we have a lot of problems to deal with, and i think in diplomatic solutions are going to have to be the answer in the future as we start to deal with the problems coming.

this week, communicators we are going to be looking at cybersecurity legislation which is currently working its way through the congress. coming up in just a few minutes to an interview with senator joe lieberman who is the chair of the homeland security committee and senator susan collins, who is the ranking republican on the same committee, talking about their specific legislation on cybersecurity. joining us first is brandon sasso of the hill newspaper. what is the status of cybersecurity legislation and the senate? >> weld right now the lieberman collins bill is on a fast track to the floor. the interested a couple of weeks ago. harry reid has already said he's putting that on the floor without any markups in the committee which is fairly unusual. >> why is he doing that? >> he says they've been working on cibber security legislation for a long time and the bill incorporates elements from other proposals. i think part of the reason is they don't want to have there are a lot of committees that

have jurisdiction and the big issue is the homeland security committee, the intelligence, there are a lot of committees that could get their hands and changes in the way that lieberman and collins probably don't like and they feel the wheel they have no strikes the right balance in their opinion. >> is this bill being brought to the senate floor is it in its infancy as senator rockefeller vehicle from a couple of years ago? >> i think it incorporates elements from a lot of different bills that have been put together in the lieberman and collins are believed thomas but also senator rockefeller and senator feinstein is pushing for it. >> is it getting opposition? >> yes. so, john mccain and a variety of other republicans don't like it. they feel that it takes too much of a regulatory approach and they also don't like the fact that it's being fast track to the senate floor. they think the senate should take more time on this. sir john mccain and the other republicans have introduced their own alternative measure. >> what kind of industries are

interested in cybersecurity legislation? >> welcome it affects any sort of utilities. so because the idea with the lieberman-collins bill was critical infrastructure -- saddam anything say electrical grids where if you have some sort of pact could have a devastating impact, and so it would give the homeland security department regulatory authority. so many companies that are involved in something that might get labeled critical infrastructure come on t information technology companies that build these computer grids, any tech companies have an interest here. >> are they more supportive of the lieberman-collins approach or the john mccain approach? >> i think a lot of them are sort of trying to stay a little bit on the sideline. although i think some companies have been for some groups are a little more supportive of the john mccain and the other republicans approach because it doesn't create this regulatory

system. >> does this bill, brinton spasso, affect individual users? >> that depends on who you ask. some advocates are more -- civil liberties advocates are not crazy about either bill. they are especially concerned with the mccain bill because it doesn't have the same exceptions for personal identification, so when the companies will share information with the government on say cyber threats, some of that information might include personal information on people. so that's one issue that could affect people. and then of course if you reduce the risk of a cyberattack, a massive cyberattack which hasn't happened yet could be something that affects all lot of people. >> what's the status of legislation in the house? >> there's a lot of different proposals in the house and it's unclear whether the lieberman kyl wins regulatory approach would be able to gain traction. so there was the secure act

which is the name of the mccain bill. a couple of republicans plan to introduce the same bill in the house so that might be gaining momentum in congress but it originally came about as the we don't like the lieberman-collins bill here is our alternative but that seems to be getting steamed in the house. there's also a congressman rogers is the chairman of the intelligence committee has his own bill and also avoid the regulatory approach. >> when do you expect action in the congress >> really soon hafed. he's going to be bringing the lieberman-collins bill to the floor so we should see a vote in the senate. estimate does this legislation build on existing legislation or is it a new approach? >> like i said there'd been several bills that had been talked about in the previous congress. the lieberman collins bill came out in the last couple of weeks, so that bill itself pulls together different elements and

as you. islamic i apologize, what i meant is their existing cybersecurity legislation now on the books to regulate this issue or is this approach brand new and building from scratch? >> there's been no comprehensive safety because security bill that passed congress. they're obviously are laws on the rocks. part of the approach of the mccain bill is to update the computer laws to keep them up to speed the nature of the internet and talking penalties. >> brendan sasso is with the hill and covers cybersecurity and other technological issues and now here is our interview with senator lieberman and collins. >> we are joined this week by the communicators by the chairman of the senate homeland security committee senator joe lieberman and connecticut and the republican on the committee susan collins, a republican in maine. senator lieberman if i could start with you what is the goal

