considering, but to proposal that we made it's section 706. .. you this because you're also -- it seems like a one-way street where you're just targeting this toward internet providers. there are a lot of content providers, a lot of members have used the netflix example or google, other content providers that also have a play in this realm that you seem to just be targeting this towards internet service providers, and so i'm not sure if there's some ax to grind there, but it just seems like it's a one-sided approach that you're taking even in the review. i wouldn't recommend going down that road for any of these folks but just wanted to point that out. one last thing because i know i'm running out of time. in a february report, the fcc, some of your staff and a working group, recommended eliminating some of the reports that are out there, the orbit report, the international broadband report,

the modifying video competition report, some of those things. i have got a piece of legislation we've passed out of the full house twice now, very bipartisan, i think it was unanimous earlier in this congress called the fcc consolidated reporting act which really tries to take a broad view and to eliminate a lot of the outdated reports, to streamline the reporting process. something that i think you have seen bipartisan support to do in the house. we're trying to get the senate to take that up. i'm not sure if you have a comment on what you think should happen there, if that's something you're supportive of generally, especially as it relates to the bipartisan bill in the house trying to move through the senate to ultimately become law to streamline the process as your staff has suggested. >> so on the senate side, it's senator heller who has been pushing on this, and i know that he and senator rockefeller are talking about it in terms of their package of legislation

over there. i definitely agree that there are -- there is a plethora of reports and that we're spending a lot of time that could be better organized, shall we say. >> including competitiveness on the telegraph industry which is still on the books which we're trying to get rid of. appreciate that. anything you can do to help advocate for advancement, hopefully we can get the heller bill moved through the senate as well and get that to the president's desk. thank you very much for your time and i yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you very much. i do not see any member on the democratic side. mr. kinzinger of illinois. >> thank you for being here with us. >> thank you for your patience, mr. kinzinger. >> you're welcome. i might be the end. wow. we have a lot of big issues we want to talk about. i'm just going to hit a couple.

i'd like to talk to you a little -- i know it was touched earlier about the e-rate program. i'm a big supporter of the intentions of this program and especially its modernization, and i appreciate the commission putting on the recent workshop on this issue. i have a few concerns i want to address. i represent a rural district with a number of very small schools and libraries, and over the past few months i have reached out to a lot of these entities and asked them what their concern is and asked them about their participation or their lack of participation in the program to see what concerns or issues they have with the program itself. the number one problem raised in these conversations was the complexity involved in both applying for and eventually receiving the funding necessary to move forward in implementing new technology in their facilities. in hearing this, i actually looked into the issue a little further and found out the basic application for funding, this is the process, but the basic application is 17 pages long and

with additional technologies not deemed necessary it can run longer. i would rather punch myself in the face than be the guy who has to fill this out. the complexity of the application process has actually caused a number of these schools to spend money on outside consultants to help guide them through this process. this is money that's no longer being spent on our students and automatically puts many smaller rural schools at a disadvantage as they don't have the funds necessary to pay these consultants essentially leaving individuals in a technological desert. as the commission continues its efforts to modernize the program, what are your plans to simplify the application process for these small and rural districts and also will you commit to working to address the issues faced by these schools who have routinely told me they simply cannot afford to pursue these funds? >> congressman, i share your shock and dismay. we're going to fix it. >> good. all right. do you have an idea of a time

frame? how long? this is easy. we're going home. >> it's going to be part of our e-rate modernization program that we're bringing forward. there's actually a series of things that we're going to begin administratively even before that rulemaking takes place. it is -- yes, sir. i mean, i'm as -- you know, how do we get online? it becomes an interesting challenge. so here we are talking about broadband access for schools and libraries, and we have a 17-page paper process. >> right. >> so, unfortunately, it's not something you can solve just like this because as i indicated i think to mr. welch, we have awful i.t. systems, but what i would like to get to is for your schools and all schools and

libraries to be able to get online, to make their filing, to be able to track that filing and where things stand, and to do it less frequently than annually. >> right. well, i appreciate that. i want to touch on one other quick issue in the short amount of time, and, again, thank you for your consideration with the e-rate issue. i'm concerned with the process and policy rationale used to change the fcc's treatment of broadcast jsas. the decision to count tv jsas ownership has the effect of tightening ownership restrictions without the comprehensive review of the ownership rules that is required by statute, and your analysis cemented to lack an appreciation for the public interest benefits fostered by jsas. in rockford, without these agreements, the fox station produces actually a hispanic newscast and they've said they will not be able to produce that hispanic newscast, for instance. while i don't believe my local

tv station should have to fight for a waiver, and we can have a broader issue on the whole discussion in general, i do want to say in light of your rule, are you going to make sure that these stations can take advantage of waivers and will there be clear, transparent standards for applying for waivers in this process? >> thank you, congressman, because you have raised a really important point about waivers. the reality was why we had to deal with jsas is there was becoming a cottage industry in this town down on k street of lawyers figuring out creative ways to get around the ownership rules that the commission has had in place forever. and jsas were a favorite way of doing that. what we have said is that you have to have attributable ownership as you indicated. but that there is a waiver process to address exactly what you're talking about in rockford

and, yes, there's an expedited process, and it's a situation, unfortunately, where the process took over and perverted the underlying rules and the basic concepts of ownership. >> and we can have that broader discussion when i have more time. my time has expired but i will say, i have heard a lot of concerns from local tv stations even in my district, and i hope that while we disagree with the rule, i hope that you make it very clear how they can apply for these waivers and how they can get this taken care of. mr. chairman, i will yield back. and thank you. >> thank you very much. on behalf of mr. mathieson and of myself, thank you, chairman wheeler, for your testimony this morning. we look forward to working with you in the future, and the hearing is now adjourned.

[inaudible conversations] >> this morning, fbi and homeland security officials discuss cybersecurity threats from china, russia and iran. then senators rand paul and ron wyden debate the judicial nomination of david darren for the first circuit court of appeals. and the senate returns at 10 eastern for a vote on david barron's nomination. live senate coverage here on c-span2. >> today assistant attorney general for national security

john carlin talked about emerging national security threats. you can hear his remarks at 2 p.m. eastern on c-span3. >> friday 2014 commencement speakers including lawmakers, corporate executives and obama administration officials. we start the memorial day weekend with speeches by louisiana governor bobby jindal, massachusetts governor deval patrick and representatives luke messer of indiana and john lewis of georgia. that's at 8 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> what i'm trying to say is that fraud kills, okay? and it's nonpartisan, fraud. and we've got to do something about it. we are, we don't have unlimited budgets, and money gets wasted on a building that's never going

to get used is money that could have helped people here in the united states. and you keep seeing this again and again and again. and i'm very proud to work for this administration. i mean, and i think it's important that people realize i was appointed by the president. and inspector generals are independent. but it's important that the people see that the government does care, and there are a lot of people. there are people in aid can and state and pentagon who care about wasting money. >> john sopko on his role as inspector general and how american taxpayer dollars are spent on reconstruction in afghanistan, sunday night at eight on c-span's "q&a." >> now, fbi and homeland security officials testify about iran, russia and china's ability to hack u.s. web infrastructure. the testimony came before a

joint hearing on cybersecurity hosted by two house homeland security subcommittees. this is an hour. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> we'll be starting this just a few moments. -- in just a few moments.

we're waiting for -- [inaudible] [inaudible conversations] >> good morning. the committee on homeland security subcommittee on counterterrorism and intelligence and the subcommittee chaired by mr. meehan on cybersecurity and security technologies will come to order. the subcommittees are meeting today to hear testimony exam examining persistent and emerging cyber threats to the united states, and it's particularly fortuitous or

appropriate that we hold this hearing due to the fact that just the other day the justice department announced indictments of several chinese officials for their role in violating cybersecurity. again, this hearing has been scheduled for several weeks. ranking member higgins and i have been working on for quite a while now, but, again, i think the fact that we're holding it this week is particularly appropriate. due to the sensitivity of today's hearings, the subcommittees will enter a closed portion with the witnesses to discuss classified and sensitive matters, and i ask unanimous consent that at the appropriate time, the subcommittees recess and reconvene in closed session in the committees' secure space. without objection, so ordered. i will now recognize myself for an opening statement. the expanding number of cyber actors ranging from nation-states to terrorists to criminals as well as increasing attack capability and the increasing intent of cyber

attacks around the globe have made cyber warfare and cyber crime one of the most significant threats facing the united states. this week the department of justice unsealed an indictment against five chinese individuals working for the chinese military for hacking into multiple private sector u.s. businesses to steal their sensitive, proprietary information. additionally this week, the fbi and international law enforcement arrested over 100 called black shades which is used remotely to take over a computer, turn on the web cam and access passwords and other information without the owner's knowledge. i encourage, i am encouraged by the doj indictments and the recent law enforcement operation. i hope that is a signal of moree aggressive u.s. actions to address the cyber threat, because this threat is not going away. cyber attacks have economic consequences, harm our national security and could be used to

