facing the u.k. and later a discussion about looking into police misconduct and whether new technology, like body cameras, can make law enforcement more accountable.

>> canadian prime minister stephen harper says his country won't be intimidated after a gun attack on ottawa's parliament and war memorial. one soldier died in the attack, while the gunman was shot and killed inside the parliament building. the prime minister also praised the sergeant at arms who killed the alleged shooter. cheers and applause] cheers and applause]

speaking french] guide us in our deliberations and remind us of our limits and strengthen us in our duties as members. grant us wisdom and knowledge and understanding to preserve the blessings of this country to the benefit of all and to make good and wise decisions. we will now have a moment of silence for private reflection nd meditation. men. â

♪ [applause] >> i understand there have been consultations among the parties and there is agreement to hold

a moment of silence in memory of >> the right honorable prime inister. nathan cirillo.

>> thank you colleagues, mr. speaker. the right honorable prime minister. [applause] i would like to begin today by acknowledging and thanking the leader of the opposition as well as the honorable members for their encouraging words

ast night. [applause] mr. speaker, in our system in our country, we are opponents, but we are never enemies. we are all canadians. [applause] >> we may sit across the aisle from one another, but when faced with attacks on the country we all love and the things we all stand for, i know we will always stand together. [applause] >> this to speaker, today, more

than ever before, i am very happy to see all of my colleagues from all parties in good health across the aisle. >> let me just maybe use that mr. speaker, through you, to provide a little bit of light to my colleagues, i think my position and growing number of gray hairs entitles me to do this once in a while. that is just to say we all here are engaged in extremely demanding and stressful jobs, but the stress that many of you faced yesterday was really beyond and above anything that any of us are really expecting to face. i would just say while we resume our duties, and i will talk about that in a moment, i would encourage everybody here to take care of their health. be sure you find some time to

relax in the next little while. also, if any of you, because we are not all in perfect health, if any of you are experiencing any undue physical stress as result of what occurred yesterday, please take the time to see a physician and get that checked out. [applause] i also just want to say to canadians, we heard a lot of feedback from canadians yesterday. we are all used to the feedback we get very regularly from canadians. much of it in the form of brickbats, and some of it deserved, but in this case, mr. speaker, i think we all experienced the tremendous outpouring of warmth and affection and good wishes from people across the country, and we thank them, all of us ere. [applause]

i just also want to convey all the good wishes that i heard personally, not just from canadians but from our friends outside the country. i heard from president obama, from prime minister abbott, prime minister netanyahu, through statements from prime minister cameron. we have heard these expressions across the world. we are all touched by the wonderful gesture shown last night at the pittsburgh penguins hockey game. thanks to our friends in the united states and around the world. [applause] of course, mr. speaker, we know all too well that this is not a happy day for everybody, in particular a terribly sad day for all of the family, loved ones, friends and colleagues of

both nathan cirillo and patrice vincent. >> we have seen photos and pictures of these beautiful guys, as don cherry would say, and our hearts really are with all of them. we are so fortunate to have people like this, the last couple of decades we see across the world and increasing crisis where the planet is descending into savagery. there are people who every day of their lives stand on guard for this country and for all of us. we obviously want to convey our gratitude to these two servicemen and their families but also to all the people who undertake this extremely dangerous work. [applause]

mr. speaker, i spoke of the state of much of the world. i think for all of us who are blessed to live in a country like this, it is hard to appreciate, understand how we can have people who are involved in a movement who so want violence, who so despise modernity, who so hate progress that they can desire to drive

out medical workers from their community, harm them, how they can enslave women, torture children, and how they can kill, want to kill anyone who looks or thinks different than them. it is in a sense, mr. speaker, beyond our comprehension, but it is very real. in the struggle in which we are engaged, in which not only our finest values must be put to work, so must be and will be the highest unity and resolve. they are our ultimate and indispensable weapons, and that's what these people will ace. [applause] >> mr. speaker, as regards the events of yesterday and in a

few days, many questions remain nanswered. and during the course of the police investigations, we will find answers to these questions. however, i can tell the house this today, the objective of these attacks was to instill fear and panic in our country and to interrupt the business of government. well, members, as i said yesterday, canadians will not e intimidated. [applause] we will be vigilant, but we will not run scared. we will be prudent, but we will

not panic. as for the business of government, well, here we are in our seats, in our chamber, and the very heart of our emocracy and our work. cheers and applause] >> mr. speaker, this house in its diversity personifies canada's spirit. >> canada will not yield to terrorism and neither will this house of commons. we carry on. we will attend to the country's affairs and we will be faithful to the trust that people have placed in us. now, mr. speaker, as i said earlier and as i have been saying for a long time, we live in a dangerous world. terrorism has been here with us for a while and dangerously

