one more thing, the benefit of the program, and that is tens of thousands of criminals that are in penitentiaries' now as a result of this program. for the 10,000 or soalmost 10,0e program there are tens of thousands of defendants that have been convicted that would otherwise be out on the streets committing crimes. so the program has proven to be extremely beneficial in all types of cases from terrorism to counterfeiting to murders, etc.. host: thank you. that does it for ""washington journal." thank you for joining us. we leave you with a live shot outside the u.s. supreme court building. you can see cameras and others gathered there as we watch to see what decisions the court hands down today. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]

>> a live look outside the supreme court on this monday where the nine justices are meeting on this final day of the court's term. visitors are queued up, a camera crews and reporters standing by waiting for decisions to be announced in 11 cases, including voting rights and same-sex marriage. in particular, the court deciding whether to uphold section 5 of the 1965 voting rights act requiring some states to get federal approval before making changes to the way they conduct their elections. also today we could see rulings on california's prop. 8, 2016 constitutional ban on same-sex marriage approved by voters. and the case challenging the defense of marriage act. the court will continue to add days to the term is needed to dispense with the remaining

cases. all of the decisions are expected before july. we will continue to bring you live coverage from outside the court throughout the morning and will have the rulings of those cases as soon as they become available. the last week of legislative business in congress this week before the july 4 weekend -- recess. for the debate on immigration bill. harry reid is setting the stage for a vote to advance the new border security -- and limit to the bill. a vote on final passage of that bill expected sometime this week. live coverage of the senate when they return on c-span2. legislative court today. members will pavel benchmark at noon eastern for speeches and to a clock in to begin work for the week on the agenda. several bills dealing with offshore oil drilling and later this week lawmakers will work on

a spending bill to fund the agriculture department during the next fiscal year. live coverage of the house is always here on c-span. today's white house briefing happens at noon eastern. we will have that live when it gets under way. you could expect -- >> first ladies have the capacity for to personify if they so choose. this is a pattern in american women and politics, famous or not. one, they are women, real people who actually do things. but there is the secondary capacity of being a personifying figure, a charismatic figure. i think many of first lady have become first lady and realizing it was larger than life.

that was something dolly figure out. she becomes a figurehead for her husband's administration. housekes the white possible. this is all happening and 1808. n/a 214, she does not know the british are going to bring the capital city and all of the work she did in helping public identify with this house they call the white house under her term is going to pay off because it will get a surge of nationalism around the war. >> our focus on first ladies continues every monday night. ,ur next program, kathryn algor on why we study first ladies. tonight it 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. a reminder that today's white house briefing look at under way at noon eastern. we will have before you live when it starts. expect questions of the latest with the nsa leaker, supreme

court decisions should they come today, and the president's remarks on immigration legislation. live coverage with jay carney this afternoon at about noon eastern here on c-span. right now, a discussion with an author is written a book about president obama's second term agenda from this morning's ""washington journal." alter has a new book out called, "the center holds: obama and his enemies." thank you for joining us. we wanted your insight into the president's second term agenda. you had a recent piece in the new republic in which you write the president paused debate disaster, the first disaster he had in colorado when debating some insight he is facing the challenges and the way you're watching him to conduct business as he faces a lot of tough moments, how does it provide insight? newhat excerpt in the

republic from my book was about how as we all know he blew the first debate in denver. what i tried to do there and elsewhere was to provide the back story. so what happened in debate crap 0at left him actually going for 6 in those mock debates. , nots really stumbling able to connect. all of this debate coaches knew almost for sure he was going to lose that debate because he just seemed kind of disconnected from his own race for president, as if he was somehow maybe a little above the process of debates for which -- as we all know, he did terrible in that debate.