carry out attacks op the u.s -- on the u.s. homeland. over the last decade, the threats facing the united states have become more diverse, as have the tools for conducting attacks and waging war. while the u.s. has made great strides to secure the homeland since 9/11, our enemies have evolved, and we must now consider that a foreign adversary, terror itself network or -- terrorist network or a criminal organization will use cyberspace to penetrate america's defenses. director of national intelligence james clapper featured the cyber threat prominently in his annual threat update to congress this year along with other u.s. officials. he painted a sobering picture of the potential fallout from aer attack. nation-states comprise the most capable around the world, countries such as russia, china and iran have demonstrated their willingness to use cyberspace to steal our military secrets, target our critical infrastructure and even attack

our free press and financial sector. each has invested a great deal in cyber defenses and offensive capabilities, and some have even used cyber attacks as a proxy in a physical military confrontation. many experts suggest that russia has been engaged in estonia to support military forces during their 2008 invasion of georgia and again during the recent annexation of crimea. in addition to the threat from foreign powers, american citizens and companies lose billions from organized cyber crime every year. traditional criminal networks have wasted no time in developing the online trade craft to scam, steal and destroy valuable data. the recent data breach at target is a great example of exactly how far reaching and sophisticated these operations are. department of homeland security plays a major role in helping private companies keep their networks secure, and this will only become more important in years to come. finally, we are accustomed to

think of the physical damage caused by terrorist networks to life and property. we must now be prepared to defend against groups like al-qaeda using increasingly sophisticated cyber attacks and cyber crime to their advantage. for many years we have also seen these groups use the internet to communicate, radicalize and spread their hate. today we will hear about these issues from witnesses provided by the fbi and dhs. i am pleased that we will begin this hearing in an open session and subsequently moved into a closed executive session. i'm particularly pleased that chairman pat meehan is here today and that his subcommittee is engaged in this hearing, because he, along with chairman mccall, have led efforts to enact serious cybersecurity legislation. with the support of the private sector is and privacy advocates, that bill was passed unanimously out of this committee. it's a testimony to the hard work, also to the importance of the issue and i'm privileged to have pat with us here.

i look forward to the testimony, and i now recognize the ranking minority member of the subcommittee on counterterrorism and intelligence, the gentleman from new york, mr. higgins, for any statement he may have. >> i'd like to thank the chairman for holding this hearing, and in deference to the chairman and our guest today, i'll submit my opening statement for the record so we can get right to it. >> ranking member yoalds back. chairman mehan -- yields back. >> i thank the ranking member for yielding, and i thank the chairman for sharing the opportunity to collaborate on, as chairman king said, this very, very important issue. and i want to thank everybody for attending this important hearing. this is the latest in a series of hearings the cybersecurity subcommittee has held examining the threat to our computer networks and what the u.s. government is doing to mitigate and respond to that threat. the threat of cyber attack is real, and it's a growing menace in american security and prosperity. over the past year alone, we've

seen iranian hackers disrupt the computer systems of saudi energy company aramco and attempt to take down the american financial sector. we've also seen criminals attack icons of our retail sector, compromising the personal information of over 100 million customers. and just this week the department of justice announced indictments of five operators. last month i had the opportunity to travel to china with a number of my colleagues including house majority leader eric cantor, and we met with a number of chinese most senior leaders up to and including the premier, and we specifically raised concerns about state-sponsored industrial espionage and the importance of protecting and respecting intellectual property and the trade secrets of american buzzes. businesses.

china has a responsibility to had here to international -- adhere to international law, a responsibility it has repeatedly failed to acknowledge. the response we received from chinese officials where we raise these concerns was disciplined. the chinese refused to admit that they condoned or sported their state-sponsored corporate espionage and then refused to soon seed that -- to concede that american businesses were continuously targeted. in addition to state-sponsored criminal negotiations, terrorist groups and activists use the internet to attack us and to finance their illicit activities. at the 2014 report by the cybersecurity firm mandian states: threat actors are not just interested in seizing the corporate crown jewels, but are also looking for ways to publicize their views, to cause physical destruction and to influence global decision makers. defending against and responding to these attacks has a real

cost, and the cost is primarily borne by american private sector. companies spend hundreds of millions of dollars per year defending their networks. at a hearing we held last month in philadelphia, just an area community bank testified that they had to spend a million dollars a year. this was a small community bank on its cybersecurity efforts, and they suggested that they could spend much more. attacks have caused business disruptions, cost companies an average of nearly $300,000 each to mitigate damage, and certainly it can be significantly higher where there is real damage. and companies have lost untold amounts of intellectual property, have found themselves at a competitive disadvantage with their global competitors. identity theft alone costs u.s. banks, retailers and consumers roughly $780 million a year and, as the chairman himself said, literally billions of dollars in

value associated with stolen intellectual property. all of these losses directly contribute to job losses, missed business opportunities and american companies at a competitive disadvantage on the world stage. the question then becomes how do we respond to this? be first, we must insure that our federal agencies have defined roles and are coordinating with each other in the private sector to share threat information. we must also crack down on the perpetrators of these attacks by arresting malicious hackers and pressuring other countries to do the same. it's especially true in china and eastern europe. where these companies' spies and criminals hide. the indictments of the chinese military hackers and the arrest of over 100 hackers linked to the malicious software called black shades are a good start, but there's more work to do. importantly, we in congress need to continue to study this threat and to understand who the adversaries are, what they want, where they live and what they're

capable of doing. i want to thank each of the members of this panel who are before us today for their work many this area -- in this area, and we look forward to your testimony both in here and in the closed hearings to better understand and to better continue to educate not only our colleagues, but the american people on this very, very important and challenging issue. and i thank chairman king for the opportunity to share it with him. i yield back. >> thank you, chairman meehan. other members of the committee, i remind you that opening statements may be submitted for the record, and now i'm pleased to introduce the distinguished panel that we have here today. mr. glenn simons is the senior intelligence officer for the cyber intelligence analysis division in homeland security's office of intelligence and analysis. his responsibilities include providing all cyber intelligence support to dhs senior personnel and owners and operators of critical infrastructure. additionally, he manages and leads a diverse cyber work force

that in coordination with the national direct rate provides support to our nation's 16 critical partners and all applicable state, local, territorial, tribal and private sector entities. mr. joseph demarest is the assistant director of the cyber division at the federal bureau of investigation. the fbi helps lead the national effort to investigate high-tech crimes including espionage, computer intrusions and cyber fraud. joe demarest has been with the fbi for more than a quarter of a century, and i had the personal privilege of seeing him operate firsthand when he headed the joint terrorism task force in new york and later as the assistant director in charge where he did a truly outstanding job in coordinating efforts against terrorism in the new york city/long island, new york, area. joe demarest, it's great to see you here today. thank you. mr. larry zelvin is the director of national cybersecurity and

communications integration center at the department of homeland security. it's comprised of several components including u.s. computer emergency readiness team, the national coordination center for telecommunications, the industrial control system cyber emergency response team and a 24/7 operations center. mr. zelvin is a retired u.s. navy captain, a naval aviator for 26 years of active service. i want to thank all of you for appearing here today and let you know that your written testimony is being submitted for the record, and i will now recognize mr. lemons for five minutes for his testimony. mr. lemons. >> thank you, sir. chairman king, chairman meehan, ranking member higgins and distinguished members of the committee, i am pleased to discuss the continued threat to the homeland from malicious cyber actors in the office of intelligence and analysis' role in assessing these threats. cyber intrusions in government networks are increasing in

sophistication and seriousness, although the persistent cyber threat to the homeland remains theft of data and espionage, the complexity of emerging threat capabilities, the inextricable link between physical and cyber domains and the diversity of actors present challenges to dhs and all of our customers. with the private sector owning and operating over 85% of our nation's critical infrastructure, information sharing becomes especially important between public and private sector. malicious are cyber actors who target the homeland include nation-states, cyber criminals, criminal hackers, asimilar met trick actors presenting unique cybersecurity concerns that can magnify any threat. nation-states aggressively target and gain persistent access to public and private sector networks to steal massive quantities of data. given the increasing world view, we cannot discount that adversaries currently support planning for contingencies by

