according to detailed calculations by my colleague, peter petrie at brandeis, who has worked with michael plumber and produced some very sophisticated cge projections of the income and trade gains from potential tpp, the united states could gain almost $80 billion in additional income when -- in constant dollars, 2007 dollars -- when the deal is finally fully implemented, estimated to be about 2025. because agreements have to be negotiated, then ratified, then all of the reforms fully implemented. so by the end point of that process, you should see a full ip cent of about four-tenths of a percent of gdp in u.s. output as a result of the tpp. ..

projects japanese output will increase by 2% as a result of the tpp. over $100 billion, and that is what is at stake for japan if they can use the tpp to further progress the third error of

abenomics and get it's coming back on the fast track. tbb countries as all will gain substantially, but there will be some losers, minor trade diversion that will affect china and european union, almost negligible, but other asian countries like indonesia and korea and thailand will lose a bit. it's one of the reasons why several of these countries are looking into future participation. in fact, the whole concept or strategy behind the tpp is not just to have a group of 12 countries that have a core high quality trade agreement, but to expand that across the asia-pacific and include all of the major trading nations. and while the 12 countries are concluding their thoughts right now, korea, indonesia, thailand and the philippines are already doing due diligence about the potential benefits and adjustments that they would have

to undertake if they participate in the talks at some future time. there's also one other country that has begun in the past year to do intensive studies, the potential for undertaking domestic economic reform that would allow it to participate in the tpp. perhaps even within this decade. that country is china. it's a big task which only a couple years ago would have seemed totally in insurmountable given the scope of economic reform that china would have to undertake. but things move very quickly in china. and if substantial progress is made on many of the reforms that were vetted during the third plenum in november of last year, then china will be over the next couple of years closing the gaps and might consider what it can do in addition to join the tpp. if it does that then you have a dramatic increase of the numbers

that petrie has projected for all of the participating countries and for the global trading system as a whole. now, as miriam said, there are substantial challenges in putting the final deal together. and ministers of the tpp countries just finished their talks in singapore a few hours ago. the major bottleneck is market access reforms, and particularly agriculture. and the challenge is for japan, but let's say there's also a challenge for other countries that have substantial agricultural trade restriction, including the united states, canada and mexico. we don't talk much about it because we have an awful farm bill that was recently passed and signed by the president. i can talk about how it goes against the trading system, but that's a fact of life we have to

live with. but there is still scope for reforms and the ability to increase access in agriculture and services and manufacturers. and if there is a good indication that that can be done, then i think that the other tpp countries will find appropriate means to deregulate and liberalize other sticking point on the agenda, including intellectual property rights, particularly those relating to pharmaceuticals and the new digital economy. investor state dispute settlement procedures and rules and enforcement of new obligations upon environment and labor. now, let me turn very quickly to the ttip negotiations. i have a little lesson that i can say on this because they are at an earlier stage of negotiations. though they are also important because the transatlantic

economic relationship is our most significant commercial relationship. it's not our most significant trade partnership. the tpp actually is more valuable in that front, but we are talking about over a trillion dollars of two-way trade in goods and services between the united states and the european union, and over $4 trillion in foreign direct investment in each other's market. so it is a huge, huge adventure. the ttip negotiators seek to eliminate tariffs and substantial reduce nontariff barriers in trade and investment. that's a traditional part of the agenda. but as miriam noted, there's also ambitious goals with regard to coordinating or harmonizing regulatory policies affecting trade in goods and services. and that's what the biggest payoff could come very hard to estimate the economic impact of

that until you get a clear idea fraction of what changes, would be possible. but in getting to that point, ttip negotiators face several key challenges. and i'll just summarize a couple of them for you to note the areas where there's a big potential upside if we can get agreement, but there's also substantial difficulties in negotiating changes in u.s. and european policies. the first is with regard to regulatory reform, there is strong political opposition from independent regulatory bodies. they have their own political constituencies, and while there are good efforts made to courtney policies with them, it's herding cats. even lawyers have difficulty herding cats, and so there's some difficulty in that area.

and the sharpest area of problem with regard to independent regulators is regard to financial regular policies. and there, there seems to have been at least some initial miss communication between u.s. and european officials on the way that each side thought would be preferable in moving forward on dealing with regulatory, financial revelatory issues in the ttip. hopefully with continuing discussions, that miscommunication will be clarified, but my sense in talking to some officials just in the recent weeks is that there is still a gap. there's also a problem in the more basic part of the agenda with regard to cutting farm tariffs. because it is very difficult to cut farm tariffs if you don't deal with the broader program of support for domestic agriculture, including substance.

the to work hand in glove in a way agricultural programs are designed to support the farm and farm communities. now, traditionally trade negotiators say the only way you can deal with farm subsidies is in a multilateral approach. that's conventional wisdom, and conventional wisdom is wrong. in this case. because one is dealing with the two major agricultural subsidizes. and so in thi respect there is the ability to talk about a coherent approach to agriculture reform dealing with tears and subsidies, but it will take a bigger political live, particularly in the aftermath of the farm bill that went in reverse direction in terms of liberalization of agricultural policies, or the removal of distortions on trade and production decisions in the agricultural community.

there's also a problem and extending access to public procurement tenders covering state and local governments, and public utilities in europe. this would be useful but politically difficult because not only extends beyond washington but deals with states' rights, federal prerogatives. so has only been a difficult issue to address in trade negotiations. and, finally, there are concerns of been voiced in both the united states and get about investor state dispute settlement and data privacy issues. you all have heard of the complaints from angela merkel about her cell phone, but these are broader-based concerns and go back to the negotiation of the anticounterfeiting trade agreement that was successfully negotiated a couple of years ago but rejected by the european parliament. and so concerns from civil society in europe now have to

take more seriously and, indeed, a greater effort is being made by officials in both brussels and in washington to have much more open discussions, much greater transparency in the negotiations to ensure that, that there is, when the time comes to put a deal together, a broader-based support. and in this regard, ambassador froman has constituted a new advisory committee to take into account public interest groups that will hopefully provide additional information and support for ustr negotiators as they go for. i do -- i thank the chairman's patience with me another four to any questions that you might have. thank you very much. [applause] >> so, as is customary, ma please write down your questions and pass them forward and we

will put them forward to our two panelists. when we were having our call ahead of this session, thom beers and i commented we could really just set the t two of thm together and have them have a conversation and it would be dramatically interesting and enlightening to the audience. but before we let them do that, although i'm sure they will respond to my question and then carry it further, i just have a starter question. which is, it seems to me that ttip is going to be slightly easier to negotiate, but that may be a misconception. so i wonder if you could come if you break out between the tpp and the ttip, which do you think will be the quicker completion and which will be the easier completion? >> well, ttip started about four

years ago. so as i mentioned, we are in the endgame now. as in any trade negotiations the most difficult issue are only resolved at the end. so that is the stage that we are at. with respective tpp. with ttip, and we essentially started only, let's see, six, seven months ago. we at her first round in july of last year an additional two rounds last although the second round was modified unfortunately because of the government shut down. nonetheless, we made a significant amount of progress and we're now ready for a fourth round which as i mentioned will be in march. so we are at a very different stage. i would say both agreements will address cutting-edge 21st century issues that have not been addressed in previous trade

agreements. both will be ambitious. both will be comprehensive. and as both jeff and i pointed out, both stand to bring substantial gains to the united states in terms of exports, more jobs support here at home, and greater economic growth. >> let me just add one additional point to that in the manner of a two-handed economi economist. in one sense, the ttip is actually easier to negotiate because on the basic agenda the united states and the european union have very similar comprehensive trade agreements with korea. that already online our traditional policies very closely. and so that part can almost take off the shelf, almost. but on the other hand, it's much were difficult than tpp because the impatience of the

negotiators in dealing with the regulatory issues that we talked about before are much more complicated and complex. and, therefore, will require different participants and so we'll take a little more time to put together. >> thank you. so we have a number of questions about china and the going to group them together a little bit. the first is what's going to get them to remove barriers to agricultural reform? and then the second is, with regard to what is happening in asia, not just in china but with other countries and currency manipulation, how is that being addressed in the negotiation? and then a final question about china's potential problems with their debt and how will their domestic economic situation

influence their participation. and then i have one final question, which is a clarification. jeff, you said japanese output would increase by 2%. i assume that's 2%, not two percentage points but i wanted to clarify. >> increase in 2%. >> okay. so on the china question, i think the number of questions about the current sea level of many asian countries and the manipulation of beggar thy neighbor policies which are engaged in there, how is that affecting the negotiations and is it going to affect the outcome? and then the questions about china and its economic system and how will it integrate? >> do you want me to start on that? okay. well, the broadest point for china is that it recognizes it has problems within its shadow

banking system. it has problems in terms of their scope of domestic adjustment in its economy. and that is driving the economic reforms that are being vetted, were vetted in the third plenum. the interest in the tpp and in using international trade initiatives like others on services and other initiatives, future participation in tpp, is as a means of complimenting and reinforcing what they wanted to at home. it's essentially very similar to what the chinese did in the late 1990s when they made their final big push and agreed to a deal with charlene barshefsky and ustr to gain accession to the world trade organization. and so i see this very

similarly. the key question will be how far and how fast they can go in implementing those reforms. the shanghai free trade zone is just getting started. it's had a number of missteps at the beginning. but if you can move forward in pushing financial reforms, that will be a very good step forward. you want to talk about currency manipulation? >> let me make a few comments. first of all we have a lot of engagement with china. probably an understatement. not only do we work on ensuring that they live up to all the wto commitments. we haven't been afraid to litigate when we feel that they are not. and i would add we have done that very successfully. but we are also discussing with them new opportunities.

and i was a the most important one right now is negotiation of a bilateral investment treaty with china. they took a major step last year in a green to work off of a negative list in negotiation which means that it would be much more comprehensive than otherwise. so rather than all the areas the agreement would cover in a positive list sense, we will instead be able to have the agreement cover broad areas and exclude only those that are expressly named. so working on a negative list base is significant a breakthrough. and we hope we will be able to bring conclusions to successor, these negotiations to a successful conclusion. in terms of the currency question, it's obviously quite complex. there are different views of the

relationship that that question should have. to our trade agreements. and that's a discussion that the department of the treasury is engaged in with members of congress. i would say i laterally with respect to china, this administration has been very vigilant, and not at all shy in terms of working with china to address this question. and we have seen the trend moving in a positive direction. >> so we have several questions regarding agriculture. one is given the deep resistance to gm foods, how is this issue getting resolved with the european trade deal? and then are they braced to agriculture reform with tpp partners and the questioner

names namely the u.s., canada, mexico, so the nafta and japan, and i think we highlighted this a little bit in our initial remarks about our recent farm bill, but what would you say are the two, let's limit it to to to key barriers there, both on our side and onto counterparties side, and what do you see as a possible path forward? >> the main challenge when we're talking about access for agriculture, we had a very good year last year. last several years in fact have seen record levels of u.s. agricultural exports. so there's a very important issue for us. but it's a question both market access. so is the other trading partners reducing their tariff? the goal in our negotiations with the europeans right now it is to bring all tariffs to zero.

that's a goal we expressed together when we produce the high level working report. so we want to see tariff levels go down, ideally to zero, and we also want to see what we call sps barriers, the non-tariff barriers that are harder to identify but keep out our exports reduced, and it's those rules that sometimes present the biggest job. it's essential that our trading partners make those decisions on the basis of science and risk assessment. and not on the basis of protectionist or any other factors. so in both agreements, we are seeking broad market access while reducing tariffs and also addressing the sps barriers that could still keep out our

products. >> it's so nice not being in government that i can say what i think. [laughter] >> ouch. >> no, no, no. no. you will be out soon. [laughter] on gm most and they will not be covered by ttip. but there is a possibility if the negotiators worked together on a framework that allows greater transparency of regulatory proceedings. and greater opportunity to present scientific information in each other's regulatory processes that we will have clearer and more coherent regulatory decisions taken, evolving over time in which would lead to, i would think, a

convergence of u.s. and european approaches. but in the immediate future on gmo is, the public reaction is so strong against it in europe that i don't see how anything direct could happen. with regard to keep bp on agriculture, the key -- japan has put forward five key products that they want protected, or not subject to broadscale liberalization. these products cover about 500 tariff once. but the real challenge for japan is making the decisions for comprehensive reform, not necessarily total liberalization on all these products. and the products are probably are the most contentious for them at home is not rice, because there isn't that much pressure from other countries to push them on rice, but pork and

beef your maybe some grains. but pork is clearly an important one for the united states, canada and other countries. and for the unite united statese have well-known and long-standing restrictions on sugar and dairy, and there will be demand on us to at least open additional access to our markets through the granting of additional quota. and this has been difficult in the past. i recall on selig saying how he refused to give australia any additional sugar quota in the bilateral free trade agreement -- bob zoellick. even as a fig leaf, because of congressional opposition. and so this, in economic terms is almost insignificant in terms of the us agricultural economy and political terms, it is a very high-stakes game. >> any other comments?

thank you. let me make a few points, first with respect to ttip and then tpp. it's funny because when my european colleagues come over here and whine and time, they don't think twice about what they are eating. and always enjoy the food. -- wine and dine. there's a lot of misinformation out there, including perhaps in particular on the gmo issue. one thing that both sides need to do a better job of come and i don't mean just governments, but all of us together, is making sure that accurate information is out there, and i think that's particularly to on complex topics. such as gmos. also want to stress that nothing is off the table. we certainly have not taken this

issue or other issues off the table. in addition to the european food safety agency and european courts have validated the safety of such products. with respect to tpp, we are very much engaged in the endgame, as a nation, and some of those difficult issues are now on the table. and that obviously excludes some agricultural issues. we are working hard to secure the very best agreement that we possibly can for american exporters in the american economy. there are sensitivities among the different trading partners on different issues, but we are hard at work to make sure that we can bring home what will be an ambitious and comprehensive agreement covering all issues. >> thank you. now, that concludes our panel on trade.

we will reconvene in you here i2 minutes, at noon, after the break. please give a warm round of applause to ambassador sapiro and jeff schott. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> and the snow still falling in washington, d.c. but the weather has canceled a number of events around town today including the u.s. house session. the presence 2015 budget is expected to make up to capitol hill tomorrow bill. the "national journal" writes president obama's proposed budget will get much of the

attention in congress this week. by the house and senate budget committees have set hearings are wednesday to go over the details. the senate is also expected to take up competing bills on military sexual assault. house republicans may work on flood insurance after they ended their work last week on it, resolve and of other differences to proceed with the revision on wednesday that is aimed at attracting some support from democrats. with the arrival of the president's budget comes congressional hearings. on wednesday, two officials testifying 10:30 a.m. eastern we'll hear from treasury secretary jack lew before the senate finance committee. will have his remarks live on c-span3 and you can share your thoughts on c-span's facebook page or tweet us using #cspanchat. wednesday, the director of the white house budget office, sylvia burwell will appear before the house budget committee, life wednesday at 2:00 p.m. also on c-span3, share your thoughts with us, facebook and also twitter.

>> the internet as we know it today bears no resemblance to monopoly telephone service back in the 1930s and '40s and 50s. and what the courts have said and what the congress supports is if i walk into a grocery store and i bought a gallon of milk, i pay $3.50 a gallon but if i buy 10 gallons, i pay $35 for all 10 gallons. well, tom wheeler wants to say you can use as much milk as you want and you only have to pay $3.50. that's just wrong. netflix is the biggest user of the internet, as people download their movies, sometimes they are as much as 30% of the total want of the internet. obviously, netflix should pay more than somebody who uses the internet once a month. and i'm being very simplistic. that's the genesis, and these

companies have spent billions and billions of dollars to set up their systems and to provide the fiber optics and all those, the mega- speeds that we just take for granted on a volumetric bases at some level they should be allowed to charge based on volume. >> tonight on "the communicators" at eight eastern on c-span2. >> on thursday, top military officials for u.s. strategic command and u.s. cyber command testified in front of the senate armed services committee looking at the programs of the two military commands and review of the 2015 defense authorization. some of the other topics include nsa surveillance programs and the use of strategic nuclear arsenal. they testified for about two hours and 15 minutes.

>> [inaudible conversations] >> good morning, everybody. today we begin our annual posturings with the combatant commands by receiving testimony from the u.s. strategic command of the u.s. cyber command, a sub-unified command of the u.s. strategic command. let me welcome admiral cecil haney in his first appearance before the committee as the command of u.s. strategic command, and general keith alexander in what may be his final appearance before the committee as command of the u.s. cyber command. general alexander also serves as we know as director of the

national security agency, and when he retires at the end of next month he will by far be the longest-serving nsa director in history, and we thank you both for your extraordinary service. this hearing comes at a time of reduced budgets across the u.s. government, including the department of defense. even though this hearing comes in advance of the 2015 budget request, we want to hear from our witnesses about the impact of the overall budget situation, and expected 2015 budget submission, the impact that is likely to be the result of both the overall situation and the budget submission on the programs and operations under their oversight and direction. admiral haney, i hope you will address the full range of issues impacting strategic command

today, including the status of our nuclear deterrent, the impact of the recent icbm cheating scandal him any potential efficiencies and cost savings that could reduce the $156 billion that the department projects that we will need to maintain and capitalize our nuclear triad over the coming decade, steps that may be new to assure that we can step -- space assets or any conflict, concerns about the adequacy of dod's future access to communication spectrum as pressure builds to shift more and more spectrum to commercial use. for most of last year, general alexander has been at the center both the crisis over the loss of intelligence sources and methods from the snowden lakes and the controversial aspects of the intelligence activities established after 9/11 to

address the terrorist threats. we look forward, gender, to hearing your views about the changes to the nsa collection program directed by the president, the impact on the military of the snowden lakes, the capability of the personnel that the military services are making available for their new cyber units, the services ability to manage the careers of their growing cadre of cyber specialists, and steps that can be taken to ensure -- to ensure that the reserve components are effectively integrated into the department's cyber mission. in addition, i hope you will provide us with your analysis of the chinese campaign to steal the intellectual property from u.s. businesses. the committee has almost completed a report on cyber intrusions into the networks of some of the defense contractors on him the department may rely to conduct operations.

and i hope that you will give us your assessment as to whether china has shown signs of altering its cyber behavior subsequent to mandy and corporations exposure of the operations of one of its military cyber units. -- mandiant. before a call and senate and off want to remind everybody that we're going to have a closed session at 2:30 p.m. to address questions from our worldwide threats hearing last week with general clapper and general quinn, questions that were deferred to a closed session. we have circulated a list of those questions to committee members and to witnesses. it is my intention to go down that list of questions that were deferred, recognizing each senator on the list in the order in which the questions were raised at the open hearing. those senators who raise

questions were senators reid, mccain, and this is the order that they were raised -- senator reid, mccain, senator ayotte, blumenthal, nelson, fisher, bitter, levin and graham. if the sender lets me know that he or she is unable to attend this afternoon, if they would like i would be very happy to raise the question on his or her behalf. we are also going to try to have our military nami's voted on off the floor between votes. we have stacked votes and that's a good opportunity to improve our military, recommend their confirmation prior to the end of the month. so we now call up on senator inhofe. >> the votes -- >> 2:00. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have the utmost respect for our panel today for both in the

service. i think particularly general alexander because we developed a close relationship, and i appreciate that very much. i think a lot of people don't realize in a period of time you've been here that was touched on by the chairman you've been director of nsa, chief of central security service, commander joint function component command, and then, of course, the command of u.s. cyber. since graduating from west point, i guess in 74, was it? that you're getting close to retirement. i think you need to stretch that out now because you're going to be retiring at 39 years, 10 months. you ought to make it an even 40, anyway. this will likely be our last time to testify for this committee. that's a cause for celebration i'm sure. admiral haney, the five year debate over the course of the u.s. nuclear weapons policy is for the most part settled.

