to the credit, they're putting a detailed ideas. but i'm not sure anyone is listening. >> they also have this strategy of handing it all to the democrats, saying that you own this bill. if it falls flat, baking later use it as a weapon when the 2010 elections,. that's what they want to do with the energy bill and potentially with health care as well. if the energy bill raises energy rates and people are without jobs and the economy is not doing well, that can be a powerful thing for republicans to harness and used against democrats and maybe recapture a few seats. that is how the political machine works. every election, you try to pick a few more seats. this could be a strategy that works for them, by not participating in voting for the democratic initiatives. >> any chance that 2010 can be 1994 again? >> tell me what the gross domestic product is in the second or third quarter next year and i will tell you how

many seats democrats will win or lose. the back to 1982. ronald reagan at this time was riding high and would end up getting his 25% tax cut. just before the august recess, the recession kept on going and got worse. unemployment hit 11% later that year. the midterm election in 1982, democrats won 26 house seats. republicans continued to control the senate, people vote with their pocketbooks and i will be true next year. >> that's why the white house has put such a huge emphasis on passing a health care bill this year. it is predicted the economy will not be fully recovered when the election cycle begins and they need something they can show americans that than to help them. maybe there aren't enough judges, but we helped to get to health care. -- not enough jobs, but we helped to get to health care. harry reid is lamenting not

having enough republicans because he needs them somewhat. they can move a lot of the bill without the help of republicans to the budget reconciliation process which allows a simple majority vote and at the 60 vote supermajority. but there are parts of the bill that will be objected to the 60- vote threshold. they will need at least one republican. for health care to be sustainable and not rolled back by future administrations, that would be a major embarrassment, if they move a bill that does not last. >> mike pence as a political leader, a quick assessment and what kind of future does he have? >> i think he has a tremendous future in the republican party. if he is articulate on issues and those were he stands. he is personable and democrats would argue he is too rigid and doctrinaire or too conservative, but within the party, he is an up-and-coming. >> i agree. for years, reporters have looked to him as an up-and-coming

before he took on an actual leaders that position. he is generally well liked, well spoken, and he once referred to himself on at -- referred to himself as rush limbaugh on decaf. he sticks to the conservative principles which i think many in the base are looking for right now. so i think you will see more of him. >> thank you for being with us. >> conservation was not simply a battle. there are two sides to it. >> douglas brinkley on teddy roosevelt and his leading role in the early days of the conservation movement. he was not what we would call a holistic -- he believed in hunting, but he did not believe in hunting so you make every

species extinct. so he cared about butterflies, he cared about wild flowers and wanted to make sure we had a place for that in modern society. >> that's tonight on "q&a" -- part to with douglas brinkley. theodore roosevelt and [unintelligible] you can download the podcast and watch part one of the interview with douglas brinkley on c- span.org. >> this week on "prime minister's questions" -- gordon brown discusses the fate of british officers in iraq. he answers questions about u.k. jobs in government spending. we will also show you the ceremony to show you the welcoming of their new speaker. he provided over the first question time since being elected monday. if that's tonight at 9:00

eastern on c-span. >> a look now at efforts to develop a effort to secure the nation's computer networks. they will discuss the obama is recent recommendations and other proposals as well as balancing cyber security concerns with privacy issues. this event is hosted by the washington d.c. office of google and the center for new american security. >> it is my great pleasure to welcome you here today and what steps the united states should and perhaps should not take to protect it. we're pleased to team up with google and we appreciate them hosting us here. combining their cutting edge expertise and information technology with their own pragmatic and multi-disciplinary

approach to examining the national security threat to our country today and is also likely to face in the future. our two organizations, google and cmas chose to oppose this bill them for two reasons. first, we think it is very important to understand more fully the scope, severity, and complexity of cyber threats to u.s. security. the choice is ours -- our society must make to confront those threats and the specific steps we must take to build and implement a national security, cyber security strategy. information and communication networks are essential to u.s. and global economies, national defence, and our everyday life. our government clearly recognizes this fact and has updated cyber security as a national priority. the white house recently published a cyber policy review and the pentagon has established a new cyber command. i have personally been struck

