to the government. the government feels that you have not fully produced, if they feel your withholding, the government makes a motion to compel, conduct further inquiry into what kind of record you might have to make a two additional witnesses or parties in the case. and through that adversarial process, through that motion to compel process the production is defined, the scope of the prejudice to find, and the person is compelled to disclose their own data. ..[u

>> particularly where a person has a genial account with stuff to their wife or have coaming gold that could be a huge amount of data. it is my view the sec and

other agencies should not have that end run. it cannot open letters. with king up the postal service, telephone, now the e-mail that the agencies never had the ability to open postal mail. the civil agencies this is the difference between of civil and criminal justice agency. the things that congress and the state legislature has said these are crimes that carry the criminal powers opening mail, tapping phones , we have no warrant and bust into the door if the person does not open or cooperate. that is the criminal-justice powers. those have never been held

by the civil regulatory agencies. they cannot get search warrants or tap phones. with the criminal violation of the security law and the justice department a and fbi work together than they can but that is on the criminal side. of the civil side the process between the regulator and regulated fight it out for what could be disco -- disclosed we think those same rules should apply in the digital world. search warrant or wiretapper criminal powers. subpoena motion to compel adversarial process between the two parties is civil. >> i want to see if richard wanted to do talk about the distinction? >> as we they doubt with

testimony be -- last year, the department has taken a careful look at the situation weather warrants should be required for content and we appreciate the appeal provided congress has contingencies for limited functions for which that would pose a problem. one of the things we've pointed out is the issue that we have been discussing here with the basis for that. we believe it is important there is some accommodation or mechanism to allow the best ticket -- investigative

authorities of the information that is off-limits and impossible to obtain. how that works is something we have not taken a firm position by can imagine how we satisfy a concerns and certainly historically third-party subpoenas are available to get the evidence where the evidence might be obtained or located through banks or other witnesses in our fully compliant with the fourth amendment. your part of the investigative agency investigating a terrible oil spill. a environmental violation or a civil rights violation where the landlord is accused of animus with public housing. what do you do?

you may issue a subpoena. most of the time that person will respond to the subpoena but what about the situation where they won't? or would there be a temptation to delete what is stored? what happens in that situation if they denied that is there account? is that available to correct this situation? weather that could be accomplished is one paying but what if the option to come in and contest it? if they have the ability to raise issues of privilege or other parts excluded war whatever restrictions you would like to see including

issuing protective orders to make sure there is no undue privatisation beyond that situation. the department position stated last year we think there is considerable merit but we want to make sure there are appropriate exceptions where agencies cannot get a warrant. i will touch on one thing mentioned sharing between civil and criminal to be clear it is not possible to have a civil side case to be opened to obtain they cannot ask a criminal case be opened so that is not a viable solution either. >> you describe some of the limitations.

>> i have a few comments. of the fading is it is not off limits to use civil agency is. they can subpoena the person who created the document they just can subpoena us third party service provider. that would be criminal but they would be able to go. but those from the personal e-mail they could send of preservation order to the providers ibm using they will hold that information so they could send the data what the service providers have.

they could do though order to compel where they think i have not shared that information were go through other court proceedings are be held in contempt of court. for investigative agencies you get the information if i don't comply it just takes more work if they could just subpoena the third party. to go back, the fact is the government already has your information if i get to the privilege or protection it is already out there. that i have not been able to sort through first. you think nobody is looking.

but they still have the ability to have looked at it. it needs to be protected. somebody could have already seen your private stuff. with the civil-rights violation you could look at everybody in the building if the landlord does not agree there is a procedure in order to get to his male by issuing a preservation order. there are avenues just not as easy. >> respectfully disagree. of preservation order is helpful to make sure the data is not deleted but there is no mechanism to get it at the end of the day.

second, it may well be the individual does notñl have access perhaps the first he goes to delete his account. maybe it is just deactivated or they wisely put in the preservation order first you cannot compel someone that they do not have access to any lunker. and wrongdoers can -- can put on limits to prevent access to that information with the exception to the general warda rule. >> with the preservation authority a civil or

criminal agency or a regulatory agency can issue the preservation of order to put it in a separate file a and keep it there. that could be issued before the subpoena before the investigation is open. that is the earliest stage before the target has any hint they have come within the scope of the interest. you freeze it first then issue the subpoena and the reform proposals to get the account identifying information at the end of

the day this is the adversarial fight between the two parties but that is the way it has spent for those whole history of the regulatory state. if at the end of that leave aside the clout to the person does local storage. if the government is not satisfied they cannot come into that person's office or apartment or cannot serve in order of the landlord to lettuce in or go get the data because we are not satisfied with the outcome of the judge's order not on this. or i forgot my password i cannot find the data. in order to give his consent. and the courts have used

this in a recent case to order the consent of the disclosure. to tell that service provider to get it without the password and often they kiam. >> that is what is called compelled consent to an artificial concept. not to push it too far but that is the safety valves already in the law that this reform would not change. at the end of the day we should not disfavor the use of the clouds services. if you take a vintage jazz of the of flexibility or better security, back up, a collaborative to shared documents against a and enterprise to take a vintage

you somehow give up your privacy rights at the end of the day you are disadvantaged the and if you tried to maintain your own data. the heritage action for america wrote and said we will codify these procedures and make it crystal clear we have not heard back yet i don't know if that letter found its way yet but with a proposal that would make it clear the traditional forms of access to our preserved

with up back-and-forth of motion to compel process and consent would be preserved. >> with the interest of time i just want to ask one more question with location information up the topic of legislation. to be held unanimously law-enforcement attachment of the gps device to a car a and the use to monitor someone's activities over a period of time implicated the fourth amendment. it is not clear from that decision what that means for the collection of other types of location information but it might be helpful to briefly talk

