well in romans 13, it talks about the government supposed to be an encourager of good conduct. an encourager, it would seem to reach your potential, not to kill your potential. to encourage people to reach for the stars, not kill a nasa program. and force people to teach to a test. . trying anyway they can to get in this country, then we must protect this country. that's what our oath involves. protect the country so it's not overwhelmed. prevent this country from becoming one massive welfare state. but encourage the greatness in people.

and we're not going to help that when we see a leader of a country like syria, assad, who has killed so many people, who we would not want to support to stay in that position, but he's being challenged by people who we know are involved with al qaeda and al qaeda-type groups and who want to subjew gait subjugate ms -- other muslims, christians, jews, do we really want to help either one of those? you know, those back before they had to teach to the test, people learned a little bit about history, and they had to learn about world war i, and you don't find enough people who can talk intelligently about world war i anymore. in fact, we see the polls who say there are people who can

name the three stooges that can name the three branches of government, because the tests they've been teaching to involves a federal all -- everyone has the same kind of requirements. we were doing better when there were local requirements. local people knew best. back when people were learning about history, they found out and we were tested on and taught that world war i came about because what we were told were entangling alliances. what do we see in syria? iran is propping up assad. russia says we'll send in the best anti-aircraft defense if you start a no-fly zone there. and yet this president without the support of congress, just like he did not have when he went into libya, and we know how that's turned out. at least four people are dead that would not be otherwise. but giving money to syria,

really? $1 billion. what i was reading today, how about taking that $1 billion that's going to cause all kinds of death and that will probably in some way someday end up causing the deaths of americans nd israelis, allies of ours, jewish friends, they're going to kill people who mr. never intended because it's not well enough thought out of this administration rushing into syria. well, we didn't rush in, that's for sure. perhaps if the president decided early on to go in, then it wouldn't have been so massive an al qaeda movement within the rebels. but we know they're there. this is not the thing to do. to get involved in a country where the united states' national interest will not be served if assad stays in power,

and they will not be served if the rebel -- the al qaeda rebels take over. so why are we spending $1 billion? why are we sending help to either side in that scenario? let's help people at home. let's use that money to secure our borders, because when it comes to immigration, we really want to care, it's time to secure the borders so legal people coming in do so legally and then we'll get an immigration bill passed in no time flat. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. gohmert: mr. speaker, i would move that we do now hereby adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the house stands adjourned until 11:00 a.m. on monday, june 24, 2013.

i will tell my friend you did the same thing, your side of the aisle, did the same thing with respect to the homeland security ill which was reported out on a voice foot from the appropriations committee, that we would have voted for on a bipartisan basis, except an amendment was adopted knowing our ful side could not vote for that. i will tell you i was not going to bring up what happened today, but you turned a bipartisan bill necessary for our farmers,

necessary or our consumers, as a seri for the people of america that many of us would have supported and you turned it into a partisan bill. very frankly, 58 of the 62 republicans voted against your bill voted for the last amendment, which made the bill even more egregious. we disagreed with a $20 billion cut, and your side upped the ante. i will tell you, we are prepared to work in a bipartisan fashion, and respect the student loan bill, it was close to the president's bill, and we would have supported it had it been closer to the president's bill. what your bill did it puts those taking out student loans at risk of having their interest rates substantially increased in the future. the president suggested let's get a variable rate which

reflects market rates, but when you take out the loan, just like you did with your house loan, you know what your interest rate will be. we have a difference on that. it is a good faith disagreement on that. that yes, i have been concerned about the a billty to take reported out of committee that is i partisan in a nature and turned it into a partisan bill. that is what happened on the floor today. it was unfortunate for farmers, consumers, for our country. if the gentleman wants to pursue that, i will yield to him. .> allow me to respond the amendment to which the gentleman speaks is an amendment that had been discussed for some time with the ranking member, with the chairman, and the gentleman was aware of the amendment.

the amendment reflects what many of us believe is a successful formula to apply to a program that has, in the eyes of the gao, in the eyes of the independent auditors who look at these programs, a program that is in dire need of improvement, because of the error rates that are occurring. in addition to that, it reflects our strong belief that work, that able-bodied people should have the opportunity and aould go in and be productive citizen. that is what this amendment says. it gives states an option. it was a positive project because it reflects a winning formula to the welfare reform program, back in 9096, that was put into place, with

unequivocal success. -ble-by bp chewable -- able bodied people going back to work. there were still in detention for our side to say we want to take away the safety net of the food stamp program. absolutely not. this is a pilot project. it was up to the states, whether they wanted to participate, to see if they could get more people back to work. again, consistent with what the gao report had said over and over again, these programs are in need of reform. it was not as if this commitment came out of thin air. the gentleman, the ranking member, the entire leadership on the minority side to the amendment was there. talking abouttil is regular order, talking about the need for us to have open process, let the will of the worked andand be then go to conference. that is what the goal was, that

ede will of the house allow to be seen through, work its will, and go to conference and then we would try and participate in a robust discussion with the other side of the capitaol to see if we can see reform measures on a bill that is in deference ready. what we saw today was a democratic leadership in the house that was insistent to undo years and years of bipartisan work on an issue like a farm bill and decide to make it a partisan issue. and, mr. speaker, it is unfortunate that that is the case. i do agree with the gentleman, but i hope we can see our way to working on other issues, where there is potential agreement.

today was an example. the other side did not think that was there goal, and appropriate mission, and instead decided to emphasize where perhaps they differed when we wanted to reform it in a certain area. i yield cap. the government. we have a profound disagreement. when we were in the majority we got no help on your side, mr. leader. we go remember that. there was no opportunity to have bipartisan dialogue, to have agreement. the gentleman were first to regular order. the person who talks about regular order most is your speaker. you talk about regular order. pass a bill and when we have an

agreement. some 90 days ago we passed a .udget at your insistence, the senate passed a budget. have not gone to conference, you have not provided an opportunity to go to conference, you have not appointed conferees. that is regular order. the gentleman wants it on one bill, but not all bills. i tell my friend we want regular order, we want to go to conference. you want to undo the breaking of an agreement we made in the budget control act which said there won't be a firewall between domestic and defense. you have eliminated that firewall. the sequester is in place. sequester is that for this country. the fact is there's no legislation to undo that sequester, except the legislation you talked about passing in the last congress, the g is dead, and buried. yes, we want regular order.

the reason the bill lost today is because 62 of your members 'plea, which lucas i thought was eloquent, in which he said i know some of you do not think there is enough reform in this bill and some of you think there is too much reform. but mr. peterson and i brought out a bill that was a bipartisan bill, supported by the majority of democrats and the majority -- maybe all the republicans, maybe -- i am not sure that -- but the fact of the matter is it was a bipartisan bill, just as homeland security bill was bipartisan, and it was turned .nto a b partisan bill that is exactly what mr. lucas was talking about. he was saying some people do not think we went far enough and some people think we went to far. mr. sutherland thought we had

not gone far enough. for58 republicans voted sutherland that turned around and voted against the bill, the reforms you're talking about. do not blame democrats for the lost today. you did not bring up the farm bill when it was reported out on a bipartisan basis last year. he did not even bring it to the fore because your party cannot not come together supporting their chairman's bill. ourselves.re we find i was not going to bring up that bill at all. what happened happened. frankly, when we lost on the floor, it was because we lost on the floor when we were in the majority. we produced 218 votes for everything we put on this floor. do not blame democrats for the failure to bring 218 publicans to your bipartisan lucas- supported and heaters in- supported bees of legislation on the floor. we believe that loss, that partisanship in that bill, hurt

farmers, the tumors, and our country. let's bring that bill back to the floor and have a vote on it. think it would pass. maybe not because of your votes, that has been your problem all along. do not think democrats for the loss of that bill. do not blame democrats for being partisan. you knew those amendments -- yes, we knew about them, mr. leader, as you knew about them and you knew we were very much opposed to those amendments, notwithstanding the fact that all the leadership, i believe, i have not looked at the record, voted for those amendments just as they voted for the king amendment on homeland security. my button.shed i would am not prepared to work in a bipartisan fashion when it said this is what we agree on, meaning your site, though you better take it if we are going to have an agreement. that is not the it works. it never worked that way in

america. that is not what america is about. america is about us expecting to be working together. this reported will was on an overwhelming basis, would have been passed on a large bipartisan vote, and was precluded by the actions actions taken through these amendments on the floor. most of which we did not support. and you knew -- i do not mean you, your party -- so i'm surprised when you talk to me about regular order and there is nothing, nothing to do on the budget conference that you wanted the senate to pass a budget. they did. you had just told me that you wanted regular order and that we should have passed the farm bill so we could work together. you are assuming that the senate would have gone to the conference. i hope they would have, i think they would have, because i talked to the chair. we also want to go to conference in regular order on the budget

to solve the stark differences between the two parties. that is the only way you will get to where we need to be. by having a conference and trying to come to an agreement. by premise is that you do not have a conference because pattys nothing to which murray could agree that mr. ryan and agreed that he could caucusack your costs -- and get a majority of votes for, because they are for what you passed and nothing more than that. there are are $91 billion apart. to bang,ide it in split the difference, you could not pass it on your side and i think you know that. i do not know if i have any more questions, and i do not know if they could be particularly useful. i yield to my friend. >> as far as the budget

conference is concerned, the budget is something that traditionally as he notes has been a partisan affair. each a document that house produces reflecting the philosophy of the majority of those bodies. a lot ofudget contains different issues, two of which the parties have disagreed vehemently on over the last several years, taxes and health care. you, mr. speaker, that the other side projects our prescription on how to fix the deficit in terms of the unfunded liabilities on the health care programs. we said we want to work toward a balance, we think a balance budget is a good thing. unfortunately, artisan position on the other side of the balance, nono balance and raise taxes. when you know that is a situation, there's no construct

