nonpartisansans a group, the top 16 donors to campaigns from 1989-2014, 100%hm of them support predominantlye. democrats who are on the fence. the top three donors are active blue, which is spent over $102 million, american federation of state county and meniscal employers which has been over $61 million the national education association which has spent over $58 million. there's a pattern in politics where when governments try to take the liberty of the citizens away they distract them with shiny objects. we have seen the majority leader repeatedly slandering two kochate citizens, the brothers.

there is a role when one senator ofugns the character another, you can rise in a point of personal privilege. aere is no rule that allows person to rise on that same point of personal privilege. forth isd canard put money is not speech. that has been repeated over and over again. i would note any first year law student who put that as his or her answer on an exam would f because it is obviously demonstrably false and it has been false since the dawn of the republic. speech is not just any on a soap screaming on the sidewalk. from the beginning of the republic, the expenditure of money has been integral to speech. the supreme court has said that pamphlets, the federalist , took money to

distribute, putting up t billboards. every of those were cars expenditure of money. every person in this room, if you think about it disagrees with the proposition that expending money is not speech. publishing a book is speech. publishing a movie is speech. ging is is speech -- blog speech. the third canard is that corporations have no rights. that gets repeated. you would get an f if you would embrace that position. times" is ak corporation. ae sierra club is corporation. the nra is a corporation. is a corporation. none of the people who say corporations have no rights

would possibly suggest that congress can then prevent the naacp from speaking, and prevent "the new york times" from speakingng. nobody has agreed with a litany of arms that could occur if congress passed the still, the ability to muzzle citizens from organizing, because that is an in-kind exposure. the ability to silence bloggers. i have introduced an amendment entitled the super pac illumination active 2014. what this bill will do is number campaign limits on individual contributions to federal candidates. right now the current system we have is stupid. you have got super pac spending out of control and it has grown

because congress has attempted to regulate it. the bill i introduced will eliminate individual accreditation limits and provide immediate disclosure within 24 hours of any contribution made to a federal candidate. what that would do as a practical matter is make it transparent and make super pacs irrelevant. a number of states have systems like this and it works well. the second bill i have introduced today is a free speech for all act. we have heard corporations are not people. what this bill says is simple. any restrictions on the right, the free speech rights of citizens shall apply with equal force to media corporations like abc, andrk times, cbs, nbc. to theon two says it extent any restriction is found unconstitutional as applied to that media corporation it shall also be deemed invalid as applied to an individual citizen. so if everyone who is arguing

corporations are not people, i hope and expect all the democrats to happily cosponsor this bill, because it says an individual citizen is at a minimum entitled to the same first amendment protection that we give to these giant media corporations. free speech for all. we should be defending the bill amending, not debating , and repealing the free-speech protections of the bill of rights. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. i will recognize myself. have you questioned yet? >> you. >> senator klobuchar, our senior senator, gets to ask questions. >> thank you very much. thank you, chairman franken, and thank you to the witnesses for being here. i was in north carolina, mr. mckissick, and was able to speak dinner and hear about

all the things that you have talked about today in terms of the effect of the big money in north carolina and some of the policies that we have seen and what was of particular concern was getting rid of the same-day registration. whether we elected a republican jesse venturer, and independence, the fact that we have people participate matters, and the fact that that in northcut back carolina matters a lot. i was interested in hearing mr. abrams talk about how this should not be about bad policies, and i would agree. what we're trying to get at here a line heree is between what is corruption and what is not corruption and what this leads to. this is not defined in the supreme court case. for me is the basis for why we have to look at this

constitutional amendment. i don't think anyone thinks the idea of a proposed 28th amendment in the constitution lightly, but we know there have been times in our history where congress has needed to act restore our understanding of the constitutional rights of every day people and everyday people are getting drowned out. ruled past supreme court that women did not have the right to vote. we responded with the 19th amendment. after the dred scott decision, congress responded by passing the civil war amendment. after the supreme court reasoned decision about money in politics, we have been working on disclosure bills. i have come to the conclusion and feel very strong dose disclosure bills are important and i appreciate you do not see them as unconstitutional. they are not going to fix it. they're not going to fix the fact that what i have seen in my state, where we used to have limits before these decisions and still some of them are in place that would allow jesse venturer to run a campaign without having tons of money spent in and brought in from out

of state that was undisclosed, that came as a result of that citizenship united decision -- citizens united decision. my first election was $500 for local office. it allowed someone for me to have 1/3 of the money and my opponent to have won the election. on network.ran ads i could only run on a very few local cable stations with a black-and-white ad because of money. i won by two votes per precinct. i know this story. i want to start out with a question of you, mr. raskin, about the major shifts you have seen since the citizens united and how you see this trend is continuing in the future. >> thank you. others have spoken about the daily dish of money ---- the deluge of money which has overtaken our politics.

there's a piece on this showing how in 2006 before the case there was $25 million in outside expenditures. in 2010 there was $250 million. $1 2012, it was over one billion. we are on pace to exceed that. the thing i want to focus on is there is a free market ideology which is animating the justices on the court them and i think this confuses mr. abrams' testimony that will threaten to wipe out all the campaign-finance laws we have got. i would be curious to know do they think we should have limits on contributions or is that an unacceptable violation of people's speech? should we continue to have the continuation of the tillman act which bans conditions for people running for federal office -- tothat is a good question

ask mr. raburn's. mr. abrams, you supported his closure laws when senator schumer asked that question. who you support any other limits campaign concretions like mr. raskin just mentioned? >> excuse me. i pretty well have come to the conclusion that contribution limits as well ought to fall. i think they should be disclosed that we seems to me have reached a point, in our jurisprudence and our politics, where, if we know what the money is and where the money is coming from, that i think we can trust the public to make a rational

decision. and where they do not make that that we arethink goingntly and necessarily through a cost-benefit analysis in terms of there is cost with speech. speech does not do only good things. it is a good thing that we protect speech, but speech does harm some time, and maybe the speechof having more paid for by fewer people will sometimes be harmful. but my view is that at the end myself,ay i think, for that contribution limits as well probably should fall. >> mr. raskin? >> i'm taking it, since he thinks corporations have the same rights of people, that the corporation should also be able to give on an unlimited basis to

members of congress. we have one philosophy that says money should be treated like speech, corporations like people, and that the free marketr rein. we have another that adheres to the american political tradition that within the electoral realm rough to maintain some approximation of political equality based on the core idea of one person, one vote. abrams' appreciate mr. candor, because that is where the litigators are going. at me just say there is one supreme court decision with chuck is me a little bit of hope. it came the year before citizens massey, aperton vs. case where the ceo of the massey coal mine corporation had a litigation against him and the company going, and they were losing all the way out.

they decided to get involved in the election for the west virginia supreme court, and he threw everything he had enjoy candidate who later became justice regimen. he gave a $1000 concretion. then he gave $2.5 million to a candidate -- a corporation called for the sake of the kids. and he spent more money on independent spending. when that happened, his favored candidate had his money drowned out everybody else. it was more money than anybody else gave put together by huge factor. he won the election. he gets in and he serves on the supreme court panel reviewing the case and what do you know, they reversed the verdict 3-2 against the corporation, against massey company. that goes to the supreme court. i was too much, not just for scalia, alito, roberts, thomas, but justice kennedy flipped over

and wanted the liberals there and said that does compromise at least the appearance of due process. so we are going to send that one back and say that the judge should not have sat on the case. it was fascinating to me that the next year we have the coal mine collapse from the massey 29 people died, the governor issued a report and said one of the factors and what happened was the failure of politicians to try to sell a sleek and force the laws and regulations against domestic corporation because they were afraid of the political spending and the willingness to engage in independent expenditures of the ceo. >> thank you. i went to look at that case. we have heard about it. it is one example of that story of what has been going on. i think your argument about the corruption and what this is leading to is of great merit. i would also say that i'm glad that you have come out, mr. abrams, saying under this scenario we would have no rules, no limits on contributions, no limits on corporate

