speech outlining his proposal for dealing with climate change. it includes new regulations on carbon emissions from power plants. from georgetown university in washington, d.c., this is 50 minutes. ♪ [applause] >> thank you. [applause] >> thank you, georgetown! [cheers and applause] thank you so much. [applause] now -- [applause] thank you, georgetown. everybody, please be seated, and my first announcemented today is that you should all take off your jackets. i'm going to do the same. [cheers and applause] it's not that sexy. [laughter] it is good to be back on campus,

and it is a great privilege to speak from the steps of this historic hall that welcomed presidents going back to george washington. i want to thank your president. [applause] who is here today. [applause] i want to thank him for hosting us, and i want to thank the many members of my cabinet, my administration. i want to thank leader pelosi, members of congress who are here. we are very grateful for their support, and i want to say thank you to the hoyas in the house for having me back. [cheers and applause] you know, it was important for me to speak directly to your generation because the decisions that we make now and in the years ahead will have a profound impact on the world that all of

you inherit. you know, on christmas eve, 1968, the astronauts of apollo 8 did a live broadcast from lunar orbit. frank borman, jim, william anders, the first humans to outer the moon to describe what they saw and they read scripture from the book of genesis to the rest of us back here. later that night, they took a photo that would change the way we see and think about our world. it was an image of earth, beautiful, breathtaking, a glowing marble of blue oceans, green forests, mountains, clouds, rising over the surface of the moon. while the site of our planet from space might seem routine

today, imagine what it looked like to those of us in our home seeing the planet for the first time. imagine what it looked like to children like me. even the astronauts were amazed. it make yows realize just what you have back there on earth. around the same time, we began exploring space, scientists were studying changes taking place in the earth's atmosphere. scientists have known since the 1800s that greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide trap heat and burning fossil fuels release those gases into the air. that was not news. in the late 1950s, the national weather service began measuring the levels of carbon dioxide in

our atmosphere with the worry that rising levels could someday disrupt the fragile balance that makes our planet so hospitable, and what they found, year after year, is that the levels of carbon pollution in our atmosphere have increased dramatically. that science accumulated and reviewed over decades tells us that the planet is changing in ways that will have profound i want facts on all human kind. the 12 warmest years in recorded history have all come in the last 15 years. last year temperatures in some areas # of the ocean reached rapid highs and ice in the arctic shrank to the smallest size on record, faster than what most models predicted it would.

these are facts. now, we know that no single weather event is caused solely by climate change. droughts and fires and floods, they go back to ancient times, but we also know that in a world that is warmer than it used to be, all weather events are affected by a warming planet. the fact that sea level in new york, in new york harbor, are now a foot higher than a century ago, that didn't cause hurricane sandy, but it certainly contributed to the disruption that left large parts of our mightiest city dark and underwater. the potential impacts go beyond rising sea levels. here at home, 2012 was the warmest year in our history.

midwest farms were parched by the worst drought since the dust bowl and drenched by the wettest spring on record. western wildfires score muched an area larger than the state of maryland. just last week, a heat wave in alaska shot temperatures into the 90s. we know that the costs of these events can be measured in lost lives, lost livelihoods, lost homes, lost businesses, hundreds of billions of dollars for emergency services and disaster relief. in fact, those already feeling the effects of climate change don't have time to deny it. they are businessy dealing with them. they are braving longer wildfire seasons and states and federal governments have to budget for

that. i had to sit in a meeting with the department of interior and agriculture an the rest of the team to figure out how are we going to pay for more and more expensive fire seasons? farmers' seeds crops wilted one year, washed away the next, and higher food prices are passed on to you, the american consumer. mountain communities worry about what smaller snow packs mean for tourism, and then families at the bottom of the mountains wonder what it means for the drinking water. americans across the country are already paying the price of inaction in insurance premiums, state and local taxes, and the costs of rebuilding and disaster relief. the question is not whether we need to act. the overwhelming judgment of science, of chemistry and

physics and millions of measurements has put all that to rest. 97% of scientists, including by the way, some who originally disputed the data, have now put that to rest. they acknowledged the planet is warming. human activity's contributing to it. the question now is whether we will have the courage to act before it's too late. how we answer will have a profound impact on the world that we leave behind not just to you, but to your children and to your grandchildren. as a president, as a father, and as an american, i'm here to say we need to agent. [cheers and applause]

i refuse to condemn your generation and future generations to a planet that's beyond fixable. that's why today i'm announcing a new national climate action plan, and i'm here to enlist your generation's help in keeping the united states of america a leader, a global leader in the fight against climate change. now, this plan builds on progress that we've already made. last year, i took office or the year that i took office my administration pledged to reduce america's greenhouse gas emissions by about 17% from their 2005 levels by the end of this decade.

we rolled up our sleeves, and we got to work. we doubledded the electricity we generate from wind and the sun. we doubled the mileage our cars get on a gallon of gas by the middle of the next decade. [applause] georgetown, i unvailedded the strategy for a secure energy future, and thanks to the ingenuity of the businesses, we are starting to produce much more of our own energy. with are building the first nuclear power plants in more than three decades in georgia and south carolina. for the first time in 18 years, america's poised to produce more of our own oil than we buy from other nations, and today we produce more natural gas than anybody else. we're producing energy. these advances have grown our economy, created new jobs, can't

be shipped overseas, and, by the way, they helped drive our carbon pollution to the lowest levels in nearly 20 years. since 2006, no country on earth reduced its total carbon pollution by as much as the united states of america. [applause] it's a good start. the reason we're all here in the heat today is because we know we've got more to do. in my state of the union address, i urged congress to come up with a bipartisan, market-based solution to climate change like the one that republican and democratic senators worked on together a few years ago, and i still want to see that happen. i'm going to work with anyone to make that happen. this is a challenge that does

not pause for partisan gridlock. it demands our attention now. this is my plan to me, a plan to cut car bop pollution, a plan to protect our country from the impacts of climate change, and a plan to lead the world in a cooer nateed -- coordinated assault op a changing climate. [applause] this plan begins with cutting carbon pollution by the way we use energy, using less dirty energy, using more clean energy, wasting less energy throughout our economy, and 43 # years ago, congress passed a law called the clean air act of 1970. [applause] that was a good law.

the reasoning behind it was simple. new technology can protect our health by protecting the air we breathe from harmful pollution. that law passed the senate unanimously. think about that. it passed the senate unanimously. it passed the house of representatives 375-1. i don't know who the one guy was. i have not looked that up. [laughter] you can barely get that many votes to name a post office these days. it was signed into law by a republican president. it was later strengthened by another republican president. this used to be a bipartisan issue. six years ago, greenhouse gases are pollute at that particular times covered by that same clean air act, and they required the environmental protection agency,

the epa, to determine whether they are a threat to our health and welfare. in 2009, it was determined they are a threat to the health and welfare in ways from dirtier air to common heat waves, and therefore subject to regulation. today about 40% of america's carbon pollution comes from our power plants. here's the thing. right now, there are no federal limits to the amount of carbon pollution those plants can pump into the air, none, zero. we limit the amount of toxic chemicals like mercury and sulfur and arsenic in our air or our water, but they dump unlimited amounts of carbon pollution into the air for free. that's not right. that's not safe, and it needs to

stop. [applause] so today for the sake of our children and the health and safety of all americans, i'm directing the environmental protection agency to put an end to dumping of carbon pollution from power plants and new standards for new and existing power plants. [cheers and applause] i'm also directing the epa to develop these standards in an open and transparent way to provide flexibility to different states with different needs, and build on the leadership that many states and cities and companies have already shown. in fact, many power companies

have already begun modernizing their plants and creating new jobs in the process. others shifted to burning cleaner natural gas instead of dirtier fuel sources, and nearly a dozen states already implemented or are implementing their own market based programs to reduce market pollution. more than 25 set energy efficiency targtses, and more than 35 have renewable energy targets. over 1 ,000 mayors signed agreements to cut carbon pollution. the idea of setting higher pollution standards for the power plants is not new. it's just time for washington to catch up with the rest of the country. that's what we intend to do. [applause] now, what you'll hear from the special interests and their

allies in congress, that this will kill jobs and crush the economy and basically end american free enterprise as we know it, and the reason i know you'll hear those things is because that is what they said every time america sets clear rules and bet standards for air and our water and children's health. every time they've been wrong. for example, in 1970 when we decided through the clean air agent to do something about the smog choking the cities, and, by the way, most young people here are not old enough to remember what it was like, but, you know, when i was going to school in 1979-1980 in los angeles, there were days where folks couldn't go outside. the sunsets were spectacular because of all the pollution in

the air. at the time when we passed the clean air agent to get rid of the smog, some of the doomsayers said new pollution standards will decimate the auto industry. guess what? didn't happen. our air got cleaner. in 1990 when we did something about acid rain, they said our electricity bills go up, lights go off, businesses around the country would suffer, i quote, a quiet death, none of it happened we cut acid rain dramatically. see, the problem with all these tired excuses for inaction is that it's suggests a fundmental lack of faith in american business and american ingenuity. people -- [applause]

you know, critics think when we ask businesses to innovate and reduce pollution and lead, they can't or won't do it. they'll just kind of give up and quit. in america, we know that's not true. look at our history. when we restrictedded cancer causing chemicals in plastics and let it fuel the cars, it did not end the plastics industry or the oil industry, and american chemists came up with better substitutes. when we phase out cfcs, the gases depleting the ozone layer, it didn't kill off air fresheners, air conditioners, or dee oh drant. they figured out how to do it better without harming the environment as much. the fuel standards put in place, just a few years ago, didn't cripple auto makers. the american auto industry