mapping and evaluating u.s. networks and infrastructure. cyber criminals are largely motivated by profit and are extremely capable, representing a long-term, global and common threat. we see sophisticated financial criminals in many countries throughout the world. criminal hackers are politically motivated, are politically or ideologically motivated which can result in high profile operations in both, but often with limited effectiveness. the may 2000 middle east and north africa based hacker campaign showed the group's desire for media attention despite its lack of capability to disrupt web sites of u.s. government, financial and commercial entities. terrorists primarily use the internet for online regroom, propaganda and research. they're limited by difficulty in recruiting experts. we believe we will continue to seek -- they will continue to seek cyber targets of opportunity. therefore, despite the low probability of destructive

terrorist cyber attacks occurring, such an event may have a high profile impact even if unsuccessful. success may be determined by press coverage. the outlook of these threats is that malicious activity targeting government and private sector networks can result in intentional and in some cases unintentional consequences. critical infrastructure as well as public health and welfare. it is reasonable to assess both disruptive and possibly destructive cyber activity are the goals of malicious actors who target our nation's critical infrastructure in an effort to cause harm. ina has an important role in carrying out its cyber responsibilities by assessing these emerging threats and assuring both public and private sector are made aware of them. the ina support for public and private sector owners and operators is multidimensional. executive order charges the department to increase the value, the quantity and quality

of unclassified cyber threat reporting, dhs/ina has increased outreach by 382% from fiscal year 2012 to 2013, and for '14, we're on a trajectory to bypass last year's numbers. these activities are in in addition to our regularly scheduled unclassified and classified production and weekly, monthly and quarterly security engagements. additionally, we are partnering with state and local fusion centerso9éósç to deconflict production, solicit requirements and participate in joint production opportunities. these are just some of our efforts to increase threat awareness, decrease due public ty reporting and -- duplicative reporting and align priorities. thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today, i look forward to your questions both here and in the follow-on classified session. ..

we live in a time of acute and persistent terrorist and state-sponsored and criminal threats to our national security, our economy and our communities. these diverse threats facing our nation and our neighborhoods underscore the complexity and breadth of the fbi's mission today. the united states faces cyber threats from state-sponsored hackers, hackers for hire, global cybercriminals syndicates and a generous. they seek our trade and state secrets, acknowledge, personal and financial information and our ideas all of which are of incredible value to us here in

the u.s. given the scope of the cyberthreat, agencies are making cybersecurity a top priority. within the fbi we are prioritizing high level intrusions the biggest and most dangerous botnets, criminal forms, state-sponsored hackers and global cybercriminals syndicates as all priority. we want to predict and prevent attacks, gettin get in a positie we can rather than react after the fact. fbi agents, analysts and computer scientists are using technological techniques to fight cyber crimes today. we are working side-by-side with our federal, state and local partners on cyber task force is in each of our 56 field offices and through the national cyber investigative task force in virginia. there are 24/7 cyber command center, we combine the resources of the fbi and the ng idf allowing us to provide connectivity other centers in kick being chief among them,

government agencies to fbi field offices, legal attaches and the private sector in the event of cyber event. as the committee as well where the frequency of cyber attacks on our nation's private sector and government networks have increased dramatically in the past decade and a it will grow exponentially but the fbi and a partners have that multiple recent invested successes against the threat and we are continuing to push ourselves to respond more rapidly to prevent attacks before they occur. on monday the western district of virginia unsealed an indictment naming five people of the people's republic of china on 31 proud counts including conspiring to commit computer fraud, hacking a computer without authorization and private financial gains damaging computers through transmission of code and command, activate identity theft, economic espionage and theft of trade seekers. each has prices into the expertise to conspiracy to penetrate the computer networks of six u.s. companies all those

countries were engaged in negotiation or joint ventures with former pursuing legal action against state-owned enterprises in china. this marks the first time criminal charges have been filed against nonstate actors for hacking. also metadata and its worldwide worldwide operations against those individuals who created and purchase malware. this operation involved 18 countries, more than 90 arrests have been made so far and more than 300 searches have been conducted around the world in support of the operation. products are offered on the website with the product include axis tools and black shades password recovery justin mckee. the most popular product was the black shade remote access to. the tool contains a key that allowed users to record each keep the victim hides on the computer keyboards to help users steal a victim's password and a logon, the two also had a feature which automatically captured logon information that

victims entered into the forms on their computers. the tool provided its users with complete access of all the files contained on a victim's computer. a tool user could use, download photographs, documents or other files on the victim's computer. the tool enables users to encrypt or lock a victim's files and demand grants and payment to unlock them. the tool even came with a prepared script to demand such a ransom to get imagine this tool alone significant threats to individual victims across the united states, and certainly around the world. these are just the beginning. the fbi has redoubled its efforts to strengthen our cyber capabilities and truly. the next-generation cyber initiative which was launched in 2012 include a wide range of developers like establishing cyber task forces to each of our field offices. also focusing on cyberintrusion. we've also

>> ranking member clarke comp test enrichment of the committee thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. as you well know the nation's economic vitality of national city then on to secure cyberspace were refocused decisions can be made and digital goods, transactions and online interactions can occur safely and reliably. in order to meet this objective the characteristics of malicious cyber activity must be shared in a timely fashion so defenders

can discover, address and mitigate a variety of threats and vulnerabilities. in carrying out our particular responsibilities the intake promotes a unified approach to subsidy which enables the rocketing of cybersecurity information in a manner that ensures the protection of individual privacy, civil liberties and rights. nccic provides around-the-clock said work government private sector and in a shorter work together in both physical and virtual environments. the nccic is comprised of four branches, us-cert, i is caesar, in d.c. and another component. from october 1, 2013, to make 20, 2014 the intake has received over two to three and 50,000 reports and government partners, critical infrastructure and international partners. a significant increase from the 230,000 reports received in 2013. these reports include distributed analysis service, phishing campaigns an intrusion into a variety of technology information system.

in response the nccic publishes technical and non-technical information products, often co-authored with the fbi, analyzing activity and improving the organizations to aid the ability to reduce risk. when appropriate all nccic components have on site incident response teams that can assist asset owners and operators and the facilities in close cooperation with government partners. us-cert global partnerships and are useful as our team works to develop analysis across international borders to develop a comprehensive picture of malicious cyber activity. data from the nccic and yes, sir can be shared and formats, information express language which is currently being implemented and utilized. when looking at the cyberthreat is one of our greatest challenges of cybersecurity is a information technology systems are not new secure as they could or should be. while there are cases i could

use i let my statement i would like use my remaining time to talk about how we in dhs have aided agencies to the moma building across the dot gov domain. on april 17 to 2014 the nccic warned other wounded let any player in scripture and software. we issued a public work on able to go into put signatures into our einstein detection system to enable the detection of possible exploitation of the heart bleed. on april 10, mitigation guidance was a trip to our national worldwide partners and then the nccic national subsidy assessment of technical services team collaborate with well over 100 federal agencies receiving their authorization to scan for the boldly, identify their i.t. space, schedule times and deliver individualized reports and results the agency for the mitigation. to date the scan, approximate

15.5 million i.t. is on 11 different occasions and assisted reduces the number of moment occurrencebudget-conscious fromo about two in less than two weeks. more than half were identified or medicaid in the first six days of skinny. the control system search in partnership with private sector research groups conducted to webinars, one with industrial control system vendor community and one with 16 critical infrastructure sectors directly impacted by the vulgarly on april 25. approximate 140 vendors attended the first session and nearly 500 owners and uppers as well as representatives from sector specific agencies and information sharing attended the second. fortuity to the hard work, the impact of the heart bleed has been mental. i am very proud of how the team responded as a search is yet another example how we collaborate with and serve our community of stakeholders. we can do better in with the

help of the committee to clarify authorities we can do to mitigate risks in our dot gov and dot com domains closer to the time they occur. in conclusion, i would like to again thank the committee for the building to appear today at highlight we in dhs and across the nccic try everyday to enhance security. we accomplish our mission using voluntary means and to be mindful of the need for to respect privacy, civil liberties and the law. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you, mr. zelvin but i would not recognize ms. clarke for opening remarks. >> i thank you, mr. chairman, and i think chairman meehan and ranking member higgins for holding this hearing this morning. as we have just heard and keenly aware, threats to system supporting you is critical infrastructure and federal and corporate systems are evolving and growing. advanced persistent threats --

sophisticate levels of expertise and significant posts increasing threats. soon after his election in 2008 president obama declared the cyberthreat to be one of the most serious economic and national security challenges we face as a nation and stated america's economic prosperity in the 21st century will depend on cybersecurity. the director of national intelligence has also warned us of the increasing globalization of cyber attacks, including those carried out by foreign militaries or organize international crime. as has been mentioned already this morning, on monday we saw the department of justice indict members of in our military involved in economic espionage cybercrime. most likely espionage in support of state owned companies. it appears the department of justice has been working on this indictment for more than a year.

