[ indiscernible ] today, the aspen institute is hosting a discussion on cyber security beginning at 1:30 eastern, we'll hear from the acting director of cyber security and infrastructure agency brandon wells. then at 2:00 p.m. eastern, mark warner, democrat representative represent underwood and represent hurd will talk about cyberthreats. we welcome aaron mega who is a deputy editor for the bill. the bill sets programs and policies for the pentagon, how

important is it for pentagon operations and for the funding that those programs require? >> the national defense authorization act, the ndaa, essentially it's the defense policy bill. this is seen on the hill as one of the must need bill. this is essentially how muchby pay the military, haow many plane, how many ships we're going to by. it includes policies regarding troop movements in some cases, overseas exercises, things like that. it's pretty much the bill that sets the military, in some cases, the next five years of military plan. it's seen in the pentagon as something they need to get done every year. it's seen in the defense community as a point of pride that they get it done every year. it's largely backed by the congressional leadership. this year, it might be a little tricky, we'll see what happens but there's a lot of confidence, at the end of the day, members

of congress come together and actually make sure it gets through. >> so there are two different versions. the house and senate versions. how far apart are they? >> there's differences, of course. we just went through the conferencing process, so, essentially now, we know there's one version, the chiefs have come together and made their agreements. as you would respect with a republican senate and a democratically controlled house there were definitely issues of contention. they've seemed to largely smooth both of those out. the house services committees basically came together in the fall and very clearly saying we know with the election this is too politically challenging and who politically charged with the issues right now. after the election, two weeks of conferencing, and now it seems like we have an agreement. >> the head line in defense news says "defense bill is snagged in trump's war on social media protections. "this is that second 230 that

the president's tweeted about. what's the president calling for? he's threatened to veto the bill over this. what's it about? >> yeah, this is actually the second veto threat that trump has made. the first would allow for changing of names and bases and confederate generals. the most recent thing, the section 230 came out of nowhere for the defense bill. it's something talked about by the president and his circle of people. essentially section 230 it allows at the most basic, social media companies, internet companies are not liable legally for stuff that's put out by users of their product. so, somebody on twitter comes out and says i'm going to do "x" crime, twitter is not liable for that. the person who said it on twitter is liable. there's been a lot of angst among republican circles that

this is allowing biased speech. and there's talk going after it. people who are more expert in this than i said, look if this got repealed, the president's tweets themselves would probably be liable for legal action and may come against that action. that said, the one thing that seems to be in agreement across the hill, this is no change for the defense bill especially as trump tried to force it in the last couple of days. you saw senator imhoff, a close ally of president trump, talks to him frequently, he even said i want to repeal section 230. we've got to get it done, i support the president on this, but this defense bill is not the place to do it. that's something that we've seen with the national defense authorization act a lot in the past. is the sense, look, you don't want to load it up -- because it's a must-pass bill you try to load it up with stuff for defense. the defense committee has tried to fight that off and tried to

keep it as purely defense-based as possible. in this case, republicans and democrats agree this is not the place for section 230. we'll have to see if the president follows through. >> you mentioned the president's earlier objection on naming bases after confederate generals. what does the final language in the bill say? >> we don't know for sure, we have not seen the final language out. they just finished the conference yesterday and they always like to delay it and make our lives miserable. it looks like, based on reporting we've seen, it's most likely a situation where the army is given a three-year period to study the issue, come up with alternate names, and then the army would have the final say, because these are large army bases, the final say in what the names may actually look like. that's different from some language that democrats in the house have pushed, not to rename

at all. the other issue is in theory, joe biden could make an executive order to rename it anyway. we are they pushing the confederate-based names, we know trump is against it, why not just kick it to the biden administration. i think this is a sense of wanting to put his foot down in both chambers, both parties' ways to say it is time to change the names. we're going to do it by alternate ways. >> and the deputy senior correspondent for defense news, aaron mehta, wing we we welcome calls. if you're active and retired military, 202-748-8003. yesterday, the chair and ranking member of the armed services committee adam smith and mack thornberry released a statement

that said, part of which, for 59 straight years, ndaa has passed because members of congress and presidents of both parties have set aside their own policy objectives and partisan preferences and put the needs of our military personnel and american security first. the time has come to do that again. given that it's the very end of the congress, is this late in the date for this bill typically to pass? >> you know, it's not ideal. but it's not atypical. we've seen a lot of up to the wire ndaas in the past. certainly, let's be honest, in the last 50 years, we've seen a lot of up to the wire funding bills passed. and it looks like we're in that situation again. the ndaa is one of those things that the members take great pride, saying the military is a political institution. the national institution of united states is america is a political goal. we can make this happen. mack thornberry who is the

ranking member on the house services committee, a republican, former chairman, is retiring this year. he certainly is not going to let this be the first ndaa that doesn't get through, on his last time. and the other leaders on the committee understand this, too. it's one. areas on the hill with the most agreement, most bipartisanship, in the sense, yes, they fight about the policies, yes, there's disagreements, but at the end of the day, they're going to make sure this get through. >> you mention this is the policy bill setting the policy for the pent gone in the coming current fiscal year. 2021, fiscal year budget. so what amount of funding does this authorize? >> this authorizes about 740.5 billion, and that's with a "b," because of course, we're talking about the pent gone, itagon, it a "b" for defense spending. that's for the pentagon itself

and other agencies get parts of it. it's everything for troop levels, pay raises for members of the military. for details of how many f-5 fighters do you buy, how many shims do you buy. it's kind of the all incokumen s encompassing defense bill. >> one of the accomplishments of the trump administration, the establishment of the space bill. how much does this authorize for the space bill and how many changes are included -- >> a discussion of pharmaceutical companies and cyberofficials on securing development and distribution of covid-19 vaccines. we're speaking at an event at the aspen institute. live coverage on c-span3. >> -- covid-19 treatments and vaccine about the rise of technology and government from senior leaders from the national security agency nga. and then the first ever public