us is it's not university our grassroots are companies but it sort of building networks that can carry innovation for spill my experience in corporate life is that there are strange people. not academic setting. >> you mentioned in our companies investing more in automation and not in early stage creative research. if you look at u.s. manufacturing, capital stock which is a reflection of basically how many machines, including 3-d printers, machines defined -- defined broadly, pretty much that used to grow every decade in america on the order of 25-55% a decade. our technology stock in manufacturing was doubled it in the 2000s it was zero essentially. which has never again happen in our history. the u.s. companies were not investing in automation

initiatives. and secondly, we have this in her recent book, if you look at the share of corporate r&d as applied, excuse because basic, applied in development, we are the only industrial nation where the share of the corporate share in basic and applied to shrink in the last decade. every other country is expand their basic and applied for u.s. companies to the opposite. they expanded their development although that is flattened and their shrank. largely that's really, really risky, and shareholders are saying we really don't care about returned. and seven years we want returns next you. any other component of that is when you have the 27th weakest and most anemic tax critics of the tax code doesn't really rewarding. and alas, al all the great worke did at mit, we are actually nowhere near the lead in funding university research. we're 22nd of in the world. there are many, many other countries that put big, big

bets. we're lucky we have mit and caltech, but we are not at the country, the government side or the corporate side, putting those investments together and that's what i worry about. we're not investing more into it, when not going to be the ones that read the benefits. >> i think that's the question. is their net, whatever its taking place, in basic technology to support the stuff that you want to do. >> it's the case were lots of research as an economist would put a social -- the private return is insufficient to generate the private sector. and so that's why i think we have to look for more of these types of partnerships between government, industry. so one good example of this is collaboration that the federal

government has with the semiconductor industry, where, so simply no amount institutions like bell labs, which created large investments in developing the first transistor, government and industry are now cosponsoring a series of university-based centers of excellence at mit and stanford and berkeley and ucla that our first alternative figure how do we take, as far as it will go, how do we take silicon to its fundamental physical limits, and then is there anything after that? and so -- government is putting in have the money and the private sector -- >> tom and i are hosting a meeting next week or next month on the science and digital fabrication. because what i saw with just that every agency is spending money on this. but the work at the heart of today's discussion doesn't easily fit their segregation. and so to some degree the issue isn't the money to go into it in creating the alignment,

suspended in these things that don't fit the traditional boundaries. >> so we're going to move now to questions. so if you have a question can you raise your hand? we will look around and find you a microphone. and if you can say your name and your affiliation first, that would be great. over here, start. >> get the microphone on, please. >> [inaudible] >> we will repeat the question. >> the question is a robber. i'm curious when you speak about the answer is productivity, and that sounds great because that's what the u.s. needs to get out of its issue.

it probably is who's going to be the buyer, at how is that going to work out with the currency wars? at some point we export, we had the weak dollar, we're attractive and the next country can buy the same machine, said at the same shop as we've heard in barcelona, feed those local markets. where does this cycle -- are were looking at that into the equation in terms of the offtake, as they say in biofuels? >> well, productivity, a famous it comes in the 1800s, demand great, supply creates its own debate and that's certainly true, to in this case. as copies become more productive what happens? the price becomes cheaper or the quality goes up. one of the two which means more people are going to buy but i did i graduate but somehow peope won't want things.

we have a median income of about $45,000 in this country, and i guarantee you that the vast majority of people would rather have a median income of 200,000 or 400,000 or a million. that's just us. in terms of the currency thing, currency is a problem. all these unfair practices are a problem but fundamentally if we cannot become more productive and innovative as a country we will not get access to these markets. look at why are the germans lost manufacturing jobs of any major country? not just because productivity went down, productivity went up, innovation went up and then moved up the value chain and i got access to all of these great markets. i think that's what we needed as a country. we need to get establishments here that are established on high quality and high innovation and all that. and then we will gain global markets to begin to cut the trade deficit. >> we will go to the next question. >> one over there.

>> at them, former health staffer. we heard earlier that the atlantic is kind of involved in the economic issues because they're important national security issues, and we have heard from this very interesting discussion about how people are going to be producing incredibly valuable things for themselves at home. and in the internet age we've had an instance where hundreds of millions of people have gained access to more information than we've ever had before, tremendous value for all of them come and a lot of it is missed in our economic mission or gdp. and so if for going to be taking, as some of the panelists have said, a lot of the value from factories into our homes, creating tremendously valuable customized items for a cells, they're going to be missed by our traditional economic measurements.

how are we going to reconcile, howard going to reconcile that and how we going to tax that and how are going to deal with that? >> tom, do you want to -- sounds like a job for -- >> i think there's no question that there are really important measure issues. if you have an economy that is built solely on materials object, it's a lot easier to say didn't make more widgets than we did last year? and whether production process is centralized. and so come you know, if you have someone who is now able to get access to the world's knowledge, much of which is freely available, for the cost of 100 or $200, we are certainly not counting that in these statistics. people are wrestling with this. i think these are really, really hard questions.

>> i don't think it's hard questions. i really don't think it's a hard question. i think it's much more of the question of we simply have ignored -- i don't agree with you. we ignore individual production. individual production is important, people cook meals. they do home repairs. they change their own oil. there's lots and lots of things. this whole air the in be for example. people put people in the house, tool sharing. plus as it will grow, people will be making more things. so i think it's an easy way to measure the. you have a sample with a sample 1000 people every month and say how many bills did you cook? how many things did you make with your attitude manufacturing? and then extrapolate out and put that into national income accounts. >> i was more a getting and more a getting and how do you measure consumer surplus for this being an incredibly large -- >> that's hard. >> i'm not saying it's a bad

thing. i think it's a great thing. i'm just saying that from the point of view of making intertemporal comparisons about people standards of living, i think that's a difficult thing. >> i agree but we don't even try. we just simply write that part of the economy off if it's not real, and it is real. >> sounds like an opportunity to innovate. >> we have one or two left. >> i'm bob hirschi, i'm a consultant. what can be done in working through the internet to coordinate the various steps we are talking about, getting the funding together with these people and the various parts of the process, and getting it all coordinated so everybody agrees on what we will? >> one piece i would observe from the trenches is a pretty systemic failure of the incumbent or gustation and and we need to invent a new with. sort of we broadly the maker,

hackers, community have had to create entirely new educational platforms. distance-learning as rent essential sites which leads to distribute learning, for example, it is a legal today's we we've had to invent accreditation. business vcs don't just found out a network specifically. so the answer, one level up from the question is pretty large with the incumbent organization needs to be vertical column, doesn't fit this will because technologies -- and so it's not the technology was hard. that's going really well. what's been heart is inventing sort of his holy family of organizations. >> we have one question here. this is our last question. >> i have a suggestion to you.

very strange people combined iq of a couple hundred. anyway, i think the notion that we have a -- is wrong. we have a surplus. why? because san francisco in july last it has been 55% of china's imports -- in other words, with offshore offshore. if you take off that figure from the chinese figures, down comes the 220 billion up goes the u.s. by 220 billion we are running a surplus. good example of that is apple. apple iphone's come here, made in china. however, they are 66% u.s. content and 3% chinese. although 1% under is chinese. so why have these figures -- [inaudible]? >> i think that story come with

all due respect vastly overblown. jim cramer at uc irvine is done the best research and event. really she was not u.s. versus china. it's, that the and getting more of the value added. i think when you look at the tree, look, the trade system, when apple sells ipr exports ip, that's included in the trade system. when we move apart over china to get it civil, that's included as an export. the whole thing is included as an import. i just don't think those numbers are anywhere near as flawed as you would suggest. >> so i think we're going to in this panel here. thank you, the digital fabrication -- [applause] >> and on to complete stay where you are. we're going to go right into the

next discussion which is going to be moderated by my colleague from the atlantic who is arriving on stage now. >> the senate appropriate committee holds a hearing today on the potential impact of automatic spending cuts known as sequestration. members will hear from cabinet secretaries from homeland security, had, education and defense, and the white house budget controller. live coverage at 9:30 a.m. eastern on c-span3. today booktv features author stephen hess on his new book, what ever happened to the washington reporters. we will be live with the author from politics & prose bookstore in washington, d.c. >> after president-elect andrew jackson's wife died in the

simpler 1840, her knees assumed the role of first lady. >> emily was perfect. for all the negatives washington had to say about andrew jackson, they loved emily. she sort of covered everything. the women all liked her, and as it was to happen, the women's opinions that meant more than people thought in washington, that she, emily, became his acting first lady. she entertained beautifully. she was polished. some people thought oh, she's rude and rustic from the country. she knew exactly how to do things. >> emily donelson, one of the women who served as first lady and c-span's new series, examined the public and private lives in a first of its kind project for television. season one begins this monday, presidents' day, at 9 p.m. eastern and pacific on c-span, c-span radio and c-span.org.