contributions, and i see more of the same. i do not think this is what our founding fathers wanted. senator sessions? >> thank you. it is an interesting and important panel and discussion. i felt a bitere, aggrieved. i had some opponents who had opposed me and spent millions of dollars. i do not have any money. i was able to win. vements.me grie i asked myself a very snowquester and three months , when thisure constitutional amendment was first brought forth, and the question was, at a fundamental level, do we want to pass an amendment to the constitution that allows the government of the united states to tell an american citizen or business they cannot run an ad and say

jeff sessions is a skunk and on to be voted out of office? or are they not able to advance their view that coal is good or coal is bad? is america going to benefit if we restrict that right? isn't that contrary to the first amendment? i suggest it is because we have an amendment to amend the first amendment. i do not eat the supreme court -- i do not think the supreme court has taken any extreme position. the have interpreted constitution as written. with regard to that first constitutional proposal, amendment, in 1997, it failed 38-61. when he came back in 2010, it failed 40-56, well below any ofpect of becoming -- passage. that seems to me, mr. abrams, that this amendment would go further. those amendments set

reasonable limits which would have given the supreme court or five members thereof some ability to constrict congressional power. do you interpret this as getting almost carte blanche to the congress to limit spending? yes, i think it does just that. and i think that the supreme court itself would read it that way. and if a litigant got up in isrt and said, look, this really unreasonable, you cannot have a $500 limit in one case out of vermont, just a few hundred dollars, which the court case which, another this amendment would overrule, the court struck it down, saying that is just not enough money to run a campaign. i do not think that would be at all the same.

statethis amendment, the legislatures and congress would have i believe all but absolute authority to make these would be and centrally unreviewable, and certainly not reviewable on a reasonableness basis. theo you cannot go to supreme court and say we think this is an unreasonable limit, because the supreme court would say you did not put that test in it, in fact you explicitly pass this amendment after rejected that word that was in the previous draft. i think that is one of the things we need to recognize. one more thing, i do not know if you have commented on this, but the dissent, four votes, said the public interest in preserving a democratic order in which collective speech matter

-- does that cause any unease? should we be concerned? >> i have expressed concern in writing about this. that is justice breyer's diss ent. know, my view is that the first amendment is about protecting the individual's right, and it is not a collective right, and it is not to be interpreted in terms of a in legal terms of everybody being able to work out social problems, which is a good thing, but not a first amendment concern. the first amendment concern is protecting the public from the government. >> well, i just left simultaneously over there saying the environmental committee hearing in which one of the witnesses, a professor, said he was severely damaged as a result

of his questioning of some of the global warming arguments that are made out there. ofhink we are in a period time when speech is being threatened more than we would like to admit, political correctness has often run amok. and it is fundamental that americans be able to express their views without intimidation. i think the great democratic party that was so classically is now becoming the party of the progressives. and progressives and believe that little things like procedures, rules, even honesty can be ejected to the agenda that they believe is best for america. serious, andhis is i feel it repeatedly in our country and in the debate that

we are engaged in. tradition and constitutional order should be respected and in the long run we will be better off if we do not try to muzzle somebody who happens to have money and to keep him or her or this business from being able to express views that they think are important to the public and maybe even their own interest. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. i recognize myself. i just heard-- >> you can recognize yourself? >> i do. in the mirror, i recognize i sell. [laughter] i recognize myself here. >> you handle that deftly. >> thank you. and so did you. [laughter] it's good to see you, mr. abrams. you defended me on a first amendment case. and you one.

said toember what you me after i won. even a chimp could have won that case. [applause] >> and i was right. [laughter] you are a brilliant lawyer. i noticed in your written says that mr. abrams it appears that citizens united newnot caused a flood of money and politics. it appears that way. now from my experience i know mr. abrams is an excellent lawyer. i know he chooses his words carefully. says, "it appears" that way. there really is no way that we know if mr. abrams himself has

-- he is getting we are talking about intimidation, about speech. suppose a corporation comes up and there are no limits. ended -- and it says to a senator if you vote this way on this bill we will spend $100 million to defeat you. it's fine, isn't that fine? logic -- to this >> that is just free speech. on the empirical question let me just say this -- the 100either you put million in or you don't did they don't have to put it into intimidate you. >> the numbers i have seen have gone up dramatically. , theumbers we haven't seen trade associations, the dark money, estimates run into the

billions. i don't even know why he would bother to deny it. from his perspective that is more speech and something terrific. i think the center for north your lot has a sense of what this money actually means. before we go any further you have to ask yourself the question to you deregulate money yet but that is where the court is going, where the regulators are going, where all the organization is. committed towe are is one where people will not have say over it. it is a matter of first amendment law despite the fact people who wrote the first amendment did not know anything about dark money, super packs, or billion dollar bailouts.

on their campaigns they basically spent nothing. they stood for office, they did not go out and spend any money. in the name of the founders they are going to give us a completely unregulated political system far more a stream -- far more extreme. and the take away from the people the right to have any say over it. senator cruz talk about media companies like fox news. there is an editorial on the new york times. we had a vote on disclosure. we did not have one republican join us on disclosure. said you are for unlimited contributions but you prefer to see disclosure. we are not going to see that.

so here is the key quote to me for citizens united. we now conclude that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption. that, to me, is just horribly outside -- that is out of touch with reality. the minnesota league of women is on a trust level with the visiting nurses society. they issued an import -- a -- rt that included i agree with that.

what you think of the court's analysis, of justice kennedy's analysis? is it too narrow of a view? >> it is a far too narrow view that contradicts what justice kennedy said in the decision keeper 10 versus massey. we could regulate not just in the interest of combating quid pro quo corruption but also the appearance of proper influence and undue influence. there is a whole sequence of supreme court decisions that him -- follows. caperton versus massey, justice kennedy joined the moderate liberal role justices in say we're going to the that verdict away from

corporation precisely because of an independent expenditure that was spent in that way. justice kennedy refers to independent expenditures as contributions. for him there so closely connected that he calls them contributions in the first paragraph of the decision. i think it cuts against logic and common sense. >> thank you very much. i'll hand both the microphone and the gavel over to senator cruz. >> thank you to our panel and all who participated today. let many of my colleagues i have been deeply disturbed by legal developments over the past two years and what i think were the inevitable consequences of those decisions, particularly with regard to unrestricted campaign spending. buckley versus flail established a principle for framework. therefore it is entitled to

protection under the constitution and when it might be appropriately restrained. have lost allns sight of that balance and of the importance of that balance and the consequences of destroying that balance. in my view the recent supreme court majority opinion seems singularly focused on whether a specific person or corporation -- withoutving failing to consider other forms of corruption that are corrosive of our political order that undermine public confidence and distracts from the deliberative workings of legislative bodies at all levels. the cumulative impact of money is very negative. we need to work in a bipartisan way to find a responsible solution to this challenge. if you look at the trajectory of recent decisions i think we are just one or two decisions away from the removal of all limitations whatsoever. >> i just would be interested in

your comments on what the elimination of restrictions presented through citizens united -- what is the impact of that on your district and on campaigns using north carolina as an example? expenditures that reflect actual public support espoused by corporations -- they're concerned corporations not be able to drown out the actual's free speech rights. united, what has the ground like in north carolina? licks the consequences have been grave to say the least. what you really have unleashed is the capacity for these independent organizations to come in, some of which are based in north carolina, any of which

are based outside north carolina. they are having an impact on our counselor state races. judicial races, you name it. what you really see is a barrage of negative ads that are run literally around-the-clock that disproportionately highlight some specific issue they think is narrowly based. elicit anly to emotional response among persuadable voters. unfortunately at times it is doing so. deepind perhaps these pocket corporate donors, millionaires or come in from outside the state. they have a vested self-interest. many of them do not hear the mainstream perspective as the vast majority --

tell you it is basically a centrist state. when you have a centrist state with voters better centrist they frequently, you can see this massive amount of spending. it is five times the money a candidate can put towards an issue. outcomesistorted across the board. >> thank you for that experienced taste testimony on the impact of this flood of money on elections in north carolina. if i may turn to you, i have a limited amount of time. mr. abrams referenced the first amendment is an individual right that is protected. it is embedded in our first amendment. ?s it true money equals speech do you think --

