he's done to the trail. he has rolled over and said yes, per minister. the truth is for the ordinary families it is hurting but it's not working, and we know why because the government has been getting too far. with the chancellor say, would the chancellor's a? last august about america's balanced deficit-reduction plan? he said those who spend the whole of the past year heading up the american a simple he could answer this simple question why does the economy grow more slowly than the u.k.? >> mr. deputy speaker of the numbers are in, the chancellor is playing the wrong. the u.s. economy dropped 1.7% last year, twice the rate of hours. this government has run out of excuses in the face that is damaging the future and is the failure of their plan to read

today we heard from the chancellor, but mr. deputy speaker why should we believe this? everything so far has failed. was the idea of the budget? the national insurance holiday. .. >> we needed a plan for growth that worked, a guarantee on

youth job, and british investment bank to help small business, but on growth, on jobs, on how we pay our way in the world, this chancellor has failed. let me say this. let me say this. it's great to support great british success stories. a tale and indeed its increments, but there's also -- it's also important, mr. secretary speaker, to have a tale of a group of out of touch millionaires who agent like they are born to rule but turn out not to be very good at it. mr. deputy speaker, it sounds familiar, doesn't it? we all know it's a costume drama, and they think it's a fly on the wall documentary. mr. deputy speaker, this budget will be remembered for his failure on growth and jobs and

top rate tax cuts. this is not just a bad policy or misjudgment, but it destroys the claim the prime minister made. it destroys the claim the prime minister made about who he was and what he believed. what did he personally say in his aims and values document sent out to every conservative party member? the right test of for the policies is how they help the society, not the rich. it was called build to last. that was the test, a test this budget failed spectacularly. it's the death of his project, his compassionate conservatism. he and the chancellor have shown their true colored. they promised change. they failed on growth, jobs, on borrowing, unfair, out of touch for the few, not the many, an unfair budget built on economic failure, an unfair budget from the same old torreys.

>> order. >> this week "the communicator" continues looking at cybersecurity and the legislation addressing it. today, two key members of the house of representatives working on cyber issues. >> host: congressman lee terry, what's the legislation in the house?

>> guest: there's one bill that pretty much everybody agreed to, the rogers bill that allows the nsa to communicate to industries about known threats. that has not moved. it's still in committee as we build on that. >> host: well, as you know, the senate is actively per -- pursuing legislation. the lieberman-collins and the republican bill. where do you stand on those. >> we're looking at those, but we're doing our own efforts in the house of representatives. i was on the speakers' task force, and now i'm on the goal leading with the bipartisan committee to give us the outline, and so not that we're recreating the wheel, but we want to make sure we're doing it in a little different way than the senate's doing. >> host: if the collins-lieberman bill comes to the house, what's your thoughts

about that specific bill? >> guest: well, i think, you know, it -- i think that bill comes close but we're looking for a way of breaking down barriers to empower private sector internet providers, backbone developers. first of all, those are the first line. we have to empower them. it's a little bit different philosophy than the lieberman bill or mccain bill that i think creates a little bit of government involvement and we're trying to facilitate communications as opposed to create something new. >> do you think the department of home lander security is the -- homeland security is the right vehicle for monitoring cyber security? >> guest: my personal answer for that is hell no. i don't that homeland security

is the right solution. businesses have to be quick, able to talk to each other, and if they have to communicate with the permission of homeland security, you defeated the purpose of making them nimble. >> host: congressman terry, what about the issue of critical infrastructure? what's your approach to including that in any regulatory bill? >> guest: well, i'll have to see how the working group deals with that, but right now, we seem to have a consensus that we're going to treat all industries alike, make sure they have access to information, and the industries, themselves, can choose which one is more critical than another. for example, electric generation is probably more important to financial services, to wall street, than to a pasture in western nebraska, so obviously, ones critical or not, but they all have to start with getting information, receiving information from the nsa or

others of the relevant threat to them. >> host: and the development of those standards of what is included and what is not, who is responsible for that? >> guest: that would be within the industry because i really feel, and most of us on the task force feel that once you start setting standards and you're empowering a government agency to develop definitions of critical, then you're locking people in, or those entities into a long process, and by the time they develop a standard, everyone's gone by them. it's about sharing information instantaneously and involving our government agencies into that decision making process as counter productive. >> host: now, one of the concerns that the house, many members of the house brought up, is the issue of privacy. >> guest: yes. >> host: within cybersecurity. what are your views on that? >> guest: well, any time we start looking at monitoring pacts of information flowing through the system, you're going to raise the red flag of

