that's the main point. the concept of the title is on the one side we have the coherent fought through plan of the constitutional democracy, the separation of powers, the checks and balances. all of them may have a little and aquarium feeling the 21st century but they were done for a reason, the rhythm from the experience of the founding generation with a tyranny of british colonial rule with the fate of earlier republics italian renaissance, republic before them which failed and had succumbed to the military leaders. the kid particularly understood that the greatest danger to the survival of the republican democracy was unchecked for power in the executive. they knew from the experience of the article in the confederation they need a stronger national constitution. they were determined to build one with the exit of authority couldn't go to war unchecked. they decided the war power deliberately between the president and the congress why

were they afraid of the war? because the war for one is a source of testing that a government which we just constant war is going to have to levy heavy taxes which will get this our populace the system and change the relationship between the government and the secrecy of war and secrecy to the government opened. they are consistently worried about the war power. finally, as the authors will tell you of any kind of book, the title concept is a narrative frame. it's the author choice of some reorganizing the massive data out there. now the only way of organizing it, it's the way that i chose to organize it. most of the material in the book, there's some primary research there and there's some reporting that i've done in the course of my time there's some

original documents to look back and most of this book is based on is the very rich secondary source literature we have, but industry analysts in the history, and what i've done with that is i've gone back into all that data that we all know that you all know, that all know, and looked at patterns that come out of it when you ask the questions of 2012, and that is the way good history works or else the history of the revolution would have been written and finished in 1830, no reason to go back to it, 1850 is a different set of questions. theodore roosevelt asked a different set of questions. woodrow wilson's era, the depression era and ours has asked a new set of questions of our shared american history in order to get better and to modify for the needs of today. i tried to be but i try not to oversimplify the reality is complex and also faceted there

are no heroes or villains in this book. we have this complexity, but we don't have to surrender and say it's so complex i can't make sense of it. we can make sense of it, and if we don't try to make sense of it we walk away from our democracy. our democracy count on our trying the average citizen, serious citizen wanting to inform themselves, trying to inform themselves, and if the government isn't giving you the right information demanding that the government can use that information we have not a direct democracy and the assembly we have a representative democracy. the ways we have to demand of our representatives to tell what is going on to be for their decisions not just the campaign boaters but those that have the say of putting them in office or

not. there was always good rationale the president the last 70 years could find for going all side of the constitution and taking emergency state measures we've mentioned like the and declared war, presidential war. fdr had an isolationist congress. the executive he sincerely and accurately so is the need to keep britain from been done before the nazi onslaught and he couldn't master the politician that he was he chose not to face a congress and a public which still is within the shadow of the first world war and isolationism he wanted to run for a third term he wanted to handle all the presidential powers and he went a little bit astray there. but the threat is real it is good. roosevelt did this in the war time and started commenting war

time abraham lincoln claimed habeas corpus in the civil war but when america determined to the japanese and second world war, normally when america's were:war ends and peace is declared the party that led the war turns out the commands are made, but a peacetime emergency state is different the peacetime will when does it end, when does the emergency end, and when we entered into in the truman years was the peacetime emergency state. there were not terribly koln years but we were not a declared war. the last war was the second world war. already the constitution is unhinged here in that we are doing the kind of emergency actions which are constitutionally and otherwise justified by the declared war mike of the presidential or country as the congress has endorsed. but we're doing it in peacetime and indefinitely with of the

emergency state come at hawk emergency state. so truman and eisenhower would talk often about the nature of soviet communism just as we recently had heard about islamic fundamentalism. we then heard this is the uniques ret america has to act like the enemy to fight the enemy. it can't afford to follow to be america to follow its constitutional space rules we have an unscrupulous enemy that will live with whatever. >> that is not the behavior of stalinist russia to challenge whether that was so wise way to respond to it. then after eisenhower you get in the late 50's with the development of the ballistic missiles where either side could annihilate each other on a 20 minute warning. well how can congress declare war met with the launch? there's an argument for

adjusting levels to use the power the president has always had under the constitution to respond to an actual attack in the country to give him a little space to respond on that. but we didn't choose that risk. we chose the presidential decision making, presidential secrecy, cutting ourselves off from that debate indefinitely. and then when the emergency past, when world war ii ended, we saw we had a peacetime emergencies did. the cold war nuclear confrontation, we didn't inherit the safe will, but we didn't have the 18,000 nuclear warheads pointed at us after 1989 after 1991. and yet, the constitutional shortcuts remain in place and i miss the public debate about do they need, did it happen? i was working for the daily newspaper, we talk about a lot of things now we can go back to the constitutional democracy because we are not living -- we

didn't have the debate. there is no reason i would argue that the and declared war that we fought since world war ii, korea, vietnam, afghanistan, first persian gulf war, iraq couldn't be declared. there was no time pressure, there was no need for the surprise, there was a long run-up we all read about it in the newspapers for a constitutional war, not national war, not to consider foreign policy in the democracy the war have only been as popular as the presidents who waged them and only state to the custody popular as long as the president's state popular. korea was enormously popular from june of 1950 until the chinese came across. an albatross politically was popular until that offensive and

maybe a little earlier than it can often they would invoke i'm not going to change the policy of the inherited from the president's and so on so there's become a kind of often war think what that does to the soldiers we are finding a conscription on your volunteer army you still have to put your life on the line to kill and to die for your country in a war which has no constitutional authority we all have this image and with every step of a returning vietnam vets i never saw this happen. nevertheless, people came back to the kind of welcome they deserved for the sacrifices being made for the risk they made in good faith for their country because we had these and your regular kind of war. soldiers still lie, soldiers still light today in afghanistan but the country doesn't really

seem to care much anymore about how it ends as long as it ends. why is it that we have come to think of world war ii as a good war. could perhaps be because it is our last properly declared war in the national war under presidential war. in the era where because the nature of our dangers are not coming at us by surprise from other high-tech superpower we can deliberate and debate. we can go back to the constitutional way that worked but let us of our previous war not like our current war. most of the things we've done since 9/11 was a real letup on this country and a real threat, but it didn't -- it wasn't responded to in a way that made us more secure and was responded to in a way that made the terrorism and the more popular

cause in the middle east the diminished a reputation as a law-abiding nation that divided us internally. it has made us more secure and it has made us that a democratic and it doesn't need to continue that way. the emergency state doesn't work. i can harkin on the war power because it is the obvious example but the emergency state is a much bigger package. it's not just there have been books as long as life and in the business about the imperial presidency, the invisible government, the unitary executive and the national security state. a state reaches more broadly. it reaches to a much bigger problem, a problem that was put together for reasons of national security but created structures that have shortchanged of democracy in other areas as well, economic areas the federal budget areas, tax areas.

the we we put together our military budget i work on the new york times analyzing the military budgets each year. much as i would like to say the current budget is about 525 billion regular baseline budget and 80 billion contingency for iraq and afghanistan why we could cut that in half and still be just as safe we could still be just as state spending have that. once you build it you've got a contract out of there and pay a price of terminating those contracts. we have built it up recklessly and we have to build it down carefully. but what is the result of building that recklessly about a decade in the last decade including obama as well as bush. the 30% real increase of the higher defense budgets in real terms and the ronald reagan buildup or during the height of the cold war nuclear concentration. it is part and parcel of actually what is being debated in this presidential campaign.

military spending accounts for roughly 50 cents of every dollar of discretionary federal spending. last year it was the equivalent to one-third of the total federal tax received. we spent 3.2 trillion last year. our taxes were 2.1 trillion, that's why we have a 1 trillion-dollar deficit of 2.1 trillion that came in as taxes 700 billion went out on the military. so what does the public see? doesn't see the bridges that don't fall down, doesn't see the world class health care system, does it see the shorter lines in the social security office? no. it sees the world's most powerful military and the world's biggest budget deficit. it's pointing our system and political debate how can those of us who believe that there is

a place for an activist government in maintaining a safety net and improving the quality-of-life in america make that case when the mass were the numbers to describe. it's for our tax dollars and the most palpable and most visible thing and it's subtracted from the kind of -- i live in your opinion that is not a happy place in. you all read about the euro crisis. they are not getting what they paid for for the bureaucracy about things that are going to be addressed and reformed and the democratic system we have ourselves in a people with our military spending and we are there now and voted for the change we believe and and it can't be done overnight but this is 2012 and we are there now. it is the policy, the emergence the state is and waging without the half a century, and i'm not

saying they kept a sinister secret, but okay, i've been a member of the council foreign relations for 23 years. i go to all the meetings. i read all of the literature, and it's taken its unstated that the underlying strategic purpose of american foreign policy is expanding the base of the market and is global was in the economy, it's promoting not just globalization and free trade, but a very specific brand of the globalization of the free trade. stealing a line from my colleague, tom friedman, i quit the project flat world. it has been designed to make the world flat, and then one day in the mid-1980s will street for its own reasons tilted and all of those high-paying factory jobs slid off somewhere, not here. you heard the echo of this in the state of the union if president obama believes that he

is right the tax incentives and regulatory incentives can bring manufacturing back then it must have been the prior tax and regulatory policy facilitate their departure that the government can act in ways that rebuild our lost industrial base or economic base and let it be something other than the service retail financial sector economy which we have learned the hard way we are going to have to do just not enough jobs for the country with three a third million people and that great a job. if you read the things in "the new york times" about apple production in china, what comes out is what made the late steve jobs. he had to do it in china it wasn't the low wages. we are talking about sophisticated technological equipment which are a fairly small fraction. it's the fact if he wants a new iphone model in six months, he's only got the work force and the infrastructure build up around

china. it's why when the floods in thailand your hard drive doubles and cost. it's the physical location. that used to be the strength of this country. when the midwest was the industrial belt and when the coal and iron and the auto plants to get the railroads and the erie canal and st. lawrence seaway this is the stuff of industrial power, and we have been living under the illusion the past 20 and 30 years old jobs all products are equivalent when they are not and the week of one day and china says sari, we don't want to do that way. we have the power not to and then what is our vaunted power that we've over invested in the military toys and under invested in economic policies? we will get back to the subject. i don't want to get over the simplistic year because economy is a complicated place, but the narrative took the life just

given you is it wrong either. american of the three power is used to spread. i'm going to use the jargon. a word i probably wouldn't use. a neo liberal form of the globalization across the planet. why am i using that particular word to point out the problem is not globalization is the particular form of the globalization. we have chosen to press around the world and confused with the word globalization which who could oppose or stopped the way of the world? but we've chosen a particular form of globalization. the new liberal globalization as i just use it is a war of choice. it's a policy of choice waged against the 99% come paid for by the 99% and waged in their name and a ramp but it fell to their consent. what do i mean by the kneal liberal globalization? briefly a globalization divorced from democracy that the very

opposite of what we embarked on after world war ii the first brentonwood model but built 30 years of upward mobility rising incomes, prosperity at least to the part of the world we used to call trilateral japan, europe and north america is the fact it is only part of the world, but the success didn't depend on the fact it was only part of the bold the trick is to do the same trick for the whole world now that we did. why did the brinton was modeled not produce the new liberal globalization? why did it produce the generalized prosper the lessening of the income disparities? well, one reason is that it was shaped largely by two men. john maynard keynes of the british treasury and harry dexter white of the new deal of the u.s. treasury. they were the architects of brinton what's.