of the cybersecurity legislation you have introduced? >> well, the goal simply stated is to protect all that we americans in cyberspace from being stolen and from being attacked and the that that is going on many people are not aware of as they say people from outside of the country actually going into the internet systems and computer systems and companies and stealing industrial intellectual property and then taking it and building the stuff that american companies that millions of billions of dollars could develop which also takes a lot of jobs from america and the other thing for the legislation is to protect all of the cyber structure in america that is privately owned from becoming

targets of an enemy wanting to attack us or the electric power grid, the transportation systems, financial systems, so this is all very vulnerable now, and probably there was a major conflict first by cyberattack and we are simply not adequately dependent. >> with the aspect you were looking to protect private aspects as well? >> that is correct. the fact is 85% of what we call critical infrastructure is in private hands and that's why you have to have a cybersecurity bill that isn't limited just to government systems or government computers but protect that critical privately owned infrastructure at which all of

us rely every single day for electricity, for transportation, for clean water is absolutely essentials to our security. in the year 2010 the estimate is that there were 3 billion cyberattack on private and government computer systems, 3 billion, so this is the threat that is going exponentially and that we simply must address. astana quote laws are already on the books with regard to cybersecurity or what kind of legislative structure is there already? >> first, to emphasize the legislation that we've introduced and hopefully will come to the senate floor focused on privately-owned sleeper structure bet the federal government web sites are in much better shape in terms of their

defense, the department of defense protecting their own sites and the department of homeland security protecting the government, and non-defense government so there is a work to do. current legislation doesn't do much coming and the current law doesn't do much to protect privately-owned cyberspace. that's why we think of a legislation is so critical. i think it is the most significant thing that congress, the president can do this year to protect american security and even america's economic prosperity because of all of the theft that i've talked about and we can get into with this bill does but frankly this is a kind of wild west at this point before the sheriff came to town. >> what does this bill do, and what are you most adamant about getting passed in this bill? >> i will start and then i will 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 and 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. some companies do it now, some don't. our bill house what we think is light and demands on those companies. we set a standard. it's up to them how they meet. if the department of homeland security determines they want be any further regulator but there is a lot else in the bill but ultimately that is the moment and the point of truth and the other real put in by some of our colleagues doesn't do that and therefore it doesn't get. >> senator collins? >> 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 are going to be securing the country. but we very carefully crafted the bill so there's industry participation and drafting the performance base standards that would have to be met as senator lieberman said there were some sectors, some industries that are already doing it. they would be exempt from the regulations come and the department would work 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 the industry does a better job of sharing its knowledge about intrusions' and the threat with the government and other private

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

we are covering those industries, those parts of the infrastructure which if attacked would have truly catastrophic consequences. secure fellow republican and your good friend, senator mccain has called your bill a bureaucratic. what's your response to that? >> with all respect my dear friend john mccain is wrong on this one. this is not a bureaucratic role. as senator collins said we have tremendous and for industry and put in forming the standards to protect our country. second there isn't a big bureaucracy that's taking shape. there is a lot of room for voluntary compliance with those standards. but to call this a bureaucratic regulatory system misses the point, and senator collins has made this so well which is this

business, she's an opponent of the overregulation business which hurts of the economy but this isn't 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 material stolen from at, and from us. somebody the other day said if i remember who it was i will be quoting it from now to say this bill is overregulation is like saying it's over regulation to require a developer who puts up in office buildings to meet certain safety standards in the construction of the building and i have to get a permit from the city that since the building is safe to go into, and that's where we are when it comes to cyber buildings, cyber

structure. >> i think that the alternative legislation would leave our country so vulnerable. would do nothing to the critical infrastructure, and that poses a huge threat to the wellbeing of our people and our economy. we have crafted a bill with a very sensible regulatory regime as one that's completely collaborative with private industry. it's one where the department of homeland security does not even review the security plans either self certified art and the independent third-party opinion. some have criticized our bill. they are not going far in its regulatory approach. >> when the bill was first

