>> and not just in the maritime. must make absolutely. >> as former defense secretary knows, we are. i mean, we are ourselves setting people free because there is not sufficient evidence to take them to a court of law. we do that in maritime environment. we do that in afghanistan, but

equally where we are seeking to detain people and cooperate with countries, whether it's iraq or afghanistan. it is enormously problematic, enormously problematic and enormously controversial. the one or two cases that catch the headlines, but armed forces are expected to cooperate, you know, in these ways on a regular basis on our behalf. so it is something that is. >> where there is a new convention editing advance, then we want to, there's not going to be legal peril for our armed forces to do it. >> i'm very conscious of the fact that we need to move onto lord harris' question, which is quite a major one. can we detain you for another

five to 10 minutes? >> i want to talk about some security about which there have been several mentions during the course of the evidence we avert. and really, they quickly how does our state of readiness compared to other states? and also our ability to deal with potential adversaries to? well, this is an area as i have mentioned earlier i was concerned about when i came in to place some two and a half years ago. i engaged in a number of people with the cabinet office. the tranny was produce them identify this as a domain, a threat coming that we need to look at closely. with no producer cybersecurity strategy. what has become quite clear to me is that we are actually well out with any other country. it's quite interesting the laws committee on the e.u. just recently reported they were very impressed by where we stand on this.

and certainly with my visit to e.u. nations where ahead of any of those that i suspect the americans are a head of us, but actually because we are linking very closely with them, they have just appointed their cyber czar. i hate that expression but that's what they call him, mr. schmidt. who is in the west wing of the white house. i think it's got a team of six people working for him at the moment. and i believe in terms of the.com and.gov areas that are behind us at the moment. but have identified this as being a very important area. obama in his election campaign saw that. the way the americans always do it. and i'm very glad that we are so closely interconnected with them in this area. and there's a constant exchange both by figure conferencing and also by visits both ways in these areas. so i think we are right up in the forefront of work of this. but that served as a mean i am complacent.

this is an area i think of we'll worry. and, of course, we've got to be in this arena. we've seen the digital britain were. we absolutely have to be fully involved in this area, but the better you are, the better connected your the quicker you can do things, the more things you can do in this way. unless you take the absolute requisite necessary precautions. would not only got to make sure that various networks and things are looked after, we need to make sure our industries understand the very real threat and although we've had some quite major cases of where people have gone and on fishing expeditions into large industrial concerns, some of them haven't quite figured out how dangerous threat that is people are making sure they are aware of it. we also have to educate our population. it is quite extraordinary when people get on their laptop and start biting, they seem to think that it's just them and who they're talking to. no one else can see that actually more people will see what they're saying that if they wrote a postcard and send it in

a letterbox. that is a quite difficult thing to get across. people's nativity is quite mind-boggling. when one sees what serious organized crime is doing in terms of using the internet, when one sees what criminals at low level are doing in terms of stealing people's identity and doing things on that, then we've got the big state actors with all the threats that they actually pose to us. and then we have the pointy-headed sort of computer nerds who think impure hacking is fun. and then of course the terrorists themselves to use the internet for radicalization, but are rapidly getting more clever and will of course use it to try to attack our systems. we have look at security at the results of our systems, things like power which have improved to the sort of attacks, but that's an area that is a worry.

but this is an area of great concern. and i believe a number of nations in the world have not appreciated that. and it is international cyberspace is a global thing that you can do this on your own. and, therefore, there are some real issues we've got to get to grips with. >> the problem of companies perhaps not realizing the seriousness of this to the extent they've been penetrated. to what extent are there concerns about key contractors, defense field or contractors in respect to the infrastructure where you have concerns about the degree of penetration that has taken place because there are concerns. what we have to do is separate out from amongst them. what is it that is a loss of sort of international property rights and what impacts on the defense sector. we need to split those two out and say how much damage has done to the transixty that company and damaged that coveted how much was it already does.