>> president obama has signed an executive order establishing voluntary cybersecurity standards that would improve information sharing and bolster collaborative efforts among federal agencies and the private sector. this briefing is 40 minutes. >> good morning, everyone. welcome to the department of commerce. i understand there's still some at the line out there because this is the place to be. the first -- i'm delighted to see the crowd here and delighted to have a chance to be here for part of this important announcement. i want to acknowledge just a few people in the audience. i do stand a large number of congressional staff representing both the senate and the house of

representatives, and i think all of you for coming back and also want to particularly acknowledged cam kerry. where is cam? you somewhere here. cam has led the department of commerce's efforts in terms of cybersecurity and in terms of our involvement with all of it. it is cam's work and want to thank you for that, for being here today when some of it comes to fruition. so cybersecurity is one of the most crucial issues facing both our nations security and our nations economy in the 21st century. here in the commerce department we are committed to helping american businesses address their cybersecurity issues and the risks. protecting our businesses and our infrastructure from attack is crucial in ensuring that our economy continues to grow. the president has made clear to all of us in his cabinet that we must use our existing authority to move forward and to make progress in this area.

it is simply not prudent to wait given the nature of the risk. that's why, for example, the commerce department's national institute of standards and technology has been promoting voluntary best practices in cybersecurity among u.s. technology companies. yet even as we work to reduce risk we must also protect the innovation and prosperity that has flowed from the internet, from e-commerce, from all of the new technologies that abound in our nation. improving the lives of millions of americans not just here but around the globe. in sum, we must curtail risk of also continuing to foster growth and innovation, and that is a complex challenge for leaders and for experts in the field. i believe strongly this challenge cannot and should not be addressed by government alone, and i know i'm not alone in that belief. our public and our private sector leaders have to work closely together. this is not something that

either sector can do by itself. our message today with this executivexecutive order which ag and what about in just a moment is that this administration is stepping up to the plate to fulfill what we believe to be pressing responsibilities in this area. we believe that the american people deserve nothing less than a whole of government approach, an approach that draws from the most advanced ideas, the strongest efforts, and the best practices in our intelligence, security, law enforcement, and economic agencies. this will include unprecedented outreach to communities and industries across the country from departments such as commerce. because we will need your help. the government, as i said, cannot do this alone. businesses need to be both aware of cybersecurity problems and to be proactive in adopting best practices that protect themselves and our economy. so to tell us more about this groundbreaking executive order

i'm very pleased that we have the white house cybersecurity coordinator with us here today. i hope you'll welcome our countries, one of our country's leading minds on both national security and on cybersecurity issues. he has been at the center of this important issue, michael daniel. [applause] >> thank you, madam secretary, for that generous and kind introduction. we'll see if my kids continue to think i'm one of the leading minds in that area. i also want to say thank you for hosting the event here today. it's really great to see this many people here from, ranging from trade association industry, congress, think tanks, other interested groups. we have a wide range of people including people such as the former dhs secretary michael chertoff, acting administrator of gsa administrator dan

paganini, cam as mentioned to i think the wide range of present, the wide range of the audience and the size of the crowd just how critical cybersecurity has become as a broad ranging national security issue. and i thank all of you for your support. yesterday the administration took a big step forward in cybersecurity. as the president announced in his state of the union last night, he signed an executive order to approve the savagery of our in for such. at the same time he approved a presidential policy directive designed to produce a good and resilience of our critical infrastructure, and both cyberspace and in the physical realm. taken together, these documents will provide a significant push to our cybersecurity efforts. the president has taken this action because the threat the nancy. it is serious and israel. the consequences of inaction are simply too significant. but as a result of the actions that we taken over the last few days, the nazis will continue to be a leader in the protection of

critical infrastructure. we are forging new relationships within the federal government, we're forging a relationship between the federal, state and locals and we're forging new relationships between the government and the private sector. these are all hard things and they'll take time to get right. that's why it's important we get started today. now, in broad terms the order the president signed rests on three pillars. information sharing, privacy, and a framework of standards. and through this executive order the president takes action in each of those areas. in information sharing the eo directs agencies to increase the bottom, the time in his and cori of information that is shared with the private sector. you will hear more about that from deputy secretary lew. in privacy, the order requires that agencies carry out these tasks in a way that protects privacy and civil liberties. in fact, the executive order will embed the fair information practice pulled deeper into the cyber shoot process to ensure

that we protect, even as we increase our information sharing, that we protect the privacy and civil liberties of all americans. and standards. the eo will direct the department of commerce national institute of standards and technology to develop a framework of standards that can serve as a baseline of security for critical infrastructure. the president will then ask an executive order for the primary regulator of critical infrastructure to assess with sufficiency of existing regulations for cybersecurity as compared to the framework, and then make recommendations for how to proceed. you're going to hear from several key individuals today as they talk about the agency's part in implementing the executive order. you will see from the speakers that we have that this executive order really reflects a whole of government approach. and that's not just in name only but if you read to the document and you listen to what we're talking about today you'll see that it really does involve the entire swath of the federal government. the truth is that cyber is

really a team sport, and no one agency, how could, the matter what its confidence, can carry out everything that needs to be done. but before we hear from those speakers, let me make a couple of other points. this executive order is a continuation of a conversation that's been going on for quite some time. and has had a whole variety of -- as part of that conversation this past fall, the administration undertook what was actually an unprecedented amount of outrage as part of developing this executive order. as a result, this order i sleep reflects input of an enormous number of stakeholders, whether from think tanks come from industry, from trade associations, from congress. for example, if you look at it you will see, you can see reflections of house republicans task force on cybersecurity and the csis commission on cyber security for the 44th presidency. they are all included somewhere in the eo. i expect this conversation will continue as we go to the hard work of implementing this executive order. so the bottom line is that we will need your help in making

this deal work. cybersecurity must be a shared collective endeavor. so i'm asking everybody in the audience today, help us make the information sharing processes we are setting up work and useful. help us make the framework effective, useful it reflects the leads and concerns of industry. and then help us put these frameworks into place. finally, this executive order is really just a down payment. it's a down payment on legislation. because while there's a lot that we can and will do under this executive order, as the president indicated last night, we still need legislation to do with many of the critical aspects of cybersecurity. so we look forward to working with congress to develop legislation that can pass both houses of congress and the that the president can sign. so at this point what our elected is off like to ask general keith alexander from the nation's good agency and cyber command to come forward and talk a little bit about the underlying importance of this issue and why the executive

order is a key first step. please welcome general alexander. [applause] >> wow to a lot of people out here. thank you michael, thank you for that introduction and for laying out what executive order does. i think one of the things you want to hear from is about the threats. from my perspective, the threats are real and growing. the only pashtun you have to look at the denial of the texas scene on wall street, the destructive attacks we've seen against saudi aramco, to see what's coming at our nation. we need to act and we need to now. that time for action is now in this executive order takes a step in implementing the action. we need a way of sharing information between government and industry. both for information sharing and

for hardening our networks. i think what we are doing in the executive order tackles perhaps the most difficult issue facing our country. how do we hardening these networks win, across all of industry and government, those networks stand in greece state separate? with got a way of reaching out with industry and with government to solve the kind of calm. i am really pleased to see dr. patrick gallagher from nist leading parts of this. pat, your exceptional work when i told secretary blank we are really proud that you are on this. i know many of you know that you cyber command has a planned expansion in new force structure. in my role, as command of cyber command i will tell you that these changes reflect the defense department's recognition of the need to build a fort that can meet the nation's defense requirements in cyberspace, and i deeply appreciate all that the

service chiefs are doing in organizing, training and equipping these forces. but i'm not here today to talk about cyber command. well, actually a little bit. about cyber command. we do play a vital role in all of this, and then protecting dod networks and supporting our combatant and supporting our combatant commands come and defend the nation from cyberattacks. but we can't do it all. know one agency here can do it all. it takes a team. and the government. the government cannot do it by itself. we have to have the government and industry working together as a team. talking about the team, i'll tell you it is been an honor and privilege to be part of that team. it started off with secretary chertoff several years back, and now with secretary napolitano and deputy secretary jane lute at dhs, and with director bob

mueller at fbi, we have brought together the key parts of the government team to look at our roles and responsibility on and have made tremendous progress. and i think you can see the government team has got those roles and responsibilities right. but we need industry to be part of that team. assistance and assets that our nation depends on for our economy, for our government, even for our national defense are overwhelmingly owned and operated by industry. we have pushed hard for information sharing. we need to ensure our private sector companies have the information they need to defend their own networks, and to do so in a timely manner. however, information sharing alone will not solve this problem. ..

