>> that robs our live coverage of the 2012 tucson festival of books. you have been watching booktv, 48 hours about programming beginning saturday morning at 8 a.m. eastern through monday morning at 8 a.m. eastern. nonfiction book so we weekend every weekend right here on c-span2. >> coming up next on "the communicators," joseph lieberman and ranking member susan collins. ..

>> host: this week on "the communicators" we are going to be looking at cybersecurity or legislation which is currently working its way through the congress. coming up this just a few minutes, an interview with senator joe lieberman who is chair of the homeland security committee and senator susan collins who is the ranking republican on that same committee talking about their specific legislation on cybersecurity. but joining us first is brendan sas sew of the hill newspaper. what is the status of cybersecurity legislation in the senate? >> well, right now the lieberman-collins bill is on a fast track to the senate floor. they just introduced it a couple weeks ago, but harry reid has already said he's putting that straight to the floor without markups in committee which is fairly unusual. >> host: why is he doing that? >> guest: well, they say they've been working on cybersecurity legislation for a long time, and it's true, and their bill incorporates other proposals. they don't want to have -- there are a lot of different committees that have jurisdiction, it's a big issue.

whether it's the homeland security committee, intelligence, there are a lot of committees that could get their hands on it and will change it in a way lieberman and collins probably don't like, and they feel like the bill they have now strikes the right balance. >> host: is this bill in its, in its infancy was it a senator rockefeller vehicle from a couple years ago? >> guest: i think it incorporates from a lot of different bills, senator rockefeller and senator feinstein as well is also pushing for it. >> host: is it getting opposition? >> guest: yes. so john mccain and a variety of ore republicans -- other republicans don't like it. they feel it takes too much of a regulatory approach, and they also don't like the fact that it's being fast tracked to the senate floor, they think the senate should take some more time on this, so john mccain and the other republicans have introduced their own alternative measure. >> host: what kind of industries are interested in cybersecurity

legislation? >> guest: well, it effects any sort of utilities, so because the idea with the lieberman-collins bill is that critical infrastructure, so anything say electrical grids or dams where if you have them sort of hacked could have a devastating impact, and so it would give the homeland security department regulatory authority. so any, any companies that are involved in something that might get labeled critical infrastructure, i'm sorry t. -- i.t., information technology companies, any tech companies all have an interest here. >> host: and are they more supportive of the lieberman-collins approach or the john mccain approach? >> guest: a lot of them are sort of trying to today a little bit on the sidelines, although some groups are a little more sport sport -- supportive of the john mccain approach because it doesn't create this regulatory system. >> host: does this bill, brendan

sasso, does it effect individual users? >> guest: well, i mean, that depends on who you ask. some civil liberties advocates are not crazy about either bill. they're especially concerned with the mccain bill because it doesn't have the same exceptions for personal identification, so when they, when the companies will share information with the government on, say, a cyber threat, some of that information might include personal information on people. so that's one. that's one issue that could effect people. and, of course, if you reduce the risk of a cyber attack, you know, massive cyber attack -- which hasn't happened yet -- could effect a lot of people. >> host: what's the status of legislation in the house? >> guest: so there are a lot of different proposals in the house. st the unclear -- it's unleer where the -- unclear whether the lieberman-collins approach would gain traction.

the secure i.t. act, the name of the mccain bill, a couple of republicans plan to introduce that in the house. it originally just came about as sort of the we don't like the lieberman-collins bill, here's our alternative, but that bill seems to be gaining steam. congressman rogers, who's the chairman of the intelligence committee, has his own bill which also avoids this regulatory approach. >> host: brendan sasso, when do you expect action in the congress on this legislation? >> guest: i mean, really soon. harry reid has said in the coming weeks he's going to be bringing the lieberman-collins bill to the floor, so we should see a vote in the senate soon. >> host: does this type of legislation build on existing legislation, or is it a new approach? >> guest: well, i mean, like i said, there have been several bills that have been talked about in previous congresses. the lieberman-collins bill only came out in the last couple weeks, though, so that bill itself pulls together different elements but is new itself. >> host: and i apologize.