we have to do a very rapid analysis. so far we haven't gotten one that is caused real damage to defense, if you see what i mean. entrance of the critical national infrastructure, again we have to be, we have to be swift on her feet. to make sure that we can close holes so there might be might be a problem. >> are we confident we know? >> that is always an issue. we have got some really, really talented people. in the west country. who focus on this. but certainly some firms who thought they were fine on deeper analysis are not. and a worry always is, we know this, don't we, from an enigma during the second world war, the greatest danger is being complacent and think you are absolutely secure. we need to keep looking all the time. we have every good people who do this. but some people are very sophisticated in terms of what they can do. it is a real issue. it would be very dangerous to

assume that someone can do something. the only absolute certainty is that if you have an air gap, then no one can get into a system. but that is the only time you can be 100% secure. [inaudible] stuck where you can, but they can't connect. >> be aware of who else would rely on and see to it with their systems. and indeed as well, develop, consider our own advocacy raise, you become in the cyber world as well as in other spheres. >> if i may just jump in on that, the ethical and legal side. because for example, if i went and took down a power station in another country, which i could do with a cyber attack, is that the same as bombing it? if i bonded that would be an act of war. and there are issues like this, what is an act of war, what isn't, how does this take on how we going to do this?

and that work is going on at the moment because we do need to look at this quite rapidly as to what the ethics and what the legalities of some of these things. >> also proof of attribution. >> extremely difficult. >> we heard earlier on about solving capabilities and the issues around that. to what extent are you concerned about the fact that key components in terms of the electronic structure of the company are supplied overseas in some cases by countries like china where accusations about extent to which china is interested in defensive operations? >> can i answer outside of this, at a separately? >> i think we have come out of our time. i think this is a very important question. perhaps look for another occasion to answer it, and lets you think you can answer in sort of five minutes and we adjourned the committee now.

>> it might be worth waiting just a little longer because something is happening in that area which might make the answer a little bit easier. >> is perhaps a good point on which to him, because it is a very important issue. i am very grateful for you to your patients, all of you, and your preparedness today. but i did think it was important to flag up the fact is was an issue in which we have an interest, rather than allowing us to run out of time. and you used a phrase in that conversation, lord west, which i think is important about the need to educate our population about these risks, not these because of the way they impinge on the citizen. as well as on the overall aspect of national security. i mindful and i think the committee has had copies, the fact that as you say the e.u. committee report has just come out. and that will also facilitate the discussion. i have seen the evidence you

gave to them. so can i thank you all very much indeed for coming. for being prepared to say it's been for an initial discussion i think it's a very useful initial discussion. and i'm sure these matters that our committee will want to take forward. order, order. >> the minute that the wall street firms were in the business of harvesting middle-class and lower middle-class americans for the home equity value, and making loads to the against it, there was a natural risk of it is. >> sunday michael lewis on the subprime mortgage crisis. is lazy is the big short. is also the author of liar's poker, the new new thing. money ball and the blindside, which was the basis for the movie starring sandra bullock. michael lewis at 8 p.m. eastern and pacific on c-span q&a.

flexible policies actually make employees more, not less productive. because as you all know, instead of spending time worrying about what's happening at home, your employees have the support and the peace of mind that they desperately need to concentrate on their work. >> watch something on c-span that you would like to share with friends. at the new c-span the library. you can search it, watch it, clip and share it. over 160,000 hours of video from yesterday, or last year. every c-span program since 1987. the c-span video library, cable's latest gift to america >> there's a lot of misunderstanding about what true free markets are, how they were, how they don't wear, what rules

are needed and what rules are not necessary. we have a system that people don't understand how the system works. a disaster came along in the summer of 2007, and so we had to focus on the fact that the whole idea of free markets and capitalism have taken a real hit. >> from the industrial revolution to the great depression the united states has had its share of ups and downs. yet whether she is expecting a recession or an economic boom, america remains the land for opportunity are abundant, and the entrepreneur thrives. >> which is kind of stumbled into the. when i was in high school my partner was a junior. we were in a band and we want to make a band that we did want to pay anybody to do.