let me close by echoing what we have already heard from secretary blank. this executive order is only a down payment on what we need to address the the threat. this executive order can only move us so far and is not a substitute for legislation. we need legislation and we need it quickly to defend our nation. on the right legislation, actions are needed for

cybersecurity standards, is challenging. the philosophy and role of government in setting those standards. that is what we bring in the cybersecurity framework, a way of addressing those two problems. this is the it borders a step forward. it creates a voluntary and participatory process for industry and government to establish that framework. in particular with so much critical infrastructure owned and operated by the private sector the government is often unaware of the malicious activity targeting the infrastructure. these blind spots prevent us from being positioned to help the critical infrastructure defend itself and prevent the bus from knowing when we need to defend the nation. the government can share threat information with the private sector and it is executive order and existing laws.

however, a real time posture for the military's critical networks will require legislation that removes barriers to private/public sharing of attacks and intrusions in private sector networks. legislation is necessary to create incentives for better voluntary cooperation on cyberstandards, development and operation and to update and modernize government authorities to address these two cyberthreats. cyberlegislation needs to address industry, liability concerns. thank you. i will be followed by the great, i forgot how many i am supposed to say on this. i have to you we have worked together four years, deputy secretary jane lute and myself, it is an honor and privilege now to bring her up to the stage for the key part of this address.

[applause] >> thank you, everyone, for coming. every good idea whose time begun began as an idea ahead of its time, that is what we can say about cybersecurity. many people in this room, general alexander, mark weatherford and others have and working on cybersecurity for many years and a lot of that work we are seeing results of today. as you know the department of homeland security was created to help build a safe, secure, resilient place where the american way of life can thrive. a lot of jobs to do, to secure our borders, administer immigration laws, ensure national resilience in the face of disaster and ensure the nation's cybersecurity. not only do we need to protect

against people, things, activities that might be dangerous but need to expedite legitimate trade and travel and protect privacy, civil-rights and civil liberties as we do it. four years ago, the first home and security review was written, we called out cybersecurity as the key mission not only for the department of homeland security, not only the government of the united states but for all of us who are active and that is all of us. for us this means securing.gov and working with the private sector to secure dot.com. what we doing to secure dot.gov? working with general alexander and other partners across the federal family and department of justice treasury, commerce, energy and beyond to secure our systems, improved and automate our security management approach so we can understand what hardware is connected and who

has access to our systems and what software is on the system is and how can we and a stand and correct the existing vulnerabilities that account for so much of the cybersecurity intrusions we see today but we have been working with the private sector to improve and enhance our ability in the dot.com world to secure an open internet. the executive order -- much of what we learned with consultations with the private sector as a first set of steps. first it enhances the government ability to provide classified and unclassified threat to u.s. companies. it requires federal agencies to produce unclassified reports to u.s. companies if we have information indicating that a company is the target or a victim of a cyberthreat and requires reports to be shared in

a timely manner. in addition, executive order expands classified information sharing beyond the defense industrial base allowing companies in other sectors to participate in that program. it is a program that provides sensitized cyberfret information derived from law enforcement intelligence and other protection programs for dot.gov networks. the critical infrastructure owners and operators, directly or to their cybersecurity service providers. this activity supplements ongoing efforts in the private sector to enhance cyber security service offerings available to u.s. companies. government is by no means and under many circumstances not even the most important source of cybersecurity threat information. we know the amount of private sector information that is available with respect to cybersecurity threats can dwarf that which the government can provide but the critical point is for the government to provide

its unique information that it has to the private sector in a timely and appropriate manner and a format that is most unusual. the executive order also establishes a voluntary program to promote the adoption of cybersecurity framework we will talk about in a few moments. dhs will work to develop this framework that will be outcome based and technology neutral. will bring critical for infrastructure owners and operators to a baseline level of cybersecurity essential to their operations. these baseline security improvements will better position many firms to participate in the information sharing programs we just talked about. for example we already have begun the department of energy dialogue with the electricity sector and look forward to continuing this effort. similarly we have been working with the department of treasury in the financial sector and we will continue to work with all

of the sector specific agencies and coordinating council's that represent industry to develop programs to assist companies with implementing the framework and identify incentives for its adoption. additionally federal executive-branch civilian agencies will adopt the framework itself themselves wherever it enhances the protection of their own dot.gov activities. because the majority of critical infrastructure is owned and operated by private companies reducing risks requires a strong partnership beyond government and industry but cyber and physical systems must work together. they do work together, activities to secure them must come closer together. this requirement is underscore in a policy directive and critical -- critical resilience the president also issued. they create opportunities to reinforce the needs for holistic

thinking and coordinated action on cyber and physical security of critical infrastructure all while being mindful of protection of our civil rights, civil liberties and individual privacy. we are unable to work with the private sector as we design and implement these programs just as we have been working closely with them up until this point. so they can operate in an effective manner and government is doing everything it can to help ensure cybersecurity of the nation. i would like to turn to my colleague and friend deputy attorney general jim cole. [applause] >> thank you. thank you all for being here today for this very important announcement. last year the administration made its views on the importance of privacy and civil liberties

clear during the deliberation on the cybersecured of legislation. cybersecurity and privacy are not mutually exclusive. also affirmed its commitment and i quote again the sharing of information must be conducted in a manner that preserve the americans privacy, data confidentiality and civil liberties. as you heard from everyone here today this is a foundational peace, everyone supports this as we go forward. today as we rollout the executive order on improving critically infrastructure cyber security, just as resolute about adhering to those ideals. as deputy secretary luke and general alexander emphasized, one of the most import aspect of the executive order and

improving government mechanisms for providing timely cyber3 information to the private sector and for example the executive order explicitly adopts a whole of government policy to increase volume, timeliness and quality of cyberthreat information that is shared with the u.s. private sector so that they may better protect and defend themselves against the cyberthreats. in that vein the order mandate expansion of the enhanced cybersecurity initiative, a voluntary program that provides classified cyberthreat information to appropriately cleared personnel employed by private sector owners and operators of the critical infrastructure. in addition, the order requires the department of justice, department of homeland security and the office of the director of national intelligence, cyber3 intelligence reports to target u.s. entities and establish a

process for rapidly notifying those entities of the cyberthreats. these are critical initial steps the government must take to assist the private sector companies in each ending their systems and networks from escalating, evolving and increasingly sophisticated cyberpress, taking the steps to improve the flow of fibers of the threat information we must not lose sight of our commitment to secure individual privacy and civil liberties as we do it. how will we ensure that information received and disseminated under the executive order is protected consistent with our commitment to protect privacy and civil liberties? we will do so by insuring the cybersecurity activities we are conducting are transparent in a manner with guidance and oversight of officials trained to safeguard privacy and civil liberties under the executive order, each federal department

and agency is required to develop and implement privacy and civil liberty safeguards in concert with cybersecurity activities with each agency's senior officials for privacy and civil liberties are required to conduct assessments of those safeguards and their implementation. those assessments will be shared with dhs at steve privacy officer and officer for civil rights and civil liberties for inclusion in a public report. that report will be produced in consultation with privacy and civil liberties oversight board reviewed annually. the executive order includes another important feature designed to insure that federal agencies take a consistent and thorough approach to identify and mitigate potential privacy impact. in particular, this requires agencies to conduct the

well-established fair information practices principles a.k.a. pips. chips are widely accepted framework of principles used to assess and mitigate privacy and civil liberty impact of informations systems, processes and programs that consist of eight into dependent principles, transparency, individual participation, specification, data minimization, use limitation, data quality and integrity, security, accountability and auditing. they provide objective set of principles but permit agencies to apply those principles in the context of their differing authorities and missions. they are not a new invention of the executive order. they are time tested and universally recognized principles that perform basis of the privacy act of 1974, dozens