what is the consequence? >> i think we would agree money is not speech. money can be a courier of speech, it can amplify speech, but precisely because we memorize the individual right, that is why the supreme court has always said up until citizens united that corporations as artificial entities chartered by the state governments to not have the first minute right of the people . corporations don't have thoughts, desires, feelings, thoughts. rationaleshree basic why we have the first amendment, one is so people can express themselves. two is for self-government. we >> foreign foreign

corporations and we didn't allow our corporations to take over that process. the third is the search for the truth. corporations are not interested in the truth. operations are interested in profit. it has been fantastically productive doing it that way, to bring the present confuses the issue because we have a heck -- we have a separate clause. they have never regulated it. they certainly would be under the constitutional amendment that would be to -- that would be there today. >> good afternoon. i'm going to take over the gavel. -- i am thetest latest and likely the last chairman you will have today. i'm going to ask the senator who was before me to go ahead. you, mr. chairman. the current supreme court is one of the most corporate from the courts in history. rulings like citizens united and

others have expanded the rights of corporations significantly in a variety of areas that undermine our democracy. i would like to enter into the record 80 new york times article that reports this troubling trend entitled corporations find a friend in the supreme court. >> without objection. >> i would also like to enter into the record and editorial from the charlotte observer entitled, "another window to corruption," talking about the supreme court's continuing to dismantle the country's campaign-finance laws. >> you describe for us to post citizens united situation in south carolina. we have heard testimony today that the next step, because the court is on the path of saying constitutional rights are a

stake in these decisions, the path of a limiting individual youribution limits -- would describe for us what you think would happen in that instance. i think there is an agreement that is the next supreme court campaign spending decision coming down the line. >> that certainly appears the way the supreme court is drifting. i think it would be the wrong direction for this country to move. you have onough limited corporate contributions coming in today that did not exist before. worst possible thing that could happen is if you also limited to these limitations on individual giving, what you essentially do is distort the whole playing field. ath those contributions $5,000 to come if you eliminate

individuals that want to make certain contributions -- it is actually that particular perspective that wins the day before a general assembly, that the laws are adopted that protect those potential contributor's interests. when you think about it it undermines the integrity of our whole system. z you know, first of all, your

first point about corporations, i did a report for people att fo american way session after citizens united to situate it in precisely the context youn pr identify which is an aggressive pro-corporate jurisprudence on the court. and in that term of the supreme court, corporations won againstu shareholders, they won against workers, they won against one government regulators, they wonl essentially,at every case that they had going on in the supreme court. the idea of undue influence and improper influence has been forn away from congress regulating contributions. the mccutchen decision presses up very hard against intervention -- against individual contribution limit. you cannot limit what people give overall.

it reduces with a candidate can spend. >> i share the concerns you express about unfettered giving to individuals. i think that does raise the undue influence concern. these decisions and the next decision i have very little doubt senator cruz is correct and mr. abrams acknowledged that the lifting of those individual contribution limits will be left. i think that is a huge concern and that's why i believe we need to move ahead with this constitutional amendment bill. there is an agreement we can a reasonable standard into this bill so that the states and the federal government do not go hog wild.

the supreme court set up a standard that is probably impossible. the only way we can enact legislation in this area would be we would have to prevent quid pro quo. we can't do anything the supreme court is saying. the same people are now attacking disclosure, not just legislatively. we know there is partisan divide on that. constitutionally they are saying this is unconstitutional speech under the first amendment. it is like making jehovah's witness -- look at the political realm they want to give to the american people. corporations can give on an unlimited basis, they can spend on an unlimited basis, and they don't have to tell anybody. the wind if anybody even cause a

corporation out, saying somehow their first amendment rights are being violated. it is a pretty special first amendment. >> i am out of time. >> i will be very brief. to mr.begin by saying abrams that i hope when senator franken said a chimp could win that case that you double your feet. that's your feet. -- doubled your feet. i would never refer to as a chimp. you are far from it. you have been a formidable and forceful advocate. we thank you all for being here. i want to take a slightly different line because i think a lot of the ground has been covered. standpointtitutional , and i want to pose this question to mr. abrams first but any of you are free to comment. , the supremeons court makes certain factual

conclusions. for example it says the government scenarios are implausible factually to occur. it concludes that technology process to combat the evils that are raised. i have worked as a justice for the court. i have come to know some of the justices. one fact about them that has impressed me, they are enormously able, aero tight, and caring people. are generally not well andrmed as to the mechanics the practical impacts because by

and large they never run for office. many not even contribute intuit. -- contributing to it. great many areas from patents to communication cases where they may not be familiar with the details and so forth. that is their job. in this area that is so vitally affecting the fabric of our and they're being where they are -- they are in those positions because of this system that they are now willing on. -- now ruling on. are you concerned with the is to show weaknesses of this process that may lead them to reach hugeusions that have unintended consequences way beyond what they thought would happen?

>> first, i think you are right. i think that for members of the court, secluded as they are and certainly out of the political mainstream that it is difficult. the patent examples is a very good one. just as other difficult areas of law where they have to reach to try to make decisions about impact of something on the future, which is very hard to do. that is a problem. it goes with the territory, that is to say i don't think they can avoid it. my second point is i believe that instead of characterizing as many members of this panel , the court has simply

conservative or pro-business. i believe that the conservative members of this court have concluded that the first of financempact regulations has been severe. that is to say from their perspective and mine the first has reallyide breached or threatened very badly some of the legislation that took place before them. because of that, having reached , i think weion deliberately strives to oppose will not allow the

first amendment to easily be overcome. think thes where i notion that only quid pro quo corruption is corruption for purposes for these cases. it is not that they don't understand that there could be ore impact on the process that money can be intimidating , it is having concluded that the potential first amendment harm is so great and that the first amendment risks are so real that they deliberately narrow the legal .est that apply i don't think it is that they are being unrealistic. as your be wrong, question suggested, because they

don't have the background. are i am saying is they doing it in the service as they view it of the first amendment. if anyone else had any other observations. >> it is so incontestable. >> if i could be recognized briefly. recognize the direction the court is moving. i recognize when in a probate case comes they may in late that illuminate individual contributions. i think what the court has failed to do is to understand the potential impact of first amendment rights in other constitutional rights, when you unlike the opportunity for those that are wealthiest in our society to buy elections and to change outcomes and there has to be a balancing of competing interests.

i think the proposed amendment, if it were to go forward, would allow for a careful balancing of competing interests by establishing in congress the ability to have these reasonable limitations and like lies within -- and likewise in the debate. undelete ismply the the wealthiest in our society to dominate control and unduly influence outcomes in our political process, our judicial process, but more importantly the rights of those that may be disenfranchised along the way, such as had occurred in north carolina through our for -- through our voter suppression mom. -- suppression law. >> can you imagine any circumstances or scenarios where you would favor some kind of limits on contributions?

