atkinson, cbs news reporter who has been in the lead about benghazi. she will join us at 745 a.m. and also joined by carolyn atwell davis from the national center for missing and exploited children. discussing state and federal law related to a suction and missing and exploited children. and at 9:15 a.m., former the identity director of national security. talking about the growing threat of homegrown terrorism. we will take a look at the topics, the papers him and your

>> it discussion about the impact of budget cuts on the military with ashton carter. them president obama honors the 2013 winners of the top cop award. >> this department may be nearing a stage with the frequency of this crime and the perception there is tolerant of it. it and undermine our ability to carry out the mission and to recruit and retain the good people we need. that is unacceptable to me and the leaders of this institution. it should be unacceptable to everyone associated with the military. we need cultural change or every with respectated and all allegations of behavior are treated with seriousness. or a victim's privacy is

protected are bystanders are motivated to in the -- to intervene and offenders know they will be held accountable by strong, effective systems of justice. >> defense secretary chuck hagel outlines aetna ennises to -- sexualives to outlaw predators. schmidt andric jericho and share their vision of the world or everyone is digitally connected. american history television, ray intelligenced war during the eisenhower administration. carter outlined how sequestration will affect the

defense department's priorities. he says there will be serious repercussions to military readiness and training due to the automatic spending cuts. he spoke at the national press club and the questions from reporters after his remarks. this is one hour. >> good morning, everyone. welcome to the national press club. i want to welcome another one of our events. we are honored to have ashton carter. he was confirmed as a defense secretary, as deputy secretary of defense in october of 2011 as serving -- after serving as undersecretary since april 2009.

and well-ry lauded known official to most of you. i would like to have a few questions after he finishes with his remarks. please direct those question to the subject at hand. let's give a hand to secretary ashton carter. >>thank you, gene, and thank you here once again at the national press club. hagelnth ago, secretary gave a speech at national defense university that described the major strategic and budgetary challenges, choices, and opportunities that we as a defense enterprise face. i'd like to pick up where he left off, in one of what will undoubtedly be a series of discussions that extend over the spring and summer as we in the defense department, with congress, work together to

try to put a stable and solid foundation under the strategic upon as nation. the new defense strategy we announced last january, we are turning a corner, a strategic corner, from a post-9/11 era dominated by two warsin iraq and opportunities that will define our future in security. we know what many of those challenges are, continued enduring threats like weapons of mass destruction, and a range of new threats such as cyber.

among them, to shift the great weight of the department of defense, both intellectual and physical, that has been devoted to iraq and afghanistan, to the asia-pacific region, where america will continue to play its seven-decade-old pivotal stabilizing role into the future, to develop innovative new capabilities from a vibrant defense technology effort, to capitalize on the lessons of the last decade on how to use forces innovatively, including special forces and the intelligence and operations, to manage presence in new ways, to leverage the reserve and guard components so superblyrformed

over the past decade, and to build the so they can shoulder more of the burden. which we need to make, coincides with a need to absorb some reductions in defense spending in the interest of the nation's overall fiscal situation. those two great historical currents are coming together, and it is my view that they can, if managed properly, reinforce one another. inat is the task before us in toms of our responsibility the american taxpayer, we know strategicking this

transition, we only deserve the amount of money we need and not the amount of moneythat's why, well before the current budget turmoil, we made years. adjustment came on top of significant adjustments that secretary gates made to eliminate unneeded or programs. contingency operations funding which is not included in the base budget and which is for iraq and otherwise known as wartime decreasing, now that we

have exited iraq and are drawing down our forces in afghanistan. taken together, these reductions compare in pace and magnitude to historical cycles in defense spending the nation has experienced in the past after vietnam, and after the cold war. to responsibly prepare for reductions in defense spending, we need to continue a relentless effort to make every defense dollar count. i began this effort in acquisition when i was the under secretary of defense for acquisition, technology, and logistics under the title "better buying power" that continues under my successor, frank kendall. department, this means making hard choices and persuading our own bureaucracy, and ultimately the congress, to support even

the very hardest of them. in acquisition, we made important changes to control costs, like setting targets for notion we are applying to joint strike fighter, the ohio-class replacement, and the new bomber to avoid outcomes like the vh- 71 presidential helicopter, which ballooned to the point where it became unaffordable. we also gave renewed emphasis, use of fixed-price contracts, an approach that we applied to the kc-x, now kc-46, aerial refueling tanker replacement competition. we also learned, from the wars in iraq and afghanistan, hard- earned lessons in speed and agility. we delivered the mine resistant ambush protected all-terrain vehiclemrap atvwhich went from

commander's need to production and fielding in less than 10 months, largely by bypassing the ponderous acquisition system. of course the most important savings achieved through the mrap program were in the lives saved, and the devastating is truly priceless. outside of acquisition, there are many other areas in which wemaking better use of taxpayer dollars is important not only in its own right, since every dollar that is wasted could be used for the nation's defense, but is also important in order to win the taxpayers' confidence that they are getting for their defense

dollar. mustis a confidence we earn to get the public and congress to support a reasonable level of defense spending such containsand for this reason i begin, as the department's entire leadership begins, with tooth. staff, the combatant and the defense agencies. the fourth estate represents a fifth of the department's budget, and it merits at least as much scrutiny as the military services' budgets. there are real savings to be realized here. next, we must drive down health care costs across the department. we have achieved substantial reductions in recent years,

largely by holding down costs we spend to buy pharmaceuticals and also through modest fees and co-pays assessed to beneficiaries. as a result of these and other efforts, our fiscal year 2014 budget request for the defense is more than $3 billion lowerin contrast, health care spending in the broader economy continues to grow faster than the overall rate of inflation. but we need to do more. to that end, we must look at ways to make more efficient use facilities at military treatment facilities, and again at health care fees. we also need to restructure our civilian workforce as we restructure our fighting forces. specifically, we plan to reduce civilian workforce levels by between five and six percent over the next five fiscal years.

these reductions are largely proportional to the military end strength reductions that we have proposed. large part, upon our ability to consolidate our infrastructure and restructure our military treatment facilities, we will need a brac round to achieve them. congress for a brac round in 2015. as secretary hagel recently testified before congress, we believe brac is a comprehensive and fair tool that allows communities a role in re-use decisions for their property and provides redevelopment assistance. brac requires an upfront investment. and for that reason, the future year defense program adds $2. 4 billion to pay for these costs. but in the long-term, brac rounds have consistently

generated significant savings. the previous five rounds of brac are saving $12 billion annually, and those savings will continue. i realize that brac is not exactly a crowd pleaser. people often say to me, how can you propose that? and our answer is how can we not propose that? how can we not propose the cutting of tail and only the cutting of tooth? finally, everyone who looks at the defense budget realizes that military compensation, like healthcare costs, cannot grow at unsustainable rates threatening the force. we are therefore resubmitting a new package of military compensation proposals that we believe address congressional concerns raised last year.

none of the new proposals would result in a reduction in pay or benefits, they simply reduce the rate of growth. specifically, we are proposing a modest reduction in the growth a one percent pay raise for service members in fiscal year 2014, and a modest additional increase in tricare fees and pharmacy co-pays, as i alluded to above. where applicable, these fee and co-pay increases would be phased in and have maximum allow service members and retirees to adjust accordingly, if appropriate. just as we are redoubling our obtain greater efficiencies in defense spending, we are deepening our program alignment to the president's strategy. let me remind you what the key tenets of the strategy are, the first tenet was that as we draw down from the wars in iraq and afghanistan, our force needs to make a very difficult transition from a large, rotational, counterinsurgency-

agile, more flexible, and ready force for the future. that's not to say there's anything wrong with the force that we built for iraq and afghanistanit was the right force for the period. this is a different period. as we make this transition, we want to preserve what we have worked so hard to achieve in last decade, first, the tremendous strength that the all-volunteer force has brought to this fight over the last 10 years, and the that they embody. second, the use ofspecial operations forces and their integral application in modern

operations. third, the contribution of the guard and reserve. we used the guard and reserve in this era in a way never superbly. leaving again the day after tomorrowand you can never tell the difference between an active duty and reserve component unit, in terms of their proficiency and dedication. ntelligence and operations an area where we have unrivaled capability. disruptivenew and technologies, all conceived and fielded over the past decade. afghanistan that we want to preserve and adapt as we turn a strategic corner. newsecond key tenet of the strategy has to do with protecting and prioritizing key investments in technology and new capabilities. president obama insisted that we go out of our way to protect our newest investments because

these kinds of investments tend to have the shallowest roots, and are therefore most susceptible to being uprooted.ically because these investments are so important to keeping the technological edge upon which so much of our national security depends, the president wanted to ensure that we didn't eat our seed corn in the process of reducing our budget. in this regard, we are continuing, even in our current budgetary environment, to grow our special operations forces. a portion of this somewhat larger force will be redeployed from iraq and afghanistan to locations around the world. the remainder, not unimportantly, will have a chance to reset and be home with family more than they've been able to be over the past decade. next, we are increasing our investments in cyber, in recognition of the growing threat that cyber poses to our national security and critical infrastructure. our fiscal year 2014 budget

request repurposes and adds manpower to create cyber teams in three primary functional areas, defending department of defense networks, degrading adversary cyber capabilities, and supporting the defense of the nation's critical infrastructure. space, like cyber, is also an area where we also have a large installed base upon which we depend, and we need to figure where that is not possible, because of the nature of orbital dynamics and the inherent vulnerability of an object in space, how to operate without it if we need to. we are also developing options to counter the space capabilities of potential adversaries. another area the president wanted protected is countering weapons of mass destruction.

we still have a nunn-lugar program, and it is very active we're also investing inyou see the predators and reapers at work, you see the global hawk, which is the higher altitude platform. then there are other things you don't see. we have an innovative effort to increase the range of our unmanned vehicles to operate unmanned vehicles from ships, and other areas of innovation in isr that don't involve unmanned aircraft but other techniques. finally, we're increasing our investments in certain areas of our science and technology portfolio, such as electronic warfare, anti-jamming capabilities, and command, control and communications. it's always been the case that the department of defense led innovation and contributed to innovation at the national level.

today, there's a larger commercial technology base relative to dod's than there used to be. and of course the overall technology base is global. still in all, there's a leadership role for the department of defense, and despite our fiscal challenges, this is an area that will remain a priority. defense strategy concerns our rebalance to the asia-pacific region. our rebalance to be clear is predominantly a political and economic concept, not a military one. but since i'm deputy secretary of defense, i naturally focus on its security aspects. in the security sphere, the logic of our rebalance is very simple, the asia-pacific region has largely enjoyed overall years, apart, of course, from the vietnam war. and the only exception to that today, and a dangerous one, is north korea. we are responding to north korea's threats. we're doing it by defending ourselves and our allies. we're taking a firm but measured approach. but north korea is an really the only

exception in terms of imminent nation-state aggression in the asia-pacific region. this climate of peace and stability has prevailed in the asia-pacific region for so long despite the fact that there's been no overarching security structureno natoto make sure that historical wounds, which were deep in asia, were healed after world war ii. and during those years, first japan rose and prospered, then south korea rose and prospered, then many nations in southeast asia rose and prospered. and now, today, india and china rise and prosper. all this has been welcomed by the united states. but none of this was a foregone conclusion when you consider where asia was at the end of world war ii. while the asian political and economic miracle was realized,

first and foremost, by the hard work and talent of the asian people themselves, it was enabled by the enduring principles that the united states has stood for in the region, and also by american military power. these principles we stood for have included a commitment to free and open commerce, a just international order that emphasizes rights and responsibilities of nations and fidelity to the rule of law, civilian control of the military, open access, by all, to the shared domains of sea, air, space, and now, cyberspace, and the principle of resolving conflict without the use of force. in addition to these principles, it was also enabled by the pivotal role of u. s. military power and presence in the region. we believe that our strong security presence in the asia- pacific has provided a critical foundation for these principles to take root. and in one sentence, our

rebalance says we're going to continue to provide this foundation for decades to come. our partners in the region welcome our leadership and our robust engagement, and the therefore i believe that our rebalance will be welcomed and will be reciprocated. it's good for us, and it's good for everyone in the region. and it includes everyone in the region. and by the way it's not aimed at anyone in the region no individual country, or group of countries. in rebalance is reflected force structure decisions, presence and posture, investments, innovations in our operational plans and tactics, and perhaps most importantly, the work we are doing to strengthen our alliances and partnerships in the region.

i've given a number of recent speeches, here in town and in asia, that describe each of these lines of effort in significant detail, and in the interest of time, i would refer you to those speeches for a fuller and more complete accounting of how we are implementing the rebalance. needless to say, there is much that is going into this undertaking. when i discuss the rebalance, i'm usually asked two questions. the first is, can you do it? can you do it with the budgetary challenges you face? and the answer to this question is yes we can do the rebalance. and here's why, first, as i mentioned earlier, we are shifting that huge weight that we have applied to iraq and afghanistan, to the region.