about with the investigative tools and the other issues. >> location information is a complex subject that could to merit its own hour of discussion. to touch on a few issues we may have to schedule another briefing for that. 1.to make is geode location is not one thing. those that you tea and consider in the other location information may only tell you what country you are in. there is information you voluntarily give god you

announced your location. maybe not. if in the routine course of business it is kept by the provider. some is not. there are some sorts of ways that this needs to be treated carefully to consider the needs for public private safety and civil liberties. i will say that the current rules are fairly complex but if i can give you a couple of points i can leave you with fat and i am happy to speak about that as well. for example, the not precise information that identifies which tower your phone has been used to communicate

with is kept for rolling and billing. it is not terribly useful but can be useful to show someone was near the scene of the crime not to across town with his alibi part of that is obtained by a court order by law enforcement that is the independent magistrate that evaluates the evidence and decides to issue the order. more precise gps level information's where a kidnapping victim maybe and you need that on the future ongoing basis is generally obtained by a warrant at this time. the same kind of search warrant for the content of other sorts. that is a brief primer.

i am happy to take questions >> i want to do give jim an chance to say something first. >> it is a complicated question but on this little sheets of the members of due process and the reform principles of the coalition, number one is the award for content h.r. 1852a and number two is the recommendation by and large we've moved to the warrant for the standard of sell to our location information and there are three pending bills of that federal listed fall of them bipartisan.

the issue is in some cases this hill tower could cover a very large area. in some cases the tower in than i can cover a very small area. what the wireless providers have been doing is getting more customers in favor of the advertisements to has few were dropped calls. they have been building more and more towers including those cover smaller and smaller areas. so the average self the user -- cellphone user where it covers a relatively large area of the com downtown to go into an office building

sometimes just for a floor. i say gps that the government agrees requires a warrant it does not work in the subway but my cellphone does. how is that? because the cell phone companies have put the towers in the subway station to service your cellphone. sometimes that data is very broad and sometimes it is very specific sometimes it locates a person in what is a private space a protected space in their home or apartment or office. since the government will never know if they track personal for time they will

not know how granular the data will get the better approach is to get though warned. the courts are all over the ballpark but the blue george of the courts require a warrant. different breakdown pretty much the opposite end have not required a warrant for the sell to our data that there is no difference between tracking a person prospectively 30 days versus going back 30 or 60 or 90 days to find out where they were as they traveled. bills were introduced. we support reform including addressing and clarifying the question of location.

for this year and none of those bills the bill in the senate the bill in the house has attracted the most attention is content only. the one thing that can be done is addressing the content question that is a glaring deficiency of the statute the location data would you do about the so-called one time payments or where you simply demand those that are in touch with the certain tower at the time of the crime that pose says issues? it is only a short period of time as opposed to one person tracking them over

time to read one separate standards? in a way there have been in the hearings on this but we have not dug into the necessary detail on that to get it done with this congress. >> i will leave it there. i just want to make one more comment before open questions. here in the house weren't for content has 200 co-sponsors. it should have more. i think the house has an opportunity to pass a bill that does not leave the post office under suspension. this is something powerful. if you are one of the people who want something done about and this day for

getting a. this is the low hanging fruit. if you're congressman wants to show he cares about america's privacy he better be on this and there should be a vote to show who supports america's privacy and who doesn't. approach that makes it clear who cares about the fourth amendment because it is a demonstration of how important privacy is a and the first set to strengthen the first amendment with the additional environment. >> with that impassioned note we will turn to questions review would not mind coming up to the microphone please. >> can you comment on the oral arguments from the supreme court for the

cellphone search cases? also the ability of the courts to keep up with the pace of technological change? will we need the updates every year or every five years? >>. >> is this ongoing litigation i cannot comment. [laughter] the search of the cell phone is still is the different topics and what covers information at the provider. >> that is almost a tradition of fourth amendment issue with the exception to the warrant requirement.

generally when the police conduct the rest that process with the authority that they have to rest the person based on their observation carries with it to search the person for any weapons of the paramount interest that he could destroy a jury the course of the of restive the questionnaire argued before the supreme court on tuesday is does that exception extent to searches of cell phones and other electronic devices? i am not sure. the second

question, sometimes the courts will give us the answer a and clarity. sometimes it is up to congress. we see constantly going back and forth between congress the end of the accords. both institutions need to understand the technology to recognize the way it challenges traditional statutes or case law. in terms of the update of ecpa if we took away the content rule that would be durable. currently it is not doable. much we could fix that. location tracking with more effort we could fix and that

would be durable. down the road there may be new technology to access that we don't anticipate now but what the courts are grappling with with no pending legislation is the issue of you did to with the front page of the "washington post" that goes to the scope of the warrant. even if you have one the authority said digital environment vastly broaden his the scope of that search now going to the third-party service provider or a person's hand held the vice you can get far more information van with a traditional physical world search.

grappling with a question how to read narrow with the execution of the warrant in the digital world? how to be extended to them and where you have third-party providers who bears the burden? who is responsible for sorting through the vast amount of data that may include your relevant personal data not relevant to to the investigation there will be a lot of issues to be addressed some by the courts and some by congress. >> with a footnote the litigation edmonton dick and from "the washington post." i am barred from that but there is the filing of the

brief of the case and i brought a couple copies if anybody is interested. >> it probably will not have a person's name. >> it is related to to redacted. [laughter] >> application that is ongoing. but i can show you. i am not wedded to percent sure what the underlying matter is put the issue is more about the collection of evidence over the substance of the crime. >> jim, you were describing how the sec was with the attitude that you may or may

not degree with but with richard to find a line to draw some rather rather than regis have to get those agencies a carve out. is that accurate in the the initiation in? given that we talk about the sec as it is applicable including the irs event how consequential this is. >> that is a good point in fairly talking about the sec but it for a dissident to all the eliot the federal level but also of the state

and local. i feel we have been that they will be losing something if a warrant is codified. but you never really had access to the data in the cloud. it did not exist until about five years ago. regulatory agencies have done their work biden with the subpoena power, the motion to compel the consent process the preservation order, a subpoena access to the identifying information. all of those tools remain available to them if this reform is enacted. they would not be precluded.