>> i don't have a firm view on contributions. i was asked that question and my answer was coming to the point where i thought that contributions would probably be over the line. considered the most or final cut -- or final opinion on my part. i can see a distinction between contributions and expenditures. i think that the buckley case offered a perfectly rational and defensible compromise in treating expenditures differently of contributions. i do think that in the session or in later sessions of this body, that you proceed with an amendment. you ought to seriously consider

why buckley is even on the table. if you are concerned with what you think, citizens united did. one of the previous senators observed at the buckley case was a principal decision. if that were your view you ought not to reverse it. this constitutional amendment reverses a slew of constitutionally roof -- constitutionally rooted cases, which requires very serious to liberation. thank you. >> thank you, senator. thatple of things about point. one is that buckley has been taken to an extreme. we have a runaway faction on the court, which now has used the idea to strike down the public

finance regime in arizona, which got more candidates involved, increased speech, encourage competition, and they struck that down. position ishe pro-public finance. my respectno one in to deference of mr. abrams. there is a big division within the aclu and within civil libertarians. there's is a letter that was written by -- taking the opposite position. free speech and democracy go together and they stand best when they stand together. what happens is in the name of developmentis the of corporate domination, which had always been rejected both by democrats and civil libertarians in the past. --hink we need to unify a

need to reunify democracy. this gives us the framework to work it out because this faction under the supreme court is stealing away from democratic institutions, the power to regulate money and establish what has been a wall of separation between plutocratic wealth and democratic politics. >> my thanks to all of you. and to all of the audience for attending. i am going to adjourn this hearing and keep the record open for one week. your testimony has been excellent and very helpful and informative. on behalf of the committee, our thanks. >> several live events to tell you about today on c-span. president obama and british prime minister david cameron will have a joint news conference from the g7 meeting in brussels. our live coverage begins about 10 a.m. eastern.

when that news conference is over, around 10:30, the senate foreign relations committee will look at the recent elections in ukraine. and at 2:30 p.m. eastern, it's a hearing on the foreign intelligence surveillance act. members of the senate intelligence committee will hear from representatives of the nsa, the fbi and verizon. >> on a lonely, wind-swept point on the northern shore of france, the air is soft, but 40 years ago at this moment the air was dense with smoke and the cries of men, and the air was filled with the crack of of rifle fire and the roar of cannon. at dawn on the morning of the 6th of june, 1944, 225 rangers jumped off the british landing craft ask ran to the bottom of these cliffings. their mission was one of the most difficult and daring of the invasion, the climb these sheer and desolate cliffs and take out

the enemy guns. the allies had been told that some of the mightiest of these guns were here, and they would be trained on the beaches to stop the allied advance. the rangers looked up and saw the enemy soldiers at the edge of the cliff shooting down at them with machine guns and throwing grenades, and the american rangers began to climb. >> this weekend american history tv will mark the 70th anniversary of the d-day invasion of normandy, saturdaying at saturday morning -- saturday morning at 10:30 eastern. that's followed at 11:30 by author and historian craig simons discussing his new book, "neptune." and at 12:30 mr. simons will take your questions and comments live. and at 1:30, a look back at presidential speeches commemorating the day. all on american history tv saturday on c-span3. >> now, nsa director ask cyber commander admiral mike rogers on

cybersecurity challenges facing the. he spoke for 40 minutes at an event hosted by bloomberg government. [applause] >> thank you. thank you, josh, for that introduction. hopefully, this microphone is working. admiral, have a seat. >> thank you. >> welcome. congratulations on your new position. >> thank you. >> 60 days you've been on the job. >> that's right. >> and you're courageous enough to is sit down here with me today, and i know everybody's very excited and interested to hear what you have to say. you're taking over the agency at a very critical time for the country, a very critical time for corporate america as we see, of course, ed snowden's revelations and an increasing number of cyber attacks happening to u.s. companies. let me start just by asking you, how do you think business and the nsa can best work together to try and solve some of these cyber threats that exist right

now? >> well, first, let me start off by saying, trish, thank you very much for taking time ask all of you who are taking time from your busy days for a discussion that's a very important topic, cybersecurity. i thank you very much for your willingness to engage in dialogue. i apologize i was a couple minutes late, unfortunately, it took an hour that have to drive down from fort lee today, and normally i can do it in 25 minutes. so aapologize for -- apologize for keeping you waiting. i'm really in two of the hats i wear both as the commander of the united states cyber command as well as the director of the national security agency. in terms of my business colleagues, the things i try to highlight are, first and foremost, cybersecurity is something that is foundational increasingly in the world we are living in to your ability to execute your business or your mission. whatever that is.

your failure to do so successfully has the potential to directly impact your ability to execute your mission, your corporation's reputation. we'll seeing that play out over the last several months in some very visible ways in the corporate sector. i try to tell business seniors just as i try to tell military seniors, you must own this problem. you cannot simply say to your chief technical or informational side, hey, this is your problem, go deal with it. it's not something that is worthy of my time, it's not something that i really need to focus on. i have this same dialogue with senior operational commanders in the department where i try to make the point, this is just not your i.t. ask your computer people -- and your computer people. you have to own this problem as a leader. you have to drive the change that inculcates this into our culture. we have to consider this every bit as foundational as we do our ability to maneuver forces and using a military construct as we care about logistics, as we care

about our infrastructure. when i look at the rob set, i'm struck by -- at the problem set, i'm struck by a couple of things that i also try to highlight where my business counterparts. traditionally, in my experience -- and you've got to take that for what it's worth -- we've often largely been focused on the attempts to prevent intrusion intrusions. i have increasingly come to the opinion as i've done cyber for about the last decade or so off and on within the department of defense, i am increasingly coming to the opinion that we must increasingly spend more time focused on detection and so what do you do when they get in. because i wish that we lived in a world where we can guarantee no one's going to access or gain entrance into our systems. that is becoming increasingly difficult. so i urge, just as we have done within the department, you need to spend time asking yourself what do i need to do to maximize my detection capabilities so i

find out very early if someone's there, and then, quite frankly, what do i do about it? >> what do you do about it? do you go to government about it? do you handle it on your own. >>? >> there's a couple issues there. there's a corporate fiduciary responsibility. clearly, i think when you find something that's beyond the scale of your ability as an inti withty to deal with, there's mechanisms for you to reach out and say, look, this is an area i need help. from a governmental perspective, clearly there's areases, for example, of critical infrastructure where as a nation we have a vested interest in insuring uninterrupted operations whether that might be in the financial sector, our power sector, fuel, transportation, air travel. i mean, there's clearly sectors here that are of increased critical importance to our ability as a nation to function effectively which is one of the roles for united states cyber command. even as u.s. cyber command is

tasked, operated to defend the networks within the department of defense. i have also been tasked to be prepared, when directed by the president or secretary of defense, to provide capability to support civilian teammates in trying to deal with many of these challenges, particularly those working in critical infrastructure. and to do that, we have to partner closely. our primary partners in this in the government being the department of homeland security and the federal bureau of investigation. as well as those key corporate entities who potentially are receiving some of these attacks or attempts to intrude in their systems or deny their ability to operate some of their public interfaces. ..

in fact right now in congress we are, they are debating come is there legislation that we could enact that would, in fact, provide a means for corporations to do that. that's in the process right now. i am on record in my confirmation hearings two and a half months ago, i was asked and i said i believe legislation is necessary, that we've tried to do this on a voluntary basis over the last few years. while that is generated increased cooperation, when i looked at the number of incidents that are voluntarily recorded by the new incidents i believe virtual happening out

there, boy, there's a big delta. i am a proponent of legislation which would set up a structure for the corporate world to share information and for us on the government side to share information with our corporate team as we try to do with it. coming together as a partnership is where we can be very powerful. as commanding director of the national security agency, i do not have knowledge of private corporate networks, not where i spend my time, that's not were unfocused. that's not my role. my roll, i'm out in foreign space trying to figure out what is going on in the cyber arena, what's coming at us as a nation, what do we need to be concerned about. that's the nsa have to. nsa also brings great knowledge of information assuring the nation where we are tasked within the government to help develop the capabilities to assess networks, their

vulnerabilities, help to generate cryptographic standards within the u.s. government as well as provide capability when directed to support others and identifying maller and other challenges associated with defense of the networks. nsa brings an amazing technical capability to this. u.s. cyber command brings a very operational capability, teens, organized, equipped and trained to operate in this space, identify problems, help and offensive site as those potentially work and offensive peace if we're directed to do so. you bring all that together with our partners at the fbi, the department of homeland security, and the capabilities that many corporate entities have, i spend some of my time in this job getting to know corporate counterparts, and in many instances i am incredibly impressed by the level of effort i see by the capabilities of those organizations have and by the willingness to work with others. i sure would like to see us

expand that to a much more, a much broader segment. >> the technology is pretty incredible and you just alluded to this. so let me ask you about new reports that nsa is using facial recognition technology to monitor people. how does a program like that work? >> i'm not going to get into specifics in an open forum with what we do, which i will be honest with you, that is my greatest challenge as a director. in order to execute our mission of foreign intelligence, i have to be very, very mindful of my ability in large, open forums to talk about the specifics of what we do. now come in my confirmation and i was also very specific about i believe that as a director of nsa i need to be more transparent. likened into the specifics of the how we do it, i need to be willing to talk in broad terms about what we do and why we did it, anyway that perhaps traditionally we were not as