retooled, and today, our auto makers sell the best cars in the world at a faster rate than they have in five years with more hybrid, more plug-in, more fiewfl efficient cars for everybody to choose from. [applause] so the point is if you look at our history, don't bet against american industry, don't bet against american workers, don't tell folks we have to choose between the health of our children or the health of oh economy. the old rules may say we can't protect our environment and promote economic growth at the same time, but in america, we use new technologies, science, we use research and development and discovery to make the old rules obsolete. today, we use more clean energy,

more renewables in natural gas supporting hundreds of thousands of good jobs, waste less energy, saving you money at the pump and in your pocketbooks, and guess what? the economy is 60% bigger than it was 20 years ago while our carbon emissions are back to where they were 20 years ago. obviously, we can figure this out. it's not an either/or, but a both/and. we have to look after the children, our future, and we have to grow the economy and create jobs. we can do all of that as long as we don't fear the future; instead, we seize it. [applause] by the way, don't take my word for it. recently 500 businesses giants like gm and nike issued a climate declaration calling action on climate change one of

the greatest opportunities of the 21st century. walmart is working to cut its carbon bliewtion by 20% and transition completely to renewable energy. [applause] walmart zephyrs a cheer for that. think about it. would the biggest company, biggest retailer in america do that if it was not good for business? if it was not good for the shareholders? a low carbon clean energy economy can be an engine of growth for decades to come, and i want america to build that engine. i want them to build the future right here in the united states of america. that's our task. [cheers and applause] now, one thing i want to make sure everybody understands, this does not mean that we're going

to suddenly stop producing fossil fuels. our economy wouldn't run well if it did, and transitioning to a clean energy economy takes time, but when the doomsayers trod out the old warnings these ambitions hurt the energy supply, remind them that america produced more oil than we have in 15 years. what is true is that e we cont just drill our way out of the energy and climate challenge that we face. [applause] that is not possible. [applause] i put forward in the past an all of the above energy strategy, but our energy strategy must be more than about producing more oil, and, by the way, it has to be more than building just one pipeline. [applause] i know there's been, for example, a lot of controversy surrounding the proposal to build a pipeline, the keystone

pipeline carrying oil from canadian tar sands to refineries in the gulf, and the state department is going through the final stages of evaluating a proposal. that's how it's always been done, but i do want to be clear. allowing the keystone pipeline to be built requires a finding that doing so would be in our nation's interest. our national interest will be served only if this project does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution. the net effects of the pipeline's impact -- [applause] the net effect of the pipeline's impact on our climate will be absolutely critical to determines whether this project is allowed to go forward. it's relevant. now, even as we produce more domestic oil, we're also producing more cleaner burning

natural gas than any other country on earth. again, sometimes there's disputes about natural gas, but we should strengthen our position as the top natural gas producer because in the medium term at least, it not only can provide safe, cheap power, but it can also help reduce our carbon emissions. federally supported technology helped businesses drill more effectively and extract more gas, and now we'll keep working with the industry to make drilling safer and cleaner, to make sure we're not seeing methane emissions, and to put people to work, modernizing our natural gas infrastructure so that we can power more homes and businesses with cleaner energy. the bottom line is natural gas is creating jobs. it's lowering many families' heat and power bills, and it's

the transition fuel that can power our economy with less carbon pollution, even as our businesses work to develop and then deploy more of the technology required for the even cleaner energy economy of the future. that brings me to the second way that we're going to reduce carbon pollution by using more clean energy. over the past four years, we've doubled the electricity that we generate from zero carbon wind, and solar power. [applause] that means jobs. jobs manufacturing the wind turbines that now generate enough electricity to power nearly 15 million homes. jobs installing the solar pams that now generate more than four times the power at less cost than just a few years ago. i know some republicans in washington dismiss these jobs,

but those who do need to call home because 75% of all wind energy in the country is generated in republican districts. [laughter] that may explain why last year, republican governors in kansas and oklahoma and iowa, iowa, by the way, a state that harnesses 25% of the electricity from the wind, helped us in the fight to extend tax credits for wind energy, manufacturers, and producers. [applause] tens of thousands of good jobs were on the line. those jobs were worth the fight. and countries like china and germany are going all in in the race for clean energy. i believe americans build thing better than anybody else. i want america to win that race, but we can't win it if yeah not in it. [applause]

so the plan i'm announcing today helps us double again our energy from wind and sun. today, i'm directing the interior department to green light enough private renewable energy capacity on public lands to power more than 6 million homes by 2020. [applause] the department of defense, the biggest energy consumer in america installs 3 # # -- 3 gigawat a year, the same amount of energy as burning p -- 3 million tons of coal. [applause] and because billions of your tax dollars continue to still subsidize the most profitable corporations in the history of the world, my budget, again, calls for congress to end the tax breaks for big oil companies

and invest in the clean energy companies that will fuel our future. [cheers and applause] now, the third way to reduce carbon pollution is to waste less energy, in our cars, in our homes, our businesses. the fuel standards we set over the past few years mean that by the middle of the next decade, the cars and trucks we buy go twice as far on a gallon of gas meaning you have to fill up half as often, we'll all reduce carbon pollution, and we built on that success by setting the first ever standards for heavy duty trucks and busses and vans, and in the coming months, we'll partner with truck makers to do it again for the next generation of vehicles. meanwhile, the energy used in our homes and our businesses and our factories, our schools, our

hospitals, that's responsible for about one-third of the greenhouse gases. the good news is simple upgrades don't just cut that pollution. they put people to work. manufacturing and installing smarter lights and windows and sensors and appliances. in the same show up in our electricity bills every month forever. that's why we've set new energy standards for appliances like refrigerators and dishwashers, and today our businesses are building better ones that also cut carbon pollution and cut consumers' electricity bills by hundreds of billions of dollars. that means, by the way, that our federal government also has to lead by example. i'm proud federal agencies reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 15% since i took office. we can do better than that. [applause] today, a new goal, the federal

government consumes 20% of the electricity from renewable sources in seven years. we are going to set that goal. [applause] ..

>> this plan will get us there faster and i want to be honest that this will not get us there overnight. the hard truth is that carbon pollution has built up in our atmosphere for decades now. even if we americans do our part, the planet will slowly keep warming for sometime to come. it will slowly keep rising. the storms will give more severe based on the science. it is like tapping the brakes of a car before you come to a complete stop and you can shift into reverse. in the meantime, we will need to get prepared we are looking at

climate change we cannot avoid. states across the country are taking it upon themselves to get ready. miami beach is hardening its water supply and is keeping saltwater. we are partnering with the state of florida to restore florida's natural clean water system in the everglades. texas voted to spend money on a new water going. as long as this will truck in water from the outside. we have is an infrastructure that can protect our homes and

businesses. that means stronger storms. this project is funded with the best funding. in a partner community, we are helping to prepare this and the reduced risk of wildfires we will also open our climate data so the public can make sure that cities and states affect these risks so that we don't waste money building structures that don't withstand the next storms. so that is what my administration will do to support the work underway across

america. no nation can solve this alone. not even is one as powerful as ours. that is why the final plan calls upon us to lead. [applause] [applause] >> make no mistake from the world looks to america to lead. and i spoke to the young people in turkey a few years ago come the first question i got was not about the challenges that that part of the world faces. it was about the climate challenge that we all face and america's role in addressing that. it was a fair question. the world's largest economy and second-largest carbon producer.

the country of the people around the world continue to listen in times of crisis and we have a vital role to play. we cannot stand on the sidelines. we have a unique responsibility and the steps i have outlined today prove that we are willing to meet that responsibility. so it is part of the global pollution rose to a record high and that is a problem in developing countries are using more and more energy as more and more people enter the middle class. and they naturally want to buy a carbon of their own, just like us. when you have conversations with poor countries, you say that you went through the stages of development and why can't we.

the fastest rising levels of carbon pollution mean that we are going to have to take action alongside of us. we compete for business with them, but we also share the plans. and we all have to shoulder the responsibility for keeping the planet habitable we will suffer the consequences together to help poor countries transitioning. we need to provide clean sources of energy. we are going to partner with the private sector to apply know how

we need to use this for clean energy projects around the world. today, i am calling to an end of public financing for coal plants overseas. where there is no other viable way for us to generate electricity. i urge others to join this effort. i am directing my administration toward global free trade and environmental goods and services, including clean energy technology to help more companies get the dirty face and join a low carbon economy. they do not have to repeat the same mistakes that we made. [applause] >> we have also intensified our operations with india, brazil and china.

there is danger with hydrochloric carbon and we intend to take more steps with a significant step with carbon emission reduction. [applause] finally, my administration will redouble our efforts and engage our international partners in reaching a new global agreement four years ago in copenhagen, every major company agreed for the first time two women reduced carbon emissions by 2020. that would apply to all countries and not just developed countries. what we need is an agreement that is ambitious. because that is what the scale of the challenge demands. we need an inclusive agreement

because every country has to play its part. if we get this right, we can find a sustainable future for this generation. that is my plan. the actions i have announced today -- [applause] [applause] [applause] [applause] the actions i have announced today should send a strong signal to the world.

that america intends to take action to reduce carbon pollution. we will continue to lead by the power of our example. because that is what the united states of america has always been like. i am convinced that this is the fight that america can and will lead in the 21st century. i'm convinced this is a fight that america must lead we will need the businesses who make and sell those technologies. we will need workers to operate assembly lines with high-tech zero carbon components. and hammering in a place for new clean energy. we will need to give special care to people in these

communities. those of us in positions of responsibility. we will need to be less concerned with the judgment of special interests and well-connected donors. and more concerned with the judgment of prosperity. [applause] [applause] because you and your children and your children's children will have to live with the consequences of our decisions. as i said before, climate change has become a part of this issue. but it hasn't always been. republicans love the way on new and innovative policies to tackle these issues. and richard nixon opened the epa. george h. w. bush declared, the first u.s. president to declare

human activities are changing the atmosphere in unexpected and unprecedented ways. someone who never shied away from a challenge, john mccain. he introduced a market based cap-and-trade bill to slow the carbon pollution. the woman that i have chosen to head up the epa,tion. the woman that i have chosen to head up the epa, she is terrific. [applause] she worked for the epa in my administration, but she has also worked for five republican governors. a long track record of working with industry and business leaders to forge common sense solutions. unfortunately she is being held up in the senate and has been for months and forced to jump through troops that no one should ever have to. but because there are too many in the republican party right now who think that the

environmental protection agency has no business protecting our environment from carbon louche in. the senate should confirm her without any further obstruction or delay. [applause] [applause] and more broadly, we have to move behind partisan politics on this issue. i want to be clear that i am willing to work with anybody. republicans and democrats and independents, libertarians, green party, anyone to combat this threat on behalf of our country. i'm open to all sorts of new ideas. maybe better ideas to make sure that we deal with climate change in a way that promotes jobs and growth. nobody has a monopoly on what is a very hard problem. but i don't have much patience for anyone who denies that this challenge is real. we don't have time for a meeting of the flat earth society.