and a second reason is that within our budget, which is still substantial, we are making priority. in addition to the current spending you also have to take into account that it has accumulated over time. it takes decades to build a military capability like ours. it's also true that in addition to having substantial resources, our force has substantial operational experience, which no other military can match. so for all these reasons, we can do it. the second question i get is, "isn't our rebalance really about china?" and the answer is no, our rebalance is not about china. our rebalance is not aimed at anyone any individual country, or group of countries. it's about ensuring the peace and stability that the asia- pacific has enjoyed for sixty years continues. in a normal budgetary environment, an efficiencies- and strategy-driven approach to defense, such as i have described, and which is

reflected in president obama's budget, would be sufficient. however, this budgetary environment is anything but normal, particularly because we are operating under the sequester. sequester is not only regrettable in its own right, but it distracts from the true strategic and managerial tasks before us. sequester requires us to subtract from our budget for the remainder of fiscal year 2013 $37 billion, and it presumes that we take equal shares or proportionate shares from each and every part of the budget, which is the worst managerial approach possible.

secretary hagel and i, and the entire leadership of the department, are doing everything we possibly can under this deliberatively restrictive law to mitigate its harmful effects on national security. everything we possibly can. for example, the president used his authority under the law to exempt military compensation from sequestration. we also must, of necessity, fully protect funding for afghanistan and other ongoing operations. it turns out that our afghanistan war costs have been higher this year than we anticipated, in part because of a higher than expected operating tempo and in part because of increased transportation costs due to the extended closure of the pakistan ground lines of communication. next, we are fully protecting wounded warrior programs. we are fully protecting our core nuclear deterrent, critical portions of homeland defense

like the ability to interdict hijacked airliners, some special operations forces, and other critical capabilities. and we are fully protecting key other expenditures such as those, for example, that will allow school children in our military schools to finish the school year in a way that can be fully accredited. next, there are accounts we are preferentially protecting to extent feasible, first, key features of the new defense strategy that i have described. second, forces forward-deployed to the asia-pacific and the persian gulf for possible near- term contingencies, for example, the ability to "fight tonight"

if there is aggression on the korean peninsula. third, military family programs. and fourth, certain acquisition efficiencies like multi-year contracts. but we cannot exempt or protect most of our budget, and so you see serious repercussions of sequester appearing as the months go by. you might ask, why does this turbulence hit so hard and so fast? why does an 8 percent sequester budget cut lead to a crisis in readiness, as the joint chiefs of staff have so aptly called it? to understand this requires some explanation. sequestration commenced on 1 and, as i noted, will reduce dod funding for fy 2013 by $37 billion. $37t $20 billion of that

billion cut affects our operation and maintenance or o&m accounts the accounts that most influence day-to-day military readiness. but it gets worse for o&m. the wartime, or oco, budget is also subject to sequestration, and most of this must come from the same o&m accounts. to protect funding for our troops at war which is a must we have to impose extra cuts on the base-budget portion of o&m. worse yet, two years ago, when we were estimating the costs of wartime operations, we could not foresee the higher than expected operating tempo and transportation costs that we are experiencing this year. so now we have to make further cuts in base-budget o&m in order to sustain wartime operations.

the bottom line, cuts in the base-budget portion of o&m will be more than 20% compared to our request. and we have only about six months left to accommodate most of those cuts. so much for the 8% sequester cut! beforeized last january, sequester kicked in, that we had potentially large budget problems, and we began taking action. we imposed hiring freezes, cuts in travel and conferences, reductions in facilities maintenance, and much more. now that sequester is in effect, we are preparing a request to congress to move money from other accounts into o&m, called reprogramming.

towill be urging congress approve that reprogramming quickly. but, unfortunately, this won't be enough. reprogramming will help with much of the wartime o&m funding problem, but by law reprogramming is limited, and it is not large enough to address sequester. we will still have to make large cuts in training and maintenance, which in turn are seriously harming readiness. in short, reprogramming addresses war costs, but not sequester. let me start with the army. among numerous training-related actions, the army plans to cancel at least six remaining combat center training sessions for its brigade combat teams. these are the culminating training events, and their cancellation seriously harms readiness. by the end of the fiscal year, excluding deployed units, two- thirds of army active brigade combat teams, and most will be below

acceptable readiness levels. this means that we are less ready for contingency operations, and it may interfere with our ability to replace units in afghanistan next year. the air force has or will soon stop all flying for 12 combat- coded squadrons, which means that about one third of its active squadrons will be markedly less ready to meet contingency demands. the air force is also reducing or stopping training at numerous other squadrons. this is not only dangerous, it will also be expensive to repair this damage. once you lose flying proficiency, it is very expensive and time consuming to get it back. arenavy and marine corps

also cutting back on flight operations and fleet operations. the navy has imposed flying restrictions on some non- deployed carrier air wings and as you've seen, we're not sending ships to sea as we had planned. as the navy cuts back on maintenance support and steaming opportunities for the marines to train, which will in turn degrade their readiness. finally, we may have to consider furloughing many of our civilian employees in order to hold down operating costs. secretary hagel has not made a final decision on furloughs. but if we have to impose them, they will harm morale and productivity throughout most of our support functions. this will in turn further damage readiness. what's tragic in all of this is that the damage to readiness and national security is not a result of economic emergency, or a recession. it's not because defense cuts are the answer to the nation's overall fiscal. cll

suddent in reaction to a transformation to a more peaceful world. it's not due to a breakthrough in military technology or a new strategic insight of some sort. it's not because paths of revenue growth and entitlement spending have been explored and exhausted. it's purely the collateral damage of political gridlock. we have and will still have the world, but we are accepting unnecessary risk. now, the sequester for fy 2013 ends october 1, but there is no way to know for sure what's next here in washington. the dod can adjust and adapt to a wide range of contingencies, but this will be easiest if we have stability, time, and the president s ted a

budget that meets these goals. the president's budget reflects his overall approach to deficit reduction. for defense it contains $150 billion more in ten-year cuts compared to last year's plan in addition to the $487 billion reflected in the department of defense's fiscal year 2013 budget. most of these cuts occur beyond fy 2018, which gives us time to plan and adjust. while no agency wants to cut budget, the president's plan is much more practical than the cuts that could occur under the budget control act cuts that could amount to $52 billion in fy 2014 alone and could total $500 billion over ten years. we urgently need congress to grant us stability, time, and

flexibility. the house budget resolution, the senate budget resolution, and of course the budget control act all confront us not with stability, but with an exceedingly wide range of future scenarios for our budget. we also need congress's support to have the flexibility to make budget cuts where they are most in the interest of long-term national defense. last year, congress denied proposals we had made ranging from health care efficiencies andorce structure modernization proposals that our leadership had proposed and comprehensively justified. most immediately, additionally, we need reprogramming relief from congress for fiscal year 2013 in order to shift money to meet our highest priorities. ideally, we will have all three elementsstability, time, and flexibilitywith which to make critical budget decisions. but we must anticipate a wide range of possible contingencies.

in this regard, for this reason, secretary hagel asked me, working with chairman dempsey, to conduct a strategic and management reviewto examine the choices that underlie our defense strategy, investments, including all past assumptions and systems. the review will define the major strategic choices and institutional challenges affecting the defense posture in the decade ahead that must be made to preserve and adapt our defense strategy and the department's management under a wide range of future circumstances that could result from a comprehensive deficit reduction deal or the persistence of the cuts that began with this year's sequester. everything will be on the table during this review, roles and missions, war planning, business practices, force personnel and compensation, acquisition and investments, and how we operate, maintain readin.

we plan to complete our work and provide decision-points and recommendations to secretary hagel in the coming weeks and months. the choices the secretary and the president make in response to decision-points identified in the review in the months thereafter will then inform our fy 2015 budget submission as well as how we execute our fy 2014 budget. in closing, we in the defense department are prepared to make difficult strategic and budgetary choices. we also are committed to finding new ways to improve the way we do business and obtain greater efficiency and productivity in defense spending. but in order to sustain our military's unrivaled strength, we need the cloud of sequester dispellednot just moved to the horizonand we need a return to

normal budgeting. together with the congress, we can then continue the great strategic transition upon which we have embarked with certainty and stability. >> citigroup please stick to the subject at hand. toif you could please stick the subject at hand. forward, what changes employment and division of labor and costs? wewith respect to space, have established for the first time in an integrated effort to bring together our space programs, all of them.

the best understand the anti- satellite thread. operate without spacecraft. we have an integrated effort that looks consolation by consulates and if there is a moret, have to make them resilience of a committee was can operate we through if we do not have that capability. is a new effort that we're devoting resources to. at the same time, we're looking at making investments and are on capability to deny the use of space against our forces in a conflict.

with respect to guard and reserve, -- garden at the component has made a really remarkable contribution that nobody foresaw that we would be engaged in long, large counterinsurgency operations that require a very large irritation force. reserved the guard and and they came through. there is a lesson and a about the adaptability of the component. as we turn to the future, we're looking for innovative the new era.this in gam

take operation of remotely piloted aircraft that might be .r are suited to guard units there is a homeland defense mission. i had a number of meetings with the council of governors to help them articulate the need for its defense of priority, much of which will be provided through the garden reserves. and all these ways they will be very relevant. exciting frontier for us and for the guard and reserve. the question about the strategic choices and management. can you tell a little more about what will be involved there? you'll be looking at alternative

budgets. are you decided which ones less? they have asked you to describe what this would look like. are you going to lay out illustrative scenarios or is it settled?bid a -- be .we have to foresee that is what they were indicating in their letter appeared as much as none of us may like that, we have to take serious the possibility that what happened this year could happen again and again and again.

is in our dna to be ready even for things we do not like. why t ahead of that is secretary hagel ordered the review. in terms of the output, we're not going to be making a proposal to be sequestered. mean is what is the product? delineation of the choices that we can make an might have to make in each of described. have

all of these areas where we spend money, how can we do things differently? country to give the defend it needs. that is the purpose. that is what it will do. >> will these different scenarios involve actions that will all require congress's help? these are things the department can do themselves. day, the end of the congress approves an passage our budget.

everything we do. for we canis is set seize the initiative internally. >> can you discuss what work he saw to do before the end of the month? in each of the areas i have wescribed to, i would say review between 1.3 and a half so far. in so far they are in reasonably good shape and in some places people need to be pushed harder to fit more innovatively in the at the more extreme

range we have to be bold. >> [inaudible] you both have been working on that. do you have any idea when you will present a request? >> this is the request for fy14. the answer is in the next few weeks we will make our fy14 p per's. a lot of that work is done. proposal. a lot of that work is done. you are proposing for the conflict two years from now. that is the reason why it is difficult to prepare and a low- budget.- anoko

transitional year. what we will do there will depend upon decisions that the united states and the rest of the coalition make in the months ahead. not all of those decisions have been made. we are using our best estimates based upon what we know. we cannot know everything. >> we will know a lot of the president's decisions. that does not mean no everything that will happen. there is an inevitable amounts of estimation that goes into the budget. it is all about the unpredictable expenditures associated with an ongoing conflict.

>> immense and the relief from congress. are you would saying -- you mentioned there the from congress. >> this is capped. we will submit will combine itself within the statutory bounds. as a consequence that, if approved by the congress, will address our shortfall problem. it will not address sequestration. i want to emphasize that. ofis not take care sequestration. it takes care of our other big problem which is the shortfall.

there are a statutory limits. like to see the islamists change. >> have you talked about how you are [inaudible] won lso talked about our impasses. towhat point do you start get concerned that your ability to fight in north korea will be affected by china? >> that is one of the areas that we can most clearly identify and protect readiness for. what theoka happening elsewhere

-- what you see happening elsewhere is our capability to respond to the unforeseen. there will be an impact there. that is why i was saying that this is that only stupid, it is under this be sequester thing. does it affectt areas like north korea? -- we are working as hard as we can to make sure that our commitments to things ise the defensive peninsula protected to the maximum degree possible. we are doing that and we will keep doing that. it comes under increasing stress

as times goes on. back about the state. you said the costs associated together is around the budget? >> that is a good question. is an informal term. it is meant to signify the fourth part of our enterprise other than the department of the army and navy. these are important functions. there are not headquarter functions. they are things like the logistics agency. these are not headquarters.

that is included. i believe that we need to shrink those headquarter functions also at least as much as everything else is shrinking. for surer we must do that. that is the most of the money is. are doing important work. part of our enterprise. and they need to fall under the same level of scrutiny that we have to apply for the army and the resource. we are going to make sure that we do not just pay attention to the army and air force.