a majorble to make comeback in both the sec and third debate. it is almost like a different candidate showed up at hofstra university for the second debate. is itt that might tell us tends to be in washington, everything is going to go the same as it is now. is obama's second term a disaster? does he have time to recover? to make, these are nonsensical questions. plenty of time to recover. he has proven time and again his he can come back from mistakes, from adversity, would be a huge mistake to count this president out. just a year before the election as i reportof 2011,

in this book, or remind people in the book, nate silver, a really well known opinion research analyst from the new york times had an article, is obama toast? said if things did not change much, 17% chance of being reelected. we know that turned out to be wrong. it is a dramatic story of how he came back to win the re-election campaign, and there are clues in the comeback to how he can come lasttoday from very rough six weeks. >> and jonathan alter writes in this excerpt from his debate disaster was not just a blip on reflection that helps explain how this president operates and how he might get through already scandal-hard second term. what are the toughest issues facing him right now is the

legislative issues, a trend immigration reform and now more about climate change kind of attraction there, or is it the politics swirling around washington? guest: i think the politics are connected to these to the big issues. i do think the controversy scandals, whatever anyone wants to call them, of the last few weeks, whether it be the irs or the nsa story, as important as they are, are not going to be permanent blemishes on his presidency. he is much more likely to be judged on the key the big issues, plus some others that you mentioned, so the big issue for 2013 is immigration reform. and if that ends up getting blocked in the house, i think it will get to the senate as many people believe, but it blocked in the house, that would take away from the president, a major

accomplishment for his legacy. but what makes the politics or interesting, it would also make it extremely hard for republicans to win the next presidential election. they might do well in 2014, but they have to do better than 29% of the latino vote, which is what mitt romney got in 2012. if they cannot improve on that, and they will not be able to improve on that if they don't get the immigration bill through, it is and be very, very rough sailing for the republican party. many republicans know this. this is why so many republicans are in favor of immigration reform, setting aside the merits of the issue, they realize their political party needs to do this. so here, libya is a credit sample of why what i wrote is so relevant2 to what is going on now.

if the republicans -- if romney had managed to get even 41%, 42% of the latino vote, jim messina, the campaign manager for barack obama, told me in 2011, obama would have no way of being reelected the matter what else that they did. if they could not get close to 60% of the latino vote, they were through in the president would be a 1-termer. so the story of how they got 71% of the latino vote is fascinating and it is largely untold story, one of many i tried to tell in this book. the point is, it was almost a subterranean campaign that the anglo media, largely missed, a famous instance, spanish speaking committed the

named christina who was an anchor that had retired, she is that the latina oprah. she cut at with michelle obama that were hugely popular in the latino community. there were a series of other things done where the obama campaign went to soccer matches, went to latina beauty parlors, naturalization ceremonies very quietly so as to not arouse controversy. and a whole series of other things they did to run up the score on the latino vote. if they had not got an 71% -- let's say that 65% and still won, the immigration bill right now would not be on the floor of the senate. everything that is happening with immigration is a direct outgrowth of the 2012 election, and that is why it bears scrutiny, and one of the reasons

i thought it was worth devoted a whole book too. host: this book is called, "the center holds: obama and his enemies." jonathan alter is a contributor for nbc. he spent 28 years at "newsweek's "newsweek." the headline in the new york times from couple of days ago -- details a room they have in the senate office building where the white house is working out of but they're not doing it in a very overt, publicity-seeking way. what does that tell you about lessons the press and pestilent and strategies the white house is taking for this issue, which you have said will be a key one for the president's legacy? >> they used to say about what eisenhower, they call the hidden hand presidency. far aboutt go that

barack obama, but he did turn in his first term that if he raised his profile too high on an issue, it would arouse opposition. like on the deficit reduction commission, which officially became simpson balls, once he was for it, the republicans who have been the original sponsors were against it -- simpson- bowles, once he was 4, the republicans who had been the original sponsors were against it. you saw him do that in a few cases in his first term. there were some complaints that he was not active enough in shaping the health care reform bill. he let congress take the lead. that was partly because he thought it would have a better chance of passage. indeed, he was the first president to get universal coverage after literally 100 years of trying since the progressive party platform of

1912. kind of taking a step up work on that. it also worked on ending don't ask, don't tell in the military. instead of his taking the lead on gays in the military, he let the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff testify on it, that members of congress move forward because they would have to change the law to make that change possible, which, indeed, the change was made at the end of 2010. so now i think you're seeing a where he isation trying not to get too out front. his people are very involved gettingon the hill in immigration reform through, but you don't see him out there beating the drum on it. he gave a speech on in last week, but not taking high- profile position. i think that is politically

smart of him. whether it is enough to get the bill through the house where the politics are very complex for the republicans, it is not clear. the interesting thing about this bill politically is that while he needs it for his legacy, for democrats, the crass truth is, it would be better if the bill failed. obviously, not better for latinos, would not be better for other immigrants, would not be better are deeply for the democratic party long term because -- would not be better for the democratic party long term because the reaction will be severe against the republican party if they block this bill. we saw what happened california when governor pete wilson years and years ago pushed through legislation that was punitive