at cannes was a candian reef it's the international system credit from which the imf and world bank and the wto derived. he understood one thing that was crucially important is for the government's to tenderly impose capital controls. why did he need this? living in britain and the united -- and 40's devotee enter war period having been the inventor of the keynesian antirecession stimulus policies, he knew that in a completely financial world with no capital patrol the country that tries the stimulus is a way out of recession would be subjected to the capitol, it would be self-defeating in order to allow the keynesian world he over the objection of the

economic insisted on the capitol control and the ability of the recession to invoke the capitol control. sounds very technical and economist talked but it is the crucial link which allowed the government, democratically elected government in a trilateral world for 30 years to dampen the recession and convergent come to follow the fiscal policies room for that as we see right now as we see right now in europe and the crisis and as we see in a pointless debate whether the obama administration stimulus policies were enough for not enough. in a flat world into a globalized world, the u.s. government still has the capacity to create as much demand as it wants to the tax cuts and government spending it just can't call into being, it can't be sure that the

production as called into being by that command is in the united states. we can be stimulating the chinese and german industry while they free ride and don't have the budget deficits and they look down our nose at us for running the red ink. it is a crucial point. it's not the only crucial point. the other thing about the kneal liberal globalization is it's characterized by the free movement of capital without the free movement of labor. free movement of labor means integration, but it doesn't only mean integration. we call the agreements which constituted free trade agreements, not quite. you don't need 600 pages to write a free trade agreement. you just need there shall be no tariffs and barriers and both countries agree on their existence. 600 pages which remember under the fast-track they don't get to see or debate just vote of or

down. what is in the other 599 pages i will use provocative language to say an undisputed fact in the other 99 pages is the protectionism for the narrow interest groups with the right campaign and lobbies on capitol hill who write the detail of the trade law to congress to deliberate political symbol, intellectual property rules. here i am standing here a writer, and author chongging to sell my book for money talking down the intellectual capital rules. i'm not the electronic foundation. i'm not singing the internet should be free. i'm saying that all the stuff that microsoft and apple and hollywood get written into trade agreement in the name of intellectual property or a protectionist measure for all of us and that former protection allows some flows down dismissals in detroit and cleveland is a sin against the

market. what else? agriculture, not a free trade in the united states. i love the family farm as much as anyone else and i love to drive around the countryside and not see the development of everyone else that has to be to the producers of the specific crop and sugar in the mississippi delta and the business running away with a lot of money and distorting doubled to the agriculture so that countries across the third world, which have comparative the advantages in agriculture can't take advantage of that through the capitol to move up the industrial food chain. that is protectionism. why, as other washington institution, my friend dean baker, asked in his new book in liberalism why is it that american retirees cannot use medicare for medical services abroad? we've got medicare, you can live abroad and get your check abroad

coming to have to come back to the united states. what's that got to do with protectionism? everything to do everything. imagine if an american retirees who had earned medicare could use it for a heart operation from the indian doctors that are here there or in thailand? why can't they? it would make it easier for the retirees. but more important, how often have we heard about our unaffordable entitlements? well, why don't we reduce the cost of it? why do we have to take them back to the protected american ama that is not subjected to the price competition? why isn't that an auto worker or a computer programmer has to face the music of a globalized ways to competition and a doctor doesn't? it doesn't make sense and it distorts our policy and our budget and we never be dated.

as we have protectionism, that's an example of the kneal liberal globalization. so this fast track. i don't know if everybody noticed the shorthand, but starting in about the 60's or 70's it became accepted fact in this town that you couldn't get a trade agreement negotiated with a foreign power of the president had to come back and explain to dealing with congress. so instead, we got into the habit this is an emergency state have it. this is in the constitution says rather clearly that the power to regulate international commerce belongs to the congress but now that congress is expected and pilloried if it doesn't put your hand off to the president blanket authority, fast-track authority to negotiate yield come back and given up or down vote just like the president wants an appointee for 90 days. there is a better case in the

tree the grants, and in a globalized world of the trade agreements have tremendous consequences and the 600 page one tough more tremendous consequences than the one pages. so we go off into a world where trade specialists, trade lawyers, my best friends are trade lawyers that they created a world where all these questions at best have a secret arbitration panel of the wto and elsewhere and they decide just which of the democratic law the congress passes might be pre-empted by the trade agreement and which we might still allow to find and the infamous case that brought this to some people's attention was the marines mammal protection act. the wto practices and a law that can't be changed. it's nothing that can't be negotiated. practice says that when a

commodity inters the international marketplace it is a can of tuna. it doesn't matter if it was made in mexico or the united states. that's good. it doesn't matter if it was made by people forced to work at gunpoint and they're put in jail. that's not so good. it doesn't matter if it was made by a factory whose mission is pouring arsenic into the rivers of mexico or an american company trying to keep the river is clean and abide by the clean water act. that's pretty bad, right? because that means that the worst conditions producer has a competitive said vantage, and even the well-meaning american producer has got to meet that or delay in the marketplace and how we shape our trade law. why can't these decisions be made in the light of day? why can't the united states follow the united states constitution? i quote from the constitution congress has the exclusive power

to regulate commerce. we follow that? a couple minutes. read the book. it's all there. on an bipartisan in this book. we've had 13 presidents since 1940 with six democrats, seven and one party and six in the other. none of them come off very well. there were recognizable differences in parties of the beginning of the period. the republicans were generally a little more fiscally conservative, a little more restrained, for in war. that evaporates and to get into the period of nixon and ronald reagan and they are all pretty much peddling the same forms of emergency state without knowing it. we all signed on to this without knowing it.

when you look at the book i offer a new way of seeing richard nixon. every book has to have a hero and it turns out that richard nixon comes off as a kind of antihero in this book because when richard nixon is elected in 1968 with 43% of the votes the country is in a mess. johnson is waging a war in vietnam which he knows is and winnable what he is afraid to go to people and he is afraid that who lost china and the dinallo or whatever. he can't figure out a way to get out of it. he knows it is hurting america's position in the world and at home and it's hurting the society. he is trapped in the logic and he doesn't know how to get out of it. he is trapped in the logic that began with harry truman and the truman doctrine saying the whole

world faces the choice between the two systems. the whole world did chase defeat could face a choice between the systems. but if you make that the defining element of your foreign policy from 1947 to 1968, you were in a zero sum game. there are only two hours. if the united states admitted there was hurting itself in vietnam and with drew, this goes down on our side up. there are only two sides. in other words, the problem that every politician faces in 1968 was how to liquidate the disaster of the vietnam without accepting the strategic defeat globally in the cold war which would have heard other areas. along comes richard nixon, because he's richard nixon, and he figures it out. first of what was always democrats that got saddled with losing china and never the republicans because richard nixon wasn't there so hit a little freedom of action there to begin he realized that what was the clock running out on him

domestically was the draft, the all volunteer army. richard nixon is too smart to think that a war that is 500,000 americans and into because the vietnamese were losing it would suddenly be successful as he put the vietnamese back but it was buying time. he was lying political space and what he did with it, how much -- hauer early he came up with it, it became a zero some trap. suddenly he can do it. you can step back in vietnam and not have the victory in the soviet union so it's not the hold of richard nixon. it's not all the things he did. it's not the plumbers, it's not the paranoia, but as i say, we look at history from the vantage point of our own time and this is an interesting fact if you're looking at the years in the

emergency state to see how richard nixon fits into this picture. and then like a tragic hero he is of course done in by his paranoia by his secret government by trying to plug the pentagon papers by the well-known fact. a new way also of looking at the 1970's and 1970's the emergency state -- the 1970's for those of you old enough to have any memory of the 1970's was a painful time whether we are talking about the last final days of richard nixon, the saturday night live presidency of gerald ford, the cardigan sweaters and the hostages of jimmy carter, even the music wasn't very good by then. but, from the vantage point of 2012, things had gotten so bad they were almost starting to get good.

the people were so convinced they were leading them down the wrong path that they put heat on their elected representatives. suddenly the need of people in both parties to get reelected in this atmosphere made congress to wait for its representative van winkle sweep past the war power act and start having some scrutiny over the cia and was really hard. it is really hard to get control of the american state and was really hard to try to construct it better in the international monetary trade system and come to grips with changing the economic reality in the world. and then we stop, and we might have stopped just because it was so hard and lawyers were not burning our feet and we got tired and we might have stopped because ronald reagan came along and told us we didn't have to do that, that it was morning in america again and that everything would be fine and just the shoot right to the end,

ronald reagan and i am in the middle of reassessing ronald reagan. when i see bruce bartlett in and larry koret and other distinguished members in the administration say such intelligent things about the policy mystic today, i realize what's not make a cartoon out of the ronald reagan administration was different things we can learn but unfortunately, but the successor candidates and presidents learned from ronald reagan is don't make jimmy carter's mistake and say our energy addiction is a problem and we have to decide we're going to be a democracy or a power in the middle east. just keep smiling and saying we can do anything and there you go again. clinton and bush and obama, all the differences, we are living in an electoral democracy of the ronald reagan presidential template and the primary is looking to grab that template and obama says i have it over

here. >> surely there is a question. was that controversy? >> we for the microphone. >> you can picture i don't disagree with it almost sounds like you are over with ron paul as the only solution. >> ron paul says a lot of smart things. if he were -- ron paul is a significant constitutionalist but libertarian and he would send the police into the bedroom on various issues. to be honest here at the rallies

if i want america to start debating these issues i have to be happy that ron paul has raised them and got in the response he's gotten particularly from young people. i think he has to be allowed in debate i think it is healthy for him to be in the the date whatever he's doing now in the romney santorum maneuver. >> i have a question. what about the national security about the lack of violence as a public good and it's an international public a good and with the u.s. has decided to do in pursuing the public good which is usually costly and in the 70's we would expand at to the human-rights which is another public good, and i feel

like maybe ronald reagan and people since then have decided we can't afford everything let's just focus on one tangible and you are suggesting maybe even giving up paying for the public good now. >> you can't do everything. you can't afford to do everything. i think the public peace is public good. it's a collective public good. it's something that the united states should aspire not to unilaterally deliver to people whether they ask for it or not. but you operate in the international arena as it sort of in perfectly did in the libya episode to mobilize the international forces. it is our tradition. we slipped into saying in the beginning of afghanistan

rumsfeld was very explicit. they were offering to help. we want our forces, we trust our forces let us do it, you go in the quiet area i have an article coming out in the journal that takes on this very question which is to say i'm not an isolationist. i think devotee unfortunately named in turn nationalism is not the only kind of internationalism on order and it can be a bitter internationalism. it can be the internationalism more worthy of lust takes on things like the millennium of political which affects billions of lives, billions of children. there's the more posture on the global warming from the biggest proportion of energy. i think that had, you know, we can't do everything.