prosecutors in doj's national street division had to show there was strong and specific evidence and there had to be companies are willing to go public against china. the evolving array of cyber faced threats, commerce and intellectual property as well as individuals. international threats include both targeted and untargeted attacks from a variety of sources. these sources include business competitors, criminal groups, hackers and four nations engaged in espionage and information warfare. these sources of cybersecurity threats make use of various techniques to compromise information, which adversely affect computers, software, a network or organizations operation in industry, or the internet itself. such threats sources vary in terms of the types and capabilities of the actors. their willingness to act as the motive, adversarial

cybersecurity threats range from as i like to say from botnet the business competitors. addressing international cybersecurity threats involves many government and private entities including internet service providers, security vendors, software developers and computer forensic specialist. they are focuses on developing and implementing technology systems to protect against computer intrusion, internet fraud and spam. and if the crime does occur, detecting it and helping to give evidence when an investigation but also because when cybercrime threats across national and state orders from law enforcement organizations have to deal with multiple jurisdictions with their own laws and legal procedures. a situation that complicates and hobbles investigations. law enfrccutingt militias 21st century cybercriminals is this, modern criminals can leverage chnology to victimize targets

across borders and the criminals themselves need not cross a single border to do so. this creates a unique task in identifying and locating the criminals and apprehending and prosecuting them. the united states has extradition and mutual legal assistance with some but not all ith these agreements in place the process may be slow. we must continue to search for ways that congress can help enhance international law enforcement capabilities and to get criminals off the streets, or shall we say, out of cyberspace. and those protect u.s. critical infrastructure, government systems and consumers. i appreciate hearing to contest one of our witnesses this morning. it's reassuring to know that our nation benefits from your diligence, knowledge and expertise. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> thank u., country. we will open up for a few question.

want to remind members that we are going to be going to close a session where these questions can be better addressed, but again, keep it to a few questions i think it will be to everyone's benefit because there is much to be learned in closed session. i just basically have one question and don't ask it to the panel. are terrorist organizations actively targeting u.s., indexing cases of terror groups coordinating with criminal organizations to carry out attacks? and again we are in an open session. you can answer accordingly. >> so for this session, we are seeing that but its focus against sites that are hosted in the u.s. and they tend to be low level attacks, website defacement and the like. there are three principal groups that have the capability to developing the capabilities that are looking for the capabilities today to do something more, i will say in the physical realm.

and as far as your second part of the question about join with criminal organizations we've not seen that yet, do we do actively watch for terrorist organizations crossing over to the criminal forms that are online today to acquire skill or talent or tools to perpetrate or commit a crime. >> do you believe we have the defense capability i think you said you would have them off but do we have capability against these type of attacks? >> i think its sector by sector, chairman. i think in the dot gov space we are fairly where -- well-prepared. it's varying degrees of preparedness i would say. probably defer to larry on that or mr. zelvin as for sectors and how well they're prepared. we see finance in particular giving a stellar job or they've invested heavily in transportation, some of the

others, energy. lower on the priority scale, less so. >> mr. lemons, mr. zelvin, any comment? >> i concur with mr. demarest at this point. >> the only thing i would add is law enforcement notice is doing a collection where we see is reporting from victims into we turned it over to the fbi and other law enforcement both at the state and local level. most of the terrorist groups, especially domestic, are going after faith-based groups. it's been mostly trying to influence in having an impact that those groups, and we're working with them and many of these groups don't have a sophisticated cyber defense. so we're working with him to not only understand what may be targeting them but also what companies out there to assist and we offer assistance as well. i can cover more in the closest section if you'd like. >> ranking member higgins. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it seems as though capability

and desire are hard things to monitor and detect. it seems as though the cyber threat is coming from all the state and nonstate actors. so i would be interested in your assessments as to the terrorist threat from nonstate actors like hezbollah, syria and al-qaeda. terrorist, second generation post 9/11 are younger, more aggressive and more technologically savvy. and so i am just interested in your assessment of that relative to capability and desire to strike u.s. targets. >> ranking member, i would say a desire is strong. i would say the capability is developing. and what we've seen him in three groups, you mention lebanese hezbollah is certain an organization that is looking to develop a significant capability

in this arena. they focus from early on regional enemies. i'll say their enemy, but not so much against the u.s. >> sir, i would concur with mr. demarest. >> me also, serve. >> and what about the threat posed by state actors like iran, china and russia? is the level of activity increasing and when we doing to combat that? >> i'll save certain more for the closed session but increasing on all three. i was a russia, china and iran certainly developing significant capabilities. >> i would also concur with mr. demarest as we see these nations also increase in complexity their information needs to also increase. part of those information needs are also developing to meet

those needs as they go forward and we'll get in more detail in the closed session. >> i would just say in closing, the terrorist mentality is to target high impact targets obviously. and nine 9/11 in addition to the death and destruction it was exacted on the united states, there was also a symbolic attack as well, which the cyberthreat seems to confirm. and that is to destroy our way of life. attacked the twin tower towers e it was a sign of america's economic superiority. the attacked the pentagon because it was a symbol of america's military superiority. and presumably a plane which is headed for either the capitol or the white house because of our democratic freedom that we enjoy. so it would seem to me that the

potential of the cyber attack in the motivation and desire of those who seek to hurt us and our way of life is pretty imminent and pretty significant. >> chairmachairman meehan. >> i think the chairman king and i thank again the panel for your work in this area. we have looked at a variety of issues that a lot of the focus continued to be a perfectly so on the nationstate activity and a very sophisticated criminal gangs and the potential for them to do massive destruction, not only in our infrastructure but also theft of intellectual property and things of that nature. special agent, used a term, you talked about this kind of a threat affecting not just our nation but also our neighborhoods it and i often think about the average american thinking about is, discussing these issues come and believing

that somehow it's very remote from them, something might happen to some bank in new york but it doesn't affect me. and i praise law enforcement across the board, ma including the great work done by the justice department taking on sophisticated chinese operations that have been sponsored nation's, sponsored activity, hacking into our most sophisticated systems. but in your testimony also talked about this process, black shades and in effect this is a market that exists out there in the world. it touched 19 countries with this very important indictment, and black shades was anywhere between five and $40, individual can go into the black market and purchase malware that is, if disaffected enough, they could

go into the home of any american and takeover of their computer. as i understand your testimony, it's not only the ability to use that malware if it's invited him in some capacity to take over the operation of making beautiful including tracking the keystrokes and things of that nature, but in reading the publicly of information, so i'm not talking about anything that hasn't been spoken about publicly, is it accurate that in addition to was the capacity to be able to manipulate remotely the same kind of control functions that the individual would come including the use of cameras? so the reality is an individual could be sitting in their own home, they could be sitting in their own bedroom, and every multi-controlled access to a remotely controlled access, not only with what is contained in the computer but maybe actually in real time be actually viewing

what's going on in that home. so we are inviting in to our own homes and average american force little as $5 some criminal in eastern europe or across the street would be able to have that access to the i don't think we have talked enough about this. could you explain to me just what is remote access tool? how is it available? what can it do and what d are we doing to be able to take steps to prevent its use? >> chairman meehan, you're exactly right. you can imagine as a citizen sitting anywhere in the u.s. today you could have an actor sitting in some remote region of the world actually giving you through your own laptop or computer at home through your camera. basically remote access tool provides access by an actor to your box or to your computer, to take it over. they own your pc or laptop or

device that you are using. it gives them access as you mentioned to the webcam or the camera and they can turn it on and off at will. as i mentioned, ran somewhere, they can lock files, take photos, whether they be sensitive photos to the individual or the owner of the computer or not, they can collect all this information and financial effort, as would an electric so it's completely owned and the information is taken and i've used by that particular actor or sold in different environments online. these criminal forms. so you are being exposed and exploited once and then potentially multiple times but other actors with purchasing information online. i guess small -- salt to the wound, they had the ability to send out chat messages to your contacts in your computer. so looks like chairman meehan is sending, you know, mr. demarest an e-mail or a chat and i

respond to that. in that is a link that has malware that is attached so it spreads the black shades now to my computer. stencil a friend to pick up what i think it's a message to me that would just be in the normal course. of respondents in the a picture of our vacation that we took down to the jersey shore, but because of that communication enough access into my computer and now they can begin to do the same process, not only taking over the files and keystrokes but even manipulating the camera in my bedroom. >> friends and family. but it would require me when you send or the actor sending that chat to me, for me to click on a link that you see me via the chat message. >> how do we identify something like that in our system? what are we doing to be able to educate americans to take steps to protect their most intimate and most private and most secure