what i meant was is there existing cybersecurity legislation now on the books to regulate this issue, or is this approach brand new and building from scratch? >> guest: right. well, there was no, there's been no comprehensive cybersecurity bill that's passed congress. there, obviously, are laws on the books about, you know, computer hacking is illegal and, in fact, part of the approach of the mccain bill is to update those computer hacking lawses to keep them up to speed with the changing nature of the internet and also to toughen penalties. >> host: brendan sasso covers cybersecurity and technological issues for "the hill" newspaper, and now here's our interview with senators lieberman and collins. and we're joined by the chairman of the senate homeland security committee, senator joe lieberman, independent of connecticut, and the top republican on the committee, susan collins, a republican of maine. senator lieberman be, if i could start with you. what is the foal of the sign --

goal of the cybersecurity legislation that you have introduced? >> guest: well, the goal, simply stated, is to protect all that we americans have in cyberspace from being stolen and from being attacked. and the theft is going on thousands of times every day, most of which people don't -- are not aware of. that is to say people from, some from inside, mostly from outside the country actually going into the internet systems, the computer systems of companies and stealing industrial, intellectual property and then taking it and building the stuff that american companies spent millions or billions of dollars to develop which also takes a lot of jobs from america. the other thing, aim of the legislation is to protect all of the cyber structure in america that's privately owned from becoming targets of an enemy wanting the attack us.

what am i talking about? the electric power grid, the transportation systems, the financial systems. so this is all very vulnerable now, and probably if there was a major conflict an enemy would come at us first by cyber attack, and we're simply not adequately defended. >> host: so along with government assets, you are looking to protect private assets as well? >> guest: that's correct. but that gives 85% of what we call critical infrastructure is in private hands. it's not government owned. and that's why you have to have a cybersecurity bill that isn't limited just to government systems or government computers, but protects that critical, privately-owned infrastructure on which all of us rely every single day for electricity, for

transportation, for clean water. it's absolutely essential to our curt. security. in the year 2010, the estimate is that there were three billion cyber attacks on private and government computer systems. three billion. so this is a threat that is growing exponentially and that we simply must address. >> host: what laws, senator lieberman, are already on the books with regard to cybersecurity? what kind of legislative structure is there already? >> guest: yeah. well, first, i want to emphasize that the legislation that we're, that we've introduced or hopefully will come to the senate floor soon has focused mostly on privately-owned cyber structure, that the federal government web sites are in much better shape in terms of their defense. department of defense protecting

their or own sites and the department of homeland security protecting the government, nondefense government sites, although they're still attacked, so we still have work to do. current legislation, frankly, doesn't do too much, and the current law doesn't do too much to protect privately-owned cyberspace. that's why we think our legislation is so critical. i think it's the most significant thing that congress and the president can do this year to protect american security and even america's economic prosperity because of all the theft that i told you about. we can get into what this bill does but, frankly, this is a kind of, all, wild west at this point before the sheriff came to town. >> host: well, what does this bill do, and what are you, what are you most adamant about getting passed in this bill? >> guest: yeah. i'll start, and then i'll yield to senator collins. the most important point here is that at some point the federal government has to be able to say

to a private business that owns critical infrastructure that we all depend on that an enemy might attack, we've got to be able to say to them you've got to meet this standard of defending yourself and defending our country. most, some companies do it now, some don't. our bill has what we think is light demands on those companies. we set a standard. it's up to them how they meet it. if department of homeland security determines already on their own they've met it, they won't be any further regulated. there's a lot else in the bill but, ultimately, that's the moment and point of truth, and the other bill put in by some of our colleagues doesn't do that. and, therefore, it doesn't get the job done. >> host: senator collins? >> guest: that is a key provision of the bill. you cannot ignore the fact that 85% of critical infrastructure is in the private sector and say that we're going to be securing

our country. but we've very carefully crafted the bill so there's industry participation in drafting the performance-based standards that would have to be met. as senator b lieberman said, there's some sectors, there's some industries that are already doing it. they would be exempt from the regulation, and the department would work clap collaboratively. there is also very important information-sharing provisions in this bill, and we owe a debt of gratitude to our colleague, senator dianne feinstein, for those provisions. we need to make sure that industry does a better job of sharing its knowledge about intrusions and the threat with government and with other private sector members, and we need to make sure that

government is sharing more effectively threat information. that will help. it's an essential part of our bill. but it's not a sufficient part of our bill, and that's one of the big differences between our bill and the alternative cybersecurity bill. i just don't know how you can say that you're protecting the vital assets of our country and be ignore the critical infrastructure. i would also note that we set the bar very high as to what is considered to be critical infrastructure. we defined it as infrastructure the attack of which would cause mass casualties, severe economic damage and a serious threat to our national security. so it's not like we're trying to sweep in everything. we are covering those

industries, those parts of the infrastructure which if attacked, would have truly catastrophic consequences. >> host: well, your fellow republican and your good friend, senator mccain, has called this bill, your bill a bureaucratic leviathan. what's your response to that? >> guest: with all respect to my dear friend john mccain, he's wrong on this one. this is not a bureaucratic leviathan at all. first off, as senator collins has said, we have tremendous industry input in forming the standards that they'll have to meet to protect our country. secondly, there's not a big bureaucracy that's taking shape here, and there's a lot of room for voluntary compliance with those standards. all, but to call this an overbureaucrattic or regulatory system misses the point, and senator collins has really made this so well which is that -- she's a real opponent of