nothing is off limits. no part your data here to avoid compliance but what does it take for the government to get it and would then agency have of wiretapping type power a search and seizure types that they have never had? we try to make the bill as clear as possible to say there would be no curtailment of the traditional powers to get data of. you will not get the extraordinary power to seize the data but you can still have the traditional means to catch access to data. so with that tug-of-war that

characterizes the process that is why it is simple not the police process or the seizure power which is what we've reserved for the criminal side of the government. >> we are running out of time but richard can go next. >> i would respectfully disagree they have not had that power under existing law over 20 years with that information's stored in that cloud is though whole point to make a change to reverse the fact is the part of the obama i will leave it to at

that. >> thinking the congressional caucus. in thinks for providing an excellent discussion today. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

trauma i am talking about because of the stress of life willis working class to put a lot of strain even that is so grim been to right now but not like today to contribute to my story maybe that is the myth. luis

rodriguez will take your questions sunday on booktv. >> the brooking institution held a discussion on the future of u.s. defense policy and spending on monday. mack thornberry and rick larson of texas state were there. they serve on the arms committee. [inaudible conversations] >> i am like him the drug to defer century to will clear to this conversation is

joining me we will ask some questions with strategic god defense issues the enter into your four questions until about 130. mckenzie is that aei a in 2010 on the independent panel all oil and has worked off the hill a and thew pentagon very distinguished young scholar and experienced in the two gentlemen have the places in my mind it to be young ingh end experienced simultaneously.t.e e congress thorn berry elected in 1994 event there among the more senior matters amd also other interest to

express the word ofxpr appreciation meeting witho congressman larsen who has bet next door and has suffered through the tragic the mudslide we want to send our best issues to washington state in those to is a good state of texas in to begin with some questions then they pass the baton and i will begin with china. so first to ask congressis theodore barry who is justro back for his impression ande then congressman larson who has great interest being from washington state with that country for his take then we will go from there to other subjects. welcome back.

and we look forward to your impressions.ajor >> leader eric cantor and others. we visited japan, korea and china. i would say among my impressions from this visit are number one: the nationalism that exists in all three countries partly for domestic political reasons but yet it creates some conflict or some tension. a and between japan and korea and japan and china obviously. and we were able to meet with the top leaders in china and may impression is they see china as rising power and a declining pow

and they have historical grievances and maybe that is what concerned me the most. i kept thinking back to the history books and what things were like in germany before world world war with the sense of them being a rising power but with the grievance that they would soon be into position to correct in some way. now that doesn't mean conflict is inevitable but the decisions over the maritime disputes you felt the chance of to improve. >> the trip i took in march was my 9th trip there. and it was a great quote that i

would like to point out from a debate from two people of letters. i will not go into their names. they were arguing about china and one was living there for a couple years and there other returned. and the guy who had not said the guy who lived there was too close to china and the guy responded surely there is a medium between never -- living in china versus never being there at all. that guy had never been there at all. i can tell you every time i go i learn how much i don't know and how much is changing in china. i would be concerned about china's economic rise if it doesn't happen. and that is because the imperative i think from the

comm commonnist party is if they don't grow fast enough they will not supply employment opportunities for that undermines the creditability of the party. if they don't deal with environmental concerns that said 60% of china's ground water is polluted and that ought to be a concern and the vast corruption that exists from the top down is a huge creditable party. and there is no junior varsity in the chinese government. it is a commonnist government or not. so they have to get it right. and part of that is making sure the economy grows. and the other part is the military rise. there are rational reasons it is investing in its military but

the challenge it faces is they do a poor job explaining and what they do explain sets up a region for further disputes and possible conflict. this isn't something i think china wants and certainly not something the united states wants but they are claims that many of these countries that are friends and allies of ours have in the area and i think there is some point rewriting of history that goes on on the chinese side about historical claims. and i am not here to solve them today but i think the u.s. has a direct interest to be part of the solution. >> if i could follow-up on this. and a question for both of you. i would like too ask you what you think the next step is bu d

building on the president's trip. and i am not trying to start a dispute, the armed service and you are known thworking togethe. but what the does the united states have to do to build on what the president accomplished and deal with the crisis as they develop? >> for our trip we were just ahead of the president by a day or so in japan and korea and our focus was to emphasis we agree with the president and will stand by treaty commitments and there is no dispute about that. so i think that is is kind of

step down. r reassuring friends and the bases in the philippines are positive steps and encouraging our allies not to let the differences between us divide us. so i think number one is build new friend and reassure our friends. and we have to spend more on defense. what china and the host of other countries respect is strength and that is numbers of ship and a variety of other things. so we have to be strong. i just -- there is not another way to put it. >> if i could follow-up on that issue to clarify where we should

be on the budget. there are a mb of baselines that we could measure to be stronger. there is the possibility of sequestration and there is the president's budget which is a little above. there is congressman ryan's plan which might be slightly different and maybe you could say a word more about that. and the plan that governor romney and ryan ran on. do you have a specific proposal you would advocate? i >> i voted for the house budget and we had the number we are moving toward and that increases

defense beyond that. i don't know if there is a magic number. but i do know the world is watching what we do. if china, putin, whoever you want to say thing thinks we are not capable of increasing defense, being strong and having the capabilities we need do deter them they will be more aggressi aggressive. what i am focused on here is what is the world seeing of us now and i worry about that. increasing and showing we are serious about putting our money where our mouth is in defense, i think, is a strategic imperative regardless of the specific

number. >> congressman? >> which question? >> where we should go on asia policy. >> okay. i think the president's trip was largely successful in terms of assuring our friend and allies that the united states is a pacific country and that the rebalance is real and the president's putting some reality to that. but it goes beyond -- in the defense community, just like anything else, it is all about us in any other community. the defense folks think about defense. health care folks think about health care and if it isn't about that it isn't about anything. rebalance is about defense, trade, diplomacy, economic security -- it is about all of those things. so the effort to pass the tra

transpacific partnership is continued support in the community. we had an ambassador opening up from our perspective the opening of burma is an important aspect of that and continuing to reassure friends and allies. a rebalance is about many parts of what the united states government does. the rebalance is a work in progress but it is work. and it progresses. with regards to the broader budget question, you know, i have today as we sit here very little hope that congress will readdress the sequester when it returns and that is today as we sit here. i expect to be sitting in my office at midnight sometime during the end of some year in the future possibly voting on a change to that.