no parent has succeeded in leaving. united states didn't try to do everything for the emergency state. it always understood the debates are always about where the interests stop, where does it become collective and where is it someone else's responsibility and by the u.n. as the league of nations, the unilateral sought appointment to do everything keeps us from doing anything well keeps us from multiplying our force by attracting our national allies to decide by beating and a more collegial and collective action and i'm not pretending they don't of national understand there are not jealousy and it's always the target in the rest of it. i'm just saying it can be doing a lot better than we are and the first step is to set the priorities and say here we are in the world now the richest people in the world the richest nation in the world, the richest

nation of the world's history, the most formidable military power with the global reach. how do we want to use our lives, our treasure to make this a better world for us to live in and others to live and to protect our democracy which is a work in progress. >> i was wondering about the emergency things like i saw once on this alternative newspaper somebody was saying a building collapsed and was still standing and people were saying there was dynamite there's a show called coast to coast on the stock

hits, but do you necessarily believe everything that people might say about september 11th 2001 about the government, like people say the conspiracy. >> trust but verify. as a journalist i'm willing to listen to things. i want to see evidence behind. i've lived too long to see accepted versions of things, by camelot for example later camelot was and what we thought it was. i've not seen evidence that makes me feel it was radically different. what was staring us in the face is our government failed on 9/11

we had the intelligence failures coming in and the policy response to the coming out. that is the area of my special expertise. that is what we focus on. why do our governments fail us? how can we make sure our government is less likely to feel as in the future because things like that can happen in the future. what can we learn about how people slip through the cracks on 9/11? what can we learn that was wrong about the way we went to war in iraq and afghanistan? what's learn and prepare for the future. i have no reason to believe it unless i have with evidence to believe and so far i don't. journalism is an imperfect field but, you know, it's one rule of thumb that gets us through every day is if there is a relatively simple and straightforward explanation that doesn't have a lot of holes in that, don't go looking for more complicated

ones. it may be a mistake. stat i wonder if you have a sense that time is running out to deal with our problems. >> no, i mean, i'm an optimist. what i am saying here is american constitutional democracy still works. the good sense of the american people are still there. we should listen to it more often. and yes, it's true we have got more people on a less sustainable planet than ever before in the global temperatures are rising. we don't seem to be headed in the right and direction for a lot of things. but as long as we live, as long as they are out to sell this book and talk about it here, there is a reason for hope. i don't think it is too late. i have not written a gloomy inevitable decline of the west

to read the book calling for the revitalization of the energy and the spirit that i know in this country from living here and having seen in better moments. >> professor unger, former student. right now i read the every day that china lends more money to africa than the imf does, and this buys them access to resources that fuels their economy, and a lot of their economies are bankrupt. some people are calling it a new form of authoritarian capitalism or state capitalism. and i wanted your opinion on how that is me before the next era of the emergency state will we see a combination of the military emergency and also an economic emergency where, like stalin and bin laden, the chinese way of business isn't exactly playing by the rules.

spec i think we ought to give a lot more thought to china than we usually do. by teeing resources i don't know the growing economy that didn't do that. in part got to world war i and in the sense world war ii because the japanese oil embargo by the sense that the countries had to lock that up at the expense of other countries that they couldn't trust the market to make it ever available. like iran saying you said we could get our uranium globally but he put the sanctions on and we have to develop our own capacity which isn't to say the the behavior is innocent or good. it's not dangerous. but it is to say that it's interactive, which is the scramble for resources is competitive in the zero some and the chinese oil company is not allowed to buy chevron if they

are not allowed to be sold for the national security reasons. who can be surprised when china goes and makes its own rules when it can't. what worries me most about china and africa isn't that. there are enough resources for all. the r and china itself. what bothers me about china and africa is that all of the imperfect efforts that the non-and chinese donor nations have created to create some kind of performance guideline and anti-corruption transparency guidelines, melanie and development guide lines, putting the money to good use is rendered worthless if china feels let's grab a pariah. the iranians are a pariah. they need us. they can't say no. we will give them the aid no strings attached whether anybody else can attach their strings.

that is a collective good, too and we have to find a better way to deal with it than our own virtue to assist the chinese when they go a different way. two minutes, please. >> plight, professor. it's great to see you again. my question is a follow-up on the last one. do you feel the rise of china will be used to perpetuate the emergency state? >> it would be hard to have watched the january 6th national defense strategy roll out and not feel that way. >> the was the first part of your talk. the second part is the trade imbalance, the manipulation charges. it seems like a sort of speaks to both of the things you talked about tonight. >> it does. what worries me to get more specific on the issue at hand on gentry six, essentially one way watching what obama and leon panetta and dempsey said on january 6th is no more.

we are not going to make that mistake again. we are going to wind goes down and spend a dividend building of another part of the world against a chinese threat which at this moment militarily is hypothetical and which perhaps building up would make and encourage the chinese to respond in the same way with an arms race. what scares me as someone who has analyzed the defense budget for 20, 25 years is that a lot of the things we buy that or most wasteful for the war we actually fight only makes sense with a high-tech enemy and the soviet union in the cold war stealth fighter jets, nuclear attack submarines etc.. they made no sense for people that live off the land that are non-state and operate or anything like that. they are useless. and we use those war despite the investment and all the wrong things. these are the profits of the

military industry, and we know that they haven't liked what congress and the president has been handing them in the way of cutting the trolley and often it in your budget. the only response would be the legitimate national strategy that says we have to build up against the high-tech. the information is classified. i can't tell you what we know or don't know about china and the south china sea, tie on, anti-ship missiles. i'm not saying it isn't justified. i'm just saying, incidentally iraq and afghanistan that didn't work over now we are going to send that money repositioning ourselves in australia in the philippines and singapore against a not yet visible chinese threat i see before you go down the expense of path

producing the budgetary imbalances, shall be a little more of that of evidence. >> david could go on and he does in this book. thank you very much for coming and please, pull up your chair to help the staff. >> clashes between afghan troops and protesters angry over the burning of the muslims u.s. military base have left at least seven people dead. we will hear from the pentagon next on c-span2. then a forum on cybersecurity legislation impleader author white people in particular by

using that phrase black power because when they use that word or that phrase it made many people think that black power meant destruction, the statue of liberty it wasn't about to destroy america it was about rebuilding america and having the new paradigm, to deal with each and every one when we were going to elementary school and junior high school in the land and free and the home of the brave. we all want to be great americans but as young athletes, we find some or broken we want to take time to evaluate and then take our initiative to fix

now an update from the pentagon on afghanistan and the burning of the kurans. it sparked protests across afghanistan. this briefing is about one hour. >> good morning ladies and gentlemen, good morning, sir. sorry for the slight delay. sorry for the slight delay. we are going to add just a little bit. we are pleased to have the general with us this morning. we will let you know that the tail end of the spokesman coming in to give us a short operational update in afghanistan today. so again, my great pleasure to

introduce to you again because the major general david is joining us again in the briefing room. he was last with us on the eighth of december but at that particular time we had some technical difficulties so we are going to keep our fingers crossed that the technical difficulties do not jump in and get us this time. general hook is the director of the force reintegration, the position he has held since october of last year from october of 2008 to october of 2009 he served as the deputy commander of the regional command south. following his opening remarks, we will take your questions and with that, sir, i don't want to delete any further. over to you. >> okay. thank you. and good morning, ladies and gentlemen and for attending today. as you have just heard, and

let's hope we don't have the same problems as we have on the eighth of december with my opening remarks in the connectivity dropped out. i'd like to cover a few points on the afghanistan peace and the integration program. we emphasize some of the key points i made on the eighth of december. and then i will open up. the aprp is a peace program that has been designed, implemented and executed by the afghans this makes the program powerful in afghanistan and is one of its main strengths. the program is implemented at a local level, but directed that coordinated the national level. so the crucial work of negotiating and reaching out to the insurgents, taking them through the demobilization process, and finally the integrating them into their communities is that the district and dillinger level by the afghan and for afghans.

the aprp is a nationwide afghan program. it provides insurgents with an opportunity to peacefully end permanently leave the battlefield and rejoin their communities with their dignity and honor intact. it is not a surrender program, nor is it an amnesty program for nor is it an amnesty program for the criminal behavior. any counterinsurgency strategy includes the non-military solution that reaches out to the insurgents with the goal of peaceful reintegration where everyone benefits. this program ambitiously seeks to deliver peace at the very local level. a cornerstone of this local approach is the resolution of grievances that led people to fight or become insurgence in the first place. it's accepted that the overwhelming majority of those fighting in the south and other areas are fighting for the mom

ideological reasons. it becomes clear then that addressing the grievances can call them back into society. the aim of the aprp is to build trust and confidence among people who've been fighting the government and each other for far too long. therefore in that and let peace program supported by the united nations is central to success. i always think is worth remembering that this program is relatively new and has been running only since october 2010. to date nearly 3,100 former insurgents have officially enrolled into the program. let me again bestow a few myths surrounding aprp. insurgents are not paid to stop fighting. we integrating is provided a transitional allowance of $120 per month for three months to

meet the needs of their families while the undertake the disengagement training. previous programs sought to pay insurgence to stop fighting and the field. furthermore, within a the aprp, the free and degrees are not from prosecution. the decision to prosecute is made on a case by case basis by the afghan government. the program is for insurgents only who have taken up arms against the government and people of afghanistan, not for common criminals aprp doesn't allow compromise on human rights particularly women's rights. they must renounce violence, cut links to terrorist organizations, accept the constitution and respect the rights of minorities. reintegration is in an essential

element in the comprehensive counterinsurgency campaign being implemented by the commander general allan. unrelenting pressure on the insurgents from the surge have given them the to traces, be killed or captured. every integration that gives a third choice, peacefully leave the battlefield with honor and dignity intact and rejoin society as a productive member of the communities. it fits in as a pillar of the campaign. i mentioned in my opening remarks of the eighth of remarks of the eighth of december that we saw all conditions that are giving momentum. first, the surge has had a deleterious effect on the capability of the insurgency on the battlefield. physically, mentally and psychologically the surge has impacted upon the insurgents, some when they come and say they have become tired of fighting

and they are exhausted with the fight. second, the international conferences such as istanbul and looking forward to chicago and tokyo demonstrate international and internal political support for the aprp. the traditional took place in december altogether 2,300 afghans from across the nation, and the clearly expressed support for peace and reintegration and then took that message back to their communities. the third element is the increased capacity of the program itself. the original left and goal was to have the program framework established and operational in the provinces with a thousand free and degrees by october, 2011. today, aprp is present in 28 of the provinces of afghanistan, and as i said earlier come over

3,000 have come into the program significantly exceeding or would consider the challenging expectations at the start of the program. there are still issues to be addressed to the afghans are fixing the issues as they arise. make no mistake, the program is working. the final component is the winter effect on fighting afghanistan. many traders are dislocated from their leaders and they've left afghanistan for the winter. so they are tired of all when the surge, but with the insurgent leadership fighting in the relative safety and comfort of pakistan and the others do their fighting. their fighting. ..

the high-level taliban talk with the u.s. and the afghan government on reintegration? the nike trying number of issues coming to let me take them in the order you prefab or u.s. the question. first of all, i don't see the number in quite the way they do

you have a cheeky they did it. for me, the key is getting the key individual off the battlefield. it is about focusing on those individuals that are perhaps made to low-level leaders who are driving. so the numbers are important, it's actually about the effect of taking key individuals off the battlefield. the second element and it's fair to say it would cause a great to say it would cause a great deal of confusion in the insurgency and they are wondering if you and i would if we were fighting somewhere in afghanistan but is going on with the leadership. the leadership seems to be looking to make a deal. they're involved in some sort of talks. it's not quite clear who would do. but as i said was the one surfactants removed from their leadership. they are wondering if they are

being sold down the river. so yes we are seeing some difference to the organization. be back real quick, if the issue is getting me to low-level people off the battlefield, where does that rank and what percentage of fat in the 3100 figure? because it was difficult how to understand how to interpret the 3100 number doesn't tell the whole story. b. mike were talking about 20 to 25% who come in at mid-those of the leaders and i think it is important to recognize that what we tend to seize individuals to come in. what we see as the leader of the group generally between five and 25 conmen and brings in with

them. so both mid-level to low-level leaders coming off the battlefield and people in because the leadership as they do not delivers the effect we want, which is the leadership of the fighters at that level. asked they say, i sometimes worry that there's too much of a fixation on the numbers. the fact is bringing in people to deliver peace and those individuals going back to the local communities once that occurs peace being delivered at a local level, the trick were trying to pull off is to understand the broader impact of those coming in. and it's quite a difficult thing to measure. if i could put it in context, i talk about the effects of the surge, the psychological effect it's had on the insurgency. those people have commanded that has had an impact in some areas on the nature of the fighting in those areas.