--the navy has told congress someonedanger of overblowing this? is this a danger that means you should pipa for longer periods of time? none of us wants to do furloughs. not a way of signaling a way to work for us.

nobody wants to furlough. ist you are up against inancing where we take cut the interests of the overall accomplishment of the defense mission. one of the possibilities there onto furlough, at the put part-time, for the last quarter this would be a way up fundingo free that would then go to critical readiness functions.

in no way does this suggest that these folks are anything but essential to the enterprise. >> [inaudible] >> right. you are my host. i'll take one more then i got to go. >> do you think it is more likely than not they you will see a cr again this year? the have stopped calling odds. i cannot rule it out. we have to be serious about that contingency.

we have to be ready. that is an unfortunate thing. looking at recent history that cannot be sure >> thank you. thank you very much. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> on now to the white house. president obama expected to be speaking here. be honoring the national association of police organization top cops. those are the outstanding members of law enforcement from across the country you're been been nominated by their fellow officers for their actions above and beyond the call of duty. they include officers from california, new york, wisconsin, iowa, as well as resident obama 's home state -- illinois.

>> c-span of life this morning and he east room of the white house. expecting president obama -- a few minutes late, as he gets ready to honor the police organization's top cops. those are the outstanding members of law-enforcement that are coming from across the country. they have been nominated for their fellow -- by their fellow

officers. just to let you know, on the president's schedule, he will be meeting with reddish prime minister david cameron monday at the white house. he will be in new york monday night. a marke will be making wednesday at the national peace officers memorial. they'll be honoring officers who have been killed in the line of duty. thursday, prime minister kirby will meet president obama at the white house. friday, president obama will be in baltimore talking about the middle class, jobs, and the economy. this morning, honoring the top cops who have been nominated by the national association of police organizations.

>> expecting president obama here in the east room of the white house any moment. you will be honoring the national association of police organization top cops, outstanding members of law enforcement from across the country. on the other side of the white house this morning, the west wing, apparently was evacuated. reporters and photographers evacuated from the west wing because of some smoke that came from a faulty piece of equipment. the u.s. secret service buchman said they were evacuated out of "an abundance of caution." people have been allowed back into the west side of the white house. obama expected momentarily to honor the top cops of the national association of police organization.

>> ladies and german, at this time, please silence all cell phones. the program will begin in two minutes.

pre-k's we just heard the president expected in a couple of minutes. again, speaking here in the east room of the white house

honoring the top cops from state to run country -- florida, indiana, new jersey, nevada, texas. on wednesday, the president will be making remarks at the national peace officers memorial, honoring officers who have been killed in the line of duty. [applause]

>> ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states and mr. tom -- [applause]

>> thank you so much. everybody, please have a seat. good morning. welcome to the white house for what is one of my favorite events all year. i want to start by thanking a former police officer, police chief in seattle, police commissioner in buffalo, please officer in st. petersburg, florida, now serves as the head of the office of the national drug control policy. he is doing outstanding work every day helping to make sure that our young people are safe and not exposed to some of the worst drugs out there. so we very much want to give him a big round of applause. [applause] we have got napo tom wright here

next to me. tom is doing an outstanding job every day. of course, we have our 2013 top cops. [indiscernible] as president, i get to meet and work with a lot extraordinary law-enforcement officers every single day from men and women who protect me and my family, folks in the secret service, local police who drive on motorcades and events around the country. i am incredibly grateful that all of these law-enforcement officers are doing such outstanding work. and just a few weeks ago, obviously in boston, our country stall once again the strong stuff that these men and women in uniform are made of. police officers, first

responders running toward explosions, not knowing if there was something more on the way. law enforcement from different agencies in different parts of the country working together as one united team to identify subjects -- suspects and bring them to justice. willoments that few of us ever forget -- citizens of waterton, massachusetts, light of their streets to cheer on, hi5, hug officers as they headed home after a job will done. always get opportunities to stand and applaud the men and women. but they are out there. hundreds of thousands of them. but trolling our streets every single day. -- patrolling our streets everything will day. we know that when we need you most, you will be ready to protect our lives, even if it means putting your life on the line. that is what these folks are all about.

that is what the men and women standing behind me have proven their hearts, their courage, their dedication. and of course, they are a humble group. they will tell you they are not heroes. they will say they were just doing their jobs. today, we honor them as top cops because they are half right. they were just doing their jobs. from the moment they swore an oath to swore -- serve with honor, for the first time they put on a uniform and 10 on a badge, they knew they might be called upon to do some really tough stuff. i think that makes them more heroic. not less heroic. because they signed up for this, continuenteered, yet day in and day out to dedicate themselves, and when the moment came, they were ready to respond. i already talked about one of this year's top cops -- brian

murphy -- in my state of the union address. when a gunman opened fire on a temple in wisconsin and brian was the first to arrive, he did not consider his own safety. he fought back until help arrived and ordered his fellow officers who are here today to protect the safety of the americans worshiping inside, even though he was lying there bleeding. when he was asked how he did it, he said -- that is just the way we are made. that is what you have got to do. that is what you have got to be made of -- it takes down, side suspects in los angeles or vegas or shooters and miami, indiana, chicago, iowa. saving untold numbers of lives. that is what you have got to be made of two dodge live power lines during hurricane sandy to for your partner and down by a tree. this is their job, but it is not just about the uniform that they wear. it is about who they are, what they are made of.

when a gunman entered a restaurant in pasadena, texas, it was three off-duty cops who put themselves in harms way. detective ivan marcano got out of his girlfriend's car to stop them. they shot him inhe chest. as his girlfriend was driving him to the hospital, i'm sure not very happy with them, there he is. coincidence, they ran into the shooter's getaway car. so what does detective marcano do you go -- do? he jumps out of the car, keep pressure on his chest with his left hand, holding a service weapon with his right, runs out

after the suspects. took one of them down, which led to the capture of the other. he was not on the clock when any of this happened. this was his date night. [laughter] [applause] it is unbelievable. [applause] by the way, did you invite your girlfriend? where are you? stand up. give her a big round of applause. [applause] she deserves a really nice dinner. after putting her through that. who detective marcano restroom said -- i will be thankful to him for the rest of my life. so today, to all of our top

cops, let me say that our nation sayers -- shares that sense of gratitude. you embody america at its best, it's bravest. if top cops can risk their lives to do their jobs, the rest of us shouldn't just be -- should just be able to summon some tiny fraction of courage in the same sense of responsibility, and certainly of us fores to those supporting law enforcement and first responders here in washington. even though in tough economic times, we have got to make sure that they have the resources that they need, whether that is supporting the cops row gram or helping you hired new officers or preventing layoffs or giving you the most advanced crime- fighting tools and critical data, all of which you need in this 21st century when it comes to crime-fighting. we also need to take some common sense steps to protect our rights come our children, protect officers in the line of

duty, by making it harder for dangerous criminals to get their hands on lethal weapons. these officers represent the best of us, they deserve the best from us. that begins with being thankful for the not just today but for the rest of their lives. and recognizing the sacrifices that not only they make but their parents, spouses, kids who watch their loved ones go off and serve every day, knowing that there is real danger out there. i ask all americans, everyone who is watching, all across the country, when you see a police officer, you meet an officer's family, let them know how much you appreciate them. it is the least we can do for the men and women who give us so much and help keep us safe. with that in mind -- [applause] with that in mind, let me give another huge thank you to our top cops of 2013, our entire

law-enforcement timidity, all of the families who are here, all of the kids who were here -- thank you for being patient and listento now, what we want to do is get a picture. i think we're going to -- i'm going to line up. i think there is a spot. [inaudible] [applause]

>> thank you, everybody. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> if you missed any of the president's tribute to the top cops -- we will show it again 8:35 eastern time right here on c-span. >> post 9/11, a whole lot more people cared about national security issues than was the case before. was a of a sudden, there market for former cia folks, former defense intelligence

agencies, former national security agency, all of those guys who were used to operating in the shadows saw a market for their services as commentators, book writers -- so there was this somewhat uncomfortable interaction between the lyencies and these usual former employees. >> at the time, i felt that waterboarding was something we needed to do. as time has passed, as of september 11 has moved farther and farther back into history, think i have changed my mind. i think that waterboarding is something that we should not be doing. >> why do you say that now? >> because we are americans and we are better than that. >> this is a guy who i think by all accounts meant well, who served his country well by most accounts for 15 years in some very dangerous situation, who

risked his life to take on al qaeda in pakistan and to take on terrorism before that. he is going off to prison for 30 months, leaving his young family behind. >> this weekend on q&a, scott shane on his future -- feature story, from spy to source to convict. sunday at 8:00 on c-span. governor bobby jenna was in new hampshire last night speaking at a fundraiser. he is reportedly considering a run for president in 2016. the event was hosted by the new hampshire gop state senate political action committee in downtown manchester. [applause] >> thank you very much. he why for that very generous introduction. and thank you and your 12

colleagues for the trinity work you do. i want to thank everybody for .oming out and help supports let's give a round of applause for the tremendous work they are doing. started, i i get also want to thank not only at a republican and a louisiana and, but as an american for sending the senate. to what a fantastic job she is doing every day. she is courageous, she stands for our principles, and i want to thank you. what an improvement. it is very easy to get up. give a speech with a lot of applause lines, tacking president obama, targeting his failed policies, and talk about the things he has done wrong,, but i'm going to assume that you already know that. i am going to assume that many of us worked hard to make him a one term resident. i wan talk about some the

differentoi want to talk about e go as a republican party. all you do is watch the networks and listen to the washington pundits, it feels like our entire republican party is in a state a public confession. we need counseling. everywhere you go, people have their perfect solutions, we need to hire more consultants from silicon valley, we need to fix the big data, abandon our principles, change our views, become more like the other party. i am tired of the navel gazing. you see these guys on tv -- if we just won x more votes, we would have won the election. that is if we had one more point we would have won the football game. we lost the election. it is time to get over it. i am tired of all the public confessions. we already have one liberal

party. we do not need another. we can win by sticking to principles, but we need to make changes and think seriously about where we go. i gave a speech to the rnc at the republican governors association, and there are several things we need to do. i listed seven items. one of those got more attention than anything else. you may have seen, i said basically we need to stop being the stupid party. everybody paid attention to that. that was the one thing that got reported. i have three children at home. we have a jar where if you say a bad word, you have to put a dollar in that drawer. my little boy -- i have a boy at home -- every time i come on tv, he would make me put a dollar in. i meant more than just dumb comments a couple of candidates made.

what i meant by that is we have to present thoughtful policy solutions to the people, not just bumper stickers. we have to have the confidence of our convictions and show how our ideas will benefit them. that is being a party that looks forward. what do you mean? we are a young country at heart. we are a country who believes our best days are ahead of us. we cannot be a party that keeps talking about the good old days. when we tell people that our best days are ahead of us and we get control of our government, if we preserve the freedom we inherited from our parents. we need to fight for every single vote. we need to fight for 100%. every single vote. we need to have the confidence and courage to say our principles and policies and beliefs help every american to the middle class.

we want voters to like us. the democratic party starts dividing people in groups and some groups and special interests. we view everybody as americans first, and we will go after them like that. as a party we have to stop being the party of big. we cannot be about being for big government or big anything. the democratic party presents itself as the populist party, but they believe in centralized government, top-down solutions. bureaucrats know better than parents have to educate their children. we are the populist party that believes in freedom, empowering, and entrusting the people to make decisions for themselves. we have got to be comfortable talking about ideas and issues that we have not focused on before. i want to give you examples. i want to start first with education policy, and, second, i

want to talk about why we need to the be about the party about growth and opportunity, not austerity. one is education's role. you can make it practical argument education is one of the most abundant challenges and issues in front of us, not as a state, but as a country. you can look at the studies that show if we want to be a superpower, keep kids out of jail, reduce people on welfare, if we want to do these things, educational achievement is key. you look at statistics. they are sobering. we rank 17th in math, 25th in science, 16th in educational attainment across the world. think about that. if you are in your 50's, you ranked number one when you were in school. it does not sound american to be yelling "we are number 16!" the reality is how will we compete unless we have the most

educated people in the entire world. throwing more money at it is not a solution. we have doubled per-student money, but scores are flat. we spend more money for students, but rank so far behind these other countries. our kids compete with kids from singapore, japan, taiwan, russia, and that is all of the world. it is not just a practical argument. there is a moral argument. we should stand as a party and conservative movement for providing a great education to every child in the state and country. the moral imperative is this -- we are an aspiration party, people, and country. we believe and our bones that the circumstances of your birth do not determine your outcome. we believe that you did not have to be born in the right zip code, your gender does not even matter. that cannot determine your outcome.

it goes back to what every mom and dad says -- if you are willing to work hard and get a great education, there's no limit to what you can accomplish. how many times have we heard those stories? you can grow up to be a doctor, and for that to be true, we have to provide a great education for every child. there's a story that i like repeating because it makes it funny point, that bobby kennedy went home one day and told his dad, the famous joe kennedy, that he'd wanted to be a catholic priest. with joe kennedy, he wanted his boys to be president. when bobby kennedy went home and told joe this, he said," bob, that would be great. we have never had a pope in the kennedy family before. it would be good to have one of those." i love that confidence, that attitude that my child to do anything. yes, there are too many children in this country who do not have

the opportunity to get a good education. we like to say we are about equal opportunity. we need to change the way we educate our children. most of us will move to neighborhoods with great public schools. or we will save to send our kids to the private schools if that is what it takes. there are far too many kids who live in neighborhoods with bad local options. what do we do? there are a couple of things we have done in louisiana. i will start with a simple idea. make the dollars follow up the child. do not make the child followed the dollar. let me tell you what that means to us. we fought hard to pass a government scholarship program, our dollars-for-dollars for the kids, because every child learns differently. some kids will do great in a public school.