in which to even begin a discussion. again, the budget has traditionally been that, a partisan document whether who is in charge of which house. and then to be a guide by which you go about spending bills after that. the farm bill, friendly, is a little different. it is for working farmers, for individuals who need the benefit of the food stamp program. we believe you need to reform the snap program and reduce some of the costs because even the gao, independent auditors we bring in, year in and year out say that program is rife with error rates that we should be ashamed of. so we put forward our idea to amendment to try to reform, put in place those reforms. but it still, it in the construct of the farm bill,

again to the gentleman's point, we want to work together, but it is going to have to be about setting aside differences, and instead of saying as the mannar earlier he leader did today -- minority leader did today, use disagreed with that program, we are out of here, and entire farm bill does not have a chance to go to conference, beat reconciled, hopefully reforms adopted so we can make some progress according to what the independent analysts say should be done. it really is a disappointing day. i think the minority has been a disappointing player today, mr. speaker, on the part of the people. but we remain ready to work with the gentleman. i am hopeful that tomorrow, perhaps next week, will be a better week. >> i think the gentleman for yielding back. mr. speaker, the majority leader continues to want to blame the democrats for his inability and the republicans inability to give a majority vote to their

own bill. maybe the american people thinks they can be full. you are in charge of the house. 34 members. 62 of your members voted against your bill. that is why it failed. when we were in charge about we did not pass a bill. we got 218 votes were our belt. that was pretty tough. we got zero from your side. you got 24 from our side to help you. esther peterson stuck to his deal. on the budget you say we have got different philosophies. yes, we do. mr. gingrich gave a speech on this for about different philosophies, 1997 or 1998. he was talking about the perfectionist caucus. he made an agreement with president clinton which to some degree was responsible for having balanced budgets.

but your side. it was not a good deal. on all of your side, bipartisan vote, we passed that deal that was reached between mr. green kitchen and mr. clinton. a lot of your folks said our way or the highway, and he gave a speech call the perfectionist caucus speech. that is what in my view i am hearing on the budget. yes, we have differences. imagine people elected a democratic president am a they elected a democratic senate, and republican house. he only way america's board of directors and for the bulls will work if we compromise. the place to compromise under regular order is in a conference. if our ideas and their ideas meeting and conference. the most central document that we need to do every year is to do a budget. but you are not going to conference.

your side will not support conferees. your side will not move to go to conference. patty murray wants to go to conference, senator reid wants to go to conference. were side over in the senate will not go to conference. in my view, largely because they know you do not want to go to conference, and they do not want to make a deal. they do not want to compromise on what their position is. so we will take no blame for the failure of the farm bill, none, zero. as much as you try to say it, you cannot get away from the statistic, 62 otherwise known as 25% of your party, voted against a bill among which is why we do not bring it to the floor last year when it was also reported out on a bipartisan fashion. so i know you will continue and your side will continue to blame us, that you cannot get the votes on your side, for your bill. you took a bipartisan bill and

that is what mr. lucas was saying. i thought he was very articulate, compelling, and pleading with your side, join us, join us. it does not go as far as it would like, and reform -- you talk about reform and that is a good thing to talk about, the senate bill has reform in it mr. leader. the senate bill has reform in it. now, it is not in terms of dollars cutting poor people as much as this bill does, but it cuts. it has reform in it. wants, whatand apparently your side wants, is your reform, not a compromise reform. mr. lucas brought to the floor $20 billion and watched it as reform him and said on the floor, it may not be enough for some and maybe too much for others, but it is a compromise. he was right.

but it was rejected by 25% of why party, and that is this bill failed. unless the gentleman wants to say something, i yield back the balance of my time. i yield back the balance of my time. failed to pass a farm bill. and right after that we spoke with a capitol hill reporter. the farm bill -- why was it defeated? >> there are basically two reasons. n amendmentre was a that was not parlor with democrats, and that gary amendment passed. also there were restrictions placed on food stamps and democrats did not like that, and there were a lot of republicans who thought they could somehow have a bill that would cut food stamps even more. eric cantor blame democrats

for not providing enough votes to help pass the bill. what do you think about his assertion? only 24 democrats who voted for the bill. i think it is a reflection of the deep gulf in the country between the people who get food stamps and that politicians who support them and the farmers who benefit from the farm program. since the 2010 election, you have had such a gap between these republicans and democrats. it is basically about that. respondede democrats to what majority leader cantor said? >> they said they should not have put on this last amendment that would impose work requirements on foodstamp beneficiaries, that there have never spent such core requirements for him and that

was the straw that broke the camels back. also, there was an amendment on dairy that passed and the dairy farmers do not like it. >> who were the big losers? >> the people who are advocates for people eating more fruits and vegetables, local production, for organic, because it is those programs that will least likely be continued. i think the food stamp program will be continued if there is an extension. so will the crop insurance program. but the big auger culture will be continued, but not the stuff for the newer, more innovative small and local programs. >> what is the next step for the bill? can it be revamped and passed? and the timetable? ,> it can be brought up again possibly change. most thought it would get through when it got through

conference. people were too angry, but also there were these 62 republicans who voted against the bill even though they got a lot of amendments on that that they liked. and a lot of provisions, and they will also have to reevaluate their views on the bill. >> what will you watch for as the leaders decide what to do next? >> whether they will bring the bill up and if and also over the fourth of july break, whether there are people who want this bill passed so much that they put pressure on members when they go home and they make some concessions and bring it up again after the fourth of july recess. hagstrom is the contributing editor at " national journal." thank you. >> the farm bill failed in the house by 195 -- 234.

chamber returns on tuesday at and on noon for legislative work. allow oil drilling along the maritime boundary in the gulf of mexico. also, spending for fiscal 2013. on c-spanwill be live when members return on tuesday. the house ways and means committee tallied their votes today on the future of medicare and social security, and the issues they're facing. ere is part of the hearing >> the trustees have said that -- the benefits going forward, how have the cuts that are that severe -- how big of an impact would have on medicare and the ability to

provide medical assistance to seniors? >> this is part of the hospital insurance trust fund, if it was allowed to simply play out without action, the amount of benefits that we would pay would be 87% of what is currently scheduled. under law they cannot make payments in excess of the trust fund. under both interpretations of the law, medicare would have to wait until there was incoming revenue, which would mean the butal or the delay of care, certainly a reduction in the amount of care that would be received. >> in your testimony you say that you project the likely higher cost growth rate going forward? in effect we should not count on the low growth rates over the last two years. and you say the finances on the knife's edge. congressees said that

needs to take timely legislative action. sometime inaning -- the next 10 years? sometime in the next five years? do we need to act sooner than that? >> the sooner that there is action, the more prudent that it would be. the sooner that you had to the more people you can involved in the solution, with taxpayers and a more gentle impact with the beneficiaries. you can spread this out over a longer period of time. the main factors driving the costs of the demographics -- it is hard to change on a dime. if you say anything about eligibility -- >> a lot more people coming into the program. higher costs under the long term beginning to drive the financial

problems. what is your recommendation? >> you know the issues and you know the challenges. how much longer do we delay taking meaningful steps? >> the difficulty of this does -- we always have to make an adjustment about the right environment and time to act from a number of perspectives. simply from the numerical prospective, the earlier the better and the more immediate reaction, the better. >> from a purely technical subsidy perspective, yes. >> thank you. the testimony sounds like everything is fine in medicare. don't worry, be happy? it will all work out? >> i think i said early on in my remarks -- although i am the slowdown in

spending i think -- we still face a very significant problem, and like my colleagues i think that the sooner that we adopt measures -- to address the long-term situation, the better. i do not spend sleepless nights -- sleepless nights worrying 87.ut 20- looking at the last decades, there is cause for concern. and like -- the doctor i believe that the sooner decisions are made -- the more gradually they can be implemented, and the more political liability they will have. >> is your thinking to -- rather than waiting five years or 10 years, your recommendation is to take meaningful steps to

congress, to do that this session and start these solutions, or at least for the deaths of them now, rather than continuing to delay? >> we have adopted a lot of changes and we will have to learn a lot from the demonstration in the pilot programs and the implementation of the cost reducing measures in the affordable care act. in a few years we will be in a much better position to adopt and -- to adopt the next generation of changes. informed by what we have learned about it -- how well some of these demonstrations are doing. time inpend a lot of your testimony talking about the benefits of the affordable care act. what section of the trustees' report was this in?