by our senior military leaders, how high they place cyber security on their list of priorities. even at a time when serious and more familiar threats like afghanistan and iraq are on their radar screen. second, both google and cmas recognize any significant effort to cope with this threat and threats to sever security require the active participation of both the u.s. government and the private sector. for each contributing their own expertise and own distinct resources. this threat is like so many other threats our country will face in the coming years and decades. we have to recognize that no one after, not a superpower like the u.s. or even the google can confront the challenge of cyber security along. this is a complex and multifaceted challenge is great -- multifaceted challenge and

demands a nuance response by a network of global actors from the private, public, and nonprofit sectors. the threat posed by cyber attacks across the sectors. it includes what and non expert like me sees as the most likely threat like a small scale criminal and intelligence gathering that poses a threat over time. they also include far more severe threats like a strategic attacks against the financial system, air traffic control systems, and electrical grids that would lead -- that would damage the foundations of our economy. before we begin, i would like to introduce this extraordinary panel. their illustrious backgrounds -- we have further detail on our web site. but let me introduce them briefly. joining us is the chief of staff of the u.s. senate committee on commerce, science, and transportation. we have the chief information

assurance executive for the defense of informations systems agency. we have the vice president for information security and global public policy at tec america. she is the [unintelligible] they director of the national cyber security center and deputy undersecretary of the national protection and programs director at the department of common security. and the director of cyber security at the national security council who is also a member of the team that wrote the national cyberspace review. our co-host and moderator is the policy council at the google washington office and leaves the country -- least a [unintelligible] and other issues. this panel will proceed with a discussion, but i would like to raise a few small questions that i hope they will begin to address. first, how serious are cyber

threats? what source of cyber threats as the united states face now? what sorts of cyber threats are we likely to face in the future? in a time of highly constrained resources, how should the u.s. balance the need to prepare for both the most likely a most catastrophic threats with other national security needs? how shall our country balance the need to protect openness, privacy, and economic vitality on one hand and security on the other? does the united states have a secure and reliable access to the critical metals and materials that make up the information network and hardware? i have to give a shout out to a brand new program on national security on these issues. to what extent and with international partners in protecting cyber security, how shall we engage with these partners that do not share our views about censorship,

privacy, and oversight? how should the united states respond to cyber attacks, whether from individuals, transnational criminal or terrorist networks or foreign governments? for an organization like us, we are concerned with at what point should the u.s. respond to cyber attacks with force? what conditions would be added conditions use cyber attacks defensively? these are complicated questions and i have no doubt the panel will help address them today. thank you very much. [applause] thank you for each of you for coming out. i focus on cyber security issues, energy issues and a couple of other things. we are so excited to be hosting this distinguished panel today. this is part of a series we call

global talks. we have these in our offices around the world. our pc talks is something we do every now and then to invite the community and experts in a particular area where there are pressing matters and this is one of the most important things we have going on right now. we hold these talks and we're happy to have you here participating. i will be moderating this session and i will ask -- we're just going to jump into questions. i will also have panelists asked questions of each other. feel free to do that. there are microphones in the aisles, so as the hour approaches, we will open up to questions from the audience. we will also have moderator questions we will take at some point. you can check that out at the moderator page which is [unintelligible]

with that, we're going to jump into the questions. the 60-day review was finished recently. a bunch of stakeholders across the country were involved and each of you were involved with the effort, so thank you for your work on that important effort. broad and put resin -- was received from all sectors, government, military, business and the public sector. i would like to start off with whoever wants to jump in -- what are your impressions about the 60-day review and particularly what you think was the most important thing to come out of that? >> being part of the 60-day review team, i should start. >> maybe if you could again say, a introduce yourself and then everyone will know who you are. >> i was part of the 60 day

review team and i was part of the part of justice and i have been involved in mostly cyber crime issues since 1991. so i have a long history. i think that helps set up what i'm going to say. one thing i thought was significant is the fact that the president of united states gave a speech about cyber security was a significant, game changing move. the fact he gave a public speech, not only signaling to the u.s. but around the world how important the issue was. that's different from any other time in our history. i would like to share one part of the speech -- from now on, the networks and computers we depend on every day will be treated as they should be, a strategic national asset. protecting us and the structure will be a national security priority and want to ensure these networks are secure, trustworthy and resilience. we will deter, prevent, and