toward latinos. the state has been blue ever since. deep blue, and a chance for republicans to effectively compete in california. it would be very, very difficult for the republican party to compete in states like , othero, florida, nevada battleground states they will be moving forward to recapture the white house. it would be almost impossible for them to compete in the states if they do not move a bill in the congress. of republicansot understand this. it is why you see fox news, bill o'reilly, shawn hannity, a lot of republicans are supporting immigration reform because they understand the political realities. host: jonathan alter is our guest. if you want to join the conversation --

guest: that is a great point. say, i thinking to that is a great point. this is something that has always bothered me as people talk about what is the president's legacy going to be or, famously, mitch mcconnell said, my party over the next two years, my first priority is to get rid of barack obama. when the american people hear that, when the hear journalists talking that way, about what is the president's party, the minority leader's reaction --

priority, their reaction is, ?hat is good for us one thing i tried it in the book, and you have an unbelievably tune in and well- informed audience, so what i try to do is think of something like the c-span audience, well informed audience, then try on every single page to tell us very, very informed people something they don't know about what happened to behind-the- scenes when you pull back the curtain on these big events of the last couple of years. i cannot give people a money back guarantee on that, but i do kind of promise you will find something on every page that you had not known before in "the center holds."

caller: i am assuming the reason you're here is for your book because you're doing with that individual was saying in that tweet. this has to do a c-span for having you on this morning. first of all. no. 2, the average american person don't understand the deaths of how politics works. when obama came into office, there were specific issues facing this nation. and those things seem to be totally by the wayside. even when things do happen, because you all allow the president and you are more focused on politics -- i'm not sure how long you had been ntc, d.c., sir, but we're trying to get jobs and -- i do have a job now, but it is nowhere near where used to be. i am not making the money i used to be. you guys are perpetuating something that is so irrelevant. you are more concerned about

poll numbers than whether obama begich mcconnell. obama is no different than any politician along the way. you guys a to start focusing on the specific things that are germane and relevant to the american people. one last thing, collars, please stop talking about being pro republican or pro democrat. obama is no different than bush as far as a politician. the fact is, hold them all to account. media, please, do your job. it is a disservice to american people to sign with the republicapoliticians. don't actually live in washington. i live in new jersey. i have covered politics and government for more than 30 years. you're absolutely right that my purpose for appearing today is

to sell my book. i am on a book tour. that needs to be part of any kind of full disclosure of why i am here. i also agree with your point that too often everybody, including the news media, it caught up in the politics rather than in the substance. and that is a perennial problem in washington. inis also part of our job addition to holding politicians in both parties accountable, also part of our job to sort out myth from reality. so say what obama's record is on helping people find work, that is part of what i try to do in my daily and weekly journalism and in my book. to kind of puzzled through, ok, who is telling the truth? you can be very hard to tell in

the middle of the noise machine that has become so much of our political debate. host: democratic caller, tennessee. truth, ielling the guess -- the reason i'm calling, i feel there has been a confusion between the blame game that president obama is getting credit for things that the senate and house of representatives are in control of. budget, wherehe the money goes. obama does that have any control over that. they haveh bills, but to pass it. so the blame for the inactivity of failure of immigration is

being placed on him, but that is not where it belongs. he has not vetoed anything. it wait until he veto something and put the blame on him. now the blame goes with the house and the senate. this is a very important point. for most of american history, what happens on capitol hill is put on the ledger up whoever happens to be president at the time. so this is true of democratic or republican presidents. their legacy, a lot of it depends on what happens on the other side of pennsylvania avenue. will either get credit if immigration reform passes, all the republicans will also get some credit for stepping up, or he will get blamed if it does not. you are right that is not really

the way it should be, so right now, for instance, when people say, what is president obama doing for me? they need to look at the level of obstruction since 2010, particularly in the house of representatives, before that accurate,d of textured analysis of what happened. you are absolutely right that congress has the purse strings in our system. it is also important, as you say, that the president has the veto pen. there is a lot of concern on the democratic side among progressives that, oh, we're back in the same thing we were up 04. what they filled recognize is things like the ryan plan that would dramatically redraw according to paul ryan's an