of federal privacy and information statutes. they are used prominently today including in the white house's national strategy for cyberspace, and in the consumer privacy bill of rights. we want to emphasize the administration's commitment to doing this right which is demonstrated by the executive order itself. the order sets a direction for responsible, effective cybersecurity standards and information sharing, preserving individual privacy and civil liberties and ensuring transparency and accountability to the american public that we seek to protect. i would now like to introduce someone you have heard about constantly throughout this program, dr. pat gallagher, undersecretary of commerce and director of mist who will talk about the cybersecurity

framework. [applause] >> good morning, thank you for that kind introduction. what i would like to do this morning is to address the questions that have come up regarding this approach of using a framework, public and private collaboration needed to support to enhance cyber security, if you look around the audience in this room, you will see a broad cross section representing industry, organizations, different types, representing stakeholder groups, this audience is a good reflection of what we are trying to accomplish today through this executive order, highlights the approach the administration hopes to take to enhance cyber security bringing together stakeholders' from across government and industry as general alexander

said to put together the team to solve this issue. let me start by asking a few questions and answering them. what is the frame work? the framework is best answered operationally. it is the set of practices, standards, guidance, methodologies, whatever it takes that if implemented effectively would achieve a desired level of cybersecurity performance and system resiliency. the other thing to keep in mind about the framework is it is not a work product, this framework is going to be long to industry so operationally it will be whatever you make it to be. what we're trying to do is create an alliant effort. we are trying to share with you

the level of performance we think needs to be achieved in critical infrastructure working closely with our colleagues in the department of homeland security and industry will respond by creating a framework of practices that are put into practice would be responsible. there for the framework is more than anything a framework for action, if it is theoretically it's simply won't work, it is your framework, not ours, the goal is for the private sector to produce a security responsive framework to proceed and i would expect this will be a layered approach that will include broad methods, identify common practices and tools and identify specific and in some cases sector specific practices and tools as well. this role is to support your effort to convene and support a multi stakeholder process that will allow us to produce the most effective framework that we can.

the other question is why do we select this approach? we believe the most impressive--effective outcome is one, depending on actions of the private sector to drive the practice to achieve the security performance for critical infrastructure, this was stated a number of times. nearly all of the assets to critical infrastructure are privately owned and operated. they are working together to share with you up front the performance goals, north star to achieve to secure the nation's critical infrastructure, yesterday i find a memorandum of agreement with dhs to make sure they are closely coordinated or aligned with each other. we also believe this approach enhances adaptability. the simple truth of the matter is it is within industry and

other stakeholders where the true capacity or the know-how and knowledge is to support framework standards of practices to promote cybersecurity, a more scaleable approach and adaptable approach because in the end, if the owners and operators of critical infrastructure have to use these practices and who better to derive those practices than those who understand their cost and manage them and understand what has to be done? it also allows our efforts to achieve effectiveness at market scale. by providing a base line of security through standards, these practices can be driven into the market, into the technology, into the business practices and in fact achieve a global penetration and allow us to use these practices as our

baseline, this is better for everyone, better security, and it is better for those companies that going to be innovating and creating the technology in this area. the challenge is making sure these efforts are effective. our job is to support your effort with information about the technology, the threat, the vulnerability, to support sharing best practices, promoted adoption and harmonize federal efforts. the frame work combines the process outlined in the executive order can help achieve these goals. there is one word that will cause more confusion than any other in this process and that is the word standards. as it turned out standards is one of those terms that means different things to different people. if you distill it down to its most basic element a standard is nothing more than a common basis of comparison. here is where the confusion lies. it depends on the purpose for

which you are making the comparison. all of us are familiar with a performance standard. anyone going through school knows that academic standards are something we had to strive to achieve to get a grade but those were standard set by somebody else, the requirements for performance. i will tell you the much more common form of standard is a dorm, a mutually agreed upon set of practices, protocols or specifications that allow groups of industries, groups of entities to work together co peaceably to promote collective action. these types of standards are used everywhere. they are involved in things like communication standards which allow the interoperable we of diverse sets of technology and business standards which allow shared business practices like quality management to occur across multiple sectors. these types of standards are developed by industry. the united states turned to industry to be the main driver

in these types of standards. this type of standard we are principally talking about today. it tells us how to be developed. the essential ingredient is these types of standards must be developed through multi stakeholder process that is open, participatory, supports voluntary consensus. this can support the process by providing the framework for that collaboration to occur by allowing priorities to be set, best practices to be gathered, metrics, measures to be adapted to support adoption of these practices and to work with you to make sure that this is a meaningful and ongoing process. what will happen once the framework is put in place? several things. first of all, i hope it will be used. a theoretical framework is of no

use at all. the acid test of this effort is the frame work reflects a body of practice that is put into place. i will come back to that because one of the goals of the executive order is to promote adoption. it will also be a road map. it should be clear that the framework we are talking about is not a one time effort. it will start by identifying those ongoing and current best practices that are out there right now and by looking at those identify the gaps and weaknesses we have to address. that will naturally lead to a priority action plan, a road map for improvement so that this framework becomes a living document. under the executive order a number of things are the key off of the frame work. first of all, there will be an effort to identify the ways in which we can harmonize the various federal efforts against this framework. this includes looking at existing regulatory agencies

that are interactive with critical infrastructure and making sure that they are harmonizing their efforts against the framework of practices we are talking about. there is an everett in the executive order to identify those incentives that are used where all the federal agencies can support and promote adoption of this framework or practice. we won't be done with the first round of this process. the technology we are talking about, the threat environment we're talking about is too dynamic. there will be innovation and opportunity that comes along as well as folks work on this. we need an approach that can constantly improve by adapting. like we have seen in other areas this collaborative structure we set up to generate the framework can be the basis of support for this ongoing process and i think will be essential when we approach this effort in that spirit. today we are at the beginning of the beginning and what i would like to do is finish by asking

for your help. this is about teamwork, this is about working together. for the framework to be effected we need to begin to engage and work together. today, on the web site, we posed a series of questions that will soon be published formally and the request for information to the public to solicit input on both the framework and the framework process. i would encourage all of you to take a look at those and begin to engage with us immediately on fat. additionally, we will be hosting a series of workshops, the first of those will be announced shortly. anticipated in early april. these workshops are designed to both continue the in put gathering phase but also to reflect back to what we are hearing through the request for information and to begin this critical process of convening and building the multi stakeholder process. tomorrow i would also like to point out the information security privacy advisory board

which is here with us today is hosting their meeting. this is a federal advisory committee reporting to the commerce department and omb and we will be talking with them tomorrow about the executive order process as well. so with the call to team work i would like to thank all of view for being here today and also want to thank you for your commitment to this process. by working together we are going to make this successful. with that i would like to invite cybersecurity coordinator michael daniel back to the stage. thank you. [applause] >> in closing i want to thank secretary blank, general alexander, deputy secretary lute, jim cole and director

gallagher for their marks day. you heard how this will boost information sharing, protect privacy, create a higher base line for critical infrastructure cybersecurity to a framework of standards. you heard how we want to do this in a manner that is collaborative and open and transparent with industry and working to the processes that have been long established to carry out those functions. from my perspective getting the executive order and policy documents signed has been a significant milestone that we have been working on for quite some time but in many ways the hard work is ahead of us implementing it and making it reality. i look forward to working across the federal government with partners in state and local government with partners up on the hill and the private sector to take the concrete steps needed to implement this e o. i would like to believe we have been so clear and transparent we have answered all of your questions and all of you will go home completely understanding what it is we are going to do

but somehow or another i doubt it. so to that end over the next several weeks we and the other agencies that have been involved will be holding a series of additional meetings with sectors, sector coordinating council's, trade association and others to discuss the executive order in more depth. i encourage you to contribute questions and in put so we have a good exchange of ideas and we begin the process of implementing this e o. e -- i and my staff will be looking forward to these discussions. i want to thank everyone for coming today. as i said in my opening remarks -- >> you are watching c-span2 with politics and public affairs weekdays featuring live coverage of the u.s. senate, weeknights watched the public policy events and every weekend the latest nonfiction authors and books on booktv. you can see past programs and get our schedule that our web site and join in the conversation on social media sites.