the point is nothing focus on a mind like hanging and we will be approaching that point at some point in the future. right now, neither party, i think is willing to make the concessi concessions to lift the sequester caps or get rid of it all together. i would note our ranking member adam smith said this clearly and i think i was asked to do this because i look as close to adam smith as anybody else in congress. so we are trying to trick you into thinking i am. i am funnier. no one gets a carve out. dealing with sequester is about

dealing with discreationary and mandatory spending. not just defense, non-defense, or whatever budget. that is the challenge we face. and one is for the heathier long-term process of the federal budget as a whole. >> one more question on this part of the world. congressman thornberry, you mentioned treaty obligations and i know this is a delegate subject especially for government members because explaining how we would do that has downsides. but i would like to ask anything about if we wake up tomorrow and china takes one of the inhabited

islands -- what do we do? and it is coming to you sitting congressman. do we have to have a military response that is symmetric? someone said we would have to kick them off. that is the answer? some could be sanctions and other non-direct but resolute responses. do you have a strongly view on that? >> we need to be clear we will stand by our allies according to the treaties whether it is japan, south korea or whoever. countries need to know the united states is a reliable friend. newspaper article this morning talked about the military preparing a range of militarily

options for a range of possibility and that is what we expect the military to do. do the planning and give policy makes options. until we know the situation i don't think we can say what option is appropriately. i do worry, and i don't mean to shift subsejects, but the slowl ratcheted up sanctions doesn't seem to be working. so it is important to make clear we have the full range of options should a country decide to take some aggressive action. ...

>> should do one thing if another thing happens because there might be also of options to choose from if something happens, and it would not all the military as well. reassuring allies that the trees mean something is important. our treaty allies would probably define exactly what they believe we ought to do as a result of any action. but we may have very different ideas about what is the most appropriate thing to do which is the negotiation that takes place between the united states and our treaty allies.

we have done several things in europe as a for instance to reassure our friends there, deployment to poland, additional deployments to the baltic states. but new sanctions go along with other sanctions. i think they have targeted the right folks. there are not many folks who run russia. they are all friends of the leader there, the president. going after those folks is a great start. it lets the russian leaders know that there is a penalty to them. also, i think the experience of crimea who might have been a great national thing for russia to do, but so far it has been a

disaster for premiums and crimean russians as well where things are hardly run down there right now as a result. there may be a self limiting factor of how the leaders in russia see the rest of the eastern ukraine based on the crimean experience. >> thank you. >> thank you for having me. this immense opportunity to talk about this. but of bin. just getting of an airplane and hobbling all over town. they're is a lot to worry about faugh. polls show that americans are increasingly concerned about u.s. foreign policy, what they perceive as growing numbers of challenges and threats, not necessarily in what they perceived but what is coming out of washington. they're out there saying we have a lot of challenges.

of these concerns justified..

at some point her in order to make the investments we need in the future it might make sense for us and not make investments in things we had in the past. it is difficult to do that for a lot of reasons. one of them is congress. they want to of of the things. one of the things i want to point out, be sure that people named about this defense budget. and big enough for us to maintain and operate.

those of our that three things that every member of congress asks. sometimes congress knows the district better than the defense department and have a better feel for the sense that -- the capabilities and commitment that takes place on the ground. but the same token you tend to get wrapped up and preserves thing to about preserve things that may not not to be preserved. it tests. bin and just don't think correct to assume we're not making investments or correct to assume that a bigger budget is a bigger -- better budget. there have been a lot of ways.

but certainly like to see an do a better john upton by completing a clean audit to be spent been well in. there are a lot of things that i think we could do. finally, i don't think the russian president has a concern about our defense budget. he's more concerned with how we will use it today. moi. >> i'm persuaded it is true that we have a greater number of complex threats facing a smell when than perhaps ever before. you list of a lot of the bill, things around the world as well as new demands of warfare.

he did not mention space. al qaeda has not gone away. as a good deal and i and others have testified we have a tremendous number. at the same time under any scenario we have limited resources to deal with those threats. that is a huge part of for a challenge. a dome of a disagree. part of what congress needs to do is get more defense of the money we spend. they're is bipartisan effort to try to do that through reform, cutting overhead. we absolutely need to do that. on a bipartisan basis working with the pentagon as we go

through the regulations that govern acquisition. they're is a lot of work. that is not going to do enough to solve all of those issues. you have to do a lot of reform to get another carrier or refloat -- refuel the one that is halfway through its

there is magic number. my point is the world is watching. the world has some doubts about us through a series of events. and it sends a clear message when we make clear on a bipartisan basis we will do whatever it takes to defend ourselves, interests, and melons that message is important. >> i just want to know, he has not given himself enough credit. he is leaving that. >> you never worked harder this issue. i second the gratitude.