assessment, redraw the contract, change things considerably, rollback the relationship between the people and the government to where it was in a pre new deal era, at least ideologically and conceptually. it went from being a serious possibility before the election, now is a fantasy. not going to happen. revealing obamacare, 100% fantasy for the reasons you just mentioned that the president holds the veto poen. at least until 2017, and nothing that will take america sharply to the right will happen in the united states. that does but it pointed out enough. the title of my book is because we will remain at least until 2017 a centrist nation. we will not be moving far to the right, as i think we all know, we will not be moving far to the

left. host: jonathan alter writes in his book -- that's go to roger in new york, independent line. caller: hi there. fork you for c-span and taking my call. i just want to comment on the gop, general obstructionists' is commonly called online, because i think that is pretty important that people take notice of how much has actually been blocked like how had been forfforts naught almost because of the opposition. i think we can all agree it is

more partisan in washington than it has ever been. in my lifetime. i am 40. i've never seen anything like this. people have always had opinions and gone back and forth and battled a little bit, but it seems like things have generally gotten done at least, or certain things past. but now it is so partisan and almost childish how they're like, we cannot have him, you know, be successful at anything. we're just back to take away everything, economic to look at all. so with this immigration bill coming up, i see where it is definitely -- it is probably going to -- unless they are smart about it with a rally in everybody jumping on the bandwagon saying thehey, this to be political suicide, so perhaps they might pass it, but

i'm not holding my breath on that. host: thank you, roger. guest: it is going to be fascinating to watch. 2009 and theween they actually got a lot done in congress. the house what republican and we have had this kind of gridlock, but the republican party faces a choice. they can grit their teeth, go along with basically the senate bipartisan compromise they have fashioned on immigration reform, which includes $30 billion to bolster the border enforcement, border security, republicans can go along with that, in the senate to join the democrats and get it through the house with the understanding the president will get much of the credit, but they can get that issue of the

table and go about trying to get latino votes in future elections, or they can split their throats. if they want to have another election where they get 29% of latino vote -- of a population that has grown very rapidly in this country, they can condemn themselves to a minor party status for a very long time. so this is a question that all republicans must face about the future of their party. that is it relevant also to the merits of immigration reform, what they actually believe about the bill? absolutely. and people have to also take positions based on principle. but if you're in politics, you also to look to the politics. i think if they look closely at the bill that is coming out of the senate, reasonable people i think would conclude it is a reasonable compromise. the whole issue of compromise

that is so fascinating about the events in the last couple of years, in the first chapter of my book i remind people that john boehner went on "60 minutes" right after the 2010 midterms when he was becoming speaker, after the shellacking the democrats took at the polls that year, and he essentially said, my caucus does not believe in compromise. my reaction was, this is what the country was founded on. compromise. so you do have an element within the republican caucus, was some republicans have called the purity caucus, where it is their way or the highway. they don't feel there were sent to washington to compromise. that is very at odds with what people. year, the founders, believed was necessary for us to do in this country. host: a couple of tweets --

guest: both of them are good points. on gun safety. i don't like to use the word gun-control. then say to legislation, background checks. they will come back at it again. i am not sure is shared a say you can delay that -- you can lay that at obama's feet. sure he could've done a better job getting some of the democrats, but there were republicans remarkably opposed. common-sense gun safety legislation that even conservative members like pat to me from the second-largest nra state and pennsylvania were for, but they decided to be against it for whatever reason. i think it is too soon to say

that he felt on immigration. i actually give it slight odds of passage this year. in terms of whether has a different second term agenda, in some ways he clearly does. he will come with forward new climate change policies, some of which he will do it unilaterally without congress. that is a new emphasis in the second term. immigration is a second term issue as well. as he admitted to latino leaders when they went in and pressed him in private, a scene i have a new book, he did not get it done on that issue in the first term. what is a little puzzling to me is why he is not returning now with a jobs agenda. he did press hard for a jobs in 2011 and 2012, which i shall included a lot of

proposals for job creation that or -- republicans had supported in the past but because he was for it now, as i mentioned it earlier, they were against it. obstructedracted -- that to get put through. i argue he needs to return to the as a first term agenda, arguably job one in the country, jobs, return to that of the talking about that and take the case again to the country, why we need to rebuild america with more infrastructure. 's book isthan alter called, "the center holds: obama and his enemies." "the books include promised" that cannot three years ago, and also a book about fdr called "the defining moment." let's hear from north carolina, republican. caller: good morning, c-span.