privacy. what we have to be careful about is if the telecommunications or backbone industry is looking into packets to discover known codes that are botnets or viruses, that is all they can do is communicate to each other that it exists out there, it's coming, and they are able to defend against it. if we went through an independent, non-governmental clearinghouse of information that resolves some of the privacy issues, and also then the discussions back and forth before government because i think it's all right for government to say, hey, we have found this new code, it can be released at any time. you may want to prevent or develop something to prevent this specific code or launch for it. the issue then becomes if during that inspection the backbone

operators or backbone operates discover something, they shouldn't have to tell that to the government. i think that's where the privacy concerns really come in, and we're going to have to set limits on that. >> host: you used the word "non-governmental". >> guest: yes. >> host: what kind of group? >> guest: this industry here, i'm talking about the industry group. they have to form some level of clearinghouse amongst industry where perhaps the nsa or homeland security can communicate in and that they can distribute the information to the necessary groups to prevent the harm, and as long as it's from government to industry through this clearinghouse, i think we resolve a lot of the privacy issues. >> host: congressman terry, when an individual user on a computer, will they be affected by this cybersecurity legislation? will they have their records tracked, ect.? >> guest: well, that's what we can't allow is the tracking of

the individual computers users' records. when we look at authorizing them to look into packets for this code, the only thing they look at are 1's and 0's, and they don't know anything other than whoops, there's that virus code out there, and then they can develop something to block only that. >> host: now, when we talked to senator susan collins last week, a republican, she is against furthering business with regulation and that their bill is not a burden to business, that dhs does take a backseat. >> guest: well, and we're closer to that. i -- what we can't do is regulate because what we do then is freeze industry in place while the hackers and attackers

go right around them. susan's right on that point. i think there's some issues in their bill about privacy as well and input from the department of homeland security and nsa and communication back and forth that we have to work on. >> host: now, what is the cybersecurity working group? >> guest: the working group is intra energy, and commerce, and it's three republicans and three democrats working side by side to develop, in essence, the outline for any necessary legislation. >> host: do you see legislation coming into the house this year and passing? >> guest: yes. i do think so. speaker boehner has made it a goal. we have to do something. the president wants something, and so i think there's a positive atmosphere for getting something done this year. >> host: and, again, when you look at the legislation that

will be coming, how do you make it comprehensive, or do you make it comprehensive? >> guest: boy, that's a great question. the more layers as we try to understand the totality of cybersecurity, we learn one layer and have to learn the next so it's very complex; so we have to, part of our goal at the task force is to take that complexity and make it simple. that's difficult to do in itself, and so i think what you'll come up with is the bill that's going to be simple, streamlined saying we're going to eliminate these barriers, anti-trust, facilitate the communications, and then simply say go after it. >> host: what kind of current cybersecurity legislation is on the books, and would a new bill build on that or change it? >> guest: well, that's the issue is there really isn't a

cybersecurity bill out there. you know, there's certain issues about opting in and opting out and we've discussed spyware and malware, but it's hard to define, and so therefore there's not a hard bill or law on the books. i think we're building something from scratch here. the issue is we have to remove barriers, not develop any new bureaucracy or really new mandates. >> host: do you have firms in omaha that you represent that are interested in the legislation? are people back home interested in this >> guest: it surprises me how interested people are back home about cybersecurity, so when i bring it up, i always get a lively conversation, and, yeah, there's some farms back home -- a lot of telecommunications, network providers, level iii started in omaha, and so there's probably a little higher understanding the cybersecurity because of the

businesses in omaha. >> host: we've been talking with representative lee terry, a republican of necks, member of the energy and commerce committee and co-head of the cybersecurity working group. congressman, thank you. >> guest: thank you. now joining us on "the communicators" is the co-founder of the house security caucus and the democrat on the armed services committee on emerging threats and capabilities. he joins us from providence, rhode island. congressman, if we could, though, tell us your view on the collins-lieberman bill currently in the senate. >> guest: sure, be glad to. thank you very much for your continued interest in this very important topic. on the legislation, i'm pleased that senator lieberman and