the president's june 13 nuclear weapons employment strategy was closer to the deterrence policy that is guided just nuclear policy since the end of the cold war, and moves away from the president's naïve vision of a world without nuclear weapons. it emphasizes the vital role of nuclear weapons in deterring threats and assuring allies, it reaffirms the necessity of the modern nuclear triad as the best way, and i'm quoting, as the best way to maintain strategic stability at reasonable cost and hedge against uncertainty. one of your challenges will be ensuring that commitment to nuclear modernization is carried out, and we will have some questions about, specific questions about that shortly. august supports these efforts. in fiscal year 2014 on the best spending bill provided virtually all of the presidents, the

president had requested for nuclear modernization. unfortunately, the president's request fell short of the commitment that was made in 2010 and with your ticket to mr. votes to pass the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty. energy department funding for nuclear weapons activities over the past three years is about $2 billion short and virtually every nuclear weapon life extension program is the hind schedule. the follow-on nuclear ballistic missile submarine, replacement of air launched cruise missile are both two years behind schedule, and a decision on a follow one icbm has not been made. this needs to be addressed. i also want to know your thoughts on missile defense agency plans to enhance the u.s. homeland missile defense system by improving sensor capability and developing the new kill vehicle for the ground-based interceptor.

these efforts i think are essential to defending this country. general alexander, the cyber command has made strides in normalizing cyber planning and capabilities in building the cyber force of no 6000 cyber wars. i'm concerned insufficient progress has been made toward developing a strategy to deal with the growing number of complexity threats that we're facing today that we have never faced before. the status quo isn't acceptable and the administration is blaming its inability employ an effective cyber deterrence strategy. recent events show that our enemies are paying attention, to well-publicized events involving iran. one involving an enduring campaign of cyber attacks on the u.s. banks and the financial sector and another involving the exploitation of critical maven

networks. they should concern all of us. so the apparent inaction of the message underscores its they'll cyber deterrence strategy. this will have to change until our adversaries understand there will be serious consequences for cyber attacks against the united states, as we've already seen coming our way. in closing i want to comment briefly on the snowden situation. this man is not a whistleblower or a hero and some have portrayed him to be. he's a traitor who stole nearly 2 million documents, the vast majority of which have nothing to do with the activities of the nsa. and in the process, he's potentially getting our enemies, and also giving russia and china, access to some of our military's most closely guarded secrets. he's undermined our ability to protect the country and put our lives of her military men and women at greater risk. these are the hallmarks of a

coward, not a hero. it's time the american people fully understand the damage that snowden has done to our national security. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you so much, sandra and off. admiral haney. >> good morning, chairman levin and ranking member inhofe and the distinguished members of this committee. with your permission i'd like to have my full statement made as a part of the record. >> it will be. >> thank you, sir. i am honored to join you today as my first appearance was mentioned here as the commander u.s. strategic command but am also pleased to be with general keith alexander who is responsibly as commander u.s. cyber command and director of the nsa are critical to national security, mycommands ability perform its missions. i greatly value his advice and counsel, and i thank him for his many years as distinguished service to our nation. as you know, u.s. strategic

command executes a diverse set of global responsibilities that directly contribute to national security. and i can say with full confidence today that u.s. strategic command remains capable and ready to meet our assigned missions. we are blessed to have a talented, dedicated professional military and civilian work force to address a significant national security challenges facing the united states. and i think the congress and this committee for your support, and i look forward to working with you throughout my tour of duty. we appreciate the passage of the to your bipartisan budget act of 2013, and in 2014 consolidated appropriations act. this legislation reduces near-term budget uncertainty but our main concern that sequestration will continue to stretch the human element of our capabilities as well as impacting our capacity to meet the threats and challenges of the 21st century the current

global security environment is more complex, dynamic and uncertain than any time in recent history. advances in state and nonmilitary capabilities continue across air, sea, land, space domains land, space domains as well as in cyberspace. the space domain is becoming ever more congested, contested and competitive. worldwide cyber threats are growing in scale and sophistication. nuclear powers investing in long-term and wide-ranging military modernization programs. proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, nuclear technology continues. they are becoming more readily available. no reason in the world immune from chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear this. terror threats remain a source of significant ambiguity and the threat of homegrown violent extremists remains a concern. i guess this dynamic and

uncertain backdrop and you strategic command mission is to partner with other embattled demands to deter and detect strategic attack against the united states, our allies come into defeated those attacks if deterrence fails. our unified command plan assigned missions are strategic in nature, global in scope individual with capabilities of our joint military force, the interagency and the whole of government. this requires increased linkages and synergies at all levels to bring integrated capabilities to bear through synchronized planning, simultaneous execution of plans, and coherent strategic communication. new strategic command manages this diverse and challenging activity i actively executing a tailored deterrence and assurance campaign plan and by five command priorities that is to provide safe and secure and effective never deterrence force, partnering with other combatant commands to win the

day, addressing challenges in space, building the necessary cyberspace capability and capacity, and to prepare for uncertainty. in keeping with the 2010th nuclear posture review, my number one priority is to ensure a safe, secure and effective nuclear deterrence force consisting of the synthesis of the dedicated, ushered command-and-control, a tried of delivery systems, nuclear weapons and their associated infrastructure, and trained and ready people. in light of recent personal integrity concerns, within the icbm force, i fully support secretary hagel initiative to assemble key department of defense stakeholders to fully assess and understand the implications of recent events, and seek long-term systematic solutions that will maintain confidence in the nuclear enterprise. this has my utmost attention. let me repeat, america's nuclear deterrent force remains safe,

secure and effective. in addition to our critical deterrence and assurance work, we are engaged on a daily basis a broad array of activities across our missionaries, space, cyberspace, reconnaissance, combating weapons of mass destruction, missile defense, joint electronic warfare, global strike, and, of course, analysis and target. while these diverse activities are being sent a nice and integrated by an outstanding team, none of the work i described can happen without trained, ready and motivated people. they remain our most precious resource and deserve our unwavering support of my travels to a number just to get get commands components and partner locations sensitive command in november 2013 confirmed my belief that we have an outstanding team in place across all of our mission areas but i have the utmost respect for their professionalism and dedication to duty, and sustained operational excellence.

in today's uncertain times, the focus in innovative teams are building a future on a strong and successful path. your continued support together with the hard work of the outstanding men and women of u.s. strategic command will ensure we remain ready, agile come and effective in deterring strategic attack, showing our allies in defeating current and future threats. i thank you for your time, and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you so much. general alexander. >> chairman levin, ranking member inhofe, distinguished news of the committee, thank you for this opportunity for what could be my final hearing here as you stated. sir, i would ask that my written statement also be added to the record spent it will be. >> one of the things i would like to cover based on your question is a few things about what we see going on in cyberspace. i would emphasize up front the great men and women that we have within the command and supporting us throughout the

department of defense. and with some of our other agencies and i will touch on that briefly. you brought up the issue of the threat between both you and the ranking member and i think it's important step back and look at what's going on in this space. because it impacts everything that you brought up from what snowden has done to where we are with our policies and laws, and what we're going to do to defend this space but it is changing so rapidly that our policy and laws lag behind. if you look at all the applications that are coming out and the way this space is actually growing, it is far beyond where current laws and policies have. i think this is absolutely one of the key and fundamental issues that we have to have in a discussion with the american people. how do we protect our nation in this space and through this space. and both of those are issues that are on the table today. and how do we do it in such a manner that they know we are protecting their civil liberties

and privacy while concurrently protecting this nation? you brought up the fact of the amount of exploits, and i'm going to define from i use here a difference between exploitation and the attacks. exploitation is whether intent is to steal either information or money, and attacks will be what they want to disrupt or destroy devices or actions in and of the cyberspace. we see an awful lot of exploitation. you brought up the mandiant report of what's going on. that exploitation is for the theft of intellectual property as well as to get into some of our sensitive systems. it goes throughout the infrastructure. from my perspective the best way to solve the exploitation problem, and i think to also defend against disruptive and destructive attacks is to form a defensible architecture. j.d., the joint information environment. so if i were to leave you one thought of what we could and

should do as a nation, we should protect these networks better than we have been protected today. not just within the defense department but also our critical infrastructures. time and again we're seeing where people have exploited into these networks only to find out that the way they're getting in is so easy that is difficult to defend. so step one, chairman, i think is a defensible architecture. attacks are growing. it was mentioned by the ranking member, the attacks we saw against wall street and around the world, the destructive attacks that hit saudi aramco, and most recently the sands corporation. when you look at those destructive attacks, they just tried data on systems. that had to be replaced. this is facing difficult change from disruptive attacks which only disrupt for the time that attack is going on versus the

destructive attack where the information is actually lost. far more damaging, far more timely, far more costly. both of those are going on together. my concern is that is growing. we'll see more nation states using that if diplomacy fails to that will be their first course. we've got to be perfect for that as a nation and we've got to work with our allies to set up one of the ground rules. so some thoughts. first, services are doing a great job from my perspective. working through the furloughs and sequestration, i think where we are right now setting up the cyber team is super. the training program, i said how some of our folks in training and i know several of you have asked questions on this. we have had 4500, roughly, seats were people going into different training things. one of the things that you count on me and this command is to set up the best trained force in the world.

we are doing that. we've gotten people from the services, even from the navy, the army, air force, instructors from the academies to come out and help us set up these programs. and it's super. when you look at the number of people and the quality that we have in this, absolutely super. training the young folks going in, that's going to take them. we will have roughly one-third of that force fully trained by the end of this calendar year. and i think that, given the sequestration of is a huge step forward. and we are on track to get the teams stood up as well. roughly one-third those by the end of this year. i think those are two steps forward that we've got to really focus on. and that were taken. i mentioned team sport. within the defense department, you want us to work closely with the services, and we are with our component commands, and that's going well. i think admiral haney and i see

that as one of the key things that we can do is ensure that the services are like a we're training everybody to a joint standard. that's going on. we have a close relationship with them come and we operate in a joint environment. that's huge. we also have to work with nsa and i think those relationships are also good and strong. finally within the inner agencies with the department of homeland security and the fbi specifically, i think those relationships are good with secretary johnson in place but i think we will take some for the steps forward and will meet with him and a couple of weeks. team sport, something we have to work together. i'm concerned that our policy and laws lag behind us and part of that is educating people, the american people and our administration and congress and the courts on what's going on in this space. many of the issues that we've worked our way through over the

last five years on the industry side working with the fisa court boils down to an understanding of what's going on in cyberspace. our ability to articulate it, and their understanding of what we are talking about. this makes this area especially difficult and one that i think we need to step back, set a framework for discussion with the american people. this is going to be actually important in setting up what we can and cannot be in cyberspace to protect this country. and for my perspective is going to be one of the big issues as we move forward. i think a precursor to that is getting the nsa issues resolved. went to get those resolve because ironically it operates in the same space. if we could solve the nsa issues, especially for surveillance programs the president has asked us to look at and which over the next several weeks i think we will bring back to you all a

proposal, i think that will be the first step. pending that we could then look at that as a way for how we would move forward in cyberspace. bottom line, chairman, we have great people out there. the services are doing a great job. i am really impressed with the tides and quality of the soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines and civilians. it is absolutely superb. we need to invest in that training more and we're taking that as our top priority. that's all i have, mr. chairman. >> thank you so much, general. if that proposal comes in the next few weeks, it may come before your retirement, which case this may not be your last hearing before this committee. but we would look forward -- >> you might reach 40 years. >> that's true. but anyway, we know how much you put into this effort and we do look forward to the proposal and it is way beyond this committees entire congress, the american

people and, of course, the administration looks forward to the recommendations that you will be making, or the proposal that you be making. let's have a seven minute first round. admiral, i think you made reference to the ground base, the gmv system, and we've had some flight, test failures with both models of the deployed kill vehicles. my question is this. do you believe that there's a hybrid to fix the problems with our current gmv kill vehicles that we need to use a fly before you buy a approach to ensure that before we deploy any additional gmv interceptors that we need to demonstrate successful and realistic intercept flight testing at the gmv system has been fixed and will work as intended? >> senator levin, the very

important question there, and as you know, the importance of our missile defense system in the ingredients that go in there, the kill vehicle is an important part of that system, and the failures that we've had in the past are under review, expecting a readouts in from the review board. but it is critical that we get to the technical issues associate with the kill vehicle and get those corrected so that we can have better reliability in our missile defense system. that, coupled with investments in discrimination and sensors, is key to the way forward spent and should be fixed the kill vehicle problems before we deployed any additional gmd interceptor? >> sir, i believe we need to do both in parallel while we understand the problem deeper.

and that is already underway. >> general, let me shift to you both some of the issues that you have addressed. first there was an article yesterday before "new york times," saying in the late spring of 2011 that nsa and the apartment develop options for the president to conduct sophisticated cyber attacks on the syrian military and on president assad's command structure. ..

the president order a transition to and telephone meta-data collection for you as it currently exists and to preserve the capabilities that we need, but without the government collecting and holding the data on call detail records. do you believe that the government needs to hold all the meta-data records in order to determine whether terror suspects overseas are communicating with persons located in the united states or could a third rd, a private third party hold that data for a service provider or perhaps keep the data? speedway chairman, i think barry

three options on that you put on put on the table. he mentioned government holding in the internet service providers holding. there is yet another option where you look at what day you need and look at only that data. generally, a facility that just gets those predicated the terrorist communication. you have those three options on the table. those are the ones that need to be fully discussed from both sides. they have pros and cons on the agility you would have with the programs. we have made recommendations that will be argued out over the next couple weeks with an interagency. i'm confident the process is going well and nice. they've had deputies and other meanings amongst the interagency. facts are in the table to make a good decision to bring forward to you all. >> thank you at the privacy and

civil liberties board presidents review group on intelligence and communications technology both cared arise section 215 program is useful. however, they said it is not yet identified a single instance of baldini. to the united state in which the program a concrete difference. these are their words. in the outcome of a counterterrorism investigation. can you be there for the record were here to give us samples of the list, if it is a finite list, of where the program made a quote concrete difference in the outcome of the counterterrorism investigation? >> chairman, i can. there 2 cents. let me give you the first part,

which was what we gave to congress on 54 different terrorist events. facilitation, roughly 13 were facilitation and the rest are terrorists plotting attacks that went on here and throughout the world. that is the 54 number everyone has known. of those 54, 41 were outside the united states. 13 were inside the united states. the business record fisa program could only apply to those 13. it was actually used in 12 of those 13. so what is the concrete part that gets us back to the portion of this? and sitting down with the director of the fbi, both past and present, the issue comes up with one of agility. things like the boston bombing shows with this program and its agility really makes a difference. from my income under some ongoing concrete examples today that we can provide the

committee that shows from my perspective that this program makes a difference. the issue comes down to your earlier question. so how do we do this data in the right way? and cannot come up with a better way of doing it, which the sweat the president has asked us to come up with. i think there is a better way, so that is what we put on the table and apologize for severe questions. the database and how we respond. chairman, i would like to provide more details on the ongoing stuff we are seen with this program. >> it would be very helpful that you can list the list of each instance, where the program has made a concrete difference. that is very different from what these organizations and commissions found. we appreciate it. >> senator inhofe. >> thank you, mr. chairman. you heard make your reservation

of snowden in my opening remarks. you agree with? >> i do. >> i do. >> someone would turn over their charter for they. we have developed a chart reaction to both of you. even over this yesterday with some of ours that. if for the benefit of those appear, we have copies. if you look at the peak they are, that would've been at end of the cold war, we started dropping down her nuclear modernization program. it is fairly level until getting into the current apiary right now. you see the little hump there that would be necessary in order to get this new icbm, new sub launch -- have you had a chance to look at this chart? that is what our needs are now,

admiral haney, the accuracy of this charter. >> senator inhofe, i have saved this chart and what i think is unique about the chart is it really gives a great presentation at the history of funding that we have invested in our strategic deterrent and also gives even beyond an approximation of what requires to be modernized. as you look at this chart is unique in terms what was paid for back in the late 80s, early 90s and how that sustains us today in having a credible deterrent that we are operating in a safe, secure in the fact that manner today. >> that is kind of in the past. going forward is what i'm interested in, which we will

have to do. i'm going to read a list. there he is bothered me and i would like to have you comment on any of these and how they fit in to the chart of what our expert patients are. first of all, the ballistic missile submarine delete two years an air launched in late two years to follow one icbm, still no decision yet to be 61 bomb life extension delete two and a half years. both warheads, the 80 delete two years. the handling facility deferred at least five years of uranium processing facility delayed-release four years in funding as the d.o.e. weapons in fact tv $2 billion short of been a start commitment made by the president, by the administration to secure. as the state, first of all, do

you agree in which you think are more significant in correcting city can meet the expectations on this chart? >> senator, you have really captured where we need to go in terms of modernization across the triad, which the 2010 nuclear posture review as well or took deleted its value to our nation and strategic deterrence. as i look at the modernization programs that are either in progress circle alert, clearly we have to lead the replacement program to the point where we can still afford to delay it any further. right now, those platforms are going to be the longest-serving submarine in the ohio class today, getting up to 42 years of service that in the current plan. it is important that we move forward with that program.

as you look at each leg of the triad, there are modernization aspects. imagine that your leg, for example, to be 61 extension program. there is work going on today. we have to keep it on track in order to have the portion. you know we have a three plus two strategy we are committed to and we have to continue to work at. the one piece of this chart that has significant uncertainty in terms of the impacts of sequestration, particularly as we look beyond the current fiscal year, in particular as we look at those cuts going forward. >> i agree with that. part of the chart from where you are visited only cost this

modernization about 5% of the spending. i see this is as affordable. you agree with? >> senator, should not continue to modernization of the triad. this chart, though not in percentages does in fact illustrate when you look in the current timeframe and i would say the last five years we've been about 3%, going up to nearly twice that much is a significant investment, but a necessary investment. >> thank you very much. general alexander, i want to get in more time on this. because of my concern and express to you on several occasions over the ram, the threat that is fair. if people think of this river ran as i have, gaining the

capability, the nuclear capability delivery system in the united states, that's been a great concern of ours. what is not as obvious as that was rebuilt in "the wall street journal" article in february about what they are able to successfully infiltrate the critical navy computer network and of course getting into wall street and all of that. i ask you the consequences of the ukrainian cyberspace. there'll be time to get into that. you talk about the education. i think that if it. this will ring on the nsa and how people are using an issue that may be there, but only for a small part of it. is this what you mean when you say the education of the american people? and again, how are we going to go back?