those areas. it is not necessarily just that that constitute peace in the area where it occurs. but we try to understand is the relationship between the search, and the people who want to give up in a tight enough and the people who are reintegrating. searches more than understanding 3120 across the nation of factors and deconstruct in which bit is contributing to a safer environment to the area where it's occurring. >> my question is that the programs you have now is what can you have this program working fully with that pakistan because i'm the one hand pakistan is our and in on the

other hand it is not in the u.s. and finally, u.s. come in 80 and afghanistan are fully gauged what this program. so what is the future of the program? >> that's a very good question. but what i would address that is i roll and purporting general allen and reporting the reintegration takes place within the boundaries of afghanistan. it is not to look outside at this afghanistan's country. i think he would acknowledge based on the recent that has taken place in afghanistan pakistan and american politicians in particular because they've made it clear that there needs to be efforts put into both sides of the border. but in my particular role, i focus on those people citing the

boundaries of afghanistan. the key for me hints and the point about pakistan come 80% to 90% they fight with never leave afghanistan. if i could achieve a perfect outcome that would give us 90% of the purpose to reintegrate, the 10% that with a set of afghanistan could become much less important for the campaign. focusing on those fighting within the country, if i could get them to come in reintegrate template to insurgency it makes afghanistan a safer and more place. >> just a quick follow, what to say now that the mood is concern say now that the mood is concern for the government of afghanistan is considering with

president carter's day. do you think they have more confidence in the government of afghanistan or president karzai? >> i tend to focus on what afghans think about the peace and reintegration program and all of the polling that we've taken as a loss suggests that there has been increasing there has been increasing acceptance by the afghan population for reintegration to actually occur. i'm very heartened by the fact that the afghan population won't read creation to work to make a more peaceful afghanistan. and that is the area i focus on, trying to explain and help the afghan government explain to the afghan people why this program is important here that message seems to be working. if we go back to my opening remarks, i mentioned the

traditional jurkovic to lease in november, and the 2300 afghans that came together from across the whole country, they came away with a very solid understanding of what the program is trying to deliver, but also at that consult the message across afghanistan with the peace in our integration as a way of delivering a safer and better afghanistan for everybody. >> general otto kreis -- trent >> general otto kreis -- trent greek, you said these are insurgents and the past and the past in identifying those kinds of people. so what is the screen type of. i'll let you go it that one.

>> when people are in to join the program and make an attention to reintegrate started the process there's a very comprehensive bidding process that takes place. sound occurred very early in the program in the process has been properly established. it takes place at two levels now and the government uses this process to assure his thought that the people they are looking into the program are actually bona fide insurgents. what happens is that an individual comes in, he feels that a series of betting forms at the provincial level with the provincial structure that best provincial joint secretary things. once the forms are filled out, they are vetted locally by the national director of security, afghan national police, provincial peace committee and also the provincial governor. once they are happy that those

individuals are bona fide or insurgents, the process then this to kabul during coop or they are checked nationally and the same organization and the national defense of india at the kabul level and the high peak council all check as well. the reason their checks at both levels is early in the program their people entering the program with the vetting process was the right. they were not being fêted at both levels, but there were people that into the program in its early stages. many people have now been prevented and there's a very good example of how this process is quite rigorous. very early in the program, 231 reenter reintegrate came into the program. does he look him in before the

vetting process was established. they have now been resided at 190 have not been allowed to enter the program because the vetting process has identified that they are not bona fide insurgents. the key thing here is that it is the afghan government differences to a vetting process in the afghan government decides who should and should not enter the program. from my days, when i advise general allen, i am confident this is a robust system that meets the requirement to address the very issue that you raised. >> in the past when some of these people came into the reintegrate it and supposedly left because they were getting jobs. they work really except it had no way supporting the families, so they went back to the site. are you seeing any of that now or is there a way you can make sure these people have a long-term stability and a

community? >> you trot out a very important issue, which is a problem early in the program again. it's worth putting them in context if a name. this program and it was set up was being designed, led and executed simultaneously said the concept was put in place before all of the structures were built. and that led to some of these problems early on. if we've been hyping this discussion six or nine months ago, i would've been arguing or defending some of the failings of the system. i think most of the failings have now been washed out by the progress being made in the last 14 months. turning to your specific question, effectively about recidivism, let me talk about the individual first when he comes in. when an individual comes any

expense to the transitional assistance. and the three-month company does effectively demobilization training and the 120 transitional assistance is calculated by the afghan government for a man to feed a family of six in kabul during the period he was going to demobilization training. they deal with this program is once you get to the end of demobilization, he becomes a normal citizen of afghanistan and beyond that, there is no promise that you individually will be rewarded. this is where you see the power of an afghan design is done. the program focuses on the village that except the reintegrate that good when he goes back to his community and it's going to the process of demobilization, he asks his community for forgiveness as well as going through the vetting process. the community in 1990% of cases except the individual back and

they then become together in the passion code to the individual asks for forgiveness and the community has said yes and they community has said yes and they accept ownership of the individual. the individual has been accepted back and then forgive and said he now is just as well for his behavior to the community. so once you get to the point where the individual has been through three months of demobilization training, he is locked into his community by this honor code within passion wally. where this program is extremely clever as if a community accepts the individual back, the community benefits. there are tiers of grants. we've been to tears at in a prt, $25,000. tier two is $200,000. in communities that except individuals back can ask for a grant to improve the community. the deal is that when the

individual who is reintegrate it becomes part of the community and the community gets the grant, the work provided, some of the individuals who work on the program are actually reenter greece. the 50% to 75% of the local community and again the individual and community together in a way that actually makes recidivism incredibly low. today, we are actually tracking between five and seven that we have identified a properly reset event and another 20 to 25 to rethink might be. we passed the nds to identify the spirit and a program like this, 30 out of 3100 is an incredibly low number and it comes back to the design of the program, which is all about looking the individual and community together and not rewarding the individual. again as i said in my opening

remarks, najibullah when he tried to run a program like this paid individuals to step fighting. as soon as the money set going, individuals impact of fighting and that is why this country descended into chaos shortly after. >> my name is carl osgood. i read your review. could you tell us more about your role in this assessing how much support does isaf provide today's and what are the prospects of the program being able to continue without isaf support should the time come? >> if i may, i'll take those questions in reverse. one of the things that is very powerful about that program as it is designed, led and implemented by the afghan spears of attack of the transition

never be a program because it is currently owned, designed and run by afghans themselves. so in my view that gives great resilience and makes it much more likely to run off. in terms of isaf support, we provide support a number of levels. i work with ministers sanna five. you have choice secretary who runs the technical implementation of the program and i see probably two or three times a week and we talk about the things that he is trying to do, where he isaf help. an example would be when we are connecting biometric enrollment at reenter greece. isaf can help you getting biometric teams to the right place quickly. that is one example of where we can expedite the process. throughout the rest of the integration, my deputy works with the deputy minister of the program and the various branches

i have mirrored the branches that operate within the joint secretary. so i have an operations branch that helps the operation branch of the joint secretary and a programs branch helps with the delivery of full grants. we have a very close relationship and was a joint secretary is looking at some capacity and i come back to this is quite a young program, we provide some extra capacity to help develop ideas, but ultimately, the ideas are always behest of the afghan in the afghans themselves then take the work that we've done an afghan exodus happened at night it is very dear implemented in the way they want. >> two of our questions on iran. >> have used the word the portion of the formal and many

fighting forests represents quite >> i don't tend to look at it as i said earlier that the figures. i see it to a different mechanism. 3100 or the number of people fully enrolled in the program, but in many respects the more important thing is taking away grievances people are fighting for. one of the things that is clear because many people are fighting for non-ideological reasons. you not only remove the individual from the battlefield, but you also make it less likely someone will generate behind you because of a grievance. there was a recent example where provincial peace committee negotiate a solution to a tribal

dispute running for 30 years had taken over 150 lives. now if that wasn't directly related to the insurgency, it should live in a more peaceful environment through negotiation and grievance resolution, which is why at the start i talked about grievance resolution being an important component of the program. >> do you have an estimate of how many fighters there are a year? year? >> i can, as i said, that's not the way i look at this, to challenge. if you think of the insurgency is able to regenerate based on grievances, taking individuals off the battlefield means that you are not going to reduce research and see.

it is an important part of general allen's approach to integration, which is about taking away the causes of the site and delivering peace through a mechanism that doesn't involve killing people in general allen himself has had an idea exothermic answers so you can't tell you a true success in counterinsurgency campaign. you need an internal settlement in the communities. so delivering that design for peace and love the taking of a grievance means that the numbers become less important, but the peace effect becomes more pronounced. >> how much have you reduced the size of the insurgency then by this combination of people are of reintegrating and removing grievances and sauce?

>> that may give you an example of where this was extremely well. it is the province with the largest number over 800. and when that was the governor about 10 weeks ago, he said before the reintegration program, he was unable to travel within 10 to 20 kilometers outside of the provincial capital. her integration having been successful in having brought people and, he now feels comfortable driving around 80% of this province. the challenge for us is to deliver the same effect throughout afghanistan and we're looking at ways of letting the last sentence applied more broadly. it's not a question of numbers although there's been a significant number of people who have come in. it is about taking those people off the battlefield and having them resettle in the community

and the peace occurring in the buffalo spreading. >> courteney tv from nbc news. can you explain what we meant by saying there are 20 to 25 people that she think might be receptive this? but does that mean? are they missing? or committed some crimes? what exactly do you mean by that? the five to seven you said you are tracking five to seven recidivists. what is the status they've been arrested? these people have been investigated to the insurgency. so we have clear evidence have gone back to the site.

there are vocalize trip towards being investigated. but we find is when we examined the case of recidivists, that there are some where individuals have a grudge and and then spread rumors they have gone back. so we have 20 to 25 as i say being investigated by the nds. we tried our own channels to understand where they are and what they are doing. it goes back to it happens at the end of the localization. you become at the end a candidate demobilization of a citizen of afghanistan. if you decide not to work in one of the programs that has been established, we do not firmly checked those individuals because they are just normal citizens and that is why we are not 100% sure of the number. not 100% sure of the number. >> general haut, we are

extremely grateful you spent part of your evening with us here in the pentagon briefing room. we are grateful you are able to do a repeat performance after the last time in her technical difficulty. the thank you for coming back it would now now like to transition to general jakobson appears that there's going to be a seed swap their income pool, so i was so they've read the introduction the next preferred is that technical swapout takes place and we would get into that very shortly. again fair, thank you for joining us this evening. >> thank you very much. you look at how the swapout birds peered per second refers the isaf spokesman, brigadier

carson is asked to join the sunni to provide an operational update of the situation in afghanistan that was an important topic for you beyond the topic that general haut just discussed with us. who obviously makes an entry that jury remarks at the update and then we will turn it over to questions for you. so we will take this path until we see general jacobs had come upon the screen and then i'll just do a very weak introduction of him as we continue. and i think for most of you, if you haven't gotten a note to sun has been able to schedule this, we have canceled this morning's gaggle. so this will be your news event for the day. so thank you. >> good evening.