>> i said i would stray a bit from the trustee's report, -- >> what is your personal view on these issues? >> it comes from the belief the the success -- of efforts to hold down medicare costs depend critically on what is happening in the rest of the economy, that medicare cannot go off. >> i have heard the testimony, loud and clear. >> you can see the entire hearing at 9:22. ouret us not be blind to differences a less direct attention to our common interests. and the means by which those differences can be resolved. and if we cannot and our

differences -- at least we can help make the world safe for diversity. everyone, no matter where they live is a citizen of berlin. ina free man i take pride the words "ich ben ein berlinner." different president kennedy and you see a different one again, who was preparing the ground for a real shot and the nuclear test ban treaty that was agreed to in the fall of 1963, and at the same time -- also building up defense and seeking a way to peace with this speech. >> looking back on the 50th anniversary of the speech -- at

7:30 p.m.. part of american history television. at the obamaook administration's policy on cyber security. we will hear from janet napolitano. this was hosted by the woodrow wilson center. this is about 120 minutes. >> so much for starting on time. this is something that we vowed to do. welcome to the wilson center. director and president and ceo, this is a national conversation of great importance, and one i feel i have been living for the last couple of decades. i imagine the local power generation facility in your hometown.

this has a fence and a few guards. this is safe, right? wrong. that is probably controlled by a system that monitors the cooling elements. this is run by private sector company and is connected to the internet to be managed easily. this runs on software that could have an inadvertent flock that is exploitable by hackers, to cause us harm. ofa former nine-term member congress who chaired the security committee for many years -- i can tell you that myselfenario has kept and many others up at night. this is very possible. but any members of the congress and the public who don't appreciate or understand what

our government, especially the homeland security department, could do to help prevent it cyber attacks, in the private sector or elsewhere. many, also recently are conflating this issue with what they have been reading in the newspapers about the nsa programs. there are big differences and maybe that will be explained today. for anyone in the audience in front of me, believe me, this topic has to be addressed on its own. and for those of you worried about compromising privacy, we have many different issues to discuss. i think that this is a reset moment for the department of homeland security. now that the president has released an executive order on cyber -- and the investigation from the executive branch, we can help to explain and conduct

conversations around the important role in cyber. this is not to launch cyber attacks, something you may have read about in the newspaper, not to defend us from all cyber attacks, but this is a very significant role that relies on an active partnership with the private sector. i had a conversation the other day with someone on capitol hill. he is senator tom coburn. i mention him because he is a republican and i am democrat, he is a good friend but we do not agree on everything. he has a big role in this issue given his senior status on the second homeland security committee. he has not heard about this. tom coburn was very positive. of course i would relate the

good news story. but this is a guy you may not think would necessarily think that the department of homeland security should be ground zero on parts of this issue. he said -- and i have a note here. the process used to craft the executive order should be praised. this was inclusive and the government listened. he also said he was impressed by the staff -- some of whom are in the room, in this audience looking up at us, that he met with and that he will work for a bipartisan solution for legislation. to enable this process. lot, so iis means a wanted to be sure that everyone heard this. everyone in the room should know what the stakes are. you will hear more in the panels

that follow any may even hear more from the secretary. i think it is almost like the israeli-palestinian peace process. we know what the and it needs to be but we don't know how to get there. doorswe should lock the and bring in food -- and figure it out. the only missing ingredient is currently serving members of congress. someone -- the person to the panel as janet napolitano, who i have known for decades and decades. she will tell you that when we met, she had a perm. she was a rock star in politics in arizona, the u.s. attorney and the attorney general, and was the governor, twice, and

left to take on the job where she is in her fifth year as the secretary of homeland security -- she will deliver keynote remarks and will be followed by a panel discussion led by a fearless national public radio reporter who was reporting on this subject and related subjects. i find this stunningly impressive. i will not mention that he is married to martha radditz. former michael chertoff, federal judge to -- i found when i was in congress to be a great partner. in friendship has succeeded our old job and the first question always was, what is the right thing to do, what is the

party you represent? on the panel is steven flynn, of the cost is research institute, or is about to be that. has worn a number of hats -- and is superbly qualified to address this topic. we also have been able private sector representatives, who is the head of security at general electric. i will say one more thing. this national conversation follows a lunch that we had with department of homeland security representatives. i asked that everyone be very candid about their views of each other. some of this was not so pretty, but i certainly left that lunch very hopeful and you'll hear some summaries. we at the wilson center want to use are convening powers and our expertise -- to events conversations like this.

we are looking for the best policy ideas to form action plans to solve the toughest problems. i think on this subject, we have made a good start today. please welcome my friend with a ifferent hairdoo but a very wise mind, janet napolitano. >> good afternoon, everyone. anre here to discuss incredibly important topic with a fundamental role in homeland security. i thought what i would do this afternoon is briefly talk about the landscape and talk about the president's executive order and his policy directive on critical infrastructure because that also comes into play, and laid out for you what is going on at the

department of homeland security. some of which she may have heard in other panels. but to reemphasized the importance within the schematics of the department of homeland security. this is the third largest department of the federal government and the youngest apartment, covering many missions that were put together under one roof falling the terrorist attacks of 9/11. we have seen the department grow and mature very quickly. over the last 10 years since this was enacted. we just celebrated a 10th anniversary. he was thes here, first secretary, i am the third. i guess that makes me thomas jefferson. that you -- i guess

are john adams. --nly mention that because not only are we changing and growing very fast -- we have seen some things of all over this short amount of time. when we started we were concerned with terrorist plots and attacks similar to 9/11. terrorists taking over commercial airliners. using them to fly into buildings. aviation attacks and plots have not gone away. this has been part of my time at the department. they continue to change. the sources from where they come continues to change, but they remain with us. but fast-growing alongside is this area of cyber capabilities, connectivity --

and cyber attacks. how do we secure the country in the best possible way while respecting policy and civil liberties and the other values that we hold? this is really the challenge that is presented to us. so we have been growing very rapidly in the cyberworld. when i started it was a fairly small element of the department, the department was engaged with other threats but as we have grown -- this has probably been the largest area of just pure budget growth. located in several areas of the department, much of this but this is also the secret service. this is for intellectual

property and throughout the department, we have units working on different aspects of cyber crime and cyber security. one big challenge has been to organize ourselves to handle that. the second is to really look at whether the areas that we are most concerned about -- we are concerned about the theft of intellectual property. we have seen a massive transfer of intellectual wealth from the united states and other countries and we are just a filing our intellectual property strategies -- with the congress. for the next year. but this has been an area of concern. all of the countries of the world that need to be engaged in this. and participating and how do we have a connected world and protect the research and development that goes into the

creation of intellectual property? of these crimes -- being used simply committing -- simply using new technology -- the social media available now. identity theft and one area is child exploitation. trafficking, and of the like. there was a major operation involving that -- facilitated by the internet. this is cyber-terrorism and attacks, and i think this is what most people think about the war in this room. but there is no doubt that there is a number -- there are a number of those who seek to do us harm in this country ranging from individuals to organize groups, to groups that you could detect as state or state-

sponsored. to have been and are willing to attacks against the united states and critical infrastructure using the cyber- realm, that gives them a new set of ways to go out there. what does this mean? criticals saying, infrastructure like utilities could be subject to attacks. and, by the way, if you think this does not have another set of issues, if any of you are in the new york or new jersey area during hurricane sandy and saw what happened when the power utility was down for a number of sudden, not of the only did you not have electricity for people in tall buildings, the 15-story apartments had to be walked

ups, but then you did not have electricity, you had to get fuel of tankers in the tanker trucks into gas stations and gasoline pumps, then into cars. that set of development -- this whole idea of attacking critical infrastructure and the control systems that govern critical infrastructure, we have seen from mother nature -- much less a human after perspective. we have seen this in the financial-services area, the banking area has been a very active area for denial of service -- and we have seen the energy sector. what happened when you had not but a destructive virus entered into the system that actually destroyed -- not just the software, but hardware.

we have a range of things we deal with in the department, and responsibilities now to protect the homeland as a concern. so what does this mean? let me give you a brief rundown of what exactly we are doing within the critical infrastructure and the department, leaving aside cyber crime for right now. we have the national cyber security and communications center -- that has been opened now about four years. they have responded to a half- million incident reports in that short amount of time, with more than 26,000 actionable alerts to the public and private sectors in that time -- and we have different government representatives, different agencies -- but we also have

private sector representation on the floor. we have the united states computer emergency readiness team, and many countries, by the way, have now developed their own search and now we have these relationships -- but to give you a sense -- last year we responded to 190,000 cyber 7400ents, and issued alerts to the united states and this was a 68% increase over 2011. that is why this area is so fast growing. industrial control systems search, -- 177 incidents last year. withve 15 teams deployed significant private sector incidence.

this is not imaginary or something that this speculative. this is ongoing right now. we are working very closely with private sectors and these kinds of partnerships are not new. we work with the private sector where infrastructure is of concern. we now have to guiding fundamental documents we work from, the president's executive order and the president's policy directive. for critical infrastructure. they direct us to take a more broad look at the mission in cyber in a couple of ways, to take the all-hazards approach, to make sure that we include protection of the networks but also resilience and the ability to recover and get back up quickly. -- executive order has been

has three goals, to protect civil liberty, promote sharing and have a voluntary program to encourage critical infrastructure operators to adopt best practices. let me just stop right there. first -- privacy and civil liberties, from those thisosures about the nsa, is a different set of things but you should know that in the department of homeland security we have a privacy office and a civil liberties office. those are experts in those fields, whose sole job is to look at what we're doing from the outset, to make sure that we are building into what we're

doing with a program protections for personal and private information, for any kind of intelligence that we gather. we consider those values to be paramount as part of the way of life that we are here to protect. this is from the outset. information sharing. when the legislation failed last year, and i hope congress can come back to this. one thing that failed was the command for real-time information sharing. this is one of the key tensions between us and the private sector. we cannot do anything if we don't know, in real time, what signatures you are seeing and what abnormality -- abnormalities that you are seeing, and we can determine if this rises to an alert level, if this is something that we have to be engaging others on, whether this is a small problem, or a big homeland problem.

without real time information sharing we are starting off behind the ball. this has been a problem, part of the bridge building is solving the information sharing aspect of this. finally, the voluntary program of best practices with the critical industry sectors. this is very interesting -- this is going to be, at this time, an experiment, and a very important experiment because where security is concerned, law enforcement or security, we do not depend on the private sector. this is a governmental function. we don't depend or outsource national defence to the private sector. we do not outsource intelligence gathering capabilities to the private sector. we do not outsource local law enforcement to the private sector. this is an inherently

governmental function. we are proceeding in a different way here, have a system that creates a set of incentives for owners and operators to adopt test practices and to change their practices to meet evolving threats. i know some in the private about the suspicious department of homeland security or any government agency's ability to fulfill its function. i have some question as to whether the private sector is willing to fulfill its function.