>> that's what i mean. how to help them understand the evolution in this space and that the country is asking the nsa to do to protect the nation from terrorist attacks are now to provide early warning for cyber. so you have a couple of issues we are asking the nsa to do. what we've seen with the reviews is that they are doing it right. everything has pointed out to tell the court what we make a mistake. but the real issue comes to understanding what do we need to do to fix these problems? you mentioned access into networks. it is banks, like trick, government networks, private networks. the thing we haven't done is build security into these networks at the pace we need to. so what i would propose, especially for the government is to implement the joint information environment and create a defensible architecture

as my daddy used to. we would leave our classified material in central park and then wonder why people are taking it. right now, access to these networks are fairly easy. you may have defined one and that is what they're doing. >> my time has expired, but i talked this morning to the defense reporters association and told them this thing that people are not aware at this rate you and i are talking about here. as hard as the education, we have to work on the media to properly express to the american people the reality. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator very much. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you for your service, admiral haney. this being perhaps the last appearance before the committee, i have to thank him for his great service to the nation. i have known him since he was a

plea of analysis company commander west point. despite the poor initial role model relationship company is quite low. i know you involved lots of policy questions, but no one can question your integrity and service to the nation in a thank you for the commissary. you raised a series of questions and my colleagues have to with respect to the intersection of threads to national security. these are combing going. you're suggesting nsa can and should play a more prominent role in providing assistance to civilian authorities. that would require additional legislation. first, do any additional legislation and second, can you give us a quick insight to what the relationship might look like? >> senator, i am not espousing

nsa should have a greater world said the united states. nsa has any capabilities in understanding threats, how they are built we should have a better relationship or how we share that. that is where we need cyberlegislation sharing those capabilities and those signatures. let's say we come up with a signature for how a foreign adversary is getting into her networks and is classified because of the late nsa guide them through their capabilities, giving it to industry in an unclassified manner would almost ensure the adversary would no one respond and change that in a few days and we've seen that happen. we have to have a classified relationship for sharing information and technology with industry so we can improve it. the architecture is unclassified. the way we defend it gets into a classified area.

that is where i believe we are going to need cyberlegislation. it is the ability to share that with industry do we have to legislate because today you can go back and forth easily. why make a comment on the business record as we also look at can we share some of these terrorist selectors with industry and a classified manner and get responses back to the government for anyone but the possibility and something we should pursue. if we do the business records, it sets up for cyberand that is where the public debate needs to come down and people understand that were talking about. i would not be an advocate for having nsa operate within the united states. >> thank you very much, general. one of the other sides of this discussion is you can alert industry to potential threats, but ultimately industry will have to build mechanisms and

that will require them to invest in more security. >> that is mostly correct. senator, i change it slightly to say there's a role for government for defending the nations of another nation were attacking a sector of industry, we would have the government step in to protect it. but you are correct. they have to build the architecture as well. something i can say in having these problems coming eight to step in. those are decisions for the policy and will have to precede the event and that is where it got to push the understanding that people understand why we train cyber command to operated network speed in these areas. >> let me ask a question and that is the command and control networks with respect to our nuclear forces, which is clearly the responsibility of

government, are you confident we successfully can protect those networks from cyberintrusion? >> senator reid, yes, i am confident we can protect those networks associated with strategic deterrent. i do as we look at the future threat, i am mindful we have to keep pace as general alexander has discussed. that is a necessity because having that, you have to have the command and control and communication system that also have to be assured. not just now go well into the future. >> senator, i agree today we can defend it and will continue to evolve in the hectic today that assessment in our investment. >> thank you very much. we've talked about the modernization issue of the triad

that we are already underway in several programs to pray specifically. one issue obviously is the replacement that seems to be further along than most of the other major platforms. as that occurs at it quite >> senator, requirements have been established for the ohio replacement of the design work underway in the plan has gone through very good detail to get us out to where we can have a platform they certified, ready to deploy 2031. >> there's another aspect of the modernization issue. making sure that existing facilities are adequate, with respect to accidental incidents.

you're confident, at brahimi, that you're investing in more than just the upkeep of the facility so we are absolutely confident there's going to be no potential for significant potential for accidents? >> senator, my comments exists relative to the inspections redo associated with nuclear enterprise to ensure today we are safe, secure and effective. as you know, there are investment needed in some of our enterprise facilities that deal with a reduction, his storage and dismantlement of weapons also required. >> thank you very much, gentlemen. >> thank you, senator reid. senator mccain. >> i think the witnesses. general alexander, thank you for

your outstanding service and ensure you do your last appearance here with mixed emotions. also like to congratulate their initial schooling and could have read you've done very well. excuse me, cadet captain reid. another mistake they. anyway. [laughter] >> general alexander, we've been kicking around this legislation cybersecurity legislation now for several years and we have been going back and forth and everybody knows we need the legislation and you have made significant valuable inputs. i can't take the numbers means i've gone to. one of the biggest problems we face as this issue crosses naturist action alliance of different committees. have you given thought that maybe we should have a select committee to examine this entire

issue of cybersecurity? >> senator, that would be a great job. i don't knows much about your job, and fortunately. all of that together would make a lot of sense. >> i am sure you feel frustration that used repeatedly over the years abdicated. is that correct? >> i am concerned the lack of legislation will impact our ability to defend the country. >> 18 unit or direct or clapper and general flynn testified the vast majority of the more than 1.8 billion documents that edward snowden stall has nothing to do with government surveillance programs in the pits national security at risk in the lives of our men and women in uniform at risk. do you have anything to add to that comment -- to their

comments? >> am greatly concerned about the risk to our men and women in the military and to our nation from terrorist attacks because it is doing both. i would add the terrorists. senator, i am concerned they are learning how we stop them and they will get through. that is the nearest term issue we face both here, in the united states and europe that we haven't adequately addressed that problem. >> and you would agree that's what been released so far is really just the tip of the iceberg quite is that a correct assessment? much greater damage can be done by mr. snowden releasing more document. >> that is correct, senator.

>> recently, "the wall street journal" article suggested that the iranians were able to successfully infiltrate a critical need the computer network last february 17 that were able to access the bloodstream of the navy network according to the article infiltration of the navy computer network was far more extensive than previously thought. it took the navy about four minutes to finally purged the hackers from a classified computer network. do you believe we have a credible credible deterrence in the cyberdomain against this type of the debate we had series? >> senator, i think we need to evolve the deterrent strategy on what is acceptable in cyberspace and what actions we take that does not yet exist. >> finally it, maybe this is more appropriate for a closed

hearing, but "the new york times" article said jason haley, director of the cyberstate at the atlantic council argued that using cyberwarfare for humanitarian purposes in syria such as taking steps with the air powered might be in effect is cool and one that might reverse the tide of opinion that the u.s. government is using cybercapabilities for nefarious ends. do you have a comment on that, general? >> senator, one of the things that even the administration would depend on coming your cyber, camelia struck on to determine which is the best approach in solving this. i think that is one of the things we've evolved. i think that's a good thing. i don't buy that necessarily agree with the state and when and how to use it. other countries are using the

come is like a vector how do we help you solve that? that is the key to this. i think in future environment, cyberwill be the first tool used by both sides. >> as you know, general, since this probably is your last appearance, there's been a great deal of criticism about nsa spying invasions of privacy, americans and foreign leaders being he's dropped on. i think i can safely say that giving your long tenure, this is probably the most controversy that's been generated about your agency and its work. i'd like for you to take remaining couple of minutes but i have two may be put this into

due for a theme for the american people. it happens to be my opinion that we are in grave danger in a new form of warfare that most of us don't understand. maybe you can put this in to what we are facing and maybe give some response to the critics that say we are impeding the way home, every individual. we are gathering all this information. you have seen it, all this publicity and controversy swirling around nsa activities. maybe you could take a minute trying to put it in the active from your many years the next variants in this area. >> senator, thank you for that opportunity. one of the greatest honors and privileges i've had a almost 40 years is to lead the men and

women of nsa. they are the best i've ever seen. doing what our nation possessed to do. protect savers face and tools to protect your networks and we're doing it. to assume that what nsa is doing us a rogue agencies seem to from all the different reviews of nsa is doing exactly what the nation has asked to do. the issue now comes to debates about what we want nsa to do and what do we need it to do gets to the heart of the issue you put on the table. from my dad, cyberspace, where nsa operates as one space for both the good guys and bad guys all operate in the same space. 40 years ago it was different. for a military communications are in a separate circuit from our domestics communications. now they are all intertwined and that is where the policy and

legal debates have not yet come to fruition. how do you operate you can stop a terrorist attack, stop the war between two countries in the middle east and protect this nation. all of that is the heart of the issues we are talking right now. i think the nation has to have nsa working with form part or is to ensure that were so go on in the middle east. do we stop terror attacks and protect this nation and is in that same space that cyberadversaries also operate in. the rules that we have now have to accommodate both active operators, cyberoperators and defense from an intelligence than the same space. i think your idea of a select committee perhaps to address this converging area is one of the things we should look at. it is evolving quickly. as it will be a phase 02 phase

one of conflict, we have to get this right. putting cyber command where it is and what we've done with it is the right thing. secretary gates pushing us towards nsa and cyber command of cement tee ensure that we had the team building. i think we should further resolved that team where it needs to be. the senator, senator, if i could and on one thing. when i look at the people of nsa and what they are doing, the true tragedy in all of this is the way the press has articulated when what they are doing is protect in this country and doing what we've asked them to do. what we find out in every review, in every case, if they made the mistake, we find out they reported that to the reports. no one is doing anything

underhanded. they are just trying to do the job the nation is to do. i think we have to have a reset with how we look at nsa and cyber. we have to get on with the cyberlegislation. i think those are near-term but we are not ready for them. the nation needs to technical capabilities to ensure we are going to involve. those are the ones the predecessors of hopeless crack enigma. can they protect their communications. senator, thank you for that opportunity. >> thank you, mr. chairman. senator udall. >> good morning, general. admiral haney, let me start by saying i enjoyed the chance to sit and visit with you.

i'm looking forward to mr. chairman of the strategic working with u.s. senator sessions sessions, the ranking member of the subcommittee to make sure our strategic turn remain safe or reliable and affordable. we talk about the affordability factor. it will be a great privilege to work with you. it's always good to see you. the last appearance before the committee. how much he thank you for decades of service for your country. i remain concerned about it duties and the constitutional ramifications when it comes to liberty. i'd be remiss if i didn't address those concerns today for old times sake. i would add that your knowledge is fast and i appreciate your initial comment about how we move forward when it comes to section 215 and seven at two.

i wanted to make a comment and ask you a question. you know members of congress seven years ago about the use of section 215. i learned that we could have an open and informed debate about the law because the official meaning of the law was secret and that concerned a number of guys. it concerned me even more when i joined the intelligence committee here on the senate site three years ago and is able to take time in classified settings to better understand what was going on. it felt to me and i believe strongly that secret laws undermined trust in authority and that damages our capacity to fight terrorism and protect the american people. when the public as government officials have been rewriting the law in secret, confident makes it harder for you to do the job you want to do the job

at hire you for doing. i believe that confidence has been undermined with regard to the patriot act. so my question to you and i think of opportunities to answer this as a civilian as well because the people want to hear your point of view given your products. spirit he was wise to keep classified the interpretation of the law itself? what advice would you give to your successor to help them understand the importance of making boundaries of the law clear to the public? >> i think the rationale for going and keeping the secret was found in the beginning. hindsight says could read and should we have done more? that is the open debate right now. my concern is now the terrorists know how we do this, do they learn such that we can stop them? the real issue that i see is we are giving away capability,

which means one less tool for the tool is minimized in its capability for stopping terrorist attack and understanding what they are up to and further issues like that. i do think given where we are today, we have to be transparent on this legislation so the american people can enter into it. that is here is how we would propose. i think the debate the administration would put forward is one issue to be open. for the set of data, we look at cyberlegislation in a parallel effort in another session. those to be a good way to move forward. i want to note for the record we do need to get cyberlegislation through the congress. i also hear you implying that we can figure out how to have the right kind of approach for

metadata. i want to let you know i appreciate your willingness to work on time for the president's recommendations. if i might come i'd like to to admiral haney can talk about the cruise that operate icbms. we have been well aware of some of the stores over the last couple about what's been happening. the missile crew maypole alerts per month and they spent time in the capsule in addition to greet fans preparing for their shifts and actually getting out to the missile field so a 24 hour alert. that would equal they have to have a perfect score in the past. you are extremely concerned

about the reports are cheating on this exam semi support her investigation and disciplinary action. there's a real need to address the root cause of some of the morale and discipline issues that have begun to surface. can you talk about what was done in the missile crews and their talented, incredibly committed. how do we keep them focused on this deadly serious mission and make sure they've got opportunities for mannesmann in about it. >> senator, very important questions and these are questions that are being looked at a series of reviews that are ongoing within the air force and as well as the force improvement program to look at this holistic way. i have people on that team as well. in addition to the reviews led

by the secretary of defense in looking at the nuclear enterprise in its entirety. i do believe from personal experience, going down and the other facilities that are combat alert crews that through the scattering of articles, it really makes it look like the majority of them are not dedicated to the mission. i am here to tell you that is absolutely false. and met a number of talented individuals that are very proud of serving our entry in that community and quite frankly, they are distraught over one and in particular and that is their colleagues that few of them that have infected cheated and really feel in a broad grade they

deserve clearly we are looking a certification with the air force to make sure we look at that hard and get it right. > thank you, admiral. >> thank you senator udall. senator sessions? >> thank you for your service for so many years to continuing. general alexander, with regard to our capabilities to intercept communications and so forth has been discussed nsa. the fact that has been revealed, did it not in fact taller adversaries but our capabilities are, at least some of them, a lot of them and therefore

allowing them to avoid detection in ways that could be damaging to the united states and our ability to protect our country. >> in your opinion, how some of those capabilities enabled us to have information that helps protect the country from attack? >> absolutely, senator. >> general alexander, you, in response to a serious question, said it dod does not develop an effective offensive capability in cyberspace and rules of engagement, will have little to fear of the u.s. response and therefore have little motivation for restraint, close quote. in other words, if we have no

settled philosophy abono settled philosophy about how to respond to damaging interferences catharsis is your cyberattacks, then our adversaries are not likely to be deterred to tanager systems. is that what you're saying? how far along have emitted towards developing the policies you suggest are necessary? >> senator, more specifically we need to set the norms in cyberspace. what is acceptable, but it's not. the president departed for the attack in cyberspace. >> in may 2009, there is a safer -- the president put out they would respond to attacks in

cyberspace with any other means available. so i think that is the correct approach. we have to take the next step. when and what will we do. there are a number of things and infrastructure. the question is a policy decision. so we don't want to do is let it get to the point where we find out that was unacceptable and would accept the standards. >> we saw people causing this damage that when you doa, b. or c., you can expect you to see some and return. >> for some forms to keep them from doing that. to what extent have we gotten there? congress has a role to play in that and multiple committees and house of the senate and the white house and defense

department. do you think we could do better to help develop a unified policy but that important recommendation for congress? >> absolutely. we need to cyberlegislation and as i stated earlier, we needed a defensible architecture. we need to implement at a slow and share that with their industry partners so they know how to get the defense law and the senate to talk about. pingback by thank you for t you. i would just say having been solved with the drafting of the patriot act and was the rush through carefully to over months of intense work. senator leahy, senator hatch, all of us on the judiciary committee, national security these and i believe in virtually every aspect of the patriot act,

we did was carefully done so it was in the constitution and within prior court rulings about what is permissible. .. >> i believe we made some progress on some of my concerns by think we need to be more clear about it. i think there's a growing

consensus to maintain a strong nuclear deterrent within our government. i think you would agree with that. >> absolutely. >> you know, we had the secretary of defense wrote a book about, signed a book with any of his confirmation on nuclear zero. going to zero nuclear weapons. the president has talked about it. other people have talked about it. but that can be an be in the ime future in the world we're living in. so i think that a nuclear employment strategy, the 2013 report, is pretty clear. i hope our adversaries understand it and the american people do. it says we'll field nuclear forces to deter potential adversaries and ensure u.s. allies that they can count on america's security commitment. is that represent your understanding? that's a quote from the report.

>> absolutely. >> you think that's important? >> very important. >> it also says we will maintain a nuclear triad consisting of icbms, submarine launched ballistic missiles and nuclear capable heavy bombers as the best way to maintain strategic stability at reasonable cost and hedge against uncertainty. that's one of the principles also in the report, is it not? >> it is deadly in the report and it has been echoed by our leaders, sector defense hegel himself. >> i'm glad of that, there was some uncertainty about that at least in my mind. it said he should maintain quote a forward-based pasta with nuclear weapons on bombers and fighter aircraft in support of allies and partners. that's in the report also. >> yes, senator. >> secretary hagel has said, monetization is something, colleagues, we really have got to get serious about. our adversaries are updating far

more than we are in many cases. he said in january of this year, i was pleased to hear, the modernization of our nuclear stockpile is really important. and he went on to say, quote, we are going to invest in the modernization we need to keep the deterrent stronger than it's ever been. and you can have my commitment on that, closed quote. i think secretary hagel, former colleague, senator hagel, for making that clear statement. i hope that you will keep us informed as you move toward accomplishing this goal of the needs and challenges that you face. i believe congress will respond to help you overcome obstacles. because it's just unthinkable that this nuclear system that represents less than 5% over budget, we don't do it in a way that meets all the goals that we have to meet as a nation.

thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator sessions. senator donnelly. >> thank you, mr. chairman. general alexander and admiral haney, thank you so much for your service. general alexander, from what you've seen, what did we miss with edward snowden in terms of how we got in a system, how he got information? and when you look back at that, what happened? >> senator, the issues that we missed year with snowden, he was an i.t. specialist responsible for moving data from the continental united states to nsa hawaii. in doing that he had all the data that he was moving have access to. so part one, is when you do away to tracking what he did with that data. it was supposed to go to a common share point server which you was to maintain, which it did do, but at times he would

take that data off in a way that couldn't be seen by our sensors, i the actions that he took. part one, we trusted the i.t. folks that run our network. we shouldn't have in this case. and, number two, we can have no checks about this on exactly where the information, if we fix both of those. we've come up with about 40 different internal fixes that will help fix this whole network and make it even more secure. i think it's depressing from my perspective that we have to look at defending our network from those who sit within it, that we have trusted. but that's where we are. that's what we have to do and that's when we doing with the data we have today. i think both insider threats, we're fixing that with the way with the tools we're putting in. so bottom line is we trusted the person we should not have trusted. >> obviously you've made changes. you've made significant changes. do you have an ongoing group who

are looking at other areas? for instance, you look at in effect this change. to you have groups looking at other areas in regards to worst-case scenarios and how to fix them, where there might be whole? >> we've insider threat groups that are working within the defense department, the intelligence community, innocent cyber command, for different sets of those working in sharing ideas together. i think that's a great way to read team this approach. and we are across leveling those issues that we find and working that and i think tha that is ben very healthy and helpful. >> one of the things i was wondering is, how do we prevent it in the future? and is that it? what else? >> so, i believe we could stop this snowden in the future doing what he did, the master stuff. there will always be an issue with, we will have to trust some people with some level of information. we're going to have to do that, that will be almost impossible

to stop, that which you taken your mind and go out with. most parts are going to be very hard. that's what i think what we do in the court system with individuals like this will be the key way of eliminating that type of action pics i think we have to set a penalty system for doing this, but that's for the courts and others to decide. from our perspective what we're doing is we're ensuring that people who touch the data we contract, audit and ensure they are using it correctly, and a lease identify quickly. >> have you taken a look at your bidding system of people of access to this information? >> we have. we've adjusted that in part but that's a very difficult one, specially where and when a process or person changes, the way they think about something. so we are changing the review timelines from five years to two years for different individuals to make sure, and conducting more random checks.