>> the u.s. senate is about to gavel in for the day. senators will continue debating the nomination of chuck hegel as defense secretary. yesterday majority leader harry reid filed closure on the nomination and for failing to reach agreement with republican leaders a proceeding to the nomination. if all the time for cloture is used a cloture vote will be held tomorrow, a confirmation vote could be held this coming saturday. the senate is scheduled to be in recess next week. live coverage of the u.s. senate on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. today's opening prayer will be offered by guest chaplain reverend ed kelaher from all saints church in chevy chase, maryland.

the guest chaplain: let us pray. father god, you alone are the sovereign lord of this great nation. send your spirit among the men and women of this chamber that your will on earth may be done as it is in heaven. people suffer, children hunger, laborers strain under their burdens, and those without a voice cry out in silence. yet we stand before you at risk of doing little or nothing to comfort and relieve them, unless our hearts are yielded to you alone. there is nothing we can do without you. give our senators wisdom beyond human understanding, courage beyond their human hearts, and a sense of urgency and benevolence that matches your own. lord, as you hear the cries and prayers of your people, enable our leaders by your holy spirit to hear likewise in humility and charity.

we pray these things in your holy name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c, february 14, 2013. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable brian schatz, a senator from the state of hawaii, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: patrick j. leahy, president pro tempore.

mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader smed. mr. reid: following leader remarks, the senate will resume consideration of the nomination of senator hagel to be secretary of defense. that vote will occur tomorrow morning. mr. president, in less than two hours, our country will be without a secretary of defense. at a time when we have a war going on in afghanistan, we have about 70,000 troops there, we have a nuclear weapon that was detonated in north korea a few days ago -- they're threatening, as they have publicly on other occasions, but after this bomb was put off -- set off, that they were designee it to attack us -- that they were doing it to attack us. that the situation in iran with

all of their very, very militaristic statements against us. all over the world america is involved in matters dealing with our military. mr. president, i met the night before last with the man that killed osama bin laden in my office talking about his 16-year career as a seal, the places he went around the world protecting the interests of the united states. it wasn't just in afghanistan, not in pakistan, all over the world. to think that we have now in the senate a situation where we're going to wind up without a secretary of defense at this time.

we had all the talk -- you know, we have some questions about senator hagel. keep in mind, mr. president, he is a republican. but we have some questions to ask. but, publicly, a significant number of republican senators said that they would not filibuster. remember, there has never in the history of the country been a filibuster of the defense p -- f the defense secretary nominee -- never. but now -- i had to file cloture on this. now, all -- not all the shows, but a number of shows attacked me last night. we told -- we told reid and all

the people that we shouldn't agree to the rule changes because this is what we have going on. i'm ignoring that, mr. president. but it's shocking that my republican colleagues would leave the nation without a fully empowered secretary of defense during all the things we have going on in the world, including a war. several of my colleagues requested a letter from the president. the letter was sent at their request to the chairman of the committee, which is standard procedure here. senator levin answered all of their questions. they said, well, we need that letter so we can vote. one stall after another. now i'm told that the letter was sent to the chairman of the committee, and that's not good enough. they want it sent to individual senators. now, this isn't high school getting ready for a football game or some play that's being produced at high school. this is -- we're trying to

confirm somebody to run the defenses of our country, the military of our country. that letter was received yesterday about 4:00, so now, as i indicated, they want something else. mr. president, the committee of jurisdiction, the armed services committee, they have extensive information on chuck hagel. they have as much information that's available on the benghazi situation, testimony from the administrative officials, from multiple committees, from an independent review board, secretary clinton testified, secretary panetta, who is going to be leaving his job in less than two hours, chairman of the joint chiefs martin dempsey, and others have already testified regarding the athat can claimed four -- the attack that claimed four american lives. chuck hagel had nothing to do with the attack in benghazi.

the administration hasn't been forthcoming is outlandish. there are serious consequences to this delay. consequences that are occurring right now. the president is making some important decisions about afghanistan. he announced to the world just a day or two ago that 34,000 troops will be coming home during the next year from afghanistan. we're negotiating with the afghan government regarding how we'll support them beyond 2014. negotiations are going on right now. i heard today from former senator john kerry that he's headed for the middle east. why? syria. that's something else that the secretary of defense has to be concerned about.

next week while we're on recess, while we're on recess, they're having a nato defense ministers meeting. they'll be in brussels? what to do? to coordinate ou our approach on afghanistan. it's going to be somewhat unusual that the united states isn't represented by the secretary of defense there. we won't have one if we don't get this thing done this week. i am a sure they're going to focus on how to end the war responsibly in afghanistan, how our alliance will work together through the time of transition, how we can ensure afghanistan doesn't become a safe haven for al qaeda again. we need a secretary of defense at that meeting. it sends a terrible signal to the hundreds of thousands of

troops that we have around the world, military personnel here in the united states that we're not going to have a secretary of defense. republicans are telling our troops, well, you can have a leader later. what's going on in europe, brussels' convention, the conference doesn't really matter. it sends a terrible signal not only to our military personnel but to the world. he has answered exhaustive questions about his record. he has the support of the president of the united states. i heard speeches from the other side saying a lot that the president should have the right to choose whoever he wants. he has the support of this body, majority vote in this body, in this democracy. we're a nation, mr. president, at war.

we are, whether we like it or not, the world's i indispensable leader. we're it. for the sake of our national security, it's time to put aside this political theater, and that's what it is. people are worried about primary elections. we know how the tea party goes after elections when they aren't conservative enough. is that something they need to have on their resume? i filibustered one of the president's nominees. is that what they want? the filibuster of senator hagel's confirmation is unprecedented. i repeat, not a single nominee for secretary of defense ever in the history of our country has been filibustered -- never, ever. and, as we all know, in it a matter of days -- in a matter of days across-the-board cuts are going to take place. it'll affect defense to the tune

of $600 billion. wouldn't it be nice if we had a secretary of defense to kind of work things out? leon panetta, after more than 30 years of service in this country -- he has served in congress, been chairman of the budget committee, o.m.b., president's chief of staff, head of the c.i.a., secretary of defense -- he, after all these years, has gone home to his farm and his family in california. we do not have at 12:00 today a secretary of defense. these across-the-board cuts are going to be very difficult. the pentagon needs a leader to oversee and manage historic cuts and ensure they're made in a responsible way. just a minute about senator hagel.

he was an enlisted man in the vietnam war. he didn't have to go. he enlisted. the story of senator hagel is not a legend; it's true. he was an heroic warrior, an infantryman. he saved his brother' brother's. when he was a senator -- he saved his brother's life. when he was a senator here, the picture on his wall was of he and his brother in vietnam on a carrier. he's proud of his service. he should be. wounded two times, an infantry squad leader, a man of integrity and dedication. he has a deep understanding of our national security establishment. gained not only from his military service but as a united states no member o senator, meme foreign intelligence committee. he's been a member of the president of the united states's foreign intelligence advise i have board. at a time when america faces so many threats, mr. president,

i've outlined just a few of them -- all across the world. our nation needs a man with senator hagel's personal knowledge. we need a secretary of defense. it's tragic that they've decided to filibuster this qualified nominee. it is really unfortunate. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: in just 15 days, significant across-the-board cuts are set to take effect unless the president and national democrats come up with a plan to replace them with smarter targeted spending reductions. the president and the senate majority have known about this deadline for more than a year, yet here we are just days before at the so-called sequester, and

a familiar scenario is playing out once again. it goes something like this: phase 1 -- republicans identify a challenge and actually propose a solution. phase 2 -- liberals sit on their hands until the last minute. phase 3 -- they offer some gimmicky tax hike designed to fail and blame everybody else when it does. phases 1 and 2 have gone exactly according to plan. house republicans proposed and passed plans to replace the sequester months ago. and if on cue, senate democrats doggedly refused to consider any of them, much less offer any of their own. so here we are again, at phase 3, which means it's now time for them to swoop in with the gimmick. that's why our friends on the other side have been huddled