some kids will do great in an on-line school. the point is let the moms and dads decided they know their children better than anybody else. when we proposed this, the teachers' union said parents do not have a clue when it comes to making choices for their kids. i cannot imagine anything more offensive or more untrue when it comes to the educational debate. that is a contrast to what they believe compared to what we believe in. moms said, we make choices for our kids every day. this is not just theory. look at what is going on in new orleans today. 70% of our kids are in charter schools. in the last five years we have doubled the percentage of kids doing reading and math on grade

level. go back to before 2005, over half of our kids were graduating in new orleans. i can go on with numbers, and we have more work to do, we're not where we need to be, but we're moving in the right direction. we started a program in 2008. we were spending over $8,000 -- $8,500 per kid in public school. we spent over $5,000 in scholarships, and the academic scores were better. last year when we did it for the first time, we had 10,000 kids apply. this year we had 12,000 kids apply, and we had 8,000 in the first-run alone. we have higher academic scores. who could oppose this bill? the coalition or the status quo? the teacher unions and others who did not understand reform is

about the kids, not about the adult in the class. it is about making sure our kids will only have one chance to grow up to get a good education. i am tired of people telling us just wait and give them time, we will improve their schools. we only have one chance to get a good education. the second thing is to put a great teacher in every classroom. every study shows the single most important thing you can do. if you can reduce class size, buy new computers, that is great. the single most important thing we can do is put a great teacher. there are studies at stanford showing kids earn thousands of dollars more in their careers because of good teachers. if your fourth-grade daughter has a great teacher, she is more likely to go to college, less likely to become pregnant as she gets older as a teenager. from having a great fourth-grade teacher. you would think we have policies to recognize this. most of our states, we reward

our teachers based on how long they have been breathing, not how well they're doing. if i went to your business and told you can-- after three years, you're not allowed to get rid of any of your employees for any reason -- if you have two employees, one who is productive and stays afterward and does a great job, and another that does the bare minimum, you have to pay them the same. how long would you stay in business? that is how we treat the teaching profession. that is how we have revamped tenure, pay, hiring, firing policies to say let's do something obvious and simple. let's tie all that to student achievement. let's reward teachers who are helping kids to learn. a radical thought. let's treat teachers like professionals. for the first time we are above the southern average in louisiana, and we want to do better than that. it is not complicated, letting

the dollars follow that kids. this is the right thing to do for states, the country, also the right thing to do for the republican party. if we will be aspirational, a party about opportunity, we have to be about a great education for every student. the reason i am passionate is not only do i see the impacts of my state, where 78% of companies that want to move to louisiana say their concerns are finding skilled workers. we have cut taxes. we have revamped our ethics code. we have done many things. yet our economy is doing better than these other economies, but if we want to continue, we have to have the most skilled people. my dad is one of those, one of nine, and every one of us has an example like this. one of those kids that drew up in a house without electricity, without running water, the first

and only one in the family who got past the fifth grade. i heard these stories every single day of my life. my dad did not grow up with a lot of money, but when he was raising his family, he would tell us this -- i will not give you a famous last name or inheritance, but i will make sure you get a great education. in america there is no limit what you can do if you have a great education. i have seen it in my family. this is what we stand for as a party. we spend too much time criticizing the other party the other side without saying what we are for. we allow them to characterize that you want everybody to have that dream that my dad has pursued, that your grandparents pursued, if your grandparents were the first in your family. that brings me to my final point. when need to be the party of growth, not austerity.

if you listen to the debate, it is about zeros. it is about austerity and about spreadsheet and powerpoint presentations and tv ads. we have to stop spending money we do not have. i worry about that with my children. in louisiana, we have cut our budget 26%. we balance our budget every year. we cut the number of state employees a record amount over 20,000. in louisiana and new hampshire and america, we must not become the party that is obsessed with government and government only. this debate is not about what we are about, that we are fighting this debate on the other party's terms. this is about government and the government saying it is not about the private-sector economy.

we need to remind people the other party is the party of us, not the republican party. the democrats pretend to be a party of more government, but they are the party of fewer jobs, lower incomes, and more scarcity. the republican party is the party that is here to manage the slow decline of this great country. that is not our mission, our goal. that is their goal. our best days are ahead of us. we have fought this entire debate on the other side's terms. we need to make it clear we are about growing the private sector, not the public sector, but the government economy, the real economy that happens outside of washington. we need to get our spending under control, but we are about freedom. you cannot have prosperity and you cannot have what makes america so great about individual freedom without individual economic security. we are about growing the middle class, helping others join the middle class. in washington that includes an energy policy that means more domestically produced energy,

blowing up the tax code so it is not washington, d.c. telling us how to live our lives. it should not be complicated to fill out your taxes. this means having a real debate about the size and scope of the government's interest in our lives, but if you only remember one thing, i hope as a republican party we will stop being the party of austerity, but be the party of growth and opportunity, be the party of growing the middle class. as i conclude, i share this -- we lost a great leader when margaret thatcher passed away. she gave the remark that you have to win the debate before you win the election. it is important we win the next election and the one after that, but this is more than just about winning an election. this is about winning a very important debate about where do we go as a country. one of the things my dad would tell us, and parents always tell you things to make you roll your eyes, and you do not appreciate them until you have your kids.

every day i get to tell of how sorry i am for the misery i caused my parents. one of the things my dad would tell us growing up, tell us you are lucky, you are blessed. you should feel blessed that you were born in america. when you are a kid, you do not appreciate that. what else would i be? i was born and raised my whole life in louisiana. would i be a texan? where else would i be? of course i am an american. now, i appreciate what he is trying to tell me. my parents did not come here from another county because they knew if you worked hard you could get ahead. every generation has more opportunities for our children than we have inherited from

let's not become the first generation that mortgages are children. we have to win this debate, and i am tired of the confessions and the analysis. if we are brave and courageous to stand for individual freedom, to stand for lower taxes and smaller government, if we are willing to say to the president we trust the american people to make their own decisions, to run their own lives, we will win the debate and win those elections. for those that are wringing their hands or looking at poll numbers and worrying about the last election results, i tell them freedom is an eternal principle. it is a principle worth fighting for. i close with this. as we decide the candidates to support, i would hope we do this i would hope we rally around a candidate and those leaders that stand for what is right, not just what is popular, the candidates and those leaders

that are willing to take a stand for freedom to say america's greatest days are ahead of us, and our answer and beauty and the genius of this country was not in a building in washington, but in the hearts and souls of the individual american people who truly make this the greatest country in the history of the entire world. thank you for letting me come [applause]ou. >> thank you. we will see a lot more of him. thank you.

>> he is like a walking encyclopedia. nice to meet you. >> nice to meet you too. you have a great state. >> we had a great jazz club about a week ago.

>> thank you for coming. thank you. i love that color. >> what was he doing down there? >> volunteer work. >> we have some friends who are very involved. very involved.-- great pleasure. >> thank you for coming out. and thank you for your time. >> thank you for coming. >> absolutely. >> thank you. >> of course, of course. >> that was wonderful. absolutely wonderful.

independentent the insurance agents here in new hampshire. i am jeff's counterpart here in new hampshire. >> we have a great relationship with him. you do a great job. you do a nice job protecting our industry. i know our governor in the -- they finally broke that trend. it was a former legislator. he was not a republican but -- -- after katrina, we had a real challenge.

we have been there probably 10 times. >> thank you for your kind remarks. i spent time there a little bit last year. i tell you what, she have gotten tremendous energy, great people skills. she is so friendly now. a lot of people do not do that. thank you for your time. >> i tell you what, she is on national shows, she is involved in foreign-policy. your comment about principles and the party -- thank you for being with it. give her my best. >> will do. >> you ever much, governor. >> i thought you last time you were here.

to see you. i hope you come back out. [inaudible] >> thank you for your service. i know that there are a lot of folks -- so thank you for your service. i actually have a nice picture with -- at the budget meeting. i have a great picture i can hang up on my wall.

-- he looks really good. he is doing well. , ii see susan king charles they areplane -- friends. kind of like a -- >> oh. [inaudible]

>> i would visit your wife. >> one more photo. .ight here thank you very much. >> governor, i thank you for coming. thank you. a campaign. >> he is a great guy. >> it was excellent. the is a lot of money in

your game. what is your secret? >> a lot of things. one thing that happened was four years [inaudible] people are willing to make those changes. it is wanting to compare yourself far away, but when you look around you you, you can say new orleans was as big as miami. we have got to keep our children at home. our grandchildren are moving out of state. so there is a huge desire -- for a long time [auble]

i don't want to get on a plane to go to houston, dallas, austin, atlanta. [inaudible] for the first time ever, we have a republican majority. >> that's what i found here.

i worked for -- and our opening was like, it works, right? >> one thing that helps in a state like new hampshire or a state like louisiana, we're not not going to see them on tv. not buy the character pull. they go, wait a minute, i met this guy, he would not do that. >> what do you think about mitt romney? [inaudible] >> thank you for your time. i will give you my card. >> thank you.

i do local marketing, website stuff. -- that isl or where people are putting their money now. [inaudible] >> my boys are 11, 9, 6. , you had theion three big networks. >> my daughter is three. wantsnot enough that she to launch disney. she wants to watch this episode off this tv. [applause] -- [laughter] >> that is all they know.

was talking to my mom, her grandmother, when i was growing , and she did not believe me, so she asked my mom and said grandma, he did not watch tv. and her eyes got so big because in her lifetime there are all these cellular phones, and it is hard for her to -- anyway. thank you so much for your time. >> all right. >> how are you? >> she was on our staff in iowa. ofi hear you have a lot romney alum working there. >> yeah, we do. lasttalked to gabriel

night. >> yeah, yeah, yeah. [inaudible] >> we are in the middle of session right now. less than iowa. thank you, she did it. to be completely off -- honest with you. >> not that i am an expert, but your hard work, planning, everything on the ground -- >> we came up here. of effort,ot a lack organization, you all work hard. >> we're on the right track. [inaudible] i won on a cruise, i went out of the country.

they are so much fun to work with. >> he is such a genuine guy. >> yes, he is. it is good to see you, as always. there is a, i am not joking. i like to take credit for heard work. -- for her work. >> summit he had a bunch of pictures. such great memories. it was just great. it brought back a lot. good luck. >> on the next "washington sharyl," cheryl --

attkisson talks about the attack on benghazi. it will look at state and federal laws from carolyn atwell-davis at the center of missing and exploited children. and then later, philip mudd will talk about homegrown terrorism. ," live atn journal 7:00 a.m. eastern live on c- span. afghanistantion in in 1978 and 1979 was just how different it was from what we face today. many things are radically different. , leftist no radical or secular parties in afghanistan today. that has all been pretty much wiped out. but in the 1970's, those were the powerful forces in afghanistan. the president for much of the .970's was a secularist he was replaced in 1978 by the

afghan communists, who try to remodel society according to their own utopian design. they very quickly ran aground without. the whole country rose up against them. legislators had to come in. what is amazing is the way that that invasion and the almost unending civil war that had by thed, and pounded u.s. intervention in 2001 and after, has completely wiped out that old afghanistan that we saw in the 19's in 1970's. >> revolutionary islam -- a pope visits poland. caryl on the 19th of a nine sunday at 9:00 on afterwards. >> next, a hearing on the justice department and fbi's resources in combating cyber security threats. fbi cyber assistant rector

joseph damaris testified along with lawyers and industry experts. from the senate judiciary committee, this is one hour and 45 minutes. >> good morning. we will call this hearing to order. i believe that senator graham will be joining us, but in the interest of getting underway on time, we have been cleared to proceed. note today'sto hearing will consider cyber law enforcement, .rivate sector responses an extremely

important and timely topic. i would like to add without objection to the record of this proceeding to pages from the department of defense annual report to congress that just came out saying, among other things, china is using its computer network exportation capability to support intelligence collection against the u.s. diplomatic economic and defense industrial base sectors that support u.s. national defense programs. there is a lot more to this issue, but it is an indication of the importance of our concern here. technology continues to expand into every area of modern life. our power stations, our dams,

and our defense industrial base are all online. even everyday items like our cards, our home alarm systems, even our refrigerators are increasingly connected to the internet. unfortunately, these innovations have been accompanied by new threats to our prosperity, to our privacy, to our intellectual property, to our very national security. this subcommittee has heard previously about hackers who have taken over the webcams of unsuspecting americans' computers we've heard about companies like anonymous launching attacks against financial institutions. se have heard about criminal that use bot nets to send spam, to send e-mails to capture credit card ever nation or to engage in click fraud, scare

where the mower ran somewhere schemes. heard about the advanced threats that allow foreign entities to steal enormous quantities of american intellectual property and to worm their way-- into our american and the structure. this hearing will consider the law enforcement response to these threats. our first panel will include witnesses from the department of justice and the federal euro of investigation. we will consider their strategies to combat the cyber threats and the resources that they have brought to bear to execute those strategies. discussnd panel will the private sector's role in his wanting these threats. it will consider a recent investigatory report based solely on information that indicates numbers of the chinese military have sponsored or in -- or engage in a sophisticated and extensive cyber espionage,

including industrial espionage. it will valuate the role of these private sector in investigating, preventing, and responding to such crimes and intrusions. discussionrt this by noting that the justice department and the fbi both already have done some important work to address the cyber threat facing our nation. in march, 2012, for example, charges were sealed against the hacktivistnst the group anonymous. earlier this year, the justice department security conviction of a 25-year-old russian who had botated and controlled the nets. in april 2011, the ft -- fbi and the justice department and days

