recommend it to all my colleagues to do that, and the techniques that you have to go true tlo find one, who the child is in the image, and who the person is creating the image, who we want to find is interesting how you do that, and it's something we need to know, and it certainly is a skill, and ability and there are things going on in this world most people can't even get their minds around that happens. and the issue with me, i'm from bowling green kentucky and this always happens in the big city you think, when we're home on our work working in august i'm trying to highlight the fact this does happen everywhere. anywhere that has a computer, it's not just somebody out on the street sore so forth. so we're going to try to do roundtables or conferences in different parts of my city. what kind of things do you think, just advice for us, we should let make sure people know what's going on in their communities? because you see it everywhere. you see what's happening. what kind of thing do you think people don't know in general

that they need to know about what's probably happening in their community? >> one of the most prevalent venues where these minors are being trafficked are in local hotels. now typically, you know, people aren't paying attention who's coming and going in these hotels but those who are in the business of operating hotels they are in a position to take notice of the behavioral characteristics consistent with this trafficking. for instance, many times a pimp will come in with three, sometimes five young girls. the girls will be off to the corner, the pimp will go in, make the arrangements for three to five rooms. might be for a three-day period. typical cash. these girls will go up to the rooms. they'll never leave their rooms. food will be delivered. nobody sees them again until they leave. that's strange.

what -- what's going on? why is that pimp hanging around? why is he walking the hallways? you know, 24/7. something's going on that's inconsistent with the regular routine of the trade of that hotel. and i'm -- i'm not just talking about the very small, seedy hotels. i'm talking about very well-known, reputable brands. >> chain hotels. my home is exit 22 on i-65 is like it's right there. and so, every chain that you know that has -- >> it's every chain. what i invite people to do and i say this with some degree of reluctance but if you want to see the scope of the problem in your neighborhood, go to a back page because they promote ads in communities. in towns. it's not just cities, but they break it down, you know, into counties, into bore roughs, int communities.

so if they're advertising your area in an adult escort service that means you have a problem. a child, if not multiple children, are being exploited in that area. >> you know, i want to reach out to you, i know miss brooks is going to, and just kind of those ideas what you think we should present so people -- those are -- i didn't think about inviting hotel owners to come to a roundtable. but that sounds like -- or tourism groups. >> you know, these young girls, there are some boys, but mostly it's young girls, they're being trafficked from state to state. so how are they getting to and from? many times they're flying. then they're getting into cabs. we've had many reports, law enforcement gets reports. they see the same young girls over the course of a month, two months, come through their area. go to the same hotels. go back, you know, at some point to the same. there are a lot of eyes and ears in different sectors who, if

they're properly educated, alerted, who can they call? typically it's going to be law enforcement. they can get to the bottom of this. and do incredibly good work. >> thank you. appreciate that. i yield. thank you for the time, mr. chairman. >> gentleman's time has expired. i will now recognize the gentleman from -- mr. sablan for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. and welcome mr. ryan. and, well, looking at this map of registered sex offenders, and we see -- we're grateful, one, that we're included in the map, because usually the trorts are for some reason excluded. but i want to welcome you, and tell you a little story, also, of about our island and the district i come from. one morning in may of 2011

there's the tragedy of two missing sisters, actually, that fell hard upon our community. milana who is 9 years old and philoma who was age 10 were last seen at their bus stops as they were on their way to school. and law enforcement authorities were informed -- were notified that the young girls were missing only after the sisters failed to return home from school that afternoon. so the gap of time that was lost. but i want to thank your organization, sir, in particular maureen hetz and bob hover for working with our office to ensure that we were included in this information, and this map that we have before us, and it's been three years since the girls have been -- have not been found. there have been leads, according

to law enforcement officials but the girls remain missing and there have been no arrests. and we have not forgotten, the entire northern marianas community have not forgotten about milana and philoma and we continue to pray for their safe return and i hope your organization ncnec will find them alive anden hurt. but, under the reauthorization of the 2013 reauthorization your organization's required to include local educational agencies for information services program and resources for missing and exploited children. if we could be of any assistance to your organization in connecting you to our school officials we'd be very more than happy to do that. but i need to ask, if you could tell me if you have reached out to our public school system? and if you did, what can you

share with me as resulted from your coordination with them? >> congressman, i have to look in to that to see if there's been direct confact. i know that our case management on the case that you reference, for instance, would be in touch with the law enforcement investigators, because one of the things we do and are doing in cases like that, we two things to keep that case alive the efforts of law enforcement. we do an age progression, which we do every year, and we release that and update that to law enforcement and all our poster distribution partners, that should be going on within your respective district. and the other thing we do is a comprehensive, what we call actually an anniversary campa n

campaign, so every two years we'll disseminate stories about in this case those two young girls who went missing. again, to try to generate a lead and a tip to come in because you know as people's memories fade, if you keep the story in front of them, they may remember that one crucial piece of evidence that they may not have thought important a year or two ago but now in context they'll call. so we are doing that. >> and the reason i'm offering to help you, the organization hook up with our public school officials for example is from just the information that we've been able to receive from those law enforcement authorities, the time since the girls were last seen at the bus stop, and the time that law enforcement authorities were notified, those were according to some people, very important, very critical time that has -- that would have

been very useful in probably solving the crime. and unfortunately, you know, the authorities were not notified until the girls didn't come home from school. i am -- i understand that the authorities were uninformed when the girls did not report to school. and i know that some of our school officials have changed system and updated but we need your cooperation sir and i would be willing to connect you with our -- if you have not made any contact by any coordination. >> we will definitely follow up. >> we need your assistance in getting our school officials up to date on what are the basic things, important things they need to do to keep the children safe. and, so we don't repeat this whole thing again. my time is up, mr. chairman. >> absolutely. >> i thanks the gentleman. the gentleman's time's expired. i would note for the record the gentleman is from the northern mariana islands and it's the chair's ignorance of the two

letter postal abbreviation that caused the confusion in introducing him. the chair recognizes himself for five minutes. mr. ryan, thank you again. my blood boils, at the beginning when you gave that brief example of how a child could be delivered to a hotel room, as easily as ordering a pizza. as a father of a 6-year-old and 4-year-old, you know, if i saw that gentleman, i don't know if i could contain myself. probably be in jail right alongside of him for battery, if not worse. you came from the internet business, if i looked at your biothe right way. you worked for aol. this has nothing to do with aol but i'm trying to establish a record here. something along the way, your career led you to this position now after working on the jerry

sandusky scandal or the aftermath of it. you mentioned at the beginning of your testimony that the world is a different place and you immediately transitioned to the internet. did the internet cause this? did the internet enable this? is this world a different place because of the deterioration of society generally? or were these people struggling for my christianity here, were these people -- have these people always been here and with us in our society? i'm not asking you, you're not a psychologist, you're not -- i want your personal opinion. >> i think the internet clearly has opened up opportunities that did not exist that facilitates the commission of these traditional crimes. i mean there were always predators. the modus operandi has changed, online because when you think

about it, now the internet provides a global platform. it provides the ability for predator to so-called groom a potential victim, because all the information that is imparted on different social media sites, a predator will glean that information and then turn that around and target an individual. they'll know the name, the school they go to, their activities, their friends. so when they start the dialogue with potential victim, that victim feels, oh, this is a peer, they know me, they're just like me, their guard is down. that's what the internet has encouraged, and enhanced. and it's made the apprehension of these predators more difficult for law enforcement. because, you know, they can operate under the radar, so to speak. so, it has caused -- i use the

term explosion, of these offenses, because these predators have additional tools, they have the ability to you know, stay undetected. and they have much more opportunity to target a larger pool of potential victims. >> regarding the internet, do you have any solutions for companies, anything that you haven't mentioned yet, sort of sensoring or -- that you want to get on record? >> absolutely. at aol, we employed what we called parental filters. you enable parents to restrict the level of access that their children have on the internet. and it requires a partnership >> what about those kids that don't have parents, effectively? the ones that might be going to the social worker that was brought up in earlier questioning, and that sort of thing?

>> it enhances the problem. but, you know, whoever is entrusted with the care and guardianship of that child, whether it be a social worker or even a teacher during that school day, they have to be that responsible person who if they're providing access to the inster net, which all schools do now, they have to take on the added responsibility to know where they're allowing that child to navigate and what tools and filters are in place. >> thank you. the time i have left, you mentioned several times the committee being well situated, quote unquote, to help develop the partnerships. more detail on what you mean by that? i just as soon you develop the partnerships, don't wait on this committee or congress or anybody else, go forth and do this work. >> well, for instance, we've had the ability in this past year alone, since we engaged and got

more information, you know, educating this community about our work, and frankly we've learned more about your mission and charter, which has been extremely helpful. we've worked with the staff members in terms of their work to try to help identify legislative measures that could address some of the challenges that are emerging. just prior to this conference, this testimony i was engaged with the very, you know, excellent dialogue with a staff member. just talking about what we're seeing. what are some of your challenges. and where that intersection may be. what fixes you're thinking about, and what is our take? a dialogue. i found that a dialogue, by interested stake holders, is more likely to end up with a mutual solution that, if you don't have that dialogue, you're flying blind. >> okay. thank you, my time's expired. i'll now recognize the ranking member for any closing remarks.