senator collins have finally introduced a comprehensive bill on cybersecurity. it certainly is not strong enough, in my opinion, i want to see it stronger, but it is a very good start, move in the right direction, and i commend them for their due diligence and really for trying to move the issue forward. we can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, and it's certainly something i'd like to see move along and get through a conference committee with the house and the senate. >> host: now, congressman, when you say it's not strong enough, in what areas? >> guest: well, one of the things, of course, is relies on is department of homeland security and working with the private sector to come up with cybersecurity standards for the critical infrastructure for example. that's a good first start, but i think it's going to really take probably stronger measures to

put in place rather than, you know, this initial effort, but it's -- i think it's a good first start, and so i will, you know, wait to see how it unfolds, and to see more of the specifics, but i want to see, of course, if, in fact, it passes, the type of standards that are adopted and then how they are implemented. the stronger the standards, the more -- the confidence i'll have in its effect. >> host: now, you mentioned dhs, and your view is dhs the right agency? some of the bills pushed in the house have the military, have a military aspect to them. >> guest: well, what i've called for is a cybersecurity director in the office of the -- in the white house. basically, giving opposition much more directive authority to coordinate and implement cybersecurity protections. department of homeland security is going to be part of the

equation, an they are doing the best they can with the tools and resources that they have, but they've been challenged because they don't have the right and most robust authorities to compel other departments and agencies to engage in cybersecurity. you know, it may not be the mission, for example, of the department of treasury, commerce, or state to protect their government nears. they are other missions that are their focus. we have to have an agency that has cybersecurity as a primary focus, but also an entity with policy and budget tear authority to compel adoption of a robust cybersecurity standards. i believe, and i've advocated and the csi commissioned that i co-chaired as one of the four national co-chairs of the commission, called for a position to be established with the white house with the robust policy and budgetary authority. that being said, the lieberman-collins legislation gives dhs more authority than what they have now, and it does

begin the process of close collaboration between government and the private sector. it really will require a public-private partnership working together to get cybersecurity done right, and that's one of the highlights of the bill and something that i do support. >> host: now, conkman, how do -- congressman, how do you raise the privacy concerns raised by the aclu, electronic privacy information center, and other groups with cybersecurity and the definition of threats? >> guest: right. very good point to raise, privacy and civil liberty concerns, something to be sensitive to, and we have to work with the groups to instill confidence that we do this the right way. i don't want government to have any strong responses to this than is necessary. i always believed the internet should be open and free. it's the way it was designed, and we want to maintain that openness and government

regulation sensibly should have the lightest touch possible and always respect privacy and civil liberty concerns. the problem that we have is that where the greatest damage could be done in critical infrastructure, for example, by the electric grid is the best example. we -- clearly the government and the american people have a legitimate public policy interest in making sure that we're protecting those entities, those sectors much more strongly than what we are right now. the electric grid, in my opinion, is not adopting strong enough robust cybersecurity protections, and it leaves them incredibly vulnerable to cyberattacks that could shut down, for example, a whole sector of the country's electric grid that could do massive damage to the economy and potentially even loss of life. >> host: now, senator mccain has introduced a cybersecurity bill which isn't quite as strip gent as the -- stringent, and he says according

to him the senate democratic bill is bureaucratic or regulatory, and there's been concerns from companies as well. how do you address those? >> guest: well, i would say that in some ways senator mccain misses the point in that good intentions alone do not get you where you need to be in terms of robust cyber security and protecting critical infrastructure. the main difference is between the mccain bill is that the lieberman-collins bill employs mechanisms by which there's closer coordination between the public and private sector in setting standards -- stronger cybersecurity standards to protect critical infrastructure. they also, the coal lips lieberman bill sets up a mechanism for information sharing whereby the government would be able to share

classified information, signatures if you will, threat cig -- signatures with the private sector, and the private sector could share information, threat information, with the government. it's really -- it needs to be both ways. right now, either through law or through practice, it's not possible for that level of information sharing to occur. the mccain bill primarily only focuses on voluntary information sharing. again, an important part of the equation, but it doesn't get us where we need to be. think about it in this way. everyone would pretty much agree that we have among the safest airlines in the country, and yet the good intentions of the airlines of wanting to get people safely from point a to point b, that's great that they have good intentions to do that, and i'm sure for the most part they accomplish their goal, but good intentions alope, clearly, don't provide a level of safety and security that the american

