in defense of rules and principles that extended security and prosperity across the globe. the 12 nation transpacific partnership would cover an area that accounts for about 40% of the world's gdp and one third of global trade. more importantly, the agreement will strengthen finally important security relationships with countries such as japan malaysia, the anon, and australia. and provide strategic counterweight to china. if america fails to lead, china will. if we do not advance the open trading system we have long advocated in asia, china's attention is the policies will dominate. that is an unacceptable outcome for our economy, our security, and for the values we hold dear. 17 former secretaries of defense and top military leaders including secretary bob gates and general david opepetreus,

said there will be harmful consequences if we do not securities agreements. our allies and partners will question our commitments, doubt our resolve, and inevitably look to other partners. i don't often quote president obama. but it was hard to argue with him when he said the other day that democratic protectionist were just quote "making stuff up. " you don't make change through servants emma you don't make change through ignoring reality, the president said. republicans agreed. democrats opposing his ability make us seem afraid, afraid of challenges and opportunities. be afraid to compete fairly emma be afraid to lead. but we are americans, we don't need laws against competition.

we build bridges to opportunity. we do not hide from history, we make history. we don't fear the world, we lead it. let's get on with it. let's stop trying to relive the past and build a better future. that is who we are. thank you for listening. >> this week on the communicators, we talk with members of congress about legislation they are proposing. and about technology and communication issues congress is debating. one of those issues is the patriot act, the national security agency has use the patriot act to collect bulk phone data from americans. key parts of the act are scheduled to expire june 1. thomas massie of kentucky on the patriot act. >> republican from kentucky with a tech background.

what is your background, congressman? thomas massie: i have a degree from m.i.t., 29 patents, i have been immersed in this for the first 20 years of my career. >> what was that company and what did it do? thomas: i invented a device that lets you feel three-dimensional object. and then you can print it on a printer. >> is a company still in business? thomas: that company has been n bought and sold, but continues to produce. >> how does your background help you here in congress? thomas: sometimes it does, sometimes people care about the numbers, and sometimes things are based on a notion and intuition. in which case i get frustrated. >> this week, the reason we wanted to talk to you, the house is voting on a substitute measure for the patriot act. first of all, what are your

thoughts on the patriot act was to mark what your thoughts about the substitute? thomas: i do not like the patriot act. i voted against it. it is what differentiated me against six other republicans. i said we need to repeal it. i am against the patriot act, it infringes on civil liberties too much. but the freedom act it is the patriot act if it passes this week, is a thin the near of reform that surrounds the reauthorization of section 215. the decision that congress needs to make, are there enough reforms to warrant reauthorizing this act? for me, the answer is a clear no. >> when you talk about section 215, what does that mean? >> and authorizes the metadata

collection, ostensibly authorizing -- last week we found out that there is a second district federal court agrees with the justice that this patriot act never really authorize this. they're illegal. but the nsa would tell you that these programs are authorized by section 215. and the court receded to write a warrant that covered every american citizen. it authorizes the bulk data collection, and also has a lone wolf provision in it. it lowers the threshold. i have a problem with this, and i don't hear people talking about it. it lowers the threshold from probable cause to reasonable suspicion. probable cause has been with us since the fourth amendment was made part of the constitution. there are 200 years of jury verdicts and court decisions

that establish what probable cause is. we find it very inconvenient when they want to track someone. they lowered the threshold to reasonable suspicion with the patriot act. this is a problem in the freedom act. i have a problem with that. i think we should respect probable cause. >> it sounds like the freedom act is going to pass, by the time this airs, we will know. the freedom act probably will pass. >> last night, i was in the rules committee trying to get a n amendment offered. my amendment, which i've cosponsored with democrats and republicans, which shut the backdoor loopholes that allows the federal government to search the content, not just the metadata, and the content of your phone calls. this amendment was offered last