>> okay. in another area you had mentioned about your belief in the importance of cyber legislation. when we looked at cyber legislation, and number of folks in the business community objected to the reporting requirements that would, up. how would you excess -- assess the level of cooperation between the private sector i and your efforts in protecting the network's? >> i think, senator, there's two sets of issues. one is coming given the current snowden issues, many of the companies want to distance themselves in part by punishing the cyber area, we have to work together. we have to share. went to understand when they are under an attack. ironically we cannot see all of that. and so the issue is, it is an attack, specially a destructive attack, the probability that we'll get through it is higher

in the civilian infrastructure. so we have to have a way of sharing signatures so they can detect and stop those and tell us when they're coming so we can go see he was doing that. that's where fbi, dhs, innocent cyber command all work together. within the united states i referred order with senator reid i think that's something we want fbi and dhs to lead, not nsa. but we can use providing outside enjoying what's going on, who the adversaries are and then if the policymakers make decisions on what we can do, we have the tools and capabilities outside the country to take those actions as appropriate. >> one of the areas that is specialized in my home state of indiana and at crane neville -- crane naval warfare is -- i want to ask you, general, what confidence do you have in our ability to detect counterfeit or deliberately subverted components, and how are we going to strengthen our efforts to do

that better in the future? >> counterfeit parts, senator, is a tough issue. so you have to approach it two ways. one is where's the data going, what do we do with it? that get you back to a defensible architecture where it is the data, not the system that we want to take care. i think that will help alleviate some of the concerns on these cloned or implanted parts that can be -- that can be damaged or infrastructure. we have done work on that and i can provide in a classified session or statement some insights to some of the things that we have done identifying and remediating against those. >> admiral, i didn't want you to feel left out here, so i had wanted to ask you in regards to north korea, what do you think is needed, if anything, to shore up our anti-ballistic missile system, to mitigate the threats that are being rattled on a

regular basis by north korea? and how to make sure we are squared away there? >> senator, as we look at north korea as well as others, it's very important that we continue the work we've been doing in ensuring our missile defense systems, reliability, is the best it can be. and with that is a whole mechanism of giving to the far left of the business. this includes getting the indications and warning part right as best we can, all the way to the business of improving our missile defense system. first and foremost, in our ability to sense things and discriminate, as well as the business of improving our kill vehicle. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much, senator donnelly. senator lee. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i thank both of you for your

many years of distinguished service. general alexander, we will miss you and i've enjoyed working with you. admiral haney, what is your assessment of russian and chinese reliance on nuclear weapons? specifically, do you think that those countries are more likely to increase or decrease their reliance on nuclear weapons systems as a deterrent in the coming years? >> senator, clearly we monitor closely developments in those countries, regarding their nuclear arsenal. it is clear to me that both of those countries have been involved and they have publicly announced their modernization programs, and some other strategies. in a variety of their legs,

their strategic nuclear capability. i will not speculate in terms of the future, but clearly in terms of what we've seen to date, we have seen definite emphasis of having credibility capability by both countries mentioned. >> and if -- something i'd like to know is how any of that changes, both with regard to those countries and possibly other countries. if we, as the united states, proceed with any plan to draw down our strategic weapons below the new s.t.a.r.t. levels, how is that likely to deter other countries from increasing their own reliance on nuclear weapons, on either increasing or

modernizing their nuclear weapons systems? specifically, i'd like to know what it in evidence exists to suggest that our drawdown of our strategic weapons would have that kind of impact? >> senator, first i would say that it's very important from my perspective that we continue to work to have a credible, safe, secure and effective deterrence to and those actions within themselves are what we are about and what we're going to journey doing, including our own modernization programs, as discussed earlier during the hearing. the connective tissue in terms of how other countries look at us, both from a deterrence and assurance perspective, are very important. i think as they look at us today, ac is working very hard to ensure each part of our

strategic deterrent is being cared for and that are being operated in a proper manner. even as we go down to the agreed upon treaty limits for new s.t.a.r.t. treaty, each warhead, systems to systems of systems that are associated with that continue to remain a very effective arsenal to support our deterrence needs for the future. going beyond those limits will require negotiations and verification mechanisms, and we'll have to look at the whole thing, including tactical nukes. >> to have any historical precedents that suggests as we drove down our systems, our nuclear arsenals? is there anything in our history, anyhow struggle evidence that suggests as we do that other countries are less

likely to be developing from increasing or modernizing there's? you know, and that would include consideration of countries like iran or north korea. in recent years we have drawn ours down. and so on what basis could we conclude that continuing to draw ours down below the new s.t.a.r.t. levels would likely deter other countries from continuing to move forward with their systems? >> well, the first amount of evidence really shows the amount of nuclear stockpile that has been reduced oath from the united states of america and from russia. in terms of treaties that have been established over the years, including the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty. those are -- >> beyond russia can you point to anywhere else where that's had a deterrent effect on other countries? >> i won't at this point tried to give a thesis that connects

the dots there because the intent of each and every country is their own internal business. and i would say that countries will look at the -- not just the drawdown. they will look at what's in their strategic issue, interest, and they will devote capability across various domains, including nuclear, to satisfy their needs. >> okay. if we don't have a thesis on that, we don't have any evidence either. that does concern me for the additional reason that even with russia, many of us here are very concerned with the fact that there have been reported violations by russian of the inf treaty. dating all the way back to 2008. and so i'm interested in acquiring into your views, based on your perspective as the commander of our strategic

forces, as to what the consequences are to our own national security when we have entered into a nuclear weapons agreement with a country, russia, that's in violation of that agreement. don't you think that represents something of a threat to our national security? >> senator, i think, not just my command, but our whole of government takes very seriously the treaties that are in place. and give that a lot of scrutiny in terms of things. the treaties we have, such as new s.t.a.r.t. treaty, the goodness in those is a trust but verify. and the verification peace is very important. when i look at, particularly the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty it allows for more transparency and just

number of verification looks both sides have per year, and they are ongoing today, even as we work towards those new s.t.a.r.t. treaty limits. >> okay. i appreciate your response. i'd like to submit some more questions the inviting, but i would just like to leave you with a thought, i am very concerned and i believe i'm not alone in this. in saying that it's distressing to me that we could be talking seriously about drawing -- drawing down our potential in this area even below new s.t.a.r.t. levels. without evidence that doing so is going to deter other countries from developing, increasing, modernizing their own forces. i really would like to see some evidence as to why we should believe that. and that evidence certainly should extend beyond an indication that there has been

some reduction by russia, especially when russia tends not to comply with its own obligations. thank you. >> thank you, senator lee. senator king. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thanks to both of her witness. admiral haney, i'm sitting a realizing of her talk about the nuclear deterrent, i wrote my senior thesis on a nuclear deterrent. i'm not going to give you an executor let me just say linda johnson was president of the united states. what concerns me is that the premise of deterrence of mutually assured destruction, assumes a state actor, a rational actor, and a non-suicidal after. i'm wondering if we don't need to rethink the whole third of deterrence when we're doing with the potential in what of nuclear capability in the hands of nonstate actors who aren't particularly rational and who are, in fact, demonstrably suicidal. i don't expect you give me a dissertation on this now but i would really appreciate some thoughts about the nuclear deterrent theory in an age of

totally changed circumstances. do you have any immediate thoughts? >> senator, i will say, you know, as you look at the cost-benefit kind of relationship, nuclear deterrent, and as you articulated, the business of the intent of the actor, rationality of the actor is important. you look at strategic deterrent in terms of capability a nation will have that can threaten the united states of america -- >> but we might not even talk about the nation. i think that's one of the important point you. we are not necessary, if iran den aaggest you

might follow up on this question in terms of how does the theory of deterrence applied in 2014. general alexander, good to see you again. we've met a lot of committee meetings. when is a cyber attack an act of war? hink that's a political decision, a policy level decision, every think it comes down to what is the impact of such an attack. in cyberspace some of the attacks will be not observable and, therefore, not a big attack. it would almost be like a show of force. think of it as a blockade.

so you get, insider, you're going to have the whole spectrum that we have in the physical space now in cyberspace, and i think we will have to learn. but i would submit that if it destroys government or other networks to a point that it impacts our ability to operate, you've crossed that line. that's a policy decision, not mine. what we would do is recommend where those lines are. i think those things that are less than at that are blocking to mutations and doing something, think of that as the old jimmy, electronic warfare, now in cyber. probably less than, but they could get to an act where you want that to stop because of the impact it's having on your commerce. so those are issues what we'll call the norms of cyberspace need to be talked to on the international level. i think that's one of the things that we pushed, the administrators pushing those norms. i think it has to go a lot further. people need to understand it and

it gets back to the early discussions about doing understand exactly what we're talking about here by norms in cyberspace. >> i do want -- one thought is, and admiral haney, this would be for you as well, to think about the fact that we currently, i believe, have an asymmetric advantage in this area, given the capabilities that we have. perhaps we should develop a deterrent concept with regard to cyber. if you mess with our networks, your lights will go off, to provide a kind of deterrence for this kind of activity rather than waiting for them to take down the new york stock exchange or the gas pipeline system, to let the world know that we have this capability, and if people want to pursue this activity against us, they will be retaliated against in a way, and, indeed, the nuclear deterrent theory worked for 70

years. so i just commend that to you as a possible american strategic statement. i just -- mr. chairman, i want to associate myself with the comments of senator mccain. i've been now to a lot of hearings here and the intelligence community that a focus on the necessity for cyber legislation. as you know there was a major bill in 2012 that failed, and here we are a year and half later. every one of our witnesses has told us how important this is, how virgin is, and yet for reasons that are not entirely clear on how we aren't there yet and maybe we need a select committee to iron out differences between intelligence, judiciary, armed services, whoever, to get this on the floor. if we have an attack, two or three months from now and we haven't done anything, we are going to look pretty dumb around here because we have certainly had plenty of warnings in

everyone of these hearings. i think it's time that the congress acted. i do think it's particularly partisan issue and i hope that we can figure out a procedural way to move forward. i thought the suggestion senator mccain made, made some sense of putting together some kind of joint or select committee in order to do this. final question, admiral haney and general alexander, general alexander, should cyber command the elevated to a full unified combat and command? are we at that stage in the evolution of this threats because i think we're getting towards that stage. what i would say right now, what we've done great with stratcom is said to me, get people trained. we'll get to the point where have enough forces where i think unity of command and command and control between the secretary sy and the president directly to that will make more sense. and i think from an operations

perspective that something that they will need to consider probably over the next year or so. i think with those teams coming online, that goes great. i would just say candidly, general bob keeler and admiral haney have been superb to work with, so it has not reason to an issue. i do get concerned that if there is an attack, having a streamlined command control from the white house to the command is going to be important and you're going to want to something like that. so i think you're going to get that over the next year or so. >> i think the next pearl harbor will be cyber and i hope we are going to be prepared. better prepared than we were in 1941. >> senator, as general alexander has stated, we work, our two organizations, very closely together. and we recognize the speed of cyber. the one thing i would say connecting the dots to all of your questions, we look at deterrence and our capability, sometimes we like to slice and i state into one particular area

versus the other. our whole of government and our full military and national capabilities are what adversaries have to look at in terms of deterrence at large. and that can't be lost as we drill into specific areas. and even as we look at what command control organization we have in the future, the real key will be how we interconnect all of our different areas together in order to prevent, deter, and if deterrence fails, to get at it and win. >> i appreciate that. but again, given our asymmetric advantage in cyber it seems to me we are in a position now where they could use it as a deterrent to any kinds of these activities. i appreciate your testimony, gentlemen. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much, senator king. senator fischer. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, general, for your service. i appreciate the many years that

you have served to protect this country, and our citizens. and welcome, admiral haney. it's good to see. i appreciated having the opportunity just about a week ago to be back in nebraska, and you were very kind and we had a number of briefings there at stratcom, and i appreciate taking the time to do that with me and look forward to many more in the future. and congratulate you on your new command. you mentioned the defense of nuclear command and control networks from cyber attack. can you talk more generally about they need that we have to modernize those systems? >> senator, as we have talked before, but in particular women look at strategic deterrence, the business of having both the correct sensing of the environment and the ability to move the information such that we have the appropriate command

and control in a timely manner is critical. so this is an area that we continue to work on. we will continue to have investment. we have a strategy that we're working to move forward on. we have to stay on course even with sequestration. >> a lot of times we focus on the hardware, on the platform. we talk about the need to modernize warheads, the costs of our bombers and submarines. but how are going to communicate all this? what about our phone lines? what about the new building that's going up there in bellevue? can you talk a little bit about the importance of all that? >> senator, i would say in the command-and-control structure, what we count on is redundancy and reliability through a spectrum of different adverse

environments. when you look at the different missions that u.s. strategic command has, i do think the congress for the investment in the command-and-control complex that's being built because our ability to command-and-control our forces, as well as move information, is important. and this goes all the way to the forces, those folks in either the alert facilities, bombers and submarines, all the way up to the president of the united states. >> we've heard questioning from senator leahy and then from senator king about deterrence and if it is effective. we still face threats from nations who have nuclear capability. so i believe that that deterrence is extremely necessary, but since we also face the threat from terrorists and from others, there's a bat,

to me, that natural tie-in with cybersecurity being necessary and making sure that our country is prepared in that respect as well. i know in the past there's been the talk about separating the two command authorities and the necessity of doing that. do you think that's the way to go? in my conversations with general kehler in the past, just looking at how it works and how we're able to make those decisions by one commander, i think leaving it under one command may be at this point, but also in the future, makes sense, especially with our budgetary constraints. i would ask both of you. i know, general, you just spoke

about possibly in a couple years may be separating them, but i would ask the admiral's opinion on that as well. >> senator, i think myself and general alexander are in fundamental agreement that what we want to do is a win in cyber and we want the command and control structure that allows us to win first and foremost. as we look at investments to be made, as general alexander have spoken and discuss, it's most important that we build up our cyber capability, and that's the peace that's a priority for me as well. so as a look as investment don't in the near-term, very important to build that capability. we make it to a point at some point when our national leaders fundamentally believe that that's the best organization, and to change structure it's got to be structured to win.

>> journal, do you have any comments? >> i agree. and i think what admiral haney says is right on target. just help articulate one step further, let's say an actual is going on in the middle east that didn't yet get to the strategic. you also didn't want and have us to directly support that combatant commands in both directions. we both do. the issue that i see that's really going to raise this is cyber is more likely to be used in what we call phase zero, and so the continuity of command-and-control from phase zero to phase one is were i think we will start to look at how do we do this? from my perspective, what admiral haney put out there, the most important thing we can do it now is train and organize those games. that's what we're focused. i do think this is something that we'll wrestle post my time. i just put that on the table as a logical conclusion from my perspective for about a year, a

year and a half out. >> thank you both very much. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much, senator fischer. senator kaine? >> thank you, mr. chair. to our witnesses, appreciate this important customer. test would. to open up with a question really for both of you, admiral, you said the question of what is the right command structure is subsumed under the goal which is we want to win in cyber. and winning in cyber, i would focus on our personal. do we have a personal to win in cyber? admiral haney, in your testimony plans call for 133 cyber mission teams manned by over 6000 highly trained cyber personnel by the end of fiscal year 2016. i'd like to each of you talk about the challenges of recruitment and training of these specialized cyber personnel in an economy where they have a whole lot of other options. toggled it about that dimension of the challenge that we face.

>> senator, let me just start off. we are actually getting good feed from the services in this area. so by the end of this year, we will probably be one-third of the way through even with sequestration in terms of bringing him on board and getting them into training seat. as you would expect, the training in these programs to been a which position on the team they're going to, goes on anywhere from 20 to 47 weeks plus. so that's the key, if you will, the big problem is getting them through that. that's 4600 different courses, course seats that will have had people in by the end of this year. so the services have done extraordinary work. in terms of putting these people in from my perspective, the young kids coming in they want to do this. this is great. and they are great people. some of our best operators in the space are the military personnel.

we've got to continue to do that. we need to look at how we encourage them to stay in the military. that's going to be instant the things we've talked to the services about. but my hat is off to the service chiefs who have helped push this and our service composed. i think by the end of this year were you see where we are and to give a chance to come up and see some of those teams in action actually doing real-world missions, it's super. it is exactly what our nation needs them to do, both on the offense the preparation side, and protecting our infrastructure. >> senator, i also watched and had an opportunity to chat with some of our cyber warriors. not as many touch points as i'm sure general alexander has had come and often ask this question to them. what makes them stay on? and it is being able to contribute to the nation that makes a difference to a point. every time i've asked that question to i'm proud of each

and every one of them and what they do. i will say also, we focus a lot on that portion of the business. but there's also planning that goes on associate with cyber here and that's integrated in terms of what our combatant commands do geographically across the globe him and that's diffusion of our capability, cyber with her other capabilities, that also make a difference as we go forward. >> i would expect that within the cyberspace you have an interesting mixture of active duty military and dod civilian personnel? is that profiled a mixture of come into service branch and in civilian dod sort of different in your cyber work than it is in other military missions? >> it's roughly the same, senator. and the services approach is a little bit different. we gave him some differently way but i think they key in the cyber civilian area, one of the things were looking at is how io

we put all the team onto a same footing for their personnel system so that they are not disadvantaged each in different ones. we have cpb, and others and which one is an to be one team so how do help do that. that's something we're looking at and i think a key point. >> remind me that earlier in 2013 when we face sequestration, the different parts of your unit get affected differently whether they were civilian, dod, or active duty. >> that specifically was the problem. so, many of them had to send out a fertile on one side because they were on one side of the bills while others were allowed to stay on because they were in a different set. the military different. so it did tend to separate and cause problems within the team. i want him to think of themselves, they're here for the good of the nation as a cyber teen. erase those budget boundaries, if you would. >> general alexander, there were

some reports in february 2014 recently about chinese people's liberation army in shanghai and now the employed thousands of members specifically trained to conduct cyber attacks against critical infrastructure in the united states, power grid, gas lines, waterworks. talk a little bit about, if you would, just about the magnitude of the cyber effort underway in the people's republic of china that you're basically trying to defend the nation against everyday. >> senator, to get into details on that i'd like to answer that in a classified setting if i could. i would just tell you, you've hit on the keyboard. we have a lot of infrastructure. electric, our government, our financial networks. look at all the ways to look at what happened to target and others. so when you look at it, it covers the whole spectrum. we have to have a way, a defensible architecture of our country and we've got to get on with it. we've got to look at how we take

away from adversaries and easy ability to penetrate that, steal intellectual property, money or other things. so that's jd but je would give it out to others i think we've got to get on with it. in terms of what china and other nations are up to, i would not answer that in classified sessions i don't make a mistake. spent understood. understood. let me ask try for a question. one of the stratcom's ongoing tasks and your tesla discusses on pages 20 and 21, is work on searing chemical weapons disposal together with european command and defense threat construction -- reduction edged the there's assets in virginia better than engage in this. a merchant marine ship that is currently involved in this and we have intelligence professionals that have been evolved through the dia as well. toggled about the work that stratcom does in this ongoing effort to rid syria of one of

the largest chemical weapons stockpiles in the world. >> senator, this is obviously an ongoing effort that involves not just your strategic command, but as mentioned, european command as well as the international organization, opcw, for example, and that peace, it's good to see the teamwork that is going on together with other allies and partners that are competing to this mission. it was me strategic command standpoint, working with, or strategic command center for counter weapons of mass destruction, that's also at the headquarters, has been in someone and working to come up with a solution to rid ourselves of some of those chemical weapons by the facility that's built on cape may, as you have discussed. that's a good news story, but

that's part of the story in terms of the collective international effort that's ongoing in order to rid syria of those chemical weapons. >> mr. chair, thinking. >> senator king. senator graham. >> thank you, mr. chairman. general alexander, i wish you well in retirement but i wish you are not retiring. you've done a great job for our country. i find you to be one of the most capable officers we have come and i just want to let you enter them in a how much i appreciate your service to our country. now, having said that, could you describe in 30 seconds, and i think what's in the team and others talked about, boil it down, what would, what could a major cyber attack due to the united states? what kind of damage could incur? >> i think they could shut down the power in the northeast as an example, shut down the new york stock exchange, damage data that's in the stock exchange,

removed it and shut down some of our government networks, other government networks. impact our transportation areas. those are things that -- >> are these chemicals? >> i think that would be harder. they could get into scada systems and -- >> water supplies? >> right. they could do damage to the. they could do flows on rivers spend what it cost trillions of dollars of? >> potentially. especially in the financial -- >> put it cost thousands of lives of? >> it could. >> you are telling us congress hasn't given you, your colleagues, the tools to deal with this threat. is that fair to say? >> that's correct center. we need a way to work with industry to understand those. >> well, if all this could happen and we could help, seems like we would. do you agree with that? >> i agree. spent when it comes to buy person should i would allow senator whitehouse to write the bill. i've been in a bipartisan

coalition within. i think he is one of the smartest people in the congress and understands this issue. >> he is superb. >> i hate to say that about sheldon but he really -- i'll just limit it to cyber. i don't want to hurt him. >> it would be more appropriate -- >> that's probably -- you're right. now, in your can of sequestration, if we continue down the road of we are doing to our military and intelligence community, what kind of effect will that have on our ability to defend ourselves in your world, general alexander? ..