close on a number of occasions. i speak, for example, i draw our members' attention back to incidents such as toronto 18, the via rail conspiracy in 2013, and i could point to a number of others, as well as many that most will never know about. for that reason, and with the belief and security that canada is the government's primary responsibility, we have over the years passed such legislation as the combating terrorism act and the strengthening canadian citizenship act to better protect canadian and secure institutions. last week our government proposed amendments to the legislation under which the canadian security intelligence service operates. in recent weeks i have been saying that our laws and police powers need to be strengthened in the area of surveillance, attention, and arrest. they need to be much strengthened and i assure you, mr. speaker, that work which is already underway will be

expedited. [applause] in conclusion, mr. speaker, we are all aware and deeply troubled that both of this week's terrorist attacks were carried out by canadian citizens, by young men born and raised in this peaceful country. >> i share this concern, and wonder what weakness could lead omeone to reject a nationality that so many people in so many countries want for their children. >> that is a question for another day. for now, make no mistake, even as the brave men and women of our armed forces are taking this fight to the terrorists on their own territory, we are equally resolved to fight it here.

we live in dangerous times, yes, but the mission of our country and the work of this parliament goes on. and so does the work throughout this city. let me just say one final word, and recognizing all of the heroics of yesterday. first of all, i know so many -- i could certainly speak personally to my staff at 24 sussex, mr. roger charbonneau, the chefs, tim and tina, who were up all night. but i know people who for all of us across the country here in ottawa are working day and night to make things as easy as possible, officials who are busy at work trying to respond to the situation, first responders and citizens who put themselves in harm's way when this incident began to unfold. but obviously, mr. speaker, and in conclusion, most particularly the men and women of our security forces, the

royal canadian mounted police, canadian armed forces, the city of ottawa police, and most particularly of course, mr. speaker, i would be very remiss if i did not conclude in acknowledging specifically the work of the security forces here in parliament and the great work of our sergeant at rms. [applause]

>> in new hampshire, jean shaheen is fationing former senator scott brown. mr. brown served as a u.s. senator in massachusetts until he lost reelection in 2012. he is now running in new hampshire. we will bring you their latest debate tonight. and in oregon u.s. senator jeff americaly a democrat is running against physician monica webby a republican. you can watch the debate at 9:00 eastern also on c-span. >> this weekend, tonight starting at 8:00 eastern on c-span our campaign 2014 debate

coverage continues. on saturday night at 10:00 the women of color empowerment conference. and sunday evening at 8:00 on q&a rory kennedy on her latest film last days in vietnam. the onight at 8:00, autsdz latest advances on brain science. sunday our coverage continues live starting at noon. tonight at 8:00 on american and y tv, the union army braham lincoln's reelection. then, modernization of home and work place. sunday, ronald reagan's 1964, a time for choosing speech. find our schedule at c-span.org and let us know what you think about the programs you're

atching. >> british foreign secretary addressed a meeting at the house of commons and house of lords. he talked about the attack on canada's parliament and about multinational efforts to combat islamic militants in iraq and syria. >> ord hearing will the work of the intelligence and security committee inquiry and taking

evidence from the secretary on numerous occasions and has been given to this committee with public sessions. >> it with the direction of national security. >> thank you very much. to make you aware the committee asked me to conduct the inquiry about security and the associated issues related to that. we have taken public and private evidence we have been here for one hour with the opportunity to put questions to you and your colleagues and the evidence is being given from a wide

range of agencies and members of the public so if i may go straight into this session are there any comments? >> thank-you chairman. to be part of such a historic occasion with the responsibilities of the challenge the we're all seeking to achieve. we face enormous numbers of threats and cyberattacks organized crime and proliferation. we have just seen today from canada the need for diligence every year

completely conscious of the fact floor with a preference of privacy when security does not appear to be an issue. at the time we face great security challenges to get the correct balance between that security to make sure of what we have judged to be those to paramount requirements. if your inquiry will make a significant contribution of how they're doing.