information? >> excellent question. throughout the investigation and then the culmination of the enforcement is a significant technical aspect to get what we are seizing the infrastructure used by the actors. specifically administrative servers which has most of the victim information on it. so then we work with, i'll say the internet service providers to there is countries to identify the victim and get information to them, to the fact they have been impacted. and the tools made available for them to actually mitigate or remediate what's on their computer. that begin, the relationship we've forged with dhs is offering to dhs portal but either tools or instruction on how to eliminate given malware. >> i will look forward to more communication with this issue as we go into private session, and otherwise. but i think all of you for your work. i think it's very important for

the american people to recognize these issues and don't think of them always as just remotely affecting big businesses or corporations, that everyday americans as you said affecting not just our nation but our neighborhoods. i think this is part of our responsibility is to open up an awareness and appreciation for the very scope and nature of this threat. thank you for testament. looked hearing -- look for doing more at a later time. >> thank you, mr. chairman. monday indictment of the five chinese military hackers for computer hacking in economic espionage was the sort of legal action taken by the ag is a standard tactic in espionage and sends a clear signal to the other side that their actions have become intolerable but it's just beginning of a long process. the indictment alleged that the defendants conspired to hack into america's computer systems,

maintaining offers access compelling information to advantage economic competitors in china. as i understand the department of homeland security's role in these types of situations is usually led a us-cert. because it leads medication and forensic efforts in coronation with the fbi, secret service and other federal agencies. would you describe the kind of interagency coordination that is in place for agencies as a collaborative model where dhs involvement is stood up for us-cert? and does the role go beyond that jurisdiction? >> ranking member, thank you for the question. talk about in broad terms and we can get into more mayor issues like when there's an incident, now we have a ranking system as to the importance of it, there's certain things that are low thresholds and to assert things are high thresholds.

if someone is into a database system, it is the compromise of personal identifiable information, if there's a disruption, those are very high skilled events. fortunately, they don't happen often but they do happen. on a given day you see between 150, 200 incidents through our einstein system which is monitoring the dot gov intrusion prevention. at a high level we will make an out reach directly to the victim and we will notify them of the event and making sure that they're tracking and we will offer assistance if needed to ask to go in and investigate on their service and other information technology capabilities to determine how deep is the compromise. we will do this in full partnership with the fbi, law enforcement and with our intelligence community members so they can develop the procedures to see where else. then us-cert will go across the

federal community and create that awareness at the same time we're grading signatures into the intrusion detection system to make sure that these offenses cannot be repeated to worship with a private and international partners to the enhanced cyber cities service and also through our other program. so it is in the agency, private sector, international and given on the lower events we are still doing the notification so i described a high-end as more of an example and i would ask to see if mr. demarest wants to offer thoughts as well. >> so what's good about today is that what mr. zelvin and dhs learns in forms of investigation and what we learned this investigation or intelligence collection efforts informed protectors, the defenders at dhs. this is a cycle that develop i would say over the last two years were it's effectively transfer of knowledge and information that better safeguard the country but informs and helps us spearhead and focus compiler focus

investigations. >> very well. that's a very robust and holistic approach and i think that will sir our nation well. my next question is, the debate around protecting u.s. networks is often focus on u.s. critical infrastructure. currently the department of homeland security from presidential policy director 21, which of these sectors are targeted probes and intrusions most frequently and what sectors are most at risk? >> ranking member, i'll tell you the heightened, it depends on the awareness and out of our energy sector, our finance sector, information technology, many occasions, transportation. we are seeing a lot of instances but there are other sectors i haven't mentioned where we are not seeing it but i wonder if that's because they are not being reported. that's a huge challenge. when it comes to the critical infrastructure and the private sector there is no requirement.

it is all voluntary so we know what we know. we don't know what we don't know. i run what about what we don't know. i have given, i've talked to groups and other sectors and they said we really don't have a cybersecurity problem. i said you should do, you just don't know about it. i will tell you my experience and that the mr. lemons and mr. demarest will take the same thing, adversaries are going after any vulnerability they can find. it doesn't matter what state you're in, what city, what to do infrastructure, if there's an opening as an adversary that's going to be able to check to see what information they can steal. >> i would agree. and depending on the actor, sometimes alters the focus or the most threatened the sector. when we talk about our middle east actor in recent activity against new york over the past year or so, but again i get depends on them but as larry mentioned the priority sector for us today are in finance,

transportation, energy, i.t. or communications. >> ranking member, we increase our outreach efforts within the private sector in our state and local partners. we see an increase willingness for people to come forward and work with us. i believe that number can go higher and higher as we work with public and private partners. >> thank the ranking member. gentleman from georgia, mr. brown. >> thank you, mr. chairman. when system was fast several times now, a lot of people that are concerned about privacy and civil liberties across the nation were very fearful of that act, because of the potential sharing of their own personal private information with the federal government, can you tell us, tell me how that kind of information is being protected, or is there any protection of

peoples privacy or civil liberties under sispa? >> at the forefront everything we do is protection of people's identifiable information, privacy, civil liberties. it is an hour away, daily focus for us. i will tell you my folks are trained on a routine basis. we are audited not only internally but also externally as far as our processes and procedures on how are we protecting that data. we don't require that. that's cyber defense and that's what we got dhs at the nccic. we do not require information that privacy, civil liberties and nature. the defense mechanisms are really those ones and zeros him and attacking i.t. or malicious software. i will tell you there have been instances, although rare, and also small where we will get something from something that we

thought was completely secure, and it was done everything what we do and we go through a process with attorneys, with privacy experts come with civil liberties experts in making sure that if there is an incursion that we're treating it properly, that there is an ability mitigate and to make sure that this bill doesn't go beyond what we have detected and then as a center for the process and procedure and superman film but as i said there are some very rare occasion? >> so there's no guarantee though that private information is not shared either direction from the company to the federal government, some other entities? >> despite our best efforts and every process and procedure, there will be occasion were i regret there may be sometimes whether maybe spills or that goes over where i think is important is where the right process and procedures and oversight to make sure windows

occasions occur that we do the right things in accordance with the law, policy and directives. >> mr. chairman, i will wait until the closed session for further questions. >> okay. in accordance with unanimous consent request at the beginning of hearing we will now recess reconvene in 10 minutes for closed session. i would ask the audience if they would wait and allow the witnesses to leave so we can take them to the location. [inaudiblwe stand in recess. >> today assistant attorney general for national security john carlin talks about emerging national security threats. you can here his remarks at 2 p.m. eastern on c-span3. >> friday, 2014 commencement speakers including lawmakers, corporate executives and obama

administration officials. we start the memorial day weekend with speeches by bobby jintao, deval patrick and representative john lewis of georgia plus johnny isakson of georgia. that's at 8 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> the movement decide to take the cost of the equipment to the united states supreme court. that's really what i write about. i am glad you had times called a stunningly intimate story. that's a start from that is what i set out to do. i wanted, i was fascinated i wanted to know what would you like to be a plaintiff in a major civil rights litigation. one that was incredibly high profile and controversial. like what did it feel like. what was the judge thinking as he is considering the evidence. the judge as it turns out turned

out himself to be gay. what does it feel like? i guess alterman what i really wanted to say, what does it feel like when you want something that everybody else has to be told you can't have it. >> from the first attempt to stop california's prop eight to the supreme court decision to strike down the defense of marriage act, jo becker on what some are calling the new civil rights movement saturday night at 10 eastern and sunday night at nine on "after words," part of three days of booktv this holiday weekend o on c-span2. and online our book club selection is "it calls you back" by former gang member and committee activist luis j. rodriguez. join other readers in the discussion that booktv.org. >> the u.s. senate voted thursday to advance the nomination of david barron to sir on the u.s. court of appeals for the first circuit. mr. barron has written legal

memos justifying the use of unmanned aerial drones. next, senator rand paul explained his opposition to the nomination while senator ron wyden defends mr. barron. this is 45 minutes. >> i rise today in opposition to the killing of american citizens without trials. i rise today to oppose the nomination of anyone who would argue that the president has the power to kill an american citizen not involved in combat and without a trial. i rise today to say that there is no legal precedent for killing american citizens not involved in combat and that any nominee who rubberstamps and grants such power to a president is not worthy of being placed one step away from the supreme court. it isn't about just seeing the

bear in the memos. some seem to be vacated by the fact that oh, they can read these memos. i believe it's about what the memos themselves say. i believe the barron memo's at their very core this respect the bill of rights. the bill of rights isn't so much for the "american idol" winner. the bill of rights isn't so much for the prom queen or the high school football quarterback. the bill of rights is especially for the least popular among us. the bill of rights is especially for minorities. whether you are a minority by the verge of the color of your skin or the shade of your ideology. the bill of rights is especially for unpopular people and i like your ideas and unpopular religions. it is easy to argue for trials for prom queens. it is easy to argue for trial for the high school quarterback or the "american idol" winner.