disastrous impact in terms of being it really will be all up in terms of the critical decisions that would have to be made in terms of the money that is allocated and appropriated -- >> let me see if i can summarize your testimony. if congress continues on the path we've charted regarding sequestration, we'll have a catastrophic effect of the intelligence community. we'll have a dangerous affected our ability to spend the nation

through strategic weaponry. on the cyberfriend, he described a pearl harbor on steroids and you're asking congress to act. let's just remember what has been said today, that we have to do something about sequestration at way to do something on the cyberfront. now let's get back to senator mccain's questions, which are very good about the role of strategic forces. do you agree with me that one aspect of a strong capable nuclear program to deter rational states from engaging the united states, is that still a viable concept for the 21st century? >> yes, it is. >> do you agree with me that what senator cain said, the deeply embraced chaos and suicide will not be deterred. when it comes to terrorist organizations and rogue states who do not have a rational bone

in their body is to deny them the capability? >> that is correct, senator. >> you agree to be commissioner alexander, this is where you come into play big-time. the idea of a nuclear device coming into the united states on a steamer with 20 people on board is not a scene of novels. is that a real threat? >> that is one of our great concerns, senator. >> and you agree with me that is one of the real things the nsa can do to help the country defend itself, to find that out? >> i do, senator. >> prevention, and denial and interdiction. when it comes to rogue states, we will not act rationally. when it comes to terrorist organizations, that we can have good intelligence, we can stop it before it starts. now, when it comes to iran, do you believe there's rational nationstate had turned south on

the nuclear weapons? would you feel comfortable with ukrainians having a nuclear capability? judder alexander. >> senator come i would not. >> admiral haney. >> i would not either. >> one of your concerns be they rich at technology with the terrorist organization? >> senator, -- [inaudible] easy way it is not a good outcome. can you envision a circumstance that there is the deal stuck with ukrainians, general alexander, but alas to enrich uranium even on a small level? what is the likelihood that sunni arab states would want like capability? >> i think it is probable. >> had somebody ask actually asked the sunni arab world what would you do if the united states agreed to let the radiance to enrich a level?

do you agree admiral haney, but one of the night nurse during the would be to have enriched uranium onto the mideast? >> i would agree that one of our aspects and assurances working to prevent. >> so i would so i would end with this thought, and somehow, someway the world sanctions and uranium which metaprograms your set the stage for the whole mideast to become an enrichment zone and god help us all under that scenario. thank you. >> thank you, senator graham. senator ayotte. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank you both for being here and your extraordinary service to the country. thank you, general alexander. you've done a wonderful job and it had to serve during challenging times. thank you for service in your

service as well, admiral haney. images follow up on the iranian threat. admiral haney, when dni clapper came before this committee last year, he said that the iranians were working on two systems, icbm systems that would give them the capability of hitting the united states of america by 2015. where are we on that threat in terms of pyrenean icbm programs and the threat of hitting the united states? >> i would really want to address that question in a classified forum to get to derail details necessary to answer that question. the prediction, the assessment of 2015 remains are my understanding. >> so dni authors public assessment last year 2015 still stands at this point from your

understanding? i understand you don't want to get into the details of that in this setting. >> yes, senator. >> so one of the threats that obviously senator graham asked you about the threat of perhaps the iranians that their nuclear program as it is permitted to continue his diplomatic technology to terrorist organizations. obviously, the icbm threat is one that we would be concerned about as low to our country. as you both agree? >> yes, senator. >> where we also faced as we talked about the threat from the north korean icbm capability as well, correct? >> yes, senator. >> one of the issues we have been discussing in this committee is the issue of a third missile site, an east coast missile site for protection of the east coast of the united states of america. and the defense authorization,

we have asked for a contingency plan for that site. i wanted to get your sense of where that stood in how quickly, if we made the decision to go forward with any oversight, would it take us to scanline up her mind of the fact we are facing a potential threat of 2015 by the iranians. you would agree with me that the east coast site would provide additional protection against that kind of threat? >> senator, east coast site will definitely provide additional capability against the threat to augment what we are behalf. we have discussed fundamentally we have to invest in priority order to work to get our sensing and discrimination rate as well as getting our kill vehicle

respect. they provided some capability. >> some capability. yesterday general jacoby said it is better weapons access. increased inventory with regard to the threat coming from the middle east and those are the facts. so you would agree with him on that bad if in fact we are facing an iranian icbm threat, in addition to further sentencing and discrimination capabilities, this to be important given the population centers we have new york, washington, to have that additional, as general jacoby described it, increased inventory battle space. >> i agree 100% with general jacoby.

>> are your current general jacoby the contingency plan of this congress makes the decision to go forward so they are ready to do a? >> we are working the planning associated with that. >> eczema, thank you. how do you assess right now the threat that we face from north korea? i knew you were asked about it earlier. where do you assess heritability, particularly i know we are adding the additional ground-based interceptors in alaska, but how do you assess our ability to meet that threat as well at the moment? where we been installing this additional interceptors in alaska? >> work is ongoing for this additional interceptors to be complete by about 2016. but there is other work that is ongoing across our missile defense apparatus. things that we have done, for example, the capability that was

placed in long, the work we are doing to get a second radar in japan, businesses upgrading our sensors in the work to improve discrimination, all ongoing to help with this capability, including getting to the next test associated with ground bases. >> and i would be the next test to ensure that the kill vehicles are properly working, given the prior test and the assessment of those tests? >> that's correct, senator. >> so one of the things senator inhofe asked you upfront that his concern to many of us is the modernization commitment that were made bad administration under section 121 in conjunction with signing a new s.t.a.r.t. treaty. just to put it in simple terms, where are we?

how do you assess the resourcing of those modernization commitments both now in the current fy 14 budget context and then going forward in particular on those modernization commitments. obviously, with sequestration with the same place, that is one scenario. if you can give us a real sense of where are we on this? i remain deeply concerned that those commitments are not there at the level of resources that they should be, and making sure that we have the modernization that needs to be done to our nuclear deterrent. >> senator, the modernization efforts, some of which are definitely in progress and in a good place, some of the work that has been going in terms of three plus two strategy associated with warhead is moving forward.

clearly, there has to be prioritization of efforts and they relocate certain efforts to ensure affordability and cost effect events in that piece is ongoing as well. >> as we look at these issues, my time is up come up with the one thing i think of is what keeps you up at night in this position, both of you? to me that is the most important thing we should be thinking of. what are you most worried about? we may not ask either a question. >> my biggest concern right now is we're looking at the future and particularly our ability to balance resources and be able to at the same time work to have credible capability across the spectrum and all the areas i have responsibility for his combat command in addition to strategic nuclear deterrent than the safe, secure and effective manner so as mentioned that our assurance prevents other countries for wanting to

increase or go nuclear in terms of capability. >> afraid to get this answer, general alexander, what keeps you up at night. >> there's two issues. we talked about cyber, so that's half of it. i think the greatest concern that i have both for our country and for europe is a attack that galvanizes some of the islamic fundamentalists into a true fighting force that could hurt our nation in europe. i believe right now we don't have the proper european allies to stop that. we have to have a discussion to solve our problems, but we've also got to deal with them to ensure that they are doing something similar to protect themselves. in the past come as the president pointed out, we do a lot to help protect them. some of our capabilities have been impacted by these leaks. our ability to stop this gone

down just when they're growing. look at syria, iraq, all of that. i'm concerned over the next 12 months, something bad will happen. >> thank you both for your service. we really appreciate it. >> thank you very much, senator ayotte. does anyone need a second? i'm going to withhold my questions for the second round. instead, i'll be asking you questions for the record, which we will expect prompt answers on and we will stand adjourned. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] including a session at the u.s. house. however, arizona senator john mccain was able to attend the aipac conference this morning. the american israel public affairs committee, hosting its annual policy conference. we will show senator mccain's remarks later in their entirety, but for an outcome here is what he said about foreign policy and

the situation in ukraine. >> the president of the united states believes the cold war is over. that's fine, it is over. but putin doesn't believe this is a zero-sum game. look at moldova. look at georgia. look at the pressure of the baltic nations. look at what they are doing and assisting bishara saad slaughtered tens of thousands of innocent people in cities and towns and countryside oliver syria. it is an outrage and these people in vladimir putin -- [applause] vladimir putin, while react to chemical weapons, planeload of regular weapons, artillery, tanks, landing not the airport in damascus, slaughtering american people. and i will tell you, it is hard for another to differentiate whether their child has been killed by a chemical weapon or

one of these horrible barrel bombs that are basically cluster bombs being dropped on innocent civilians all over serious. and we have sat by and watched it happened. if bishara saad -- it is now turned into a regional conflict in lebanon has destabilized. what do you think this guy does an hezbollah fighters will be like when they return for the fight in syria to southern lebanon? what do you think is going to happen if bashar assad continues to prevail as far as the other nations in the region are concerned? word, probably her best friend is destabilized. global situation cries out for american leadership and i'm sorry to tell you, it is mia. let me also -- [applause]

adelaide, a couple of my favorite, tell vladimir but i'll be more flexible when i reelected. [applause] tell vladimir i'll be more flexible when i reelected? i want to talk about it ran a minute with you because there is a significant difference of opinion even here amongst our dear friend as to whether sanctions should be passed by the congress of the united states if the talks fail. and my argument to you is do you believe that in light of recent events over the last five years that the reigning mullahs -- i don't think so. i don't think so. i believe the radiant people can have access to peaceful civilian nuclear energy, but that doesn't require an industrial uranium enrichment program. it doesn't require a heavy water

reactor. it doesn't require advanced centrifuges and it certainly doesn't require nuclear facilities deep in the mountains. [applause] >> we come to you this morning with a heavy heart. with a heavy heart and great sadness because of the events taking place in ukraine. and what happens in ukraine is directly related to what happens in the 80s then obviously we know what happens in the middle east is vital to the existence of the state of israel. i'm not going to go through the history of ukraine with you. the fact is crimean is a part of a sovereign nation of ukraine and the people by the hundreds of thousands went to a square in subzero freezing weather saying they did not want to be part of putin's russia. and that is what it's all about. and now, now that the olympics

are over, immediately afterwards, we now see the accusation of crimean. one of the reasons there's a majority population is because stalin exported all the deported from the crimea. this is a blatant dummy part of vladimir putin emblem must be unacceptable to the world community. it cannot stand. [applause] i have to be very honest with you. there is not a military option that could be exercised now. but the most powerful and biggest and strongest nation in the world should have plenty of options. those options are many. ranging from these kleptocratic, these corruption people in the people that that ordered this in the magnets key act. we could expand it and identify

those people and would be their last trip to las vegas. so we can and not economic sanctions. there is a broad array of options that we have. why do we care? because this is the ultimate resort of foreign policy where nobody believes the strength anymore. [applause] >> the internet as we know it today bears no resemblance to monopoly telephone service back in the 19 dirties, 40s and 50s. but the courts have said what the congress supports as if i walk into a grocery store and buy a gallon of milk, i pay

$3.50 a gallon. if i buy 10 gallons, i pay $35 for a 10 gallons. well, tom wheeler's sec wants to say you can use as much milk as you want and you only have to pay $3. bashes ron. netflix is the biggest user of the internet as people download their movies. sometimes as much as 30% of the total volume of internet. obviously, netflix should pay more than 70 uses the internet with the month. i'm being very simplistic, but that is the genesis. these companies have spent billions and billions of dollars to set up their systems and provide fiber optics and all the mega-speeds we just take for granted on a biometric visas that some level they should be allowed to charge based on volume.

>> last week, activists gathered in washington d.c. to mark the fifth anniversary of the two-party movement. speakers included minnesota congresswoman, michele bachmann who think the cry for help helping republicans take control of the house in 2010. this is an hour and 15 minutes. new ♪ the mackinac of recorded history, there's only been one nation, one people that have had a dream named. throughout the world, the american dream is synonymous with everything good. pursuing the american dream is the right and privilege of every united states citizen. >> i've been in business for 33

years. we did it by working seven days a week. 15 and 16 hour days. sacrificing and saving to build some thing from nothing. >> every dream is not the same, but every dream is important. it is never easy to obtain it. hard work, perseverance, stamina and a willingness to hold fast to core beliefs are the building blocks of achievement. >> the edge but no spirit of america's web products to its greatness. >> today, an out-of-control government has put the american dream in jeopardy. eight out of 10 americans think it is harder to achieve the dream now than before. they see a political system, consistently and completely unresponsive to their needs. they see fundamental, economic changes that were to erode the free enterprise system. they struggle to see a better path forward for themselves and

their children. five years ago today, pursuant of that american dream awakened and passion people they knew was deep inside them, but had never been brought to the forefront. their dream is in jeopardy. >> i'm tired of the government taking my money away from you and spending irresponsibly. >> i'm only 15 years old. when i get older i don't want children to be in better my great-grandchildren. >> we had some fiscal responsibility and fiscal accountability. individual freedoms are being taken away. >> someone has to tell the government we've had enough of it. >> the first spark of a brushfire that was spread across america erected in downtown seattle. hundreds stood up and said enough is enough. [inaudible] >> the government is promoting bad behavior. the chicago tea party in july.

they want to show lake michigan organized. >> one day later, a single congress calls fans the flames and one week later, on february 27, 2009, and 48 small towns and big cities across the country, over 30,000 people began the modern day tea party revolution. >> it's the american dream. [cheers and applause] >> i'll tell you what i'm sensing out there. i'm sensing the effervescence of backlash, of a revolution. >> six weeks later, over 800 tea party protests were held nationwide. people who had never before their lives join the cause lifted their voices in objection to an out of control government. >> i've never done anything like

this. i've got to do something. >> in september, american dreamers came by car, by bus, by playing to the center of washington d.c. and made their voices heard in one of the largest protests in u.s. is read. >> can you hear us now? [cheers and applause] >> patriots took their cause and consternation in the halls of congress to the street to their hometowns. health care, capping trade, stimulus spending, free-market and others gave impetus is to more and more people getting more and more involved. wherever a rallying cry went up, they showed that to join the battle. in wisconsin, and washington state, in places north, south, east and west, in campaign after campaign, they succeeded in sending their voices to state capital as well as capitol hill.

five years later, our dreams are alive. our hopes are high. our pursuit of the american dream is stronger than other. before our children, for their children and for every generation to come, the hard work has just begun. let's build on five explosive unsuccessful ers. let's make sure you and your family continue to pursue the american dream. tea party patriots, continue to pursue your american dreams. ♪ >> ladies and gentlemen, please welcome tea party patriots

cofounder jimmy bass martin. -- jenny bass martin. [applause] >> thank you. good morning. happy anniversary welcome to washington d.c. as visitors, we walk along constitution avenue towards the white house and we see on the left a mall, national monument and memorials to those who defended our freedom. and on the right, we see block after block after block after block of government office buildings, another kind of monument to the vast and

powerful government that consumes and spends our tax dollars. really? this is what gave rise to the tea party. and we are here today and we think about what we see is washing in d.c., we know we still have a lot of work to do. still, we have so many reasons to be excited and today is an exciting day. our movement has become so influential and so big that we are able to attract influential speakers with mark levin -- [applause] senator mike leigh and ted cruz. [applause] congressman jim jordan and michele bachmann. [applause]

and at the same time, we will not lose focus on our numbers. we wouldn't be here today if it were not for you. let's give you a round of applause. [applause] you want to pursue your american dream. everyday he championed freedom. remember in 2009, as the stimulus passed, or kelley karen are at the protest seattle, washington. for kelley. surely thereafter, we had a call to action. our founding fathers would be turning over in their graves at the out-of-control government spending. he said let's have a tea party. in did we ever? area code of that is going. rhonda powell and patrick leahy

got us talking on top conservatives on twitter and michael got us on the first conference call for debbie dooley and others are honest and planned and organized. moms like me, kerry kristof in stacy mascot is organizing smart girl politics. together, these people help to you turn a moment in time into a movement. today we celebrate what you have done. you are going to year from leaders like miracle worker, woody herzog. he did what many said could not be done. he went in the state of washington and got fiscally responsible candidates elected in the metro seattle area. the state legislature there is no longer deep blue. he has shown when you talk to others about our values, you can

win, even in one of the most liberal states in the country. you also your friend mary ann sasaki. she is a mom of two. she is one of her ohio state coordinators said she was recently elected to her school board. she cares so much about our country that she turned her passion into public service at the local level. and you will hear from our man who delivered. he worked for a huge shipping company and he volunteered his time at night and on the weekends. this vietnam vet and ham radio operator has organized some of the most inspirational tea parties around the country and has become a well-known tea party speaker. you've got a great day ahead of you here. get excited and be inspired.

[applause] and most of all, think about how you can take what you are learning here and share it with others beyond the normal circles. most americans want the same things we do. most americans want personal freedom, economic freedom and a debt-free future. [applause] let's take what we learn here today and shared it with them so that they can understand that together we can get there. thank you. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, please welcome posted at david webb show in tea party 365, david

webb. he's not ladies and gentlemen, please welcome national grassroots for tea party patriots, kelley karen dürer. ladies and gentlemen, please welcome author of governments for liberty, michael patrick leahy. [applause] ladies and gentlemen, please welcome president and founder, casey my. ♪ >> why are people standing? first thing, this is serious business, but not that serious. let me go a little break part on you for a minute.

all the years because travel around this country long before the tea party movement, the one thing we have to do is laugh. he had to learn your craft. you have to do it right. you had to be involved. you had to be committed and you had to have fun. the first thing you do is remember that this is not sent me the barrel of cracker brand crowd as he can live, so you can smile. so feel free to enjoy it. feel free to do all the things we used to tell you. talk well if you have to. make snarky comments. we are good with that. this movement was never about a bunch of stick in the muds. we were happy warriors. remember that phrase? , did you remember happy warriors? are you happy warriors? all right. then, we are in the gray place. i play moderator, which means i get to watch the clock until my

time is up in their time is that. let's get started. first, cc, founder and president smarter politics. this marker that she is. michael patrick leahy, founder of conservatives on twitter. i've put up within that breaker. he tells me everything i do is wrong. and kelley karen dürer, i'm going to pick on you a little bit. former improv person back their same so. be yourself and let loose. let's get right to it, however, because we all talk about rick santelli's rant and how that all played out. it is a moment where i want you so i'll go back and watch the video. it's the people around him. people are traitors. people in the financial industry, the people watch american economic progress at around 10 and shared in no party

registration mattered at that moment. talking about something fundamental. what it means, the redistribution in the words are important. the video monitors and oftentimes we don't pay a 10 gentoo.. it led to why are here right now because it is one of those seminal moment. you guys, we'd all, all of you, whether you came late to the game coming days later, months later, that is the success of the tea party movement because more people today and tomorrow will come to it. so, let's get started. first there was the phone call. ladies first. that is kind of my rule. i went with that one. >> one of the things we were talking about when we're prepping for the panel yesterday. we hear the liberal media talk about how the koch brothers

founded movement, but i didn't hear rick santelli that morning. but i did hear was my e-mail lineup from the verse who it only been around for a couple months at that point, saying did you hear rick santelli? what are we going to do about this? we need to take hold of it. i just met michael leahy and other them on twitter and i reached out to these guys. i've i said listen, this is new for us. this is not something we've done before. what do you think? which we do? michael put together the first phone call. it really was an organic thing. people were oliver twitter that day say this is the start descent. we need to capitalize on this. >> let's start with kelley actually. kelley held the first protest on february 16th i think it was. but she called it the port deal is. talk about that event.

>> were protesting a stimulus bill. i went back and i was looking at my blog at the time. >> bloggers and their phone. >> i don't have time to write the blog anymore. i had spent the morning at that protest. like many of you, never, ever been involved in politics or done anything like this before. i never began to approach it. i wrote, make no mistake in the president will be signing that bill tomorrow. they have no illusions will actually listen to us, but maybe, just maybe we could start a movement that will snowball across the nation to get people out of their homes by meeting each other to redirect the country towards its truly radical fatah principles of individual liberty and freedom. [applause] >> remember what i said people start getting to the point. continue because this is more

about the phone call. >> and get 120 people in seattle that day. the big donation was $300 spent on the microphone for you. >> it was out of the coke brother check the. >> so we had a model. it is very interesting. michelle malkin had covered kelly's protest. quentin reynolds had covered the protest. now, most americans i'm sure has been unhappy with what has been going on in washing can. it is our bailout and i think everybody remembers what happened when president roche famously said, i am paraphrasing, i've abandoned the principles of free market to save the free market. do you remember that? did that make any sense to you? no, it made sense to john mccain. it made sense to barack obama.

what we lost, john mccain lost. what i do and what's the female and what kelley knew as this, that americans did not agree with that. there were millions of americans who believed the cost to two should've limited government, but nobody in washington was representing us. so what we did is we started three separate online communities of conservatives. eric odom started the group of delco hash tag don't go in that summer basically telling conference don't go before you do your business. then come in the november, after the election, i put up a list on twitter. i put a list of conservatives on twitter because at the time, the left supposedly off the internet. >> they still do. al gore --

>> how could they not? i knew we had something. that list went from 25 people to 1025 people in 72 hours. does that tell you some think? i of course was trying to do this, so i put out a call on twitter and a couple of folks who was one of their early people that is automatically updated. every day there were hundreds of people added to this. then one of the members of that group at the time 78-year-old beulah garrick from westlake texas started suggesting, hey, we should have a hash tag. she invented the famous hash tag pound sign -- that acronym came from 78-year-old beulah garriott. >> either way, it shows this was not a movement of limited people.