behind closed doors with pollsters and p.r. spinmeisters. they have been busy devising the most appealing-sounding tax hikes they can think of. don't believe me. just watch what happens now. later today senate democrats are expected to roll out the gimmick. remember, this is not a solution. even they know it can't pass. that's the idea. it's a political stunt designed to mask the fact they've offered no solutions. and don't plan to offer any solutions. it's a total waste of time. for nearly two months i've been coming to the floor to ask senate democrats to work with us on a bill that could pass both houses of congress. if they were the least bit serious about a solution, they had more than a year to write a bill in committee, bring it to the floor, vote on amendments, get it to the house and fix

this. instead they waited right up until the moment of crisis, just like they always do, and then got together not with a goal of finding a solution, but to hatch an escape plan aimed at making republicans look like the bad guys. their whole goal here isn't to solve the problem. it's taf a show beat -- it's to have a show the boat that's designed to fail, call it a day and wait for someone else to pick up the pieces. well, my message this morning is really quite simple. there won't be an easy off ramps on this one. the days of 11th hour negotiations are over. washington democrats have gotten used to republicans bailing them out of their own lack of responsibility. but those days have passed. they run the senate. they run the white house. it's time they started acting like it. as a first step, senate democrats need to honor their pledge to return to regular

order. legislation that passes through this chamber should be written with input from both parties. it should get a fair public vetting in committee, and senators should get a chance to offer amendments. just yesterday the president's own treasury nominee called for a return to regular order. so it's time for the president and senate democrats to put the games and gimmicks aside. it's time they stopped waiting until the last minute to get things done around here. people are tired of it. i know my constituents in kentucky are certainly tired of it. they have had enough of the political theater. it's time to put the stunts aside and actually work on real solutions. that's what we were sent here to do, and we should do it. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order the senate will proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination:

department of defense charles timothy hagel of nebraska to be secretary. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call: mr. levin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. levin: mr. president, it's been suggested that the senate should not move forward with senator hagel's nomination, alleging that he has not complied with requests that he produce speeches. in fact, the standard committee questionnaire requires nominees to provide a copy of -- quote -- "any formal speeches you have

delivered during the last five years of which you have copies." close quote. senator hagel complied with this requirement before his hearing two weeks ago. before the hearing a number of requests were received from republican members that senator hagel seek and obtain and provide to the committee some transcripts of additional speeches. and in fact hundreds of pages of transcripts were in fact supplied to the committee before the hearing in addition to those that he had submitted in response to the committee questionnaire. issince then we've received two additional requests for specific speeches, and in each case we forwarded to senator hagel the requests. he saw and provide transcripts of speeches for which he had no

prepared remarks and in which he had no copies. so he's responded to those requests, and where he was able to obtain a transcript or a video of the speech from the organization that he addressed, he provided a copy. where no such materials existed, he told us that that was the case. senator hagel was informed that a video of his remarks existed in one of those cases, but that the organization had been unable to find it. the organization has now located the video. it will be provided to the majority and minority staffs of the committee today. in the last few days there has been some finding of transcripts or videos surfaced on the internet, a handful of 2008-2009 speeches which senator hagel did not recollect.

so i would ask unanimous consent that a list of links to the web transcripts or web videos and a list of senator hagel's potentially relevant senate speeches that are part of the "congressional record" in 2008 also be included in the record immediately following my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. levin: mr. president, senator hagel stated in his financial disclosure that he received $200,000 from corsair capital, which is a private equity firm and he was a member of its advisory board. it's been alleged that senator hagel failed to provide complete financial disclosure despite the admitted lack of evidence of any kind and a highly negative innuendo was dropped by one of

our colleagues, which said that the -- and i quote -- "it is at a minimum relevant to know if that $200,000" -- referring to fees from corsair capital "-- that senator hagel deposited in his bank account came directly from saudi arabia or from north korea. without any evidence of any kind, that kind of innuendo has been dropped here it's inappropriate, unfair, untrue. senator hagel has provided the same financial disclosure that the same conflict of interest standards that the committee requires of all previous nominees. as i explained in a february 8,

2013, letter to my ranking member, senator inhofe -- quote -- "our committee has a well-defined set of financial disclosure and ethics requirements which apply to all nominees for civilian positions in the department of defense. we have applied those disclosure requirements and followed this process for all nominees of both parties throughout the 16 years that i have served as chairman or ranking member of the armed services committee. i understand that the same financial disclosure requirements and processes follow for at least the previous ten years during which senator sam nunn served as chairman or ranking minority member. and i added during this period the kw-t confirmed eight -- committees confirmed eight secretaries of defense: carlucci, perry, rumsfeld, gates and panetta, as well as hundreds of nominees for other senior

positions in the department. the committee cannot have two different sets of financial disclosure standards for nominees, one for senator hagel and one for other nominees. as required by the senate armed services committee and by the ethics and government act, senator hagel has disclosed all compensation over $5,000 that he has received in the last two years. as required by the armed services committee, he has received letters from the director of the office of government ethics and the acting department of defense general counsel certifying that he has met all applicable financial disclosures. as required by the armed services committee, he has answered a series of questions about possible foreign affiliations. among other questions, the committee asks whether during the last ten years the nominee or his spouse has -- quote -- "received any compensation from or been involved in any financial or business transactions with a foreign

government or an entity controlled by a foreign government." close quote. and senator hagel's answer was "no." now, mr. president, -- mr. leahy: mr. president, would the distinguished chairman of the armed services committee yield for a question? mr. levin: i'd be happy to. mr. leahy: mr. president, i've listened to the presentation. basically what you're saying is all the rules that were in place for nominees at the department of defense under republican presidents, you're following the

same rules with senator hagel, but there are some who want to go beyond and go to different rules than what we had for, say, dick cheney when he was secretary or donald rumsfeld, or gates or any of the others? you're saying they want now to do something different for this nominee of president obama than what they found totally acceptable for the nominees of president bush? mr. levin: the senator is correct. a number of our colleagues have made that demand, and it's simply not something that we're going to set a precedent on. it's not the way to proceed in this body. mr. leahy: mr. president, i stand with the senator from michigan. in the judiciary committee, we follow the same procedure for

our questions for our judges that we did when it was a republican president. if we want to keep switching back and forth depending upon who is president, if we think that the american public is concerned about congress, it could be even worse. i compliment the senator for sticking to his standards. mr. levin: i thank my good friend from vermont. just to complete my statement on the financial part, this is relative to the funds that he received, the fees that he received when he was on the advisory board of corsair capital. this is a company, doesn't control, not in a position to require that it disclose anything. the other members of the advisory board, all of whom are identified, by the way, on the company's web site, include the

chairman of j.p. morgan chase international, who is a laureate of the 2002 israel prize and economics and a recipient of the scopist award from hebrew university. other members are the former director of investments for yale university; former chairman of the financial services authority which is responsible for regulating the insurance industry in the united kingdom. so the innuendo that corsair capital is somehow a puppet entity that is funneling tainted money to members of its advisory board is unfair. it is totally inappropriate. senator inhofe said yesterday that he's not filibustering this nomination. he's just insisting on a 60-vote requirement for senate approval. he said that it's not unusual to insist on 60 votes for the approval of a nominee, and this was done during the bush administration for the nomination of steven johnson to be e.p.a. administrator and the

nomination of dirk kempthorne tor secretary of interior. the senate rules do not provide for 60-vote approval. these rules establish a 60-vote requirement to invoke cloture and end debate. 60 votes -- if 60 votes are required here, it's because it's a filibuster. there's no 60-vote requirement for the approve of a nomination. and the two examples cited by senator inhofe actually prove this point. the nomination of steven johnson, cloture was invoked by 61-37, on april 29, 2005. the nomination of dirk kempthorne, cloture was invoked by an 85-8 vote on may 26, 2006. but -- and this is the point -- after the debate was ended by those points on cloture, the nominations were confirmed by

regular votes of this body. and those regular votes are either a voice vote or a majority vote. so that history is again an example of how the senate operates. 60 votes aren't required to approve a bill or approve a nomination. if a matter is being filibustered, 60 votes are required to end the debate. and then if the debate is ended, there is a vote on a nomination or a bill. no nomination for the position of secretary of defense has ever before been filibustered. this filibuster breaks new ground. the filibuster of a nomination for secretary of defense is first -- the first one under any circumstances, and it is unwise. the department is facing a budget crisis that was described as a ten on the scale of one to ten by the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff.