one quick question before we opened it up, the president himself thinks many the spend more on defense. let's just put that aside. he is admitting head there are hundred and 15 extra billion dollars. and so there is a pretty strong statements that it may not be a lot more, but it's probably required. i don't know. perhaps was not true. the politics of grilling the defense budget have changed. in recent years the congress has been going on. it has become a deal where if you agree it has to grow, the conditions are now an artificial

how far wall. it complicates -- it puts all federal prurience of the same level. i personally don't interpret the constitution that was. i don't think it's as important. the protection of the nation's citizens and our way of life. that's what that implies. and so what -- if the president and the defense budget this to grow beyond the levels and were just looking it 2015, how do you get there? does it have to be linked to a discussion about non-defense discretionary? >> as i say, for fiscal year 2015 the number is set. were talking about beyond that.

i could probably give you a more informed election result. if they're right and there's a decent chance that the senate switch's hands that could change the dynamics. but i think, like you, i believe the first church of the federal bear bryant is to defend the country. but i do think you can make a pretty good case with the return of about medical research or over are ready if things that in the domestic discretionary area their areas affected use saugh while additional funding. bottom line is, two-thirds of our budget is entitlements. and so that -- and that is true of -- regardless of how this a

mix to the of the election comes around. we have to begin to reform entitlements. another thing i would add is we have to keep in mind what other folks are doing. i think gorgeous saw a number, maybe you all did an estimate that russian defense spending has increased roughly 80%, china's defense budget is growing. it is not just like this is all about us. we have to see what is happening in the world. out in the world of the defense budgets are growing and of the threats are growing. >> i would challenge anyone to go ask a homeless veteran in my district using the program, a combination of vouchers to get housing along with supportive

housing services to help them deal with a pro, the core reasons for the homeless bonds. so the issue of whether it's a $1 for $1 or one for two or two for one, the point is, there are important things we tried to do in the budget and have a direct impact on people we represent. before going to look good numbers of of what other countries are doing we should look at what the basic research in universities are. i think of what we have tried to do historically hand especially have to world war ii from a federal government perspective is we doug volt and poured the foundation really well. and then the market takes it

from there. so this foundational thing, basic research, medical research , we have generally done well. we have a gun away from the fresh variety of reasons. but we have gotten away from that well of the countries of not. we continue to be the foundation of things the set themselves up for better economic growth than the united states will be able have. for originally they are not doing very well. it's actually on a downward slide. five to 6 percent growth is not really all that great. so if we do coloristic to our basics, fundamentals, i think will do all right.

>> we ask you wait for a microphone and identify yourself we will take to lead a time. we will start over here. >> thank you. the implications of the advances in commercial i t. and the wonder if he could tell us a little bit more detail about plans for the acquisition, reform, thinking about acquisition and how that may play out. >> congressman, first of like to think you. thank you for everything you have done. the total bipartisan support.

one of the questions i have his priorities. it was about a year ago. he made the point, as much of the support iran, i go back to my district and constituents. what they want to hear about of problems of social security, medicare. basically what's happening to the department of defense. >> briefly on acquisition reform of of spend too much time. as i said, this is ben tried a number of times before. what makes you think this will be in a different. a couple of answers is number one it is completely bipartisan.

the pentagon and congress. we have reached a point where everybody agrees that the system not only costs more money but is too slow. we have information that china's economic ravish it every six months. that think there is an imperative given the budget issues we have been talking about and the state of play to do better. i t is a terrific example. if you think about how quickly technology changes it is inevitable that by the time the government procure something it is out of date. so part of our challenge is listening to ideas about what we can do. maybe we need pilot programs.

there are a number of ideas coming in. if we can identify up to about would be next year : 01 that says start in that a 2000 page bill when. a lot of it is not necessarily legislation. working with the pentagon him through the regulations which is going. there are a number of aspects. we don't need another oversight office or law. we have to look deeper at the incentives. >> it is true why and our

country feel relatively safe you worry more about the things that affect your life and that jobs in the economy. i do think part of our job as leaders in is to remind people about the fundamentals of what it takes to keep the greatest of last august, freest country so that we can all worry about their kids' education and the of the things to occupy our daily lives. if the fundamental aspect of that. there were talking about counterinsurgency. may be true a security is only 10 percent of the solution was, but if you don't have that the rest of what you're trying to do is going to be worthless. and so part of our job as leaders is to help remind people

whom and educate people who knew about the multitude of france that we face. it's challenging. with the median naturally does is focus on one intensively and then forget about the first one and go to a third. so some keeping with so many things that play, keeping that brought range of challenges is a big part of the challenge that we face. >> commercial like tea and acquisitions. one area that i no will be discussed as we come up to this market than his the idea of cloud and they use of cloud competing in information storage and the conflict that exists between the department of defense controlling that when we

. a much less extensively. the conflict exists because the department of defense would argue that they need to have that, the highest security possible. as a result that sets up hurdles like a record. that same principle applies in other parts of the service, services as well. we have to find a way. we have to get around it. the. >> story about a trip to china. , the question him about where

in -- he represented. what you need to understand is they go home to their districts. if we are hearing yet home or not hearing certain things, that's what gives our interest first and foremost. if we are not hearing the deal, it tends to have an impact. on the flip side of that, we have to sift through a lot of this knowing of some of this stuff is the same because all the e-mails of the same.

we have to sit through that. also as well, something is going wrong, and it is not with congress when the major security issue here at home is a concern that folks have all of the nsa as opposed to anything else which is not their fault, i would argue. debt is some of the kinds of things you hear in your home. >> okay. the third row. and then the woman in the far back, just to set that one about [inaudible question] will there be any change at all?