>> you look at her check from the koch brothers? >> let's start with stacey on the other bad because his movement surprised the nation. i say it wasn't much of a surprise. it was simmering. what surprised you about this entire organic explosion quite >> a couple different things surprised me. first of all, how quickly accrue. from february 27 to a few short months later in april 15, tripling in size and even the events themselves went from 20, 30 people to several hundred hosting thousands of people. kelly and i talked yesterday. one of the biggest surprises was the attack towards us personally. i've only been in politics a few months, not quite a year. just the e-mails and hate mail we start to get a court date of the taxonomists. the coordination from the media

and liberals, whether social media, however was, just the personal attacks on us and being moms and our children. that was surprising. >> women who by and large paid greater attention than us men to the home issues in the board room. they are at home is the ceo as i call them and they are in the boardroom. women played a large role and i think a very vocal, visible role. for you, what was i surprised blake? a sea of people in new york and i saw those old, white men, by the way in the audience, but a sorry lot of women who were out involved in this. >> you know, i think my biggest surprise was the attack. i've never been called a racist in my life before because my

parents marched for civil rights and they are teapartiers. they were dumbfounded. they were like how can we be these horrible people that they are saying we are in this stock -- we have to work so hard to overcome not. but on the flipside, i am surprised with how much of a barrage of attack we are under constantly and now not only from the democrats, but the establishment of republicans in the whole permanent political class. i am surprised all so that we still have an open door with so many people and we can still talk to them. that she shows the power of conservatism and the power of ideas. people will agree with their ideas. across the board, huge majority. the fact degree with our ideas, maybe they don't know a lot about us based on the name tea party, but they definitely agree with us.

that is considering how much work the other side is put into demonizing us. obviously, it is because our ideas are the best. >> michael, we've covered the size of medicine evolution. like evolution, the nascent stage was what happened. people didn't know why they were protesting. they did there was a problem. so an absolution of a tea party movement. the nascent stage and the pubescent stage they were being a teenager. we began to read the bills, to the things they could do in washington on either side of the aisle. michael, the evolution -- >> it was fascinating. he said something very important. congress wasn't reading the bills. the constitution says congress

should understand the end they weren't doing that job. it started with an online community and smart group politics started. we formed a community of average americans understood and agreed with american values of constitution limited government. what was interesting as first thing we did is have conference calls through technology. we have 50 people on that call. a lot of them have leaders today. jennie best -- trained to respond that call. tina lasch of the st. louis tea party. christine about terry who was the right hand of the west coast. >> two of our board members were on that call. [applause] >> they were also one that call.

as it turns out, these calls have been so quickly. we've been having these calls for a couple months before her. that is why stacy at may said it now we did in fanout a tweet. that's how these calls got started. the phones at work because congress wasn't listening. we started with the rallies. that's the first level of evolution. politics have all taken specific areas of focus. and not as the direction they're going. >> it expanded. there were people that were two parties all over this country in just about every way possible. in new york city, who would've thought there could have been a tea party.

in boston, it's a very liberal city. the evolution really grew. that's what i know they had to start paying attention whether they were pretending to agree. let's face it, people try to use a tea party, but the growth was never limited. we don't want women in citizen participation. going back over to stacey on this evolution. was there something in the evolution that you found new? you're a mom, conservative american? >> in michael's point, one of the things we can't really quickly if it was an individual movement as much as it was movement. very quickly resize how people in individual communities to cold. you look at how many tea parties around the country today really did blow them.

the autonomy and how individuals took what we started out with one phone call and ran with it or not you have these organizations in washington, new jersey. or new york. we have organizations all over the country. that is because people in their communities wanted to make a difference. just seeing the evolution of what these teapartiers are doing in their communities now we'll see 10,000, 5000 people rally. it's almost better because you have these people who are on school boards are running for office and they're making a different underground or account not just nationally. >> i want to do something really quickly. how many people here, raise your hand, tried calling to tell the representative or senator's they did not want the stimulus bill to pass? and how many of you couldn't get through because they turned off

their voicemail or stopped answering their phone? is thinking about about this this morning. that was one of the reasons why it looked so quickly because we were all experiencing the same thing at the same time. that's what prompted me to hold a protest. the fact that bintan, all you have to do is call your representative. this is america. they listen to you. power of the people. i called them they didn't listen. that's when i realized something was totally broken. we were all experiencing the same thing at the same time. >> all right. so let's wrap this. i love when they flash. grab this now. i get this for my producers on-air. the future is undefined. it's an open landscape. many of you are parts of groups, not parts of groups agree to principles of a lot of americans

do. the independents, i like to put in a tea party movement, independence regardless of whether they identify with the principal snyder, so the lightning round, just like on my show started from the end with you stating, what about the future of the tea party? give us the 32nd future. >> as much if things had changed in five years, a lot are the same. there's people still on the ground. until we see change as we try to push five years ago, our type digs may change. what we are working for, what we are working towards hasn't. >> michael usually talking when i say rap, but go for it. we are going to win. [applause] >> five years from today, america is going to be much closer to the constitution and our founders had in mind.

by a longshot, the way we are going to win you one at a time is going to be the conservative crowd gave. we're going to win your neighborhood and talking person-to-person, face-to-face at your neighbors, expressing the values that tea party movement and the lump abilities and free-market because they agree with us. >> not going to wrap. see what i mean? >> is a. >> we are going to be more free. i can go back to doing improv. >> this is your future. if you keep teachers. big for a second that the board. i'm going to walk away with this pianola. they've been great, unselfish.

the tea party movement is about unsocial peoplehood and some issues, but we look at something bigger than ourselves. how representative are the founders of this country that they wrote a constitution that went beyond the time? think about that for a moment. now, another round of applause. look at this panel. average everyday americans. [applause] good job, guys. he's not -- ♪ schematically defend him on them, please bill gordon from tea party patriot. [applause]

demonic i hate politics. but i love principles. politics is a dirty, rotten, filthy business and i hate it, but i love driving print bowls. that is why engage. i love the principles of liberty. the founding fathers and the constitution. early in 2008 as they are even volunteering a few years to the national center for constitutional studies, we started noticing an increase in requests for the making of americans and are. as we traveled, you could feel a sense that some and was brewing in america. though did we know, it would be tea. sure enough, the tea party movement flooded the nation with a new awakening of liberty. people thought something was wrong in the land of the free

and the people turn to the constitution of the founding fathers for answers. thomas jefferson to enlighten the people. enlighten the people in tierney and oppression will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day. as we travel the nation coming teaching the constitution, it is exciting to see you, the american people inherently understands the truth but if you stand up to tierney we must learn unders and principles of liberty. we inherently knew that if our nation much freedom, peace and press dirty, we must live, learn and teach the principles of liberty. principals at the heart of the miracle we call america. in 1607 jamestown, they were using a plow the same way mankind had been tied to her about bypassing years. their mode of travel was walking in and low-power the same way they've been traveling for 5000

years. medicines are made more noxious concoctions of dippers nation than any kind of science. the alcohol is a staple food. i'm still think that. by hearing to the bulls in the declaration of independence and the constitution, we went for boxcars to space travel in less than 200 years. in fact, you can say with a 5000 sleep. many of you have read the book. that book sold almost a million copies in 2009 and 2010, a slight increase of 60,000 copies old in the previous 30 years. this great awakening in the people indicated that they were yearning to understand and learn the 20th fundamental print both of liberty. ..

that's exactly what i am done. that's not from george washington or thomas jefferson or even ronald reagan. that's whoopi goldberg. isn't she going to be surprised when she hears she was quoted at a tea party events? [applause] but she is right. that is what the american dream is all about. i have come to realize that the american dream will not be accomplished by restoring or returning back to what the founders had.

they had the tyranny of the king and the oppression of parliament. we don't want to return back to what they had. we want to build upon what they created. thomas jefferson said i liked the dreams of the future better than the history of the past. they laid the foundation within the next generation builds upon and the next and the next until their foundation gave rise to the light of liberty. this could never have happened without an enlightened and educated people. but are we educated enough to keep and maintain the light of liberty today? perhaps not. but is the solution to take freedom from us? again jefferson said i know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society but the people themselves and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion the remedy is not to take it from them but to inform their discretion via

education. this is the true correction of abuses of constitutional power. politicians, issues, amendments, these alone are not solutions. constitutional abuse correction is education on the guiding principles of liberties. the founders did not live in the past. they didn't dwell in their president. they looked to the future greatness of all mankind. a greatness that comes by liberty and virtue, not by bondage and coercion. we too must learn these timeless principles of liberty, look to our future and reach for what mankind may become and pursue your american dream. thank you. [applause] ♪ >> ladies and gentlemen please welcome president of the center

for self-governance, mark kerr. [applause] >> we are a people losing our inherited vision of the american dream. throughout history where there is no vision the people perish. no one seems to be able to communicate this dream. it seems to be that no one can agree as to what the american dream is or how to reach it. and when we do try to communicate this dream to each other we are on such a different sheets of music that our american harmony is shattered. historian james adams said in his book epic of america, the american dream has not been a dream of merely material plenty. it has been much more than that.

is the american dream selfishness? selfishness that produces an ever-increasing burden of centralizing governance? or is the american dream selflessness? selflessness that produces the privilege and the burden of a self-governing society. the american dream is an experiment in the capacity of mankind for self-governance. we the people are responsible for for filling the american dream of a self-governing society. five years ago i realized i am responsible for losing the vision of the american dream. i asked myself a simple question. how do we keep our public? i asked everyone around me like michelle perkins of murfreesboro tennessee and pamela leslie from

washington who is with us this morning. i discovered something amazing. there is a pilot light of liberty in the soul of everyone around me. george washington said preserving the sacred fire of liberty is the responsibility of the american people. we are charged with speaking the language of self-governance. what is the language of self-governance? it is the difference between power and governance. it is the delicate balance between self-governance and centralized governance. it is where rights come from. and who can take them away? this is what the center for self-governance teaches us. we are sending thousands of men and women on fire with

enthusiasm for the system of government that we love. the system of governance that is under threat. the system of governance we have all vowed to keep. as citizens we looked to jenny beth martin and many others for inspiration that began as an experiment and it worked. as the center for self-governance we now travel the country to train citizens to break their manacles, to wield their power, to control their instituted governments with the support of tea party patriots. we grew from 71 students in 2012 to over 1000 students in 2013. [applause] we are reaching a new generatioe language of self-governance through the internet.

at the center for self-governance we have that dream. that dream is to inspire healthy discourse once again. at the dinner table, on the street corners, in the halls of our legislatures. only by speaking the language of self-governance can we realize the dream of aristotle locke and jefferson, of all the lovers of liberty throughout history. abraham lincoln said, i'd leave you hope being that the land of liberty will burn in you. we leave you with the reality that the hope of the american dream is not dead but is in fact burning brightly. our purpose at the center for self-governance and the tea party is to inform the discretion of others. together, we will keep the american dream alive.

join us, join us in lighting the sacred fire of liberty tree at join us in setting the brush fires of freedom in the minds of men. may god bless america and let's keep our republic. [applause] ♪ ♪ >> ladies and gentlemen please welcome founder of the mansfield tea party mary and the settee. [applause] >> good morning. i want to paint a picture for you. 18 years ago in the snowy november evening by the way friend got down on one knee and asked me to marry him. my response of course was yes

but he wanted children and i didn't, so i told him knowing this, you better think really hard in my the one you want to spend the rest of your life with. for some reason he came back and be got married and we have two fantastic children. [laughter] [applause] my son anthony is 16 and my daughter amanda will be 14 in march. for many of us life is not what we thought it would need. my life is nothing like i thought it would be but i would not change a thing. my children are my world like i am sure your children are your world. we worry about life ahead for her children. we want the best for them. we want every opportunity for them. we have dreams for our children. my dream is this. that we live in a country where

one's aspirations are limited only by one's self. if my son's desire is to deal world class neurosurgeon he can be that neurosurgeon. if my daughter's desire is to be a special effects artists she can be that artists. it was stated so beautifully by thomas jefferson when he said the policy of the american government is to leave its citizens free, eight neither restraining them or aiding them in their pursuits. so what did he mean by that? it ought to be individual, the talent and the desires of the individual, no one else. that is my dream for my children. it's my dream for everybody's children, to be able to pursue their dreams without being shackled. in 2008 i started to see that going away. we have become complacent and

people were buying into this hope and change thing not even knowing what hope and change was. what did it really mean? we started to hear phrases like distribution of wealth and leveling the playing field and fundamentally transforming america. so one night my husband and i for watching tv and listening to them senator obama and it hit me people are really buying this stuff. they really believe what this man is saying. i had to do something. then i heard about the tea party movement and i knew i had to be a part of it. but i was new to the area, totally new to the political scene so i didn't know what to expect but i knew it had to be done so i started a local tea party group and on april 15, 2009 we had our first rally. i was amazed at the number of people that came out on this cold, rainy windy day and stayed. they stayed right to the end and

little did i know that this was only the beginning. since then i have learned many things but one thing that continues to hit home is our children. we are starting too late in educating and instilling virtues in our children about what made this country so great. we need to counter the progressive movement that has evaded our schools for textbooks and curriculum. so how do we do this? i had already been a reading tutor for several years but that wasn't enough so i started essay contest in high school. i went dressed in period costume during constitution week and spoke to little kids about the journey to this country and our constitution. i created visuals for them to bring to light life the sacrifices that our forefathers had made in the kids loved it. the kids loved it and the teachers loved it but that still wasn't enough. then i decided to make -- take the next step in iran for

my local school board and 2011 unfortunately losing to the incumbents. in 2012 iran for state board of education again losing but only by 10% to the governor's appointee. then the third time is a charm, i ran for national school board this last november and i won. [applause] it is an uphill battle but we cannot be complacent anymore. our children are our future. we must get involved as parents, grandparents and educators. get in there. insert yourself. you don't have to fly in on a broomstick. smile when you answer questions. smile when you asked them what they are doing. know what is being taught in your schools. know what is being taught in history and know the reading and literature. our children are our future.

we must allow them to be the architects of their destiny. as stated another great american ronald reagan the american dream is not that every man must be leveled with every other man. the american dream is that every man must be free to become whatever god intends he should become. thank you. [applause] ♪ >> ladies and gentlemen please welcome founder frederick douglass republicans jay carl smith. [applause] >> thank you, thank you. thank you so much. frederick douglass is the quintessential american dream story. there is a quote from frederick douglass i want to share with you.

on one occasion the constitution as the declaration -- as well as a declaration of independence as well as the sentiments of the founders of republic gave us a platform broad enough and strong enough to support the most comprehensive players with the freedom and elevation of all people of this country without regard to color or class. what douglass was saying was this. every american citizen, every american citizen can resume his or her american dream story. what is the american dream story? the american dream is more than buying your first home and rising to the middle class. the american dream is an opportunity to discover your god-given gifts. the american dream is about discovering your talents, taking your obsession and making it a profession.

in other words, the american dream is an opportunity make a difference. unfortunately, the opportunity to pursue our american dream is under attack by those who want to fundamentally transform our beloved country into a european socialist nation. if we are serious about defending the constitution -- thank you. [applause] if we are serious about defending the constitution, about defending liberty we must make frederick douglass an integral part of the message. if not, we are doomed for failure. [applause] the political insight of frederick douglass is more important than the political insights of the founding fathers. i can't believe he said that. let me prove my point.

the founding fathers gave us two magnificent documents, the declaration of independence and the constitution. some of the founding fathers owned slaves and when the constitution was ratified that is not when they freed their slaves. the slaves were freed after the founders died. therefore when it comes to the founding fathers their view of liberty is tainted. on the other hand, frederick douglass did not own any slaves. he was a slave and in his writings and his speeches douglas affirmed the founding fathers and he affirmed the constitution. once we get the frederick douglass message on the national level you will see liberals jumped through windows and go back to france. [applause] now in addition to incorporating

douglass into our message conservatives must learn how to engage at the local level. we must learn how to talk to our friends, our family members and are fit fellow citizens and inspired the conservative movement. i contend that the greatest asset we have in this nation is not being utilized and i'm referring to conservatives. in our frederick douglass liberty messenger seminars we dispel the myth that white conservatives cannot engage in the -- of ethnicity. let me ask you a question. who established the diversity outreach program that still has a major impact in the world today? he was jehovah god when he commissioned paul to take the gospel to the gentiles. paul was commissioned to take the gospel to people of different ethnicities and different races. as for conservatives we have the same situation. predominately white and what we are trying to do, we are trying

to share the life empowering message of the conservative philosophy to different ethnicities. you can do it that you must be trained in something that works. you must be trained in something that works. what we need is a conservative hero. we need someone who can spark an emotional appeal for conservative values. the answer is frederick douglass. to save our nation and to turn things around all of us need to become frederick douglass liberty messengers. thank you so much and god bless you. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen please

welcome the co-founder of southwest tea party patriots and state representative from minnesota, cindy hugh. [applause] >> before 2008 the only political act to the date i had ever taken was voting. like so many of you i was busy raising my family. but since then and because of the tea party i have run for office and i won. [applause] i am now serving my first term in the minnesota house of representatives. [applause] my story may be your story and in fact if it's not maybe it should be. in 2009 and went to my first ever political rally that tax

day rally at the state capitol alone. i made my first ever political sign. it was awesome standing there among so many like-minded patriots. then, that october i was watching "fox news" on a friday night when congresswoman bachmann called on concerned americans to be in washington d.c. before the first vote on obamacare. i felt like she was speaking to me. so i got on a bus that following wednesday and took a 24-hour ride to washington. it was my first trip to d.c. and again i was alone. on that last i met world war ii veteran fremont press. when we got back to minnesota we looked for a tea party --

but when he couldn't find when we started our own. [applause] that was the first time i asked, if not me, who? and if not now, when? we launched the southwest metro tea party on the fourth of july in our city parade. fremont press my new friend the world war two veteran road in the parade with us. our tea party has been meeting every week since. after redistricting in 2012, my phone started ringing off the hook. people were asking me to run. they said i had to. i repeatedly said no. but the calls kept coming and i said fine, i will find somebody to challenge the 22 year incumbent. but when i couldn't find

somebody it hit me that this was a call to action to me. i said to my husband, honey honey i think i'm going to have to run. and again i thought it's not me, who? and if not now, when? i ran on fundamental tea party principles, fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government and individual responsibility. for every one of you who wonders if voters will support these concepts my story says yes. i learned that the incumbent was a solid vote for labor and against any public pension reform. we have a 17 billion-dollar unfunded public pension liability in minnesota for goodness sakes. when i talk to voters about that they were shocked and supportive

of me. people gave me hugs. they gave me high fives. they said you go girl from their front porches. one voter said to me cindy, we have been waiting for you for years. i thought to myself, meet? wow. just this week i started my second session as a state representative because of all the voters i met. i can see, i can see them in my minds eye when i rise to speak on behalf of minnesota. my constituents have given me the confidence to challenge government overreach and excessive taxation. i spoke out against the unionization of childcare workers, small business owners. i spoke out against the

government takeover of minnesota health care. which used to be the best in the nation. thanks to the tea party and thanks to all of you i have found my voice and i know now that i'm speaking on behalf of congresspeople who haven't yet found bears. if you have considered running and thought you weren't up for it baby you should reconsider. if you haven't thought about it maybe you should. if it not us, who? and if not now, when? ronald reagan said freedom is never more than a generation. we didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. it must be fought for, protected and handed on to them to do the same. the challenges before us are

great. the time is short there isn't any one of us who can do everything but every single one of us can do something. i have confidence in you. over the course of the past five years and i have seen what we the people can do. thank you. [applause] ♪ >> people who are not afraid to stand up and speak out for what is right. it's time for a new beginning in

the united states of america. >> michele bachmann staked her claim to fame making the times list of the most 100 influential people in the world. she's a political star the tea parties torchbearer. >> she continues to shake up the arena. the strong conservative women represent an existential threat to liberalism. >> minnesota giveaway 10,000 tickets to this free event and the tickets were all used and then some. >> the winner of the 2011 straw poll is congresswoman michele bachmann. >> let not your heart be troubled. >> the front-runner and first in the nation caucus state of iowa. there's almost no one in american politics together who have a better hold of the tea party movement and the ability to project a national message through the media. >> my name is michele bachmann and i am a member of minnesota's six congressional district in the chairman of the tea party caucus in the house of representatives and a tax

litigation attorney for the irs as well as the author of a bill to repeal obamacare. that is why you are here today. >> "forbes" magazine released its annual list of the world's 100 most powerful women today. michele bachmann is number 22. congresswoman michele bachmann is a fundraisifundraisi ng powerhouse. >> michele bachmann is doing the tea party thing before tea parties were doing the tea party. she knows what she believes in. >> i'm going to bring government back to you, we the people. that's the government that our founding fathers gave us. stand strong, hold us accountable. we love you. >> i'm not going away. >> ladies and gentlemen, please will come congresswoman michele bachmann. ♪