comfortable. >> can you tell you what the goal of a program like it would be? >> we use facial recognition as a tool to help us understand these foreign intelligence targets we work, counterterrorism is another big area. this probably has had more impact for us than anywhere else. where we see entities through our signals intelligence capabilities, and we will know them digitally, if you will, but we want to see if we can try to understand them more broadly to help enable our broader efforts to bring them to justice and to forestall their ability to conduct attacks against ourselves and our allies and friends in the world around us. we do not, if i could continue, we do not do this in some unilateral basis against u.s. citizens. we do not access -- at one point i thought i saw someone say welcome to must accessing the department of motor vehicle

betas. >> you don't actually. >> we don't. no, we don't do that. we have very specific restrictions when it comes to u.s. persons. we have to operate under a legal framework. >> you don't have access to driver's licenses, don't have access to passport photos. you would think that nsa would have access to some of those things. >> we are talking about u.s. persons. again, why? our mission at the nsa is very explicit. explore intelligence and information assurance. foreign intelligence connected, we have to do anything involving a u.s. person that we have a civic legal constraints we must comply with. we choose to unilaterally decide, hey, today i'm going to go after citizen x, y or z. we don't do that. we can't legally do that. >> but there are people you know that you want to target? >> there are. let me finish one thought before

i forget. clearly in the digital age we will encounter american persons in the wilderness out there, so to speak, and we have specific restrictions about what happens once we do encounter a u.s. person. in broad terms would cut to stop what we are doing. we've come to the rule is a sure that somebody we're monitoring, that we're tracking is a u.s. connection that we were unaware of in broad terms we have to stop what we are doing. we have to assess the situation. if we think there's a legal basis to this, then we have to get a legal authority or justification to continue. it was interesting to me, you know, we've all heard this interchange with argentum and moscow over the last few days, that parts that i thought were interesting was as he was talking about, hey, i reached out to innocent told my concern and begin back and said hey, i haven't seen that. i have been able to find the.

the one thing we been able to find, the one thing we been able to find referenced to annual training. deana with the annual tree was about that we make every employee go through? safeguarding of u.s. persons information. that was the training that he was going through, the course yet completed, that all of us have. that course generated a question in his mind. from my perspective, that's a good thing. i tell the workforce, need to ask if there are things you are uncertain about. that's why we have feedback. that's what we have those collaboration mechanisms. it's important that each of us meet our expectation, and our requirements and our duties. that's the only way this will work. >> so let me ask you about someone -- we will take the nadal case. we are now sending five minutes of the taliban back to qatar. and nsa track them?

>> berg does not somehow going to get into. >> i'm not asking this -- >> i'm a very direct persons. we appreciate the directness. i just wonder, can the nsa at least, these are foreigners, they are known threats. can we track them? >> we have the means to track individuals with foreign intelligence, and mention to them, yes. am i going to see during guarantee that we can track every individual constantly? know. you will not give a talk about that. again, oftentimes part of the dialogue i've heard i think wow, i wish we had the capability. does nsa controlled -- what? do you really believe that? that is just not the case. like i said can we operate under the rule of law. the new director, identify 60 days as short in the reduction.

wanted to the workforce we have an important mission. it matters to the nation but it matters to our allies and our friends. but also is that we do it right and we do it correctly. the nation has entrusted us with a great responsibility. we are not going to let them down by abusing that trust, or abusing those resources. now, a broad dialogue about what we are doing or why it's a good thing for us as a nation. i don't question that for one minute. because as much as i'm proud of being a flight officer in the training navy, also mindful, i'm a citizen of this nation before it ever started this journey in uniform. when this journey is over i just want to go back to being just another citizen again. i have no intention of compromising myself are what i believe in in the execution of my duties, just not going to do that. >> you mentioned edward snowden. what harm has he done to the

country? >> again, i have been on record when asked, i am watching foreign nations, groups, individuals, cite his disclosures and sing we need to change the way we operate. the americans have insight here. we need to do something differently. >> so you think that potential threats are operating differently because of -- >> i am watching those foreign intelligence and counterterrorism targets, some of them, not going to make a blanket statement again everybody changing everything, but i'm watching highlight the revelation, talk about their applications what they do and how they communicate. that is unsettling to me as an individual charged with generate knowledge and insight that helps this nation understand the world around it and increases our ability to forestall a tense on the parts of others to do harm to us, our interest and our allies.

that makes the job harder. >> any ideas how many documents he took? >> we have a fairly good idea. i'm not going to get into specifics of all this, because i think one of the things i try to tell the workforce out the is, this is not what is going to define us. we cannot go into this hunch down crunch. we have an important mission. we've got to keep doing the mission and do it right. that's what matters to me. we will have a broader dialogue as a nation and that's a good thing. we will play one part in the dialogue that will involve many, many people and many, many perspectives, and that's exactly the way it should be. but for us as an organization, i need to focus on the mission and doing things right. because let me take the heat on the outside. that's what they pay me for. imagine if you in this workforce, everybody from the outside world to date has come to the conclusion, there's been no systematic violation of law

or policy on the part of the national security agency. it is executing a series of laws and policies that are been put in place in accordance with this governmental structure that we call america. >> no, we can have a debate about is that post the best one? are those laws where we want to be? i think that's a very fair debate. but for the men and women of the national security agency, i think the greater majority of them find themselves at times very confused and perplexed, hey, the outside world has looked at us. it has assessed the. it has come to the conclusion that we have not knowingly in a broad scale attempted to circumvent law or violate procedures. and yet i go home and my family asks you, asks me, hey, what are you doing with my phone? hey, i go to the grocery store -- >> that's handy. you can keep track of your kids, right? >> i go to church.

i want you workforce trying to deal with the fact, look, we're doing what we think is something that's important if we're doing something we think that matters and increases the safety of our citizens. we are doing it in a way that complies with the law and policy. wow, why is it that all my friends and neighbors are looking at me so differently now? we used to call ourselves the size of service. if you go international secure the agency come you will find a black wall in which 173 names are carved. a week ago yesterday we added two new names to that wall. that law with one of 73 people who have given their lives as a part of the nsa team in the defense of the nation. one week ago today we added chief petty officer christian bike and air force staff sergeant richard dickson who died in afghanistan. and on that wall we say they serve in silence. that is the culture, argued if

it's a good or bad culture, but it's a culture of the organization. hey, we do things that matter but we do them in a way that doesn't compromise what we do a bring attention to ourselves. it's not about us. it's about the mission. >> one person did not adhere to the culture. did you watch edward snowden's interviews be? no, i did not. i was traveling at the time it came on. i've seen clips of it subsequently. >> so what was your impression of him in those clips? did he seem practiced, coached, what's your thoughts be? that's not my place. i thought, again, i think he is an intelligent individual, articulate. he seemed fairly arrogant to mean, clearly believes in what he's doing. i don't question that i don't agree with it. i fundamentally disagree with what he did. i believe it was wrong. i believe it was illegal from my perspective. he stole sensitive information

that he'd been entrusted with. he abuses the trust of his workplace colleagues in doing so. >> do you really believe the come he fundamentally believes in what he did, or do you think he could've been working for someone else as a double agent? >> could he have? hostilely. do i believe that's the case? probably not, but i would caution everyone, look, we've got a set a process that we do with this issue in the long run and that's the way we need to go. as citizens can we are free to express our opinion. that's a real strength for us as a nation. the challenge in my mind is we cannot function as a society if everyone of us unilaterally decides i'm right, everyone else is wrong and i'm going to disregard the law and decide what i'm going to agree to adhere to or not. >> i spoke with her predecessor, keith alexander, just yesterday on the phone, and he expressed the concern that he thought

edward snowden was at some point, a question of when, working for someone else. possibly the russians. he seems to be working for them right now. you think that's a series that's important to explore right now speak as clearly we'll need to run all the ground. my comment would be, be part of the dialogue. if you believe in this, use the power of the law and the structures of our society to make your case. the answer is not for anyone of us to unilaterally decide that i'm the all knowing oracle who knows everything, that i'm in the best position to decide what is right or wrong. e. leary of a society in which everyone unilaterally can do that. we love to quote the constitution. that document provides a framework for us as to how we're going to organize at the government as well as how we will settle this to the framework we call the law. and i urge all of us as citizens, use that framework.