so a filibuster at this time of a budget crisis is exceptionally ill-advised leaving the department of defense leaderless at a time when we are in an afghan conflict, when north korea just exploded a nuclear device, is exceptionally ill-advised. and perhaps most important, having a department of defense which does not have a new secretary confirmed is unfair to the men and women in uniform and sends them exactly the wrong message as it does to our friends and our adversaries around the world. mr. president, i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. leahy: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, again i applaud what senator levin said about senator hagel. i ask consent that the call of the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. leahy: mr. president, i applaud what senator levin has said about senator hagel. you know, when you think that here's a man who if you could go and just do kind of a perfect list of who should be secretary of defense, it would be chuck hagel. and if you strip out the partisan posturing of some, i think the american public knows

he should be secretary of defense. i worry that the kind of partisan posturing we're seeing adds to the reason why the, both the u.s. house and u.s. senate are held in such low esteem. it is not the way we should be doing the country's business. i strongly support the nomination of chuck hagel to be secretary of defense. i urge all senators to support it. we're at a time of fiscal austerity. we all understand that. but we need a leader at the pentagon, one who understands what it takes to maintain the strongest military force in the world. senator hagel is a former enlisted soldier. he understands defense policy and the practice from the ground up. he is the leader we need as secretary of defense. he's experienced by any measure. like many of the people he'll lead in the pentagon, he's

earned a combat infantryman's badge. and this is not something that is in the abstract. he has two purple hearts from combat service in vietnam. he still carries shrapnel in his body from his injuries. on any issue having to deal with the u.s. military, i have long valued the firsthand experience of chuck hagel. but this service alone is not are what makes him qualified. he's been a leader in the public and private sectors. he cofounded van guard cellular systems, a successful cellular carrier in the 1980's and 190's. he was president and c.e.o. and the chief operatin operating off the 1997g-7 summit. he served as president of an investment bank and is a

two-term united states senator. clearly a qualified nominee. since his nomination was announced last month, some have questioned senator hagel's position on a number of issues. notably, his support for israel. at his confirmation hearings, he's reaffirmed his record of support for israel. he's defended israel's right to defend itself against aggression. he is committed to the mutual interests of the united states and israel. attacks suggesting senator hagel is soft on iran is also baseless. there's not a shred of evidence to support claims he supports a nuclear iran or that he does not support the president's efforts unilateral and mult ilateral to bring iran to the negotiating

table for its nuclear program. senator hagel supports the -- any assertion that he accepts iran's nuclear program is falls. then there are the bogus and inflammatory claims senator hagel is soft on terrorism. nothing could be further from the truth. he has not hesitated to call hezbollah ages hamas what they are -- terrorist organizations. he condemocrats iran's support of hezbollah and cosponsored senate resolutions demanding that hamas recognize israel's right to exist. i might say, mr. president, i've traveled in different parts of the world, combat areas and areas of great security concern to the united states. i sat in meetings with senator hagel when he's talked with our intelligence people and our defense people, and i would be

somewhat vague on this only because most of these meetings were of a highly classified nature. i could tell you this, based on my own experience in this senate, he was a tough questioner, raised over and over again the security interests of the united states, both with our own people but also with leaders and others in other countries. there is no question in this -- i remember the -- some of those troops, senators who are with us from both parties responding so favorably to the way senator hagel conducted these meetings. sthere's nothing in his record that support supports this. he opposes cuts that would

weaken our security. he vigorously opposes cuts. chuck hagel believes that the pentagon has a troll play in deficit reduction but not at the expense of keeping our nation the preeminent military fighting force in the world. i am confident that our men and women in uniform will have no stronger advocate and our nation will have have a stalwart defender in chuck hagel. senator hagel has seen combat from the perspective of an enlisted member of you are a armed forces. those who are been in combat from president eisenhower on through have taken that same position. no matter what any detractor may say, that's sound policy. matters of war and peace are also matters of life and death.

someone that sits in boardrooms or easy chairs and says, let us commit our soldiers here and our soldiers there -- they're not the ones going. it's not their families that are going. it's not members of their family that are going. i want somebody who knows what it's like. should we commit our troops when it is necessary for our defense? of course. that's why we have them. but let's not assume that it's some kind of an exercise on paper. senator hagel, decorated veteran who walks with the slade necessarily from his wounds in vietnam, understands that a decision to go to war is a decision to send our sons and daughter adds, husbands and wives, fathers and mothers into harm's way. it is his deep visceral understanding of this fact, his record of experience, his patriotism, and his dedication to this nation that qualify him

to be the next secretary of defense. we should have the vote and confirm this pa patriotic amerin hero. let's not hide behind a filibuster. let's have the courage to vote "yes" or "no." don't hide behind parliamentary tricks. the american people elected us to vote "yes" or vote "no," and when you want to set up a filibuster rule as something, you're boskly sark let's vote "maybe." that does not show a profile in courage. certainly not the kind of courage we'd expect from a secretary of defense. so let's vote "yes," let's vote "no." let's do it walle without delay. i will vote "yes." i ask that my full statement be included in the record. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. leahy: i suggest the absence of a quorum --

the presiding officer: would the senator withdraw his request? mr. leahy: i see the senator seeking recognition. i withdraw my suggestion of a quorum. mr. coats: thank the senator and ask, mr. president, unanimous consent that i speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. coats: mr. president, earlier this week i outlined four main topics that i hope to hear the president discuss in his state of the union address. today i'd like to talk in more detail about one of those items and perhaps the most challenging: restructuring medicare, medicaid, and social security to preserve them for current and future generations. in washington these three programs fall in the category of "spending -- mandatory spending," meaning that they are not contingent on annual congressional review or funding. instead they're based on formulas that i have have already been -- that have

already been written into law and therefore the spending occurs automatically, as if it is on auto pilot. anyone who belongs eligible based on the requirements in the law automatically qualifies for the benefits, and we don't have the ability often on a year-to-year basis to change this. we can only make structural changes in regards to the program as necessary. today these items make up a majority of government's annual budget. and this is because when these programs were implemented, they did not take into account the remarkable and wonderful increase in the life span of americans. nor the impact of the post-world war ii baby-boom generation. reaching the point of retirement age, which is now at the level of about 10,000 retirements each and every day of the year. and that is putting an enormous strain on the budget, our

overall budget, and the portion of that budget that goes to funding these mandatory programs. after world war ii and after a long decade of depression, america -- americans saw a bright, new future and they came home from the ward and they began to -- from the war and they began to start families and millions upon millions and millions of children were born in a period between 1945 and 1950 or the early 1950's. this is the so-called baby-boom generation. initially when they were born, certain industries came into play. if you were in the diaper business, suddenly you were in a boom business -- or cribs and strollers and then tricycles and then bicycles. these children moved on to the age where they began to enter elementary school and we built schools all over the country to accommodate this bulge of new

parts of our human species working their way through the system. then it was junior highs and then we needed to enlarge our high schools and new colleges and universities sprung up across the land. upon graduation, they found jobs and it was time to start their own families, and housing boomed and throughout the whole life span of this baby-boom generation, there have been enormous economic changes to aat that momena--to adapt to-to-thie amount of people working their way through life and becoming such an integral part of the american dream and the american history. so we often talk now about this issue in cold, hard facts because this generation is reaching retirement age and, as i said, moving into retirement

and qualification, therefore, for social security and medicare coverage in massive numbers -- 10,000 or more a day. but when we talk about it in just cold, hard facts and cold numbers, we tend to ignore the impact of these programs in a much more personal way on our american public. becoming eligible for the programs we're talking about here means access to health care during a more difficult time of life. you no longer are perhaps covered by your employer because you have made the decision to retire or have reached retirement age. and there are health care issues as we age which we wish didn't happen, but they come on in ever-increasing intensity. it means grandparents having enough money to travel to see the kids and a new grand baby. it means men and women wh who've

worked hard awful their lives -- all of their lives to provide for their families finally having the financial freedom to take some time off to retire. hoosiers and americans all across this land have paid into the system all through their working years. they rely on these health and retirement security programs and its benefits. these are honest, hardworking men and women who have been told that if they made contributions through their paycheck for these programs, they would become eligible at a certain age for a certain standard of coverage, and they expect to receive that. so the challenge before us today is to make sure that these benefits continue to be available to both current and future recipients. but as we examine our nation's current fiscal state, we all need to come to terms with the fact that these programs will not be available in their current form if we don't make some necessary changes.

