our technology parks around our research universities create great jobs by the thousands. advanced manufacturing adds jobs to north dakota while most of the nation has lost manufacturing jobs. over the last 10 years, north dakota has been number one in the nation in income and job growth, according to the u.s. chamber of commerce. why >> why is our policy on the wrong track? there are two main reasons. first, the federal government is unnecessarily adding to the cost of living and the cost of doing business in america. just one example is our cost of energy. the price of gasoline is rising rapidly because we continue to depend on foreign oil. it is now within our reach to

become energy independent in north america if we simply develop the resources we already have available in places like the gulf of mexico, nonsensitive public lands across america, and in our friendly bordering countries. the second reason that we are on the wrong track is that the federal government is killing energy development with overly burdensome regulations. the best example of this is the keystone xcel pipeline which the obama administration will not allow to be built. the state of north dakota is currently experiencing an oil boom in its formation. we have doubled our oil production in the last four years and are about to become the second largest oil producing state behind only texas. but we cannot effectively market our crude oil

domestically without a large north-south pipeline. north dakota oil producers were scheduled to feed the keystone pipeline with 100,000 barrels of crude oil per day. now we will not be able to supply the choice american markets because president obama says he needs more time to study keystone. the fact is he has had over three years to study this issue. congress should steph in and mass the measure which would authorize the keystone project. it's the common sense thing to do. the other key to north american energy independence is the rapid development of natural gas. production from shale, the e.p.a. is threatening to regulate this production out of existence by forcing rules that end hydraulic fracturing. in our part of the country,

hydraulic fracturing takes place two miles below the surface of the earth, and nowhere near any water supplies. it is time for this administration to stop using phony excuses. america needs to return to government based on common sense. three presidential candidates have visited north dakota and i have told them all the same thing. build america back on the same blueprint that north dakota has adopted and our country will surely be rewarded with the same great economy our state is enjoying. thank you for listening. >> this week on the communicators, we are going to be looking at cyber security legislation which is currently working its way through the congress. coming up in just a few minutes, an interview with senator joe lieberman who is chair of the homeland security

committee and senator susan collins who is the ranking republican on that same committee talking about their specific legislation on cyber security. joining us first is brendan sasso of the hill newspaper. mr. sasso, what is the status of cyber security legislation in the senate. >> well, right now, the lieberman/collins bill is on a fast track to the senate floor. they just introduced it a couple weeks ago. harry reid has already said he is putting that straight to the floor without any mark-ups in committee, which is fairly unusual. >> why is he doing that? >> well, they say they have been working on cyber security legislation for a long time and it's true. their bill incorporates elements from other proposals. i think part of the reason is that they don't want to have -- there are a lot of different committees that jurisdiction over it, it's a big issue, the homeland security committee, intelligence, security, there are a lot of committees that could get their hands on in a way that lieberman and collins probably won't like. they feel the bill right now strikes the right balance.

>> is this bill that is being brought to the senate floor, in its infancy, was a senator rockefeller vehicle from a couple years ago? >> i think it incorporates elements from a lot of different bills that have been put together. lieberman and collins are the lead on this and senator rockefeller and senator feinstein as well is also pushing for it. >> is it getting opposition? >> yes. so john mccain and a variety of other republicans don't like it. they feel that it takes too much of a regulatory approach and they also don't like the fact that it's being fast tracked to the senate floor. they think the senate should take some more time on this. so john mccain and the other republicans have introduced their own alternative measure. >> what kind of industries are interested in cyber security legislation? >> well, it affects any sort of utilities. the idea with the lieberman/collins bill is that a critical infrastructure, anything, electrical grids or dams where if you had some sort

of hack could have a devastating impact and so it would give the homeland security department regulatory authority. so any companies that are involved in something that might get labeled critical infrastructure, i.t. information technology companies that build these computer grids, any tech companies all have an interest here. >> and are they more supportive of the lieberman-collins approach or the john mccain approach? >> i think a lot of them are sort of trying to stay a little bit on the sidelines, although i think some companies have been or some groups are a little more supportive of the john mccain and the other republicans' approach because it doesn't create this regulatory system. >> does this bill, brendan sasso, does it affect individual users? >> i mean, that depends on who you ask. some civil liberties advocates are more -- civil liberties advocates are not crazy about either bill. they're especially concerned

about the mccain bill because it doesn't have the same exceptions for personal offensive, so when they -- when the companies will share information with the government on the cyber threat, some of that information might include personal information on people. so that's one issue that could affect people. then, of course, if you reduce the risk of a cyber attack, massive cyber attack which hasn't happened yet, it could be obviously something that affects a lot of people. >> what is the status of the legislation in the house? >> there are a lot of different proposals in the house. it's unclear whether the lieberman/collins regulatory approach would be able to gain traction. there is the secure i.d. act is the name of the mccain bill, a couple republicans plan to introduce the same bill in the house, so that bill might be gaining some momentum in congress. it originally came about as sort of the we don't like the lieberman/collins bill, here is our alternative.