we made kind of our own frame, screen out of wood that we cut, stretch the mesh over and get everything really primitive, printed a shirt like stretch of a piece of glass to hold it in place. really got started getting into it, started doing some stuff with schools, just for fun. and realize, we can do this. so what kind of asked my dad for a little many loan, and he gave it to us and we kind of went from there. >> i decide to open a gourmet posta coming because it's something that i've done and has been in my family for three generations now, we are third generations to make posta since 1946 and we want to carry on the tradition. >> it's personal in a way reason, and all that physically i cannot, at same time my work

was diminishing. so i found something to help you to retire too. and since i had this donut experience, there was just in a way i may even say natural, the reason, choice for me to choose as a small business. >> i started my business by doing some side work for somebody who need work done. i was an electrical engineer. but this was more fun on the site. i got to customers. i got laid off which was very fortunate in hindsight. i got laid off at my electrical engineering job, and the company i was working form share the same again. she invited me to me and i was up to five.

if i could get the 20 i could make a smack on in america would be possible for these four men to start a business. by starting a business in the united states they have capitalized on our country's greatest strength. the american free market economy. >> i think a free market economy is the only way to go in america. i don't know if i have a true free market economy in this country. there's definitely a bit of crony capitalism going on as far as who gets to fill and who gets to succeed. but on a small business gale, which is what i think the free market economy is the most true, it's the only economic system i could ever imagine because that's how entrepreneurs can thrive and grow, competition and failing and succeeding. you need to fall a little bit to be able to stand up. but i think it's a portrait of a free market economy it's the only way that entrepreneurs can

survive in america is. >> considering the crisis which is had, free markets are the only way out of. the government doesn't spend money on anybody else. when they take it from someone else and later spend it, there is a tax. they only spend about 80% of that. individuals are better served hanging onto your own money and spending as you see it. so absolutely free market. if you look at the economies that have killed off in the free development, canada is the sole exception, they are bringing in a free market to make the industry were. free markets is the only way to get out of this. >> in a free market economy in what has the ability to open a business. over 600,000 businesses are open to each in united states alone. due to the nature of capitalism, one-third of these businesses will fail within two years. and over half a close in for you. so can anyone start a business? >> i think anyone can start a

business. you have to have drive. it has to be something that you're motivated to do. you have to try to find the resources. and in this day and time, it is difficult to find the resources. but start small like when we first started all we had was small and eventually we added our line of sauce and added a line of cheese. on and on. if you start small enough, and you have something that people want, our posta, we have a niche because nobody else does what we do. the machines that we have have been our family since 1926, and it's a handmade product so it's going to be something that is not a quantity item, but it is a quality item. that's what we try to do. and i think we do that on any kind of business, i think it could be successful. >> not everyone can start a business. it takes an incredible amount of time.

i'm on a project right now that i've worked on 12 they straight. i went to bed last night working on a. i woke up this morning working on. you don't see a lot of people willing to do that. that's not going to happen with very many people. >> starting a business is no small task. there are factors and limitations beyond the owners control. however, starting a business in the united states can be cared in oslo without the free market economy. and the american dream would be unattainable. >> it's not easy over there. they talking about things, especially something called connection. you need connections to government and things like that, or some business or business people or things of that, but not just your initiatives and then your own cell phone, you

know, a lot of times they need the family support over there. not just from your savings and making loans from bank on your credit and things like that. it's very tough. >> the american dream does exist. not only is america the land where anyone can be successful, but what everyone has the opportunity to participate in a system that has proven itself again and again. it is truly the nation's greatest strength. the american free market economy. spent probably the american business, absolutely. it does. it's difficult to attain. it takes brains, personality, and it takes determination and. >> a table? yes, i believe it is attainable. from personal experience, yes.

>> up next a panel of political sciences looks at how the senate has changed in the last 50 years. from the robert j. dole institute for politics, at the university of kansas, this is an hour and a half. >> good afternoon and welcome to the dole institute of politics at the university of kansas. i ability, the directory. we are delighted that we could get such an outstanding crowd out for was going to be a fascinating conference over the next two days. we also want to thank all of our visiting scholars for taking the time out to visit campus here and to be part of this. and those of you have attended dole institute programs before nowhere a hybrid facility. we have a museum, we have a very impressive archive with all of

the bob dole's papers and artifacts. and we conduct a very, very aggressive programming schedule. that you do is focus on practitioners. but also we tried to do scholarly type conferences from time to time. last fall, professor burdett loomis who is not only a distinguished professor of political science, good friend of the dole institute, but, and this is required, to be involved sometimes at the go is if you, a certifiable political junkie. approached us about a very interesting idea that he said, you know, next year is going to be the 50th anniversary of bob dole's election to the diocese congress. are you guys planning anything? and i said as a matter of fact, we are. we're planning our presidential lecture series which is one of our signature series on that topic. and he proposed the idea of doing a conference that focuses on the senate. and it just fit perfectly, a