>> and in the back please. >> hello. thank you very much for being here. it my question has to do with department of defense auditing. how do we empower those in the department of defense responsible for this herculean task that is supposed to be on track for 2017? how do we empower and support them over these next years to ensure that they have the good will that they need to get this job done? >> let's start with -- -- in russia i don't know that i have any more to say about it. i think that nato deployments are an important signal to our nato allies and, i assume, to russia that the nato alliance is important to us and our nato partners. and that they do need to consider that.

i think that that nonlethal aid and financial support for ukraine is important and the eu needs to, if they can to move faster. i think right nobody there is only one way you claim this government is headed, and that is west. not sure russia. as well they're not asking for my advice, and it would not give it to them, with a time the poor russian separatists in ukraine can take hostages that only helps the united states in the west. it shows us how, you know, al uncoordinated, and mature, and reactionary those folks are. and i cannot imagine that russia sees that as a positive either. we need to a listen to public opinion, frankly in my view, in order to move changed on the

ground. >> on russia i think it is a big deal. at think it is a major change. most of us, and i would not accept -- accept myself had basically in our minds, the cold war is over. we don't have to worry about that anymore. the brazenness of this aggression, similar to tactics we have seen in history. i think it is somewhat startling. and so one conclusion one could draw is that it expands the range of military options for which we have to be prepared. and maybe we thought certain kinds of conflict or in the past and we did not mean that stuff, but maybe that is not true.

budgets as we prepare for everything, you know, from relatively low level ground to cyber and space and, you know, all these things in between. i think it just adds to the complexity, the number of national security challenges we face. i think it is a pretty big deal, and i don't think things will go back to a way that it was anytime soon. on long in congress for -- we are in need of action. the stories today about ammunition being wasted because we cannot keep track of what we have or when we got it is just another example of.

so it -- i don't know. i get pretty frustrated. we had a hearing a couple of weeks ago again on trying to get the department of defense medical records to talk to the department of veterans affairs medical records. the country has got to have electronic medical records that are compatible, portable, and yet billions of dollars, years and years are required to get one department of the government to talk to another. it is just unbelievable. the frustration when you talk to members about auditing and about other changes, i know they are hard, still we have got to figure out away to cut through this stuff, even if it means get outside of government to find those answers. >> effective follow-up, we talked about some of the broader u.s. responses, sanctions issue,

deployment issue. at what point is there a case for rethinking u.s. permanent force posture in europe? at what point we think about either adding a brigade or to back to germany or putting battalions in the baltic states or something else, or is that not even an option you feel we need to start thinking direct this states? >> first of all, let me clarify. i am not encouraging more to be taken into custody. it happens to play in the favor of the west. to clarify that for those taking notes, but i don't know that it is too early to talk about that. it is a good discussion to have, but it probably would not -- you know, if we use the model of the past in germany as much as they would be in the baltics and poland. they would be in this states that are next -- as close to russia as possible. and i think that actions and

decisions that the leaders in russia are making, they are only doing one thing in congress and that is creating this conversation. a conversation they know that russia does not want to have immobile we are going to have it i am ready to talk about it. i think that we have to. going back to the previous question about what are the implications of what is happening in the ukraine, part of it is, is nato worth anything or not? what is it going to amount to? so what is the purpose and value of that alliance at this point when meets this situation, which is what it was created for. and so i think a lot of soul-searching needs to take place on the part of our european allies and others about how we stick together and meet

this kind of brazen aggression. >> thank you. >> here in the front row. the gentleman in the front row. >> thank you, congressman. i thank you for your bipartisanship. it is much needed, and you have emphasized that after your recent trip to china still thinking that the u.s. is in decline and they are rising and they is rising more attention which affect our security, job market, people at home. so i am asking both of you if you would bipartisan the help from the house to give our strong message so that the u.s. can say we emphasize flow lee on the rules of law, especially in the case of the south china sea

and everything involved. you talk about our responsibility. as a global leader we also should be accountable for international law, the rule of law. that means that for countries that are not our ally, we still need to hold other powers accountable to observe international law. that is the case in russia and crimea, and i hope that would apply to china if china is causing -- using some other form , invading small countries like vietnam, laos, or cambodia. i hope that you would make it clear that any country, not just allies, by its very important, especially looking up to u.s. leaders so that they can solidify and form a group

partnership with the u.s. so would use some help from the house up to the senate from congress look get a clear statement, maybe a statement to clearly define the global leaders of the u.s. in the rule of law and respect all rising power to observe it. >> let's go here. one more, and then we will -- >> yes. [inaudible] very educated discussion for me. my question is inevitably a different but also very clear. it will have an impact on china, on the region. u.s. aid forces and nato forces are honoring the drawdown from afghanistan. and to -- if it does not work,

if it collapses because. [inaudible] very high at this time. it is the u.s. have a contingency plan on how to deal with the implications? and many countries which the u.s. is leaving behind what will you do with the administration about it? >> we cannot quite hear you, but i ask you to wrap up. >> thank you. >> i will just say, majority leader cantor and others made it very clear in all of our meetings that we expect any territorial disputes to be resolved peacefully and in accordance with an international rules-based system.

and i don't -- it was very explicit. it was in every meeting. that message that you talked about applying to all countries was made very clear. you know, on afghanistan obviously now we are having the 1-off for the presidential election. i very much hope and trust that the united states will continue to have a presence after december of this year. i think it is important for us to be there to continue to provide support of various kinds for a -- the security situation where the afghans themselves are taking the lead, but i think it would be a terrible mistake for situation to get to the point where we have a complete withdrawal. i think it would increase the dangers tests. it would increase the dangers to pakistan. it would increase the problems

that many countries face. so i hope we're going to have a continuing presence, and i think we should. .. easier to go back home and say, there's an agreement, it

protects us, we get to do our job, but we also need to continue, as mack noted, continue the investment and that afghan national security forces taking control on behalf of their civilian government of their open -- their own security because we can't and won't be afghan's long-term surrogate army, we just won't. but i'm hopeful that both folks in the runoff maintain that commitment they made to sign it. on your point, i'll make two opinions. one, fully agree with mac. it's not just friends and allies. everywhere at region, we want things settledded diplomatically and so on. i will make one correction. the house never sends things up to the senate. we send them over to the senate.