people demand and require, and therefore, we have the ntsb that comes in and makes sure we get us that much further in having thee safest airline in the country. that's what this is about in terms of providing better and robust cybersecurity whether it's electric grid, banking system, or the telecommunication system among others. >> host: now, congressman, if you would, talk about current legislative action or proposals in the house and where you stand on them. >> guest: sure. well, there are a couple major bills that i'm supporting, one of which is the rogers bill. i sit on the house intelligence committee. chairman rogers of the intelligence committee along with myself and several others co-sponsored and authored legislation to provide for robust information as i described with the government

and private entities, and that bill passed almost unanimously. i was proud to vote for it. i hope it comes to the floor soon. the other bill moving into the house is congressman lungren's bill in the homeland security committee that would basically set stronger standards for protecting critical infrastructure as well as providing mechanism for information sharing, and so some important steps forward. we can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, and whether it's the individual pieces of legislation that would move forward or comprehensive bill like what's introduced on the senate side. we have to get something done because we're too vulnerable to attack, and not just from a nation state to worry about it, but these tools, weapons, if you will, through just a few key strokes could be accomplished by an individual, a terrorist, a criminal enterprise, terrorist organization, or, again, a nation state attack. we're very vulnerable.

i don't want to over hype the problem, but clearly the threat exists, and i'm trying to raise the awareness of this. i look at this as what we're probably in now a pre-9/11 moment and we have the opportunity to protect our critical infrastructure, protect the american people, but we have to act with the greatest sense of urgency. last point i'll make is that there's other aspects of cyberthreats we see right now have. cyberattack is among the worst things to happen, and we're trying to prevent that from occurring now. the other thing we're seeing clearly on a daily basis is cyber criminal activity and cyber espionage. we all know one who had their bank account hacked, credit card information stolen and abused, identity stolen through electronic means and causing great personal problems on an individual level or groups of people have information stolen or abused. we also see on the cyber

espionage side, our companies, particular in the defense industry, are getting hacked, penetrated on a daily basis and billions of dollars of research and development work stolen by competitors and adversaries that they scheme up on capitalize on. they get the research and development for free when we put hundreds of billions of dollars into the research and development costing americans their jobs, our ability to be leaders in innovation, and economic competitors. we're getting put in a real disadvantaged position right now, and we have to act more quickly to protect this kind of information. >> host: congressman, you mentioned you're a co-sponsor, supporter of the rogers' cybersecurity bill. if the lungren bill is the vehicle that makes to the house floor, would you be supportive of that? >> guest: i'm co-sponsoring the bill, it's a good bill to get this further down the road

towards employing robust cybersecurity mechanisms, not a perfect bill by any stretch, but i think it goes a long way towards establishing the kind of regulation and adoption of robust cybersecurity on protecting critical infrastructures. the congressman recognizes our electric grid, in particular, is vulnerable, and the owners and operators of the critical infrastructure, particularly in the electric grid sector, are not moving fast enough to adopt these tools in many ways because they put profits over safety and security of the american people. i think that that's wrong, and we're going to press them harder. >> host: what's the timetable that you foresee for action in the house of representatives? >> guest: i'm hoping it's going to happen over the next couple months that we see one or both of the bills, rogers or the lungren bill to be brought to the floor, but being a minority, we don't control the schedule. that's up to speaker boehner and

his team to decide when the pieces of legislation will be brought up. i'm looking forward to be supportive and commend both chairman rogers and ranking member as well as congress nan lungren for their continued attention to the issue. most security experts from the president, secretary of defense, chairman joint chiefs of staff, and many others recognize and repeated that cybersecurity is the greatest threat facing the country today. we've been lucky we have not experienced a major cyber attack, but as the fbi warned, this is also a real serious problem that they are concerned about, and we have to act with the greatest sense of urgency. i don't want to over hype, but i believe this is a pre-9/11 moment right now. on the other hand, as i outlined, we're seeing a great deal of activity among cyber criminals that are preying on vulnerable citizens and companies as well as espionage,

cyber espionage at the criminal level, at the corporate level, and nation state level costing jobs and economic competitiveness. this should be a wakeup call to the american people. >> host: congressman, where did you develop your interest in cybersecurity? was it through your work on the intelligence and armed services committees? >> guest: well, that's part of it, but it started several years ago going back as far as 2006 or 2007. i chaired the subcommittee on homeland security subcommittee on emerging threats issue science, and technology, and what we did a deep dive on was the security or vulnerability really of our critical infrastructure, especially the electric grid, and we had, basically, the head of nerk come before the subcommittee and testify that, yes, that they determined that the electric grid is very secure, and quite frankly, that individual misled