perfect way to conclude the series. and so we were very excited about that and very excited about what bird put together. was the things we've heard over the course of the series consistently is that the united states senate needs more people like bob dole, like his career exemplifying bipartisanship, civility, and willingness while having strong philosophical beliefs to reach across the aisle and try to work with others with different points of view. we have heard from bob dole's biographer. we've heard from members of his staff. we have heard from the first until he recently retired, all the history of the united states senate. and, finally, we heard from one of his very prominent colleagues, former senator jack danforth. and it's been a very enlightening process. but now we get to hear from scholars, individuals have the opportunity to stand back and take an objective and analytical look, exactly how the senate functions and exactly what can

be done to make it function better. it gives me great pleasure to present to you the gentleman who oppose this idea, the gentleman who organized it, we did all the work and deserves all the credit, or fester burdett loomis. burd? [applause] >> thanks very much, bill. bills soar is exactly right. and they'll could have been more welcoming when i came to him, and john earl, the associate director with this idea. basically said go ahead, run with it. and we have. and i would like to dodge the support of the campeche manages council. i approached him, and they also were highly enthusiastic about the conference. and so they too provided

significant support. as bill noted, the 50 year career of bob dole's and the 50th anniversary of his initial house run triggered this. but i've had thoughts about doing this for quite a while. and this was a great opportunity. because i think that after all the dust is cleared, bob dole energy congress as a hse number, exited as a presidential candidate, and has a fascinating post senate career. but in the end his great legacy will be as a senator, as a committee chair, and particularly as a leader. and so it is worth considering the senate of the congress he entered in 1960, and where it is today. i think it's particularly appropriate in that we are on the day of, we hope, we think

the final senate vote on health care reform has been taken this afternoon, assuming the house doesn't screw things up. the coincidence here is great that the interesting sin is high as it's been a long time. and so that serendipity has been terrific. finally, when i thought about this move from the more abstract to the specific, i started making, sending out e-mails. and i send 10 e-mails out, to the first 10 people that i really wanted to come to present things. and got 10 acceptances. so these are the people that i thought, and there are surely others without any question,

that i thought would come together, truly the leading scholars on the u.s. senate. to talk about various facets of this institution that is both interesting, puzzling, often frustrating. and so it's great to have them all here. we get to talk amongst ourselves. and get to talk with you, another great audience from the dole institute. so, michael, take it away. >> my name is michael lynch and i'm an assistant professor here at ku, and i had the pleasure of being the chair for this afternoon's panel. i would like to thank you all for coming and thank the dole center for helping, for putting this event on. my job to do is pretty easy. i'm going to introduce these gentlemen. they will talk ever long time and i'm going to make incredibly short comments about what they

have to say. and then we'll turn it over to the audience and ask you if you have any questions you would like to ask. so briefly, allow me to introduce each of our panelists. the goal of the next two days again is to talk about the senate for the last 50 years, and how it has changed over time. and so to begin, professor eric schickler is going to tell us where we started, give us an idea of what the u.s. senate looks like at mid-century, at the mid 20th century, he is professor of political science at university of california, berkeley. he has published extensively in american politics specifically on congress and american political development. and he is well suited to discuss the transformation of the senate and what the senate will look like at made century. he is maybe most well-known for two books he has written. he is renowned as a to b. government of congress, one called disjointed pro bowl ism, innovation and he devoted of the

u.s. congress. and another one called filibuster, obstruction and lawmaking in the u.s. senate. both of these books will look to struggle at how the institutions have a change of time and i think he will share some of that information with us today. both of those books on the prize which is the price for the best book and legislative politics. after eric, alan abramowitz is a professor at emory university. you will be speaking to us about collection. he is an expert on american politics, specifically elections, and very specifically senate elections today. is the author of six books and countless articles, maybe most interesting to today's talk is a current book is working on, i think it is now finished expect it is out. >> it is out speak is available for purchase. [laughter] >> titled th