i have just briefed the pentagon press corps of our next step is a part of this briefing. as i said, a german army general prior to this assignment he was the chief of staff of the german army forces command. he asserted in his current capacity as the isaf is june the 2011. this was his first time during messier and the the pentagon briefing room but hopefully it won't be the last. so we are grateful that i'm very short notice, you are able to join us and also with thanks to the oaks on the other end that made the seed swap or general hooks to you. so graceful and effective. we will no forget they did turn up the camera so we didn't see any of it. so over to you, sir. >> well, good morning to washington. just on the brink of cherry

blossom and it's good to be back because i was with you from 2001 until 2005. can you hear me loud and clear? >> out in clear. i think we lost voice. good morning from kabul to is your day now we had an unfortunate that yesterday at agra bear plays were isaf probably disposed of some religious materials, which we believe included current. as soon as we learned of this mistake, we stop this action in general allen quickly initiated an investigation to discover how and why you have to this incident was completely unintentional. unintentional. the two is inadvertently given

to troops for burning. the decision to bring the material had nothing to do with it being religious in nature are related to islam. it was a mistake. today, an afghan delegation joins the investigation of bob graham as we want to be as transparent as possible in determining how this incident occurred. we are deeply concerned about the possibility that chiron's religious materials were damaged in this incident and we look at the bottom of what actually happened. isaf has complete respect for the reverend in which the coronas held. we are very serious about making certain that if someone failed to follow our rules, they will be held accountable. last night, general allen issued a new direct to your head all forces in afghanistan will complete training and the proper handling of religious materials,

no later than the third of march. the training will include identification of religious materials with significance for handling and storage. general allen and isaf began in syria policies for any thing syria policies for any thing this may have cause to the present of afghanistan, governments of islamic outlook of afghanistan and most importantly to the noble people of afghanistan. and with that, i would not be ready for a few questions. >> general, you said that disposed of had nothing to do with religion or islam, yet we were told that those folks are taken out because they were extremist in nature. i'm trying to understand how they had no relation to islam. and secondly, can you tell me is

that detainees who were passing messages to each other were actually writing in the crimes themselves, were they writing on the spokes, is that either koran specifically reset for disposal? >> well, i will start the second part 1. we have it at any proof of that yet and that is a vital part of the investigation ongoing, to make sure they are as open as possible and that cited material was was hindered to islam at 30 strata after the incident occurred and why an afghan delegation is taking part in the investigation we had this afternoon. that is one of the questions that have to be answered to basically become down to why was this material so that date. i was selected to be destroyed,

then given to soldiers who actually brought it to the detention facility. they are as brought to being burned to to be anything needed and the local workers at the facility discovered what type of material applies. it was just material driven from the soldiers point for destruction. the work is immediately interfered. that was part the charred and we have seen carranza partly charred. it is part of the investigation that we find out what was the material and the reason for the decision to dispose of it. who gave the orders, how did the material timecode to the pit and what actually happened at the current pair? that is the investigation that will come out very shortly. >> just one quick follow. was the entire library timeout

or just send selected material? >> while it was a considerable amount of material. i cannot say before you see the result of the investigation if it was an entire package coming from one place or how it was collect it. the material that was at the time secured straight away by the workers who repair and partly very quickly looked after by islamic authorities at the location. it is part of the investigation to look into where does the material that can come to my location, what was the reason for the decision used for any other purpose than what type of material was at? the thing that has moved more than anything is that carranza amongst the material and

carranza barroso and the fire, said this is what is lined to the unrest we have seen over the last 48 hours. >> i am not sure i understand the part of this was inadvertent. was it an uncertain that the religious materials were taken out of the same? over is that a deliberate decision? or was it just an inferred mayor came to the troops for disposal? or inadvertent and that the troops then took them to the current pair? >> well, the mistake i'm talking about the mother obviously all aware about the grave implications and in particular when it comes to mishandling iran's was made somewhere down

the line and that is what has to be found out in the instigation. who basically fails to discover the quality of the materials and who basically told soldiers to dispose of it in an improper way. it is part of the order that left the headquarters yesterday signed by general allen and how to handle and how two-story islamic materials to increase the awareness and know what is inside a library can do what is the facility from what is the title of the material to the to the correct decision and to not take these decisions unanimously , but to always ask for cultural when it comes to questions like this. somewhere down the spine plays the mistake made and that too general allen immediately coming forward yesterday morning and

apologizing in the wake of a sudden in my initial statement would basically have to wait for the investigation on what went wrong. >> those orders were issued yesterday. while were at the time of the incident the standing order for the handling of his latest material? >> wow, when it comes to dealing with religious material, we have the normal procedures that all nations of the coalition are doing in their pre-deployment training and once on the planet. we have of course for all nations, all 15 nations that form isaf regulations are very rarely deal with pre-deployment training and culture awareness. let us not forget that 50

nations are actually muslim nation and when it comes to the city of kabul where he had unrest today actually in a vital part of responsibility for the city. so there is a number of safety and cultural advisors on all levels and all installations, which of course in situations like his are sent in went wrong. some of the security didn't work and some worry decision was made that was highly inappropriate and brought us into a situation, which is very delicate and what we have to do in the coming hours is trying to calm the situation closely together with the government of afghanistan on violence we've seen today in demonstrations because we are very, very aware on how culturally sensitive this section has been.

>> general jacobson, from bloomberg news. can you tell us a little more about the investigation. how many afghans are involved and are they from a police unit or from an army unit or their government agent the quiet and how many coalition forces are involved in that? have even you been given any advice about the afghan authorities on what the coalition needs to do to try to alleviate concerns inflaming the violence as a result of this? >> we have obviously been in close contact with the number of ministries breaching from the ministry to the security

ministries, mot, national department of security and ministry of the interior and it is basically the ministry of the interior that forms the afghan part of the delegation that looked into the case today. there were other dioceses they are. it was a mixed delegation. i cannot at the moment defeat the number of the members in this delegation. we expect them back and the sad thing and expect to come up with this statement as soon as we are aware of the materials found at the documentation done and actually with the findings were this'll take the coming hours and we hope by early morning we will come out with a very clear statement on what we see as happened on the ground. >> general, i wonder if you could elaborate more on the

cultural and religious sensitivity training receiver for deployment and after deployments and how that differed from a general allen has ordered? >> was general allen ordered yesterday tos specifically with the consequences that have been withdrawn out of this incident command is somewhere in the train of command or rate down to the personnel to dispose and someone did not recognize importance and materials which right from the beginning should right from the beginning should have put the involvement as culture devices and translators on every level. we have afghan workers at this. the training of the deployment

are regulated by the contributing nations, but beyond the standards of cultural awareness. we have considerable number of coalition and working together on daily basis of afghans. the coalition would be 3000 national security forces who were going out sometimes in the most extreme situations and conditions. we are quite confident of pre-deployment are sufficient. in this case, we've seen the mistake and in this case we've seen misjudgment misjudgment. and this case we have seen what should have happened and what should have been guided, work items should have been asked for it not happening on that led to this tragic mistake.

by attaching the carranza, obviously a mistake that has considerable consequences in particular here in afghanistan and we've seen that with the demonstration over the last 48 hours. >> do you know if those religious materials had extremeness content and that was the reason to remove them from the light airy and to bring them? >> what you've heard about this report and obviously that is one of the contents of the investigation that was ordered. we have defined it would lead to the decision of what was the chain then followed.

who said what. this has to be all destroyed or whatever that led to the transport of material to the burn paid. that was too late into the reason for the decision and that will include looking at materials that was secured and in that respect, like in every other respect it is good that the majority of the material has been secured. what was actually the reason for this? was a leaflet or including leaflet that past inflammatory material? was a pamphlet? and how did carron come into this inactivity of that was then taken to the burn paid? so these are the questions we have to answer. these are the questions the investigation team took them and share with them and this is that we are looking forward to comment on as soon as we cope eons what is available.

eons what is available. >> center, quick follow-up. she and other materials that have been marked? >> again, that is something we can find out when we hear the report. the important thing is we do now and we do see that carranza or at least chart, so do we see not only improper treat of crimes, but also we were amongst the material delivered for burning. we have to look at how much was under fire. we have to talk to the local workers who actually intervened and took the material out. i have seen the reports today that a worker is coming forward saying he actually burned his hand by pulling material out and saving it. that is part of the question.

it was an amount delivered as normal material for destruction by soldiers who had given the orders and somewhere down the chain as i said earlier someone did not realize how delicate and how sensitive and important has materialized and how much it needed to be at least in conversation was cochaired by this and what to do and how to dispose of what and what procedure with the would have to be. a mistake was made because the mistake was made and because of the gravity of the mistake on the general allen came forward so quickly yesterday and immediately took the action that led for the orders that were passed out yesterday. >> haik argento. courtney qb from nbc news could i understand everything as a mentor is under investigation.

many of us here yesterday were told that carranza darty been desecrated and prisoners for writing. very simply, yes or no. is that your understanding that these koreans may have been bitten and i prisoners used as a conduit to send messages between one another? i notice under investigation. is it your understanding that was one of the reasons they may have been separate destruction? 's >> i cannot give you a yes or no on this question because i do have to see what results of the investigation is. that is exactly why the investigation went up and why the material was secured on the spot. and observation of islamic authority and that is exactly why it is a process we did today, together with the afghan sites to start any speculations

that might lead to the wrong conclusion. if i could give you yes or no, it would make things a little easier for us. it would not change situation on the streets, have to be very careful in what we do, what we say and what we look at. this is a very sensitive subject that we have to be exactly clear on what we're found, what were the reasons for decisions taken in has to be done together with the afghans. so yes or no at this present moment is not possible. >> of sars situation on the street, can you tell us just simply what it is you are seeing their? how many afghans have been injured or killed in the protest injured or killed in the protest to dad and what areas you see the most outraged in the country? >> well, let me quickly summarize the events over the

last hour. what we have seen yesterday was an immediate demonstration, namely outside the detention facility. the numbers were around her that she 2000 demonstrators. there were attempts to answer the facility. there were some fires, generally overall not a very violent demonstration, but when it came to the near penetration of the facility, we have seen the helicopters and players that came from the helicopters and we've seen the use of alerts yesterday. all demonstrations ended and dispersed yesterday evening. there are also small demonstrations in kabul. today we have seen a small demonstration outside the power and detention facility. we have seen approximately four

demonstrations in kabul, all between 20500 demonstrators, mainly at facilities that are used by foreigners, by isaf, but also by contract or some other foreigner accommodations, namely an east of kabul. outside these facilities, we have seen asked her violence and burning tires. we have seen stones are of vehicles coming stones thrown at the installations and we have seen shots fired outside the installations. they have seen no direct violence against the bed. we haven't seen any casualties on the ice outside, but we are where do we have fatalities, not only in kabul, but also in overall afghanistan, mainly to the east and north of kabul in

similar demonstrations. locally focal demonstrations and numbers in the hundreds and prior today we have seen acts of violence in various areas and unfortunately we have seen casualties. as we are very well at the fat that the detention of the incident has everything has to be done in close cooperation and has done but the security ministries, but also across the board with other instances of the afghan government and religious community in afghanistan to calm these demonstrations down, to publish as much of the truth as quickly as possible to be as visible as possible to stop this so that no more lives are lost over this incident. >> general case carol from stars and stripes. to step back to the issue of the

crimes themselves. who actually has possession right now and do investigators have full access? when do you think we could see images that show whether they are previously written on by insurgents in custody? >> well, that will not happen before we go to the results of the investigation. i expect with a report coming back this evening or during this video footage and photographic image, which will probably give us the answer to the question and issue has just asked. what we have seen mainly in the demonstrations yesterday was that there were carranza obviously were charged, so this

is some imagery we have so far. but what was inside and whether there was writing, whether there was any improper use of this material before hand that led to the decision that has to be seen, that has to be the result of the investigation and why it has been executed over this day in the way that i described. >> is it clear where these programs actually are? are they distributed along the crowd? are they on one central location? where are their? >> what we have seen it and that those who are in demonstration was probably taken out by the workers. the incident came to public knowledge find your niche is when the burning actually. left work in the day shift came

in and told them what they had seen, what happened in the 1990s when materials are facility. everything else in the process was handed over by islamic authority. i would think the majority was still imparts a comeback come back with the investigation but in going into speculation and i cannot tell you what is at the very moment. >> gendreau jones, i've two questions. he spoke acts of violence. what is related to the fallout with the local afghan porter beheaded. he works for a station funded by the u.s. government and our military. second question, has this incident happen before? are you confident they have or

have not? >> well, there has been a lot of very inflammatory reports very quickly and unfortunately yesterday we saw four beheadings vitality and, which have nothing to do with this incident, which had to do with people who they called worse by his peers at the rupee had been made into the papers. definitely there had been no reports of beheadings or any acts of god in the course of today. and there has been no acts reported her isaf was involved in lethal force to a knowledge at the movie. but i am aware of at a place with penetration we've seen the bullets fired at the end the

detention facility, but no legal force was used that is to that point. when it comes to does this ever happened before? not my knowledge of whatever seemed a desecration of the car on in any way similar to this incident. incident. again, i can only repeat this desecration was basically unintentional. it happened on his chain of command by misjudgment of the situation, and misjudgment of the material. it was a mistake. >> i am going to limit. the fact tumor questions on iran despite a lot of questions on iran. i will limit to the number of two. so let me wrap up. [inaudible] you said that carranza were probably taken up by the workers. does it raise questions about security at the facility?