time. it passed by a majority. it was stripped out of the crown ofmnibus. it will become law, let's try to get some real reforms in there. unfortunately, last night, the rules committee decided to allow no amendments to the freedom act. >> was the back door? thomas: the backdoor is a loophole? there are two types of loopholes in our national security surveillance. the first type, we are offensively going after foreigners. they say since they are not covered by the constitution, we can collect the content of their e-mails and phone calls. guess what, when they collect all that, they are accidentally scooping up your data, too. they harvest all of that data

now they are sitting on a big haystack that contains your information. even though you're not from a foreign country -- you are a u.s. person. the fbi has confirmed this, they are going into that haystack and they are searching for other crimes -- not terrorism. they're using this incidental data collection that was supposed to be collected on foreign people, they are using that to collect it on you as people and their certificate. that is the backdoor. >> congressman, has technology lessened our privacy? thomas: not technology, the government has lessened our privacy. it has made it easier to violate your privacy, the fact that it exists. and i would argue that is because it is easy to search your data, and it is less intrusive to you, they don't have to come and pick your locks and take your papers out of the

doors like they did 200 years ago when our fioound fathers were there -- just because it is easier to do doesn't make it moral. >> want to ask you about a deal that you have introduced. thomas: this is a bill we have introduced, we are worried about the warrantless surveillance of americans. this is what i was talking about before, the backdoor. we have said we understand you collected this data on all americans accidentally. and we don't even want to keep you from searching that data. but we want you to have trouble caused and a search warrant. that is what our bill to end warrantless surveillance will do. require, like our constitution does, probable cause and a search warrant. it would get rid of the presumptive authority that has been given through the

intelligence community which is the executive order the previous presidents have made -- every president remade it. the intelligence community -- we canno't even know what that reauthorizes. they kept declassified. it would rain that end, as well. >> mitch mcconnell is supportive of the current patriot act. have you discussed this with him? thomas: i have not discussed this with the senior senator from kentucky. obviously, he and i we agree on a lot of issues. >> thomas massie, republican of kentucky. thank you for being with us. >> you are watching the communicators on c-span. we caught up with house judiciary committee member susan, a former microsoft executive. she talks about laws regarding you know privacy.

>> representative susan is a democrat from washington state the first district. currently in her third term. prior to coming to congress, representative unitech background. what is your background? susan: i was a bio major in college. i work in a biotech company and got mine mba and work in microsoft and rent a startup. i helped innovate new technology edited up here afterwards. i think that unique combination of being able to understand policy that allows innovation and protects consumers is kind of a unique effective. >> what you do at microsoft? susan: i worked on many products emma e-mail in the early days.

and then i worked on embedded systems, software's and things that are not embedded computers. the internet of things, it was called embedded systems -- they were not connected. i worked on windows 95. i guess that would take me. and on mobile devices. last year, we think of them as phones, but in the earlier days as mobile devices. >> back then, was there a legislation or regulations as to what you do? susan: there was not as much focus on policy at that time. the devices were relatively static and you had a computer and you kept your computer. the big difference we are seeing today is the amount of data that is being exchanged, the amount of information that is stored in

the cloud or stirred on ser vers. that is greeted new opportunities, but it means we need to make sure policies are in place to protect privacy and security. there are international applications about how data moves around. >> and is congress aware of it is congress up-to-date? susan: our policy is far from being up-to-date. we have policy that is mostly out of date. we have a copyright policy from 1976. a lot has changed since 1976. we have the electronic communications privacy act of 1986. after working on e-mail in 1989. now, e-mail is a standard form of communication -- one the most popular. and we still have a situation where a piece of paper in your desk drawer is held to warrant

standards. law enforcement would need a warrant. but in e-mail, there has been stored for the cloud is not subject to a warrant standard. we have not updated it since 1986. there are many areas that we need the policy up-to-date. >> when it comes to espa, what have you been working on legislatively? susan: we have bills of their making sure we have a similar one standard for digital information, dislike like we do for physical information. we have one to address electronic communication in particular. to make sure there is a warrant standard that you might have for the cloud. and to be clear that information that is stored in the cloud should be held to a warrant standard. we also have a separate bill that i was a cosponsor of to make sure we have that same