the heritage foundation reports that mandatory spending is increasing at almost six times faster than all other spending. in other words, spending on medicare, medicaid, and social security is growing faster than all of our spending on defense, education, infrastructure, medical research, food and drug safety, homeland security, and i don't begin to have the time to list all the various functions of spending that go toward reaching out and meeting the needs of this country. the nonpartisan congressional budget office reported this month that spending on these programs and interest on the debt will consume 91% of all federal revenues ten years from now. imagine our budget as being a pie, a big pie here, and it's cut in certain slices in terms of how much money is spent on defense, how much money is spent on these mandatory programs i'm just talking about, and the

amount of money that's spent on all of the other functions that the federal government is engaged in. that part of the pie that provides for the automatically entitled mandatory spending benefits is growing at a rate which is unsustainable. it is ever shrinking defense and nondiscretionary part, everything else we spend money on. and we spend too much money on too many things, and so we're going to have to be very careful in terms of how we spend and allocate those funds in the future. unless we address this run-away mandatory spending kwraoerb, we're not going -- issue, we're not going to be able to the funds to do even essential, constitutionally mandated, like providing for our national security and making funds available for paving roads or health care research or education or whatever else we

feel that is appropriate for our federal government to engage in. furthermore, this mandatory spending has enormous impacts on our young people. in a recent "new york times" column titled "carpe diem nation," david brooks wrote about how two-way health and retirement security programs not only threatens our economic growth but hurts young people. he said -- and i quote -- "it squeezes government investment programs that boost future growth. secondly, the young will have to pay the money back." he goes on to say -- and i quote again -- "to cover current obligations according to the international monetary fund, young people will have to pay 35% in more taxes and receive 35% fewer benefits." and that's the plight we are in. that's the situation we're in. these are the cold hard facts. this is the math that we have to deal with.

we have to do so understanding that how we deal with this directly affects people's lives. directly affects the benefits that they rely on for their retirement and for their health care. so the challenge before us is to understand that if we don't do something, this 35% higher taxes and 35% fewer benefits on our young is not only unacceptable, i think it's, in my opinion, immoral. immoral for our generation and for this congress and our executive to leave our children and grandchildren in such a position without doing something about it. and so the challenge before us and the goal this body should be striving for is finding common ground not on how to eliminate these programs, but on how to save these programs. while at the same time ensuring

that we have adequate resources to finance the essential and necessary functions of the federal government. that starts with our constitutional obligation to provide for the national security and the security of the american public as well as providing for the general welfare. republicans and democrats, liberals and conservatives have recognized we need to restructure medicare, medicaid and social security if we are serious about putting this country on sounder fiscal footing and if we are going to be able to keep these programs from becoming insolvent. and hopefully there are members on both sides of the political spectrum that agree we need to make the changes now in order to avoid more painful changes later. we have been postponing this action and these needed legislative processes for decades. it's always been -- it's too hot

to handle. it's too politically damaging. it might put us in political jeopardy. the president in his state of the union address said it's time that we put the interest of our nation ahead of our own personal political interests. i couldn't agree more. that is' what we should always be doing. but we have not done that when it comes to this critical issue that has such an enormous impact on everything we do and such an enormous impact on people who have saved all of their lives for the pweufts -- benefits that they are promised when they retirement or became a certain age. and the young people of this country who are coming out of school, starting a family, getting a job, hoping to also participate in the american dream: owning a home and raising a family, having the freedom that our country provides us in ways that no other country ever has and perhaps ever will. we're so blessed to have been

born in this country, to live in this country and to have the freedom and the possibility of achieving our dreams. but all those are in jeopardy if we don't address this situation. so for decades now we have known what was coming. we have seen this bulge of baby boomers move through the entire life cycle and now reaching retirement age. but we have postponed over and over and over. we have come up with short-term solutions over and over and over and failed to come up with any solutions over and over and over. the time is now. we are at the point where if we don't do something now, the prediction of david brooks is going to take place. our young people are going to be saddled with ever-higher taxes to hold up a system that's going to only be able to deliver

ever-lower benefits. so as we consider the right path to move forward. we need to acknowledge that any bipartisan congressional effort to reform and preserve these programs will be unsuccessful unless the president shows a willingness to get involved and engage fully in this effort. i believe he understands the magnitude of the issue because he has said -- and i quote -- "i refuse to leave our children with a debt they cannot repay. we all want a government that lives within its means. we need to get our fiscal house in order now. we cannot kick this can down the road. we're at the end of the road," said the president of the united states in comments made when he was a senator, comments he made when he was a candidate for president and comments he made when he was president during his

first four years, and comments he made subsequent to that, in his inaugural address and in his recent state of the union address. but we need more than talk. we need engagement. we need engagement of the president if we're going to make this, these difficult decisions to put our country in a better fiscal path and to save these programs for those who have put their hard-earned work and money into them and now qualify for those benefits. so i'd like to take this opportunity to remind the president of his repeated commitment to reduce our debt and deficit. i want to remind him of the many times he has talked about the need to fix medicare and medicaid and social security. now, mr. president, what i'd like to say is this: we need more than your soaring rhetoric, more than the promises you made.

we need your direct engagement if we're going to address this fiscal crisis and essentially do what i think all of us know we need to do. we basically is two options. we can continue with the status quo and wait until the moment that a crisis hits, no longer can send out the checks, must raise taxes once again to cover a program which should -- should have received needed reforms. or at the point where the programs become saving. or the alternative is we can come together and commit to the american people that we will act and no longer avoid or delay the challenging but necessary task of fixing these programs to save them for future generations. mr. president, i stand ready. i trust my colleagues stand

ready to address this issue now. and we're asking you to stand with us. let's do what we all know we need to do to restore our nation to fiscal health, to save these programs from insolvency, to grow our economy and get americans back to work. mr. president, the time is now. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: thank you, mr. president. i am proud to stand here today to support the nomination of chuck hagel as our next secretary of defense, and i believe he will be confirmed by this chamber. i hope on a bipartisan basis, because he is in fact extraordinarily qualified for this position of unique trust

and responsibility. and that is the criterion that we must apply: is he qualified? we may have, probably each of us does have among us 100 senators someone whom we would make our first choice or a better choice or the right person in our view, but that's not the question before us. it is whether he is qualified to be part of the president's team and to be held accountable for the policies that the president sets. chuck hagel is a decorated war veteran with two purple hearts. he is a highly successful businessman and entrepreneur, a real manager at a time when we need a manager in the department of defense. he is a former colleague as a

member of this body. but he is also a former deputy head of the veterans administration. so he has really given his life to public service and most especially to helping men and women in uniform while they serve this country in the military and then when they come back to civilian life, helping them contribute and continuing to give back to this nation. and he is a republican who has won the confidence of president obama and whom president obama has chosen to be a member of his team. we speak as members of the senate about giving the president a measure of deference, a prerogative in making this election about who will serve on his team, because it is the president who sets policy. the president will set our

policy on the middle east and on israeli security. chuck hagel has said he is committed unequivocally, clearly, unambiguously to the security of israel, to whatever weapons systems are necessary to provide israel in maintaining and sustaining that security. the iron dome, david's sling, other measures that this nation has committed to its great ally in the middle east, an ally that is necessary not only to stability there and hopefully to peace, but also to our national interest. and chuck hagel may have made comments in the past that seem to vary somewhat from the president's policy, but it is the president who sets that policy and whom we will hold accountable for that policy. and likewise, on iran, chuck

hagel has said that he is in favor of preventing a nuclear armed iran. not containing it but preventing it. and whatever his past statements, it is the president who sets that policy and chuck hagel has indicated that he is completely in accord with it, in support of it and will implement it. again, it is the policy of the president to prevent a nuclear-armed iran. and we must in this body give support and encouragement to the president in being strong and tough, setting even stronger and tougher sanctions and using the military option if necessary to stop a nuclear armed iran. going from policy to what i think is perhaps the unique

challenge of the next secretary of defense, which is to attract and retain the best and the brightest to our military. we talk all the time about people being our greatest asset in the military. we have weapons systems that defy the imagination, let alone comprehension. but at the end of the day, the people who run those weapons systems, the people who staff and work every day to keep america safe are the ones who are our greatest asset. and at a time when we are bringing troops back from afghanistan and when secretary-to-be, hopefully, hagel has indicated we ought to do it even more quickly, our