>> thank you very much. . . i think it's probably true to say when i was appointed

defense secretary and started to see material and have an exposure i started to understand much more about how they work than i had done previously and some of my other colleagues will understand. i have understood as well the very important judgments that ed to be made when balancing privacy conversations against security conversations. essentially when exercising the judgment about proportionality and necessity whenever intrusion into privacy is to be allowed. i would say that i have also seen the incredibly important role that the work of the agency plays and ensuring our security and having that insight is

clearly crucially important in making the judgments the secretary of state to make in signing the certificate. >> does it come to a surprise to the potentially the agency intrudes on people's privacy? >> no i don't think. i think what i have seen is the very careful safeguards that they are in place which are not just the legal safeguards, robust as they are, but the oversight safeguards. there are multiple as you will note and this committee knows multiple layers of oversight of what goes on. but there is also a very important safeguard provided by the culture within agencies which is the exact opposite of what some movies might like to suggest. the agencies are extremely

cautious, extremely focused in their responsibility to maintain the culture of proportionality and sensitivity in everything they do. there is an atmosphere in agency which is very vast from a gung ho approach. it's very cautious and i think that should be a great reassurance. >> thank you very much indeed. i would now like to move into more specific questioning on those aspects of capabilities that relate to your responsibilities. >> foreign secretary your reference to the oscillation in the public mood do you think that greater intrusion into people's privacy is justified when the threat is greater? >> broadly speaking i think that is right over the long term. i don't think we should treat that as a reason to change

levels of intrusion into privacy on a weekly, monthly or even annual basis but looking at the level of challenge that we face today particularly the threat from terrorism and i think the mood of the public is that they want to be secure and they recognize a certain level of intrusion is required in order to deliver that security and polling consistently shows that the public recognizes that there is a level of intrusion that is required that is proportionate and is justified. >> in relation to your responsibilities, intrusion within the u.k. is not only the responsibility of the security service and the secretary, in view of your responsibility to sis which mainly operate overseas could you tell the committee whether there are any intrusive activities within the u.k. which you authorized sis in

bcs q. to undertake? >> section 81 which authorized intrusion against persons in the u.k. are signed by the foreign secretary so there are occasions when perhaps it was unnecessary. >> it is clearly an interest in that. has the secretary consulted with vc hq under section 81? >> not necessarily. she will be consulted when she will have an interest and we talk regularly about masses both domestically and -- where we have interests in areas of responsibilities. some of the section 81 warns that i will execute will not have any particular relevance to the secretary and i wouldn't

routinely discuss them. >> thank you very much. there are controversial aspects of the work we are doing which is the issue by the tch -- gchq and very relevant by others. mark field please. >> that there is extensive evidence sessions in recent weeks and it has been noted forcibly by a number of external groups that agencies do have a broad range of capabilities already and therefore do not need this bulk interception. how important do you feel full conception as to the agencies and could they do it out of? >> bulk interception is as a tool but it's at the heart of the agency's ability to do what they do. i think he described it as

building the haystack within which you can then search for the essential needle which protects our national security. being able to acquire data on a large-scale and filter it down and it is a very radical filtering process. the overwhelming majority of days required will be discarded and destroyed immediately or within a very short period of time. but it does allow a series of filters and cross-references to be run automatically to identify that tiny element of data within the bulk data required which could be worthy of further analysis and filtering and ultimately of a review by a human pair of eyes. i should emphasize that it would only be a tiny, tiny fraction of

data required that will ever reach a human analyst. >> the development of that haystack is gchq has described it leads to it and concern that somehow we are open to mass and indiscriminate surveillance and that particular phrase was used by several groups by the secretary in recent weeks. how would you respond to the allegation notwithstanding the fact that much as you say anything other than discarded and doesn't see the light of day if you and i had done us the capabilities that gchq has to provide a deep concern to those who have a strong civil liberties the end? >> well i would reject the allegation that bulk data collection amounts to mass surveillance and while i think there are two answers to the

question if i may. the ability to collect, does the ability to collectible data at least in theory provide the ability to carry out mass surveillance? the answer in a country like ours is certainly not for reasons of resource. it is impossible to conceive of the level of resource being made available that would allow even a tiny fraction of the bulk data to be analyzed or used in any way. in other countries that devote very much larger resources at this stage to surveillance of course different considerations may apply but in democracies where the resources available are distinctly finite there is a practical technical reason why this should not be seen as a threat but there is also of course a huge safeguard in the

layers of rules, controls and oversight that is in place. mass surveillance is illegal. it would always be illegal under our framework. there are strict rules in place to make sure the data collected is not abused in any way. there is rigorous oversight to ensure that those rules are complied with and even if there was practical, which it isn't for resource reasons it wouldn't happen because it's illegal in the system is designed to prevent that kind of illegality from occurring. >> so not only do we not have mass surveillance but selective surveillance and that culturally works but also she say in the confines of finite resources. >> absolutely right. as a citizen my greatest reassurance is the resource one. it's simply impossible even for