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

companies, the security firms, the innovators, and many of them because of the changes the we have made in the bill are now accepting of the bill. i think the industry is always wary of any new legislation, but they recognize that their products need to be kept up with the fred and there is much in this bill and the information sharing for example that will help them better protect their systems. there is nothing in this bill that in any way stifles the 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 is nothing in this bill

that has the federal government dictating the design of any measure to secure the system. it simply says the government would simply set performance standards but it would be up to the industry on how to meet those standards to be disconnected great thing about this is that as technology improves, companies will be able to bring the new technologies to meet the standard, the standards as we authorize them, the government isn't going to tell a business here is what you got to do, it's going to say you've got to meet this standard of protection of defense and you figure out how to do it and course the new products come on in and presumably it will be easier and hopefully less expensive to meet those standards. >> and your majority leader in the senate is rather fast tracked. have you had conversations with your colleagues in the house? >> not much. there is some interest in the

house, interestingly congressman dan lungren said a while ago that on this point he fought a bill that was a credible bill on cybersecurity had to have some point for the businesses who were not protecting themselves and us could be required to do that. there was a task force the speaker put together this last year which also seemed to it's not going t be easy but nothing seems easy in this session of congress. but it's just one that really is non-partisan. this is national security and the director of the fbi told senator collins and me that cyberattack and his opinion is soon going to supplant terrorism in the country's most serious threat to homeland security and that's saying a lot, and we are

behind. >> have you had any conversations with your republicans in the house? >> we have had conversations at the staff level as senator lieberman pointed out, there was the task force that the speaker put forth that has a lot of recommendations that parallel those that are in our bill. now in the and who knows exactly what the house will come out with but there is clearly a recognition based on this task force you can't ignore the it critical infrastructure and to 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 have had ten hearings. we devoted a great deal of time soliciting and put 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 cyberattack and i for one don't want to look back and say all the warnings were there why didn't react to the end of the house were willing to pass the senate republican bill but was recently introduced, could you see yourself supporting that, working with that bill? >> that is not the answer because it just is inadequate. i say that respectfully, it doesn't do the job. but the main sections of the bill senator mccain and others

have put in, three of them are covered in our bill and we can negotiate on it. the for this criminal penalties which i think are open to. the white house has his proposal for the committee jurisdiction we didn't include in hours, but the key to come to an agreement on so we can negotiate those parts of the bill but we have got to convince our colleagues at some point the government has to stay in a responsible business in the national interest you've got to meet these performance standards or we are all going to regret it. >> there is another issue here and that is that there are some companies and we would exempt them from regulation that are already meeting standards and they are spending money to do so and they are taking this very

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

their cybersecurity questions and problems. >> this is a consolidation of of of different efforts and offices within the department, so like senator lieberman, i believe it will offer better customer service and be a more effective and efficient and cost-effective way of dealing with cybersecurity to i think it's a very important reform. >> the timeline on this legislation getting to the senate floor? >> for senator reid got briefed on cyber threats last year and he got really agitated and this is become a priority 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 in april and if not

i'm sure it will come up when we come back from the easter passover recess in the middle of april and hopefully we can get it done now and send it to the house. >> he is certainly interested in the subject and i think recognizes that we need to act. he certainly is not endorsed our bill but i don't believe he signed on to the other bill as well. senator kafeel among the republican leaders is one who's built a great deal of expertise in this area and believes that it is imperative that we act. >> cementer susan collins is the top republican on the senate command security committee and joy lieberman, independent from connecticut is the chairman. thank you both for being on the communicators. >> thank you.

the japanese ambassador to the u.s. says his government still

has concerns over the damaged nuclear power plant. one year ago this month, a magnitude nine earthquake hit northern japan causing a meltdown at the plant in radiation leakage. tens of thousands of residents were displaced as a result. the ambassador spoke at the american enterprise institute on monday following his half-hour remarks a panel discussed the progress and the lessons learned from the experience. >> -- since the terrible earthquake that struck japan, killing so many. we are going to be discussing in number of issues related to the tragedy. first of all the remarkable recovery of japan. the strengthening of the u.s.-japan relationship, one that is so important to us in the pacific. the remarkable effort that was undertaken by our military forces to come to the aid and rescue of our friends in japan, and i'm so glad that we had the resources to do that. we may not have those resources in the fu