at how these were taken out by the workers? >> i would say to the country, local workers are operating the burning pit and it is a sign of the fact that it is actually a mistake this material is treated like normal material for their proposal. that's the mistake is somebody's down the line did not recognize the type of material that he was dealing with. this sensitivity that went along with it. perhaps not even knowing that carranza were involved in this. and this is what we have to find out in the investigation. the fact that it is was back to the normal burn where paper is destroyed in the idf the afghan workforce is working in the

afghan work forces destroyed this material in this paper with those who printed to the the facilities at present is show show at our procedures. this means that material that is decided she'd be destroyed and the first is rocked by personal to this page and the afghan workforce operate the facility. their afghan workers in every facility we are operating from ossuary is common laundries, and write a price to assistant staff in our office. we are working close together, shoulder to shoulder, every game that comes back to the question of cultural understanding. of cultural understanding. so i would not say there is a security breach here. it shows the moral tragic that basically the people who are hindering this material were not aware of the sensitivity of what they are actually doing.

>> general, what kind of strategic setback to you think this incident poses for isaf's campaign? you know, whether it is intentional or not or unintentional, you know, it seems to confirm what the taliban propaganda of the motives of taliban forces, not an islamic force in afghanistan. to see this resonating for a long time to come? long time to come? ..

this is a great incident. we have seen the understandable anger of people of afghanistan about what they have seen and what they have heard. the important thing is now that we are all together, together with afghan authorities and the people of afghanistan treat this. explained to the people as much as possible mistakes were made and as i said in my initial statement, if we do find there are responsibilities down the line yes there will be legal consequences and we have to look into this in detail. it's important we deal with this within the coming hours. what is important for isaf and important for afghanistan. the government and the people of afghanistan is that violence does not flair and this is not used to inflame the people of afghanistan, that this is not

used to drive a wedge between the people that we are working closely with on a very daily basis. the afghan national security forces side-by-side with us on operations and very dangerous missions on a day-to-day basis. trainers who are training afghans personnel in every aspect not only in the security there. we are very close to each other and therefore it is of the utmost importance that we explain very explained very very clearly what happens. explain how sorry we are about what happened. explain that this was a mistake. explain what led to it and talk about the consequences. >> be general we are extremely grateful that you took the time to spend with us here this evening. we invite you to come here in person without opportunity to present itself so you could come back to washington. i think you would like to come back and visit where you once

served as the military attache. again thank you, and we thank you again serve. have a good evening. >> next time under better circumstances. thank you, thank you. [inaudible conversations]

now a panel of former security officials discusses pending cybersecurity legislation. the bipartisan senate bill is attempting to create a public/private partnership to address cyberthreats. former homeland security secretary michael chertoff and former director of national intelligence, mike mcconnell. from george washington university, this is just under two hours. >> good morning. distinguished members of the washington community trustee students faculty and staff of the george washington university it's a pleasure to welcome me today to the homeland security policy institute forum entitled the conversation on cybersecurity legislation with

mike mcconnell, michael chertoff and senior congressional staff. it's a particular honor this morning to welcome the former secretary of homeland security and former judge in the u.s. court of appeals, the third circuit, michael chertoff and former director of national intelligence also former director of national security agency and the george washington alumnus and george washington honorary recipient vice admiral mcconnell. both of these gentlemen have been leading figures in efforts to address the growing cyberthreats to our national as well as our economic security. admiral mcconnell and secretary chertoff will be joined by senior congressional staff to discuss pending legislation that is assigned to shore up the nation's cyberthreats. here at george washington university were in the process of rolling out university wide cybersecurity initiatives to bring together policy research education and training.

among the results of a this effort that already for advanced are the creation of a master of science cybersecurity based on our department of computer science and the launching of an executive mba that will bring together our school business and our law school. it is now my pleasure to turn the podium over to frank cillafo associate vice president of homeland security and director of george washington's washington's homeland security policy institute and also the moderator of today's discussion which i hope you will all enjoy and profit from. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you president knapp and let me echo your welcome to everyone here today not only in the audience but also those on c-span and those watching our live web stream as well. as you can tell we have a pretty good sized panel here which is

reflective i think of significance and importance of the various issues we are going to discuss today. one would argue it has taken quite some time to get to this point as i think senator lieberman put it, perhaps her system is linking red and a domain very similar that was blinking red pre-9/11 in terms of counterterrorism but in this case with respect to fight -- cyberrelated issues. i think everyone here before we can agree that we need to do more, we need to ensure that our ability to protect networks as much as possible keep pace with the advances and networking. i'm not sure we can all agree as to how we get there. i have got four daughters so i'm reminded to some extent of the goldilocks story where some say it's too hot in some say it's too cold another say it's just right. well we have got legislation

that is being tabled as we speak on various bills to overreaching. some say it's not reaching enough and some say hopefully it's just right but hopefully we will be able to drill down on what some of those issues are. i think in a very simple way we all know that the cyberthreat is significant. the scale and scalable ranges for four nations and admiral mcconnell and secretary chertoff have written a powerful piece in "the wall street journal" of the activities that the people's republic of china engaged in terms of the cybernetwork exploits so at the high-end you have thread factors such as people from the republic of china and russia and also have iran and north korea increasingly engaging in the space all the way down to the divisions that affect us as individuals as our role as consumers and the ability to have confidence in the system. we are all increasingly using in

this cyberdomain. so i think this is something that touches just about everything we as a society do. we as individuals do and where is the tools may change the technology may change, human nature doesn't so it also affects warfare, diplomacy, economic security, finances and down to our individual designations. without going any further and i've already spoken too much, we have two wonderful mentors of mine and for people who are the utmost respect for to help her and some of the big issues. first we will hear from admiral mike o'connell whose greatest claim to fame is he is a gw alum and a former director of the national security agency, long-term naval intelligence officer as well as the second director of national intelligence. and he left that role to become

vice chairman. following admiral mcconnell we will hear from a friend and mentor of mine, secretary michael chertoff is greatest claim to fame as he served on the steering committee so thank you. he is the former judge granted criminal division when it came a most significant division with the department of justice before and charlie after 9/11. he gave up perhaps the greatest job in the world to take on perhaps one of the most difficult jobs in the world as a judge and assumed the role as secretary of the department of homeland security. following these wise men we are going to hear from various number of staffers who come to this issue with real expertise but also are driving various legislation that is before the senate and the house as we speak. first we will hear from tommy ross who is the intelligence

lead and defense league and cyberleap for senate leader and he is the driving force behind cybersecurity act of 2012. next we will hear from nick rossi who was working for senator collins and is the minority staff director driving some of those issues as well as jeff ratner who works for senator lieberman and i think it's fair to say that much of the legislation we are looking at is from the collins bill and certainly, last but certainly not least we will hear from tom corcoran from the house intelligence in terms of chairman rodgers and ruppersberger's bill on the house side as well as from mr. lungren's proposed legislation on the -- we want to make sure we have a robust conversation. admiral mcconnell the floor is yours. >> thank you very much. i appreciate the kind remarks.

i have actually been focused on a topic that has become common in the last year or so, about four years. i was asked or just after the cold war in the early '90s. my worry when i checked on board there was thinking about a wonderful agency and the great contributions, not only contribution for the cold war but that before world war ii as an example. we were breaking and reading nazi germany coats in wartime and reading them before the german field commanders and that is a tremendous endeavor so when you think about it in the scope of the context a tremendous agency great contributions and how are you relevant going forward? so what i was struck by is most of what nsa has been successful

at doing and exploiting the nation's nations interest for its history was -- and i talked to a few young engineers and they presented me with some facts about the future. one of the things i will never forget they said is mr. or before you leave here 90% of the world's communications will be inside the glass pipe. if you think about that for a second, networking was exploding and the internet had not quite yet to come what it is today but young engineers were thinking about it in a way that the volume, the global communications flow with the inside fiber-optic pipes. today we are testing a terabit for second. just think about that. the way i imagine it as a non-technical person, it's the path between washington and richmond is a cow path. that is wireless. imagine a 6000 lane highway. that is why are.

that is just the way to think about the difference. so i'm starting to think about this early and the first idea was how will we exploit the nations interest. exploit, very important word. doesn't mean you destroy. it means you read the other guys mail so you want to exploit. wow this is really easy. it is so easy it's amazing how easy it is. it has two missions, code making and code breaking and code making which is to protect our secrets and as soon as you start thinking wow this is so easy in a networked world, what about us? then i started to worry about us as a country and how dependent we are and we are truly truly dependent on the digital age. so let me just jump to sort of statement of facts that i think may be debatable in and talk about with the panel and if the audience wants to talk about it.

there isn't a corporation in the nation that can successfully defend itself, not one. the most sophisticated among those who would protect themselves to the point of capturing source code or business plans or innovation or research and development, everyone of them. i remember going back to my experience with the nsa in the early '90s about how easy it was and i will give you what to think about it. here in the wireless world, it has to be the right place, right frequency, right antenna, everything has to be just right. if you read a wire world that has to be data motioned that he can be a data rest. put it on a piece of paper, folded and lock it in a safe. in a wired world is digitally stores of this whole paradigm shift to dramatically. what to make a couple of comments about the bills that are being debated on the hill.

first of all thanks to the members and the senators who had the courage to put this forward. we need it. its overtime in my view. and i want to save thanks to the gentleman to my left and right. members can do, set the trend but somebody has to like it all down and when i look at the bills my view is they are absolutely necessary but both of them working its way through the house and senate are insufficient. both necessary but insufficient. bearer to there are two framing arguments for concern. there are privacy concerns, oh my goodness you can't allow the government to look at domestic networks for protection. they may go too far and intrude on privacy. it's a very serious concern. chippy captured in the legislation that eventually comes out that is a violation of law and i think that would

provide adequate protections. on the other side of the coin, we don't want to touch industry with regulation. let me just use an example of the cold war. i would submit there were not adequate market forces in the cold war to produce the capabilities that we need to prevail in the cold war. we did prevail. it was largely the contribution of the other because they could build faster, cheaper and better and more productive and so one but it had to be harnessed in a way that the hard decisions had to be me. it a national consensus, both parties were in agreement that we wanted to contain communism so we did that over a period of about 50 years. in my view we are facing something that is as dramatic as significant that there is no forcing function to cause us to do the things we need to do. here is my example. there are unique things that

government can do only the government can do and we need to harness that capability. i mentioned this in the nsa and mention code breaking. the nsa can see the lobe, see it at network speed. network speed, what does that mean? tokyo to new york and 30 milliseconds so if you see it it has to be with machines. if you react to it, you have to do it with machines. if you see an attack or a penetration or whatever it might be, you have to block it. the current drafts while they are very important and we need them, the concerns about privacy and the concerns about regulation that might touch industry are not allowing us yet to get to the point where we do the things and legislation to set the legislative framework to allow us to harness the best of government, what is needed from government, what is needed from

the private sector in the way we share the information at network speed. there is information about information sharing. having been an observer and a participant on the government side in the private sector side particularly focus on information sharing, i submit that unless it's required by law or attend incentivize in a significant way, you will not have information sharing. it will not happen. i know that from first-hand experience and my term in the military and the various agencies when i saw agencies with similar missions that perceive themselves to be in competition and they absolutely refuse to cooperate in sharing information. >> i am sure i will have some views on that on what steps to put in place for information sharing.