>> thank you, mr. chair. i just appreciate the fact that we've had you here today, mr. ryan, i've learned quite a lot. i, too, would like to associate myself with the remarks of our chair on how enraged we all are when we hear some of the things we've heard today. i think that just leads us all to want to go forth and make sure we do everything we can to cooperate with you to minimize these issues that are out there, if not eliminate them entirely. and i do agree, too, that the role of the internet, no doubt, has been really important in magnifying the problem -- multiplying the problem, perhaps, in many instances, too. thank you for being here today. and thank the chair again for having this hearing. thank you. >> mr. ryan, thank you, again, for being here. really appreciate your leadership. appreciate your commitment, to this country and our kids. we join you in that effort and we look forward to continuing our relationship in that dialogue you spoke of, and doing

everything we can so that families can build better lives for themselves. and with that, seeing no further business of the subcommittee, the subcommittee stands adjourned. >> tomorrow the house rules committee holds a hearing to consider legislation put forth by house speaker john boehner that would grant authority to begin a lawsuit against president obama for what it calls actions by the president inconsistent with his duties under the constitution of the united states. live coverage begins tomorrow morning at 10:00 eastern here on c-span3. now you can keep in touch with current events from the nation's capital using any phone any time with c-span radio and audio now call 202-626-8888 for congressional coverage, public affairs forums and washington journal. and every weekday listen to a recap of the day's events on

washington today. you can also hear audio of the five network sunday public affairs programs beginning sundays at noon eastern. c-span radio on audio now 202-626-8888. long distance or phone charges may apply. next, massachusetts congressman jim mcgovern talks about the u.s. role in iraq following the country's disputed elections. congressman mcgovern joined us on this morning's "washington journal." >> joining us now is rippive james mcgovern of massachusetts. he's a member of the rules committee and represents the second district in massachusetts. >> good morning. >> the rules committee set to meet tomorrow taking a look at this proposed lawsuit by house speaker boehner. what's the topic of discussion tomorrow? >> you know the republicans are going to present their lawsuit. and quite frankly i think it's a little nutty. you know with all the things that we have to do, with immigration reform, we need to focus on rebuilding our roads

and our bridges and our infrastructure. extending unemployment insurance. pay equity. i mean i go right down the list of important things that the house of representatives needs to address, and we're not dealing with those things. instead we're dealing with these partisan, you know, cheap tricks. i shouldn't even say cheap trick because it's going to cost the taxpayers a lot of money to be able to finance this suit. so, you know, i guess the republicans will present their case. they're going to have some lawyers to talk about why they think that the lawsuit is justified. >> and what's the goal of the lawsuit, i guess? >> you know, i think it's just red meat to the right wing political base. i can't quite figure it out. i mean, you know, we have the power in the house of representatives to legislate, to pass things. now i heard this talk about immigration with your earlier guest. the united states senate in a bipartisan way passed a comprehensive immigration reform bill. we can't even get it brought up on the house floor for a vote. so i mean we're not doing our

job. i mean, maybe the president should countersue. because congress is at least the house of representatives is useless. i mean, we're debating trivial issues passionately and important ones not at all. so i don't know what the ultimate goal is other than just kind of a, you know, a political circus during election time. >> and this is about executive actions by the president? >> but focused solely on one part of the health care reform bill. you know, i get it. i mean republicans are upset because the affordable care act is working. tens of millions of people now have health care that didn't have it before. so a poll the other day that republicans who have received health care in the affordable care act think it's a good thing. maybe they're frustrated that the president's health care bill is working. i can't quite figure out what their anxiety is at this particular point. but, we should be doing is actually doing the people's business. i mean, you know, i go home, people want to talk about jobs and economic security. they talk about making sure that education is affordable for

their kids. and what are we doing in washington? you know, 52 bills to repeal the affordable care act, and now a lawsuit? you know, maybe the speaker of the house and the majority leader and the republican leadership ought to do something a little different. maybe they ought to do their job. and i think that's what most members of congress, democrats and republicans, want is us to be serious and to address issues that people really care about. >> an op-ed about the lawsuit the house speaker wrote the president's dismissal of the constitution we are both sworn to defend it's beneath the dignity of the office. i'm frustrated, the american people are frustrated too. >> let's take one issue immigration reform. the senate passed an immigration reform bill in a bipartisan way. wouldn't you think that the responsible thing do do by the speaker of the house would be to bring up a bill and let -- let us deliberate. let us debate. we can't do that. minimum wage, you know. people work full-time in this

country and are still in poverty. still require food stamps. still require, you know, emergency fuel assistance. let's debate a minimum wage, make it a livable wage. we can't get it up for a vote. so i mean, the frustration, i think that the american people feel, and that's why congress has like a 7% approval rating, is that this is a place that doesn't do anything. you know, other than just take political cheap shots. and i think people have had it. i don't care whether you're a democrat or republican or independent, i think people really want congress to work. and what we're doing on this lawsuit, we're spending three weeks on the rules committee talking about it. what a waste of time. it's nutty. it doesn't serve anybody's purpose. again maybe it helps the republicans with their fund-raising. but even that, i think, people would rather have us be debating serious issues on the house floor. >> our guest with us and if you want to ask some questions about this and other issues,

202-585-3880 for democrats, off of twitter @c-spanwj and c-sp c-span.org. you're taking a look at a resolution on iraq. >> it's a privilege ed resoluti that i introduced with congressman republican jones and barbara lee democrat from california which would direct the president to remove u.s. troops from iraq within 30 days or no later than the end of this year, except for those troops needed to protect u.s. diplomatic facilities and personnel. the reason why we're doing this is a privileged resolution is one, it forces a vote. and hopefully will force a discussion. you make a theme here, congress is not doing its job. when it comes to issues of war, congress has a role, a constitutional responsibility, and for whatever reason we keep on shirking that responsibility. we have about 1,000 troops in iraq right now, 775 are new.

we're about to go into a recess where we'll be off for five weeks and we come back for a couple of weeks and we're off again for several weeks before the election. my belief is that you're going to see our involvement in iraq escalate during those times, and congress, up to this point, has said nothing. and this is becoming a habit. i mean, whether it's, you know, drone strikes in pakistan or yemen or, you know, a military engagement of libya, we're just sitting back, and shirking our responsibility. i think the american people expect congress to debate these issues. you know, and to vote on them. and i don't think we should re-engage militarily in iraq. but there were some members who do. and i think we ought to have that debate, and congress ought to put forward a resolution authorizing whatever action that you know that they believe the administration ought to have the ability to take. i'll vote no on that. but people who want it should vote yes on that. i don't know where the votes

are. but this notion of just going along to get along to let it all drift along, you know, we -- we're in this age of endless wars. we're still in afghanistan, the longest war in the history of our country. and you know, it's not just on the issue of iraq that the leadership of the house doesn't want to take responsibility. walter jones and i introduced an amendment to the defense authorization bill in afghanistan. what we said was that, you know, a couple years ago the president said that we would be out of afghanistan in 2014. if the president wants to stay longer, which apparently he does, then he ought to submit a plan to congress and we ought to vote up or down on it. we worked on the amendment in a bipartisan way. it was germane to the defense authorization bill, and the rules committee at the behest of the republican leadership, wouldn't allow us even to debate it. so, i think the american people expect us to live up to our responsibility. they understand that these wars are costly, both in terms of

blood and treasure. we have some problems not just halfway around the world. we have problems halfway down the block we need to deal with. but congress ought to do its job. that's all we're saying here, congress do your job. >> this is steven from laurel, maryland, for our guest on our democrats line. go ahead. >> yeah, i have a couple questions. one, where do you see iraq going [ inaudible ] and can you explain the threat to america that they'd be developing or what you've seen -- what you've seen in the debate there, and congress about what may be possibly coming to america and finally did we pass out i.d. scanning in iraq during our time in iraq that identified

[ inaudible ] >> well, first of all, let me say that you know i opposed the original war in iraq. you know, we were lied to. we were told that there were weapons of mass destruction, that they were there to get, and to that's why we needed to topple the iraqi government. that was just a lie that didn't happen. but we invested an awful lot of u.s. resources, in that country. we trained their military, we gave them the best weaponry in the world. and the reason why we left iraq was because quite frankly the iraqis didn't want us there anymore. and so that was -- that was why we left. the situation is out of control today not because of a lack of u.s. investment in that country. the situation is out of control because the government, run by maliki, is a lousy, rotten, corrupt, brutal government. that excludes, you know, major sectors of that country from participating in government.