it is hard to argue for trials fur traders and the people who would wish to harm our fellow americans. that immature freedom defends the defenseless, allows trials for the guilty, protect stephen's speech of the most despicable nature. after 9/11 we all recoiled in horror at the mask of thousands of innocent americans. we fought a war to tell of the countries that we would not put up with this and we would not allow this to happen again. as our soldiers began to return from afghanistan, i asked him to explain in their own words what they had thought for, and to a soldier they would tell me they thought for the american way. they fought to defend the constitution and they thought for our bill of rights. i think it's a disservice to their sacrifice not to have an open and full throated public

debate about whether an american citizen should get a trial before they are killed. .. anybody involved in a battlefield, anybody shooting against our soldiers, anybody involved in combat gets no due process. what we're talking about is the extraordinary concept of killing american citizens who are overseas but not involved in combat. it doesn't mean that they're not potentially and probably are bad people, but we're talking about doing it with no accusation, no trial no charge, no jury. the nomination before us is about killing americans not involved in combat. the nominee david barron has i s written a defense of executions of american citizens not involved in combat. mistake.in combat. these memos do not limit drone executions to one man.

these memos become historic precedent for killing americans abroad. some have argued that releasing these memos is sufficient for his nomination. this is not a debate about transparency. this is a debate about whether or not american citizens not involved in combat are guaranteed due process. realize that during the bush years most of president obama's party including the president himself, argued against the detention, not the killing, theh argued against the detention of american citizens without a trial yet now the president and the vast majority of his party will vote for a nominee that advocates the killing of american citizens without trial. how far have we come? how far have we gone? we were once talking about detaining american citizens and objecting they get no accusation

and no trial and now we're condoning killing american sit essential without all trial. election hebe toldol "the boston globe," no, i reject the bush administration's claim that the president has plenary authority under the constitution to detain american citizens without charges as unlawful combatants. but now as president not only has he signed legislation to detain american citizens withoub trial but he is now approving of killing american citizensen without as trial. where, oh, where has candidate obama gone? president obama now puts forward david barron whose memos justify killing americans without a trial. i can't tell you what he wrote in the memos. the president forbids it. i can tell you what barron did not write. he did not write or cite any legal case to justify killing an

american without a trial because no such legal precedent existsev it has never been adjudicated. no court has ever looked at this. there has been no public debate because it has been held secret from the american people. barron creates out of whole cloth a defense for executing american citizens without trial. the cases he cites, which i'm forbidden from talking about, which i'm forbidden from citing to you today, are unrelated to the issue of killing american citizens because no such cases have ever occurred. we have never debated this in public. we are going. to allow this to e decided by one branch of government in secret. and yet, the argument against the barron memo, the argument againstho what barron proposes should not be secret and obvious to anyone thath looks at issue. no court has ever decided such a case.s so "barron's" secret defense ofi

drone executions relies on cases which upon critical analysis have no pertinence to the case at hand. and am i the only one thinks that something so unprecedented as an assassination of an american citizen, this should not be discussed, we should discuss this in the light of day? am i the only one that thinks that the question of such magnitude should be decided in the open by the supreme court? "barron's" argue about the extra yu second quarter. rome mans wrote the burden of proof is on he who declares, he asserts that you are guilty, not on who he demise. the burden is on the government. we described this principle as

the principle of being considered innocent until guilty. this is a profound concept. this is not something we should quietly act we ses to having it run roughshod on or diluted and eventually destroyed. in many nations the presumption ofnn innocence is a legal righto the accused even in the trial. in america we go one step further to protect the accused. we place the burden of proof on the prosecution. we require the government to collect and present enough compelling evidence to a jury, not to one person who works for the president, not to a bunch of people in secret, but to a public jury, the evidence must be presented but then we bo even further to protect the possibility of innocence. we require that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. if reasonable doubt remains, the accused is to be acquitted. we set a very high bar, foron

conviction and extremely high bar for execution, and even doing all of the most appropriate things, we still sometimes have gotten it wrong and have executed people after jury trials mistakenly, erroneously but now we're not talking about not even having the protection of a trial. we're talking about only accusations of the are we comfortable killing american citizens, no matter how awful or heinous the crime, are wehe comfortable killing them on accusations that no jury has reviewed?no innocent until proven the guilty, the concept is tested. we are being tested of the it is tested when the consensus is, that the accused is very likely guilty. in this case the traitor that was killed in all likelihood is guilty. the evidence in secret appears to be overwhelming. and yet why can't we do the american thing, have a public, trial, accuse them and convict

them in a court? it is more difficult to believe in the concept of innocent until proven guilty when the accused is unpopular or hated. the principle of innocent until proven guilty is more difficult when the accused is charged with of rights is easy.y it's easy to defend when we like the speech or sympathize with the defendant. the defending the right of trial for people we fear or dislike is more difficult. it's extremely hard. but we have to defend the bill of rights or it will slip away from us. it is easy to support a trial for someone who looks like you, for someone who has the same color skin or someone who has the same religion, it's easy. presumption of innocence is however much harder when the citizen practice as minority when the citizen resides in a foreign land or

sympathizes with the enemy. yet our history is replete with examples of heros who defended defenseless, who defended the unpopular, who sometimes defended the guilty. we remember john adams when he defended the british soldiers, the ones that were guilty of the bostonst massacre.on we rememberdl fondly people who defend the unpopular even when they end up being declared guilty because that is something we take pride in our system. we remember his son, john quincy adams, when he defended the slaves who took over the amistad. we remember fondly, henry seldon who represented unpopular when he represented susan b. anthony who voted illegally as a woman. we remember fondly, eugene debbs who defended himself when he was accused defense the draft and against world war i and given 10 years in prison. we defend the unpopular. that's what the bill of rights

is especially important for. we remember fondly clarence darrow who defended the unpopular in the scopes monkey trial. we remember fondly, thurgood marshall who defended the unpopular when he convinced the supreme court to strike down segregation. where would we be without these champions? where we would be without applying the bill of rights to those we don't like, to those we don't associate with, to those we actually think are guilty? where would the unpopular be without the protection of the bill of rights? one can almost argue the right to trial is more precious, the unpopular the defendant. we can not and we should not abandon this cherished principle.ha critics will argue these are evil people who plot to kill americans. i don't dispute that. my first instinct is like most americans,er to recoil in horror

and want immediate punishment for traitors. i can't stand the thought of americans't who consort with and advocate violence against americans. i want to punish those americans who are traitors but i am also conscious of what these traitors have betrayed. these traitors are betraying a country that holds dear the precept that we are innocent until proven guilty. aren't we in a way betraying our country's principles when we relinquish this right to a trial by jury? the maxim we're innocent untilir provenst guilty in some ways lie your first amendment that presumes speech is okay. it is easy to protect complimentary speech. it is easy to protect speech you agree with. it is harder to protect speech you abhor. the first amendment is not so much about protecting speech that isth easily agreed to. it is about tolerating speech

that is an abomination. likewise the fourth, t the fift, theth sixth amendment, are not o much about protecting majorities of thought, religion or ethnicity. due process is about protecting everyone, especially minorities. unpopularpu opinions change from generation to generation. while today it may be burka-wearing muslims, it has at times been yamake wearing jews. it has at times been african-americans. it has at times been japanese-americans. it is not beyond belief some day evangelical christians could be a purse cuted minority in our own country. the processcu of determining gut or innocence is a incredibly important one and a difficult one. even with a jury justice is not us j a easily discovered. one has only to batch watch jurors deliberate in 12 angry

men to understand that finding justice even with a jury is not always straightforward. virtually everyone sympathizes with tom robinson, who is unfairly accused in "to kill a mockingbird" because the reader knows that robinson is innocent because the reader knows his accusation was based on race. it is a slam dunk, it is easy for all of us to believe that he should get a trial. it's easy to object to vigilante justice when you know the accused is innocent. when the mob attempts an extra judicial execution we stand with atticus finch, we stand with the rule of law but what of an american citizen who by all appearances is guilty? what of an american citizen who by all appearances is a traitor? who we all agree deserves punishment, are we strong enough as a country to believe still that this person should get a trial?