[laughter] >> one last round of questions here as we wrap up. thank you for that. we'll go to these two gentlemen in rows four and five. one right in front of the other. and then conclude. >> good afternoon. my name is ali sharaz. i am from afghanistan and also the united states of america. i'm the president of the national coalition for dialogue with the tribes of afghanistan. i have been involved in afghanistan's affairs for over 30 years. i'm the last 11 years of my life has been spent in afghanistan working with the tribes. i was -- i'm quite happy to hear the united states is again trying to -- will take a position of strength in the world to show the world day are the leader. i know it's a very difficult job few you and i know you do not have to share the burden of the

whole responsibility. you will have friends around the world to support you, but the friends have to know you're there to stand by them. the problem in afghanistan, gentlemen, -- >> has to be a question. we have two left. >> we have established a army are inia. nato and the united states are leaving afghanistan within the year. the afghan acknowledge army has been left peppyless and armless, the only material, the arm they have, are the -- >> question. >> we would like to know, what type of equipment are you going to leave the afghan military with so thigh can defend themselves against invaders, to defend a mountainous region like afghanistan. we don't have tanks or helicopters or the right equipment. >> pass the microphone to the gentleman behind you.

>> hi. i'm peter, a student. i came over from ciss to be here. i'd like to know a long-term question about education. a lot of americans don't know a lot about history, international history, things like empires declining or isolationism or expansionism. isn't there the problem with the formation of american public american, americans don't think that what happens overseas is important, don't have the sense they're in an empire that could go either way? isn't it dangerous for americans not to know enough about history because they can't tell their congressman, their senator, not going to be able to make informed decisions about things like national security or not going to be able to make the right sacrifices, not going to be prepared to think about foreign policy.

in the right sort of way. and this is a serious problem. >> thank you. >> i talked to -- >> the question is clear. want to keep things moving. canningman larsen, over to you. >> yes and no. the 675,000 people i represent are pretty busy in their lives rooking now. getting up in the morning, making sure the kids get to school, and getting lunch made for them if they're going to school, or paying for college, going to work, and to add this to their list is their choice. not my choice to add to their list, and so i can't expect everybody that i have an honor to represent to know everything that they -- i think they ought to know. in fact that's like a recipe for not being able to represent them anymore. i tell them their job, their job is telling me my job. my job is to impart filter that

a little bit and get other context to it. most folks will respect a member of congress who fought through issues they haven't been able to think through so lock as the member gets back them and pain and why they did x, y, or z. so we have a responsibility towards our folks first, and before they have the responsibility to come up with an idea that is well thought out as you might find in an academic paper because you're not going to find that. folks are busy living their lives and we have to be responsive to that first in my view. and next we can help explain why we are doing the things we do, or might do the things we want to do, and get their feedback as well. >> the afghanistan question. >> on afghanistan question, i agree that it is important for us to ensure that the afghan security forces have the

weaponry and the equipment that is appropriate for their circumstances. and i think we're doing some of that. we're buying some russian aircraft, for example, for them. we will leave some -- and that's controversial, by the way. and we will leave them some of the equipment we have. it may not be everything that they want, but those are part of the discussions -- i think the bottom line is, we must be -- i think we are -- absolutely committed to doing whatever we took support the afghan security forces be able to take care hoff the security needs of afghanistan, and whether that's training, equipment, whatever, we need to be there to assist them. that's in our national interests. i completely agree on history, and we have -- are not as good as we should be, and educating

folks about what has happened in the past. the only thing i would add, i am continually struck by how globally interconnected this world is, and so part of this is generational. again, just coming back from china, and going through all of the economic interconnections between us and china, which we really haven't talked as much about today. we focused on security and mentioned trade. but there's a whole other dimension to that relationship that also plays in. and i think that is not exclusive to china. it is true around the world. so, while i agree with you on history, i think that the interconnectedness of our world today is truly astounding when you start to go through step-by-step. some of that may be slightly a double-edged sword about it is

reality and it's only going to grow more so. >> one final point on that. just to give you a flavor of maybe how public opinion is shaped or changes. in china, three weeks ago when i was there, we met with the number three -- chairman jong, and his staff came up to us, number one question on their mice. is "the house of cards" really reflective of congress and the american political system? so, our culture is inculcating china, so they care less about what wear really like and how we are on tv. we may be undercutting their view of history as well. >> you can see what they're really look is pretty good and we're grateful to have had them today. so please join me in thanking the congressmen. [applause]

[inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> good afternoon, everybody. i'm the president of the american enterprise institute and delighted to welcome you to this event entitled "should anonymous campaign expenditures be allowed? " presented by representative chris van hollen. he was firth elected to congress in 2002, when he defeated in his primary the man who happens to by my next door neighbor and who

voted for him ever since until he was redistricted away from all of news 2012. he is currently the top democrat on the budget committee. he has distinguished himself as a leader and legislator for more than a decade. served in the democratic leadership, including a stint as the chairman of the democratic congressional campaign committee. most importantly for us, he is smart, serious, thoughtful, and exactly the kennedy of policymaker we like to welcome to aei. the issue we're here to discuss today is the intersection of free speech and the disclosure of contributions to tax-exempt organizations. you may have heard that a year ago we heard one perspective from senate minority leader mitch mcconnell and congressman van hollen is here to represent the perspective outlined in his new legislation on the topic, which i recommend to you for your interests that you read the disclose act. so we're looking forward to his

remarks. following his remarks he'll take his own questions and answers. so, please join me in welcoming congressman chris van hollen. >> thank you, arthur. i want to thank aei for the opportunity to join you today, and i want to thank arthur brooks for his strong and innovative leadership here at aei. i have been pleased to join them on several occasions, including two years ago when i joined today withcongressman paul ryan to debate various budget issues. so i want to thank aei for your commitment to the free exchange of ideas which is such a vital part of a free society and strengthens our democracy and our economy. i'm here today not to discuss the budget, but to discuss a matter that goes to the heart of our democracy, and that is an open and transparent political process. specifically, i want to make the