ande can make this work show there is a vital ongoing strong partnership a tween our capabilities -- between our capabilities and your capabilities and needs, we will have succeeded in this experiment. let no one have any question, i think we are still in the experimental phase. we are still working with each other, testing each other, meeting a lot with each other. all well and good, that we have on yet come to closure whether this is an appropriate thing to have as a shared responsibility as opposed to an inherently governmental responsibility. i want to set for you, as you think about this, the fact this is the first time in our nations history that we approached a major security problem in this way.

you have heard about the integrated task force, which is designed to help set up the .mplementation plan for the ppd in april, they launched a collaboration community platform for critical infrastructure stakeholders and all interested members of the public to post and share public comment and feedback regarding how we strengthen our networks and how we better protect our resilience. in the first one to zero days, the issuance of the ppd -- 120 days, the issuance of the ppd, we have already offered deliverables.

these are at omb, where they are undergoing a review process. .he initial work has been done we have produced a description of critical infrastructure relationships that illustrate how our current organizational structure can provide risk management support to owners and operators and make it easier for them to collaborate with us. what does that mean? he shared with you how these complicated departments are organized -- we shared with you how complicated departments are organized so you know where to get help and how to provide ideas. we have supplied instructions on producing classified cyber threats reports to improve the ability of critical infrastructure partners to prevent and respond to significant threats. let me posit a moment. a moment.let me posit

i said unclassified. to receive classified material on a real-time basis. sharingrmation challenge goes both ways. private -- it goes from companies to us and also us to you. we have produced procedures for expansion of the enhanced cybersecurity services to all critical infrastructure sectors, provide for greater cyber threat havemation sharing, and we provided recommendations on incorporating security standards into acquisition planning and contract administration to see what steps can be taken to make existing procurement

requirements more consistent with our cybersecurity goals. what does that mean? it means we have to incorporate thinking about cybersecurity will we are purchasing i.t. toewise, the same needs happen with the owners and operators of critical infrastructure. what are the security needs? how do you sustain them? the national institute of standards and technology continues to .evelop cybersecurity framework that is due in october, so there is a lot a work that has been going on. significant engagement by the private sector. next up for us will be the liberal bowls on the public -- deliverables on the public- private hardener ship. partnership. under the ppd, it is the

responsibility of the department of homeland security to identify what is the nation score critical infrastructure? what are we talking about? we do that from a risk management perspective. what kind of infrastructure should -- should it be taken down, should it be rendered inoperable? in this case, we need to develop situational awareness capability for critical infrastructure. we need to update the existing national infrastructure need toon plan and we develop critical infrastructure performance goals that link to the nist framework. what.als are how to the

this is a very active process right now and it is fast-moving. this is a very aggressive timeline. when you think about the policy directive and orders were issued and when we are responsible to have the framework and to have the performance goals set come at the definition of core critical infrastructure and the public-private partnership moving. within dhs, we have been busy, not only maintaining and sustaining the capacities we have, but building on those. that is somewhat of an interesting challenge when you do not have a budget and there is sequester. all i will say about that is, if you look at the president's budget request over the last four years, you look at what congress has appropriated, including in the most recent fy 13 budget, you will see that in

the cyber arena, we have had dramatic increases in funding. why is that? i think there is a general recognition that we have to build civilian capacity for cybersecurity is involved. to do that, if you look around the government, there is the natural home for this? it will be within the department of homeland security. that is where the core information sharing should come. that is where threat information should be shared. that is where we should be talking about how to do the most we can, the best we can to prevent successful attacks while also dealing with resilience should an attack succeed. i do not think we should let congress off the hook, by the way will stop we need legislation, we need legislation -- by the way. we need legislation.

make suregislation to real-time information sharing occurs. we need some additional law enforcement tools in the digital the same kind of hiring authorities that are held within the department of defense were cyber is concerned that allow us not to use the normal civil service hiring. so that we are even more competitive. because ofetitive the mission we are performing and the fact that people want to be involved on what really is the foundational work. about,periment i talked

the work is that dhs. is a hugen itself recruitment advantage for us. , weme not say that understand there are other issues that people need to take into account, including how much they can get paid. that has to be done by this statute. you are meeting at a critical time. you have seen our people in an out all day. they are busy working on the deliverables i just discussed. we are moving very quickly on these timelines. succeed and this experiment will not succeed unless there is total buy-in by the nations owners and operators of critical infrastructure. we intend to succeed. i hope you do as well. thank you very much. [applause]

>> hello, everyone. i am from india are. -- i am from npr. thoughts provocative .herefrom secretary napolitano we will have a chance to respond to. let me say on behalf of npr how

appreciative we are to jane harman and the wilson center for sponsoring this series of .rograms it is a great honor for me to be able to moderate of these discussions. to me thatresting secretary napolitano talked about a grand experiment. this is the first time i'm talking about the cybersecurity challenge, this is the first time the united states has on the private sector for such an important partnership role. i noticed one word we did not hear at all was the word mandate or mandatory. what a difference that is from a when mandatory

approaches were very much a part of the discussion. she used- the word instead was incentive. she did not seem 100% convinced that this approach was going to work. she referred to it as an experiment and said she was not completely convinced the private sector is ready to fulfill its mission. i would like to begin with that. thatis a provocative idea a security problem of the scope and scale we are facing in the cyber domain, the government is depending on the private sector to play a huge role and it seems like the verdict is out on whether the experiment is going to be successful or not. i would like to go down the line and get your thoughts on that and whatever else caught your attention. is kind of a novelty.

we are used to the idea that our national defense is largely a public responsibility. we may have private guards, but we do not expect the private sector to defend itself against .t tax -- against attacks you are dealing with assets and people who are largely distributed throughout the united states in networks. for the u.s. government to own the major responsibility would put the government into everybody's computers and into everybody's networks, which we do not want to do as a people. that means the private sector has to shoulder the major responsibility. it is a two-way street, you have to step up and take that responsibility. if people say, i operate article infrastructure, but i do not want to invest in security because i do not whether -- i do not care whether my business

goes off-line for a couple of days, that is not an acceptable answer. what we saw in hurricane sandy, a lot of people depend on the critical infrastructure. there has to be a collaborative effort. the private sector has indicated that it wants to do that and assuming we can put mechanisms doneace, i think it can be . i do think her message, at the end of the day, if it is not done and the error does not step up and then there is a major event that cuts -- that causes significant loss of life or damage, the public may demand mandates. >> you have worn both hats here.

i find the private sector really does understand its responsibilities. the difference may be in scale, the amount of money that is required to be invested, that is always a discussion. the idea the private sector does not understand from a reputational from a risk or a customer value respective the importance of this, i think we've gotten to that point. the question for partnership is how does that partnership work? many definitions of partnership. one is top-down, one is bottom- up. it has to be a partnership of mutual responsibility and respect for what we each bring to the table. say, there isould an element of this that is novel . afteruse the cold war

stepping off point, a lot of this is back to the future. we mobilize the academic community. point, thisg off issue is so sobering, back to the issue of looking at the al qaeda threat, there was some debate about whether this really was a serious threat. while i fell down pretty hard that it was, i could accept there was some disagreement. this particular threat, there is such consensus among the top officials as well as everybody who is an expert on the academic

side that it is a real problem. the threat warrants the kind of mobilization effort that is , beyond just saying, hey, government, we want our happiness on the side come a thank you very much. -- on the side, thank you very much. infrastructure, a lot of the power we get from the northern new england area comes from québec. private players are already in those markets because the systems work that way and that is another reason the partnership [inaudible] >> you mentioned world war ii, i heard the national counterintelligence executive

make the point that in world war ii, private sector was very much a support role. if there were to be a major cyber confrontation, the private sector would not be in the rear. the private sector would be on the front lines and that is a very different situation. >> that is exactly what the differences. it is not a question of providing the material and support. in this case, the actual conflict would be in the private network. the secretary mentioned the case in which there was a destructive attack on the computer infrastructure. you have the people operating in the network. -- if there were a cyber 9/11, you would want to have the private sector and government working together.

you have to have a lot of landing in advance. you have to have a mutual understanding of what is operating on the network. that is a little bit new for us. it will make some people uncomfortable. except the fact the government will have to be involved in your network -- accept the fact the government will have to be involved in your network. the question is, which government? >> i promised jane i would not but there was a lot of concern about the economics of cybersecurity. in order to protect the networks to the degree that we think is necessary, it will require some real expenditures. whether the private industry was

able to come up with that funding is the question, whether the government can come up with that funding is a very big question, whether the government can require private industry to spend that money is a big question. does this mean the risk is something we have to accept? >> risk is a part of the world we live in. physicalrisk in the space, cyberspace. the question is, what is your strategy for mitigating that risk? are you going to fire -- are you going to take specific steps to deal with the risk at the right level to ensure you have mitigated it appropriately? expensive, but it is not so expensive you cannot do it. there was a discussion earlier of things that can

thwart the risks that we face are simple patching. >> the reference is not to the threat of a massive attack on infrastructure, but smaller scale attacks. how do you protect against a cyber 9/11? that is a threat of a whole different order. >> the qualitative change we are coming to grips with is moving , stealingyber threat data, or disrupting networks, two, and during those networks. with the risk of sabotage as a networks, to commandeering those networks.

these systems are increasingly on the net. some of them are so old, you cannot commandeer, but we will move them into the realm. to the gameg late and we are trying to boilerplate security safeguards. -- ita bit like taking will be expensive, ugly, and not work well. everybody is looking at this legacy infrastructure and going, it looks like trying to do that. we need to talk about designing into the systems those safeguards. that is not conversation we have started. iticon valley works because