do we have the courage to denounce drone executions asne nothing more than sophisticated vigilantism? how could it be anything but vigilantism? due process can't exist in secret. checks and balances can't exist in one branch of government. whether it be upon advice of one lawyer or 10,000 lawyers, if they all work for one man, the president, how can it be anything but a verdict outside the law? a verdict that could conceivably be subject to the emotions of prejudice and fear? wrong? this presidentth above all other presidents should fear allowing so much power to gravitate to one man. it is admittedly hard to defend the right to trial for an american citizen who becomes a traitor and appears to aid and

abet the enemy but we must. if weca can not defend the right to trial m for the most heinous crimes, then where will the slippery slope lead us? the greatness of american jurisprudence is everyone gets his or her day in court, no matter how despicable the crime they're accused of. critics say how would we try these americans overseas? they won't come home? the constitution holds the answer.ut they should bioe tried for treason. if they refuse to come home, theyom should be tried inen absentia.ig theyht should be right of legal defense should be provided. there should be independent legal defense that does not work government. if they're found guilty the method of punishment is not the issue. the issue is and always has been the right to a trial, the presumption of innocence andn te due process toer everyone.ess toer for these reasons,yo ifo can not nomination of david barron. even if the administration

release as dozen barron memos i can not support barron. the debate is not about partisan politics. i have supported many of the president's nominees. the debate is not aboutan transparency. it is about the substance of the memos. i can not and will knot support a lifetime appointment of someone who believesom it is oky to kill an american citizen not involved in combat without a trial. now some will argue and say the president yesterday now has changed his mind. he is going to release these memos to the public. well that's true. why don't we wait on the vote and let the public read the memos? why don't we have a full-throated debate over this? why don't we actually see what the public thinks about the right to trial by jury? wouldn't you think that something with that over 1000 years deserves a bit of debate? wouldn't you think we take at least the time and realize this is not the position of the

administration. this is the position of then. administration now that it is relenting to the verdict of the second distribute, to the second circuit court. releasing this memoun under duress and my guess is they're releasing this memo because they need a few more votes and they will get a few more votes by releasing these memos to the public or promising to release these memos. they will not be released. memos justifying the killing of american citizen will not be released before the vote takes place. so the question is, is this really as transparency good enough t for you to cast aside e whole concept of presumption of innocence, the whole concept thaton an accusation is differet than a conviction? there has been much discussion of what due process is and as we've looked at this debate, there are some really valid questions and some good writing that's been on this. he has written extensively on

this and writes about the lawyer who enabled extra judicial killing of an american. he asks the question, he says, should the constitution be entrusted to a man this is essentially what happens, a circuit court and appellate court judge, the constitution will be entrusted to him. should it be entrusted to a man who thinks americans can be killed without due process? the fifth amendment, connor says is very clear. no person h is held to answer fr a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless upon presentment or indictment of a grand jury. it doesn't say except or upon presentment of accusation by the executive branch without a trial. it says nor shall any person, the fifth amendment actually says, nor shall any person be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process. the question is, what is due process? and you would think this would be pretty clear and that there

wouldn't be much dispute over due process. but when you listen to some of these descriptions, we actually now have the administration, and this is a description glen greenwald writes this, about both the bush and the obama administration. he says the core of the distortion on the war on terror under both bush and obama is orwellian practice of equating government accusations of terrorism with proof of guilt. realize that what we're talking about.th there is a big difference between an accusation and a conviction. if you want to realize how important this is, there are senators on the other side of the aisle who have called senators on this side of the aislest terrorists on multiple occasions. who are we potentially going t after with these directives towards killing? people that are either senior operatives of al qaeda, which there are no membership cards so that is open to somewhat debate. we're also going after people

who are associated with terrorism. the definition of terrorism since on some occasions we've been accused of terrorism by the other side can be somewhat loose. the bureau of justice put out a memo describing some of the characteristics of people who might be terrorists which might alarm you if you're traveling overseas. people missing fingers. people that have stains on their clothing. people changed h color of their hair. people have multiple weapons this their house. people have more than seven days worth of food in their house. i these are people you should be a suspiciousre of, according to te government. these are people who might be terrorists. and these are people you should talk to and inform the government about these people. if these are the definitions of someone who might be a terrorist, wouldn't we kind of want to have a lawyer before the accusation become as conviction? whenen we talk about conviction, we talk about the conviction or

for conviction beingnd beyond a a reasonable doubt. so you can pretty much think, you can be in a jury pool and pretty much think someone killed someone. you have a suspicion and inclination they're guilty but you're supposed to be so convince it is beyond a reasonable doubt. in these memos there is a different standard. realize what the standard is from the person who we will now be appointing to a lifetime appointment, one step from the supremene court. the standard is that an assassination is justified when an informed, high-level official of the u.s. government has determined that the targeted individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the united states.at so we're not talking about beyond a reasonable doubtta anymore.nd that standard's gone. we're talking about an informed, unnamed, high level official in secret deciding that an imminent attack is going to occur. the interesting thing about an

imminent attack, is, we really don't go by much of the plain wording what you would think would be imminent anymore. the memo expressly states it is, also from glen greenwald, the moment me expressly states inventing a broader concept of imminence that is typically not used, specifically the president's assassination power does not require that the u.s. have clear evidence that a specific attack will take place in the immediate future. so you wonder about a definition of imminence that no longer includescl the word immediate. the aclu jamil jafer, also quoted by glen greenwald explains that the memo redefines the word imminence in a way that deprives the word of its a ordinary meaning. when we talk about due process, it iits important to understand where due process can occur. due process has to occur in the

open. it has to occur in an adversarial process. if you don't have a lawyer on your side, who is your advocate, you can't have due process. due process can not occur in secret, but it also can't occure in one branch of government. this is a fundamentalpt misconception of the president. the president believes, with regard to either privacy and the fourth amendment or to killing americaniz citizens with regardo the fifth amendment, he believes that if he has some lawyers review this process, that that is due process. this is appalling because this has nothing to do with due process and can no way be seen as due process.ai some have said, well this is a judicial opinion. barron written an opinion. he justified the president's actions. people also said this with regard to the nsa spying case. 15 judges have approved of it. well the judges were in secret, the majority of them in the fisa

court. and that's not due process as well. but also the memo that was written by david barron, also recounted by glen greenwald is not a judicial opinion. n it was notot written by anyone independent of the president. on multiple occasions they have justified and the memo argues that due process can be decided by internal deliberations of the executive branch. the comedian stephen colbert mocked this and wrote or presented, trial by jury, trial by fire, rock, paper, scissors, wh cares. due process just means there's a process, right? the current process is apparently the president meets with his advisors, decides who is growing to kill and kills them. it is called terror tuesday with flashcards and power point presentation.

a colleague of david barron's writes, there is no precedent for the idea that due process could be satisfied by some secret internal process within the executive branch. so to those of my colleagues who will come on down here today and just stamp approval on someone who i believe disrespects the bill of rights, realize that other esteemed professors, others esteemed colleagues of ours disagree and that you can not have due process by secret, executivebr branch. to those who say, oh, the memos are now not secret, are we going to be promised from now on this will be a public debate and there will be some form of due process? no, i suspect next time they kill an american, it will be done in secret by the executive branch, that is the new norm. you're voting for someone who made this historic precedent how we kill americans overseas. inan secret, by one branch of te

at administration withoutpo representation based upon an accusation. we've gone from, not guilty or you have to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt toyo n accusation being enough for an execution. i'm horrified that this is where we are. to my colleagues i would say, that to make an honest judgement you should look at this nomination as if it came from the opposite party.i i w can problem is you this woud absolutely be my opinion, this isn't particular most popular opinion to take in the country i would oppose the nomination were it coming from a republican president but i would ask my democraticp colleagues to look deep within their soul and deep within their psyche and say, how would id vote if this were a bui nominee? if this werene a bush nominee tt had written legal opinions justifying torture in 2007,

2006, 2005, how would i have voted in i? 90% would vote against and would vote now against a bush nominee. this is become partisan and this body has become too partisan. there were a time that there were w great believers in the constitution and which degenerated into a body of partisanship. there was a time filibuster could stop this nomination. there was aad time there wouldmi havese to be compromise. there was a time in this body we would get people more towards the mainstream of legal thought because those on each extreme would be excused from holding office. the people argued forcefully for majority vote, not having filibuster are the ones responsible now for allowing this nomination to go forward. this nomination would not go forward were it not forte elimination filibuster. some say the filibuster, that was obstructionism.il

the filibuster was also in many cases about trying to prevent extremists from getting on the bench. we will now allow someone who has an extreme point of view. someone who has questioned whether or not guilt must be determined beyond a reasonable doubt. someone who now says that anth accusation is enough for the death penalty. d now that person may say only if you're overseas. well, some consolation if you're a traveler. what i would say is that we need to think long and hard and examinein this nomination objectively as if this were a nomination from a president of the opposite party. we need to ask ourselves, how precious is the concept of presumption of innocence? how precious are a bill of rights? we needf to ask ourselves also, it is hard. we need to examine, it is hard, when you know i someone is guil, when you have now seen the evidence and you feel this person deserves punishment. i sympathize with that and think

that this person did deserve punishment. but i also sympathize so greatly with the concept of having a jury trial, so greatly, that ans accusation is different than a conviction that i can't allow this to go forward without some objection. i hope this body will consider this and i hope this body will reconsider this nomination, and atat the appropriate time i will offer a unanimous consent, disagreement, this unanimous consent request, will be to delay the david barron memo, to delay the david baron nomination had athe public has chance to read this memo. r i will return at an appropriate time and weat will offer that as unanimous consent. thank you, mr. president. >> madam president, it wasn't very long ago when the senator from kentucky and i were here on the floor talking about drones previously.