the most intrusive state in the world. it's impossible for that state to mass analyzed communications of individuals because of the sheer volume passing across the global communications system. >> thank you. some of our witnesses would not necessarily did disagree with the fact that you have shared with the committee but have still indeed argued that the very fact that very large numbers of e-mails or other communications most of them belonged to perfectly innocent respectable people are collected and are analyzed and verified by computer is a significant intrusion in privacy which they have argued is unacceptable in a free society. how do you respond to that? >> i would reject that notion. i think the automated application of selection

criteria by a computer and then the immediate discarding of 199.999% of the data collected does not give rise to intrusion. i would argue that intrusion arises at the point of interrogation of the data not at the point when it's collected and filtered according to an automatic filtering process. i don't think anybody has anything to fear from what in many cases will be momentary acquisition of data before it is discarded as not having satisfied any of the criteria for further examination. >> we have inadvertently entered into your territory. >> not at all. you have enabled me to take a step further. i want to take issue briefly about what you said about the reassurance of citizens generally ought to have on a

knowledge of sheer resource. this date -- bulk data you're saying is so great that obviously can't look at all a of it. i'm sure critics of the collection of bulk data would suggest for a moment that the state has the ability to look at all of it all at once but what they do have the ability to do is to search through all of it in any way that they choose to do it unless the legal constraints prevent them from doing so. so surely the key point about all this is that while you say the mere collection of the haystack is not a matter or should not be a matter of concern for civil liberties groups challenge that. the key point surely is in what direction you direct your searches of the haystack because you can just as easily direct them to it that an unacceptable use as to the purposes for which it will be carried out. >> that is of course true and in the case of the u.k. we have

very strict protocols and procedures in place, criteria for the filtering and selection of data for further analysis set out in the warrant as well as having to operate within the legal framework, political judgment is exercised by the secretary of state in question authorizing such bulk data collection to ensure that the filters that are used are appropriate and the question i ask myself is not just are they necessary and proportionate which they must be for the action to be lawful but what they stand the test of public opinion? would the public if you were able to see the criteria that were being used and away the work is being done with it accept that this was a reasonable proportionate thing

for us to do in order to keep them safe? >> what you were saying isn't if i were rogue agency wanted agencies and i have this haystack there is no way that i could abuse that is something i shouldn't search for? >> that is correct and i'm drawing them out of my briefing but something i remember when someone asked precisely that question when i visited gchq but they are in fact technical protections in the system to protect someone who is authorized to access the system from using it in a way that would be abusive. >> in the united states they had typical methods for preventing that from happening but sadly didn't work. are they in fact effective can't fact effective pet? >> if you are referring to this note in case with the data dealing stolen i think the question was specifically about

whether the selection criteria which are carefully defined and are subject to political as well as legal judgment could be ignored by an agent with access to the system and replaced with a different selection criteria and i think we have seen over time that we have very robust -- to identify any attempted abuse of the system. >> robin. >> foreign secretary may we assume this issue of the selection criteria for a moment. the power in section 84 it to collect overseas intelligence are very wide and then there is a narrow down warrant signed by the foreign secretary which limits the selection to certain categories. can you say, tell us anything about how many categories there

are and how tightly drawn they are and perhaps even give us an example of the sort of category there would be. for example in present circumstances might be every e-mail sent from syria or would it be a more narrow definition than that? >> i think that might be a subject that we might discuss further in closed session that would be all right. >> i just wondered whether there was anything you could say that would reassure the public of the narrowness? >> whether it will reassure the public i can't say but what i can say is we are acutely conscious of the need for a friday of reasons, public reassurance and proper application of political control but also we are acutely conscious of the need to define criteria as narrowly as possible. if you think about it given the

limited resources available if we define the criteria to widely we are planting the surgical in german that we are seeking to use and that would absolutely not be in the interest of what we are trying to achieve. what i don't want to do is give any pointers in open session to the type of selector so we should use because we have seen already that when information comes into the public domain it allows people to identify any aspects of the tradecraft use. they will modify the recording and it's less effective. >> thank you. that's understood. in the united states the national security agency has given some figures about the extent to which they amass material they collect his filtered down and the figures that i have are that nsa has stated publicly that it collects