[applause] [cheers] sticking your head in the sand might make you feel safer. but it's not going to protect you from the coming storm. ultimately we will be judged as a people and the society and as a country on where we go from here. our founders believed that those of us who are in positions of power may just serve as concert ends of the present and caretakers of the future and they charge us to make decisions with an eye on a longer horizon then we have in our own political careers. this is what the american people expect and that is what they deserve. someday our children and our children's children will look at it and we have those problems

and we are leaving them a cleaner and safer and more stable world and i want to say yes, we do. what we have in this fight are citizens who will stand up and speak up and compel us to do what this moment demands. we need to tell your family and friends what is at stake. church groups, pta meetings, pushing back on this information. speaking up for the facts.

convincing those to reduce our carbon pollution. pushing our own communities to invest in smarter practices. reminding folks there is no contradiction between a sound environment and strong economic growth and remind everyone who represents you at every level of government, it is a prerequisite for your vote. [applause] >> i understand politics will be tough.

our progress here will be measured differently. so why we may not live to see the full realization of our ambitions, we will have the satisfaction of knowing that the world will be better off for what we did. all the hopes and dreams of prosperity, that is what you say.

that is what we are fighting for >> god bless you. >> ♪ ♪ >> mitch mcconnell comments on the president's climate change speech today. along with senator dick durbin.

a warm coal is exactly what is needed, that is what he said. a war on coal is what is needed. that is one of the presidents advisors. affordable energy is critical to the operations of so many companies. declaring a war on coal is

declaring a war on jobs. kicking the ladder underneath the feet of many americans struggling in today's economy. one of the sectors that would hit its manufacturing. ironic because just a few months ago as it was president obama himself has said that i believe in manufacturing and i think that makes our country stronger. well, of course, that is correct. kentuckians know these types of businesses shrinking yet in the

global economy, we are expanding the manufacturing corps and it has never been more challenging than it is right now. we face a lot of competition from all corners of the globe. so policymakers have to be careful about the types of policies that they enact. obviously, american success is hypercompetitive in this world and it is shrinking when we keep the taxes low and regulations smart. perhaps most importantly, it is shrinking when we ensure energy is abundant and affordable it almost raises the cost of doing business and includes doing as

much as we can to protect manufacturing from being at risk. even with overwhelming majority in congress, including a filibuster 60 vote majority in the senate, washington democrats were unable to pass the president's energy tax. here in the senate, the democratic majority would not even bring it up for a vote. think about that. they could've pushed it through on their own without a single republican vote. yet, they couldn't. why is that? well, some are a lot smarter than here in washington would like to believe. they know that you cannot impose natural energy tax without significantly raising energy costs. not just on their families, but also on their employers. the data seem to bear out such concerns. i remember some showing that the proposal could decrease the size of the economy by about

$350 billion and reduced net employment by 2.5 million jobs even after taking job creation into account. americans made their opposition abundantly clear to members of congress. in the 2010 election, a good number of those voted in the house. because of concerns about job like losses and reduced competitiveness, congress today's even less inclined to vote for an energy tax and when the president commended such massive majorities in the first part of this term. it is self-evident to say that there is no majority with such an idea in the 113th congress. but the president still wants to push ahead and ignore the will of the legislative branch. the branch closest to the people. whether the american people want it or not. i am sure we will find out more

details in the speech, and i think he will lay out a plan with more accountable bureaucrats. he wants to appease some far left of his base. but what i'm saying is this is

spread out already. many families are seeing their minimum income or declined in recent years. this is the reality of the obama economy. even in the best of times, imposing an energy tax would be a bad idea. but in an era of unacceptably high unemployment and where americans are desperate for the president to finally focus on growing the middle class rather than throwing scraps to the wealthy supporters, this borders on absurd. he may as well call his plan what it is. a plan to ship out overseas. basically it is unilateral economics. and to what end?

many experts agree that a climate policy that does not include those to china and india is essentially meaningless. but the damage to our economy would be anything but meaningless. ironically, those are the very types of countries that stand to benefit economically from our laws. so nations like these will probably just take our jobs and keep pumping more carbon into the air. and what will we have to show for it? that is a question that the president needs to answer today. americans want commonsense policies to make energy cleaner and more affordable. the operative phrase being common sense. because americans are also deeply concerned about god and the economy. that is what the president should be focused on an incredibly it appears to be the furthest thing from his mind.

senator mcconnell of kentucky comes and tell us that if we are going to discuss the state of our environment in america, it is a war on coal and jobs. i think he is wrong. this is a war on science we know that the impact of this will have on humanity as well as wildlife. yet from the other side, complete denial. complete denial of science this is a war on science.

children being taken to the emergency room in america for asthma, and other ailments. to ignore the state of public health challenges is to ignore the reality lesson until the united states shows leadership when it comes to the environment and it is difficult if not impossible to convince other nations that they can do the same. the president is going to make a speech which will be controversial. about what to do with our environment we have coal

reserves and we have seen those reserves. because of some of the contamination and chemicals that are associated with this coal diminished over the last several decades they are buried deep beneath the earth. the capture and sequestration of these omissions. it is a energy research experiment that we are engaged in right now in central illinois, which i believe holds promise for the use of coal in the future in a much more responsible way. how much can you store below the

earth in central illinois? we can store the admissions and missions of 50 electric power plants for 50 years. let's engage in that research will find a responsible way to use coal. reducing pollution is going to cost us jobs. it isn't borne out by the evidence. we are seeing dramatic investments being made for the solar and wind and geothermal industries. we have seen to a create jobs because we are setting the standards for more fuel-efficient cars, for example. it creates jobs. it is good for the environment. suggest that cost exactly the opposite. let me also say a word about the republican leaders concerned about working families living

paycheck to paycheck. time and again on the side of the aisle, we have offered them a chance to reduce the tax burden on working families in america by asking those who are doing quite well to pay a little bit more than they have consistently said no. time and again we have asked the republican leader and his colleagues to join us in raising the minimum wage and they have said no. this concern about families struggling paycheck to paycheck should be borne out by some of the votes and that, to me, that is essential. i believe that the environment is a challenge that we must face together. to ignore it is to ignore reality. when lake michigan was measured two weeks ago and it was at its lowest depth in any major time of recent history. what we are seeing in global warming is evaporation of the great lakes. it is a scary thing to think

about what this will ultimately do to us. the president is going to face the issue head-on and there are some who want to run away from it. they can do that if they wish. but their war and the destructive forces that are affecting this earth is shortsighted. we need leadership on this, bipartisan leadership. >> coming up next on c-span2, the nsa's prison surveillance program. and computer hacking from china. later, a senate hearing about medicare prescript in drug benefits. >> the supreme court will announce its ruling on same-sex marriage in california's proposition eight same-sex marriage ban tomorrow morning. live coverage beginning at around 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span3. ..

>> william tecumseh sherman saved the union effort i cannot think of anybody at the time who'd could have done that.

>> ag for coming. we tried to say as a newsboy very much in it today. marchese his name in the paper a lot lately winning two pulitzers about vice

president cheney from "the new york times" best seller also chosen as the book of the year and works for the "washington post" and "time" magazine and the course he had the first jury about edward snowden. rights over here david sanger rick at the times 30 years? he has worked at one place blonder than anybody on this panel. [laughter] said he has two books about the bombing administration the most recent of course, is you had information in that book that had not been known before see you have experience of that kind of thing then james lewis is

senior fellow here at csis the eighth knowledge expert on cybersecurity and in and out of government most of his career and has a ph.d. from university of chicago. of very long with the may for all of these gentlemen but i just want to ask you to start off with the threshold. >> with a view bollandist -- a view on this very, very little the terms are opaque than the executive makes a secret highly classified interpretation of what the law says.

then it creates a program of the then it goes to a court this surveillance court that works only in highly classified ways and with no other parties present the court makes a secret ruling and all of this draws a boundary around where should the limit be between intelligence gathering and privacy and civil liberty? that is the conversation we have not had an opportunity to debate in this country among the general public. with the foundational question talking about mutual transparency of citizens and the government. i think there were lots of things in this material that needed to be approached and the confirmation of that is that there has been extended and public debate rather

lines should be. >> did you have any concerns about national security might be damaged with what you published? did. over my career in journalism having covered stories, quite a few times i saw a hard balance to be struck with the government with their concerns and i will tell you how i started the first conversation, i said i will not hand use this document that i have is the date and title and author but before we start talking we're not even thinking of publishing between 21 and 27. >> this is the view presented it to the post? >> yes. when i came to the post i had a similar conversation

and said you can make your own decisions. i came back on contract and said he will make a decision when you're willing to publish but this is the part i myself would not want to publish. >> david, hall is what he did with his story, is it different in any way from what you did your book? you learn for the first time about the cyberwar abilities united states has did you go through this same process? >> there were a couple of differences but i commend them for their enterprise exactly the way he handled it which was extremely responsible. the difference was from what

we published in the times about the olympic games with the offensive cyberoperation but the first sophisticated use of the overall journalistic impotence was very similar to what you just heard that the matter where the government draws the line with personal privacy and doing the of surveillance used in rare it dries with use of offensive weapons it is all done in secret and in many cases to have to ask the questions how much has to be secret because it keeps operational details secret that we all understand the need to go do that. how much of the fundamental issues need by the u.s.