that is gaining steam with a version in the house. congressman rogers, chairman of the intelligence committee, has his own bill which avoids the regulatory approach. >> brendan sasso, when do you expect action in the congress on this legislation? >> really soon. harry reid has said in the coming weeks he is going to be bringing the lieberman/collins bill to the floor. we should see a vote in the senate soon. >> does this type of legislation build on existing legislation, or is it a new approach? >> well, i mean, like i said, there have been several bills that have been talked about in previous congresses. the lieberman/collins bill came out in the last couple of weeks. that bill itself pulls together different elements, but is new itself. >> and i apologize, what i meant was, is there existing cyber security legislation now on the books to regulate this issue, or is this approach brand-new and building from scratch? >> right. there has been no comprehensive

cyber security bill that has passed congress. there obviously are laws on the books about computer hacking is illegal and in fact part of the approach of the mccain bill is to update those computer hacking laws to keep them up to speed with the changing nature of the internet and also to toughen penalties. >> brendan sasso is with "the hill newspaper." he covers cyber security and other technological issues. here is our interview with senators lieberman and collins. >> we're joined this week by the chairman of the homeland security committee, joe lieberman, independent from connecticut, and the top republican on the committee, susan collins, a republican from maine. senator lieberman, if i could start with you, what is the goal of the cyber security legislation that you have introduced? >> well, the goal simply stated is to protect all that we americans have in cyberspace

from being stolen and from being attacked. and the theft is going on thousands of times every day, most of which people are not aware of. that is to say, people from, some from inside, most from outside the country actually going into the internet systems, the computer systems of companies and stealing industrial, intellectual property and then taking it and building the stuff that american companies spend millions or billions of dollars to develop, which also takes a lot of jobs from america. the other thing in the legislation is to protect all of the cyber structure in america that is privately owned from becoming targets of an enemy wanting to attack us. what am i talking about? the electric power grid, the transportation systems, the financial systems. so this is all very vulnerable now and probably if there was a major conflict, an enemy would

come at us first by cyber attack and we're simply not adequately defending. >> so along with government assets, you are looking to protect private assets as well? >> that's correct. the fact is that 85% of what we call critical infrastructure is in private hands. it's not government owned. and that's why you have to have a cyber security bill that isn't just limited to government systems or government computers, but protects that critical privately owned infrastructure on which all of us rely every single day for electricity, for transportation, for clean water. it's absolutely essential to our security. in the year 2010, the estimate is that there were 3 billion

cyber attacks on private and government computer systems, 3 billion. so this is a threat that is growing exponentially and we simply must address. >> what laws, senator lieberman, are already on the books with regard to cyber security? what kind of legislative structure is there already? >> first, i want to emphasize that the legislation that we have introduced or hopefully will come to the senate floor soon is focused on privately owned cyber structure, that the federal government websites are in a much better shape in terms of their defense. department of defense protecting their own sites and the department of homeland security protecting the government, nondefense government sites. they're still attacked and still is work to do, current legislation frankly doesn't do

too much. the current law doesn't do too much to protect privately owned cyberspace. that's why we think our legislation is so critical. i think it's the most significant thing that congress and the president can do this year to protect american security and even america's economic prosperity because of all of the theft that i talked about. we can get into what this bill does, but frankly, this is kind of a wild west at this point before the sheriff came to town. >> well, what does this bill do and what do you most -- what are you most adamant about getting passed in this bill? >> senator collins, the most important point here is that at some point, the federal government has to be able to say to a private business that owns critical infrastructure that we all depend on that an enemy might attack, that we got to be able to say to them you got to meet this standard of