1.6% of internet traffic which of course is a very large volu volume. only 0.0004%, think i've got that right of what is picked up. can any similar figures be given for what gchq puts out publicly to dispel this fear that people people have a mass intrusion? >> i don't think i can give any figures in the public session but i can give more information the closed session. >> i hope you will explain in closed session while you are unable to get give these figures publicly the united states is not have such an anxiety? >> perhaps i would make a general comment. just because something has come into the public domain about the way the united states does

things doesn't necessarily mean we think having that information the public domain is conducive to optimizing our national security. >> if i'm not mistaken i think the united states in the nsa announced this. it is their own decision. >> chairman you are very strong on pithy questions but this one has four elements. i looked to the chair's indulgence. it's all about the distinction between regarding communications as internal to the u.k. or external and this is obviously important because there are tighter restrictions on examining internal communications then there are external ones. for that reason the legislation draws this distinction. in the past it was quite easy to

interpret what was internal and external so a letter posted overseas or an international telephone calls was an external communication but this is much harder certainly when it has to do with internet activity so i have my fork samples that i hope you will help me navigate. first of all in terms of an e-mail it's obvious that if one or both of the sender and the recipient is overseas than i would be an ex-journal communication. can you confirm that if both the sender and the recipient are in the u.k. it would always be treated as an internal communication even if it's rooted -- routed overseas during its journey? would you look at that one first please? an e-mail from me to you in this country even though as a result

of the arrangements it may bounce back and forth with servers overseas. >> i invite my colleagues to step in if i get this wrong but you are absolutely right. because of the technology that exists these issues have become more complicated. an e-mail which originates or is received in the u.k. whether both of the parties are in the u.k. or only one of them is in the u.k. is an internal e-mail. >> i don't think that can be right. >> in terms of access to its content would require a warrant under section 81. >> is treated as an internal committee patient. >> but if only one and is in the

u.k. would it would still require section 81 warrant to access the content. yeah? >> yes but that's an external communication. >> let me finish the train of thought and if i'm being unclear or will correct myself. my understanding is that because of the technical nature of the internet it is possible that in neither case it is possible that such a communication could be routed through service outside of the u.k.. it is possible that data so rooted could be intercepted as a result of a warrant under section 84 but it would not be possible for that communication to be examined are analyzed without a section 81 warrant them being issued because the

persons involved are one of the persons involved is in the u.k.. now if i've misrepresented that please correct me. >> yes but the point i want to establish is that different warrants allow different levels of intrusion and you do have to have warrants of one sort to deal with external communications. that is from somebody within the u.k. to somebody outside it but if that person is communicating with someone within the u.k. that requires a different sort of warrant. >> my understanding is that the section 84 words will allow external communications between two parties outside the u.k..

or one party. >> external one party. >> okay then that requires a 16.3. so for practical purposes the point i'm trying to make it through a combination of the use of section 81 warrant in section 16.3 warrants it is the case that however it is originally collected if an e-mail as a party to it either the recipient or the sender who is in the u.k. than it will require a further warrant to be issued either section 81 or section 16.3 before that e-mail can be examined whereas if it is an e-mail passing between persons both of whom are outside the u.k. they could be examined and data authorities granted under this section 84 warrants. that is not an open-ended

e-mail. section 8 for warrant warrant itself with the finder filters that have to be applied for the examination of section 81. >> so what you are saying is that an internal communication as i understand it, and internal communication applies not only if both the sender and the recipient are within the u.k. but even if only one of them is. >> i'm sorry i have misled you and my use of terms. i was trying to be helpful but i fear i've been unhelpful. it's an internal coup indication of both the sender sender and the recipient or in the u.k.. if one of the senders or recipients through the u.k. is an external coup indication but poor to be examined because either the sender or the recipient or in the u.k. it will require a section 16.3 to the

issue before that the medication can be examined. >> i think 16.3 is described as a modification. >> that you'll be pleased to know is the easy one. now let's go to browsing the internet. if i read the "washington post" web site i am deemed to have communicated with a web site that is located overseas, is that therefore an external communication according to the existing legislation even though all i do is looking at a web site which happens to have been posted in a population a broad? >> my understanding is that would be an external predication but again because one of the past two and is in the would require what the chairman has rarely described as a

modification to be paid in order for the content of that activity to be examined. >> i suspect the answer will be the same which is a particularly controversial one which is the case of social media. in recent evidence to the tribunal charles f.a.r. from the home office has caused some anxiety by suggesting that facebook posts are external communications, so can you clarify the situation here and i'm not of course talking about posts that are made on facebook with no restrictions because obviously they are available for all to see. what if i were to post something on facebook and if i had adjusted my settings with the intention that this should be read only by a restricted group of my friends, and this is the

key point, all of those friends were based in the u.k., surely that should be treated as an internal communication rather than an external one. >> now i think if you post something on facebook and the server is outside of the u.k. it would be treated as an external communication but as i said in my last question i suspect as you would expect my answer to be in this it would require 16.3 to enable agencies to look at the content of that activity because one of the parties to what it was in the u.k.. >> and if in fact neither party when the u.k. then there would be a lesson authorization records look at it.