public or by american citizens because it is done in their name? i think the responsible way to do it is go to the government to say this is what i have the key elements will be published but the question is if there are security concerns that would endanger somebody's life or an ongoing operation? we're willing to sit down to hear that to make the case then i did what part did i knew right off the table and not even to get into a conversation then in other cases, there were responsible people who made a case and i found over the years that this is not my first time it usually is all once you get that far you

can deal with reasonable people but they're not simply going to say we will not discuss that. now that raises a more fundamental question which is the consequence why can the press go do this? that comes to an understanding that i think many people has about the role of media and it is disputed by others and i don't think there are any absolutes. the u.s. government would like to say it is classified and should never be published but the fact of the matter is almost every world that you write about is classified in some form. i don't thank you can write about the every and nuclear weapons program or a north korea or china without running into something that is classified somewhere. to have a story assembled

over the course of a year-and-a-half in there was specific documents that kicks into gear of the classification. >> you have seen these conversations before from inside and outside the government. what do you think of this story? >> i think i am the only one on the panel that has been on the inside and one of the things i am wondering i just went through my five year review why should i bother? it will be in the post or the times. [laughter] and no doubt people are a little depressed but we will rebuild. and reducing the red transparency would be a good thing if they gave more informational the programs to begin with it would have been easier to manage the

public reaction. at the same time i think it needs to continue so i hope we don't put in additional constraints. >> let me ask you, some of the claims that snowden has made eaton listen in on any phone call, i had people on the record and off the record said he vastly overstated his abilities i love the television shows and movies where they show the off-center and the cia and he says let me go to st. peter's square and it immediately pops up. [laughter] come on. of course, technically it is possible to do target someone to get their phone calls but there are many, many legal constraints have

to work with those to know how difficult it is a and it is not that is -- easy there are legal issues. >> what you think he overstated? >> i think he was overselling it worked for a while like in hong kong's come to me and bring money i will tell you the good stuff i think he was overselling it. >> i am not his lawyer or advocate and i am printing only would i think is true that i can verify but i would not be so sure he is wrong what he is rightabout for sure is the legal constraints are lines of code or policy and the rules or regulations which given that it is taken place in secret his principal point*

is there has been built up a remarkably powerful surveillance apparatus touching every american household fair reading your e malthusian and other basic constraints right now is what the code says are what the policies are and we know when governments accumulate power over time they find one more reason why to find justice and overtime you tend to have more use for a powerful tool for reasons that are stated in good faith and on is the belief but. >> how can it be that someone can go to work in the situation where a position like this to

somehow get away with it? we know he did because he printed some of that but that does not seem right it seems it is not a good situation. how can that be? >> i really want to defend him but it does sound like there was a glitch. [laughter] just to move aside looking at simple things to make your network more secure to restrict the administrator privilege he was administrator and that was probably a mistake. >> basically he is the i t guy that when the computers break down that is to come said and he knows everybody's password? >>. [laughter] is that basically his job?

>> someone i know describe him as the help desk. >> there has been a lot of stuff that is trivializing his credentials but he worked at the hawaii large subbranch operations center run by the nsa and he was the administrator of a substantial portion of that system also in charge so that he was there to watch out for incoming cyberattacks on the system and also would ministered the rules and regulations and firewalls that prevented inside and outside to getting to places they were not supposed to. >> is there any suggestion and i know this is your source but is there a

suggestion that he took this job for the sole reason he had his mind made up the needed to be exposed and he got the job to do that? >> he has spent a lot more years than these working in the intelligence community he never told me he took this job to carry out his plan but it looks more and more like that with the extra no evidence. >> but if he does this then goes to hong kong and russia it is not your standard was the floor. >> a lot of people would argue he is not a whistle-blower act all and if you think he is probably determines how you come down on the first question why the press publishes this and

so forth. but this has come to an interesting context with the new president in china and the return of a previous president, both of you just met obama in different summit meetings in the last week and that half and those who showed a willingness to stand up to say this is not my problem and perhaps enjoy how much things this was causing the united states but in the case of the chinese i think they wanted to get the problem off their plate the thought of one year or two years i think they believed the chinese officials express this to me would be a fairly lengthy

process to erode the relationship at a time with other problems than what he wants to deal with and they decided they would take a day to let him out of hong kong but then it would become someone else's problem and that turned out to be vladimir bruited. [laughter] >> you think they already had gotten everything they needed from him? is it possible we read these stories i don't have the expertise to know but is it possible they could do that without him knowing it? >> i do know a little bit and he was not at the center of it so i did he have access to good data? yes. is it a surprise to the chinese or the russians? no. one of the problems he found this stuff that attracted

public interest it started a good debate but was not a surprise to the foreign intelligence service to. >> he gave me good reason to believe he is in possession of materials that could do extraordinary damage to collections by disclosing things that foreign targets don't know maybe in principle but not a practice he is not interested in to tossing it into pollex record but foster debate there is speculation if the chinese took his laptop celadon give a lot of odds on that but i would make a bet against it. i know more about the functions he took in the planning he did with that issue and i think it be difficult to do without it

we have not seen any sign of that. >> snowden p.s. did any harm to national security? >> that is hard to judge from the outside and of course, you always get insiders say any revelation of the ted the programs does harm then you hear the point* most of this probably wasn't a surprise but if it is of more surprise to the american people that the russians or the chinese. [laughter] or the piece that i wrote about that the virus had done now and the area's already had the code and they knew somebody was attacking their system but they did not think it was this wes, then the question is are these programs classified to keep

adversaries or from americans? that is an important question to answer. when i look over the documents "the guardian" published, for some of them the first question was why was this document classified and all? one of the most interesting was one we had written about but not seen called presidential directive number 20 in basically lays out the conditions under which the united states would make use of defensive seifert -- cyberor each paragraph is confidential or secret the entire document was to be declassified but i

read through this and i said i am almost certain that when the document was signed and there was tea classified briefings on all of the major details of a back over my notes and there were some interesting things but most of the issues we had been briefed so i said can someone give me the justification why this was classified? because it was interested in it instead united states to classify it. many of these to raise a fundamental question with the government find itself in the seventh issue it is said to the world we have a central repository that of so called data is poured into it we hold on to a for five years?

because any tears to read to the movies thinks we can trace the call in 20 seconds. so why the presidential decision directive could not be published at which point* it would become a deterrent for other countries to see the president has authorized the use of italics terry cyberweapons that nobody wants to engage and in that debate with the government. >> is said that opening close the conversation rather whether it would improve the debate war could do some damage for national security but jfk great speech we're willing to pay no price to obscure the blessings of liberty in will bear no bird of he did not

say that but the trade-off between self-government the constitution begins with the fundamental guiding principles about what we are here for and one of them is to secure the common defense there are other issues here sometimes they're easy sometimes they're hard but i don't dismiss the security risks involved to have this debate even when a country where a terrorist organization has been a reason to think the nsa could you could compare it to the elevator cameras that we all know are there every day but we all don't behave all the time is like we would have our telegraph put on the internet. you stop to worry about it so by calling attention to it you stop people from going there but it is very

clear the description of this program to get information from silicon valley it is explicit in the markings the most highly classified portions was the listing of the nine companies kugel, facebook, microsoft, etc. the number one secret in there and what i had conversations with government officials about what we would printed what we would not i said if the harm that you envision is private companies taking market lost because the american people don't like what they're doing then that is why. that is a high stake that would make me want to publish. >> what can we do?

you have a better fix on this than any of us and i remember when i talked to before the presidential debates and you told me some of the things but it is amazing that there is a difference of the capability and abusing which is one of the questions but tell us about it i would like to know. [laughter] >> that is tough. it is fair to say that after september a levin there was a lot of effort to integrate intelligence and expand collections and one of the things that was most useful was the capture a sulfone in afghanistan and do look a.m. there is numbers.

interesting one is in the west and who was that person talking to? at that point* you are stuck in you really need to know what to do you have to get you essentially like what is your phone bill. if you don't do that then you may have unhappy surprises so it is the ability to collect and combine stuff captured on the battlefield that is where the edge comes from now. this is not new there was the echelon debate where the european suddenly became excited because they thought there was a global system to collect all traffic and they did a big investigation with the european commission and concluded it isn't as bad as we think. there are trade-offs and we do need to debate with more transparency but we need the collection capability.