protect against the tax that would incurred damages. that is an incredible state for a u.s. president to make and it makes a difference not just to the community that has been playing in this area, but to the public and international partners. that's a significant accomplishment of this study. you mentioned was a lot about reached a different communities and i think that's another thing from the study. they reached out to the private sector communities, civil liberties communities, which we talked to robustly during that time, to almost every other group you can think of. we have 40 meetings in the space of a 60 day time frame and the submissions for more than 100 groups published on the white house website. as far as what comes out of the poor -- that was what -- as far as what comes out of the report, will be interested in that as well. but it does present a short term action plan which is not just talking about problems and

threats are, but actually starting to implement solutions and things that are incredibly important like coming up with an internet response plan involved with government and industry to deal with some of these attacks and other cyber intrusions. partnering with the international colleagues to deal with the issues and we will talk more about that. there are many key things that came out of this, a lot of foundational elements and it creates a lot of work for the government. there is a lot of coordination and that level of coordination and working together both within government and the private sector, i think is a significant step. >> i will emphasize what he said at the start. i agree completely with what he said. there was a lot of good risk -- a lot of good stuff in the 60- day review, but the most

important part by far was executive attention. the 60--- 60-day review made sure that the status quo is not sufficient. we have to treat cyber security as a national and when security problem. the president was putting his personal focus on this and his personal attention on this, so much so that he gave a speech to the entire country about cyber security and the white house was going to lead. this was going to be a matter of focus for him. that is a game changer. in my experience, nothing is more importance as a driving change as an executive attention. >> from the industry's perspective, there are a couple of things to add because i agree with everything mentioned this morning. the coordination and tell the

position of the 60-day process engendered that, but the other piece that is important and unprecedented is it's a very public and transparent process. for the first time, when we are dealing with cyber security on a national security and economic security standpoint, that's an important piece. the president emphasized it in his speech and melissa and her team incorporated it into the process polled time. to access the synergy between economic growth and economic security. rather than use the word balance, we use the word synergy between those two. that came out in the report, not just in the written word by in the apparent discussions and input the team, the government

and outside stakeholders. i think that's an important piece to keep in mind. >> thank you. >> i would just add it is important precedent made this speech and as a focus and appreciation for the magnitude of the problem at the beginning of his presidency that he is dealing with it through a comprehensive review. i agree that senator rockefeller thinks need to engage the private sector and worked in a public-private partnership to a greater degree than we have in the past. don't have an opportunity to build on the report and for the president to hopefully appoint a very senior level adviser. we recommend senator rockefeller and senator snowe would have a

direct report to the president that would manage this issue from the white house down to the agencies and coordinate with the private sector. >> thank you. >> i don't have a lot at. the department of defense has been worrying about the fragility of the information infrastructure for a long time. we've talked to a lot of people about what to do about it and maybe most important observation from all this conversation with industry is once the c.e.o. cares about it, it's hard to get cleaned up. the ceo of the night states cares about this now and that is fundamental and is a game changer. the other point is we have had lots of studies about things and they have tended not to result in specific action plans. this one already has specific actions and we can debate the details of those and we need to debate the details, but the fact

we are reducing this to doing something about it is also fundamental. one of the big challenge is now is going to be to try to figure a way to measure progress. are we getting at the root of the problem? are we getting better at interacting with each other to deal with cyber attacks? . measurement is going to be one of the tracks. at the department defense, we have been struggling how to do this. congress has helped by demanding we do some of this measurement and that has very useful. we're starting to make progress, but there's a lot of work to be done. we're going to throw money at a plan. are we getting more resilience infrastructure or are we getting better incident response? do we have ways of helping our allies if they are attacked?

the measure will be important going forward. >> if you cannot measure the problem, you cannot manage it. i would like to ask the panel now. as we go forward, i would like to hear your opinion on what is next and what are some of the challenges we face and how will those steps be informed by the areas that have happened in the past? maybe if we can throw a little history on this for people. >> obviously, the action plan for the midterm is the one in the 60-day review. lots of players in the private and public sector will have to participate. i will tell you what some of my priorities are. they flow substantially from the 60-day review. one of them is capabilities building.