there's something that you feel strongly about, make your case, make an argument, articulate your viewpoint. but do it within a framework that we all have to use if we're going to exist as a society, if we're going to function as a nation. beware of the chaos associate with all of this -- us unilaterally deciding what we want to do or don't want to do. what laws we will obey or what laws we choose to disobey. that comes across to me as an incredibly arrogant. that's just my opinion think you talked much about the culture of the nsa and you certainly, a culture in our military. how is it that a guy like ed snowden gets essentially kicked out of the cia am a derogatory report written about him of concerns is trying to break into systems at the cia and then he winds up working for the nsa? i mean, in terms of background

checks, what's done, what needs to change so you don't have another edward snowden? >> clearly we need to look at it. the flipside of it though, i do want to go too far in the other direction but what do we mean by that? we all would have members of the workforce saying, let me understand this. i haven't done anything wrong and yet you're taking increased secure you're taking increased sector be measured. why am i paying the price? >> you are doing this right now. >> yes. why should i be questioned because of the actions of one individual? so it's always about trying to find that balance. at some point i hope in our time we'll talk about cybersecurity. >> we will. of course, we will. but speed is you've got to love that direct part about admiral rogers. >> it's just curious that it seems as though one agency is not necessary talking to the other. because could and should have learned this is a guy who's got something on his record?

>> don't get me wrong. clearly we wish we had known that, but on the other hand, again, he wasn't an employee of ours. get access to systems, don't get me wrong, he had access. >> are you 100% confident you have no edward snowden's in your ranks right now? >> i would never tell you that. my question would be, what idiot would do something like that? >> what have you changed? >> to argue certainties in the world. so how about that cybersecurity peace? >> i have one more question for you and then we'll move on. in terms of amnesty. would you consider amnesty in exchange for him turning back all the documents that he took? >> that's not my decision. in the digital age we're living in, the idea of controlling what's out there, i think it's very problematic. >> do you think it's out there?

do think basically it may have been turned over? >> certainly doesn't have the controls i wish it did have. >> could it be in the hands of the russians or the chinese or any other foreign -- >> there are healthy aspects of that. >> i promise you we will talk about cybersecurity. >> for sure. >> ed snowden, the target attack, ebay the other they can until the world they needed to change their passwords. we are living in an environment where cybersecurity is fred vinson on everyone's mind and then it's not. because we take a lot of things for granted. is there an equivalence of a fiber 9/11? do you need to be incredibly vigilant when it comes to these attacks? what really worries you with cyberwar? >> eichler and hope we don't need a 9/11. remember, on 9/11 almost 3000

u.s. and other citizens of other nations died on one day. i don't think any of us ever want to see something like that again. and i certainly hope it doesn't take a dramatic event, and i'm not going to argue that it's got to be loss of life, but if you look at impact, cost, ashok we don't have to get to that kind of level two urged us to step back to say wow, perhaps we need to do things a little differently. what i'm hoping is clearly all of us see what is happening in the world around us, the level of sophistication, the volume and the focus of this effort is increasing across our entire society. expensive as private citizens. i think i read something, something like 27% of americans now than last year's have expressed a personal data compromise. if you look at the numbers for us in the digital, if you look at what was in the corporate world, look at what we're seeing with the news government and particularly and the hat i wear

as you cyber command from what we're seeing directed against the department of defense, the level of effort, the complexity just continues to grow. doing what we've always done, i would argue, is not really going to get us where we need to be in this world that we can see unfolding in front of us. we can either recognize this and drive ourselves to change them or we can just sit back. it reminded a little bit about the navy guy, we are is just a joke when you're swimming in the ocean, you just got to make sure your after the next to you when it comes to that shark. that's not the attitude that i hope we have. i see some because for some, it's a very business case analysis. you know, what's the risk versus what's the cost? and i think for some the assessment has been perhaps are not large, perhaps i'm not in the core market segment, perhaps i have enough capability. i can afford to continue what i'm doing. i can deal with the risks.

i mitigated if we have to but i don't want to put the time, the energy, the resources, the money up front, if you will. don't get me wrong. every entity has to decide what's right for them. i understand, i'm not going to sector and argued this is the right level of investment. riptide work within the government on developing standards, if you will, partnering with mist and others that we've tried to promulgate across the federal government as well as the civil sector to say look, these are standards that we believe we would urge you to adopt. we think that if you do that it will significant increases your ability to forestall penetration. it increases your ability to deal with penetrations, should they occur. so we are putting collectively a lot of work into it, but we clearly are not where we need to be today. >> they are sophisticated. and think about what you have in front of you. you've got to stay in front of all these people around the world that are trying more and more sophisticated means to

break into systems. how do you recruit the very best talent to help you do that? you are competing with the likes of google. you are competing for these meth notations, these engineers and they have the opportunity to go to silicon valley and get stock options so why do they come to work for you? >> i think it's the same reason, the argument i've made with our leadership is look, we are never talking the nsa, and even in the u.s. cyber command, as were trying to attract the same kinds of people. we are never going to compete on the basis of money. that's the metric, we're not going to be in the place. where can we compete? we are about serving something bigger than ourselves. we are about an ethos of right and wrong. we are about doing a mission that's important to the nation. we are about doing something that quite frankly you can't do legally on the outside, that were really challenge you, that will test you, we do the opportunities, cutting edge technology and apply it in a way that will help with the defense

of the nation. that jazz's most people. the positive side for us is, i'm not running into problems on the u.s. cyber command or director of national security agency in terms of attracting quality people who want to be part of the team. don't get me wrong, it's something i pay lots of attention due. i am very mindful, we have a lot of technology. if you ask me where do i think the true value resides, it's the people. that's where we get the true value. it's not just their gray matter. it's here, it's their heart and dedication and willingness to work some incredibly long hours if that's what it takes. this is a culture about mission and doing the right thing and doing it for the right reason. i am proud to be the director of nsa. i am proud to be the command of you cyber command. i tell the workforce, i believe in nsa, i believe in cyber command. i didn't have to take this job.

i did it for a reason because i believe in the mission of the team. i believe in the men and women who execute it, and i thought, take a as i joined the nsa team, hey, we are in a tough spot right now. i could walk away and say hey, not my problem, i don't need the heartache. but i said to myself, what kind of leader would you be if you did that but if you spend your whole adult life working in cyber. now it is payback time. you oh, and so that's what i stand before you sit before you today. >> we appreciate the transparency. let me ask you, i talk to a lot of tech ceos on bloomberg tv and i've heard a lot of frustration from the techie community regarding all these revelations and the spine that is, too late. and the concern is that we are getting ourselves into a somewhat protectionist environment. cisco for instance, right now is at risk of losing its china

contract over cyberspying. so what do you say to ceos like a john chambers, to make them feel as though we are still moving forward as a global economy despite these concerns about one nation spying on another and the other nations spying back? >> well first, i certainly appreciate the concern and i don't push back -- who are you to think that? far from it. he like many others have responsibly to the organization. i understand that and i to question the concern at all. as we work our way through this, the points i tried to make to my corporate counterparts are, look, what we are doing is an activity that almost every significant nationstate on this planet does, it attempts to gain insight on th on the world arouo it a chance forestall threats to its citizens. i don't care if its china, i don't care if it's russia, if

it's us, fill in the blanket every nation tries to do that for the well being of its citizens. now, very nations have varying degrees of capability. we clearly have an amazing capability within the construct of the u.s. government to help generate insight and knowledge of the world around us and to help defend our citizens. you have seen some of that play out. what hasn't played out in many ways, so i appreciate the technology. talk to me about what are the constraints that are in place to assure that this isn't missed abuse? we haven't had any discussions about that. talk to me about the laws that are in place to forestall your ability to use of this illegally against our citizens. talk to me about the protections you put in place to make sure your workforce can't abuse this authority. talk to me about why do you feel you need to do this. why is it in our best interest? that's the kind of, the broader discussion. >> why is it in our best