and i just want to make sure it's understood that senator paul's passion, his intellectual rigor, and his devotion to these issues of liberty and security,i which he and i have worked on together now for a number of years, is much appreciated. and i wanted to come for a few minutes and, especially talk about what senator paul and i have discussed in the past and that is, how vigorous oversight, particularly vigorous oversight over the intelligence fieldet needs to get more attention. it's not something that you cang minimize. it goes rightoe to the heart of the values that the senator from kentucky and i and others have both talked about and that is,

that liberty and security are not mutually exclusive. we can have both. senator frome kentucky and i often joke about how the senate would benefit from a ben franklin caucus. and ofou course ben franklin, yu know, famously said in effect, anybody who gives up their liberty for security g really doesn't deserve either. so, senator from kentucky and i certainly have some disagreements from time to time on particular judicial nomination but i thank him for the time this morning and i thank him for the opportunity that we have had over the years to make the case about howt important these issues are. that the american people ought to insist, ought to insist that theirth elected officials put in place policies that insure that we have both liberty and security. and i thank him for that and

will just have some brief remarks this morning, ma'am president. -- madam president. of course the senate will be voting today onn the nomination of david barron to serve as a judge for the first judicial a circuit. his nomination has been endorsed by a wide variety of americans including respected jurists from across the political perspective. mr. barron has received particularly vocal endorsements from some of our country's most prominent civil rights groups. of course the aspect of his record that has perhaps received the closest scrutiny in recentwe weeks isek his authorship of a legal opinion regarding the president's authorityho to use military force against an individual who was both a u.s. citizen and a senior leader of al qaeda. now, madam president, i am quite familiar with this particular memo. the executive branch first

acknowledged its existence three years ago in response to a question i asked at an open hearing of the senate select committee on intelligence. i followed up by working with my colleagues and pressing the executivera branch to provide ts memo to the intelligence committee. this month of course the administration made this memo available to all members of the senate and an executive branch officials have now said that they will provide this memo to the american people as well. t madamo president, this is in mye view, clearly a very constructive step and i am going to vote yes on mr. barron's nomination. i do want w to take a minute to outline that this whole matter is about much more than a single memo. it really drives home, madam

president, how incredibly important vigorous congressional oversight, you know, if that is of course the mission of the intelligence committee and it really is m the mission of all f us. in his classic work on democratic government woodrow wilson wrote that conducting oversight was one of the most important functions of the congress. he said that it might be more important than passing legislation. woodrow wilson wrote, and i quote, it is the proper duty off a representative body to look diligently into every affair of government and to talk much about what it sees. he added, the congress must examine the acts and the disposition ofus the executive branch and scrutinies and by every form of discussion. woodrow wilson says if the congress fails in this duty than the american people would remain

ignorant and i quote, here, of the very affairs which it is most important that they understand andnd direct. now woodrow wilson might not have been able to anticipate the size and scale of the modern national security apparatus but i wanted to say this morning his words are just as true today as they were a century ago. as the elected representative of nearly four million americans i have spent years now working from the theory that all of us here in the senate have an obligation to understand how the executive branch is interpreting the president's authority to use military force against americans who have taken up arms against our nation. and i long believed that it is my obligation to make sure that those that i'm honored to represent in redmond, all across

oregon understand that as well. i t believe that every american has the right to know when their government believes it is allowed to kill them. in the case in question, as i have said before, i believe that the president's decision to authorize a military strike in those particular circumstances was legitimate and it was lawful and i have detailed my views on this case in a letter to the attorney general that is posted on my website. so i agree with the conclusion that mr. barron reached in what has now certainly become a famous memo. to be clear, while i agree with the conclusion, madam president, this is not a president that i would have written. it contains what in effect are some, i guess, leaps, analytical leaps that i would not endorse. it jumps to several conclusions

and it certainly leaves a number of important questions unanswered. and i'm hopeful that making this memoub public will help generate the public pressure that is needed to get those additional questions answered. i'mut talking here about fundamental questions like, how much evidence does the president need to determine that a particular american is a legitimate target for military action? or, can the president strike an american anywhere in the world?t what does it mean to say that capture must be infeasible? and exactly what other limits and boundaries apply to this authority? mr. barron wasn't asked to answer q these questions but iny view, madam president, it is vitally important that the american people get answers to those questions.

those questions in myue view, at essential toia understanding ho' americans c constitutional right will be protected in the age of 21st century warfare and i'm saying this morning i am going to stay at it until the american people get answers to those questions. now in addition to getting detailed public answers to these matters another important step will be for the congress to review the other justice t president's authority to use military force outside of an active war zone. clearly the most important memos on this topic are the ones that the congress has now seen regarding the use of lethal force against americans but it is going to be important for the senate to review the memos on other aspects of this authority as well. the past few years have shown when the public isat allowed to see and debate how our government interprets the law it has led to meaningful changes in

terms of insurancing that there are -- a insuring there are additional protections for privacy and civil liberties without sacrificing our country's security in a dangerous time. now it is unfortunate that it took mr. barron's nomination for the justice department to make these memos public.l i will say here that it is been frustratings over the past few years to see t the justice department's resistance to providing congress with memos that outline the executive branch's official understanding of the law. when mr. barron was the head of the justice department's office legal counsel i believed that congressional requests to seet particular classified memos andn legal opinions were appropriately granted. in the years however sincerr mr. barron moved on from that position congressional requests toee see memos and opinions have frequently been stonewalled and

i use that word spill, madam president, frequently stonewalled. executive branch often makes argument these memos constitute confidential, preadditional legal advice to the president. here's the problem with thatth argument. the president has to be able to get confidential legal advice before he makes a decision. but oncenc a decision has been made and the legal memo from the department has been sent to the agencies that will carry out the president's decision, that memo is no longer pre-additionalhe advice. it is the government's official legal basis for actual acts of warwa and as such, in my view, t is entirely unacceptable to withhold it from the congress. the congress has the power to declare war and congress votes whether to continue funding

wars. so it is vital for the congress to understand what the executive branch beliefs the president's -- believes the president's war powers are. in that classic work i discussed from woodrow wilson, madam president, woodrow wilson said and i quoted it is more the house is being built than it c is to know how e plans of the architect is conceived. as a former basketball player i often say sections of the playbook for combating terrorism will often need to be secret but the rule book that the united states follows should always be available to the american people. and all of the american people. our military and intelligence often need to conduct secret operations.duct but they never should be placede in the position of relying on secret law. so i'm very pleased, this

morning thatth we know that the executiveve branch is going to provide this memo to the american people and i believe that this constructive step must lead to additional steps that are equally important. this episode is an object lesson in how the united states congress can use the levers that it has to fulfill one of the mostnt important functions of government. and as my colleagues and i engage in our perennial discussion abouts how to make congress more functional, i hope this is an experience that we will remember. madam president, i yield the floor. >> today assistant attorney general for national security john karl lynn, talks about emerging national security threats. you can hear his remarks at 2:00 p.m. eastern on c-span3.

>> what i'm trying to say is that fraud kills, okay? and it is non-partisan fraud. and we've got to do something about it. we are, we don't have unlimited budgets and money that guests wasted on a building that is never going to be use is money that could have helped some afghans. it could have helped people in the united states and you keep seeing this again and again and again and i'm very proud to work for this administration. i mean, and i think it is important that people realize i was appointed by the president and inspector generals are independent and, but, it is important that the people see that the government does care and there are a lot of people. there are people in the aid at state, at the pentagon who care about wasting money. >> john sopko on his role as inspector general and how

american taxpayers dollars are spent on reconstruction in afghanistan, sunday night at 8:00 on c-span's q&a. >> the u.s. senate about to gavel in for legislative business. general speeches will start the day and a final vote on david barron's nomination to be a judge for the first circuit of appeals is scheduled for 1:45 eastern. mr. baron has been opposed by

kentucky senator rand paul and others because of some memos he wrote providing the legal justification for drone strikes against u.s. citizens abroad. now live to the senate floor on c-span2. the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. creator, redeemer, sustainer, you called us out of darkness into your marvelous light. dispel the shadows of confusion in our lives, replacing them with your clarity and peace.