overregulation of business which hurts the economy, but this is not that. this is a kind of public safety law that we put in place to protect our safety and, in fact, will protect american business from either being attacked and knocked out or having all sorts of its own materials stolen from it and from us. so somebody the other day said probably -- if i remembered who it was, i'll give them credit, but i'll be quoting them from now on without giving credit. [laughter] they said to say this bill is overregulation is like saying it's overregulation to require a developer who puts up an office building to meet certain safety standards in the construction of the building. you know, you have to get a permit from the city that says the building is safe to go into. and that's where we are when it comes to cyber buildings, cyber structure today. >> guest: i think that the

alternative legislation would leave our country so vulnerable. it would do virtually nothing to protect critical infrastructure x that poses a huge threat to the well being of our people and our economy. we have crafted a bill that has a very sensible regulatory regime. it's one that's completely collaborative with private industry. it's one where the department of homeland security does not even review the security plans. we leave that up to the private sector to either self-certify or get an independent third party opinion. some have criticized our bill for not going far enough in its regulatory approach. >> host: when this bill was first talked about a couple years ago, there was talk about a kill switch.

>> guest: yeah. >> host: is there any of that in this? >> guest: no. there was language in the original draft of the bill that came out of our committee that was not a kill switch. in fact, meaning that it did not give the of the united states in an emergency the power to kill the internet. we thought, in fact, we were limiting the authority that the president has under existing law. but it, it -- there was such an emotional reaction to it from people who value their freedom of communication on the internet, which senator collins and i do too, that we just decided we should leave that section out. it was too much of a distraction, and it could bring down the overall bill which, to me, is urgently necessary. so no kill switch. >> host: how to you draft a cybersecurity bill and keep up with the ever-changing technology that it's drafted to legislate? >> guest: we had extensive conversations with the high-tech

companies, the security firms, the innovators, and many of them because of changes we've made in the bill are now accepting of the bill. i think industry is always leery of any new legislation. but they recognize that their products need to be kept up with the threat and that there is much in this bill in the information sharing, for example, that will help them better protect their systems. there's nothing in this bill that in any way stifles innovation. in fact, i would argue that it would spur innovation, that it will encourage companies to try new approaches and to develop new security measures in order to better secure their systems. there's nothing in this bill that has the federal government

dictating the design of any measure to secure a system. it simply sets, the government would simply set performance standards. but it would be up to industry on how to meet those standards. >> and the great thing about this -- sorry -- is that as technology improves, companies will be able to bring new technologies on to meet the standards. so in the standards as we authorize them, the government's not going to tell a business here's what you've gotta do. it's going to say you've got to meet this standard of protection, of defense. you figure out how to do it. of course, as new products come on, presumably it'll be easier and, hopefully, less expensive to meet those standards. >> host: and your majority leader in the senate is rather fast tracking this bill. have you had conversations with your colleagues in the house? >> guest: not much. i mean, there's some interest in the house. interestingly, congressman dan

lundgren said a while ago that on this key point that he thought a bill that was a credible bill on cybersecurity had to have some point where businesses who were not protecting themselves could be required to do that. there was a task force that speaker boehner put together, i guess last year, which also seemed to embrace that principle. it's not going to be easy, but -- particularly, nothing seems easy in this session of congress. but this is one that really is nonpartisan. i mean, this is national security, and, you know, the director of the fbi told senator collins and me that cyber attack is, in his opinion, is soon going to supplant terrorism as his, the fbi's and our country's, most serious threat to homeland security. and that's saying a lot. and we're behind.

>> host: have you had any conversations with your fellow republicans in the house? >> guest: we've had conversations at the staff level. as senator lieberman pointed out, there was a task force that the speaker put forward that has a lot of recommendations that parallel those that are in our bill. now, in the end who knows exactly what the house will come out with, but this -- there's clearly a recognition based on this task force that you can't ignore critical infrastructure and really tackle the problem of cybersecurity. that would be leaving the job undone. and i have to say our committee has looked at this thoroughly, we've had ten hearings, we've devoted a great deal of time soliciting input from the private sector, from our colleagues, from other committees, from other experts, and this is something that cries

out for action. if we adjourn without taking action on cybersecurity, shame on us because it is inevitable with the number of daily attacks whether it's from nation-states or terrorist groups or hackers that, inevitably, we are going to face a serious cyber attack. and i, for one, don't want to look back and say all the warnings were there, why didn't we act? >> host: if house were willing to pass the senate republican bill that was recently introduced, could you see yourselves supporting that, working with that bill? >> guest: not as the answer. because it just is inadequate. i say that respectfully. it doesn't do the job. but the four main sections of the other bill that senator mccain and others have put in, three of them are covered in our

bill. we may do it a little bit differently, but we can negotiate on that. the fourth is criminal penalties which i think we're open to. the white house had in his proposal really, frankly, for committee jurisdictional reasons we didn't include it in ours. but the key to come to an agreement on -- so we can negotiate those four parts of the mccain bill. but we've got to convince our colleagues that at some point the government's just got to say to an irresponsible business you've, in the national interest, you've got to meet these performance standards, or we're all going to regret it. >> guest: you know, there's another issue here, and that is there are some companies -- and we would exempt them from regulation -- that are already meeting standards. and they're spending money to do so, and they're taking this very seriously.