>> i told him we would fight of might. [laughter] the first of all, there is a legitimate problem here absolutely you have a legal framework that you could spy on the bad guys overseas and get warrants to spy on suspected bad guys mystically but when you got to where you care about you had barriers that were hard to get through but what you just described is really not what these programs are doing. if you pick up the pocket litter from afghanistan it has 35 phone-number is an 17 e-mail addresses that is where you get the individual fisa for it but to say this

is in his pocket you can do that but it you have to show that the information anyone to is relevant to every b.c. every time with their use of these programs for what people call data mining and they are looking for an unknown spots by finding headed relationships so to start with one contact lewis is in touch receptors send it is the exponential growth everybody remembers

6 degrees of separation whether from you or from the u.n. to obispo whole planet but if this is such an old technique that this is declassified but they used to teach you how to do this using mail and envelopes of course, he would define those who cannot find out about it you want to say what is the network he is involved? the and you have to let people who are not known or not suspect you could not get a warrant and i think the administration is miffed because they feel they went out of their way to do it in a constitutional manner, not public but it goes back to at least the 19th century they were teaching it to children when i was a boy. [laughter] >> a longtime friend and i

am in agreement with him that the message did is used a lot but the mistake the government may have made was that it was declassified and had to do it with the mail or phone numbers and it does raise the question from back in the days when the story was written in 2005 with the wiretapping that you ask the question why couldn't the government at least have described the allies of the program? they leave themselves open to this same kind of exposure and debate and the argument it really needed to be classified and what you discover when you get these cases i would even argue wikileaks with the amount of damage we were told would be

done probably was overstated >> it is very clear when greece said why they don't want to have that degree of transparency because the more you know, the war it creeps you out. so look at what we now know of the program. they are selecting all of the embedded data phone calls a communications through chad, e-mail, video chad, e-mail, video, voice over it. >> to help me understand to talk about the netted data they get the message? >> know they don't get the content they said don't worry the impact of privacy is not bothered we're not read your e-mail but just looking at this to and from and when but it is more than at and it is called digital

that were confirmation it has identifiers and locations and if you gave me the choice right now based on the data management techniques here is the choice, i will subject myself either to when month of having someone reid all of my e-mail's or phone calls i would pick content in the second you can listen to me but the infringement of my privacy would be much less even though the law says otherwise but with metadata you know, who they're checking to insure they are if you associate that with everyone because they get for all of yours then they know if you have a medical condition, extra marital affair, thinking of

leaving your job, if you have come out with their sexual preference. ims say they aren't doing that but they have taken all the information they would need to do that and they're holding it. >> that doesn't make sense because there is a limited number of analysts they could only look guess so much priority number one is not your sex life. it might be interesting. [laughter] priority number one is terrorism, proliferation, a couple countries we have bad relationships with that there are not that many analysts. nobody is really your staff the idea that it is you are a good target for foreign intelligence so is china or russia eliciting? it would not surprise me in the least nsa? no. that is the difference it is not a perfect world. it is not 19th century

republic where ben and dinosaurs coexist but it is a place where we have these trade-offs and it keeps you out to have people look at your metadata it keeps me up to find unattended luggage at o'hare. >> did you like boston? >> when you collect the phone numbers then connect to love them is there a capability what i used to call on tape for that it is recorded to playback? e-mail is there but would a telephone conversation me there? >> ran they analyze the metadata who you talk to, where, they call that a surface analysis than they use that to go get the content.

once they decide you're a person of interest then prospectively they can collect your communications and real-time or get terabytes of old communications storage. >> our conversation in store? i guess that is it. >> once they start to become interested in a new then they can listen going forward i do not believe there is not present evidence that they're capable of or actually collecting all communication content to do that later. >> we should be appreciative of that but when i started to work of this a long time ago from the state department with the nsa they kept talking about the bit

bucket. what the heck? there is too much information and all intelligence agencies it is easy to collect it is hard to realize though they just park it so they would parquet in freight cars in the old days and there are not enough people to read this. so the content has to be but they have to focus it on a person of interest. >> but they are not. there is plenty of processing power to do better data analysis. it is not hard like adding a few cycles too fast computing capability. >> while you're thinking of questions i was interested did one thing that you wrote you talk about the myth now

that we talk about cyberyou said we're not in a cyberwar with china right now and i thought that was interesting why did you say that? civic i forget who said it that the chinese probably could not wait to get him out of hong kong was a pate in the neck of the russians are trying to think of a way to ship him off because these are great powers and responsible it yesterday that engages in espionage and i read now that we do to [laughter] but that is not war and great powers it is not an attack it is not the use of force or nine even coercive of less you attempted so the chinese take a vantage of weaknesses but that is not warfare and sometimes people say we're with the cold war of china. it is not a cold war there

the second largest economy in the world and the second trading partner i do not think we're in the war with them. >> he is right on the espionage aside the obama has gone to some lengths to differentiate the traditional espionage from of intellectual properties of there is a commercial war under way and on the cold war question that every year in one now but we are pretty close on the verge ainge fed is the cyberissue that has moved to the center of the relationship did has been made far more complex by all the issues that jim raises for the second largest economy and that constrains us from doing something is that we did to the old

soviet union during the cold war but that doesn't necessarily mean we're not headed into a cold war but into a much more complicated version. >> questions? >> from the homeland security policy is to. congratulations you kept your clearance. [laughter] i guess the question that i will ask is we are old enough to remember richard nixon and there was a time under kennedy and johnson his practice is recapped quiet in one of the sayings that frightens me about this we have been about this for about 12 of 13 years and certainly there is a lot of hits and statements along

the line that the press may not have picked up on to indicate this was beginning to coalesce but did we arrive at a point*? is he dead cattle and stuff is circling around that somebody kick together or it is a brand new discovery? >> are you saying that this has something to do with other things? >> i am not so sure the press has done a great job over the last six years of doing what you are doing right now because one of the jobs of the press is the idea they would be the watchdog but there is a lot of this out there we have seen reporting and people read the page redacting and heard this before the most part is bits and rivers and we have not had the press has it failed to some extent

? >> the press always fails. [laughter] every time one of these things happen really say they fell down on the job this time that by and large if the kid has done a pretty good job but i fade after 9/11 a lot of people did not want to go through that again and i am not one who thinks that snowden is a great hero but sometimes sources are good people and sometimes they are not but i have real questions and i said on television people like martin luther king, jr. were right hero's but they

stayed around and did not run off to china and i think if he had a case to make an of the key helped his case by his behavior once this caveman i think the post acted very responsible in the way they vetted the story and i also think we need to know more about what is going on but i don't know we could always do a better job is why i would say. >> i like creaming the question if there was an intelligence failure because it is a fair question does your happy to say that's if it is somehow unable to predict every event and that of think that is a fair standard but did we fail to

understand and present as these things happening? sure. but in my case it is not exact size of my last book on tv with two 1/2 chapters devoted to the bush era surveillance program and i turned up a lot but exactly what was the assayed doing that the justice department thought was such a big problem that there is merely a mass resignation? there is an interesting story to tell but i could not figure it out so whether snowden is a whistle-blower or a hero or a villain what he has done among other things is a naval the public debate in which we all pay

and purchase a pate in the course of the demand. >> and this is all taking place at a time when we are undergoing a cultural change in this country brought on by the communications revolution in the capabilities that we now have with the coming of the social media people of the younger generation now put on facebook that the news of my age would not have described in mixed company. [laughter] they have no idea web privacy is now and i think that factors into all of this. we see a growing feeling with the under generation they don't believe much of anything that anybody tells them anymore but i think that has to do with more

than just the government running this program and the secrecy if the capacity with a lot of things. >> on any given day i figure i am lucky if i understand to 3% what is going on around three with u.s. government so i am sure there is a lot of humility we don't understand we put a lot of effort into it but to go back over the last four or five years of that article i mentioned or go back to the coverage of the fisa renewal debate in the use of offensive weapons and go back to look at other work that they're many other reporters and i think there

is a steady drumbeat has it is banned as broad as we like? know but you may get the stories by pulling on the strings and hope a little more unravels along the way. >> and this is one of the most complicated stories that i can recall in recent times we all go back to ronald reagan trespass verify the government says trust us but they cannot give us the information that helps us to verify because that is classified and it is very difficult to know what the government has done and they do have an enormous capabilities but have they abused it? these people on the oversight committee on capitol hill saying no and maybe they are right or wrong, i don't know but t diffi.

>> i cannot help to think of dr. strange love to miss a machine that they never told to anybody about but what good is this program if nobody knows about? white to be keeping a secret? i think the most important cory did is i am 31. i voted for bob 2008 definitely not in 2012. this is the context of this story that obama common in my generation has a very hard time believing traditional news outlets and politicians with the degradation of public trust in for me personally and everybody that i know it and

this is what needs to be talked about in the media and how will be repaired this and are we and where your thoughts? >> it is interesting that you bring that up and to define as legitimacy the you accept unquestioningly the authority of the congress and the courts and the president or the press to say i can't trust them but i am still working through but with the additional hypophysis the internet we have seen this before with the printing press floods of nutrition was available to a new audience they can read the bible to say i don't see a divine right of skiing and then you go through similar process it is a political effect of the internet is the greeting the legitimacy

of institutions also government overpromise a working progress but this could take a long time to work through. >> and with the coming of the internet most people if they'd agree with the editorial policy they generally accepted what was on the news as the basic fact because they generally accepted that mainstream media that basically did not print your broadcast anything but now you are overwhelmed disinformation from every corner in some of which is true and a great deal bears no resemblance to the truth and i think that is one reason it is now so difficult white people have such questions and i think that is part of it. >> with a quick note may be

the solution is more transparency and you mentioned dr. strange love but in the 2008 report we had we have the'' and a lot of us have been pushing that we can talk about nuclear weapons when can we talk about cyber? some may be initially it is transparency. >> since the internet service providers were acknowledged in the article article, and some which data is available, was there any impact when made known to the public? and a perceived impact on the public's demise of trust with the internet service provider? does my bill go up or down because of the use of my data?

[laughter] >> your bill has gone up but you are not charging cashier do never see it to build you pay is the revelation is that you are giving to an enormous 30 billion plus industry of people you'd never heard of and besides the marty people the big data brokers and although those ideas are different now we're not losing privacy from the because of what we revealed the and use it because of things that are done without our knowledge if you click on terms of service that are in essentially unregulated the of the regulation is you cannot say something that is

factually untrue but to try to figure out the fact in those terms then i recently was taking a look at what was happening behind your back on the commercial side when you attack upon a group birds. >> i'm sorry i have not answered. >> your taxes pay for that when they first started to collect all this data there was the emergency appropriation hundreds of millions of dollars for bigger pots to put the data in an to sift through and it so there are tax dollars. >> do you say that we hear safer now than reword 9/11? >> if i am happy because i

went to law hacker conference and is a free backup services was a bumper sticker. [laughter] so you are getting some value. [laughter] but if you can compare it was a bitter lesson compared to the '90s than people were well-intentioned and how they work now we are better off but there are problems there is no other way to do national lover -- lowell surveillance of was it an exercise they could not use communications and try to attach one negative attacked the tears you could not find them but nsa has their stuff and all three agencies are talking we are safer. are we safe? i leave that to you.