>> i want to tackle president knapp for hosting us and frank for moderating and setting this up. it is a very opportune time to talk about this issue. in addition to agreeing with everything mike mcconnell said i would like to underscore the importance of the fact that congress is taking this up. there was a time when people said not much gets done in washington. this is actually the area where there is something getting done. it may not be that those that are being discussed at the end point but they are good starting point and i wouldn't want to lose a good start by making the perfect enemy of the good. so let me cover three points briefly. one is this is a serious problem. probably people are sitting in a broom and many watching on c-span. yes it's a serious problem. i will still tell you that you

will find significant pockets of people who will say it's overblown. it's not that big a problem. is a little hard for me to understand that because when i open the newspaper every day i see stories for examples door tell the communications company which was reported in the journal a few weeks ago to have had an advanced persisting threat basically wholesale theft of its business information and data for over a decade. going to another country. that is in "the wall street journal" and that is a serious issue. many of us read about the stuxnet. i might think to myself well the outcome of what i read is a good outcome but it certainly raises the question could that be done to us? even at a lesser degree, level the rise of groups like anonymous which look to target the enterprises by penetrating them and releasing privateer

information is becoming an increasing problem. so you really have to either have your head in the sand to think it's not an ongoing serious economic and security issue or you have to simply view of those as not being serious concerns and i have to say this time we worry about whether we are losing jobs and losing competitively at a minimum we should insist on a fair fight meaning that we don't get our stuff stolen from us. i think the problem is very real. here is a challenge. unlike other security problems we have dealt with in a world of cyberspace, it's much more complicated. first of all the battlefield is not just at the border, parameter or overseas. the battlefield is here at home and it takes place in the private sector's on networks. most of the target here and most of the impact is felt not by

government agencies necessarily but by the private sector which means unlike the traditional notion of the security where the government owns the whole thing and unless you have private bodyguards you are basically a bystander. in the area of cyberwhether we are dealing with exploitation or attack, the private sector is very much a combatant, very much in the middle of the problem. its assets in the private sector that are being taken and it's ultimately the private sector's operations and control systems that are some of the highest value targets in this area. another challenge and this is the issue of interdependence and i'm going to talk a little bit about that in a moment. basically unlike what we have seen in terrorist attacks, where people die and it's a harmful thing, things are destroyed, but that is where the impact is felt. in the area of cyberparticularly if you are dealing with attacks

rather than exploitation the collateral consequences of our global. and a cascade. so the idea that i can watch my own domain or watch my own little enterprise and i can take care of it myself really misses the fact that everybody's enterprise whether government enterprise or private enterprise is dependent on the acts and omissions of everybody else on the network and that makes it much more complicated. the last challenge and complication dealing with this is the very nature of what the internet is culturally. the internet grew up with the assumption that those people participating in the network with the trusting people who have the commonality of interest so the fundamental architecture of the internet is a presumption of accessibility. if any data anywhere as long as it's connecting and someone to a

network through wired or wirelessly. the think about it from a security standpoint that is the exact opposite of what would be accepted as the premise of security in prior centuries where you would lock things up if they are valuable and put them in as safe the save as mike mcconnell said earlier. put it in your desk drawer and someone has to get into your space physically to steal it or to destroy it. that presumption of openness which is a good thing, challenges us to how security operate so with that as a background of me talk the pills for a couple of minutes. and i'm not going to get into the weeds. i have three fundamental elements that i think are important to any bill that has to present a good start in dealing with this problem and that's not to say there weren't other good things like fisma reform and research but i think the three core elements first there has to be information

sharing and second there has to be liability protection and liability-based incentives to drive information sharing and third and i think this is probably the controversial issue are the most controversial, it does have to be some standard setting and requirement of meeting the standards for critical infrastructure. let me tell you briefly why i think these are three of the fundamental pillars. first, the way you learn about problems in cyberspace is by getting experience at what those problems are. if everybody fights alone everybody is at their weakest. weakest. when you are dealing with network threats the ability to observe them, analyzed them and send information is critical to avoid replication of the thread elsewhere. basically the more you see in the more you know the better you are. that is why if we are isolated in our response to threats, if

we stovepipe ourselves where simply giving the adversary the ability to repeat the same technic over and over again in the next stovepipe so information sharing is foundational. here i would agree that you have to create incentives. many companies understand that there is value in sharing that they are concerned about loss of competitive advantage and they wonder what they get in return and they also are concerned that they are creating liability. this is where i come to my second . you have got to use the rules of incentives, liability protection liability imposition and protection of data to drive towards information sharing and i think there are some interesting approaches taken in the various bills about information exchanges. i think what is critical is the information has to be confidential. it has to be an atomized to ace certain degree. it has to be shared in a way

that doesn't create a competitive disadvantage. i think there has to be liability protection and incentive for those who do share and frankly for those who don't share there has to be some kind of disincentive. and that gets me to my last piece which is okay you have got the information. now what do you do to build structures of defense? we are talking mostly about the private private sector and the government is going to do what is required by law and executive order. i know this is the area where i've seen the greatest pushback. we don't want to have more regulation. we need innovation and i agree that innovation and the market are important tools and i will tell you it's my belief that in this area of the market will fail to do an adequate job. here is reason why. if i have an enterprise and is worth a million dollars i'm not going to spend $10 million to secure it. but if that million-dollar enterprise fails in the collateral consequences are if

william dollars in lost, then i have got a cause that far exceeds the value of the enterprise so as long as we have been interdependence and as long as we rely in critical structure and people get into the business of critical infrastructure we do need to make sure first of all that there are adequate expenses for them to invest appropriately and secondly there's a level playing field for the people who are lazy or want to underinvest can't hide in the weeds hoping to get by with those who do invest. we have to construct a system that incentivizes appropriate micromanagement for overly intrusive or overbearing costs and that is why the approach taken along with dhs in the chemical industries are saying here are some general standards and general requirements. if you meet them and you can show you meet them god loves

you, have a nice life. if you don't, then you need to raise it and again flexibilityflexibility, innovation are all kinds of different ways to skin the cat but in the end you do have to show your resolve and i think that balances between the harnessing the energy of american innovation but also making sure we are not under investing. the last thing i would say before i conclude on the issue of standard setting, the irony is when i talk to people in business, who are opposed to any kind of standard setting, i often think they don't realize how much it is in their interest to have standards set because without standard things standards being said i will tell you you will have standards but they will not a thoughtful concerning regulation. we will go in front of juries

and they will set the standards. having spent a lot of years in the courtroom businesses won't like the way the standards are set so i would argue the intelligent standard-based regulation with ample room for innovation and credit for what is done in the long run will serve business as much as it serves the national security. >> mr. seri -- mr. secretary thank you. i think he put an awful lot on the table and i know the bill has touched to one extent or another both philosophically is very specifically on some of these issues. i have always been at the school of thought mitigate before litigate or regulate. we don't want this to become a cigarette manifesto but there are areas where markets will not be enough to ensure that we get to that point. what i would be curious is how some of these bills address

these issues and maybe three to five minutes on some of the substances in the bills and specific leg that business case as to what's going in. what are the key components in that? what are the enablers to incentivize her disincentivized information sharing and then sort of go from there into a conversation. tommy you have been driving a lot of this. do you want to give us in the audience a sense of where things stand right now in the current bill, the cybersecurity bill and where you see things going? >> sure, be happy to do that and i do want to spend a little bit of time talking specifically about the areas where the market i think is inadequate and an adequate and pick up bob what secretary chertoff said because i think that's an important part of our legislation in the senate. for some brief background. senator reid has been working with the chairs of six or seven or eight depending on the day,

different committees, to bring together a range of different proposals spanning across a number of different committee jurisdictions on cybersecurity legislation and you know i actually really like the goldilocks analogy because first of all is sort of the supreme compliment you can give a legislator when half the people think it's too much and half the people think it's too little because that is compromise and i think that is where we are moving. but i also think as admiral o'connell was suggesting there were really three polls we try to navigate. a security pulled, the pull with regard to business concerns in the poll with regard to civil liberties and privacy concerns and trying to find a balance that carefully takes into consideration each of those concerns has been really tricky and it has been really delicate and it's taken us three years to do. we have for to pull in a number of different elements into the

bill that include critical infrastructure, regulation and performance standards, including for me and sharing, fisma reform, research and development but also the privacy protections also that include addressing all these issues with the concerns of the business community clearly in mind as we do so and try to calibrate each thing we do so all three of those polls are in balance. i think as as been noted, one of those issues that has been most controversial is the critical infrastructure regulatory framework, which provides dhs the authority to on a targeted races, set performance standards for critical infrastructure that meets a certain threshold which is essentially a threshold that control networks that are critical to national security either because their disruption will cause a huge loss of life or a systemic economic

disruption, or will damage national security capabilities in the united states. the concept of letting the market drive security here is really important because that is one of the ongoing conversations we have had with the business community and i think for a lot of people involved in this bill where the market is able to drive security and drive innovation, that is what we want to see and that is absolutely right. i don't think anybody wants to legislate in the way of that but there are areas within the critical infrastructure sectors that we are looking at where the market is unable to drive security and innovation and here i wanted to pick up a little on what secretary chertoff said because i think there are a few reasons for that are important to understand. one is that when you are looking at private sector innovation toward security, when there is competition in place there is a

real incentive to innovate for security so for me, when i go home and i make a decision about where to get my internet service i don't have to use contents. i can use verizon or i can use other different providers. so when i look at comcast and they provide extra security with my service and i know the nice service therefore is going to be more reliable, i may go with them or i may go with verizon if they are able to show me, demonstrate their reliability over their competitors so there is a built-in incentive to innovate towards ensuring that reliability for their customers and that leads to better security. in places like as many of you know who live around here, don't have a choice. that is the only option so they lacked the competitive and senate to innovate toward security and i think that's a really important area where the market does not have the same sorts of incentives for pushing

security. and you know, that is the infrastructure we are looking at, the electricity, nuclear facilities and the transportation sector and things like that. the second area that i think is also very important to understand is that there is a range of different threats we face and you can sort them out, and there are incidents or attacks or whatever that are high probability and relatively low consequence and then there is sort of a range where the probability goes down and the consequence and risk goes up. at the ffr and at that chart where you have the low probability but high consequence those are the ones that are important to our national security. it's a pretty low probability at this point that a sophisticated actor will enter into a nuclear facility's data system, take control that would cause a nuclear meltdown. we have not seen that happen.