and their security is being jeopardized by other companies with whom they may do business that don't have those kind of security measures. so it's important that we raise -- it's really important that we raise the security for all critical infrastructure. >> host: and finally, senators collins and lieberman, what is the center for cybersecurity and communications in your bill? >> guest: the center -- thanks for asking. the center for cybersecurity and communications is our attempt not to build a big new bureaucracy, but to combine some similar pieces within the county county -- the department of homeland security so that there's a real focus on cybersecurity because it's so critical to homeland security, also so that people out there know they have, essentially, one address. hopefully, in this case, an e-mail address to go to with their cybersecurity questions and problems.

>> guest: this is a consolidation of a lot of different efforts in offices within the department. so like senator lieberman, i believe it will offer better customer service and be a more effective, efficient and cost effective way of dealing with cybersecurity. i think it's a very important reform. >> host: timeline on this legislation getting to the senate floor? >> guest: oh, you know, this is like predicting the weather in new england where we're both from. well, but senator reid really wants to do this. this is an interesting case. senator reid got briefed on cyber threats last year, and he got really agitated, and this has become a priority for him just for that reason. so he's told us that he might bring it up in this work period which is from now to the end of march, early april. if not, i'm sure that it will come up when we come back from the easter passover recess the

middle of april and, hopefully, we can get it done then and send it to the house. >> host: senator mcconnell interested in this? >> guest: he's certainly interested in the subject and i think recognizes that we need to act. um, he certainly has not endorsed our bill, but i don't believe he's signed on to the other bill as well. senator kyl among the republican leaders is one who has built a great deal of expertise in this area and believes that it's imperative that we act. >> host: senator susan collins is the top republican on the senate homeland security committee and joe lieberman, independent from connecticut, is the chairman. thank you both for being on "the communicators." >> guest: thank you. >> guest: thank you. >> coming up on c-span2, join economic committee vice chairman kevin brady talks about his changes to overhaul the federal reserve. then we go to the british house

of commons in london to hear testimony from richard branson and a former swiss president on proposed changes to international drug policy. and later the senate returns at 2 p.m. eastern for two hours of general speeches followed by more debate on the surface transportation bill. no roll call votes are expected today. >> later today, the japanese ambassador to the u.s. talks about his country's rebuilding efforts one year after the earth quake and tsunami and the nuclear plant crisis. he'll discuss how his government and the population have responded and the lessons that can be drawn from the experience. he'll be followed by a panel of foreign policy analysts who will also examine the events. the live forum, hosted by the interenterprise -- american enterprise institute, gets under way at 1:30 eastern on our companion network, c-span. >> congratulations to all this year's winner of c-span's video student documentary program. a record number of students

entered a video on the theme, "the constitution and you," showing which part of the constitution is important to them and why. studentcam.org, and join us mornings in april as we show the top 27 videos on c-span. and we'll talk with the winners during "washington journal with." >> republican congressman kevin brady has unveiled legislation that would narrow the federal reserve board's mandate, expand the board membership and increase transparency. the bill would also give congress control of the budget for the new consumer financial protection bureau. speaking at the american enterprise institute, congressman brady admitted that the proposal is unlikely to pass anytime soon. following his remarks, a panel of former federal reserve officials discussed the bill. this is just under two hours. >> remarks by representative kevin brady. the objective of aei is to have policy discussions about the key policy issues of the day and to

try to generate dispute as much as possible. [laughter] and so when we, when we invite a politician such as mr. brady to come and present his ideas about what we ought to do to fix the world, we're always careful to follow those events with a round table discussion that's generally a set of people who we select because we don't know what they'll think, but suspect they might be critical. this event really follows in a long tradition of that here at aei. we'll begin with remarks from congressman kevin brady, and after the remarks are done immediately following, we've got a real all-star lineup of former fed officials to discuss the merits and lack thereof of mr. brady's proposal. and mr. brady will go perhaps for as long as an hour. he's got some prepared remarks before we turn it over to the round table discussion. now, there's been a lot of anger in washington about the fed's role in the