it has been an exclusive government, not an inclusive government and as a result people are fed up. isis which is a terrible, rotten organization, is gaining traction not just with extremists but with some moderate elements offette nike minorities or religious minorities because those people are fed up with the government of iraq. so you know one of the things that needs to happen is the government of iraq needs to include more people. it needs to be a government that represents all people. not just a sliver of the country. and i think that's -- ultimately this is only going to be resolved by a political -- to a political solution. putting more u.s. boots on the ground, airstrikes, drone strikes, all the other strikes that you can think of, i don't think solves the problem. and the problem is that -- that the government of iraq is terrible. and, you know, unless they fix their ways, you're going to see this go on and on and on and on

forever. whether u.s. troops are there or not. here's the deal. the united states, you know, as i said, we don't like maliki, and we don't like isis. so we're sending troops in there for what? to be target practice by both sides? i mean this is crazy. and there are more iraqi troops than there are isis fighters. by far. the iraqi armed forces are better trained, are more equipped, and yet they don't want -- they're not fighting. there was an article the other day in "the washington post" about, you know, how in some areas of iraq, you know, military commanders are deserting. and so are there troops. if they're not willing to fight these guys, why the hell are we going to fight them? so there's some serious questions here that need to be addressed. but congress needs to have this debate. i mean this is a serious issue. i mean rather than talking about lawsuits, you know, we're re-engaging militarily in this war in iraq. we're getting sucked in deeper and deeper and deeper. and now is the time to debate this issue before americans are

coming home in body bags. before there's an all-out offensive. before there's an air strike, now is the time to debate what our role should be and whether or not we should re-engage militarily. >> from florida, george is next, republican line. >> yes, good morning, gentlemen. and republicanive. >> good morning. >> you know the mantra from the left seems to be lately that the congress does not do anything. well, as a republican and a very heavily taxed corporate owner, the republicans are doing exactly what i sent my republican representative there to do. to keep taxes down, and keep them out of your hands, so that you could have another privileged vote buying program. because that's all they are. >> well, i appreciate -- i appreciate your comment. but here's the deal. and if i were a republican i'd be really frustrated with this republican leadership, especially as it pertains to wars. we went to war in afghanistan,

and iraq, and we didn't pay for it. it all went on our credit card. trillions of dollars. trillions of dollars. we asked our young men and women in the armed forces to sacrifice, you know, their lives, and to serve in hostilities. we asked their families to go through hell while they were serving, and the rest of us were asked to do nothing. we didn't pay for the war. trillions and trillions of dollars. have been added to our debt because of these wars. and because congress didn't do its job. if you're going to go to war, you ought to pay for it. i don't care whether you're on the left or on the right or anywhere in between. we're going to go to war, you ought to pay for it. and if you're not willing to pay for it maybe you ought not to go. but one of the reasons why we are pushing this privilege resolution is we need to ask these questions now. how -- are we going to get involved again? how deeply are we going to get involved? how much is it going to cost? what -- and what do we have to give up, you know, to re-engage militarily in iraq?

i mean we got roads and bridges that are collapsing in this country. and we've got schools that need to be repaired, and we've got all kinds of issues that we need to deal with. we still have a lot of unemployed people. and to get sucked into a war and have congress be silent and do nothing, i think that that's -- that's an abrogation of our konsz tugsal responsibilities. >> here is pauline from southlake, texas. >> representative mcgovern, i've got several things to say. you're talking about the congress not doing their job. you're right. they don't. on both sides. not just the republicans, not just the democrats. you guys are letting president obama do executive orders that affect everybody in this country. for instance the health care bill. the majority of the american people did not want the health care bill. you slammed it through by really, in my opinion, illegal terms.

then you sit up there, so if you're going to -- my statement on that is if you're going to let president obama make the decisions and take the government away from the government by the people, for the people, then you guys don't need a job. >> well, i appreciate your comments. but let me take one issue with you when you talk about the affordable care act you know, being pushed through illegally. i was here. i voted for it. i'm glad i did. tens of millions of people now have health care who didn't have health care. we're reforms our health care system. a majority in the house voted for it, and a majority in the senate voted for it. that's the way this place is supposed to work. you may not agree with it. but the bottom line is it was done with votes from the house and the senate. and then the president signed it. what i'm concerned about today is the fact that when it comes to war, we ought to have the debate, and we ought to have a vote. we ought to be clear-eyed about what we're getting into. and it is frustrating to me that we -- that for some reason, at

least in the republican-controlled house of representatives, there is not only no desire to debate these issues, the leadership goes out of their way to prevent us from having those debates on the house floor, and having those votes. you know, nothing is more important than if we're sending our men and women into war. why don't we debate these things? i mean maybe through debate, you know, we might realize this is pure folly and not want to do it. maybe through debate, you know, maybe those who want to, you know, re-engage militarily may make better arguments and may convince the american people that that's the right thing to do. but to be silent, to twiddle our thumbs, to be focused on lawsuits, that's just plain dumb. >> from arizona, this is steve, republican line. go ahead. >> yeah, hi. thanks. you know, a lot of the times it seems like the bottom line problem is where he they get down to a bill, the democrats

always add -- put a lot of add-ons onto a bill and that's where we have our problem, it's the republicans, you know, they fingerpoint going the democrats are saying the republicans aren't willing to do thissant that but when it gets right down to the bottom line it always seems like it's the republicans not wanting to pass a bill because the democrats add on put a bunch of add-ons onto the bill that they don't like and that's what it really boils down to for one. and my idea to help this iraq war thing is they need to have a volunteer system and a whole bunch of guys that are out of work, there's a whole bunch of guys that have dune buggies, so if we're going to take iraq back over, they make it like a really big -- >> first of all, republicans add things onto bills all the time. i've been here when i've seen republicans add on provisions to

protect big drug companies and big corporations and that's what they do. but what we're talking about here today, whether it's, you know, the war -- a new war in iraq or whether it's immigration reform or whether it's, you know, bringing a living wage to the floor or pay equity for women, is that we ought to be able to have an opportunity to deliberate on these things. that means bringing them up for debates on the floor. now the republicans control the houpts. chances are they're going to win on almost everything that they want. they run a very tight ship. there's -- they insist on absolute discipline in their votes. but you know, to -- to say that we don't like what the senate did on this or that and so we're going to do nothing, that to me, defeats the purpose of having a congress. i talked to a lot of republicans who really do want to legislate, do want to deliberate, get down to the serious business of

trying to help get this economy back on the right track, trying to make education more affordable for kids, trying to do the right thing in terms of our foreign policy. there's a republican leadership in the house that insists important issues don't come to the floor. if you don't like the immigration bill, you can vote no on it. if you think we ought to go to war in iraq then vote yes. but to deny the opportunity for these issues to be debated and voted on in the people's house is ludicrous. people, i don't care what your political persuasion is, you shutting outraged. you know, we're -- we got 1,000 troops in iraq right now. and i bet you during the august recess we'll see more go or maybe there might even be airstrikes. >> that means it would all be authorized by the president. >> look it, and here's the deal. i'm not foughting the white house here because the white house has done its job. it has notified us of each time it increases our deployments. i'm faulting the congress for not doing what we should do

under the war powers resolution and have this debate and to authorize something. now if the speaker boehner wants to come over with an authorization bill for us to debate on that's you know that's a better you know approach than what i have proposed along with walter jones and barbara lee, fine. but to do nothing, to do nothing as we're putting more men and women in harm's way is outrageous. i don't care what your political persuasion is. you ought to be outraged, call a speaker and have a debate on this war in iraq. >> hearing from representative james mcgovern, rules committee member and democrat represents massachusetts. shelly, charleston, west virginia, democrats line, hi. >> yes, hello. hello. representative mcgovern, i don't think obama should get sucked in to this iraq sending more troops to iraq. he should make -- he should have

made congress vote on sending any troops back in to there. and so they could have their vote be a yes or a no. do it if they wanted to do it. or not. and since the republicans don't want to do to extend unemployment, people should band together and sue the republicans. republicans don't want to do anything at all. to help the american people. nothing. and they always talk about executive orders that the president has done. well, it's the republicans in congress aren't going to do anything. he has to do something. thank you. >> well, look it, i, you know, the president won two elections. i know that frustrates some of my republican friends but it's the fact. and the -- we have a dive aed congress. you have a democratically

controlled senate and a republican controlled house which means there have to be some compromises. unfortunately in the house, we have a leadership that is totally uncompromising and doesn't want to bring these things to the floor. on the issue of iraq, my worry is that we're going to get sucked in to taking sides, in a religious and sectarian war, which there is no kind -- no way to win. and we end up getting deeper and deeper and deeper, and it's more and more costly, and i don't think we want to go there. that's why i think we ought to have a debate. maybe i'm wrong. maybe someone could convince me this is the way we ought to go but we ought to have that debate. and that's what, you know, walter jones and barbara lee and i are request being. that there be a debate and a volt and that people go on record as to whether they want to re-engage militarily in iraq, or why or not we ought to pursue some other option. you know, i'm always kind of frustrated that we're always given two options. to do nothing. or you have to put boots on the

ground. you know. you have to bomb. you know, sometimes it frustrates me that there's a lack of imagination, there are a lot are other things you can do in between to resolve these situations. one of the things i've learned about these last two wars is that you know, war doesn't solve everything and the answer to every problem in the world is not a military solution. we ought to be very careful how we deploy our troops overseas, and when we put our men and women in harm's way. that's why it is so important that before we leave for your august recess, that we have this debate. again i think this is -- this is important. this lawsuit is nutty. it's crazy. i mean, they're suing the president over the fact that that affordable care act is working. i mean, you know, the suit is not over, you know, a president who lied about weapons of mass destruction brought us into an unnecessary war where thousands of americans were killed. the lawsuit is not over, with a president traded, you know, arms for hostages.

i mean, the health care bill is working. and to my republican colleagues, i know that's a great frustration to them but it's working. tens of thousands of people now have health care who didn't. boy, what a terrible thing. >> next up is ida from new jersey, democrats line. >> hello. how are you? >> great. >> i just love that answer you just gave. my question is did president obama introduce immigration reform was it 2009 or 2008 in the congress said definitely no way? so now, what they're saying is the president won't do anything about immigration. well let's face reality. i wish that we could get together and either impeach boehner, or hold back their way. i am so tired of my tax money paying them to do absolutely nothing.