it's certainly possible but it's not a high probability attacked. if it happens it would be a major been torn national security and that is exactly the kind of issue we are concerned with here and one where the market existed is low probability there is not as much of an incentive to invest. which require fewer resources but you know the notion of putting in a secretary chertoff was talking about putting in a huge amount of resources for events that are unlikely to happen doesn't make much business sense of the market fails to incentivize for more security. i think there was an article yesterday, couple of articles yesterday talking about how the nsa is now warning that within a couple of years this group anonymous will have the capability to take down significant portions of the power grid which is something, frankly i was surprised that

they assessed it would take a couple of years because i would have assumed that something they would be moving towards more quickly. the article is interesting to me because towards the end of this article it was sort of talking about how the electricity sector has not necessarily put in place the safeguards necessary to prevent against someone taking down the power grid for you know, because there is not a matchup between capability and intent. there are actors out there in iran, north korea and the article mentioned that don't have the capability and then there are actors out there that have the capability, russia and china but people don't believe they have the intent. this to me is in now and we can go back to the cold war metaphor, you know right now i think russia has however many thousands of nuclear warheads pointed at the united states. they have no attention of attacking us but it would be absolutely negligent for us as a government and the defense

architecture to not defend ourselves against the possibility of that threat. is the same thing in cyberexcept i think arguably worse for you not only have a bunch of cyber weapons pointed at us but i think most would, most security experts would assessed that there are already cybertools, trojan horses or whatever that are put into our networks by our adversaries and are just waiting for this which to be flipped for an attack to be carried out. it would be negligent for us not to address those threats and to do so the government needs to be able to work with critical infrastructure to ensure that they achieve a certain level of security. that is what our bill tries to do and i think that that is why it is so important. >> tommy one thing i want to underscore before jumping into questions and hearing your views before we go some -- to some of the bills on the house side that are very information sharing, one of the things i'm not sure people fully get is the flipped

the switch from exploit to attack is merely one of intent. in other words if you demonstrate a capability to exploit if your intent is to attack it can be an debilitating attack mechanism. fewer dependent or in concert with other physical means. i think that is worth underscoring because when we hear we have not seen these attacks, what we have seen is the exploit capability that could easily be turned into an attack unless anyone disagrees with that. nick, jeff quickly on some of the other components in the senate will. >> well, first off i guess i would echo what tommy said that probably one of the more controversial elements of the bill that we are trying to deal with is protection of critical infrastructure but there are a lot of things in the bill were think there is broad agreement, information sharing is one of those that i think everybody

agrees we need to address. senator collins has been working on this issue for years now. we are very fortunate that senator collins and senator lieberman have the kind of working relationship where they have been teamed up to invest in this problem for a couple of congress is now. they introduced a bill that was reported by the homeland security committee. theythey reintroduce the bill wh additional protections from the beginning of this congress and then just last week, they introduced a bill along with chairmen rockefeller and chairman feinstein that we hope will be the basis for the senate debate on this issue. and if there are three things that are driving us on this, the first is to try to prioritize the greatest risk. that is why we are focusing on critical infrastructure and that is why we are focusing not on critical infrastructure writ large with those systems and assets within the critical infrastructure that if damage could cause truly catastrophic

harm. we are trying to focus on the highest risk. the second thing we are trying to do is to take full advantage of existing structures and relationships. we are trying to take advantage of existing revelatory regimes where they currently serve a purpose. we are trying to take advantage of best practices that currently exist within the private sector. we are trying to take advantage of existing relationships between the department of homeland security and various critical infrastructure elements and then lastly we are trying to take advantage of the expertise where it resides so we are trying to leverage the expertise of the nsa rather than re-creating it. we are trying to leverage the expertise in the private sector by making sure that when best practices and performance requirements are developed, they are first identified by the private sector and put forward at the private sector and that it's only through an iterative process in collaboration with the private sector that we

identify the best practices that really should the standards for the most critical infrastructure. so those are the things we are trying to do through legislation. sometimes it's hard to get language perfect but as we have heard the perfect shouldn't be the enemy of the good here. there is consensus on the need to act and our hope is that action will occur soon and that will address the areas of highest risk. >> and nick did a great job of describing some of the points of our bill and i will just add to that reflate. and i think secretary chertoff really described the bill quite well when he talked about some of the flexibilities in the chemical facility regulation. and, we basically as nick said we are focusing on the most critical. the way we define it are those that are disrupted or disadvantage could easily lead to mass casualties, catastrophic

catastrophic -- and within that we are focusing on those where the market forces have security so you are waved out and if you can demonstrate you are sufficiently secured additionally there's a provision that would give the president authority to exempt a sector or portion of the sector if they are already regulatory controls in place that requires sufficient amount of security. and then as nick said, we want to give the owners and operators the flexibility to meet any performance how they think is best. they know their systems best and we don't want to be in the process of telling them how to go about doing that. i also will just act quickly on information sharing and then there are obviously some other proposals out there we think that are very serious efforts at trying to address some of the problems out there.

but the information sharing provisions in our bill takes down some of the legal barriers that hinder the sharing of cybersecurity threat information between the government and the private sector and within the private sector and we also try to incentivize that by providing some liability protections narrowly focused on that sharing of cybersecurity threat indicators and that is actually one of these cybersecurity threat indicator and our bill which we basically provide cybersecurity exchanges basically kind of defined by two prongs. the first is that cybersecurity threat indicator indicates an attribute of a malicious attack and that is kind of spelled out in the bill a little more and also the second prong is that it has to be, reasonable efforts have to be taken to scrub it as personally identifiable

permission. i think we are talking about a narrow slice that would really help companies and help governments know the risks that are out there and share information in real-time to prevent them. and with that i will turn it over to you. >> thank you, tom. i understand chairman rodgers and mr. ruppersberger have a bill that is actually passed through committee fairly heavily focused on the issues we have in terms of information sharing and providing the incentives and disincentives to not share information. could you give us a quick snapshot in terms of the status and some of the meat around the bones? >> first of all thanks for having me. on the house side speaker boehner asked representative thornberry for a broad framework of the policy with the house and each individual chairman is supposed to work within their

jurisdiction to achieve what is in their jurisdiction and set that framework. chairman rodgers asked us to take a look at what he's felt we could do to solve this problem. obviously this is not going to be a complete solution to the problem but i think and make an important contribution. on examination of the issue we came across -- as a model that harnesses value-added intelligence. information gathering provides the private sector, it's a very narrow pilot. we based our bill on that structure that provides positive authorities for the intelligence community to provide classified information the private sector and also we knocked down as rest discuss tried to knock down those barriers in information sharing. as they were proceeding to the pilot they found the information

going outbound to the companies was going pretty well. not a lot of information of value was going back in their and their companies have a lot of disinfectant -- disincentives both real and imagined. so we talked to about 130 folks in the private sector and talked about the issues that stop them or incentivize them for information sharing and then we tried to knock those barriers down in that process. and i think what is great about the pilot model is you scale city economy. it's hard seeing innovation to solve some of our more serious cyberproblems. this is going after the advanced cyberattacks like china who are out stealing art -- this historic transfer of wealth between the united states in china right now as folks, chinese actors are getting intercompanies in stealing our i.t..

the chinese are stealing their wholesaler we need to do a better job of helping companies protect themselves against those attacks. we believe the project is doing some great stuff out there. i just need some help. they are paying for the great work that goes on at places like nsa to collect that stuxnet data so they should get the benefit of that data in protecting their networks. i think as you have for there is a pretty good consensus that this is a good model for going forward. there is disagreement in the details but i think it's encouraging there is so much similar thinking on both sides of the aisle of this narrow legislation, fairly narrow 13 pages so we try to achieve that in plain english. i think we got that done. >> terrific and i would like to pick up on some of those points

later on to try to get a sense of the defense industrial base pilot project, its strengths, weaknesses and specifically whether or not you look at processes and you still continue to this day to stymie some of the sharing from the top-down, from the federal government to various entities. i hear the same. we have some defense industrial base folks in the audience and i'm sure they will have some questions. kevin, i mean mr. lungren has dropped his bill. i know it's in the subcommittee. can you give folks a sense of what is in the bill and maybe some of the differences because i think some of the questions vis-à-vis the department of homeland security or other entities are addressed there and go from there. >> so essentially, building on what tom talked about with the thornberry task force, the house homeland security committee

taught themselves to draft a the bill within its jurisdiction. not meant to be comprehensive in any manner but strict way within the jurisdiction of our committee. essentially with three big pieces. first their roles and responsibility of the department of homeland security with regard to the mission. no the secretary is well familiar with the lack of legislative authority that dhs has with its mission but it has been doing an ample job based upon executive order and public implementation that we want to codify that current mission of dhs and make sure that they have the roles and responsibilities clear to protect critical infrastructure in this country. the second piece does touch upon the various aspects that include the protection of critical infrastructure.

we do take it did have a different approach to it. the thornberry task force found that while regulation is not our first choice, there is a role for the government in protecting the most critical of the critical and in trying to determine what was regulated, how it was regulated in who did the regulating was determined in the committee and what we try to do is build upon the department's definition of critical infrastructure that was also used in the senate will, a facility or function of critical infrastructure that would if misuse with cause mass evacuations, it's systemic robinson economic markets are severely threatened arson national security. that is just one that we have in order for this regulatory authority to come down.

in our conversations with critical infrastructure we have heard quite a bit of, yes we see these problems but what are the risks to me and my sector in my critical infrastructure? there are many companies now that don't have, are in constant contact with the ei or dhs are an aside so there -- they know it's out there but they can put their finger on it. so we offer to engage in the private sector and actually identify risks on a sector by sector basis. the government coming with intelligence and operational knowledge of the private sector coming with their knowledge of their own networks and they can come to the same table and agree upon a list of identified risks in their sector. that information is then made available to the secretary as a whole so the people that don't

have constant contact with the fbi art put on the same playing field as those that do and can address those as appropriate in their networks. the second step is then to collect existing performance standards. not creating new ones but identifying existing up identifiable recognize performance standards and collecting them and putting them in one spot and then evaluating them against the risks so you have essentially a provision of this performance standard does mitigate this particular risk better than this particular standard if implemented appropriately. so the vast majority of the economy is actually the same. the private sector will come in and look at the risk, click standards and they can make their choices according to their business sense as to how best to

protect their interests on the assumption that even if you want going out to protect your clients or partners to at least act in the best interest of protecting your investment in critical infrastructure. then there is that one element that we believe there is a government role and that is for those that are currently regulated. i think the nuclear sector, the electric sector in the water treatment facilities, financial services and those that do all under this critical infrastructure so the top team the most critical to the critical. only if you're currently regulated and only a few are covered by critical infrastructure do you work with your regulator to review the existing regulations to match up against those identified risks. if there's a gap amongst current regulation and identified risks, then the regulator then chooses

a performance standard from the collection that fell in a particular gap and we believe this builds upon the expertise and relationship of current regulators and cuts down on any potential conflicting regulations by introducing another organization as a regulator on top of the existing regulators. those are the first two pieces. the final piece which we talked about quite a bit is trying to improve information sharing and in the course of our meetings on this legislation i try to always ask folks are current -- working as effectively as possible? i've yet to come across someone who said that the status quo is acceptable. and so what we have tried to do is create one, get rid of those legal barriers that inhibit information sharing much like what tom in the senate bill is doing but we try to and together

create an environment much like you mentioned mr. secretary, how we need to work together and pool information and expertise so what we do is we established a national information sharing organization that is a voluntary, non-government, third hardy not-for-profit organization that stands up and information exchange facilitator within that, members can use the charter, understand what information is shared and wanted information is not shared, who it will be shared with, who won't be shared with and make it a valuation of whether this idea embodied in this charter brings value to their enterprise. we are hoping that not only exchanging of information, having membership come to the table and say hey i just saw my network and i don't exactly know what to do with it. has anyone else seen this? that technical assistance will be available so government

participation is the key to this, bringing intelligence to gain governmental information and beyond just the information exchange, we anticipate facilitating a common operating picture among the most sophisticated of members, bringing together a whole pot of information they wouldn't ordinarily have with government investigation and then those sophisticated members, monetize that and better innovative pond that information that they wouldn't ordinarily have. we have done away with the legal barriers for information sharing and tried to put it in the liability protections and limitations it possible. shielding from foia and state and local disclosure, but making sure that the idea is to share