there are a lot of things need to get done and a lot of places where dhs is called on to step up its level of capability. my top priority is continuing to build capability within the department, and security. if some of that as technology, but a lot of it is people. we have some excellent people on board, but i don't have enough yet. i have a lot of vacancies and we are doing a lot of hiring. if you have cyber security expertise, there are slots available and we are hiring. we are bringing on the right leadership team. i can tell you that on monday of this coming week, the new assistant secretary for cyber security and communications is joining us. he was formally a manager at altel. we also have an alumni from omd who will be my counselor. we will have assembled the leadership team and we will have

brought in the people we want to add to the current crop of great people who we have on board already. the other priorities you will recognize coming from the 60-day review -- we need to get the public-private partnership peace right. there has been a lot of effort and money to build on the good things that happen in the past, but we need to figure out how to streamline what we have done and focus on objectives. problems with information sharing and collaboration as we get together to talk about the importance of them permission sharing and we come back and have the same meeting three months later. that has to stop. we have to build the operational collaboration method that will drive progress. the third area is the instant response and recovery part. we recognize that while we have the response and recovery plan, if things got ugly, we don't have a clear enough set of roles and responsibilities and ways of working together to make sure our response is with the

optimum. we have to solve that problem. a key action item coming out of the 60-day review period to other things need to work on that are referenced in the review, building the underlying pieces of how we could have a more secure and the structure going forward. someday i particularly want to focus on his identity management. with privacy built-in from the start. if we want to create a mechanism for secure and the structure, you have to have optional mechanisms available for people to identify so they can make effective decisions about who they want to talk with, a software they want to run, the devices they want connected to their networks. the last piece is metrics which goes back to what richard was saying. the internet is highly distributive. any notion we will solve this problem top-down is fallacious. we need broad, distributed action. that requires everybody be able to make good judgment.

authentication can help with operational activity, but we need good metrics so that people can say what piece of software do i want to run? what practice to want to employment? what will work for my organization? until we build out the broad base of effective metrics tied to actual outcome, people will make decisions about security based on religion rather than facts. we have to get out of that. we have to go to board database- driven security. >> i would endorse everything and add a couple of things -- one of our energy colleagues put the value proposition from these private-public partnerships best when they said focused on process the outcome. what are the things we're going to get out of this? what does the government or industry want? how we share that kind of inflation that will make a valuable so we have skin in the game when we come to this and actually do things like build a response plan.

you cannot build an instant response plan with the government without the private sector. you cannot get the kind of situational awareness of what is going on in the world without engaging the private sector in a meaningful way and without organizing the government. structurally, we are trying to organize by tiny step -- tying these government agencies together, but we need the private sector. that is linked and its -- to me it is all linked together. the other thing emphasized in the report is the idea of having a public information campaign involving raising the awareness of people about security. the bench is not deep in this area in the federal or private sector space. public attitudes have changed, but they need to change more. when i started doing these things years ago, people look at computer hackers who are taking people's identities as novelties. now, with a lot of identity

theft, people realize it is important. but more needs to be done some people think of security as part of the technological development of things that make these things were useful. workforce development, making sure we have trained people who understand the security element and not just the innovation. it goes hand in glove. you cannot have good innovation if you don't have a good security base. if you don't want it to collapse. we all lines reports and ways to go about it, but a lot of work needs to be done. another thing i think is very important is international partnerships. working not just with close allies but countries around the world to come up with issues like how you deal with warrants in cyberspace and some of the legal aspects of cyber crime. we have been doing this for a number of years.

there was the key eight high- tech crime subgroup and there were issues that have been -- there has been collaboration, but it must be stronger. i know we have some international colleagues in the audience today. but we need to -- i said this on -- it is to some extent the flavor of the day. everybody wants to do something about it, but we have to rationalize that and work together to get the most bang for the buck and advance things that will make the internet safer. how high will add one other thing. as we deal with innovation and new technology and a smart bread coming on line, we need to bake a security and from the beginning and think about those aspects. it's cheaper to do it at the outset then do an overlay down the line. it helps the innovation. it's the highway that lets