and then when the kitchen gets hot they go on vacation. they should be impeached. we all know that boehner and quote/unquote the tea party are not that -- they're more than frustrated that the president got the second term. but, trying to sue him, and it's like a kindergarten bunch of kids. >> right. >> it's not going to work. >> thanks, ida. >> well look, i agree. if the congress could be sued this republican leadership could be sued for malpractice. i mean, it has totally abrogated its responsibilities. and i find that very, very frustrating. and on immigration, again, the president has tried to work with congress. the united states senate in a bipartisan way came up with an immigration reform bill. a lot of things in there i don't like. but the bottom line is it represents a compromise and a step forward. they passed it in a bipartisan way.

we -- and i think if you brought it to the house floor it would pass. but we can't even get them to schedule it. so you know when i hear people, i hear you know some of my republican friends on talk shows, you know, wailing away about the immigration crisis, the bottom line is, they have done nothing. and they won't let us do anything. bring it up for a vote. let the house of representatives deliberate. you know, and let them come up with our own bill, working on conference with the senate and give the president something to sign. but to sit around and just complain and point fingers and do nothing is absolutely unconscionable given what the stakes are, especially on this immigration issue. >> from southampton, pennsylvania, on our democrats line, this is john. >> good morning. >> good morning. >> thanks for c-span. good morning congressman. i admire your position with respect to iraq. walter jones from north carolina is my favorite congressman. >> good. >> with respect to the immigration comprehensive

immigration reform, i've got a couple of points i'd like to make. >> sure. >> i have a question. the one key thing that's rarely mentioned publicly is that the bill literally triples the amount of legal immigration over the next ten years. >> right. >> to 30 million new workers. mostly unskilled. but it also increases triples the numbers of h-1-b, technical workers. now, we don't need workers as we did a century ago. you know, we don't need strong-backed people. with robotics, they're making incredible -- massachusetts i see on pbs all the time about the incredible advances they're making with robotics, mechanization we just heard the republican congressman talk about how they're making great strides. i've seen in spain they're making enormous -- new machines that they're introducing to even

further -- >> so caller your question for our guest? >> okay. my son who is a graduate of a ivy league school, and he works in the s.t.e.m., the science, technology area. i constantly hear that there's a shortage. in you know in may, june they hired their new graduates. and he does interviewing. he's shocked by the number of people with masters and ph.d.s, ph.d.s from elite schools, that are applying for entry-level positions. >> and we'll have to leave it there. >> well, a couple things. first of all, one of the benefits of comprehensive immigration reform is we are told by cbo that it could add, you know, close to a trillion dollars in additional revenue over the next 20 years, which we could use to pay down our debt and to also invest in, you know, in other areas to help create

jobs, and promote economic development. i think the question -- i think the caller was expressing frustration over the fact that maybe there are not enough jobs out there for a lot of people who are graduating with some of these advanced degrees. you know we need to invest in our economy in a way that will create those jobs or those well-trained highly skilled workers. give you one example, medical research. we've had sequestration. we've had government shutdowns and we haven't kept our investments in nih and medical research and the national institutes of science up to where they need to be. sand as a result we are losing workers hoo are very well trained, to singapore, india, china, who are investing more in these areas. we need to invest in areas in our economy that will not only grow jobs, but actually, you know, have other benefits. you know if you found a cure to alzheimer's disease through medical research, not only would

you improve the quality of life for millions of people, but you would also create more jobs. you also save a lot of money. long-term care for alzheimer's patients is expensive. we ought to say we're the country that put a man on the moon in ten years. we ought to say in the next ten years we're going to invest whatever is necessary to find a cure to alzheimer's. and i think we had that kind of passion, and had that kind of commitment, and had the support of congress, with the president, we could do amazing things. and and improve the quality of life for people in this country. >> kelly from rome, georgia. >> yes, sir. thank you for having me on. i kind of have two statements and then two questions if you'll allow me that. i'll go really quick. the first two years that the president was in the office, he had the house and the senate. he was able to get through the health care bills, so couldn't he have gotten through immigration without i mean there was not one republican that voted for the health care bill.

so he could have gotten through anything on immigration that he wanted. my other two things was, if i'm not mistaken, hasn't the house sent through many jobs bills that harry reid will not bring to the floor? and i know y'all were very excited about your unemployment numbers this month, very glad for y'all, that's great for the country. however, i did notice a correlation that due to about the time that you cut off some of the unemployment, which i will say the house is willing to give back the unemployment, if you will find a way to pay for it, it just as you were touting those great unemployment numbers, that was about three to six months after you cut off the unemployment insurance. just thought that might be somewhat of a correlation. >> thanks caller.

>> first of all in terms of extending unemployment insurance benefits, the -- the republicans had all these requirements that had to be paid for. which, when you know when bush was president we didn't -- they didn't require paid for. but when obama is president he has to jump through additional hoops to go get anything done. the senate can open the pay for. still not good enough for the house. i don't think the house leadership believes we have my obligation to those americans who have suffered greatly because of this difficult economy. in terms of the jobs bills, i'm on the rules committee. almost every bill that comes to the house floor goes through the rules committee. they call things jobs bills but what they are are bills to undo environmental protection regulations, or bills that would basically give kind of a big wet kiss to big corporations. but to the best of my knowledge they haven't brought anything that would create any real jobs

other than enhance the pockets of those who are most again dangerous the republican national committee. so i go back and, you know, when somebody calls a jobs bill look at the fine print. we need a highway bill. all right. so instead of bringing a highway bill, a long term highway bill to the floor and they are in charge, they bring a tiny little extension which, i guess, is better than nothing but we need to provide certainty to communities. you build these transportation projects they take multiyears. in terms of immigration yes i wish the president could have gotten immigration in the first two years when the democrats controlled senate and house and i wish he could have gotten world peace through. i wish there were a thousand things he could have done. he got health care done. it's unfair in two years you should have solved the world's problems. again, the united states senate, in a bipartisan way, democrats and republicans, voted for a

comprehensive immigration reform bill. they got it. they got it right. why can't the house of representatives at least bring it up for a vote and debate. what's wrong with democracy. what's wrong with debate? this is the people's house. the united states of america. and, you know, the speaker of the house ought to schedule these things not point fingers but schedule them. >> here's linda from tennessee. independent line. >> good morning. thank you for taking my call. i seen a doctor who is a specialist. she said that they were going to have medical ambassador with these illegals coming across carrying tb. when they start school and are in the classroom with all the other kids, that they will come

down with tb and that already some of the border guards have come down with tb and the medical hospitals have been threatened to not to tell it because of the hippa laws. they were not obeying the hippa laws, if you broke the hippa laws you would have to tell the names. >> first of all, i don't buy that conspiracy theory. and these people that are coming through, coming into this country, you know, are being evaluated, are being checked. let me just say, i think it's offensive when people refer to these children as illegals. a majority says they are refugees. these are young people fleeing violence in their home countries. identify been to el salvador and some of these countries where the violence has been on the uptick and in many cases these kids are fleeing for their

lives. these are refugees. and, you know, we're a country that insists that other countries around the world take in refugees during times of crisis, you know. and we ought to, you know, be an example that we will do the same thing. these kids that are coming in to our country deserve our help, and so we should lower the rhetoric and make sure these kids get the help they need. also we need to focus in on some of the root causes as to why these young children are coming in to our country. the violence and the lack of governance and corruption and culture of impunity in some of these central america countries need to be dealt with. let please understand what we're talking about are human beings, young kids. i have kids. >> representative james mcgovern. here is mary from new mexico. republican line. hi. >> hi, mary. >> good morning.

>> good morning. >> represent mcgovern, i have a question about going back to war in iran. >> iran. >> i mean iraq. not iran, iraq. and maybe you can explain it to me. because when i was in civics if we went to war that was the decision of the president. he would come to the house of representatives with a proposal and they would debate it. so it's not going to be up to speaker boehner whether you debate going back to war in iraq or not, that would have to come from a proposal from the president first, wouldn't it? >> yeah. and the president has sent proposals to the house of representatives. every time he increases troop deployments he sends up a little message and it says consistent with the war powers resolution. the president has done what he is supposed to do. congress has not done what it is supposed to do. article i section 8 of the

constitution gives us some authority here. and we're not -- we're not doing what we're supposed to do constitutionally. so, look, i disagree with the president's policy but this problem is not the president agenpresident's fault. this lack of debate on wars and military actions is a problem that the speaker of the house has inflicted on the congress. i mean we taught have a debate, taught have a vote. we tried have a debate and a vote on the president's plan to keep troops in afghanistan longer than 2014. he promised to end our involvement by 2014. the amendment that walter jones and i brought before the rules committee the defense authorization bill was germain, it fit, it was the right thing. what's more important on a defense bill to talk about than war. the republican leader said no you can't debate it, you can't vote it. here we are 1,000 troops in iraq, 775 of them are new, and

we can't get a vote or a debate. i mean there's something wrong with that. that's the problem -- there's a problem in the congress, not a problem as a result of the white house. >> our final call this morning, pence. this is alice. democrats line. >> good morning. >> good morning. >> thanks for taking my call. >> my pleasure. to the lady from tennessee, i want to say tb doesn't happen that fast. my question for mcgovern is, the highway bill seems to me that the whole thing is robbing from peter to pay paul. and what pension funds are you raiding to cover this bill? >> yeah. the republicans will say they are not raiding any pension plans and they ultimately will be reimbursed. but look, what we're doing right now is just a short term fix. you know, for several months.