-- engaged in a lawsuit to bring down the core flood bot net. the fbi also developed the fbi national cyber task force and the cyber specialist network. i'm glad that the department and the fbi have taken each of these ,mportant steps, but much more as the department concedes, needs to be done. i was disappointed to learn, for example, that the team that took down the core flood botnet was not kept together for the purpose of taking down other comparable botnets. the four-star general heading our military's cyber command had said that our country is on the losing end of the greatest transfer of wealth by illicit means in history. it is all well and good to complain about such theft in diplomatic channels, but at some point, you need to stop complaining and start indicting.

the justice department has not indicted, to my knowledge, a single person for purely cyber- based trade secret theft. i am sympathetic that the justice department and the fbi lacked adequate resources to respond to the severe cyber threat. as the witnesses will testify shortly, these are immensely complex and challenging cases to put together. andadministration agrees it's 2014 budget includes a request for 60 new cyber agent that the fbi, 16 new cyber attorneys in the national security division, and nine new cyber attorneys in the criminal division. as welcome as this request is too many of us, we must also

ensure, however, that the resources are deployed wisely. accordingly, i will be inquiring today with appropriate structures, whether task forces or centers of excellence are , whetherloyed attorneys and agents are properly dedicated to cyber work, not just carrying the badge of a cyber attorney and listening to the conference call on mute while they do their arer work, whether they tasked with the goals of achievable scope, and whether the attorneys and agents are promptly if and recognized for that work. i will close my opening remarks by adding that a law and aement frustration frustration that has affected this very hearing is the unwillingness of many corporations to cooperate for

fear of offending the chinese government and suffering economic retaliation. heavy handof china's darkens the corporate world and has even shadowed this hearing. an importantd to discussion on our nation's response to the cyber threat that we face. i thank all of the witnesses who were here to participate today, and i will call the first panel right now. i will introduce both now so that they can move from the testimony of one to the testimony of the next. we will begin with jenny durkin. she is the united states attorney for the western district of washington. she is on the attorney general's advisory committee of the united states attorney's, and she is agachair of the

subcommittee on cyber crime and intellectuall property enforcement. prior to her service in 2009, practice --rrive at she was in private practice. she is a graduate of the university of notre dame among received her law degree from the university of washington. with her today is joseph demarest. he is the assistant director of cyberber direction -- division of the bureau of investigation. that role manages over 600 employees dedicated to the investigation of both national security and criminal computer intrusions. he joined the fbi as a special agent in 1988 and has served in a number of roles and the bureau, including as a swat team leader in the new york division, as shift commander for pnttbom investigation, and

as assistant director of the international operations division. i welcome both of the witnesses here. before we ask you to begin your testimony, i will also welcome my ranking member who has demonstrated intense interest and commitment to this issue and invite him as he wishes to make any opening remarks you might care to. >> most of what i know know about the cyber security threat comes from senator whitehouse, which is a damning indictment to him. enjoyed working with our chairman here who i think understands the threat as well as anyone in congress when it comes to the private sector, has the most practical solution getting it to harden its infrastructure to voluntary standards, reduction as a reward. i'm looking forward to the hearing. mr. ken, why don't you

proceed with your testimony -- ms. durkin, what are you proceed with your testimony? if you could keep your oral statement to five minutes, that would be helpful, so we can engage and lead time for the next panel. >> to eye. good morning, mr. chairman ranking member graham. i thank you for the ability to testify. thank each of you for your leadership in this area. the articles you have written show your great grasp of the array of threats we face. as a united states attorney, i see the full range of threats that our community and our nation faces. a few things are as sobering as the daily cyber threats briefings i received. technology is changing. rapide witnessed the growth of important businesses, life-saving technologies, and new ways to connect our society. unfortunately, the good guys are

not the only invaders. -- innovators. we have seen significant growth in the number and sophistication exploiting the new technology. taking profits, international rings have stolen large quantities of personal data. criminal groups develop tools and techniques to disrupt our computer systems. organized criminals have demonstrated the desire and the capability to steal sensitive data, trade secrets, and intellectual property. one particular area of concern is the computer crimes that invade the premises of every individual american. everyday criminals hunt for our personal and financial data, which they used to commit other fraud or sell to criminals. as you will hear from the next panel, the potential victims range in the tens of millions. the national security landscape have also undergone a tremendous evolution in recent years. although we have not yet experienced a devastating

terrorist cyber attack, we have been the victim through a range of malicious cyber activities that are testing our defensi, targeting our valuable economic assets, and threatening our nation's security. -- cyber be no doubt threat actors pose a significant threat to our national spirit, our community, and our economic interests. addressing these complex rights requires a divide approach that incorporates criminal investigative tools, civil and national security authority, diplomatic efforts, public- private partnerships, and international corporation. terminal prosecutions in the united states this plays a central and critical role in these efforts. we need to ensure that throughout the country the department of justice and prosecutors have the forensic capabilities they need to meet

this evolving threats. we think this committee for its support. the department of justice has organized itself to ensure we're in a position to aggressively meet this threat. this works with a nationwide network of over 300 united states attorney's. they are doing the work in the field. they lead our efforts to prosecute cyber crime offensive. the national security division pursues a threat is there a variety of means including counter espionage and terrorism. recognizing the diversity of this threat, last year we did form the national security cyber specialist. this brings together the full range of expertise in this area, and experts on the

national security division. a national security specialists in each united states attorney's office in the country. this has led to great successes. i hope to address some of them later today. despite these successes, and the number of intrusions' continues. the mission is asking for enhancement of the budget to target this critical program. most is addressed to the fbi so we can do more ground research. we must address this increasing national security threat so we have the resources we need. you for the opportunity to testify here today. there's much work to be done.

we look forward to working with your committee. >> thank you. >> thank you. pleased to appear before you today to discuss the cyber threat, and how the fbi has responded, and how we are strengthening our partnership to more effectively combat the adversaries we face. this brings with the new challenges. this intrusion is occurring every day. such attacks pose an urgent threat to our nation's security and economy. we face these efforts in an effort to investigate cyber threats. needs inioritizing our

order to best position ourselves for the future. we have made great progress since this was first treated in 2002. we have seen the value of the partnerships and have worked tirelessly to improve them. it demands cooperation. vulnerabilities are magnified when nero consider the ecosystem. we follow this approach. we see the beginning increase the hiring of agents. they facilitate the investigation of cyber crimes affecting the u.s.. while we are pleased to report our progress, we must be pro- active in order to address the threats we face.

next initiative has enhanced the ability to analyze information related to cyber intrusion and other routes our and the laws enforcement partners both domestically and overseas. implementation is focused in four areas. the national cyber joint task force in virginia. ledy part is the fbi national cyber joint task force. they haveformulation, made significant progress in developing the operational coordination as well as expanding the interagency leadership sue include increase leadership to include increased personnel.

this stimulates the successful joint terrorism task force model in our division. of this past year the fbi has established a cyber task force in each of our field offices. cyber task force will continue to grow capabilities, leveraging systems and expanding its membership with a key focus to add additional state and local participants. the fbi is committed to increasing the cyber work force and enterprise infrastructure. the current results of this

effort are increased efficiencies and improved analysis. since the rollout, and the fbi has extend visibility into the source of activities and increase the reporting period the fbi is working to insure -- and increased the reporting. the fbi is working to ensure success in destruction operations. system usedted a successfully by our counter- terrorism division. we are employing a program to also report cyber incidents and -- in asiare curer but by -- in a se effort appeared we're optimistic that by identifying

strategic change in the fbi will neutralize criminal threats of the future. to address the cyber threats. tonk you for the invitation do this. >> thank you both very much. i appreciate the work you are doing. benow it is an honor to confirmed as the united states attorney. is even greater to serve on the advisory committee and your work to focus on cyber crime and terror. it is something we should all be very proud of. working this for a while. no one has more passion for it than you.

both of yourget organizations a bit of a shoved through this hearing to be a little more for word on this issue. ways you measure illegal outcomes is results. theimony talked about importance of prosecution as a deterrent and as a punishment. the level of actual legal activity does not seem to be all that great. down well over a year ago. i think we are through the stage where the participants have had their award. i'm glad they were recognized. was was a group that cobbled together from a variety of different offices. it was basically allowed to disappear to the original offices rather than continue the

process. microsoft has done at least four that i can think of civil cases to get in order to clear botnet s out of the system. it is not unusual for them to have done more than one. on the side of our intellectual property theft, we have primarily the chinese attacking exceeding vigorously not only our national defense infrastructure to tap into our guidance systems so they can imperil our military in the event we were to end up in a military conflict, but they are trying to steal stuff so they can give it to their companies to build it with either defending it are paying us for the intellectual property rights. that has been described as the biggest transfer of wealth in the history of humankind.

the department has done exactly zero cases involving a purer cyber intrusion. they have done some off cases were somebody left with a c.d in their pocket. are do not send a signal yet that we are where we need to be. when he tried to look at the structure is not clear that it is firmly in place. this has been a considerable issue for some time. last year that this began. that thetestimony is department is threatening sells. f is a wonderful effort. my impression is that they're working so hard out there just

to figure out who is coming through the windows in trying to keep track of them and warned businesses the someone is now in their system that there has not been the capability to sit down and take that information and put it into play in the u.s. attorney's office and put someone on the business end of an indictment. i am not aware of any grand juries that are aware of that. i want to applaud that both u.s. attorney's offices, and the fbi are rethinking the structure that needs to deploy this effectively. if this really is a national security threats that every figures says, if this is the biggest transfer of wealth to illicit means, we are pretty

under resource 20 put it up against we have a dea just to deal with narcotics. we have atf just for firearms and bombs. where are we in terms about what we're doing with this new threat? i want to applaud you for your own personal commitment. departmento push the in the bureau to resources this up. we will do everything we can to support your efforts to enhance the resources in the way the budget requests. at least i will. firm of this structure so it is clear the people who are on the list as doing cyber work are doing cyber work and not just i have been a u.s. attorney, i know the drill. someone has to get on the phone. the offices are listening with their call on me imute.

that is not the way to fight this battle. it is a valuable function. we should not be counting them as full time cyber folks. could you tell me a little bit more about the new structure that you are looking at for implementing the cyber and where on behind in way' behind the we have the resources necessary? way behind that we have the resources necessary? >> i served on this task force. the threat has evolved enormously. so has the department's response there is no one solution to this cyand no one pt

can fix it. one teamo have a approach so every aspect of government is working together. and we have to work with the private sector. we have a very strong outreach to see what they are doing, seeing the threats they are saying to see what we can address. of we can prosecute someone we will and have done it. the results have been pretty good. areas thebotnets, it .as one of the largest andas a very resources sense of the investigation. it required multiple districts in multiple countries. we were able to work with our international partners. we took down the entire botnet

at the same time in american and european countries. people were arrested. we are able to extradite one of those to my district and put them in jail. we have had successes. we will not be able to prosecute our way out of it. we have to have technology answers. i think every agency is committed to addressing this threat. it is a big threat. i think we have great successes to report. senator gramm of = rural tosrtep -- in to step in.