-- private sector is working hand in glove with the folks developing the ideas and applications. we have to figure out how we designed this in. simple, ifc case is a business wants to continue to provide its service, it does not want to be disrupted. you assure the continuity of the business? secretary napolitano referred to the failure of legislative effort. a lot of people were disappointed that a huge effort ended in failure. how do you see the political environment now different? have there been lessons learned? >> i would not say failed as much as it ran out of time. they were migrating to a

compromise, it was a pretty broad compromise, and then the session ended. there are challenges on the information sharing side. there are legitimate criticisms and concerns raised. is enemy of the good perfect. it is important to understand the urgency. that was the initial point that the secretary made. we are dealing with the threat where you are beginning to see destructive behavior. in ag lived through 9/11 position of responsibility, if we had something like that in cyber, you would see legislation passed.

about this isink an advance not in the immediate aftermath. >> i remember from covering this last year, a number of comments made by people on one side that owners of critical infrastructure too often downplay it. there is more sensitivity now to the urgency. would you agree with that? >> we have all come to understand the nature of the threat and how it impacts our business models, how it impacts our ability to do research, protect our intellectual property. i would not say people downplay it, but at what level of risk are we going to be held isountable for managing

maybe a question that someone have. is verynding the risks clear in the private sector. this whole process has become mystified. a lot of engineering discussion. there are a lot of folks. there are a lot of civilians who hear this and they throw their hands up and they feel it is so complicated, we cannot deal with it or we will make it a technical problem. it is not too complicated. you want to manage the risk. if you can translated into plain english, there are things you can do. you have to make decisions. does everybody get to take their own some drive and stick it --

thumb drives and stick it into the network? corners?e entities cut they benefit in the short run by not taking those measures. >> this is where we are misdirected. we do new -- we do need standards. a smaller player can say, i will not do that. i can offer a different price point. if people can have some confidence they are enforced, we have a level playing field. the real issue is a lack of trust between many private players and the public about whether the standards will make sense. the real conversation should be about that. how do we get a two way street in developing standards? mechanisms to do this

with third parties. thisve to stop pretending is all happiness of best practices. for howbeen doing that many years? the threat is growing. just the best practice to date is a lousy practice. ,> steve used the s word standards. >> i am frank taylor, i work at ge. standards are important, but they have to be realistic. as mike said, often this conversation is so threat mongering, people get turned off . >> what do you mean by that? >> the world is going to come to an end tomorrow if you do not do this. drastic, that dire or

so i think a rational conversation about realistic standards that address the vulnerabilities is what needs to be had. a lot of times the conversation is around, you should not do business in so and so. companies go where revenues are generated, where their customers , they will sell things. having a rational discussion about what the standard should i thinkess the risk, most companies would come to the table and have that discussion. >> have you been guilty of threat mongering? >> i think you should open the newspaper. the things i know not publicly of thed -- that is one reasons i think making classified information available

because you declassify or you allow people to be cleared is important. what is interesting about the process, it would be collaborative. the same kind of performance-based standards. the private sector are hurt if they -- if there are outliers that do not bring up their capabilities to a reasonable amount of risk management. that is what the experiment is. i do think it has to be dynamic. .t has to be a recognition there is not risk elimination, there is risk management. system, thehe insurance industry can play a

role, and using that as an incentive. enterprises understand if they do make an investment to a reasonable degree and a meet the standards, they will get some measure of protection on that which is exactly what you need to spur investment. , thisis so important conversation, we cannot have this conversation without bringing in -- bringing the public iq up a bit. this is something at the student level and at that -- it is a real act of leadership. that is going to take the backdrop. i am willing to pay or support one way or another. if we do not get their, we will have a problem. -- cannot set set

the rates, they are governed by the states. you worry about trees colliding with the lines. aginge worried about equipment and backed up substations. need tornment says, you take on this new set of problems with these new costs. either way, there is no relief on your price. -- by the way, there is no relief on your price. the companies have to be part of the conversation. this is an acceptable cost i am willing to bear. anybody who lives up in the connecticut,was in three quarters of our state was out of power. the reality is you need that to have a civilized country and most people after seven days without power would be happy to

be more on their rates. we have an especially distinguished group of people in the audience. i want to make sure they will have opportunities to asked questions. microphones on both sides. if you are willing, it would be helpful for you to identify yourself and your affiliation or company. let's open the floor to questions from the audience. whereead in this report they were talking about a lack .f cyber protocols

accountable. everyone says we need these laws or protocols, but who will step up and take responsibility for creating them? they are helping cyber terrorists and they no longer to sit at a stationary terminal to since the cyber crimes computing is growing rapidly out-of-control. who will take responsibility for that? for governingible cloud and these mobile devices and control and the number of people who can use them to commit these crimes? thank you. >> presumably the framework that will be rolled out this fall will address some of these issues.

your fingerou put on an important issue. nobody controls -- every enterprise can set its own requirements and standards. in the world. larg there are people who are absolutely committed to the idea that any regulation of the internet is problematic. there is good reason to be very leery. it will be much more enterprise specific and it will be a lot about standards. the issue of who would bear the responsibility if there is a catastrophic problem, that is a feature of american life. there will be a round of finger- pointing, and another 9/11 commission, we will go back over what we should have done. people will say, we warned you.

i think we are trying really hard to avoid that by putting in place a set of practices and standards and capabilities in advance that will reduce dramatically the likelihood of that kind of catastrophic event. >> it reinforces that there is not an easy answer. not to say it will get the ultimate outcome, but at least there is some sensitivity. we are dealing with this after- the-fact the fact, trying to develop safeguards, being aware of vulnerabilities. government does have a role to play in supporting accountability. , the owners and

operators are helping to design those standards. enforcement should be third parties, but there is always a need for the government to make outliers are isolated from the system. that is the only way we know how to do this stuff. theave to talk about process of setting standards. we also have to recognize some of these issues him a -- issues that may not just be domestic. it has to move forward. >> thank you. myself withsociate whoever made the comment that we are in the beginning of this discussion.

the standards we are talking , currentlyh do exist already exist and those are going to combat the low level threat. do not know anybody who thinks the standards will be effective against the persistent threat that could take down the electric grid? that is the area i am interested in. the private sector is going to have to step up. i am curious as to what the government does to assist the private sector. if we're going to deal deal with

this massive threat, we are talking about a lot more money. studies say five, eight times as much money. we will need big incentives for that. what can the government do to assist the private sector in role? on this unique theou have to separate businesses that have to make a relatively modest investment. much of the discussion was about the top critical infrastructure. ifse are enterprises that they fail, there will be a humongous effect.

what is it going to take? some of it will be incentives to get the enterprises in that critical field to raise their degree of investment. that is one set of incentives. the government has to be tightly bound in terms of information sharing and sharing techniques and capabilities. that will require looking at the law again and there will be -- it will be addressing people who do not like the idea of the government be involved in this. if something happens fast, you will want to have the government working side-by-side with the private sector to stop that.

>> we all should be talking about cyber. the state talk about of our infrastructure and the range of risks, which cyber is one of those. you need infrastructure to work if you want to stay advanced. if you do not maintain it, if you do not upgrade it for the .ypes of weather events part of the element of being more successful is not purely aggregation. how do we assure mobility, communication, finance, water all of this happens? one of the disruptive risks is cyber, but that is not the only risk.

we need to broaden this .onversation liability protection might be a significant incentive. how significant an incentive do you think that would be two companies? would that be -- would be to companies? >> i am not allow your and i cannot -- i am not a law year and i cannot speak for our legal department. it would probably be very attractive and that takes legislation. it takes an understanding of how this fits into the overall rejection of the infrastructure of the company. -- projection of the infrastructure of the company.

>> thank you. role should reforms to the federal energy regulatory commission play in creating required standards for energy companies? i am thinking about the grid act . >> any of you familiar? part of the challenges is aggregating utilities from their customers. take the port authority of new york-new jersey, it moves on any about 1.8 million

people in a port authority facility. airportsbus terminals, bus terminals, airports. all of that requires energy. -- thatversation customer is not part of the conversation with utilities. what are you doing to make sure the power stays on because our mission is critical? one of the challenges is to broaden the focus of not just beating up one sector to do more, but finding a way in which that sector is working -- is able to make its case and get the funding stream that goes with it. that is where i would be nudging. do a lot of work with them and they are focused on this issue.

they are looking continually to upgrade. if we go to a smart grid, every node of that network grid will become a potential aperture and which malware can come into something. >> i know from talking to private sector people, there is a lot of concern about a compliance mentality. regulation is helpful and hurtful. a compliance regimen in this is fraught view, with danger if it is not done properly. does not mean you cannot have compliance, but it has to be done in partnership with the public and private sector. otherwise, if it is mandated,

, not a lot ofity private sector input. time, but justr coming out with a compliance regimen without real collaboration. the notion the private sector does not understand this risk, we operate globally. we operate with the internet and cyber systems being critical to our business model. we are attacked every day. we have an understanding of the impacts of this. the question is, how do we work with governments around the world to protect what is on that and criminal acts against the network that are occurring around the world.