and the reality is we're long overdue for a long term fix. short term highway bills don't produce the economic stimulus that long term highway bills do because you get to -- people can plan over a long period of time. we need to be talking about, you know, where the pay fors and revenues will come from and one of the problems we're having right now is kind of a tea party wing in the house of representatives that sign pledges that no new revenues, no new taxes, no new user fees or whatever. and so they are basically kind of backed themselves into a corner where they can't find any offsets other than raiding pension systems or cutting programs that help poor people and middle income families. so this is a long term challenge. my hope is when the election is over with we might have a couple of months of sanity where we can talk about how we solve some of these big problems. but what the congress is doing right now is just kicking the can down the road and that's

unfortunate. >> the "the washington times" reports that the administration released a statement saying it supports passage of the house bill as a stop gap measure. >> look, the alternatives are not passing the house bill is that, you know, we put a lot of community on projects in jeopardy. it's a short term fix. we taught have a long term highway bill. you know, over many, many years. and to do that we need to find a pay for. and the problem we're having is you get people who have signed pledges that basically block them from being able to endorse any kind of a pay for. look, you know, i think people ought to come to congress to fix problems, you know. not create more problems. and i think the problem right now as you get too many people who came here, you know, by campaigning against government, demonizing government, and they are unable to govern. you know, compromise is a dirty word in this place. so they shut the government down, we have sequestration, we

don't debate important issues, we can't debate wars. i mean it is absurd what's going on here and people need to reclaim their government. i don't care what -- look i'm a democrat, i want democrats to win control of the house and stay in control of the senate and i think we have the better priorities. but send people here who want to fix things. don't just send obstructionists here. anybody can get up and complain and say no. but you need people here in both parties to work together to get things done. >> guest you've been listening to is james mcgovern, member of the rules committee. coming up tonight on c-span 3 the senate judiciary committee looks at ways to crackdown on cyber criminal networks. then postal board nominations. than meeting on employing returning veterans.

tuesday the fbi's assistant director for cyber crime testified about the agency's efforts to dismantle and disrupt cyber criminal networks. this hearing of the senate judiciary subcommittee on crime and terrorism is an hour and 35 minutes. >> i call this hearing of the judiciary subcommittee on crime and terrorism to order and thank everyone for being here. i have the permission of my ranking member to get under way. he will be joining us shortly, but allowing for opening statements and so forth. i think it's probably the best way to do this to simply proceed and get under way.

today's hearing is entitled taking down botnets, public and private efforts to disrupt and dismantle cyber criminal networks. we are going to be hearing testimony about these botnets and about the threat that they pose to our economy, to our personal privacy, and to our national security. a botnet is a simple thing. it's a network of computers connected over the internet that can be instructed to carry out specific tasks. the problem with botnets is typically the owners of those computers don't know that they are carrying out those tasks. botnets have existed in various forms for well over a decade, and they are now recognized as a weapon of choice for cyber criminals, and it is easy to see why. a botnet can increase the

computing resources at a hacker's disposal exponentially all while helping conceal the hacker's identity. a cyber criminal with access to a large botnet can command a virtual army of millions, most of whom have no idea that they have been conscripted. botnets enable criminals to steal individual's personal and financial information, to plunder bank accounts, to commit identity theft on a massive scale. for years botnets have sent most of the spam that we all receive. the largest botnets are capable of sending billions of spam messages every day. botnets are also used to launch distributed denial of service or ddos attacks which can shut down websites by overwhelming them with incoming traffic.

this is a constant danger for businesses in every sector of our economy, but we have seen this strategy used against everything from businesses to sovereign nations. the only limit to the malicious purposes for which botnets can be used is the imagination of the criminal who controls them. and when a hacker runs out of uses for a botnet, he can simply sell it to another criminal organization to use for an entirely new purpose. it presents a virtual infrastructure of crime. let's be clear, the threat from botnets is not just a threat to our wallets. botnets are effective weapons not merely for those who want to steal from us, but also for those who wish to do us far more serious harm. experts have long feared that the next 9/11 may be a cyber attack.

if that's the case, it is likely that a botnet will be involved. simply put, botnets threaten the integrity of our computer networks, our personal privacy, and our national security. in recent years the government and the private sector have launched aggressive enforcement actions to disrupt and to disable individual botnets. the techniques used to go after these botnets have been as varied as the botnets themselves. many of these enforcement actions use the court system to obtain injunctions and restraining orders utilizing innovative legal theories, combining modern statutory claims under statutes such as the computer fraud and abuse act with such ancient common law claims as trespass to chattels.

in 2011 the government obtained for the first time a court order that allowed it to seize control of a botnet using a substitute command and control server. as a result, the fbi launched a successful takedown of the core flood botnet freeing 90% of the computers core flood had infected in the united states. microsoft, working with law enforcement, has obtained several civil restraining orders to disrupt and in some cases take down individual botnets, including the citadel botnet which was responsible for stealing hundreds of millions of dollars. and earlier this year the justice department and the fbi working with the private sector and law enforcement agencies around the world obtained a

restraining order allowing them to take over the game over zeus botnet. this action was particularly challenging because the botnet relied on a decentralized command structure that was designed to thwart effort to stop it. each of our witnesses today has played a role in efforts to stop botnets. i look forward to learning more about these and other enforcement actions and the lessons that we should take away from them. we must recognize that enforcement actions are just one part of the answer, so i'm interested in hearing also about how we can better inform computer users of the dangers of botnets and what other hygiene steps we can take to address this threat. my hope is that this hearing starts a conversation among those dealing day to day with the botnet threat and those of us in congress who are deeply concerned about that threat. congress, of course, cannot and should not dictate tactics for fighting botnets.

that must be driven by the expertise of those on the front lines of the fight, but congress does have an important role to make sure there is a solid legal foundation for enforcement actions against botnets and clear standards governing when they can occur. we must also ensure that botnet takedowns and other actions are carried out in a way that protects consumers' privacy. all while recognizing that botnets themselves represent one of the greatest privacy threats that computer users face today. they can actually hack into your computer and look at you through your web cam. and we must make sure that our laws respond to a threat that is constantly evolving and encourage, rather than stifle, innovation to disrupt cyber criminal networks. i look forward to starting this conversation today and to continuing it in the months ahead.

i thank my distinguished ranking member for being such a terrific colleague on these cyber issues. we hope that a good piece of cyber botnet legislation can emerge from our work together. i thank you all for participating in this hearing and for your efforts to protect americans from this dangerous threat, and before we hear from our witnesses, i'll yield to my distinguished ranking member, senator lindsey graham. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i just want to acknowledge your work on this issue and everything related to cyber threats. there is no stronger, clearer voice in the senate than sheldon whitehouse in terms of the threats we face on the criminal front and the terrorist front that come from cyber misdeeds, and congress is having a difficult time organizing ourselves to combat both threats, but to make sure this is not an academic exercise, i guess it was last year, it might have even been a bit longer, but the department of revenue in south carolina was hacked into by -- we don't know all the

details, but a criminal enterprise that stole thousands -- millions of social security numbers and information regarding companies' charters, revenue, and that's required the state of south carolina to purchase protection. i think it was a $35 million per year allocation to protect those who had their social security numbers stolen we believe by a criminal enterprise. it happened in south carolina. it can happen to any company, any business, any organization in america, and our laws are not where they should be so the purpose of this hearing is to gather information and hopefully come out and be a friend of law enforcement. so senator whitehouse, you deserve a lot of credit in my view about leading the effort in the united states senate if not the congress as a whole in this issue. thank you. >> i'm delighted to welcome our administration witnesses. before we do, his timing is

perfect, senator chris coons has joined us. and yields on making an opening statement. let's go ahead to the witnesses. the first witness is leslie caldwell, the head of the criminal division at the department of justice and was confirmed on may 15th, 2014. she oversees nearly 600 attorneys who prosecute federal criminal cases across the country. she has dedicated most of her professional career to handling criminal cases having served as the director of the enron task force and as a federal prosecutor in new york and california. after her testimony, we'll hear from joseph demarest who is the assistant director for the fbi's cyber division. he joined the fbi as a special agent in 1988 and has held several leadership positions within the bureau serving as, for instance, head and assistant director of the international operations division and as the

assistant director in charge of the new york division. he was appointed to his current position in 2012, and i have to say that i have had the chance to work very closely with mr. demarest and i appreciate very much the energy and determination he has brought to this particular arena of combat against the criminal networks of the world and look forward to his testimony. let me begin with assistant attorney general caldwell. >> ranking member graham, and senator coons, thank you for the opportunity to discuss today the justice department's fight against botnets, and i particularly want to thank the chair for holding this hearing and for his continued leadership on these important issues. the threat from botnets defined in simple terms as networks of hijacked computers surreptitiously infected with malicious software or malware which are controlled by an individual or an organized group for criminal purposes has

increased dramatically over the past several years. criminals are using state of the art techniques, seemingly drawn from science fiction movies to take control of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of victim computers or bots. they can then command these bots to do various things as senator whitehouse indicated. they can flood an internet site with junk data, they can knock it offline by doing that, that can steal banking credentials, credit card numbers, other personal information, other financial information, send fraudulent spam e-mail, or even spy on unsuspecting computer users through their web cams. botnet attacks are to undermine american's security. and to steal from unsuspecting victims. if left unchecked, they will succeed in doing so. as cyber criminals have become more sophisticated over recent years, the department of justice working through highly trained prosecutors at the computer crime and intellectual property section of the criminal