>> we have a pretty robust system of bank robbers. >> yes. >> do you have any idea how many a and were last year, the fbi showho was involved with? per days, hundreds weeks, in the case of thousands a year. there are two ways you can have [inaudible] for example from an our district. one of the things we saw in a spy where people will put devices. we read able to take millions of dollars to many customers. we put together a task force. it was a romanian ring.

we prosecuted those people. we had a great success. we drove down the incident to almost zero. we did not through the prosecution's but by working with the banking industry, -- prosecutions but by working with the banking industry. it was the entire ring responsible for this group of debt. it was more than one dozen. >> the point i'm trying to make is i know you're doing a good job of trying to of our game but the resources we have provided to deal with bank robbery compare that to the resources we provide in overtime to deal was cyber effect. two?ould you equate the >> the threat is changing. did the fbi has a reallocated resources we had in other programs internally to cyber.

we will talk about what we have done to actually developed the headquarters and also in our local field offices. >> do you have resources necessary to deal with this, appears to be rampant theft problem? >> we're making do with what we have a. >> let's not make do. it was a treat this like bonnie and clyde. the national bank robberies during the depression and? of that started the fbi. it was the reason for being in existence and dealing with crime in the 20's and 30's. it has changed so much to where crime used to happen on the street is moving on line, including violent crime. we have more violent crime on

line, the victims are being targeted. we are addressing that threat. we have a great brick and mortar threat we still have to address. it is a time were we have to realign our selves. we have done it. we need to do more. >> any changes to make it more effective a. thee need more changes to law to make it more effective. >> we are working with them to make sure we address it. >> in the 20's and '30's we change the role of the federal government's involvement in the crimes that were committed across state lines and created groups. having a seem to be new emerging crime wave. when it comes to resources and legal infrastructure, would you wheren in a-f rating,

would you put us in terms of legal infrastructure and resources to deal with this/ >> i think we're much better off than we were three years ago. we have aligned ourselves to address it. we have to keep working and make sure we are combined with private industry. >> give the congress and a-f grade. >> i give congress always an a grade. >> you're the only one in the country. [laughter] >> i wish you are our teacher. >> we are still facing the same threats we face 10 and 20 years ago but now we have this threat in addition to the old crimes. areow far behind the curve weighing? >> we are much involved.

even from the time the cyber division was committed from 2000 to to where we are today. where we are today. >> forever congress is failing we are trying to inform our -- forever congress is failing, we are trying to inform our colleagues. if you have hundreds of bank robberies and cyber technology, we are probably not where we should be. i will like to continue this. in thing i want to do is put an op ed piece that we wrote together into the record. new ombconfirmed a director. i have spoken to both of them about this problem. and about the concern i have and dou are good scouts

not go beyond the tombolo that omb and the white house -- go beyond the envelope that omb and the white house gives you. have we really restores it enough to? and trying to get them in the room together so they can have this discussion with that you been accused of talking out of i hope to do that. we came very close to having a bipartisan agreement on its cyber bill. it fell apart at the last minute for reasons beyond both of our controls. the executive order emerged. not it is out in the landscape has been changed by that executive order. we are really engaged on trying to do what needs to be done legislatively.

please work with us on this. we're trying to provide whatever cover you need so we can have a grown of discussion in which you do not have to be flinching from saying what your real needs are. that when clear to me you put the privacy and the all of ourss of individual credit card and personal information that is up and marketed on crooked website where crooks can buy personal and information so they can run crooked scheme, the sec that on top of the banks that senator graham was referring to and stack of that on top of the fact of so many confidential information that companies use to protect

themselves and built their and their own intellectual property. you throw on top of that what is being done to our defense base which has private theft and national security connotations. you throw on top of that the viruses and worms and programs that have been inserted into our critical infrastructure so that the grant can be taken down, a bank records can be compromised. dams could be opened. pipelines could be opened. he stopped all that up. stack all that up and that is a big problem said. i do not want to get you in trouble for saying more than your authorized to. you have the two of us the strongly believe we need to have our moments on this and get

ready to put the resources into this problem set. one measure of that will be when we see some said against -- significant indictment on this s&p not ps related to what the defense department said is being -- on this espionage what the defense department said is being done. i want to push you on this. as wonderful as the work is that you have done, we are not there yet we need to make sure we get there. we cannot for long remain on the losing end of the biggest transfer of wealth in human history through illicit means. he has arrived. rather than continue my speech

-- thank you for being here. your strongr interest in this issue appeared in makes it hard to get that bill to the finish line before thanks for your strong interest in this issue. it makes it hard to get that bill to the finish line before it fell apart. >> so many others have dedicated time and effort and leadership to trying to make sure we are doing our part. we will give ourselves a low grade for how we have done and being able to bridge the parties in coming up was some functional structure for dealing with the cyber threat to our nation. grateful for this. this has implications for

defense and many others. if i could, let me ask a few questions. if you would help me understand in the run-up to some of the legislative work, at a great deal was made about our military is unique capabilities to defend the united states and their advantages. what's unique advantages to will have incies the realm of cyber security? >> 1 unique abilities to put them in jail. we're trying to do that more. prosecute ino these arenas form a couple of important things. we deter further activity

picke. when we're able to indict some one and bring them to seattle and put them in jail, it sends a message. we try to disrupt. we do not have the capability to put all the bad actors in jail. part of the strategy has to be to disrupt this activity. we have to hold people accountable. i think some of the unique capabilities we have, we have the ability 3-d investigative tools -- t hrough the investigative tools we get information to others do not. we have to use a whole government approach. the nature of this threat cannot be overstated. it cannot be answered by any one part of government or government alone. /publicto be private partnerships.

>> the fbi is uniquely authorities. this is a program we have that counterintelligence and terrorism. we're able to counter this. just one area and counterintelligence. dod plays a key role. answers.you for those in what is ayou broadly distributed threats. its origins are not completely clear. it is not always a trivial to foreign actors. cyber crime and threats com

from a very wide range of sources in the manifest in a very wide range. this ability to complement with agencies that have broad jurisdiction. this is a different response than one gets from the defense department. i wanted to comment. broadhen it comes to do things that deal with both natural disaster, the national in crosses in the legal authorization and the tactical capabilities. introduced the cyber warfare act which we give governors the capabilities to

higher cable guardsmen to leverage the expertise they have. tap into thes to skills and abilities of these sparely -- of the fairly sophisticated data centers. i think this function and this particular legislative authorization would be helpful well.o doj and fbi as he can have -- it can have more local partners. we will be holding a law enforcement caucus event on this particular idea at in june. i am thankful for this chance to contribute to this. >> thank you.

meanso have eight cyber in the ryland guard. i look forward to working with you on your legislation. to reflect that any move from our local guard and reserve capabilities to our military and from there into our intelligence services there are increasing restrictions and concerns about taking action within the continental u.s., partially where it involves american company systems and individuals. that is a particular reason why our law enforcement role is so important when we look at this domestically. we are joined by senator paul klobachar.

i was listening and paying back when i did my job for a year. issuesre two levels of with computer crime. one was officers who did not have the training so we would have cases where they would go into a room and turn on the computer and erase everything on it because that is what it was rigged to do. we are second per-capita for fortune 500 companies. companies like target and best buy. i have firsthand seen how challenging the situation is and how we simply did not have the resources or the know how to handle some of those cases when they would come our way. my first question is on that. thank you for your good work. just tell you have coordinated with the offices. what is the best model of going

forward? >> the partnership with local law enforcement is critical to our successes working both with the electronic crime task force and the fbi's task force. we have great successes in that field. the key is training. we have work to make sure we have more forensic people that can handle this and education to the public. we had a very small family bytaurant that was hacked someone in maryland. he still many credit cards. he sold them to someone he was in romania. he posted them to a carting site. they were given to a gang related group appeared to be able to arrest a person in maryland, romania, and get a

person in los angeles. we got all three levels of that. we did a working with our look law-enforcement officers, at the secret service, and the fbi. part.a critical we look at our training for lawyers. we have work to make sure that butonly it has been trained others have the experience. we have a national advocacy center. what aree conference's cyber conference. we have to make sure our prosecutors are trained. of it, is part especially with small businesses that will not have the resources of a u.s. bank. more outrage would be good. -- outreach would be good.

what's in that small business and not come forward we would not have that case. it is enabling us to do our job. >> my next is on the cloud computing area and that our cases are becoming more sophisticated. digital evidence evaporate a lot quicker than a paper trail making it difficult to investigate the crime and other challenges if it is incriminating. i had a bill on this that is floating out there like a cloud as we try to deal with some of the bills i think are important. cannula comment on that cyber -- can you comment on cyber security agcrimes? >> there is a likelihood it will be outside the jurisdiction of the united states. it presents many challenges.

depending on which country the evidence may lie, our relationship with that country as well. it does present several challenges on that front. >> what would be the best way to get out of its? is there something we could put in a law that would create a structure for those agreements? we can better are four partners. four partners. >> one of ours is to have additional prosecutors overseas. we have seen more a ride on international soil. haveartners in europe increased. we also had the budapest convention having more partners to make sure we can get the evidence we need to prosecute people here.

thosed to do all of things. >> we increase our footprint overseas to just short of a dozen in key locations or of the globe. >> thank you. i appreciated. m had to takeaha the call. let me turn to him. >> we are facing a law enforcement threats, people stealing our intellectual property and money and anything else of value. on the nation state national security -- the fbi has to missions, at counter-terrorism as los traditional law enforcement. counter-issions, terrorism and traditional law

enforcement. are there capabilities that allow them to engage a nation state who has committed a cyber attack under the laws of war? >> there has been a lot of discussion and coordination. >> that means no. >> are there any rules of engagement? has anybody sat down and said " this event would be considered a nation state cyber attacks allowing us to respond outside the law enforcement model?" our chinese friends seem to be bent on stealing anything they can get their hands on here in than in their own time. i am worried about our other nation states. our organizations could do this. do you worry about a cyber 9/11?

is an extremely complex issue. different motivations. >> is a possible that you could create a 9/11 type event on america? that theyossible could cause significant damage and destruction. it is possible. >> what kinds of things would be possible? ics,u look at access to the systems that actually control critical networks that could control significant damage whether it be long lasting or short term. >> they disrupt military operations. >> i am not sure.

>> would you like to take a crack at it? >> i think if you look at the range of threats it is what keeps me up at night. part of these questions have to go to general alexander. anything with intelligence can be hacked. you can go from criminal investigations. people work to get that done. that is why the department of justice is part of the solution. developingerprise is better technology. going back to robbing banks, when banks first set of they did not have a bars or cameras. private companies have to develop also that solution. bad actors. after are you familiar with the

counter terrorism threat? >> yes. >> how would you rate our infrastructure on the counter terrorism side to protect us against people who do not want to steal money but want to do more damage? lossesd on the tragic and 9/11 on the part of the response in new york and in headquarters, it is a much more developed model that the community has in addressing issues. >> we're further down the road. >> we are. get there.will >> if i could just use one example. anothernds like government alphabet soup. one thing we realize is it there is a cyber events are we get intelligence, a few do we call the? do we call the -- who do we

call? do we call the cyber lawyers? we want to make sure we have the appropriate people and the best expertise we can have to give to the field. before i release you can call up the next panel let me ask you two things. , could you in a supplemental fashion to the testimony provided make a little more of a detailed case as to conclusion you described in both of your testimonies about how complicated this is?

try to put some real facts into the discussion appeared it would help us are being with our colleagues if we have more than the includes terry statement study-- in the inclusion airin that makes the case a little further. that would be very helpful to us as we try to proceed. we had this discussion about resources and structure and budget. i look forward to continuing that discussion with the new omb director and your department and bureau. wearate from that, i think can make some progress on your andbilities and authorities safeguards in taking out these botnets. i will ask you for your commitment to work with us in

drafting the appropriate legislation that will allow you to have proper safeguards as you go after future complex? nflicts. >> absolutely. >> i am pleased that people like you are in our government service. if you detect a note of impatience for myself and from senator graham. it comes from the recognition that you're part of large bureaucracies that did not always move with great alacrity and it is our job to give them a bit of asia appeared it does not reflect on you or the folks working on the problem. we will take a minute to call of the new panel. -- up the new panel.