>> i would like to invite any of the folks who were at lunch today. if you have any comments to make. i know you have a lot of concerns that deserve to be represented. >> this is a really tactical question. one of the things we have seen is there is a major vulnerability caused by poorly written code, code that underlies our applications, operating systems, telecommunications devices. we have talked about designing security in, but having code that is stable, secure, that is not happening. you talked about silicon valley, the route 120 eight, same problems are inherent in all of those companies. they write bad code.

this is something that cannot be done purely on the private sector, or purely on the government sector. has anyone really given that a thought? how can we change the vulnerability landscape? >> worst yet, some of the codes are not being written. written on the other side of the world and some of the problems are deliberate rather than accidental. or is a push to get code out quickly and to update. for a long time in this domain, the pressure was get new things out more quickly. the security element was not a major future -- feature. the customer has a lot of say. there is a whole other chapter of what we need to talk about.

the gaming industry 10 years ago, everybody was in the garage. now the gaming industry is three very large layers. there is a lot more -- large players. i want to have some due diligence here with regard to the code. not enough has been done about that conversation. there is a sense of cultural change that is going to be challenging in this information age. as citizens of the cyberspace, we have to take responsibility for as opposed to policing it. >> i am a journalist and one of my interests as a journalist is to apply these discussions to

current events. secretary napolitano pointed out that the solutions we are talking about, the approaches we are talking about in this area are going to require a level of intimacy between the public and private sector. i am curious if any of you have any thoughts about whether these recent revelations about collaboration the 20 nsa and cap nsa ands -- between the tech companies have made it more difficult or tainted the notion of collaboration between the private sector and the government. >> what we are talking about is completely different than the other program. experience shows a lot of stuff gets conflated. there is a risk that for some people, when there has not been a bad event, they can get themselves worked up by imagining how all of this is

going to wind up with some big rather type of thing. there are structural changes in our society that are not going to be rolled back. we are largely dependent on networks for moving information and making things happen. anybody who thinks that it is develop iset things going to be in for a rude awakening. we need to be honest about it, we need to be clear. times the media to spend explaining what is being takingd as opposed to what one disgruntled person may spain. >> i think it colors the dialogue. or has to be a public discussion about these issues for people to wonder -- there has to be a

public discussion about these issues for people to understand. we hear about identity theft, but the more sinister aspects of this are not very clear to the public. the revelations have made it difficult. there was one telecom said the government had asked for 5000 requests in the last month. read between the lines, you do not do a law enforcement investigation without going to get the cell phone records. it is all a part of how law enforcement gets some of the facts. that was all kind of in this big push about government involvement in the private sector. moreining that a bit efficiently in terms of what it really means and how this part of infrastructure protection is quite different from intelligence collection and

those sorts of things will go a long way towards the american public better understanding how this must work. >> we really took the position right after 9/11 that the security was governmental. will make this threat go away. this many years later, we realize the threat is not going away. the only way to get after this the private engage sector and broader civil society. there are some things that clearly have to be closed, but what the government is realizing is that it needs to air on the side of more openness about what it is doing.

the days we can work behind closed doors and take care of problems are gone. if this messy situation helps us make that cultural shift that much quicker, it will be a positive outcome instead of a negative one. >> we have covered a lot of territory. i want to give each of you an opportunity, some comment you want to throw out as your final comment. >> i want to thank jane harman and the woodrow wilson center for highlighting this. people are focused on this and it is a little bit of a novelty to talk about the private sector having responsibility and accountability at the critical infrastructure level. we need to continue this discussion. let's not continue this indefinitely. [laughter]

>> i would echo mike's comments. the private sector really does understand the risk. reputation. to our we worry about that every day. it is not like we're sitting with their heads in the sand thinking the government is going to tell us what to do. this is real day-to-day work that we are doing. infrastructure of countries asking the same questions will be the real challenge. that is where the dialogue has to be. i am reminded, i spent 30 years in the air force and 20 years ago, the military was having this very discussion about who is in charge and who will be accountable and we solved that and dod some years ago. ics at the same juncture -- i

see us at the same juncture in terms of what is the shared responsibility, who was going to lead the way and whether the processes -- what are the processes we will use to do that? >> frank and i were talking about the outset, representing sectors. i am delighted to have this chance to be a part of this conversation. academia needs to be a part of this as well. the manhattan project was taking a bunch of people who are very smart and harvesting that expertise to deal with the threat. we have that as the greatest strength of this country. we really left academia on the sidelines from this conversation.

>> jane harman, thank you so much. this has been a useful and interesting discussion. i would like to thank the woodrow wilson center and npr for sponsoring this. [applause]

>> here is a look at the primetime schedule. house leaders00, eric cantor and steny hoyer discuss legislative agenda and the farm bill which failed earlier today by a vote of 195- 234. napolitano discusses cybersecurity protection. on c-span three, a senate hearing on the proposed merger between us airways and american airlines. earlier today, the house ways and means to many held a

committee -- a hearing on the future of medicare and social security. here is part of that. >> you predicted that medicare could only pay a certain percentage. severe of impact would that have on medicare and its ability to provide medical assistance to seniors? >> that shortfall is at hospital insurance. if it were allowed to simply lay the amount action of of benefits we could pay would be 87% of what we are currently scheduled for. that side of medicare cannot make payments in excess to the bounce of this trust funds. basically medicare would simply have to wait until there was incoming revenues.

of care.een denial a reduction in amount of care that seniors receive of roughly 30% in that year. >> -- 13% of that year. >> you see higher costs rates going forward. that will not count on the low growth rate of the last two years? you make the point that the findings put on a nice edge. the seven trustee said we need to take prompt and timely legislative action. with that means sometime in the next 10 years? sometime in the next five years? do we need to act sooner than that to address these issues? >> certainly the sooner there is action, the more prudent it would be for a number of reasons. one is the sooner you act, the more people you can involve in

the solution. a gentler impact. there will be an impact beneficiaries. you can spread it out over a longer period of time. you have to remember the main factors. one is demographics. if we change anything about eligibility age for criteria, we want to face that and. >> a lot of people coming into the program. higher costs continue to drive financials. >> that is right. >> how soon should be addressed this? you know the issues. how much longer do we delay taking meaningful steps? that thefficult deep difficulty is that lawmakers have to make a judgment in what is the right environment and the best time to act from a number of perspectives. the early do act, the better.

nash of the earlier you act, the better. -- the earlier you act, the better. >> are you thinking do not worry, be happy? it will all work out? >> well, i think i said early on that although i am the spendingout slowdown, i expect we face a very significant problem. to sooner we adopt measures address the long-term situation, the better. i'm not one who spent sleepless nights worrying about 2087. looking out at the next two decades, there is cause for

concern. like my colleague, i believe the sooner decisions are made, the more gradually they can be and the more political viability they will have. >> rather than waiting five or 10 years, would your recommendation toward taking meaningful steps be to do this nowstart those solutions rather than continuing to delay? lot ofave adopted a changes. we will learn a lot from that demonstration from pilot programs and from the implementation of various measures in the affordable care act. i think in a few years, we will be in a much better position to

adopt in a sense the next generation of changes. informed by what we have learned about how well some of these demonstrations are doing. a lot of time in her testimony talking the benefits of the affordable care act. talkingur testimony about the benefits of the affordable care act. what part was that in there? >> it wasn't. i said i would stray a bit from the trustees report. >> it is your personal view looking on these issues? >> yes. it comes from the belief that the success of the efforts to hold down medicare costs depends critically on what is happening in the rest of our health economy. medicare -- doing

>> i have heard the testimony loud and clear. you can see all of the interview tonight on c-span 2 at 9:20 p.m. "washington journal" defense lacey on the situation in afghanistan and syria. and president obama's recent trip to europe. later, an examination of what drives employment in the u.s. plus, your e-mails, phone calls, and tweets. "washington journal" at 7 a.m. eastern on c-span. north,e would march they would drive today this. they said the time would come.

it looks like we have a chance -- it looks that we have a chance. this is may. his is our chance to maybe t them again. win a victory that would bring a link negotiation to the negotiating table. --lincoln negotiation lincoln administration to the negotiating table. lee went north, he went north to settle. 150th anniversary of the battle of gettysburg. 9:30y, june 30 starting at a.m. eastern on american history tv on c-span 3. in a lot of ways, this is a

challenging time for conservatives. we have got a democratic president and quite liberal democratic president who has been reelected after putting into place some ideas and programs and projects that i think are very wrongheaded. the public had a chance to think about and the reelected him. challenging time. it is also an exciting time. many are china modernize conservatism. thinking about how to confront the challenges of the 21st century. tore's a lot of opportunity think about what american 21st century needs to change about the government change itself to get get back to economic growth and prosperity and the kind of

cultural revival that we need. it is challenging, but exciting. >> more with national affairs levin sunday at 8 p.m. on c-span's "q&a." next senator jeff sessions on defense policy and spending. this is 15 minutes. toi want to welcome you all our series of seminars on missile defense and nuclear deterrence and defense policies. just a few notes. tomorrow we have frank rose from the department of state. after this we have and -- a series of riffs on michelle -- on a series of briefs that i

will be moderating. i also want to thank my friend who is also here. welcome. welcome to our guest from russia, and reprinting, austria, and israel. -- from russia, australia, and israel. we are the secretary of special assistance and nato. he will speak at a special event on july 10 on nato and defense issues and arms control. if you have not signed up, please cease air if you could. senator sessions, as you know, when he came to the u.s. senate from alabama, he decided he would take the easy way out. he would join the budget committee and face a deficit over the next 10 years. he would join the armed services in the middle of sequestration and just for fun

he would be on the judiciary committee and take on the issue of immigration. ofator sessions, on behalf all of us and our friends and colleagues, welcome. let's give a warm welcome to senator jeff sessions. [applause] thank you. good to be here with all of you. i appreciate the opportunity to share some thoughts with you. a lot is on our minds. things are happening rapidly and very significantly. -- how we willl work our way through it, no one knows. i'll be glad to share some perspectives and maybe try to answer some questions that i will not be good at.