division, the national security division of the justice department, u.s. attorneys offices across the country and the fbi and other law enforcement agencies, we have likewise adapted and advanced our tactics. as one example, in may of this year the u.s. attorney for the western district of pennsylvania and the fbi in partnership with other federal and private sector organizations disrupted the game over zeus botnet and indicted a key member of that group that operated that botnet. until its disruption, game over zeus was widely regarded as the most sophisticated criminal botnet in existence worldwide. from 2011 to 2014, game over zeus infected between 500,000 and 1 million computers. and it caused more than $100 million in financial loss. put simply, the bot master stole personal information from victim computers and with the click of a mouse used that stolen information to empty the bank

accounts and rob small businesses, hospitals, and other victims by transferring funds from the victims' accounts to the criminal's own accounts. they used it to install cryptolocker, a type of malware known as ransom ware installed on infected computers and it enabled these computers to encrypt key files and charge them a ransom for the release of their own files. in the short period between their emergence and their action, it infected more than 260,000 computers world wide. the department's operation began with a complex investigation. it continued through the department's use of a combination of court authorized criminal and civil legal process to stop infected computers from communicating with one another and with other servers around the world. the investigation and operation ultimately permitted the team not only to identify and charge one of the leading perpetrators

but also to cripple the botnet and to stop the ransom ware from functioning. moreover, the fbi was able to identify victims and working with the department of homeland security, foreign governments, and private sector partners was able to facilitate the removal of malware from many victim computers. as we informed the court last week, at present the game over zeus botnet remains inoperable and out of the criminals' hands. game over zeus infections are down 30% and crypto locker remains nonoperational. as the successful operation demonstrates, we are employing investigative tools that congress has given us to protect our citizens and businesses. we've leveraged our strengths by partnering with agencies all over the world and in the private sector. if we want to remain effective in protecting our citizens and businesses, however, our laws and resources must keep pace with the increasingly sophisticated tactics and growing numbers of our adversaries. our adversaries are always adapting, so must we. in my written statement i describe several legislative

proposals and resource increases that will assist the department in its efforts to counter this threat. these proposals include an amendment to the computer fraud and abuse act and several other proposals. we look very much forward to working with the committee to address these issues. we also need additional resources at the department to continue to disrupt botnets including hiring new attorneys as indicated in my statement. thank you again for the opportunity to discuss our work in this area and i look forward to answering any questions you might have. >> thank you, assistant attorney general caldwell and now mr. demarest. director demarest. >> good afternoon, chairman whitehouse, ranking chair member, senator graham, and senator coons. thank you for holding this hearing, chairman whitehouse, and i look forward to discussing the progress the fbi has made on campaigns to disrupt and disable our significant botnets that you know that we target.

cyber criminal threats pose a very real risk to the economic security and privacy of the united states and its citizens. the use of botnets is on the rise. industry experts estimate botnet attacks have resulted in the overall loss of millions of dollars from financial institutions and other major businesses. they also affect universities, hospitals, defense contractors, government, and even private citizens. the weapons of a cyber criminal are tools, like botnets, which are created with malicious software that is readily available for purchase on the internet. criminals distribute this malicious software also known as malware that can turn a computer into a bot. when this occurs, a computer can perform automated tasks over the internet without any direction from its rightful user. a network of these infected computers is called a botnet, as you pointed out. botnets can be used for organized criminal activity, covert intelligence collection, or even attacks on critical infrastructure. the impact of this global cyber threat has been significant.

according to industry estimates, botnets have caused over $9 billion in losses to u.s. victims and over $110 billion in losses globally. approximately 500 million computers are infected each year translating into 18 victims per second. the fbi with its law enforcement partners and private sector partners to include the panel of distinguished presenters today from microsoft, symantec, far sight, has had success in taking down a number of large botnets, but our work is never done and by combining the resources of government and the private sector and with the support of the public we will continue to improve cyber security by identifying and catching those who threaten it. due to the complicated nature of today's cyber threat, the fbi has developed a strategy to systematically identify enterprises and individuals involved in the development and support of schemes impacting the u.s. systems. the complete strategy involves a holistic look at the entire cyber underground ecosystem and

all facilitators. the fbi initiated an aggressive approach to dismantle threatening the u.s. economy and our national security. the initiative coined "operation clean slate" is spearheaded by the fbi. our national cyber investigating joint task force with a host of u.s. partners with dhs and private sector. it is a comprehensive public/private network. targeting the bot infrastructure at the same time that coders or those responsible for creating them. this initiative incorporates all facets of the usg, international partners, u.s. financial sector and other stake holders. again, point out dell secure work is one of the main and we talked about game over zeus.

operation clean slate has three objectives. to degrade the information of victims, to increase the cost of doing business and causing concern of action against them. just a brief description of the successes of late. december 2012, the fbi disrupted an organized crime ring related to butterfly botnet which stole credit card information, bank account and other personal identifiable information. the butterfly botnet comprised of more than 11 million computer systems and resulted in over $850 million in losses. the fbi along with international law enforcement partners, executed numerous search warrants, conducted interviews and arrested ten individuals from bosnia and crotia, new zealand, peru, united kingdom and the united states. all of this not possible without doj's csips in particular. in june 2013, again, the formal

debut of "operation clean slate" the team with microsoft and financial service industry leaders disrupted the citadel botnet and facilitated unauthorized access to computers of individuals and financial institutions to steal online banking credentials, credit card information, other pii. citadel was responsible for the loss of $half a billion dollars over a thousand citadel domains seized accounting for more than 11 million victim computers word wide. building on that success of the disruption of citadel, in december 2013, the fbi and europol with microsoft and again the opt clean slate team and other partners disrupted ze ra access botnet responsible for more than 2 million computers infected and targeting search results on google, bing and yahoo! and estimated to cost online advertisers $2.7 million each month. again, in april 2014, the team

investigative efforts resulted in the indictments of nine members of the enterprise and conspiracy that infected computers known as zeus or jaba zeus a malware that captured passwords, account numbers and other information necessary to log on to online banking accounts. the conspirators allegedly used the information captured to steal millions of dollars of account holding victims of bank accounts. later, june, 2014, yet another operation by the clean slate team announced a multinational effort to disrupt the game over zeus botnet, the most sophisticated ever used. this effort to disrupt it involved an impressive cooperation with the private sector, namely dell secure works and international law enforcement. game over zeus is extremely sophisticated type of malware

designed to steal banking and other credentials from compute detective -- computers it infects. in the case of game over zeus, primary purpose is to capture banking credentials and initiate or redirect wire accounts to overseas controlled by the criminals. losses attributed estimated to more than $100 million. much like the fbi's other investigative priorities and programs, our focus impacting the leaders of the criminal enterprises and terrorist organizations we pursue. we are focusing the same effort on the major cyber actors behind the botnets. we remain focused on defending the united states against the threats and welcome the opportunity like the one today to discuss our efforts. we are grateful for the committee's support and yours in particular, senator whitehouse, and we look forward to working closely with you as we continue

the aggressive campaigns against our botnets. >> thank you very much. assistant director demarest, has to be millions of botnets throughout? >> yes. >> one could say so many botnets, no little time. so given that, what are your factors for prioritizing which ones to go after through the clean slate program or just generally? >> so by operation of clean slate for private sector and government and then prioritize the most egregious botnets in the wild we know about so working with not only government, dhs being principle and friends in the intelligence community, but also, i'll say in the private sector, microsoft being chief, and looking across, you know, the world and those botnets that are seemingly causing the most damage, economic damage or other means or potentially physical damage and then prioritizing those and then developing a campaign about going after not only the infrastructure but the actors behind that botnet or those botnets.

>> assistant attorney general caldwell, one of the -- this predates you, but i've had some concerns based on my time in the department of justice as a u.s. attorney about the way in which the department has responded to the botnet threat. i think you're doing a, you know, a good job, but there's cultural divide sometimes between the criminal prosecutors and the civil attorneys for the government. these cases to take down the botnet tend to be civil cases in nature so i've worried a bit about the extent to which it's instinctive on the part of criminal prosecutors to think that that's a lesser task and a lesser pursuit than what they are doing and whether that gets in the way of adequately pursuing the civil remedies that shut these botnets down. the second is that when the core

flood take down took place, it appeared to me that that was kind of an ad hoc group of very talented group of people brought together to address themselves to core flood and succeed at taking it down but once the operation was complete they went back to their individual slots around the country and the effort was dispersed. i think that the botnet problem is a continuing one. i think as soon as you strip out as mr. demarest said, some of the worst offenders, others pop up into the next most wanted botnet slot and i'm interested first in how you're making sure that this is prioritized despite the civil nature of the legal proceeding that cures the botnet problem, that strips it out of the system and what you've done to try to establish a permanent,

lasting institutional presence for taking down botnets without having to reassemble teams each time a botnet rears its head as a target. >> thank you, senator. i think that the game over zeus operation is a perfect example of how we see this going forward. although i wouldn't dispute that there are some criminal assistant u.s attorneys who may think that the civil attorney vs a less exciting job. we don't see it that way. the civil component as you indicate is a very critical part of this. but there are different ways to approach botnets. they're all different as you indicated earlier. in game over zeus we used a combination of civil and criminal authorities and i think that's, again it isn't one size fits all but i think that's likely what we'll continue to see in the future. as you know the leading

perpetrator of that particular botnet was indicted criminally and the civil injunctions were obtained at the same time. it was very carefully coordinated. there's a lot of communication between the civil prosecutors who are handling the injunction paper work and the criminal prosecutors who were -- it was really all one team, so i think the civil tool's a very important tool and we expect to continue to use it. there are some holes in that tool. right now, we are permitted to get a civil injunction against fraud and civil injunction against wiretapping but as you indicated in your opening remarks, botnets are not always engaged in wiretapping and fraud and we'd like to see an amendment to the statute to permit injunctions in other circumstances in which we see botnets operating. then on the issue of the institutional knowledge, the computer crime intellectual property section is really -- it really is the receptacle, that's a bad word but where the knowledge is based.