defending yourself and defending our country. some companies do it now. some don't. our bill has what we think is light demands on those companies. we set a standard. it's up to them how they meet it. if the department of homeland security determines it already on their own they met it, they won't be any further regulated. there is a lot more in the bill, but that's a point of truth. the other bill put in by some of our colleagues doesn't do that and, therefore, it doesn't get the job done. >> senator collins. >> that is a key provision of the bill. you cannot ignore the fact that 85% of critical infrastructure is in the private sector and say that we're going to be securing our country, but we very carefully crafted the bill so there is industry participation in drafting the

performance-based standards that would have to be met. as senator lieberman said, there are some sectors or some industries that are already doing it. they would be exempt from the regulation and the department would work collaboratively. there is also very important information sharing provisions in this bill and we owe a debt of gratitude to our colleague, senator dianne feinstein for those provisions. we have to make sure that industry does a better job of sharing its knowledge about intrusions and the threat with government and with other private sector members and we need to make sure that government is sharing more effectively threat information. that will help. it's an essential part of our bill, but it's not a sufficient part of our bill and that's one

of the big differences between now bill and the alternative cyber security bill. i just don't know how you can say that you're protecting the vital assets of our country and ignore the critical infrastructure. i would also note that we set the bar very high as to what is considered to be critical infrastructure. we define it as infrastructure, the attack of which would cause mass casualties, severe economic damage, and a serious threat to our national security. so it's not like we're trying to sweep in everything. we are covering those industries, those parts of the infrastructure which if attacked would have truly catastrophic consequences. >> well, your fellow republican

and your good friend, senator mccain, has called this bill, your bill, a bureau accuratic leviathon. what is your response to that? >> with all due respect, he is wrong on that. as senator collins has said, we have tremendous industry input in forming the standards that they'll have to meet to protect our country. secondly, there is not a big bureaucracy that is taking shape. there is a lot of room for voluntary compliance with those standards. but to call this an overbureaucratic system misses the points. senator collins made this point so well. she is a real opponent of overregulation of business which hurts the economy, but this is not that. this is a kind of public safety law that we put in place to protect our safety and in fact

will protect american business from either being attacked and knocked out or having all sorts of its pearls stolen from it and -- materials stolen from it and from us. if i remember who said it, i'll give them credit. i'm quoting now and not giving credit. by saying this bill is overregulation is saying it's overregulation to require a developer who puts up an office building to meet certain safety standards in the construction of the building. you have to get a permit from the city that says the building is safe to go into. that's where we are when it comes to cyber buildings, cyber structure today. >> i think that the alternative legislation would leave our country so vulnerable. it would do virtually nothing to protect critical infrastructure and that poses a

huge threat to the well-being of our people and our economy. we have crafted a bill that has a very sensible regulatory regime. it's one that is completely collaborative with private industry. it's one where the department of homeland security does not even review the security plans. we leave that up to the private sector to either self-certificate or get an independent third-party opinion. some had criticized our bill for not going far enough in its regulatory approach. >> when this bill was first talked about a couple years ago, there was talk about a kill switch. is there any of that in this? >> no. there was language in the original draft of the bill that came out of our committee that was not a kill switch. in fact, meaning that it did not give the president of the united states in an emergency

the power to kill the internet. we thought, in fact, that we were limiting the authority that the president has under existing law, but there was such an emotional reaction to it from people who value their freedom of communication on the internet, which senator collins and i do, too, that we just decided we should leave that section out. it was too much of a distraction and it could bring down the overall bill which to me is urgently necessary, so no kill switch. >> how do you draft a cyber security bill and keep up with the everchanging technology that is drafted? >> we had extensive conversations with the high-tech companies, the security firms, the innovators and many of them because of changes we have made in the bill are now accepting of the bill. i think industry is always

leery of any new legislation, but they recognize that their products need to be kept up with the threat and that there is much in this bill and the information sharing, for example, that will help them better protect their systems. there is nothing in this bill that in any way stifles innovation. in fact, i would argue that it would spur innovation, that it will encourage companies to try new approaches and to develop new security measures in order to better secure their systems. there is nothing in this bill that has the federal government dictating the design of any measure to secure a system. it simply says -- the government simply said performance standards, but it would be up to industry on how