interest? it's a matter of national security. >> right. my comment would be, because it's a matter of our security as the nation. .. i think this is an important role for u.s. chairman and principal military adviser to the u.s. government. we do not want to destroy

ourselves or become something we aren't in the name of security. that is not a good thing for us. in trying to achieve that level of security we have to acknowledge that that threat exists. is not something we are making up. similar citizens in the last decade from individuals who have to attempt to generate threats and take down citizens, very spectacular way, very successful and forestalling much of it. much of the things we forestalled you will never hear about. that is the nature of intelligent and the nature of our business. >> the chinese don't trust the american tech companies, are we on the verge of seeing some

protectionist trade war? >> is it possible? yes. in the long run is it likely? i don't think so. i could well be wrong. >> why not? >> i believe in the end competition and the quality of what we do and what our corporations offer, it is not by chance that the u.s. enjoys such a significant did vantage in this market sector. it is because of what we are able to produce. in this end the value of what we produce will stand for itself. >> they invited five chinese officers, cyberas the and irish. is the nsa planning that? >> yes. i won't get into that. >> does it seem like it is tit-for-tat denial? that is what the business community is worried about. >> again, what is the framework we used to resolve issues like this?

legal framework? not just one nation talking about what you are doing and another talking about where you are doing that. that is why we have courts and the rule of law because ultimately if it proceeds to a trial, a judge and jury will make a decision. that is the way our system works. >> we have 40 seconds and this will be a good way to wrap up. what can you tell american citizens right here today that are worried they will never be fully anonymous or have a right to full privacy again? >> in the delay age division digital age of the 21st century, we have to come to grips what privacy means in the world we are living in today. that is a much bigger questions than the role of the national security agency. in the world we're living in, increasingly by choice and by chance, we are forfeiting privacy at levels that i don't

think as individuals we truly understand that this ingrained, whether it is the cameras that are out on the street or everyone of your personal digital devices constantly asking you can i share where you are? whether it is the questions we get asked in trying to do business, give me your social security number, give me your zip code, tell me how often you shop with me, we are in the world of big data. michael not we are in the digital age and the world of big data and we increasingly as a nation, not just as the we have to come to grips with what does that mean and what we comfortable with. we have framed this debate too narrow from my perspective. this is much bigger than the national security agency. a much broader dialogue we need to have. that is what john podesta has been doing in the white house, use of a presidential or marks where he said we need to think about this more broadly.

that is an important question for us as a nation. what we comfortable with? the idea they you can be totally anonymous in the digital age is increasingly difficult. >> thank you very much. [applause] >> the government for months cybersecurity. over the next 20 minutes you'll hear from peter dixon, ceo of second front system this, up for discussion and the security breach at target. >> a scrimmage at a border station. 2,000 pounds of education drops. squadrons shot like a rabbit. it is a verse from kipling and those dark words echo in my own

better maurice as i recall friends and comrades who were cut down, our nation's pride and cut down in their prime by nothing more than a jug of modified fertilizer, a battery pack, two boards connected by nails. good morning. i am peter dixon, a marine combat veteran. i am 31 years old and i spent the better part of my last decade at war against this nation's enemies and our asymmetric foes. like many in this room, my life have was forever changed on 9/11 when a terrorist armed with nothing more than box cutters took planes out of a clear blue sky and smashed them into the seats of this country's economic

and military seats of power. for myself ended up commissioning in to the marine corps, took a cyberplatoon and infantry platoon to war in afghanistan, served on the border between iraq and syria, worked against cartels in mexico and mass rape in the democratic republic of the congo, executed special projects at the pentagon. for this nation when it is so vulnerable on that fateful september day was the same exact thing that i saw in the battlefields of iraq and afghanistan, a technical transformation occurred in this country and swept through the private sector and appended our traditional ways we communicated and collaborated and even thought. that technical transformation largely swept by the u.s.

government so in a word, fbi agents noticed men in florida were learning how to fly planes but didn't care too much on learning how to land them. that went up the chain of command, was given to attention and went nowhere else, likewise when we invaded afghanistan and then iraq, we were engaged against asymmetric enemies who bypassed our strengths and targeted our weaknesses and the improvised explosive devices that they used devastated our forces on the ground. to their enduring credit, the u.s. military and intelligence community drastically transformed themselves in the face of this new threat. groups like the joint and provide explosive device organizations stood up, given

authority outside congress to make drastic changes in a way life-saving technology was procured and delivered to the battlefield. organizations like the joint special operations command under general stanley mcchrystal transformed themselves into a network itself. best debris technologies were sourced in places like silicon valley advanced analytics and transformed how we close with and destroyed our adversaries. now as this nation currently washed its hands of over a decade of bloody war we find ourselves all too eager to dismantle the same innovative organizations that played such a critical role in bringing us

back from the brink. problem is that there is a new crop of threats coming up, a new crop of adversary threats. while we have those of us who paid a heavy price to learn lessons in counterinsurgency, while we have struggled to retain them against those who believe america will never again be involved in a dirty ground war, these new threats to gaining ground. the american system of global economic prosperity is underwritten by our security and international patronage and guarantees and there are three revisionist nations that seek to roll back guarantees. and carve out regions of dominance. these nations, china, russia and iran, using every lever under their power, military,

intelligence, economic, criminal, media, and a new form of hybrid warfare. for these nations the most promising webbing in their arsenals is cyber. for them, they see it as that arrow in their quiver which can strike an american. >> we will leave this discussion at this point and return to it if possible but now we go live to president obama at the g-7 summits offering remarks during a press briefing with prime minister david cameron. >> to levels not seen in nearly 20 years so we are making important progress. my action plan for climate change indicates we have to keep at it and do more. this is something dave is passionate about. every nation, all the major economies including g7 and emerging-market like china need to show leadership as we work on

a new global climate agreement. that includes going forward by march of next year and fishes long-term targets for reducing emissions. i would like to thank prime minister cameron and fellow leaders for our work here together. i believed whenever our nation stand together it can lead a world that is more secure and more prosperous and more just and will be reminded of that again tomorrow in normandy as we mark the 70st anniversary of d-day. on that day like so many others american and british troops fought valiantly alongside our allies, didn't just helped to win a war, they helped to turn the tide of human history. the reason we stand here today with the freedoms our nation's enjoy. there is is the legacy our two nations and our great alliance

continue to hold, a find bargains in david in making that happen. >> thank you and good afternoon. i am delighted to be here with you today. as we stand together on the '70s to the anniversary of the d-day landings, which remind world of the strength and steadfastness of the bond between the united kingdom and the united states. 70 years ago as you just said our countrys stood like two rocks of freedom and democracy in the face of nazi tyranny. 70 years ago tonight thousands of young british and american soldiers with their canadian and french counterparts were preparing to cross the channel in the greatest liberation force the world has ever known. those young men were united in purpose to restore democracy and freedom to continental europe, to free by force of arms ancient european nations and allow the nation's and peoples of europe to chart their destiny in the world. thousands of those young men

paid the ultimate price and we honor their memory today and tomorrow. shortly after d-day my own grandfather was linda and came home. we will never forget what they did and the debt that we owe them for the peace and freedom we enjoy on this continent. today in a new century on two democracies' continue to stand for and doubled the same values in the world, democracy, liberty, the rule of law. day in and day out our people work together to uphold those values right across the globe. that approach has been at the heart of what we discussed in our bilateral meeting today. we talked about one of the greatest opportunities for the global charge by concluding trade deals including bed e.u. u.s. deal which would be the biggest of them all. the transatlantic trade and investment partnerships that would create growth and jobs, a deal worth 10 billion pounds a year for britain alone.