>> just a comment and question i agree that a free and robust press is needed for a free society it it may always be that way but on the of their hand i agree with what you said earlier that margin desert kings and others to engage in civil disobedience to not run off last night i heard piers morgan interview alan dershowitz and he said with the law says you knowingly publish classified information that is a felony. did you know, you're publishing classified information? >> that is an entirely different conversations

period you kin take the fifth. >> of course. but there have been available prosecution's for many years. . .

>> i agree. they could and they have always been able to make their choices. that no one has commented on my question is was it a necessary way and every common is it is important to keep in mind that all of this closure,

there is an illegal aspect about it that congress enacted these laws and it is unfortunate to a good many congressmen over the last several years that they didn't discuss it in this way. >> i think that one of the things that there should be more attention paid to is this congressional oversight. the fact that when they had the most recent hearing in the congress, they held on friday afternoon. because they have had to get back home. i think that is something that deserves a lot more publicity. i. >> yes, the way that things are headed as far as the direction goes, you need staff to master

these things and if you are not on the committee, certain appropriations subcommittees, you don't always have that same. so it's not always what you think it is. it has happened with all three branches of government. there are lots of things that could be legal depending on what the law was that we, as a society, we might like to debate. by now, we didn't know until now that they have radically reinterpreted some of the patriot act. the fbi has been telling us every year that we get to use

these provisions. if the facility against what you created business records, a phone number and e-mail address. now it is all of them. now it is the entirety with the other companies. no one knew that they did that. i'm very confident that if we get a chance to ever read that opinion, there will be very significant disagreements in the legal community about whether it is constitutional. >> this has to be the last comment. >> okay. >> you need these kind of revelations in order to have the debate. it suggests that you probably did. jim mentioned that we managed to have a good debate even though everything about nuclear weapons is classified. we had a 25 year long debate

that ended up at the end of the cuban missile crisis 50 years ago, including the conditions under which we view these weapons. in the case of jones, it actually took a very active press writing about the subject every few weeks in order to force the government of the united states to begin to debate out the conditions under which we have this. in the case of this, it has been the same thing. we have needed revelations in order for there to be a debate. so far it is a very small debate about whether or not we want to be using this. and i think that you wouldn't have the debate unless people could stop and say, wait a minute, there is a law that was written when the only metadata you could look out was an address at the outside of an envelope.

still when you're walking around with a cell phone and you can move from one to another. someone can figure out exactly where you are. so the nature of the data is so much richer today than a fine lot was written 30 to 40 years ago, it may not make sense anymore. >> all right, thank you very much. we thank you all. [applause] [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> on the next "washington journal", we will talk to sean duffy about financial regulations and the economy. then texas congresswoman sheila jackson lee and the nsa data collection program and the

supreme court's decision to strike down part of the voting rights act. as part of our spotlight on magazines series, we will discuss the rolling stone recent article on colorado's economy in the state's decision to legalize reckless recreational marijuana. and your phone calls and e-mails and tweets "washington journal" is at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> there about 1400 monuments and markers on the battlefield. this happened during the 1880s and 1890s as the men who thought in this battle are getting older. we want to make sure that they are remembered. in modern times, back in those days, that's how we commemorated the service here.

this is monuments to their leaders. so really helps us to interpret the story and the ground where the units fought. most of the monuments are union monuments. if it's going to be a union victory, quite honestly, by the time the war ends, there is not a lot of money to solve it, especially in northern states. >> live all-day coverage of the battle of gettysburg on sunday starting at 9:30 a.m. eastern with historians and scholars and authors. it is followed at 5:30 p.m. with your calls and tweets and authors and civil war american museum director sherry jones and penn state university professor

and co-author of a field guide to gettysburg, carol reader and trent rearden. at 8:00 o'clock, doris goodwin. at 9:00 p.m., more calls and tweets for peter carmichael on american history tv on c-span3. >> you're watching c-span2 at politics and public affairs weekly featuring live coverage of the u.s. senate. on weeknights, watch key public policy events, and every weekend, the latest nonfiction authors and books on booktv. you can see past programs and get our schedules that are websites. you can join in the conversation on social media. >> carl levin outlined in the legislation aimed at cracking down on intellectual property theft by china. it required the president to block certain imports bought by

ip theft. it was filmed by the executive commission on china. witnesses discussed the impact of chinese cyberattacks on u.s. businesses and human rights groups. >> this meeting will come to order. thank you very much, senator slade gorton for being here. thank you for your work on these very important issues in your legislation, which i know you will be talking about to hold china accountable for cybertheft. i think the staff again for its tireless efforts and the work that they do on human rights and rule of a lot in this commission. the congressman and i have cochaired the commission for number of years now and we appreciate the good working relationship there and with the staff. we know that this is a very important topic that we are getting ready to discuss. cybersecurity is exceptionally important and it is a serious

threat that china poses to us in terms of cyberattacks and how that threatens u.s. and china relations in some ways. so much so the president obama raised the issue with chinese president and we know that this will be part of the economic dialogue to be held in washington for a few weeks. this will talk about the commission's mandate and the rule of law and recent headlines have talked about the appropriate balance between security and freedom. we cannot overlook the enormous impacts on what china has had as a stars and impact was on american companies and governments. we are talking about theft of valuable technology, commercial secrets american companies, the director of the nsa calls it the great transfer of wealth in

history. the scale and scope are staggering. and it is represented here today by senator gorton, who released the peoples republic of china in being the biggest threat. it accounts for 50 to 80% of the ip theft in the united states and around the globe and found that ip theft, it cost the u.s. economy hundreds of billions of dollars per year and literally millions of jobs dragging down our gdp and undermining our ability to prosper. the commission noted that a 20 women's study by the trade commission estimated that this could be brought to a liberal comparable to ours and it would bring 2.1 million jobs our economy. yet it can under estimate the real cost of jobs in this

country. victims include companies in my home state of ohio and michigan and new jersey. those affected are hard-working americans trying to make an honest living and trying to spur innovation only to see their products and services and technology stolen and handed over to state owned enterprises and other businesses in china. with the growing prevalence of computer networks, and are heavily wired economy, it represents increasingly growing threats alongside more traditional forms. china simply to simply buy the same rules as we do. governments to 90s deny these attacks, even though there is mounting evidence of chinese state involvement. this evidence includes a very of 2013 report with the cybersecurity that linked attacks on 141 companies, including 115 based in the united states to a unit of the people's liberation army working from a building in shanghai. the increasing attacks is coinciding with the chinese government's push for indigenous innovation of key industry and

creating an environment where it is acceptable to steal your way to the top. as we have seen, it is not only american companies that are the targets, but it is human rights organizations as well. something particularly important to congressman smith and me. they find their computer systems hacked and stormed in for human rights organizations and activists, dealing with hacking attacks from china is almost a daily fact of life. we cannot sit idly by. that is why i support a comprehensive bipartisan approach to hold china accountable. i urge congress and administration to do whatever they can to combat unfair trading practices, including another topic, the act of 2014, which passed the senate and it has not yet gone to the house. we hope to schedule it for a vote soon. we hope to hold china accountable for cybertheft. i will turn it over to the cochair now.

i think we will be able to keep this going. >> thank you for calling this important hearing. in december of 2006 and march of 2007, the human rights subcommittee that i care, as well as personal computers were attacked by a threat in a resource office where it intended to take control of our computers. at that time, the i.t. professionals cleaned the computers and informed the staff that the attacks and to come from the people's republic of china. they say that it came through or from the trust. they happen to files related to china that contained legislative proposals that were related to beijing, including a major bill. including strategies and information in the names of

chinese dissidents. while this actually doesn't prove that beijing was behind the attack, it raises very serious concerns that it was. chinese agents have not only attempted to target me or my officers, but many members of the house and senate have been a victim of that kind of attack. cyberattacks on congress are part of a much larger pattern of attacks that have attacked american businesses. how do we know this? we have seen in-depth reports come out detailing his massive intrusion into our cyberspace and massive theft of our sabre data. chinese agents have stolen our designs for chips and several missile defense systems. they have stolen our solar panel designs to fire tech research. steps have paid off for china in

recent years and they have major menace jumps in its military capabilities of listing the competitiveness of china's national champions. while cyberthreats have existed for years, increasingly been proven many these outrageous that's had gained the greatest transfer of wealth and originate in the people's republic of china in these attacks are not random. sunsets are being organized by chinese government agencies. if we look closely, we are learning about the motivations. we are working day and night to infiltrate and chinese actions are part of a state sanctioned effort to increase chinese competitiveness militarily as well as commercially. today we hear about how the commercial rule of law system in china allows these types of attacks to occur and how these

disadvantaged american businesses and government agencies. we will hear about the size and scope of the attacks. we will hear how the u.s. government remains unprepared for many of these challenges. we will also hear that another set of this important topic, one that is often overlooked during cyberattacks. it is not only targeting american businesses and military organizations, but it is also targeting ordinary chinese citizens as well. two of its most fundamental freedoms. hackers cannot simply look beyond their borders, as we were here today, chinese citizens, including those advocating food safety and free speech are also targeted by state-sponsored hackers and these citizens are also monitored and private information can be stolen. we are seeking to organize the service and awareness about a