case for a very straightforward proposition, that the public should be informed about who is spending vast sums of money to influence their decision to vote for or against candidates for public office. i can tell you the public believes this information is important. polls consistently show that over 85% of the public agrees that all political contributions and expenditures should be publicly disclosed. and this view is held by over 80% of democrats, republicans, and independents. in addition, while the ultimate decision in supreme courts controversial 2010 citizens united case was a close 5-4 split, eight of the nine justices gave full-throated support to disclosure, which they said, quote, brings transparency that enables the electorate to make informed

decisions and give property weight to different speakers, and messages, unquote. now, that brings me to what i'm not here to talk about. i'm not here to discuss and debate the final decision in that case. i disagreed with the court's ultimate decision in citizens united, but for now it is the law of the land. nor am i here to talk about various campaign finance proposal is think would improve our system. i'm here today to talk about the principle of disclosure, which, until recently, seemed to enjoy strong bipartisan support in the congress. and i especially want to make this appeal here at aei for two reasons. one is your commitment for the free exchange of ideas. and, second, as arthur mentioned, on two occasions the senate republican leader, mitch mcconnell, has used this very

podium in june 2012 and then june 2013, to attack the idea that we should fully disclose to the public the sources of campaign expenditures used to try to elect -- to defeat or elect candidates for federal office. and on both occasions in 2012 and 2013, he claimed to be opposing disclosure and transparency in order to protect free speech and the first amendment. here's what senator mcconnell said to you in june 2012, quote the attacks on speech are legion. perhaps the most prominent is the so-called disclose act. he went on to say, quote, perhaps one of the most important thing republicans did in the past few years was to block passage of the disclose act. senator mcconnell was back at this podium last june making similar statements. he said, and i quote, the

disclose act was not really about cleaning up politics. it was really about the left wing, quote, finding a blunt political weapon to use against one group and one group only, conservatives. end quote. that what senator mcconnell said here last year. now, here's why i wanted to talk to you. i am the author of the disclose act that passed the house of representatives in 2010 and the author of a revised version of the disclose act that is pending in the house today. so, i must be that scary lefty that senator mcconnell is talking about, and i'm here to tell you that his analysis, to put it diplomatically, is a bunch of nonsense. and i really hope that many of you in this room, regardless of your political persuasion, and those who are watching, can help get us back to a time that the

bipartisan consensus that exists around the country on this issue well re-emerge on capitol hill. and who better to cite for my own position today than senator mcconnell himself. not the senator mcconnell of 2012 and 2013. here at aei. but the senator mcconnell who spoke to the nation on "meet the press" in the year 2,000 and it's important to-under context of his statements at that time. the senate had just voted on june 9th, 2000, by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 92-6, to require groups organized under 527 of the tax code to publicly disclose their political expend deb -- expenditures on behalf of candidates. 527s include all political action committees and currently

include what are northern as superpacs. now, senator mcconnell was one of the six to vote against that 527 disclosure, but he justified his opposition on the grounds that the disclosure requirement did not extend to more groups. here's what senator mcconnell said on "meet the press" nine days after that senate vote, quote: he mentions -- he mentions the senate vote, and said that if you're going to require disclosure, quote, it needs to be meaningful disclosure. 527s are just a handful of groups. we need to have real disclosure. and so what we ought to do is broaden the disclosure to include at least labor unions and tax-exempt business associations so you include the major political players in america. why would a little disclosure be

better than a lot of disclosure, he asked, on "meet the press." indeed, why would a little disclosure be better than a lot of disclosure. i agree with what senator mcconnell said, and the american people agree, and that is what the disclose act does. it calls for disclosure not just by 527s, but by the other groups senator mcconnell said should be included. now, since his statement on "meet the press." senator mcconnell has totally flip-flopped on disclosure. he has gone from saying we need more disclosure, to arguing that more disclosure is some left-wing conspiracy to end free speech. he led the filibuster that blocked the vote on the senate version of the disclose act in 2010. 59 senators voted to proceed with the vote. but it was blocked by senator mcconnell and a minority of 41 senators.

since then, i have introduced revised versions of the disclose act in both the last congress and this congress, that address some of the concerns that senator mcconnell had earlier raised. but his opposition to transparency and disclosure has only hardened. let's look at the objections of senator mcconnell raised here at i over the last two years. first, he argued that the disclose act requires disclosure on a selective basis. that it requires disclosure only from conservative and republican-leaning groups and not liberal or democratic affiliated groups. that's simply untrue. i have here in my hand a copy of the disclose act i've introduced in the house of representatives, and i challenge senator mcconnell or anybody else to show me where it selectively

targets conservative groups. this bill requires disclosure by all groups spending money to elect or defeat candidates, regardless of their political leaning. and i invite senator mcconnell to suggest any changes he thinks are necessary to ensure that it applies in a uniform manner. i don't expect the phone to ring. i don't expect to get a call from the senator anytime soon. and that is because the claim of selectivity is a redding her. the real electrictivity problem is the one senator mcconnell raised in 2000 on "meet the press" when he said we shouldn't selectively limit disclosure to 527s. the disclose sure requirement should apply more broadly. remember, he said why would a little disclosure be better than a lot of disclosure, and the disclose act says exactly what he recommended.

expands difference closure beyond 527s to other groups. second, senator mcconnell says he now opposes disclosure because it will hurt our democracy and undermine free speech by exposing people who spend money in elections to -- in election campaigns to such awful harassment i effectively denies them their first amendment right to free speech. and in his speech here at aei ex-urged all of you to read justice thomas' partial defense in citizens united on this very matter in doing so, senator mcconnell failed to disclose that all of the other eight justices, in citizens united, rejected that argument. and that the supreme court has already developed mechanisms to address cases of extreme and demonstrable oppression. the supreme