♪ >> good morning, good morning. good morning, how are you? it's good to see you. good morning. good morning. [applause] good morning everyone. it's so great to see you. are we having a good time? i am so excited. i just have to let you know ahead of time i can't stay long because i'm being audited by the irs. but you have been there and done that and know exactly what i'm talking about. i am here today to rescue up but to also say thank you because what you did for america is stellar. it was life-changing for the lifeblood of this nation because you and the movement that we

represent took the gavel out of nancy pelosi's hand in 2012. you did that. [applause] now imagine where we were in 2008. barack obama became the president of the united states. nancy pelosi in 2008 was the speaker of the house. harry reid was the majority leader in the senate. one thing that the progressive left movement understood is that elections matter. does that have your attention and? do elections matter? absolutely they matter. what is it that we are seeing right now on mainstream tv? the only thing they can talk about is the 2016 election. why do you think that is? is because they don't want us to think about the 2014 elections.

now why are the 2014 elections so incredibly important? take a look at what the results have yielded from the 2010 election and the 2012 election. prior to the 2010 election did we have a senator ted cruise? rand paul? marco rubio? now imagine what the future holds with senators like that. senators that are willing to stand up, take a stand and look at the house of representatives. it isn't your grandmother's house of representatives anymore. in some ways you might say that we do have a lot of very good powerful voices in the house and in the senate. are we there yet? we have a ways to go.

who is going to do it? we are, that's right. we are going to do it is the tea party movement at its core is an intellectual movement. it's a movement that's based on ideas. these are ideas that i would put up against any ideas in the world. there is a wonderful group who did over 200 years ago. in fact not only did they put the ideas out they contended for the ideas for their blood, treasure, family. they laid everything on the line. i think fellow patriots are willing and have waited and i thank you. i thank you. [applause] there is a temptation in our movement and i have seen it and perhaps you have too. that a defeat, and we get them, when things don't go our way

sometimes we can tend to take our marbles and want to go home. have you ever felt like that? was that the right thing to do? they remember in his state of the union address president obama when he was speaking of a government takeover and health care said we have been working on this for 75 years. do you remember that? you see the progressive left is so committed to achieving their object is and to achieving their objectives that they go on for decades and decades and pass the torch. freedom lovers do too. we passed the torch, we passed the time but part of our problem has been that we have listened too closely to what the mainstream media has to say about us. now we know who the mainstream media is.

why are we believing them? now think about that for a moment. it's important that we understand. the book art of war the first two things you need to understand our yourself and you need to understand your enemy. in this case a political enemy. sometimes i wonder if we passed the first test. do we understand ourselves? because what we have to fight for should be motivation enough to keep us in the game. take a look at these magnificent ideas. we are the adults in the room when it comes to dealing with our budget. that's the tea party. the adults in the room. [applause] we are also the conscience of the constitution. let me tell you what i mean by that. the constitution isn't just a document that was created over

200 years ago that has nice sounding phrases and that just seemed like a good idea at the time. it is so much more than that. do you realize that the constitution is one of the most magnificent documents to give us freedom economically? no other nation had it aces for its economy from what we were given in the constitution. there is a constitutional right for instance to have your patents protected. think of what that did to establish the united states as an economic powerhouse. what that document said is that your creative gift, not just your brawn and what you can produce with the strength of your arms which are intellectual heft, your creativity, what you produce is your product, not for anyone to steal.

they have to buy it from you. it meant something. that was an american creation. we understood the power of private property. do you understand the power of private property? the founders did. the constitution did. because if you had what was known as a capitalistic system of government, that means that you have individuals who have the capacity to be able to earn capital and what is wealth? the definition of wealth is the acquiring and holding onto capital. without capital we can't create wealth. we can't invest. what is it that is barack obama's agenda of? he is fine if we want to earn capital. he doesn't like it so much if we keep our own capital. because he sees it as our job

for the purpose of giving it over to him. that has nothing to do with our form of government did nothing to do with these magnificent ideas for which we can tend. i am here at today to say to everyone in this room our time for contending is here and it's now and if we focus between now and 2014 because elections matter i'm making sure we elect the most conservative people we possibly can to the house of representatives who aren't ashamed of our beliefs and our constitution and of our declaration, we do the same in the united states senate and we plug away and we stay with it. like that little train that said i think i can, i think i can, i think i can, we stay with it. we don't take our marbles. we don't go home because again we have ideas worth fighting for. people knew that throughout time

and i will quickly and with this small history lesson. the world was safe or to buy what was called tax britannica. how many have heard of that? for 100 years the world saw the economic and military superpower of the world as britain. that changed and it didn't stay that way. somewhere around 1943 we moved from pax america -- pax britannica to pax americana. why? because we became the economic superpower of the world and when that happened we also became the military superpower of the world does it matter? what happened in this last year? china became the economic superpower of the world in terms of. trade. i'm not here to say that the party is over but i'm here to say it's time to sober up and

wake up and recognize -- [applause] in my opinion, the world with china as an economic superpower militarily of the world does not forsake each of us, does not make safe to each one of us our freedom economically or otherwise. imagine if russia is the economic and military superpower of the world. i think there is the desire on the side of russia and i think there's the desire on the side of russia. i think there is the desire on the side of iran. do you want to be under a pax iran or a pax chana or a pax rush of? you see that is why ideas matter and it's why we must contend. again i'm here to say thank you. you did it by putting the brakes on the agenda of barack obama by

taking that gavel out of nancy pelosi's hands. we have a very real, real opportunity to throw the sand in the years and stop it and take the gavel out of harry reid's hands this november. let's not blow it. [applause] and when we do that, and when we do that, that means that the door is wide open for a generational shift by electing for president a constitutional conservative in 2016. if we do that and if we do it right this year let me tell you, not only will our children thank you, the world will thank you. the world will thank you. [applause] because two where do the same people of the world prepare when they look for freedom and?

you all remember the case of the mother and the little boy who left cuba in an inter-tube over 90 miles of shark invested waters to get to an island. we matter to the freedom seeking loving peoples of the world and that is why it is to us to contend for these ideas with the group in this room. i know that we have intellectual ballast. i know we have the fortitude and i know we have the energy to make it all happen. it's up to us. let's take the challenge and get it done. god bless you and god bless america. [applause] ♪ earlier today senator john mccain spoke at a pac the american israeli public affairs committee. he talked about the political unrest in ukraine and russian interference in that country. here is more.

>> i really do come to you this morning with a heavy heart, heavy heart and great sadness because of the events taking place in ukraine. what happens in ukraine is directly related to what happens in the middle east and obviously we know that what happens in the middle east is vital to the existence of the state of israel. i'm not going to go through the history of ukraine with you but the fact is crimea is a sovereign part of the sovereign nation of ukraine and the people of ukraine by the hundreds of thousands went to a square and subfreezing weather in saying that they did not want to be part of this russia. that is what it was all about and now, now that the olympics are over, immediately afterwards we now see the occupation of crimea. and by the way in case you missed it one of the reasons why there is a majority population of russians in crimea is stalin

exported all the charters and over half of them were killed as he deported them from crimea. the fact is this is a blatant act on the part of vladimir putin and one that must be unacceptable to the world community. it cannot stand. [applause] and i have to be very honest with you. there is not a military option that can be exercised now but the most powerful and biggest and strongest nation in the world should have plenty of options in those options are many ranging from identifying these corruption people in the people that ordered this. thank god for the magnitsky at. we can expand it and identified these people and be their last trail to las vegas. we can act out economic

sanctions and a broader array of sanctions that we have. why do we care lexus's fields might result of the feckless foreign policy where nobody believes in america's strength anymore. [applause] [applause]

last week the u.s. institute -- of peace focused on the future of media and afghanistan. this is an hour and 15 minutes. >> good morning everyone. thanks very much for coming to this important discussion about afghanistan and about the united states relationship with afghanistan. i am the director of the voice of america and i will be moderating the second panel which will be a little bit looser because i'm a tv guy so i like to walk around with a microphone and things like that. we have a very distinguished panel and i will introduce them in a minute but i want is a couple of bings and i also want to show you a bit of videotape. first of all i spent and really why i am here, i spent 17 months in 2010 and 11 serving at the

united states embassy in kabul as the director of communications and public diplomacy and so like many others in the room i fell in love with afghanistan and with the afghan people. but i want to remark on three things that i noticed in the area of the afghan media that perhaps will help us get started here. the first thing which led me in the end to the job i have now it doa was watching television and seeing that there was a program on the evening news on the radio television afghanistan rta and the very able leader who is with us today and thank you for coming but in partnership voice of america has an hour of news every evening. what struck me first was it was a very well put together person but secondly all my afghan friends watch it.

the effectiveness of that conversation and that reliable news had quite an impression on me. the second thing and i think practically everyone in the room if you follow afghanistan are afghan media issues at all have been struck by this at one time or another is the extraordinary adventure called tivo tv. the extraordinary impact, enthusiasm and energy that particular private company run by saddam hussein and his brothers is brought to the afghan media scene and more about that in a moment that they are not the only ones. there are something like 75 television stations and 175 radio stations. there is an enormously vigorous varied conversation going on on the airwaves in afghanistan. among afghans.

toll of tv may be the largest but it's only one of many and so that is a very notable piece of the media landscape. the third thing is that as an embassy official i won around the country and i often visited little tiny fm stations in villages and small towns around at and anna stan and there are a lot of them. you go into perhaps a one-room fm stations somewhere in a small town that doesn't have too much going for it and you find young people at the microphone finding some way to get a little music going with the basics tape recorder and in many cases these stations were started by locals with help from ngos, prominently by internet is which is represented by some senior people who are here today and thank you for coming. many of these stations while

they run some local come content baby have a local show also run the flagship show of that whole network of community stations so again another green shoot and a strong and important one, diverse, varied source of strength for afghanistan going forward. so we are here on this panel to discuss what i frankly think is one of the most important advances over the last 12 years. we have heard of many others from a previous panel but obviously i'm a little biased because i spent nearly 30 years in the business of journalism and i'm still sort of in it but freedom of speech, if you don't have that you ain't got much. you have to have a democracy which afghanistan seeks to be,

really has to have a sense that people may say what they think and that the media, maybe there are some limits but fundamentally can do so as well. it's that subject that i would like to get us to talk about and we want to talk about how can we support the media sector in afghanistan going forward? there a lot of aspects of this my will introduce our panel in a minute but before i do that it isn't just about journalists and journalism. though well represented that such areas, the media is much more than just good newscasts. it's entertainment. it's conformity. it's storytelling and by the way afghans are some of the best storytellers i have ever met. so in that spirit, i think that the effort that we have seen over the last 12 years by many different countries, different

support system has been much broader than trying to provide freedom of speech and the news although that is for me job 12 allow the afghans to learn how to do this. it's also kind of helping the media to become a full part of the countries culture and its strength. in that spirit i wanted to show a seven minute clip from a wonderful new documentary produced by a young australian filmmaker. i have not got her name in front of me. warden. some of you may have seen this but to sort of broad and the discussion before we get started here is seven minutes of the network which is a documentary focused on teletelevision but some of the broader issues like television and women and other topics that are important about

afghanistan. here's a taste and this seven minutes focuses on a particular television show on teletv. roll the film please. [videotape] ♪ >> for afghanistan it was one of the highest budget drama series. ♪ >> our instructions was that

this was going to lift production in afghanistan. it was just such a huge production. we had several different locations shooting on the streets which caused the concern. we were doing this largest sequence and we had a guy wearing a suicide bomb vests. a police car turns up and he is kind of trapped. every shot kept getting faster and faster in the last take we actually thought that our actor was dead.

it was frightening. 45 minutes later security said they want you to delay everything you shot today. we packed up our entire shoot in five minutes. when we were doing beagle fall fall -- burns and you name it. we sat down and said what can we do and we chatted about it. she said we would practice. [speaking in native tongue]

>> one is amazing is out of any local staff member working straight from a set in any country. she is just fabulous. >> what we were trying to do with the show is get a profile of the afghan security forces. one of the biggest areas of transition in this country is once we pull out the security forces would manage the

situation. once the international forces go that their security forces are adequate enough. the idea of the show is to create heroes and that you can trust the police that are around you. >> 76% of respondents said their attitude towards the police had changed for the better after watching the show. there was a noticeable spike of improvement during the run of the show. it was highly successful as well >> for things to change people are going to have to know that the police are working for them.

>> never let it be said that we don't have entertainment value here at this conference and the afghans have a sense of the theatrical. let me, i would also like to read a quote. this is a letter by doran townsend. are you here by any chance chance? you are, excellent. i'm going to quote you. this is in foreign affairs relevant to this. doran wrote for for unama and koppel. when western legal technicians are asked about these programs they typically dismiss them as peripheral and propagandistic of state-building at audience surveys suggest the shows have been a powerful impression comparing their own police lawyers to more virtuous ones on fictional television. viewers have expressed hopes for

a cleaner and more efficient justice system with a new sense of urgency. and he mentions another show crime scenes and says producers received hundreds of phonecalls asking authorities to look into the violations highlighted in the shows. so i just wanted before we get into this and now we will to broaden it slightly. what do we talk about only talk about the afghan media? we have a very strong panel to talk about this with us. on my left, immediate left peter bergen director of the national scare to program at new american foundation author of manhunt, the longest war, the osama bin laden that i knew, a cnn analyst and i should say for full disclosure a personal friend. we worked together at cnn and have been friends for decades and another member of the tribe that believes in afghanistan and the united states.

.. a source of strength for so many other media organizations. you can't really have good television and radio stations if you don't have a good wire are too. we simply cannot cover everything. but what they do is try to cover everything. of course that is impossible. it is amazing what they do and the quality of the work.

he is also the 2008 winner of the international press freedom reward. another great afghan patriot on our panel. on the far and from the united kingdom, james dean who is director of policy and learning at bbc media action. so he represents the competition , in a way. it is a friendly competition. but james worked with some others, probably the best survey and study the state of the afghan media not too long ago. and he has some interesting findings from that and some strong views on what we need to do going forward, those of us who care about these issues. let me start by -- with you, if i may.

how strong is the afghan media at this point in our area about the future? >> thank you. thanks for voice of america in organizing this airport in the event. the beginning remarks were so interesting for us. i really came from the negative of afghanistan but which i hear some positive things. and on the supportive american people for, the government, the usa. i am so happy that we believe we are not alone. we have support which is very good. i want to start from one of the

examples. i want to share one story which i recently heard. one of the barbers in a, and he told me, he bought, you know, land to build a house for $6,000. and now after two or three months fighting he sold it by $4,000. he believed if the afghan government had not signed the real estate, if we did not have an acceptable election, not -- he is not -- he is not sure it will be. he say that if we have not have an acceptable election is mean

the future -- you want to keep those $400,000 -- $4,000, you know, how to read transfer to one side of afghanistan to the other, and how feed our children. is now our future in afghan, future and our country's future. and also be acceptable election if we all did not have that, it is me our future will be dangerous, we are going to be worried. our people will be worried. this two things are very important, and it is like a bridge to the past. we earlier achieved a good achievement.

there was not. there was just -- but now we have 1,000 media outlet to. now our question is that how we keep that, how we are earning at, how, you know, -- and i held if we have a good election, if we pass this bridge i think our future will be very good, and i think we will have a good place for our country. >> same question. how strong is the afghan media, how important is it to the country, and how worried are you about this feature? >> well, it is very strong. we look at the fact that today's afghan media is on the product of the last ten years. before that we didn't really have media in the country.

rightfully outlined, we only had one radio and during the talent and solely being used for the propaganda purposes. in terms of highlighting priorities for the central government in terms of promoting human rights, promoting women's rights and terms of holding the politicians accountable, is very strong. again, we have to look at the afghan media and the backdrop of what we had before that -- of 40,001. it is extremely important because afghanistan has reached -- recently started to a test for democracy. and in the absence of a strong air, vibrant media you will not be able to have much success in the endeavor of building democracy in the country.

but it has its own weaknesses. it is imaginable one of the weaknesses of the afghan government, mainly on the part of the media, lack of the strategic vision toward the media outlets. it is, well, it will lead to the bankruptcy a lot of -- is significant number of media outlets. after the international forces of the afghanistan, the question of proportionate reduction in the amount of afghan media, a major source of funding. >> well, that's what i want to get to. maybe i will just try with you. how worried are you about looking forward, about the future of the afghan media, and do you have any sense of how many stations may close if they lose foreign support?