mother who is made to undergo forced abortion. all of these citizens realize that in an instant the government may and probably is watching. china targets is outside of china wishing to promote human rights and promotes human form. we know that chinese organizing cyberattacks is part of this and we must ask ourselves why. china's economy will no doubt benefit from the latest innovations from abroad. why is china so obsessed and concerned about its domestic citizenry, especially those who advocate peace with her legal for reforms but why are they worried about international ngos that seek wrongful and

imprisonments all domestic and foreign individuals are seeking to provide the best services. thankfully today we are fortunate enough to have four witnesses that are well-versed on these issues. this includes how china is attacking targets globally. i do want to point out that i will have to leave, but i will read their testimonies and i'm chairing the hearing at 3:00 o'clock on the house side on the attack and slaughter of christians in syria and it begins at 3:00 o'clock. so i will have to leave. so with my witnesses, we have sincere gratitude for the insight you provide. >> thank you very much, congressman smith. i want to thank you and senator

brown on chinese hacking and its impact on human rights. as well as commercial rule of law includes large-scale cyberintrusionintrusion s by the government of china and the vast numbers of nonprofit entities for the purpose of stealing valuable intellectual information this is also well known that china hacks things in order to suppress human rights. innovation results from investments and the innovation drives investments in the growth

of american companies in the u.s. economy. unfortunately companies are having intellectual property stolen and it is stolen right out from underneath of them through cyberspace. this threatens to undermine america's global competitiveness. u.s. government reports that china is by far the worst offender. as far back as 2011, a counterintelligence executive reported to congress that chinese hackers are the most persistent perpetrators of espionage. obtaining effective enforcement of this in china remains essential as it is a challenge as it has been for many years. and the report continued support this situation has been made worse by cybertheft is information suggests that it has

been engaged in sophisticated targeted efforts to steal intellectual property from u.s. corporate systems. today we will be hearing from senator slade gorton from an old friend of mine who is on the i.t. commission on the commission of intellectual property and that is further powerful evidence of what the problem is. it is long overdue that we equip the american government with the tools it needs to fight back. i recently introduced senate bill 84, the cyberbill acted that is part of the director of national intelligence to produce a report that includes a watchlist in the priority watch list of countries that engage in economic or industrial espionage against the united states in cyberspace. the bill also requires the

president, and this is the action forcing mechanism and the remedy. this requires the president if he determines that such action is warranted, that enforcement of intellectual property rights protecting the department of defense supply chain, that the president is told that he should block goods in three categories. first those made with u.s. technology or information stolen in cyberspace, second goods made by companies that engage in or benefit such that. and third, goods produced by state owned enterprises in countries designated as the worst cyberthieves. now, this is a powerful remedy that is hitting countries that engage in cybertheft in the pocketbook. it is time that we fight back to

protect american businesses and american innovation. we have to call out those who are responsible for cybertheft and power the president to get the thieves where it hurts most. in their wallets. the former director of national intelligence and cochair of the i.t. commission reports that jawboning alone won't work. something has to change china's calculus. i think our bill will do exactly that. >> it will send a message that we've had enough. they wanted to include involvement in cybertheft despite the overwhelming proof that's one thing.

we can present the company to benefit from the theft, including state owned companies. those who got away with it. maybe they will understand the complexity cost them ask access to u.s. market they will press their governments to end it. we stood by for far too long and this includes proprietary information plundered in cyberspace and used to undercut the very companies that developed. it includes their efforts, but many have testified here today and again i want to thank our commission for all the great work that they are doing on this subject. thank you, have to leave for a

voters welcome mislabel yield to whoever's next. >> it is part of this important effort and i do want to thank the chairman for reading this commission. this includes human rights and the rule of law and it has been of great importance. these are issues that have been dedicated to since i graduated from college. chinese hacking is hurting the attempts by the people of china to advance their own human rights. dedicated heroes are being subjected to relentless cyberattacks as they try to use the internet to break the silence of continued persecutions of chinese citizens, allowing for freedom of expression via the internet and it will be critical to their

human rights in china. this will happen if the cyberattacks is to exist. this includes the strength of the chinese economy. cyberattacks by the chinese government have a significant impact here and at home, as well as the citizens of china. american businesses have been affected by these cyberattacks to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. the chinese government is popping of companies and is doing so on the backs of american companies playing by the rules. the chinese government that is responsible for 50 to 80% of global theft of intellectual property, hurting american businesses and cost american jobs, the united states must remain committed to monitoring the continued violation of the

rule of law by the chinese government. not just to protect american jobs, but to help those and persecution of chinese citizens for practicing their religious beliefs. i yield to my fellow congressmen. >> thank you, thank you very much for coming today. thank you for your willingness to testify. i will keep this brief see you can go ahead and share what you have with what i have come to know has already been mentioned a number of times. in the global economy, we look at is the rule of law and the impact that it has. respect for that the lack of respect and what it does. i have been fortunate enough to meet with a number of different people, both from the chinese government and also those that trade with our largest trading partners. and in doing that, we are coming

to grips in this way to address this problem, that is what we are all looking for. we cannot tolerate what we would not stand in our own backyard. we have to make sure that we address that both from a policy standpoint and a legislative standpoint. so with that, i will yield to you, mr. gordon. thank you. >> chairman brown not only summarize the report, but he summarize my opening statement. it simply adds to the fact that when i was on your side of the bench, i always wondered about people reading statements and if they were defined by was illiterate. [laughter] i will not insult you with such a thing. i'm only wanting two or three of

the major points of this commission report with which we have given copies to your staff. we found ourselves sailing uncharted seas. there are other commission to look into this problem in the past. and we have done a good deal of original research to bring the scope and the brett of intellectual property theft to light. i think that our conclusions are pretty cautious. we use a figure of over $300 billion per year. personally i think it is higher than now. that is what we could all be totally comfortable with. fifty to 80% of it coming out of china is also a statement. we are quite confident and we hope that this will lead to more

study, particularly on your part in an important way in which our economy is being run. one example is on page 12. a software company that we won't name sold a single program in china for roughly a hundred dollars. when i was an update on her, we got 30 million calls. this may be the single most rheumatic example we have had. but it is far from the only one. but we have done is try to gather together the nature of the problem. where it comes from. we try to set up policy responses that the administration can come up with the cure said. the bill by senator levin is totally consistent with the recommendations that we make

here. because he gets to the central point that we will not get command over this kind of intellectual theft in china until we have created internal incentives for abiding by rules with respect to intellectual property. at this point, it is free theft and there are no consequences of doing so otherwise. the way to create this is to punish chinese businesses and the government, which are making money out of doing it again today. we have a large recommendation and some are to congress and others to the administration itself. if you did every one of them, we would've started down the road, but we would not have gone all

the way down the road to an honest and straightforward relationship. on the very last page of the commission report, there are three subjects that came up during our deliberations, which are not formal recommendations, but are nevertheless ideas that we think you ought to consider. i think i can say it is more radical than the formal recommendations of the commission itself. one is to allow cyberattacks on the part of american interests in something prohibited by the law. the second has to do with the united world health organization touche certify what we are givea third was one i am -- i did

testify on some time ago. every year the secretary of congress will determine losses we have talked about from all forms of this. we have imposed a tariff on all goods coming from china, designed to produce part of that figure. i don't think we give very much money for now. but i do think that we get action for the protection of our intellectual properties. in fact, it would violate the wto rules. but china can't win this because of the trade surplus with it. it will also create within china itself a view that they ought to abide by. the senate rules and the rest. to make one final comment, when i look back on 18 years in this

body, i think the single vote i most regret is the msn for china. we give up the ability to affect their policies and by doing so, i wish i had that go back over again. >> thank you senator slade gorton. i want to make sure that you know how much we appreciate you being here. i was in the house working with the north carolina delegation. let me just properly introduce this. senators serve 18 years in the senate. a distinguished member of the appropriations committee. he was on the 9/11 commission and he has been such a leader by governor huntsman. thank you for your testimony. he is vice president of the intelligence division and

director of the center for intelligence research and an office. he runs teams of nearly 40 clear that russian array back and the other linguists and analysis performing open source research for the u.s. government. he is also the author of chinese industrial as nice as well. yankee. >> thank you, sir. i like to think the commission and think it's the staff with whom i have worked for so many years on these problems, particularly on this issue. i bring a lot of perspectives to this issue, one being a chinese linguist. as you said 20 years ago, building teams doing open sort of trance source research and working on chinese censors the issues with this commission. and the perspective of being a victim of these attacks given my own profile and writing than trying to expel chinese

attackers from the ramparts of my own corporate networks on a daily basis. we talked a lot about this in the last six to nine months and i would say that it's a multifaceted issue and there is not a one-size-fits-all answer to it. i like to highlight five different areas of cyberespionage, which are different and acquired different strategies. i think it is important for us not to treat it this way but to break it into pieces. the first category is frankly the government military classified contractor of espionage. very few options exist in this case. countries will always find each other. we cannot legislate against espionage or treason against it. but it's important to note that we since 1996, i have personally watched chinese intelligence preparation monitoring u.s. military asset movements and

getting into on classified pentagon networks to get into the databases and provide for teaching real-time intelligence to chinese leaders about our dialogues with them and stealing the talking points about the meetings and getting into a lot of classified contractor companies, stealing information and then using that information to fine-tune their own defensive systems. almost immediate benefit from stealing of information occurs. being able to operationalize it. on the commercial side is a little bit more complicated. on one hand we have sensitive business information that you break into this suite of a major western oil company and you steal the dollar number and you hand it to your national offshore oil company in a bid underneath that. so there is an immediate benefit. the one that has been part of