>> let me think our private sector representatives for being here. mandia founded in 2004 to help them contain computer intrusions. to are you going to call? -- who are you going to call? ghostbusters. that is kind of who he is. as a security officer, he has degrees from lafayette college and test taught at george

washington and carnegie-mellon university's. let me stop there. our earlier legislative process, we organized a series of classified briefings for senators to try to bring them more into awareness of what was going on in this field. you were gracious enough to come and make one of those presentations. it was very effective. i want to thank you with that. i will introduce the other witnesses as they are called up. >> thank you. the american companies will be under siege by more attacks. abouti'm going to talk the sophisticated economic s&p not. while many are trying to counter these threats, there is a

security gap that we need to close. the reason this exists is that there are government resources hacking our sector. if our government was chartered to have this and other companies we would be very successful. i likened it to an ultimate fighting champion mugging my grandmother. we pointed that out. we released a report to the public that shows that there are members of the pla targeting the private sector. the second reason is for the first time in history that i am aware of, there used to be

systems targeted nobody knew who use the system. today these are human targets. we show this in our report. they are relating english speaking people. they are the innocuous e-mails with fake information and report to be from someone who they are not from. we have human targets. we have not figured out how to patch the human trust. government entities we see helping the supply chain. it has a rather secure program. if that is bolstered what detectors do is go down the supply chain. this is a tough one to defend.

we have a security gap because there is an imbalance. it only takes one attacker to create work for thousands if not hundreds of thousands of defenders. an imbalance. there is no risk of repercussions to hack into the u.s. infrastructure if you do it from certain safe havens, like china, russia. these are countries that could not our resources and hear any repercussions. in short, technology and our adoption of it outpaces our ability and willingness to secure it. what are companies doing? that are companies aware there compromised and they are adopting technologies to defend. you mentioned we are unwilling

to oppose china. i would say most of the private sector take it very seriously when they have had a breach from china to do everything on the technical front to bolster their safeguards. based on the fear of shareholder value will be repercussions. be soonomic gains could great. it is a very tough issue. make no mistake. folks are doing a lot in the private sector. lot of companies that are where they have a security breach. they did not have the defensive to safeguard it. thathas been my experience if your sole driver is some kind of compliance is usually does

not affect the attacks you see. what can the law enforcement dudack american companies have been -- do? american companies have been compromised. can, that could be the dod. it could be the intel community. i have seen come from the fbi. the fbi can eliminate the impact and consequences of breaches. while private industry will not always win the battles in cyberspace, if we sure that any codified manner, what we will see is we can limit the consequences and we need to be able to share that information. whereablishing a system they share proactively and use this information, america will build a separate defense that is

dynamic. no one is guessing any smarter. with that i would like to thank you very much for this -- is getting any smarter. with that i like to thank you very much. >> next distort baker. -- stewart baker. an intelligence lawyer he has been general counsel to the national security agency and the commission that investigated weapons of mass odestruction. welcome. >> i will turn to what the role of the justice department could and should be. i will not spend too much time

as kevin demonstrated. we are not likely to defend our way out of this problem. defense plays an important role. it is not enough. it is as if we're trying to solve a street crime program by telling pedestrians to buy better body armor. that is not a complete solution. we have to find and deter criminals. i do not have to preach to either of you about the importance of that. how caning about that, we best reached the threat that are most troubling to americans today, the protected attackers? it seems to me that both the justice department and fbi supper from a lack of imagination -- suffer of imagination and authorities and resources. with resct to their

authorities, the idea of prosecuting, most the people who are attacking us is people unlikely. additionalfind mechanisms for deterring that activity. visaould be using our authorities to say if you train country or higher hackers, you're going to have to cooperate investigations are were you read it or you will not get them to come to the united states. -- or you will not get them to come to the united states. we will not do business with people who are bad for the united states in russia court involved a conflict diamond transactions. inor who are involved

conflict diamond transactions. we should be using these tools as well. mccain andsenator rockefeller have just introduced a bill that goes down this road looking for tools to deter government sponsored attacks. it just the name of the co- sponsors this me a lot of hope. i e think the approach looking is really worth pursuing. let me turn now to the question of resources. not solvable and our current budget situation. house talkede about the jtf that notifies people about a tax on their

networks. this is enormously effective. on their networks. this is enormously effective. many do not know they have been attacked. i worked with clients. role is to figure out if someone has been compromised and tell them. maybe they can give them advice. after that it is like having somebody tell you your bicycle has been stolen. you will not get a lot of help from the police because they do not have enough cops to do it and the fbi will not be able to help all of the companies. days they have cut a few into that investigation, the company is largely on its own. they began this process of spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to get the attackers

out of their network and figure out to is attacking them. we know from the kinds of work , ey mandia has done gather enormous amount of information, we should be working much more effectively to you defies -- utilize that information to build it into mechanisms that will deter the attackers by ousting them. the biggest problem that we face is even though those resources are enormous in of the private sector and will focus on particular attacks, we do not let the individuals under attack or the people that they have hired go beyond looking around in their network or a few networks that will cooperate with them voluntarily inside the united states. i am not calling for a venture s, butism -- vigilante's \

we need to give them the authority to go beyond of their network under the guidance from the justice department so they're not doing harm to the networks but that they can go back to the networks where the hackers are still their data. my deepest disappointment here and the reason i think that pouring more money into the justice department is a dubious proposition is the justice beentment's reaction has to pour as much cold water on it that they can. it is probably illegal. today are deterring companies agreed today are deterring

companies who are attacking them and provide the interim it -- they are deterring companies or attacking them and provide the information back. my suggestion is provide the kind of oversight that is necessary so we're not let people wander around shooting in the dark. people who know what they are doing can carry out these investigations in pursuit attackers back to what they currently think is their safe haven in another country. if we do not do that we will never get to the bottom of most of these attacks. fromnally ms. mcguire symentac. >> thank you. microphone may need to be turned down. >> thank you. it is my pleasure to testify here today.

i am the vice president for affairs. >> you served in various capacities at the department of common security including acting director and deputy director of the national security cyber division. she comes in not only with her experience of symentac but incredible government assistance. >> thank you. is the global leader in security software. we have 31 years of experience. in more thanyees 50 countries and more than 21,000 employees with us. our globalention intelligence network are

comprised of more than 69 million censors and more than 200 countries. we record thousands of internet events per second which gives as incredible insight. in addition, every day we process more than 3 billion e- mail messages and more than 1.40 web requests at our data centers. capture of us to worldwide that said that gives our analysts fabian of the entire internet landscape. findings include that in 2012 we saw 42% rise in targeted attacks and 93 million exposed.s there were 3.4 million zombi computers worldwide.

were located in the united states. we saw eight 52% rise in the threat to mobile devices. another disturbing trend was the expansion of watering hole attacks. they are effort to compromise legitimate website so that every visitor runs the risk of infection. criminals use the site to distribute ransomware, a type a malicious software that blocks the user's computer, displays a fait fbia morning - -a fake and offers to the market for a fee. this is part of our global commitment as well as in numerous public/private partnerships in the u.s. and

abroad. i provided more information in my written testimony. i do want to highlight a few. two years ago we established the norton cyber security institute to address the critical shortage of prosecutors and judges trained to handle complex cyber crime cases. we coordinate and sponsored technical training for law enforcement globally. largest global crime studies that interviews more than 15,000 users globally across 30 countries. another example is the training

alliance which includes more than 80 and she partners and provide members with real time cyber threat intelligence. -- 80 intelligence partners and provide members with real time cyber threat intelligence. earlier there was the takedown of a botnet that targeted millions of computers. of awas the takedown multi-year investigation. many would say it takes far too long to complete these investigations. it demonstrates what can be done with private industry and law enforcement when they join forces to go after cyber crime networks. i have detailed similar that have been mentioned earlier in testimony today. this highlight just how much still needs to be done.

there are more and larger criminal rings that are operating today. this is not because the government does not want to pursue them and because the criminals are not out there. the prosecutors we have found are quite willing. many in the private sector are eager to help. ae cyber crime cases require technical understanding of how as deepperate as well knowledge of multi/jurisdictional situation.

we will continue to work collaborative way with government and industry with ways to do so. thank you for the opportunity to testify. >> thank you. thank you for your testimony. i'm going to turn to a signature graham as his schedule is beginning to agree senator -- istor graham as a schedule beginning to tug at tim pearce thank you for protecting our .ation in a variety of areas >> thank you. i have learned a lot from the witnesses today. this at a 30,000 foot level, do you both agree that china as a nation state is actively involved in a hacking

,nto u.s. databases, banks stealing intellectual property? >> yes. i would agree. 62 pages of give me why you say yes? i am going to take it to the chinese ambassador and asked him to give me a response. >> i will give you 100 pages. >> which will be consolidated into two. " russia? >> russia is harder to identify as a country. >> would you say china is number one? >> china is the number-one reason my company doubles and employs every year.

>> time is the most aggressive --na most aggressive. >> to is the second? >> there is a battle. top five? give me the >> middle eastern organizations emerging. russia second, the new rules of engagement between russia and america is like we worked it out. if we see them they tend to go away. the chinese keep milling through its. i think there is enormous gap first and russia second. there is competition there. >> give me the top five. we're going to try to do something about this. programs are tools

available to us to p ut the bad actors on notice. maybe the immigration bill would be a good opportunity to do that. hen it comes to cyber 9/11s, could you in 30 seconds describe what you think it could look like? >> if you can break into a network to give probably break it. there are no net works in the united states that have not been broken into. all of them can be attacked. in many cases you can move to the equipment that runs on that and break that. that with a big generator. we burned it up. is that ansk attacker who is determined can break into our industrial control systems and wrecked power systems, pipelines,

refineries, water and sewage. new york city was out all of those things -- without all of those things is going to be very place.ant >> it is complex to determine what will happen when someone tries to bring down an electric grid. during the super bowl, everyone was wondering if it was cyber. it would be unpredictable. we might see shot across the dow before it happens. i do not think the first attack will be noticed. if it does it will come from a third grade classroom in mississippi somewhere. it will come from an ip address here in the united states. then it will branch out. hopefully we have the controls and place to know who did it. the deterrents for that kind of

act is outside the domain. >> the mentioned about law enforcement resources. how would you rate our legal inches structure in terms of providing the tools necessary to actively going out in creating deterrents with out all of us having to wear more body armor? are we?nced get a great from a-f -- give a infrastructure and resources. >> from our legal infrastructure, we have a pretty strong legal infrastructure. been equipped to address cyber crime is something we need to play catch up with. there is quite a gap. we do not have the number of investigators and prosecutors.

>> and give us a wish list of what you think we need. more clearly need investigators and judges who are equipped and trained with the necessary skills to address these kinds of actions. that is a pretty big gap we have today. the folks who are out there, most with say they're overworked and they cannot keep up with the presentedre been with. a big gap in the focus? is there a gap between the threat we face as a nation and the amount of resources we are supplying? if i could know quantify how large that gap is. i think there is a gap. there is a significant gap.

you mentioned earlier about the andwe approach burglaries robbers. we do not fit the same kind of emphasis on cyber activity. we have a really long way to go to catch up. >> first of all, when you mentioned that a big attack might very well come through a classroom in mississippi or through somebody's individual computer yourks didn't mean that it would be originated there. you were referring to an attack starting overseas that would have come through a slaved computer there so that it would look as if that was the source but clearly that's the level of sophistication that our enemies are operating at is that they

could slave a mississippi classroom computer and use that to vector attacks into our critical infrastructure. correct? >> that's absolutely the case. almost every single attack that we currently respond to there's hot points in between but they're all in the united states. these aren't coming straight out of china. they're being routed through vulnerable sites and a real challenge that we have is the protocols, nothing looks bad about the traffic going from a nation state to a third grade classroom it's going to look like normal access it looks bad when it goes from a classroom to the real target. so it's going to be very complicated to prevent that. >> you mentioned china and russia. if you're looking at what we would call for want of a better word, i don't think it's the best word but the word that's developed, advanced persistent threats, versus, say, botnets and big criminal siphonning

efforts, the chinese effort is much more in the direction of advanced persistent threats than of attacking our intellectual property and trying to insert potential sabotage cyber sabotage into our systems. and not so much engaged in bot nets and that kind of activity where it's from the russian side there's both official and criminal networks at tivity and that's much more involved in stealing and spamming and bot nets so they're a little bit two different problem sets depending on the source. >> and at the highest level i would think it's a consumer problem not an enterprise problem but it does cross into companies having to deal with it and the criminal element using it and with the targeted

attacks the criminal element uses them. but when you think economic espionage most are very sophisticated attacks. >> if i heard you correctly, you said that two thirds of the time when you respond to a company that has said we've been hacked, they had no idea that they had been hacked until some government agency warned them, tauven f.b.i., usually the f.b.i. sometimes department of homeland security. there was a time not too long ago -- and i'm just using my recollection now -- when my recollection is that both your company and the ncijtf, the f.b.i. operation, indicated that when they went out, 90% of the time they were the bearers

of bad news to companies that had no idea, a little bit like the u.s. chamber of commerce which while businessly impacting our efforts to get legislation in this place also had basically the chinese throughout all their systems for months and months and had no clue about that until the government came and told them by the way i think you've been hacked. has it shifted from 90% two thirds by is my memory failing me? or something that there's a little bit more awareness in the private sector now? >> i wouldn't equate it to awareness. quite frankly it is based on the incidents we've been responding to. over time, it's no longer the first time you're learning you've been compromise bid these folks so when you go through your second or third drill of being compromised from chinese hackers in general your

security posture gets to a point where you now detect it yourself. so i think that's a skew because last year we would have told you over 90% and i've been tracking since 1998, it's been 09% third party notification since 19 97 for the customers i service and this is the first dip and it's because we're responding to organizations that have detected it themselves because they've already lived through that first wakeup call from law enforcement. >> would you describe some of the companies who you provide services to as operating critical infrastructure in america? >> yes. i mean, critical infrastructure demarkation line is harder to find in some industries but the answer is yes. >> do you see any difference among companies that operate critical infrastructure? are they demsably and noticeably better at this?