rod super is on the committee that deals with these issues. and our commander will stop -- and our commander. doing a fabulous job. on all of these important issues. we will talk about the budget and where we are. 14 budget request for the department of defense is that a challenging time of escalating threats and continuing financial constraint. it is more important than ever that we get the situation on a sound path. i found the most troubling aspect to be the treatment of sequestration. it has been really hidden from

the american people. it has not been fully understood. the claims being made on the , that it budget replaces sequestration, but he says he has a plan to get around it. it is not a realistic land. -- plan. it will not work. that is the problem. we have got to get some certainty into the department. we hear that all the time from the private defense contractors in the world. everyone is worried about that. uncertainty has been too much of our problem in recent months. this is clearly insane looking at this chart. the last request for 2014 spending levels -- if you could

2011.t that, compared to 2012, his budget drop to 586. his budget in 2013 called for 534. now he calls for 527. that is a big drop right there. that doesn't even count the sequester. we have a pretty serious erosion. what about chart two? ago, the u.s. spent 46% of our budget on defense. under the president's budget this year, just 70% of spending will go to defense. 17% of spending

will go to defense. how about number three? people complained the suffering in america is a result of the wars in iraq and afghanistan. $1.4wars enacted to trillionl. -- trillion. in one year, we had a deficit of $1.3 trillion. billionbe about $600 plus deficit this year. this is a factor that we need to deal with. is drawing budget about 3% for the last three or four years. $20 stamps has gone from billion to $80 billion four times.

medicare and medicaid and social security increasing 5-6%. those are on an unsustainable course. we cannot have an economy growing at 2% per year and have spending increases at 6% per year. that is the definition of an unsustainable financial course. how about the next slide? the percentage of gdp, you might be familiar with that. post world war ii. we are projected to be at 3%. all time low of gdp.

.hat is below the commitment we are trying to deal with the sequester. do we have another chart? this gives further perspective. under full sequestration, the defense budget will shrink. nondefense spending will increase 44%. one half of the sequester cuts are falling on 16 of the budget. ,n the nondefense budget

they're able to supplement their cuts and reduce the cuts that they take by getting 2% of the nondefense cuts of medicare. all of the government programs that we fund do not take as much of a reduction. it is a really tough deal. , we hit theugust, debt ceiling again. oft became the focal point the national discussion of how to deal with our unsustainable debt course will stop -- debt course. it was a national debate. conventional wisdom was that this was horrible. aboutd a discussion spending. you could not reach an agreement until the last minute here and the country will sink into the ocean, but we needed to

have a discussion. there was a disagreement. what came out of it? they were ready to respect debt ceiling $2.1 trillion. we have hit that. we have added that much to the debt. we are adding for it to continue longer. we agreed to reduce the spending over 10 years by $2.1 trillion. we were spending $3.7 trillion per year at that time. $47re projected to go to trillion. that is the perspective we are in. ,f they did not have the cuts the sequestration would take place. that was aimed at i guess the republicans. we do not care about defense.

you guys care about defense. i guess that is basically what they were saying. you do not have to agree. we will cut defense. you will not like that. theyuys agree because thought the committee would be able to reach an agreement. i remember being shocked to see that in their and that was one of the reasons i did not vote for the bill. reach anttee would agreement. do not worry. that was a mentality. it passed. beginning tois bite. we are beginning to feel it. i said, gentlemen, you have been sharing this with congress for some time. you have a lot of sympathy over here. if you have the phone number of

1600 pennsylvania avenue, i suspect you can make a call to the commander in chief post up what he is saying is that -- commander in chief he is saying that there'll be no -- we can reduce the pressure. all they are demanding is more time. january.more taxes in this agreement that he signed in august 2011 simply reduced the growth of spending by about $2.1 trillion. -- no taxs and increases in it. i think the president owes us a response. are you going to have it all fall on defense as this chart shows? elp usoing to hle find reduction in other areas?

there are probably other things that can be done there. no changes in medicaid. it is surging. .o changes in food stamps no changes in a lot of other programs. we have a more logical way to reduce our growth of spending a little there and not do damage. i think the commander in chief owes it to the men and women he deployed in harm's way to do more than say i'm not doing anything for raising taxes. you can see the intensity of the disagreement. it is very real. it is very likely not to be

felt by raising taxes. they had an agreement to reduce spending without raising taxes. they have been proposing other ideas about where we could spread the cuts around the government. we have gotten nowhere with that. , guess the white house says well, we have got a plan. raise taxes. we are not together on that. i'm afraid we will not get together. this is a big problem. i wanted to share with you the intensity of the issue. mitch mcconnell recently set it is a question of fidelity, i , to thewas the word american people. we said we would cut spending. when you eliminate the sequester and replace it with tax eliminatedyou have

spending cuts that we proudly announce we had achieved. a problem with spreading it around to different agencies. that ane placed increase spending -- but to replace that an increase difficult and be i'm not prepared to do that. that is where we are. i hope all of you will be thinking about it. if you are a diabolical, political guru and you are part of the cut defense gang, you can get defense cuts and blame it on the republicans. that would be a winner would in a question mark wouldn't that be brilliant? be a winner, wouldn't it? wouldn't that be brilliant?

wroter lieberman and i expressing concerns about cuts that were being proposed in the 2010 budget. in suffered a reduction fiscal year 2009 levels. 44 to 30.cutback from i objected to that. thanks to the efforts of secretary gates. gmd funding was replaced and restored. for the most part, they remained mostly on life support during the last four years. we are seeing consequences today.

secretary hegel, i'm pleased to .ay did reverse that decision it will be more costly. and admiral is on capitol hill at a briefing to improve radar capabilities. that is something that i think we certainly can do. i would say to you that we had a very good discussion on the services committee. i'm doing a support third site i missile deployment on the east. it would be as many as 20 interceptors. i think that is good. e did point out --

vote explicitly to advance the new site. without the european side, we really need an east coast american site. we talked about it in committee. i felt pretty good about that. it was a bipartisan group. the house version includes $140 million for a third site. that is good for conference purposes. the house appropriations committee has $70 million in it. we put $30 million in it will stop -- we put $30 million in it.

everybody seems to be understanding the need for a third site. the only question is in the tight budget time, what can we do about it? -- we do not have enough money, they say. it is true. look at what happened in fiscal year2012-2016, five projections for the missile defense agency. the five-year spending projections in this year's 37.6t for 2014 is only billion dollars. mda funding over the next five years. that is what is putting us in a

fix. if we have the money, we could complete the third site completely. the armed services committee fully funded the president's request for nsa weapons activity. unfortunately, the president's request fell short of the neustar commitment that he made rather significantly. to secure senate support for a new start, he committed to increase funding for nsa nuclear weapons activity by $4.1 billion between fiscal year '12-'16. we need to do this.

everyone understands the need for it. taking into account sequester cuts and shortfalls, that increase will be scaled back by about 1.4 in fiscal year 12, 300 $85 million was cut. an additional $600 million was cut due to the sequester. fiscal year 14 request fell 385 million sure. this adds up over time. it difficult to accomplish we're committed to do. toit makes it difficult accomplish what we are committed to do. it is now likely to be delayed

another 6-12 months. pushing it back beyond way 19, which creates risk associated with a component in the bomb reaching the end of its life. we have to get that fixed. that requests we were told we had a three-year slip in the life extension program for the w 78 bonds. according to the fy 14 stockpile stewardship management plan. it has slid another year. has beenar trial delayed by two years, leaving the navy with no margin for further scheduled slip as result of this delay.

below thecrease operational requirement of it at 2031. both navy believe there are moderate risks associated with this plan. the long-range standoff missile replacement for the 1980 twoile has been delayed years. the contractor has been delayed on that. after three years of study, the next generation of bomber does appear to be ready to move forward. 13elopment with the fy requiring that the bomber be nuclear certified within two years after initial appointment. the ministration has inducted analysis of alternatives for following it. it continues to grow between

what was committed as part of the new start process, and where we are at. i'm worried about that. i was particularly uneasy about .he present -- announcement we got a call about it. the president said this. i'm announcing additional steps forward after a comprehensive review. i'm determined we can assure the security of america and our allies and maintain a strong deterrent while reducing our nuclear weapons by a two one third. i intend to seek negotiated cuts with russia to move beyond cold war nuclear postures. at the same time, will work with our allies see old reductions in u.s. and russian tactical

weapons. and reject the nuclear weapons of north korea may be seeking. that's a big change. weapons today. the present announce they're going to have another third reduce. it causes me concern. i believe it is going to cause congress concern. , this is not ofven by merely by a goal reaching a level that is safer america. anseems to be more driven by ideological vision of the present, of a world without

nuclear weapons. i believe we can still defend is one thing. when he the commander-in-chief saying hisating goal is a world of nuclear weapons, and we have very little analysis of this tom a an announcement of a further one the reduction has destabilizing affect worldwide. i believe it is likely to be misinterpreted worldwide. maybe -- i think it is a dangerous policy. i see no need for us to take that reduction in our nuclear arsenal at this time. senator hagel. secretary hagel signed on with a small group of folks on a

global zero reports, to have zero nuclear weapons. they agreed to pursue an aggressive nuclear disarmament regime. favorite pros reducing weapons to 900. as with vegas to 1000. almost what they asked for. the are meaning 900 nuclear weapons said 450 would be deployed. wasted reserve. deployed weapons with the dealer e-alerted/ .t require weeks to be replaced

all land-r plan, based icbm would be eliminated. all tactical nuclear weapons would be eliminated read strategic bomber force be reduced to 18. 52's of the decommissioned. it would restructure a system.d summer rains would go from 14 to 10. this is an atmosphere in which we're operating. airport came near where -- nowhere close to recommending such of when, and any the writing of their report, it was clear that our allies around the world are very uneasy about us now.