>> first of all, let's set knowledge the success. i think everyone has, but it is an extraordinary achievement, which is very much, colleagues and the panel in those in the audience. an astonishing achievement in a tradition of afghan journalism that goes back to 1911, but there was nothing in 2001. 10,000 people unemployed in the sector. the spectrum -- the problems of success has substantiated. the number of television stations. and this is very much down to the energy and onto manorialism and creativity encourage of people, of people like these and on and on the panel. so there is a big success story. and the success story has also been built on the external support, extra support by people

like ourselves. it is really dependent upon that. quite a significant way. >> can i -- it is also something that the government does not always take credit for. it is also due to president karzai who opened up the space and caps base open more less for free discussion on many voices. >> as an example, our regulatory system for the region it, -- it's quite extraordinary. how worried am i? really worried. this is built on an awful lot of external support. that extra rows support does appear to be drying up. the domestic advertising market, by most estimates, is on top and, something like $30 million a year capo we more likely $20 million a year. it's nothing like enough to

sustain the scale of the media that exists in the country. and so only two things are likely to happen if the support does continue to dry up in a way that it appears to be doing. one, the media will consolidate and shrink, perhaps a little of that needs to happen anyway. the best will survive, but it will start also to fall into the hands of those. those who are prepared to pay for it, it's difficult to verify the real evidence in numbers around this but the biggest supporters of the media in afghanistan from external sources aside from private has been the u.s. but for many, the second biggest supporter of the media in afghanistan is a wrong. and we are beginning to see -- and this is something we mapped and chartered an airport we did, in terms of transition was republished in 2012, we are beginning to see a growing corruption of media by a

fraction of forces, warlords. and that's the worry. the worry is that if this isn't managed in an intelligent, constructive way there is this astonishing legacy that has been builds, but if that legacy will be secured are not as a question. there are precious to that at the moment. and, yes, we are worried. >> on the labors -- neighbors, ron, pakistan, others, what sort of role are they playing now in the afghan media space, and what are your thoughts about that going forward? >> i think it's interesting to compare pakistan and afghanistan . karzai has been liberal with granting licenses. in afghanistan while the good things that general did was create a space for a free press in pakistan.

but there is an interesting kind of comparison between pakistan and afghanistan. there really is. comes down to afghanistan's benefit which is, you know, the freedom of press in afghanistan is in some ways better than it is in pakistan, and i will give you some examples. we will be inconceivable for the afghan government to expel a new york times journalist had been in the country for six years and was a leading journalist for the times. that is what happened in pakistan relatively recently. and as a western journalist trying to cover pakistan, when you get a visa it is not about and tragic, in know, when she when she was beaten up. other friends of mine who have gone. basically you cannot report on very large charge of the country. you can't really report in the shower or the travel region. so with afghanistan where independent journalists can go where they want and pakistan

routinely finds it to be if not the most dangerous complete -- country in the world pro his second most. there are good things going on. the situation in afghanistan looks a lot better. >> can you quantify that at all? >> i don't think we can. no, i don't think it is resurge strong enough. we have to be careful about what the effects of that are. there is evidence that the channels of that money of supporting -- getting quite a lot of money, but they are also even sense we publish the report 18 months ago as a sense that those channels will get more traction with the population. although it has not been a

polarized media environment and we heard this morning a little bit about the coverage around elections was not particularly. there are undoubtedly concerns about where the future of this is going to be. a lot of my work is not just on afghanistan but fresno state's which tend to be fractious states we are seeing an increasingly fragmented and fractured media. they are arguably getting quite significant injections of funding of the moment. it's the last thing on one level toward a state that is trying to get redefined itself started with the future and destiny, national identity. it is not necessarily the useful way of going as if the media becomes ever more for agile and fractured in a way that it seems

to be. >> of solid is the art support that you expect to see after the election in terms of the government to support. there was some discussion about the media law. >> again, compared to countries, afghanistan, remarkable, has managed to create a remarkable space for the freedom of media, foreign media. this is because we should, you know, give praise to present karzai for allowing this and letting it flourish. recently we have been noticing

pressure. mainly coming from the information on culture. their faulty way of solving the problems of the afghan media, professionalism. it's a problem. the with the ministry of reformation in cultures seems to resolve the problem proposed amendment of three articles of the media and law which further restricted. they get all authority to punish and try media workers who are seen as violators of media law or violators of the profession.

if this is not just the tip of the government to pressure the media, there are a lot of individuals in the afghan government you cannot tolerate that, the freedom that the afghan media is enjoying. well, in terms of the future of -- after this government, the future of government, it depends on who gets elected. so far we see that the top candidates, there are all media friendly, and they all believe in the concepts of freedom, expression and expansion of media and the constructive components for state building, for strangling democracy in afghanistan. >> forgive me if i put you on the spot here, but that is the

nature of a discussion like this. let me ask you, do you think passport can survive, have funding and three, four, five years' time? in no way you are example, and an important one, you know. you are the canary in the coal mine. will you survive, do you think, three, four years from now? >> the sustainable way. we did not find enough money the business this and the last 20 years, we tried to focus on a news chair revenue and order to sustain.

in our coming, an agribusiness we are focusing on some new products like elections and mining websites. we want to introduce a new subscription package for the mining company, the candidate. it is helpful. it needs to be implemented. besides that we want to focus on our income revenue which it also started and is will we introduce which is committed is already, you know, started. we want to expand because as before, you know, around 60 million the help of focusing

on that. to build a mobile application. we are working on that. we can say, we know that after 2014 there will be listening. but if we focus on those things i think we will sustain without international loans or money. >> talking like a businessman. good to here. back when they were -- that it not allow much media of any variety. do you think that their view on media has changed out of power? some seems to me in some ways there are quite sophisticated practitioners. impressive in some ways. >> i totally agree with that. you know, when i was reporting in afghanistan and the tell them more power.

that was that. it was enormously difficult to get a visa to go as a journalist . it would charge a huge amounts of money. i was the only guest. so they made it very, very difficult. of course tillers was banned. obviously have very active spokesman they have really learned. the aggressive media campaign. how persuasive visit, i leave that to my afghan colleagues.

i give you an example, a u.s. army sergeant has been taken hostage by the network, there was some discussion of peace, saying the u.s. was very open to negotiating the release of five leading to alabama prisoners from guantanamo, and that taliban and about two days after this report came out very quickly said, we are not negotiating this issue at all right now. so they are figuring out how the work of a global media environment. >> i guess the question is whether they are going to missouri to a level. >> they hold a bit of territory. if -- if they might somehow getting days in governing could

they possibly tolerate other voices? and a majority the level where they allow other people to speak as well as them in our more serious afghanistan and the one they weren't previously? >> i think the short answer to that is probably not. you know, there is lot of wishful thinking that has gone on about the taliban. you can imagine that elements of it might be in the political process, but they are of relatively small part of the equation. now, i think that the single biggest wild card here is will that pakistan is to a serious military operation. for the first time a long time that may well happen. i think that the number of people who have been killed by the taliban and pakistan is reached a point where the government has really said that we are serious. and i think that could change a lot for that talismanic they no longer had the critical safe

haven that they have used to some degree. but i think the pakistan ec that the united states and nato is leading in some shape reform in 2014 and that the windows closing to do this operation. so, you know, that changes a lot of things for the taliban. >> before we get to your questions on the panel of ask one more james. what do you think needs to happen going forward in terms of support for the afghan media? >> i think the biggest single thing is a clear strategy fifth. there is not a strategy in this area. but we launched our report in 2012 and then a conversation last year discussing this with ambassadors, political leaders, media leaders and many others.

they all said the same thing, and that is that we have got strategies for just about everything but around the transition for security, the economy, the health services. everything you can think of we have got cases. there is no obvious place or space within the country where it appears strategic focus can be applied on how best to secure the future legacy of what has been taken quite a lot of money to build up. and i do find that quite remarkable and staggering, and even now after quite a bit of time it is not clear where the space and place actually is. and that is what makes us worried. because i do not think that this is actually quite simply just an issue of lots of money.

think it is an issue of really smart, intelligent, decision making and then how can how people like my colleagues on the panel be that support in the future. i personally do not think the media of afghanistan is sustainable in the short term. the role is playing in the future of our society is absolutely fundamental. there are lots of discussions i want to see pope is in terms of political, the political sentiments, the elections, but ultimately the future of afghanistan is going to be shaped by the people. and it really does need a platform further public debate. we talked a lot about this morning, about the nature of the national dialogue would be in afghanistan. well, where is that? what is the foundation around

upon which the people left in the center going to be engaged -- and it often will be difficult dialogue and debate to start their own future destiny. and i find that very odd that this element of the transition which i would argue is one of the most fundamental components of any kind of future success for the country is just rather absence from the planning and discussion which is fragmented with in the media system. so if i had to say one thing that needed to happen, we need to get serious. not just about money, but with strategy and clarity and determination and assistance on this stuff is an important. and i don't see that happening. >> i am not a disinterested party. i would just endorse what james said with as much strength as i can offer. there is a reason why the first amendment is freedom of speech

in the u.s. constitution. you cannot have a democracy that works with any kind of efficiency or effectiveness that the citizens did not know much about. so i very much hope that -- i very much endorse what you're saying. let us now of bed to questions and points from the panel -- i mean, from the audience. can you be brief and identify yourself at the start of when you start talking. questions, not speeches. i would not mind a few points of people want to make them. the lady there. >> my name is j. mackenzie. just a quick question about the elections. as media and election specifically, have we seen an activation of political figures in the media such as i remember the television station right before his assassination of a television station. have we seen political candid

it's an liberal figures move into the media's here? >> thank you. well, obviously those politicians who have their own media outlets, they are going to cover electoral issues in a biased way, the media station, the candid ounce. but the good news is that a lot of the media outlets that are either owned by certain politicians, sponsoring or that are serving the interests of the neighboring countries, they

don't carry much significance because they don't have a lot of audiences. i heard that the recent survey shows that the total, which is the most popular tv station has got 60 percent of the audience. so imagine a country where we have five tv stations. one station has cut around 60 percent of the audience. that is significant. and we are coming to the elections. a recent coverage of the media of the elections, the truth -- prove that afghan media have gone -- gone incredibly far in terms of professionalism, in terms of setting the agenda for the debates. there are couple of political

candid it's that we had to approve the afghan media have gone very far in terms of professionalism. >> digital men up there. >> i have one question in three parts. how much of the focus on investigative journalism in afghanistan and the second part is, what are the main challenges if mediate conducts such journalism and that there and last part is that is there any market for that in terms of the audience? >> you would like to -- >> often the afghan media focuses on investigative

reporting which if you hear recently we created conception by way of afghan media. and we have talked and debated, corruption, human rights which use each month we produced investigative reporting, one of human rights and one of corruption. some of those will believe this story. have a good impact. and the intelligence picking of and he gives a speech, a

biweekly radio regarding that our investigative report. like now we have some difficulty . but if we worked yet we believe the future of investigative reporting will be better, and i hope that we have a good change. >> a huge appetite for investigative journalism. unfortunately we have not had much success in terms of producing investigative journalism content. the prime reason has been afghanistan with access to information, providing afghan media workers with information. we still don't have access of.

the environment probe which a lot of intimidation going on. the case becomes personal. and then those who are covered will go up. we have had examples of this in the past. in the third problem is ben lack of sufficient education in the area of investigative journalism on like afghan work media workes which ian media workers which is a contributor. in afghanistan which corruption makes a huge part of, i huge need for investigative journalism. >> that me ask you about this, james state broadcasting, the

government broadcasting, the cartier is moving to more and more of a public broadcasting model and changing the way they think about their work. i guess the question for uni and four others in the room here is what is the appropriate role for the bbc and other international broadcasters? is there a course correction we should make as things change? it is a corruption correspondent. he is going around from service to service and working with the service to identify stories that he can do that is one role that perhaps the bbc can usually provide to the courageous afghan journalists. one of your other thoughts?

>> i want to just a contribute to the partnership. working very closely, bbc in the action which is a major program of public debate. the very large audience among the sixth half million people. we just had a whole series of presidential abate speed they were produced with our al qaeda and by our al qaeda in association with us, but to this set of bbc editorial standards. they took part in those. i think they are committing a great deal of credibility. i think our t a is hot potential in the most important

interactive afghanistan. it's a very and fashionable thing to say particularly in washington. and the reason for that is something i did not think two or three years ago. i felt actually all the energy was in the commercial sector and the dynamism and the independence was in the commercial sector. but he does reach across the whole country. it does reach into the areas, outside of the city. does reach to those populations who are not reached by the commercial media -- particularly as it can become more independent as we were talking about this morning is needed in afghanistan is the national dialogue, international public debate. i think one of the foundation stones for international dialogue to come as something like and are al qaeda.

this is a difficult argument to make actually. we support public-service broadcasting around the world. the number of success stories to independent financial is sustainable and public-service broadcaster is is not agree one. but the potential real success is quite difficult to read the political price of surrender control of the state broadcast is very, very high and arguably growing as communications infrastructures become more complex and more independent. but the importance of that platform for independent public debate in fragmented franjo states, never more important said rhee imagine the whole debate how can we start

rejecting a new level of energy and creativity in that discussion. >> anything else on the subject? >> let's see. benjamin standing in front of the person. sir over there. >> my question goes to -- it creates violence. the expression the media organizations parted you did the afghan history and security ministries and how you see the level of violence against journalists in the future, and

have you see the future to protect the rights and the journalists and they're rights in the future? >> thank you. it is good to see you in washington. it is a huge challenge. violence against media workers is becoming an increasingly bigger challenge. it covers a lot of media workers. it has -- and because of the fact that a lot of the violence is raised by people who work in the government, and most of them security workers, it is increasing the gap between media and the government. as created a vicious cycle where the media criticizes the government unfairly. and the government, in return,

keeps adding pressure on the media. and this is creating a vicious cycle. and it has undermined the constructive role of journalism. in the only people that take a advantage of this is the taliban. afghanistan is a war for perception and propaganda. well we have done in afghanistan , we have created a working group between the representatives of the supporting organizations and the security organizations and we are going to have meetings on a regular basis to create -- to create a working environment where we could peacefully and constructively resolve the problem. and i think the idea was to create guidelines on behaving --

on how media, how those who work for the afghan security organizations should be a if and media workers, and we have, the media organizations. we are also working with them to add this guideline in the curriculum and the training curriculum of security organization so that they know how -- what their role and position of media workers is, what their bride is and how we should ba with them. >> now right there. >> hi. thank you for the discussion so far. has been great. falling and the conversation you had, there have been some been

really impressive reports recently on big anti-corruption cases. it is happening. one of the things i no there were doing was working with other independent media to do things jointly partly for protection. is that still happening? is that a model we see as being effective going forward? >> yes. in the last year in 2013 we touch some of the, you know, important incentives for afghanistan and create, you know, line, how we touch some of those kind of sensitive issues and how we -- if the pressure

came from the government's or others, how, you know, to not damage, for example, one organization. we create -- we share that pressure from the government. it is work. before that if there was -- when we get something, like a strong case, we pass that case to international media and international media was, you know, highlighted. and then afghan media was translated. now we have around 17 independent media outlets. and we choose the case. we share with our media outlet.

we pass when we release the case i think there is no pressure off. some of our cases -- like how will give you the one example. when there was corruption regarding the road, he tried for one week to try how to criticize the media. after one week he becomes quiet which is, you know, power. >> well, i just want to add a >> well, i just want to add a few words on this. i think the media consortium's beginning here in the world of investigative journalism, afghanistan, the problem was the previously were still if a single media how it goes and

covers a sensitive corruption case then what happens is the media outlets come under the rigor of -- radar of the government or anybody and has been stow's will. the media's distortion, the same time, six of seven media outlets broadcast the same stories. so then in that case it is a government perpetrators from the government for warlords. they can't do much with six media outlets. what they do is -- we got it from someone else. so i think the pressure. this is a very good way of going about investigative journalism. >> that's great. let me ask you this.

the audience that we're trying to address this is in afghanistan but it's also here. what kind of stories have you seen in what come of stores would you like to see covered by the american media? >> i think the american public, the coverage seems very similar. and we're both in the news business. so we don't cover hurricanes that don't happen. recover the ones that did happen by the very nature we are inclined. that said, i think it is not clear to the american people -- and just to give you one obvious statistic about the difference. last year 3,000 afghans were killed in the war. that same year 8,000 iraqis were killed. the population of afghanistan is about the same. may even be bigger.

two and half times more likely to be killed today in your afghanistan. i don't think that is clear to the american public. i'm not saying it's a good number, but if you do the math, you're more likely to be murdered in this city still many are to be killed in the war in afghanistan. as a civilian you are six times more likely to be killed in new orleans which is a reflection of gun violence in this country. the basic point is that we -- the american public does not get that. a profile in the business section of the new york times did begin to see more of those stories. >> what i wonder is going

forward we will get attention. >> the home we will see as much coverage as we see about tajikistan. this is the fact. if americans -- we love to forget, the coverage more list disappeared. it has come back the situation is so bad, but they're well not be a great deal of attention if there are not american soldiers. and by the way, why should there be? if the afghans don't want us there and we don't have people there even though, of course, we all agree it is desirable that we stay in some shape or form alive with the american public continue to care? at think that is just a simple formulation. >> we have come to the end of our time. briefly i promise you. last boss from anyone, any sort

of to draw something to that point. >> first of all, i do think the l.a. and bbc are going to have an increasingly important role to play the x channel independent coverage as well way it may also provide a bit of cover for the continuation of investigative journalism. it's more a part in the future. extremely grateful, by the way for putting us on inviting me to speak. a final thought for me though is that what i said before, i just don't think we are taking this seriously enough. too much money, too much blood to my good to be. it is not an area where a legacy is being built. can be secured, but we are not going about it in the right way, and we are not going about it carefully enough and doing it

urgently enough. i think that not just here, but also in brussels and london and elsewhere, a lot more just -- a lot more attention needs to be paid to this. >> currently the afghan media, the upcoming election, some of the afghan media outlet came to get to monitor the coming elections. and i believe we will control somehow the current election. >> okay. >> afghanistan very recently at a very successful election. it was the 2004 election. 70 percent turnout. there has not been an american since 1900. it is not impossible that the election will go pretty well. is that -- it can't be ruled out

. >> a very good point. >> thank you. ladies and gentlemen, in afghanistan wave, long way. today we have around 75 tv stations. more than 200 radio stations and several hundred newspapers, websites. and this makes afghanistan the bastion of freedom in our precious region which is controlled by an authoritarian regimes. and none of this would have been possible without generous investment and support of the international community, particularly the united states, but it also signifies the fact that we cannot afford to lose this. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. thank you to our panelists.

>> so thanks to everyone for attending today's discussion. i hope you found them thought-provoking and useful. i certainly did. and of the world's media is with us. perhaps others outside of this room will also. somebody may know that i spent 26 years as an american network television correspondent, many of them covering international this. among many other adventures i once wrote a soviet tank covering the story as the russians began there troop withdrawal. i am proud of the work as a journalist, but i have to tell you that one of the bad raps on commercial television news has some truth to it. you have probably heard the cynical view of tv news that if it bleeds it believes. well, it is the nature of the business. it is human nature. research consistently shows that people will switch channels during good news stories more readily than during stores a

tragedy, bloodshed, and trauma. networks know that, so do the wires and the newspapers. in this business thrives on conflict. in conflict there has been in afghanistan. on a day in afghanistan and for roadside bomb killed four soldiers depending on what else was going on, that might make the news in this century. on that same day if five is schools or of maternal health clinic was opened you almost certainly would not hear about that over here. one network correspondent friend of mine used to come every few months when i was working at the embassy and would do stories about the american troops and what they're worth two. frankly, and the business because bang bang stories because they always had an explosion in the summer. and my friend told me in the international forces were only there, the purpose of the forces there was to open up space for

aid workers, ngos, investors, and most of all, afghans to rebuild their country, the shattered economy, and to build some hope for the big generation that is coming forward in afghanistan. he understood that that was what they were your four. he said that story is not sexy. but as was noted in the previous panel between 2001 and ten primary school enrollment rose from 1 million the nearly 7 million. a sevenfold increase in eight years. the proportion of gross went from virtually zero to now close to 40%. while i was serving at the embassy to help to arrange and find a launch of the afghan version of sesame street. the children's television series that teaches reading in counting and we produced our program, and it is still being produced in

close consultation with the afghan ministry of education. and there are some very clever people in that ministry him made it a very strong program. the projects up to the uprighted cubs to educate afghans from three cool tempers cool states and not work, frankly all the way up to adulthood creating a plan represents real change that matters. but you have not heard about that much on the american media because stories of american gis and taliban suicide bombers are just more compelling television. they are. it is not that american audiences and readers of until they thing that is not sure about afghanistan. there has been plenty of tragedy there is plenty of corruption, as discussed, and there are plenty about which it is the squandered of the last few years , all legitimate news stories, and they have been written about. but in my view at least the american public is not heard the other half of the story in a

fully balanced way. don't get me wrong. i am not saying that the pessimism about afghanistan's future post 2014 is misplaced. there are many reasons we need be concerned. it is a rough neighborhood, as has been discussed. some of the neighbors are seeking to keep afghans week for their own purposes, and the country has always had its own deep internal divisions, its own divisions, travel, regional, so forth. so there is going to be trouble ahead. of course. and no doubt about it that the conventional wisdom seems to hold that afghanistan is said now to revert to the battle days so i think that it is incumbent upon people in the room here, those of us who have spoken at the panel and everyone else was listening to try to prove the conventional wisdom wrong. personally i believe in the

younger generation of afghans, the young afghans that i'm mad and kabul, kandahar, many of them highly motivated and very impressive. of course they're going to need to be. in any case we americans may be war-weary, but our policy makers do know that afghanistan will continue to matter for geostrategic reasons both to the united states and the west, and there is no getting around that. it is just of factors. speaking for the voice of america, i can tell you that we plan to keep a robust presence on the air and radio and television with our fine partner and perhaps others. while the shape of our efforts may change a little bit, we and our sister organization of a

looking to maintain an important role for serving our audiences in afghanistan. i guess what i would like to a close by saying is that whenever happens in terms of the military, the political, the aid budget, investment, so forth to my hope that one message to afghans going ford comes to this conference. you have friends here. thousands of but sometime into helping in the past. thank you very much. [applause] [applause] ..