standard for geolocation information. everyone is carrying a phone around with them, they had them in their pockets. there is geolocation in them even in the car. we want to make sure that is protected by warrant standards. one, that just protects the communication side. one that does medication and geolocation together. i think we have seen more recently, with bulk collection and the nsa, the fact that he will are sharing much more information and not realizing what some of the implications are, in terms of sharing. they may not like what the privacy policy is in place. definitely, we do put some more rules in place. >> you have also become caucus chair of the internet of things caucus. which is what? susan: we found that the

internet of things caucus to highlight what we have as so many connected devices that are not traditional pcs tablets, or even phone. there is the wristband, the thermostat in your house, there are many different devices now. they're connected to have information they are sharing. we want to make that policy is up-to-date in terms of supporting innovation in these areas. but also that we have appropriate protection for consumers. >> do you find your colleagues coming to you because of your background? susan: definitely, people come to me. a lot of them are very collocated. people might not have experience because they have not used a piece of technology. people are not using e-mail and phones as the way a lot of folks do. we still have people who print out their schedule and carried around in their pocket.

understanding how their policy impacts where technology has changed the way things work can sometimes be more complicated. being sure we educate lawmakers not only keeping policy up-to-date, but how to be more forward-looking is very important now and going forward. >> as we speak, the house is getting ready to vote on an update to a replacement of the patriot act. first of all, was the patriot act effective -- is it effective? susan: the patriot act was used in ways people do not anticipate. i am on the judiciary committee he would be one of the first people to tell you that it is interpreted in particular with respect to bulk collection of data -- people who have not been accused of doing anything, just storing data in case. making sure we reign the n

sa. the usa freedom act is really about making sure the patriot act is redone in a way that puts the boundaries in place. some of the original authors -- they have not been interpreted and original way. we make sure there is more transparency or the fisa courts we make sure that we have a public advocate. someone in the course to make it more of an adversarial system, someone arguing the other side. so is not just one-sided. that is a big part of making sure we put that balance back in place between security and liberty. >> the democratic representative. thank you for your time. >> doug collins of georgia is about regulation of the internet. >> doug collins is a member of

the judiciary committee, vice chairman on the intellectual property and the internet. he is our guest on the communicators. i want to start with net neutrality and the statement that tumblr, sec tom wheeler. the internet is simple he too important to make the rules. >> the evolution of his own statements. we have recently introduced a resolution of disapproval. what that says is that if congress -- they can do away with the recently passed rule of the fcc. i believe we should be using more to rein in we believe is right andd lawful. mr. wheeler was on the exact

opposite of this side. there were some other issu es coming from the administration. it is better left to congress, something this massive and far-reaching to every people need to be decided by their elected officials. not by a group sitting in an office building somewhere in downtown washington, d.c. it simply says what they have said will not be valid. we believe that needs to happen in the congress. >> a resolution can be effectively negated. therefore, if it passes, and you have cosponsors on both republican and democrat sides -->> even have the chairman as a cosponsor. but it has been introduced by senator rand paul with companion legislation.

we believe this is a more simple and direct route. procedurally, it can get through the senate without a filibuster. for me, it essentially a constitutional issue. his congress being congress? of the chairman of energy in commerce said they can look at ways we have affected resolution. it empowers them. start back over. congress makes decisions, not unelected bureaucrats. >> when it comes to net neutrality, title ii for broadband, which you be supportive of that? >> the issue that the sec brought out, what we are saying is it the net needs to be open and free. anytime the government gets involved, there is a pandora's box.