the commuter and intellectual division had a headquarters component, field components and institution all knowledge of botnets. so if one prosecutor leaves, the knowledge isn't going to leave. we coordinate regularly with the fbi and there's a lot of coordination, there's a lot of coordination with the computer hacking intellectual property network in the u.s. attorney's offices and there is an institutional base of knowledge about botnets so -- >> in a nutshell you feel right now that that task has been adequately institutionalized in the department that there will be continuity and persistence rather than ad hoc efforts? >> yes. and i think that although they weren't as prominent, there were at least a half dozen other botnet takedowns in the last couple of years between core flood and game over zeus so there's definitely -- it's definitely a priority and a focus and there's a lot of knowledge among the prosecutors and their counterparts at the fbi about the botnets, and they

will keep coming and we will keep attacking them. >> yeah. i yield to my ranking member but my impression was that some of those were sort of sporadic and ad hoc takedowns that appeared in individual u.s. attorney's offices and not necessarily consistent with a continuing, lasting, persistent presence stripping down one botnet after another and i'm glad you've gotten to where you have gotten so thank you. senator graham? >> are you the eliot ness of botnets? >> i think he's the eliot ness of botnets. >> okay. you try to deter the behavior, make people think if i do this i'm going to get caught. and if i get caught, bad things are going to happen. what do you think the deterrence is like right now, mr. demarest? >> i think it's significant now and maybe in years past maybe not so much and traveled and felt they can take some actions with impunity and we're finding

today with the actions, enforcement acts, successful, we're causing impact and see that in other collection, them talking amongst each other and concern about traveling now which is a way of containing some of the threats that we see, individuals today. >> what nation states do we need to worry about in terms of being involved in this activity? >> i would say nation states of eurasia principally. the criminal actors come from that part of the world. >> are they reliable partners, the nations, the governments? >> we're opening dialogue i will say on that front. i think you would find with some of our russian counterparts in law enforcement are a bit more agreeable but as, you know, any new relationship, i think in especially in this space, we're working toward improving them. >> if it's possible, maybe by the end of the year could you provide the committee with a list of the countries you think are good partners? and the list of countries you think have been resistant?

>> yeah. easily done. based on our activities and working with the countries we do work with. >> once we identify them, maybe we can change their behavior. there's all kinds of ways of getting people's attention. was this a problem five years ago? how long has this been a problem? >> this has existed for years. and probably we're just now, you know, this is the tip of the iceberg and i think as we get more sophisticated, internal u.s. government, seeing and being able to identify -- >> what made us aware of it today more than say, five years ago? consequences? >> consequences, victim reporting. major losses occurring to private industry. >> is there any end to this? how far can these people go? >> they'll keep on going. as you can see, each bot will evolve. we take actors off. malware will change. we see a complete evolution. but again, we're actually

placing at least there's a price to pay for actually engaging in this activity now. >> are terrorist organizations involved this? >> we track them very closely. i would say there's an interest but much further than that, senator graham, probably a different setting we could give you a further briefing. >> ms. caldwell, on the civil-criminal aspect of this, what are the couple things that you would like congress to do to enhance your ability to protect our nation? i mean, i'm sure you have this written down somewhere but just for the average person out there listening to this hearing, what are the couple of things you would like to see us do? >> well, one is one i already mentioned which is -- >> my phone off? >> changing the civil injunction ability to have the capability to enjoin botnets other than those engaged in fraud and wiretapping because there are, for example, direct denial of service attacks. we can't get an injunction against that. we would like to do this. >> we need to increase penalties? >> that's an interesting

question, senator. and i think that we've been seeing increased penalties being imposed by courts. so -- >> i mean statutorily, do we need to change any statutes to make this bite more? >> i'll defer to ms. caldwell, but -- i'll defer to you. >> yeah. i think that the maximum sentences under most of the statutes are adequate. i don't think we need any kind of mandatory minimums because we have been seeing judges imposing sentences around the seven, eight, nine-year range which i think is a substantial sentence. there are a couple other things we would like to see that right now there's no law that covers the sale or transfer of a botnet that's already in existence. and we've seen evidence that a lot of folks sell botnets. they rent them out. and we'd like to see a law that addresses that. one other thing which is a little bit off point but i think is still relevant to botnets is

we -- right now there's no law that prohibits the overseas sale of u.s. credit cards unless there's an action taken in the united states or unless money's being transferred from overseas to the united states and we see credit card -- situations where people have millions of credit cards from u.s. financial institutions and never set foot in the united states. that's currently not covered by the existing law. >> you could steal my credit card information from overseas and basically be immune. >> correct. unless you transferred proceeds of the scheme back to the united states. >> okay. one last question here. when it -- when they basically seize your computer, hijack your computer and the information contained therein, they actually hold -- i mean, they ask -- they make a ransom demand? how does that work? >> under crypto locker, what happened and i'm certainly not a technical expert so jump in. you would be on the computer and see something on the screen that

told you the files were encrypted and would be unless you paid a ransom and within "x" hours and if you didn't the files would be deleted. >> and a payment made but bitcoin or whatever established venue is they expect the payment within a given amount of time and if not it's encrypted. >> do people pay? >> they do. >> what's the biggest payout you have seen? >> well, all things involved, crypto locker and crypto wall now and a major concern of paying in excess of probably $10,000 but they're focused now more on major concerns, businesses. and entities as opposed to single victims. >> is that extortion under our law? >> yes. >> so you don't need to change that statute? >> no. the problem is, though, that as with a lot of these cyber crimes, most of the people engaged are overseas. >> thank you.

>> let me recognize senator kuntz who's been interested and dedicated to this topic and home state is energized on the topic because the delaware national guard actually has a cyber wing that's active and one of the best cyber national guard detachments in the country. i say one of the best because rhode island has one, too. senator kuntz? >> thank you very much. thank you chairman and senator graham. you're great and effective leaders on this issue. to the point raised by the chairman, given the persistency of this threat, given the trajectory, its scope, its scale and the resources that you're having to deploy in order to take down these botnets and in order to break up the criminal gangs, is it acceptable, is it possible for us to deal with this threat with a federal law enforcement response alone? do we need a partnership from state and local law enforcement? i assume the answer is yes. how are we doing it? delivering an integrated capability, federal, state and local, first, second?

what kind of capabilities do businesses and individuals, does the private sector and citizens have and what are we doing to help scale up that? because the resiliency of our country, the ability to respond to the threats as we all know much as it is with natural disasters or with terrorism threats, requires a sort of everybody engaged response that engages our private sector, engages entrepreneurs and engages state and local and federal law enforcement. >> sure. thank you, senator coons. we have cyber tasks forces throughout the offices, 56 out there. each office is engaging at the local level to bring state and local authorities aboard. net defenders from the organization thai represent. very difficult with resources constrained at the state and local level and appreciating

what the threat is. ing operation well spinning is defrauding the elderly and bringing an investigator or officer on board or analyst. we work closely with them to foster or develop the skill in this area working cyber crime. it's worked well in the initial offices in salt lake city, with the utah department of public safety. and down in dallas with some of the local department of dallas police department. we have a long way to go in that space and for them to fully appreciate the threats today facing the public or the citizens they're responsible for. on the private sector, we have worked far and wide and somewhat limited in force and now focused on those priority sectors if you will most threatened. but we have found time and time again the most threatened and most vulnerable are small to medium-sized business owners with one single person that's responsible for internet security or cyber security and insurance and the like and how

to target the band and bring them aboard? we had health care, representatives from the health care industry in the headquarters working through what that relationship would look like with health care and we focused on energy, telecommunications and the like over the past two years and now how do we broaden that effort out? >> implicitly from the reference to health care, as we go to electronic medical records, we have data for cyber criminals to go after. ms. caldwell? >> yes. i think -- i'm sorry. i think any online database is vulnerable. some obviously have more security protections than others. and as you indicated, senator coons, the health care databases have a lot of sensitive personal information so we've seen i know in some of the botnets that we have seen over the years including if i'm not mistaken game over zeus some of the victims were hospitals so that's a very serious area of concern

we're concerned about. >> one other question. as senator whitehouse referenced, we have squadrons of the national guard. they've stood up and grown and developed this national guard capability which takes advantage of the fact that we have a fairly sophisticated financial services community. we have credit card processing and as a result there's a lot of fairly capable and sophisticated online security and financial services security professionals who can then also serve in a law enforcement and national security first responder context through the national guard. what lessons do you think we could learn from that partnership, that collaboration in our two home states and lead us to a better scale-up of the needed federal workforce to respond to and deal with the law enforcement challenges?