to meet those standards. >> the greatest thing about this is that as technology improves, other companies will be able to bring new technologies on to the standards. the standards as we authorize them isn't going to tell a business here is what you got to do. it says you got to meet this standard of protection of defense. you figure out how to do it. as new problems come on, presumably it will be easier and hopefully less expensive to meet those standards. >> your majority leader in the senate has rather fast tracked this bill. have you had had conversations with colleagues in the house? >> not much. there is some interest in the house. interestingly congressman dan lundgren said a while ago that on this key point that he thought a bill that was a credible bill on cyber security had to have some point where businesses who were not

protecting themselves and us could be required to do that. there was a task force that speaker boehner put together i guess last year which also seemed to embrace that principal. it's not going to be easy. nothing seems easy in this session of congress. this is one that is really nonpartisan. this is national security. the director of the f.b.i. told senator collins and me that cyber attack, is in his opinion, is soon going to supplant terrorism as his, the f.b.i.'s and our country's most serious threat to homeland security. that is saying a lot. we're behind. >> have you had any conversations with your fellow republicans in the house? >> we have had conversations at the staff level. as senator lieberman pointed out, there was a task force that the speaker put forward

that has a lot of recommendations that paralleled those that are in our bill. now, in the end, who knows exactly what the house will come out with, but this clearly is a recognition based on this task force that you can't ignore critical infrastructure and really tackle the problem of cyber security. that would be leaving the job undone and i have to say, our committee has looked at this thoroughly. we have had 10 hearings. we have devoted a great deal of time soliciting input from the private sector, from our colleagues, from other committees, from other experts and this isn't something that cries out for action. if we adjourn without taking action on cyber security, shame on us because it is inevitable with the number of daily

attacks, whether it's from nation states or terrorist groups or "hackers," that enhe haveabley, we are going to face -- inevitably we're going to face a serious cyber attack and i don't want to look back and say, all of the warnings were there, why didn't we act? >> if the house were willing to pass the senate republican bill that was recently introduced, could you see yourself supporting that, working with that bill? >> not as the answer because it just is inadequate. i say that respectfully. it doesn't do the job. but the four main sections of the other bill that senator mccain and others have put in, three of them are covered in our bill. we may do it a little bit differently, but we can negotiate on that. the fourth is criminal penalties, which i think we're open to. the white house in his proposal, frankly for committee

jurisdictional reasons, we didn't include it in ourselves, but the key to come to an agreement on -- so we can negotiate those four parts of the mccain bill, but we got to convince our colleagues that at some point, the government has to say to an irresponsible business, in the national interest, you got to meet these performance standards or we're all going to regret it. >> there is another issue here and that is there are some companies and we would exempt them from regulation that are already meeting standards. they're spending money to do so and they're taking this very seriously. and their security is being jeopardized by other companies with whom they may do business that don't have those kinds of security measures.

so it's really important that we raise the security for all critical infrastructure. >> in finally, senators collins and lieberman, what is the center for cyber security and communications in your bill? >> thanks for having. the center for cyber security and communication it is our attempt not to build a big new bureaucracy, but to combine some similar pieces within the department of homeland security so that there is a real focus on cyber security because it's so critical to homeland security, also so that people out there know they have essentially one address, hopefully in this case, an email address to go to with their cyber security questions and problems. >> this is a consolidation of a lot of different efforts and offices within the department, so like senator lieberman, i believe it will offer better

customer service and be a more effective, efficient, and cost-effective way of dealing with suber security. i think it's a very important reform. >> timeline on this legislation getting to the senate floor? >> oh, this is like predicting the weather in new england where we're both from. senator reid really wants to do this. this is an interesting case. senator reid got briefed on cyber threats last year and he got really agitated and this has become a priority for him just for that reason. so he has told us that he might bring it up in this work period which is from now to the end of march, early april. if not, i'm sure that it will come up when we come back from the easter passover recess in the middle of april and hopefully we can get it done then and send to the house. >> senator mcconnell interested in this? >> he is certainly interested in the subject and i think recognizes that we need to act.

he certainly has not endorsed our bill, but i don't believe he has signed on to the other bill as well. senator kyl among the republican leaders is one that has a agreat deal of expertise in this area and believes that it's imperative that we act. >> senator susan collins is the top republican on the senate homeland security committee and joe lieberman, independent from connecticut, is the chairman, thank you both for being on "the communicators." >> thank you. >> thank you. >> tonight, the national press foundation holds its annual awards dinner here in washington with google chairman eric schmidt giving the address. you can watch the event tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. >> congratulations to all this >> congratulations to all this year's