if your goal is to avoid nuclear proliferation, aren't you likely to incentivize many of our allies who feel safe under the u.s. nuclear umbrella, to feel like they have got to have nuclear weapons. that irandy imagine or north korea are going to see the example of the united states going to zero nuclear weapons and that is going to cause them to not develop new their weapons? i'm likely. one share with me, when i asked about their plan, he says we are never giving up nuclear weapons. we far outnumbered and ethical nuclear weapons.

willing to discuss the reduction of strategic nuclear weapons, but have a massive lead in tactical weapons, and won't discuss that. apparently, our secretary defense is prepared to consider elimination of all type of cold nuclear weapons. i think we have got to be careful about this. i think this has ramifications far more than just a political dispute. we're talking about a fundamental alteration of the posture of the united states with regard to nuclear weapons. we have especially talked about it. to the extent that it is based to apresidential goal lemonade all nuclear weapons. i am deeply troubled about it. i do not think that is realistic. worldot imagine that the

will be heading that way. but we've got to do is beam at your and responsible -- mature and responsible anyway the .dvances to use -- peace this policy could endanger peace far more than maintaining , and beingarsenal consistent, and firm, and clear in how we intend to use them. some of the things that are said about iran is that it seems like tom collaboration -- nonproliferation are the guiding powers in our very of nuclear weapons. inc. about that. -- think about that. and role of nuclear weapons is being reduced.

the president is made clear u.s., develop nuclear warheads or pursue nuclear medicines -- missions. in japan, not all ago, in south korea -- he says in march of i changed our nuclear posture to reduce the number and role of nuclear weapons in our national security. i made it clear the united states would not develop new nuclear warheads, and we will not pursue new military missions for nuclear weapons. we have narrowed the range of continued uses of which we would use or threaten to use nuclear weapons. i do not know how that may be making the south koreans feel. or the japanese. facing concerns that they face

around their neighborhoods, how could he make them feel more confident in the united states reliability as a partner? that is an issue of significant -- sorry to run on so long. try to answerd to any questions that you have read aank you for -- you have read keeper your interest in defense policy. we can agree on a lot of things. bill wasse services unanimous. we had almost unanimous. no votes being basically on a concern of the sequester, and .ow much money we should mark i think we shouldn't .veremphasize the disagreements

senator levin isn't a good job of keeping us on a very good bipartisan course grade wetjen's -- course. questions? [applause] >> good morning. agree ask now, i will with you that the senators -- the presidents budget request is fantasy. the senate and house budget resolutions are fantasy, the staff has marked up to fantasy. numbers as imaginary as the square root of negative one. it seems like everybody is handwaving and nobody's moving towards copper eyes -- compromise.

island of reality? had we get there eschenbach -- how do we get there? am telling you, i'm worried about it. it is difficult to justify marketing out -- marking up numbers that is not likely to be the number we are going to appropriate. i voted for the billing committee. secretary hagel has promised to submit a report. the supposed to be coming shortly. i am uneasy about it. i made a speech that night saying i was not going to be able to vote for a bill that didn't comply with the budget control act. part of which is the sequester.

i advocated there are other places we can find savings. i think we are in a very grim position. >> one of the issues that have come recently is of the administration has reached an agreement on what to do with the program and russia. the disc tells -- the details are sketchy. do you have inside the where they take the program? >> i do not. i should know. but none of us have done a lot of great work in where we are in that. i do not know. we will have a dispute woman talk about russia over the power of the president to reduce nuclear weapons. we may have a floor vote and

debate over whether it should be done by treaty or can it be done by executive negotiations. the manner reduction of weapons is not firmly settled at this point. >> hello. given what you are saying about the president backing away from commitments on modernization, is there anything you can do at this point to regain the trust of republicans and show that he is willing to work with you, or is the party to poisoned? >> we can definitely get that program back on track, am about to see it so. i have made clear i was prepared to see if we can't and -- couldn't do it anymore way -- i have made it clear i was repaired to see if we couldn't do any more effective way.

i that was excessive. it is a bit excessive. they built one of the biggest steel mills in the world and alabama in two years time. the whole plant and everything in it was 5.7 billion. i cannot imagine a plant to make weapons is going to cost that much money. i do not believe anyone else in the world is coming close to spending that much money. we have got to look at the budget. i'm concerned that energy has less intensity of interest in containing costs than they need grade they just give the money and produce the weapons. they say we need to send the money. arebody needs to say, you not going to get that much money. , it is hard to determine

exactly what it takes. i'm not a nuclear engineer. it is hard to know exactly. it takes a lot of money to maintain and modernize nuclear weapons. i'm prepared to work the president to try to do that in the most cost-effective way. we do not need to allow this issue to dawdle without being put on a course that we can see completion at an appropriate time. that is what is scaring a lot of us now. >> you have expressed some concern of what our allies might do potentially in europe if we reduce our capabilities. iranot questioning what or north korea might do. that is a separate issue. is there any specific policy directives that have come out of europe or asia that have

shown a change in the defense posture? because they are concerned about a reduction on the american side? any policy initiatives or development? >> japan is certainly have begun to talk about changing her start policy. .ou could see more of that the soviets are definitely advanced -- the russians are glanced -- are dancing their capabilities for nuclear weapons. we are the only country in the world that has nuclear weapons that doesn't have an ongoing production capability. it is in opposition we find ourselves in. it has been going on for so long that we can't wait much longer. we have to alter that and get to have more clear policy so the whole world knows where we are. consistency of

purpose that has been maintained for so long. i think it has been a positive force for peace in the world. others disagree. but i do not think it is disputable. in ank altering that significant way, which i'm afraid president's policies are doing, is going to create more risk of -- more risk and not less risk. mindset in the president's announcement about the one third cut in nuclear weapons was why the level of platforms, and my platforms the navy, submarines, the air force bombers? i think it is clear that some point you can break the back of the triad.

platforms are something you stated has slipped to the subprograms. land-based icbms were bought and paid for in the early 1960s. we 80 breaking china on this -- we may be breaking some china on this. breaking something we will ever get back. what is your thought about maintaining the resilience and stability of the nuclear deterrence as we go to lower warhead numbers? >> i have been worried that there is a subtle plan to alter the triad significantly. i support it. we have a language that says

that the defense department has to notify congress before any change in the triad occurs. it may be why we have preliminary calls before the speech in berlin. if you keep squeezing it down, you can crumble the triad without having to say i have eliminated this like or that leg. it is a historic part of our the onlyosture to change with great care, so the whole world knows that if we make a change, we have alternatives that will work just as well. i do not see us at that point yet. -- policies could lead us to crumbling the triad, if not altering it.

>> let me ask you question. as one of our previous speakers said, in a survey of their group from the left to the right, it concluded further reductions in u.s. weapons is not going to be beneficial with ,espect to dealing with iran north korea and other proliferation. -- youare mentioned mentioned they may think seriously about their own deterrence. what is your sense to the views of the armed service committee and defense minded senators about whether we should be pursuing further cuts in weapons, or will deal with corporation problem? >> i think that is a hard thing that we are doing. we have seemed to think that

the organ is important our relations with the russians. we hope we are in a relation with russia that nuclear weapons are not the dominant factor anymore. thinkodd that you would that somehow if we negotiate with the russians, this is going to set an example. they use the word example frequently in their theory. that this will set an example read to who? is it going to alter india's view? china's you? -- china view? it is baffling to me. -- it isious in their a serious weakness in their theory. it is a theory of the left that we have got to get rid of nuclear weapons. i wish we all could. the we all. -- don't we all? .onald reagan's said it

i think we need to be prudent in response, and ask ourselves seriously, if this is going to help maintain peace in the world if the nuclear capabilities are no greater than half a dozen countries in the world? it many countries could -- is not the last reduction. will he be promoting more cuts in the next year or two? at what point does it become easy for adversary to say we can we can build that many weapons. that a big army, we've a big bunch of nuclear weapons. .e do not take anything you can see how the mentality could get into people's minds,

not peace enhancing. danger enhancing. it seems to me. anything else? thank you. one more, and then i will wrap up. you talked about a need for increases in missile defense and nuclear spending. are there any areas you see that are right for cuts? are we atre-bones -- the bare-bones? >> the budget has been slipping substantially for a long time. you got this huge long-term investment in nuclear defense the it would be a tragedy not to complete. we have spent all of this

research and development. .e will continue to do so if we had to go from 44 in alaska and add 20 more in another site, i do not think that is too great a cost. you have got it, and the ability to look at one of these we're nots -- intimidated by by you. it enhances the power of the president to be confident in the negotiations. the american people to be confident that we do not have to -- if the president says no to this country or that country, they could lob a missile into los angeles. we need that confidence. if it takes more than we are

currently spending to get there, i think it is worth it. but, on this, i do not think any likely end of the sequester is going to involve complete restoration of the entire amount. , andave the $50 billion you have this one. it will be additional squeezing on the defense department. we will have to continue to make more cuts. bipartisan isnate intenselye far more interested in managing contracts, containing cost overruns, and gal is a part of making this do that. thank you. >> thank you very much. [applause]

ionce had a boss that said problem well stated is a problem half solved. while we may not be walking out the door with these problems solved, they have been well framed. a few very much. we also have a coin. you can excepted. -- you can accept it. lex when i became a member, they quit sending me them. i had to send another $40. >> those were the days before computers. thank you. james lacy defense analysts on the situation in afghanistan and syria. been a look at president obama's trip to europe.

, an examination of what drives employment in the u.s. washington journal is live every morning >> coming up on c-span tonight, sawyer and cantor on the farm bill. hello c reacts. house minority leader reacts. in the house thursday, members rejected be $940 billion farm bill. democrats opposed cuts to the food