>> there's a treasure trove of skill in the guard and reserve forces. we participated, actually hosted at the fbi academy the cyber guard exercise for 2014. a lot of -- we brought personnel in from around the field, at least 50 from the local cyber task forces and local guard units in. great capability there. our director along with deputy director had a meeting with the cyber command, osd and joint staff to better core late or corroborate in the space. tomorrow we have another meeting with the commanders at my level to put it in place with reserve and guard units. admiral rogers held a meeting up at nsa recently to talk through what that looks like and working with cyber command, the guard forces and reserve forces. and what skills they bring, how that may assist the fbi in our operations and also training opportunity that we can leverage with one another. >> terrific. thank you for your testimony.

i look forward to hearing more of the development of the partnership and thank you for your leadership in this area, senator whitehouse. >> well, i'll let you two go. i'm sure we could ask you questions all afternoon. this is such a fascinating and emerging area of criminal law enforcement. i appreciate very, very much the work that you do and i want you to pass on to attorney general holder my congratulations for the dedication that he's brought to this pursuit, particularly as exemplified by the game over zeus take down and indictment of the chinese pla officials, those were both very welcomed steps and i'm looking forward to seeing more criminal prosecution of foreign cyber hackers. i think the opening gambit with the indictment was terrific. congratulations to you both. thank you for your good work, and we'll release you and call the next panel forward.

all right. thank you all so much for being here. this is a really terrific private sector panel on this issue and i'm grateful that you have all joined. i'll make the formal introductions right now of everyone and then go right across with your statements. our first witness is going to be richard boscovich who is the assistant attorney general counsel on microsoft's digital crimes unit. a position where he developed the legal strategies used in the

take downs and disruptions of several botnets including the citadel, zeus and zeus access botnets. he previously served for over 17 years at the department of justice as an assistant u.s. attorney in florida's southern district with the property unit. hearing from cheri macguire from symantech corporation, one of the cyber security providers in this country. she is responsible for the global public policy agenda and government engagement strategy including cyber security data integrity, critical infrastructure protection and privacy. before she joined symantech in 2010, she was director of critical infrastructure and cyber security in microsoft's trustworthy computing group and before that at department of homeland security including as acting director and deputy director of the national cyber

security division and the u.s. cert. then we'll hear from dr. paul vixie, chief executive officer of far sight security which is a commercial internet security company. he previously served as the chief technology officer for above net, an internet service provider, and the founder and ceo of maps, the first anti-spam company and as the operator of the fdns root name server. he is an author and was the maintainer of bind, a popular open source system for 11 years. and he was recently inducted into the internet hall of fame. finally, i will hear from craig spitsl, executive director, founder an president of the online trust alliance. he -- online trust alliance encourages best practices to help protect consumer trust and he works to protect the vitality and innovation of the internet.

prior to founding the online trust alliance, he worked at microsoft again, the fraternity, where he drove development of anti-spam, anti-phishing, anti-malware and privacy enabling technologies, on the board of the identity theft council and appointed to the fcc's communication security reliability and interoperability council and a member of the partnership between fbi and the private sector and experienced and knowledgeable witnesses and let me begin with richard boscovich. we're so glad you're here. thank you. >> chairman whitehouse, ranking member graham and members of the committee, i'm richard boscovich, assistant general counsel. thank you for the opportunity to discuss microsoft's approach to fighting and detecting botnets. we also thank you for your leadership in focusing attention to this complicated and important topic. botnets are groups of computers

remotely controlled by hackers without knowledge or consent of the owners, enabling criminals to steal information and identity, disrupt networks and distribute software and spam. i'll describe how microsoft fights botnets, disrupting the tools and carefully designs these operations to protect consumers. to understand the devastating impact of botnets, we can look at how they affect one victim. consider in use power. a chef in the united kingdom found a warning she could not access the files unless she paid a ransom within 72 hours. when she failed to meet the deadline, all of her photos, financial accounting information and other data were permanently deleted. all this was caused by a botnet. she later told the reporter, if someone had robbed my house, it would have been easier. indeed, botnets conduct the digital equivalent of home

invasions but on a massive scale. botnet operators quietly hijack web cams to spy on people in their homes and then sell photos of the victims on the black market. they use malicious software to log every key stroke that they black market. they use malicious software to lock every key stroke including credit card numbers, social security numbers, work documents and personal e-mails. they send messages designed to appear as though they were sent by banks. microsoft has long partnered with other companies and agencies to battle malicious cyber criminals such as those who operate botnets. we do not and cannot fight them alone. as the title of the series suggests, fighting botnets requires efforts from the public and private sector. we will work with companies to work with agencies to dismanhattaning them that have cost billions in worldwide

economic damage. i join efforts democratic that partnerships are highly effective at combatting cyber crime. problems as complex as botnets -- microsoft is simple. we aim for your wallets. we disrupt them by underlying their ability to profit from their attacks. microsoft draws on our deep technical and legal expertise to conduct operations pursuant to court approved procedures. in general term, microsoft asked to serve the command and control structure of the most destructive botnets. this breaks the connection between the botnets. traffic generated is either disabled and rerouted to control. now, privacy is a fundamental

value. when we execute an operation, we are requireded to work within the bounds of the court order. we never have access to e-mail or other content of victim communications from other infected computers. instead, microsoft receives the ip addresses to identify the victims. we give domestic addresses to internet providers in the united states so they can alert their customers. we give the rest of the computer response teams referred to as sirtes. the owners are then notified of the infeks and offers assistance in cleaning their computers. microsoft is working to protect millions of people and their computers against malicious cyber criminals. this has led to the disruption of some of the most menacing threats. cyber criminals continue to evolve their tactics.

they keep developing new sophisticated tools to profit from the online chaos they create. we remain committed to working with other companies and law enforcement to disrupt them and make a internet a more trusted and secure environment for everyone. thank you for your time, senator and i am happy to answer any questions you may have. >> chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. i'm especially pleased to be here with you again to focus attention on botnets and cyber crime. as the largest security software company in the world, semantic products much makes, but botnets -- and the uses for them are only limited by the imagine information of the bott masters.

these are range to bit coin mining. bott masters rent out their bott nets as well as using them for stealing passwords or other confidential information, which is then sold o other criminals. until now, they have all been networks of infected laptops and desktop computers. however in the past few year, we have seen bott nets made up of mobile devices and we expect that the coming of things will bring thing botts, ranging from appliances to home route rs to video recorders and who knows what else. taking down a bott net is complex and requires a high level of expertise, but des pete this, law enforcement and the private sector working together have made significant progress in the past several years. semantics worked to bring town the zero access bott net at 1.9

million. is a good example of how coordination can yield results. zero access was designed for bit fraud. with an estimates impact of tens of millions of dollars lost per year and the electricity alone to run that cost as much as $560,000 per day. one year ago today, semantic began to sinkhole zero access infections, which resulted in the detach m of more than half a million botts, which meant that he could no longer receive commands. another win came last night. as part of this effort, smandic works in a coalition to provide insights.

as a result, authorities were able a to seize a large portion of the criminal's infrastructure. in our view, the approach used was the most successful to date and should serve as a model for the future. a group of more than 30 international organizations from law enforcement, the security industry, ak deem area, researchers and isps all cooperated to collectively disrupt this bott net. this successful model should be repeat nd the feature. while zero access and game over zeus were successes, there were more criminal rings operating today. unfortunately, just not enough resources. as you said, so many bott nets, so little time. as criminals migrate online, law enforcement needs more personnel dedicated to fighting cyber crime. we take numerous steps to assist the victims and to aid law

enforcement around the world. in the interest of time, i will mention victimvoice.com. a new program we unveiled in april. this sight helps victims file complaints and understand the investigation process and in particular, i'd like to thank you again for your support and participation in that launch. it's helped many victims of cyber crime. in combatting victims, cooperation is key and the private sector we need to know that we can work with government and industry partners to disrupt them without undo legal barriers. privacy preks, we need to share cyber threat information and coordinate our efforts quickly. information sharing legislation will go a long way to do this. but it must address the consider privacy concerns and must

include a civilian agency lead and min mization requirements. last, the law governing cyber crime should be modernized. in the u.s., we need to amend laws such as the electronic communications privacy act and cfa and others that were written before our modern internet was envisioned. in addition, mutual legal treaties and their process that allows governments to cooperate take too long and should be streamlined. as this subcommittee knows so well, we still face challenges in our efforts to take down bott nets and dismantle cyber crime networks. but while there remaining much work to be done, we have made progress. we are committed to committing online security across the globe and we will continue to work with our customer, industries to do to. thank you for the opportunity so. >> thank you.

thank you for your leadership in this area. i'm going to briefly recess the hearing and then return. we have a vote on the senate floor that started 15 minutes ago and i have 15 minutes to get there and vote, so i have zero time, so i can get over there and vote, then come back and we'll proceed in uninterrupted fashion. relax in place. probably is going to be five to ten minutes and we'll resume. thank you.

fines paid which are important. >> all right. the hearing will come back to order. i appreciate everybody's courtesy while i got those two votes done. and now dr. vixie we welcome your testimony. we welcome you here. please proceed. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for inviting me to testify on the subject of botnets. i am speaking today in my i am speaking in my personal capacity based on a long history of securing infrastructure, most here at the messaging mall ware and