in the judiciary committee, we cannot answer basic questions about what the ruling does. let us be an issue. b of radar, but not in place by bureaucrats who have no real consequence from the elected populace. we are going back to the constitutional role. >> another issue you are working on is copyright. what is the status? doug: the chairman, two years ago, he said we are going to look at overall copyright revision. it is something that had been needed for a long time. music, publishing -- the whole realm of copyright. what we have found in over 30 something hearings, there is a definite need and how we relate to the world. specifically, from my perspective, we have found issues with how it relates to

the library of congress. not being able to function in a way it should. but the other way is music licensing. the evolving way we get our music delivered and how we listen to songs. ira number growing up listening to the radio spinning my quarters and dimes to buy a record. that is not the way my children listen to records. it is digital, streaming. when we dug into this, we introduced the fallout equity act. there are three ways songwriters, not the performers, those who work behind the scenes -- writing songs we know and love. there are three ways they are able to be paid. two of the ways the government controls -- dating back to 1911 when we had player pianos. the other ways is that the thinking rights. the government owns two, you can

guess which one they get a fair and equitable payment. it is time for government to get out of the process, but the market based approach work. the registrar has been wonderful and giving ideas. i hope we will see some ideas that will bring our laws into the 21st century. >> are songwriters supporting your bill was to m? doug: it does have simple changes, be allowed to take in evidence from when the performers get their royalties set. they are not able to do now. from my background as an attorney, why are we not allowing evidence that really has an effect not be used? in the sections of 115 and areas of the streaming rates, let's

let them have the ability to enter the fair market. what the market will bear. it simply says let us make it fair. this is the way, as one of the songwriters put it, this is the way i feed my children. i don't make things, i create things. this is something that we in the new digital economy are going to have to come to grips with -- our intellectual property is something we are going to have to value and trust. >> how does that music bill affect those who use spotify or itunes? doug: what you have right now is a model based on -- we use their products. the business they grew up with is going to have to evolve and change. we are seeing a whole industry affected by an artificially set parameter by the government.

conservatives, we feel that is not a role for government. the marketplace can bear this, we are working with all the entities now to come up with a path forward is fair and equitable. >> we've talked many times about how digital technology is changing many different industries. but it is also changing a lot of laws that we may not be aware of. doug: when you think about it, from my generation, talk about buying an album. that is not something my children even relate to anymore. but yet, there is still a market out there. the mechanical rights go back all the way to the early 1900s. we're talking about roosevelt taft -- those rates have not changed very much over a hundred years. in this new economy, we have to

look forward on how we are dealing with publishers and songwriters and how to bring them up to date. it is not something just for songwriters. we're seeing evidence from performance such as taylor swift and brooks, the way the laws are set up now are not fair. we see that come up in a bit. it is a great thing for the committee to take part in. it is not just the music, it is all kinds of issues that could benefit. >> do you see this legislation working his way all the way to the house, senate, and to the president? doug: over time, it will. it may come in pieces. one of the things that came out of this for those are watching, this issue of the copyright office itself. how it is structured coming inside the library of congress -- some of the privacy issues we

are working through. maybe we actually need to take a look at their structure and how they are functioning as an executive branch. that dual role they serve. it has been really good, people expect congress to look at how their government works and serves. it has been a very good one. >> doug collins, republican of georgia, that you so much. the communicators airs every week saturday on c-span. and again on monday on c-span2 at 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. for more go to c-span.org. on the next washington journal sarah westwood of the washington examiner and michael mcauliffe of the huffington post discuss

benghazi and the investigation into the 2012 conflict attack and what was the role of then secretary of state hillary clinton. then, former ambassador to morocco looks at the ongoing nuclear talks with iran. after that, the future of trade legislation -- how the house and senate plan to deal with it. plus your phone calls, facebook comments, and tweets. live every morning on c-span. >> next, tennessee senator bob corker talks deal, the upcoming summit and relations with china. his remarks are part of the christian monitor series. this runs an hour.

cook: i am dave cook for the "christian science monitor." our guest today is senator bob corker, chairman of the senate committee, and a member of the budget committee. his last visit was with our group was in january of last year. he is a south carolina native who graduated from the university of tennessee with a degree in industrial management. in 2006, he was elected to the us senate.