are they far away from the 90% or more or less like any other company? >> it has been my experience that if there is a regulation or a standard imposed by your industry that your security is in fact better in general than organizations that maybe fall through the cracks of the all the standards and regulations out there. so if you're in a regulated industry in general your security is better. >> let's talk a little bit about what we can do to increase security for critical infrastructure. let me ask ms. mcguire and mr. baker. you both have background of department of homeland security, it's been the task to try to develop better defenses in the critical infrastructure sectors. we have also heard i think from both of you that the word dynamic keeps popping up. this is a very dynamic threat. strategy or xyz

xyz technology the mandated defense, then within a week or month or year, that would be obsolete and now we would be holding companies back from doing what they needed to do because we would be requiring them to stay with an obsolete technology. that's if we set the regulatory requirements up in a very stupid and static way. so what's your recommendation as to how we might go about accomplishing what you have suggested, which is that standards help and we need to have them and we particularly need them for critical infrastructure at the same time the dynamic capability that is necessary to meet this evolving threat? >> i think the key point here

is that this is not a simple technology solution issue. you can't just fix this with technology. it has to be a multipronged approach. many of us would use the term defense that goes across all areas of business. >> but you can tell when a company has it and when they don't. so the fact that it is not just a technological solution doesn't mean that there isn't a best practice solution out there. correct? >> absolutely. first you've got to have the technology that's properly deployed and up to date in order to be a line of defense. and in most cases we will catch most of those attack vectors and threats. but to the point, we are not going to catch everything. in the face of a sophisticated attacker that is well resourced, that has sponsorship

not be able necessarily to address those kinds of apts and other kinds of threats. so what has to happen valleyly a mesh or a standard risk management approach. you've got to address this through common risk management principles. and that includes the technology, it includes training of personnel, it includes awareness of critical infrastructure owners and of rators that this threat is real. i think they're starting to get that now that we're having more high profile conversations around this with events in the past as well as the recent saudi ram coissue, with the bricking of more than 30,000 control system devices there, major pipeline. they're starting to have this awareness and i think the surge around the importance of it. there's a couple of other areas

that we need to address that's information sharing and information sharing is a too long. it's not the be all end all but it certainly can help with the warning and the preparedness of those critical infrastructure owners and operators. and the common standards question always comes up. and i think au mentioned they need to be dynamic and flexible enough but to allow for the most pod rn and up-to-date technologies to be implemented. but having the common standards that, for example, are being worked on through the administration's executive order right now that hopefully will raise the bar across all industries. i think that will go a long way. still remains to be seen but that's a positive step forward. >> mr. baker, same question. >> so not only can't we solve this with technology. regulation's not the greatest tool here because as we've seen, the things you should be

doing keep changing faster than the regulators can identify the thing that is need to be done and start imposing sanctions. so if people are actually willing to pursue securities themselves, appear reg la tri solution won't solve the problem. the good news i think is there's a way to think about this >> unless perhaps the solution measures the pursuit rather than the solution. >> and that's sort of what i was getting at. when they paint the golden gate bridge they never stop. they get to the other end and they go back to where they started and start painting over again and that's a security approach that probably is our best you start is who is attacking me, who is likely to attack me? what tactics are they using now and likely to use? how do i stop those tactics? you implement that. and then you say now that i've implemented that, who is attacking me and what tools are they using now? and find a solution to that and just lather, rinse, repeat.

that process is probably the only thing you could say for sure we're going to have to require people to do. and measuring that is not easy. there's an array of responses among operators of critical infrastructure to this problem. some of them are very forward in the fox hole throwing everything they can at the time problem. and the danger that regulation creates is that you actually interfere with and hold back their efforts and there's a price to be paid if that is the effect. at the same time, there are free riders and people who just figure, well, why should i spend the money this quarter when what are the chances that it is really happening now? and by the way it's probably such a big catastrophe the government is going to come in and save my rear end anyway and so there are lag rds and free

riders and cheats on the system basically. and without a standard they will continue to be laggers and free riders and cheats. and so there's a significant cost to not having any standard as well. there needs to be a standard but it needs to be dynamic and it needs to measure pursuit rather than any static point. >> the one area where i think there has been a sort of distortion due to regulation and where we should be trying to find a way to use the existing regulatory schemes are some of the data breach notification laws say you don't have to notify if you had encryption. so people are spending a lot of their security budget putting encryption on hard drives of laptops so if they get lost they don't have to disclose that they had a breach. that's probably not their biggest threat but it is the one that hurts the most. so finding a way to get the state attorney general to focus more on security as a whole

rather than just this one thing s probably useful. >> any thoughts on the pursuit versus static? >> you deal with a lot of these companies as well. >> when you look at legislation i think it's a very complicated matter. i think it's very complicated. i think that aligns by industry and i think the private sector is doing a lot of that themselves. i think what i've heard here makes a lot of sense if you can push for an eye jile defense mechanism here in the united states that our companies can take threat intelligence being shared with it and have the technology and the means processes to do something wit. i think that's a great next step to cover that security gap. i think there's already a hodgepodge of standards legislation regulations that are covering the 80% of the problem out there the white noise but when we want to deal with that the nation states, 10 to 20% of the problem, i think

what needs to be pushed now is the means for the government to be able to share intelligence with the private sector, the private sector to get it to the enormous ctor without lights and do that in a way we can do it actionable quicker. brur all three agree that among the operators of critical infrastructure in this country you can find companies that are not doing what they should be doing in this area and that are either just not paying the attention that it deserved or maybe economic decision not to invest or just basically playing the role of the lagrd and free rider and letting other people drive it forward? i see that is a that a yes yes and yes across the board >> i have a slightly differing point. most of the organizations that we responded had breaches that were probably unreasonable to prevent. so there's -- we respond to

over 30 of the 40 one hundred. i don't think they had bad security. i think they were getting a check in the go box for compliance yet they were still breached. when it comes to the critical infrastructure as i sit here today thinking about it the majority of the organizations had security programs that were mature and above compliance yet they were still breached. but i'm giving you an unfair frame of reference because we're responding to the highest breaches. >> there are really two problems. one is that even the high performers remain vulnerable to breach by highly qualified and persistent attackers and at the same time there's a considerable set of critical operators who make it easy by simply not being up to basic standards. >> sir i just described in ten seconds b in security or f in security, the attackers are the exact same chance of getting in. the only thing that separates

the a's in security from the b ss the a's will detext it themselves and b's won't. and we're responding to some a's and b's right now. >> back to the point that i've heard many people articulate in this area, and that is that if you are looking at a company, it is in one of two categories, in either has been hacked and knows it or it has been hacked and doesn't know it. but that they've all been hacked. and i think it's important, senators both mentioned the interest in small business. as the attack broadance, small businesses, particularly those that have a specialized process or product or skill, that is susceptible of being stolen and then replicated without having to pay license fees and without having to invent it on your own are becoming more ande the

target, particularly if they're in the supply chain to the defense industrial base. so we get to a point where if you're a small shop in rhode island that is the best place in the world that manufacturing a very specific kind of mettles technology, that's what we want you to be doing. we don't want you to have to stop everything and try to bring in best of class cyber security in the same way that a larger company contractor would and yet they're just as much as risk. i think we all agree. >> well, let me thank all of you. i know you work hard in this area every day and you think in very dynamic ways about this problem. and i look forward to working with all of you as we go forward. i will accept senator graham's invitation or suggestion that we try to come up with something on visas perhaps in

the framework of the immigration bill that is now pending. but as i said to the first panel, we are also reengaging and trying to basically do cyber legislation 2.0 now that the executive order is in place and we look forward to talking with all of you about the substance of that legislation and also to having you help us in communicating with our colleagues both the nature and importance of this problem. so this has been very helpful. i'm very grateful to all of you. the hearing will stay open for a week. if anybody wishes to add anything to the record of hearing if i have not done it already then by consent i will add the piece that lindsey graham and i wrote into the record of the hearing. and with that we will stand adjourned.

>> house armed services committee member is our guest this week on "newsmakers." the congressman talks about defense issues including the response on the attack on benghazi libya. syria, guantanamo bay, and the defense department's report on sexual assault. watch "newsmakers" on sunday at 0:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> she's the first lady to earn a college degree. and during the civil war soldiers serving under her hubs band called her the mother of the movement. she hosts the first annual easter egg roll.

as we continue our series on first ladies with your questions and comments monday night live at 9:00 eastern on c-span and c-span 3. also on c-span radio and c-span.org. >> a new pentagon study shows that sexual assaults in the military rose from 2010 and 2012 and that 26,000 service members experienced unwanted sexual contact last year. next, defense secretary hagel holds a news conference to discussion the response initiative. this comes as the officer who led the unit was charged monday with sexual battery. his is just over 40 minutes.

efforts and as you know he has been removed from his position pending the outcome of this >> good afternoon. i'm going to make a statement investigation. we're all outraged and and then ask gary to get into disgusted over these very the specifics of the briefing troubling allegations. of what i'm going to announce. sexual assault is a despicable last night, i spoke with crime and one of the most serious challenges facing this secretary of the air force department. it is a threat to the safety donnelly about the allegations and welfare of our people and of misconduct involving the the health, reputation, and officer responsible for the air trust of this institution. force sexual assault prevention that reality is underscored by the annual report on sexual assault on the military being released today. this department may be nearing a stage where the frequency of this crime and perception that there is tolerance of it could very well undermine our ability to effectively carry out the mission and to recruit and retain the good people we need. that is unacceptable to me and the leaders of this institution. and it should be unacceptable to everyone associated with the

united states military. we need cultural change where every service member is treated with dignity and respect. where all allegations of inappropriate behavior are treated with seriousness. where victims' privacy is protected. where buy standers are motivated to intervene. and where aucheders know that they will be held accountable by strong and effective systems of justice. all of our leaders at every level in this intuition will be held accountable for preventing and responsing to sexual assault in their ranks and under their commands. the department is putting in place important new programs to achieve this level of accountability. last month i announced a set of measures to inform the military justice system. this includes proposed changes to ar 60 of the uniformed code of military justice, that change would eliminate the

ability of a convening authority to change findings in courts martial except for certain minor offenses. these changes would also require the convening authority to explain in writing any changes made to court-martial sentences as well as any changes to findings involving minor offenses. today i am announcing a new series of actions to further d.o.d. sexual assault and prevention efforts. i'm directing the military services to align their programs with a revised sexual assault prevention and response triegic plan. by clearly defining priorities, objectives, tasks, responsibilities, this plan and its effective implementation will help ensure that the d.o.d.'s ongoing initiatives to reduce and ultimately eliminate sexual assault are being closely tracked and achieving their purpose.

in addition i'm implementing measures for accountability, command climate and victim advocacy. these new actions are sfols. i'm directing service chiefs to hold all military commanders accountable for establishing command climingts for dignity and respect in incorporating victim care principles in their commands. i'm directing the service secretaries to implement methods to improve victim treatment by their peers, coworkers and chains of command, direct victim input will also be incorporated into these messdzds. i'm directing that all commanders be provided the results of their subordinate command surveys in order to enhance and improve insight into command climate at every level. at every level of the chain of command. i'm directing the department to

improve the effectiveness of sexual assault prevention and response programs in recruiting organizations to ensure the awareness and safety of new and aspiring service meshes. i'm directing d.o.d. component heads to direct comprehensive and regular visual inspections of all d.o.d. work places to include military academies to ensure that our facilities promote an environment of dignity and respect for all members and are free from aterials that create offensive work environment. this will be complete by july 1. i'm also directing the d.o.d. acting general counsel to develop a method to incorporate the rights afforded to and through the crime victims rights act into military justice practice. the general counsel will also evaluate the air spors special victim council pilot program and other approaches to ensure

that victims of sexual assault are provided the advice and counsel they need. it is important for them to better understand their rights and to feel confident in the military justice system. that is a particularly important point. they have to feel confident that this f they come forward that in fact they can rely on our system of justice. and in fact action will be taken and responsibility at all levels of command will be implemented and commanders will be held responsible. last week i named a set of highly respected and experienced experts to serve for a panel called for in the act for fiscal year 2013. the panel will conduct an independent review and assessment of d.o.d.'s systems used to investigate, prosecute and adjudicate crimes involving asult sexual assault and related offenses.

it will convene its first meeting no later than july 1st and i will ask the panel to accelerate its work and provide a final recommendation within 12 months. together everyone in this department at every level of command will continue to work together every day to establish an environment of dignity and respect where sexual assault is not tolerated condoned or ignored. where there is clear accountability placed on all leaders at every level. the leadership of this department has no higher priority than the safety and welfare of our men and women in uniform and that includes ensuring they are free from the threat of sexual harassment and sexual assault. i will continue as secretary of defense to prioritize the department's efforts to turn this problems around. thank you. >> one quick followup on your statement and then a question.

in your statement you mentioned the goal of eliminating the problem of sexual assault. >> eliminate. >> how possible do you think that is considering the societal problems? and then my question is on north korea. there's been some discussion about this provocation and i'm wondering what you think about this and do you think that the removal of the missiles constitutes some sort of calming down or pausing in aggression of north korea? how are you interpretting this? on your first question, as i said in my comments we're going to stay focused on every aspect of this problem. and ultimately eliminating sexual it should be our goal. is it going to be difficult to attain that? of course it is.

if we don't have that as the goal, where we have measured or accepting a 80% is not good enough. we recognize what is ahead, and this is a cultural issue. it is a leadership and command issue. we are not unaware of the challenges. it is not just isolated in the military.