it would secure our long-term economic success and generate a better future for hard-working families back at home. that is why i was so determined to launch those negotiations a year ago and since then we made steady progress and we have to keep our eyes on a huge prize and not get bogged down. we also discussed the greatest threat we face. how we counter extremism and terrorist groups operating elsewhere to pose a threat to the safety of our people at home and abroad. this year we will bring our troops home from afghanistan. they can be proud of what they achieved over the last decade denying terrorists a safe haven from which to plot attacks against britain or the united states but at the same time as we reduce the threat from that region al qaeda franchises have grown in other parts of the world many of these groups are focused on the countries where they operate but still pose a risk to our people, businesses

and interests. barack and i share the same view how to tackle this thread in fragile regions of the world where terrorist network seek a foothold. as i said before our approach must be tough, patient, intelligent and based on strong international partnerships. when it comes to syria the number one destination for jihadists everywhere in the world we agreed to intensify our efforts to address the threat of foreign fighters traveling to and from syria. we introduce new measures in the u.k. to prosecute those who plan and train for terrorism abroad and at the g-7 we agree to do more to work with syria's neighbors to strengthen border security and terrorist financing that funds jihadists training camps. in libya we want to help the government as struggles to overcome the disastrous legacy of the dockery's rule and build a stable, peaceful and prosperous future. barack and i have had on voice to support efforts to reach a

much needed political settlement and we are fulfilling our commitment to train libyan security forces. in nigeria, supporting the nigerian government and its neighbors as they confront discourage of the kidnap of the girls that was an act of pure evil and britain and the united states provide immediate assistance in the search. in the long term we stand ready to provide more practical assistance to help the nigerians and the region to strengthen defense and security institutions and develop the expertise needed to counter these barbaric extremists. as barack said we had an important discussion on ukraine and relations with russia. on the outset of the crisis the g-7 nations have stood united. clear in our support for the ukrainian people and their right to choose their own future and firm in our message to vladimir putin that russia's actions are completely unacceptable and at odds with the value of this

group of democracies. that is why russia no longer has a seat at the table with us. at the summit we were clear about three things, first the status quo is unacceptable, continuing destabilization of eastern ukraine must stop. second, there are a set of things that need to happen. vladimir putin must recognize the legitimate election, he must stop arms crossing the border into ukraine, cease russian support for separatist groups and if these things don't happen, sanctions will follow. the next month will be vital in judging president putin has taken these steps and that is what i urge president putin to do later today. finally we discussed the cancer eating away at the world economic and political systems, corruption. corruption is the arch enemy of democracy and development. the best way to fight corruption and drive growth is through what i called the greater transparency, fair tax systems and free trade. that was at the heart of the g-8

agenda and today we agreed to push for more action from fair taxes and greater transparency, things that are hard wired into these international gatherings this year and for many years to come. >> all right. we have a couple questions from each press delegation. we start with jeff mason. >> thank you, mr. president. since you last had president holland on a state visitor earlier this year a lot of tensions have arisen in the relationship including the french say a potential multibillion-dollar fine on that bank could affect the global economy and could affect trade talks. do you believe those concerns are valid and how do you expect to address them tonight it u.s. concerns about the fringe selling warships to russia? to the prime minister do you feel isolated among of the e.u.

leaders about opposition on the european commission president and coo would you like to see get the job, and you feel any pressure from president obama about your position keeping the u.k. in the e.u.. >> the relationship between the united states and france has never been stronger. on a whole range of the issues we are seeing intense cooperation. i am looking forward to seeing president holland this evening to talk about a range of issues and continue the work that was done in brussels. my answer on the banking case was short and simple. the tradition of the united states was the president does not metal in prosecutions. we don't call the attorney

general. i don't pick up the phone and tell the attorney general how to prosecute cases that have been brought. i don't push for settlements of cases that have been brought. those decisions are made by an independent department of justice. i communicated that to president holland. this is not a unique position on my part. perhaps it is a different traditions and exists in other countries. the rule of law is not in any way impacted by political expediency. this would be determined by u.s. attorneys in discussion with representatives of the bank. i will read about it in the newspaper just like everybody

else. you will hear the same answer from me tonight as you just heard at this podium. i have expressed some concerns, i don't think i am alone in this about continuing significant defense deals with russia at a time when they have violated basic international law and territorial integrity and sovereignty of their neighbors. so president holland understands my position. i recognize this is a big deal. i recognize the jobs in france are important. i think it would have been preferable to press the pause button. president holland has made a

different decision and that does not negate the broader cooperation we have had with friends with respect to its willingness to work with us on sanctions to discourage president and from engaging in further destabilizing actions and hopefully encourage him to move in a more constructive direction. we are at a point where vladimir putin has the chance to get back into a lane of international law. he has a president he can negotiate directly with having spoken to him this morning or yesterday morning it is clear that he recognizes ukraine needs to have a good relationship with

russia but also rightly affirms the right of ukraine to engage with the rest of the world. the steps david outlined earlier, that the g-7 unanimously agrees with for vladimir putin to take this moment, recognize the legitimate leader of ukraine, cease the support of separatists and the flow of arms, work with ukraine to engage those in the east during this process of constitutional economic reform. it is possible to rebuild trust between russia and neighbors and europe. should he fail to do so there will be additional consequences and one of the important things that came out of this meeting today was the recognition on the

part of all of us that we can't simply allowed drift. the mere fact that some of the russian soldiers have moved off of the border, and russia is now destabilizing ukraine through surrogates rather than overtly and explicitly. does not mean that we can afford three months or four months or six months of continued violence and conflict in eastern ukraine. we will have a chance to see what vladimir putin does over the next two, three, four weeks and if he remains on the current course then we have already indicated the kinds of actions we are prepared to take. >> you asked a couple questions about europe, we just had a set of european elections where to take two countries at random,

france and britain and france openly anti european party won and the european party my country won and when this happened you can secure head in the sand and which these results could go away or have a strategy for addressing the concerns of the people you represent in your country. i have a strategy to represent and understand and reflect those concerns and i think it is important to have people running the institutions of europe who understand the need for reform and i would argue that view is widely shared among other heads of government and heads of state in the european union. as for britain's future, what i want to achieve is to see you're britain's place in a reform european union. i have a strategy for delivering that, renegotiating opposition, recovering some important hours, making some significant changes and putting that decision in a referendum to the british people, very much recommending you stay in reform the european union.

it is a strategy for dealing with an issue that we just walked away from we would see britain drift toward the exit and i don't want that to happen. >> we had the good discussions about these issues as we discuss everything else. now question from the bbc. >> mr president, even if i don't have a meeting scheduled are you going to end up talking face-to-face in france and do you see this as a part away from crisis? britain is potentially facing tweet to major decisions whether or not scotland and the united kingdom or the united kingdom stays a part of a european union, what do those decisions mean to you in the united states? and stewing gauge face-to-face despite everything you said. is there something of an olive

branch in your hand, they have not denounce the electoral process which brought the new president to power in ukraine. what they are exploring with him this evening. tx that germany may not come to your aid in becoming commission president, and to blow your entire strategy of course. and brilliant reform of european union. and they may simply vote to leave the union. and -- >> great question. i will say, my meeting with vladimir putin is important to have this communication about very important messages that what is happening now is not acceptable, the changes that need to take place. there's an opportunity for

diplomacy to play a role and chart a path. can chosen a president as a capable man and is possible, a proper relationship with vladimir putin which ukraine and russia, change is needed for that happen and that is the message i will be delivering this evening. in terms of your other questions on this issue of who runs the european institutions what matters is people who understand the need for change, for reform, who realize if things go on as they have, this union is not going to work for its citizens and that was the message we received in these european elections. as for how you put in angela merkel, very fortunate in my life to work with some extremely strong and capable women of which they are indicted the two.

>> i have no doubt i will see vladimir putin and he and i always have not businesslike relationship and -- >> on c-span2 our regular scheduled senate coverage gets underway momentarily. you can continue to watch this on line. we will show all of it later our program schedule and you can find all of the online at c-span.org. the u.s. senate is about to gavel in. at 1:45 eastern a confirmation vote on the nomination of the new secretary of health and human services and after that the confirmation of a new peace corps director. we take you live to the senate floor on c-span2. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal spirit, your ways are right. make your face to shine upons