this has been the issue of intellectual property rights. a lot of companies do not self-report the intrusions and so we really don't have as much data as we would like. particularly data that shows us the intrusions that steal intellectual property that has been given back to china and then given to a national champion in that sector who is successfully able to reverse engineering who can market -- and show it as a quantifiable loss of u.s. company market share in china and compete with them globally. there are very few cases where we have enough data to make that change. it is primarily because they're not really guidelines to self-report those problems. the sec has tightened up some guidelines about reporting loss of shareholder value. many feel that they are not properly indemnified from reporting now. in many ways, many of them are

looking to congress for legislation that will provide them with the indemnification that they need to share information with the government without antitrust problems were clued with one another and share this with one another so that they can engage in collective defense without legal jeopardy. we have begin began to talk to them in a serious fashion, particularly in the last six months. i think the president struck the right top-level tone of pointing out the following fact. not to educate them about whether this is happening or insult their intelligence about that. but to point out that the really strong pillar, particularly passes era has been the business and trade committee. that is what you hear the most complaining about how they can't make money in china and is part of the champions and how the ramp insider as they notched his

reducing competitiveness and stealing core technologies. to emphasize as we have, this fundamentally threatens the bilateral trade relationship, which threatens china's overall economic development, which therefore threatens their social stability among which is the number-one priority of the chinese government. that is the message that is getting through to the top leadership and hopefully will incentivize them along with a range of other measures and all sorts of other measures that we have against chinese companies engaged in this behavior that i think together could possibly stem the tide on this behavior, which is frankly draining the american economy. >> thank you. those companies that you mentioned, the same companies that really get the heavy lifting and pushing this through the united states house of representatives and playing the

single a lot of ways. i have spent a lot of my time more than any other products and network and any state in california and texas, state talking about all of this. i spent a lot of time. what you notice is that in terms of innovation and process innovation, it's so often takes place in this way. when the u.s. companies do the innovation and we brag about it often in ohio or anywhere else, the production has gone overseas and that happens in terms of process and product both. how did this work beyond that.

talk that through how that exacerbates the opportunities that these companies have for that kind of intellectual property theft when they do it from cyberattacks here when they do it and are companies are actually overseas producing this, if you would discuss that. >> is important to note why this is happening. for the first 25 years of chinese economic modernization in my view, china was content and we have seen a dramatic numbers of the magazines, this includes the tremendous gains that they have made. was a very shallow modernization . in roughly the 2000 from a chinese government with this issue and they said that this is not the kind of deep economic modernization that we want. we don't feel that it is developing mess and we are not innovating this was in china but we are assembling other people's stuff and re-exporting it. so roughly in 2005 and 2006, we

came up with this idea that was mentioned earlier. if a large number of state policies from 2006 until 2020 from an immediate range plan and we try to emphasize that this is going to be a large-scale government effort with billions of dollars. what they discovered is that this is an oxymoron akin to jumbo shrimp and military intelligence. and that is not how innovation actually happens. they were feeling some key sectors to be able to do that. the only place they could turn if they couldn't squeeze it out of the multinationals by forcing them to build these labs in china, if they couldn't squeeze it out of the companies and the increasingly forced by regulatory ministries who are partnered with those companies to squeeze that technology transfer out, the remaining option that they had was frankly to steal it. unlike 20 years earlier where he

would've had to physically steal it from a plan, you would have had to smuggle the blueprints out of the shop and take this and run out the door with it. unfortunately our move towards putting all this information online allow them to steal that at a great distance. so that would not have been true in a pre-internet era. now companies have been putting on that information online. that made it all that much easier for people to steal it. >> thank you, that was very helpful. senator, can you talk about your experience and your report and can you give his thoughts about senator levin's legislation we think we should do. >> well, the doctor put it correctly and he said that we are half blind at determining how much it really is and what is going on. because a lot of companies

either see no point in saying they have been stolen from, or they think that it would be making it worse was able lose a market that they have in china. i would say one of the first things that you want to do is to see to it that there is one department in office that is in charge of finding out the total scope of the problem. all of the various elements of the doctor has spoken about so that you as the policymakers know how big of a prominence. saying that we have given you a conservative estimate, i think it is low, but to a certain extent, i'm just guessing on that. we need to know what is going on and no one is really in charge of this at the present time. but from the point of view of that year, the cure is in

creating internal lobbyists in china for obeying the law. there has got to be a group there that says we will be better off befall a fair set of rules and they have now. there is no one there who says that now because it simply isn't true. stealing our intellectual property is very largely risk-free. but tying up the u.s. market, which is so important to them in one respect or another, it will be very important in creating a group that will say yes rather than smiling and nodding their heads down the same road. this is not a new problem. we were concerned about this a decade ago and even more about. that the chinese economy has

changed its desires and it is becoming worse and not better. >> is a greater threat to our national security or economic security? >> it is a major threat to national security. even the solutions i have suggested or as the senator has suggested, we only indirectly get it back. how you value the loss of the intellectual property that is important for national defense, it is not easy to determine in the degree to which you can punish them directly for that is hard to determine. but at one level at least, that is an important challenge for national security. the challenge is a major

challenge. and something that we should attempt to cure right now. >> doctor, would you like to comment? >> they are inextricably linked and we should see them that way as well. any decline in our economic security has an automatic implication for decline in our security. with respect to the chinese impacts our ability to enforce fairness on the chinese side with regards to economics. there are pieces of this and the chinese themselves write about their own comprehensive powers in a way that doesn't even make the distinction between the two and so talking to the senior leaders about the impact and economic development automatically to see the connection to the defense of their own country, as we should as well. i don't think anything is to be

gained by separating issues and we have greater power to influence them by connecting them together and not allowing them to be treated separately. >> thank you, mr. chairman. as we look at the efforts to address this, how are we doing with dhs and the fbi and others. are we working well together and can we improve that? >> we have some important and difficult themes that continue to redouble the way we do things. in other countries that don't have our particular legal and bureaucratic system think we have an advantage. struggle between domestic cybersecurity under dhs and where that boundary line is to not end on cybersecurity continues to be a point of

fiction i have read multiple sources in which they talk about exploiting those things and the jurisdictional issues for their own advantage. one example is as early as 1996, internal chinese sources were talking about how they wanted to delay or disrupt this could have on contingency by disrupting the pentagon's unclassified logistics computer system. but they said quite pointedly that they would initiate an attack from within the continental united states knowing that that would activate a different bureaucracy, mainly the fbi, and not the nsa and other people who had seen it as a foreign intelligence operation and in that window of us being screwed up and not knowing what was going on, they would be able to seize that strategic advantage. so i don't think that we are doing well on that front in particular, and i think even our adversaries are well aware of it.

>> giving that understanding, i am not trying to get you out of your box, but how would you remedy that? >> many levels it is an indemnification issue. there are a lot of countries around the world to believe that there is sovereignty and nations have boundaries and those boundaries can be protected. we have been arguing for internet freedom model that is fabulous. but all the talk about his sovereignty and they are frankly important with regards to cyberspace. we have to recognize that our best assets are the ones that are precluded from operating in the domestic united states. i realize this may not be the best time to raise that issue, given the news of the day. ultimately we would want to have our best capabilities in terms of defending the nation and

those often reside with organizations that are not currently authorized and the only way that is when you get solved is to give people a the title x or title level that does include this. >> thank you. senator? >> thank you again for your tremendous perception on this issue. you believe as i do that other believe that we are stopping the chinese with continuing theft and the leverage that we have is our market. we purchase far more than they purchase from us. and that is a tremendous leverage and it is the highest leverage that we have.

by threatening that in a straightforward fashion, we will at least get them to begin to hear about what our concerns are and how to respond about. >> he said that american companies don't want to be public as much in coming out with the recipient of cyber. what role do they have in protecting themselves? they have a tremendous role in protecting themselves. i think one of the reasons that many of them are reluctant is that they don't think anything is going to get done. if we show as a government that we are serious about the question, i think we will get operations. >> you see a pirate partnership than? >> of course. fundamental defense of the united states is a public responsibility. obviously every company wants to protect its own intellectual properties and markets. >> thank you.

>> doctor come i can see the wanted to make a comment on that question. so please go ahead. >> i think that this body has an important role to play. i am sure that many view have seen the rise of certain companies that are now advertising this as part of their services. but they themselves will engage in aggressive defensive measures on behalf of companies in the absence of the u.s. government will do anything to help them. when i testified before the commission, we had a lengthy discussion about how some of the outdated features in the 1986 prodigies act existed and how many companies right now are looking to congress for clarification on all of this is to where the legal boundaries are on this issue about hacking

and being able to aggressively go after the intellectual property. that act is 27 years old. i believe the many features of it are outdated and have been overrun by technology and i think it needs to be revisited. that was certainly one of the most interesting debates that we had in the commission hearing that i testified at. >> as we look at the commission, senator, your comments are that it won't get us all the way. i may be paraphrasing her. how far down the road doesn't get us? are we doing a half marathon? need to realize how far down the road we are going. >> we are talking about all your recommendations are correct. >> i don't think i can quantify that except to say that i think it will be significant. you will be significant to the extent that we have begun to

create within china itself, an interest group that is in favor of this situation and handling of it. because we see that in so many areas where there is not bad. >> by threatening the probability of those public and private companies that sell large amounts of this to the united states. >> windows threaten and consequences to actions -- because too many times we threaten without resolve. and i guess what i'm asking -- >> i agree, don't read unless you're willing to carry out. >> exactly. >> you are seen to have real consequences, regardless of the circumstances of what has been implemented.

would you agree? >> well, first, i would say is a matter of principle that china and the chinese economy and government will respect intellectual property when they have their own electoral property to defend. one of the ones that we have is talking about controlling is very popular these days. i see a tremendous upswing in this in china. in other words, chinese doing patents of things with their own pto and then attempting to coerce american companies are that are in china by claiming that they have these chinese patents for something that clearly is one of our patents. the trends are going in the right direction. but not quickly enough in terms of property development and its own desire for protection. ..