you and your book hit on the head. obama and his enemies. i guess been part of the republican party, i guess i am one of the enemies. you can look back through the election and harry reid accused mitt romney of not paying no taxes with no proof whatsoever. saying that mitt romney killed someone like. we have paul ryan being -- guest: killed some of these what? i miss that. to trust. comes down as a republican, how can i trust democrats to give me the health ?are i will get under obamacare ever republican in this country ought to be scared to death. when the dr. --

of obamacare? that is not the way it works. first of all, a lot of doctors are republicans. let me just try to clarify if i could a couple of things about obamacare that i think have been really misunderstood. so a lot of people who are in the republican party say this is socialist, this is a government takeover. in truth, if you look closely at obamacare -- and it has plenty of flaws and needs to be fixed, amended, there are technical things wrong like any major piece of social legislation over the last 100 years, there are things that need to be fixed. that was true with the social security act and medicare in 1965. just to be clear about what it is, it is a bill that is almost identical to a bill that republicans, howard baker and bob dole, introduced in the

early 1990's and a very similar to what mitt romney implemented in massachusetts. it is based on private insurance, not a government takeover of health care. what it does do is for the first time in american history, i would argue, long overdue, it says just because you get sick does not mean you're necessarily going to lose your house. as a cancer survivor myself, it gives me great peace of mind. i think for a lot of other people that have had health issues, it it gives them peace of mind. they're not going to have to sell their house or otherwise go into debt to pay for health care costs that their insurance company does not cover or if they don't have insurance, the worse situation of all, to be thrown on the mercy of local hospitals that may or may not help them out. that era is in the past and we

of not entered an era -- by the way, it is irreversible. it will not reversed. so everyone who still mad about obamacare, give up and move on. give it up in terms of repealing it. the president -- it absolutely will not be repealed. by 2017 it will be so embedded in our system that even a republican will not be able to repeal it. that is over. it is time to move on and appreciate it does provide 40, 50 million americans, i would argue even those with health insurance, a very, very important piece of mind that if they get sick they're not going bankrupt. host: we'll talk more about the federal health-care law later this morning with david gruber, talking about safety net hospitals and with the health care law means for their bottom- line and patient care.

it details the education efforts starting some to criticize the obama administration sent it is starting late in the game. let's hear from laura, democratic caller. want to talkt about why i think they voted for obama and why he is in office. another reason why i voted for obama is because i did not like the fact that nothing was getting accomplished. we were losing our homes. he walked into the biggest mess i've ever seen this country go through. guest: that is true. caller: i understand how you can pay for things if you don't have taxes? where is the money coming from? you have to have taxes.

i am 56 years old. i have paid taxes my whole life. the republican party are down with taxes? you should be dealt loopholes. loopholes that give people these big write offs in these companies for things they don't deserve. host: let's get a response from jonathan alter. guest: you make a great point. -- i have ay book chapter called "strangled in the bathtub." that refers to a comment that grover norquist likes to say that he wants to make the government so small that it can be drowned, strangled in the bathtub. the weighted to that is to keep cutting taxes. -- the way to do that is to keep cutting taxes. he got most everyone in the

republican party to sign his famous pledge saying they would never vote for tax increase. he extended it to closing loopholes, which he called a tax increase. even just closing loopholes. so even conservative senators like tom coburn said, what is that? why is it a tax increase to close a loophole or and attacks favor for ethanol, for instance? it basically put a choke hold on the whole process, particularly in 2011. it also gave the lie to the idea the republicans stand for deficit-reduction, for lifting the burden of debt from our children. one of the key moments in the campaign came from a fox news debate that many of you saw where a fox and her asked all of

the republican candidates who were -- newscast asked all of republican candidates or lined up during the primary, could you support a 10 to one ratio of spending cuts to tax increases? $10 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases? every republican on that stage said, no. in other words, it can to one ratio would have balanced the budget very quickly, but they could not accept it because it had any tax increases at all, even just taking very well the people back to the tax levels they paid during the clinton years, which was a very prosperous time for this country. they could not accept that. that was the deal breaker for them. that is when you realized the republicans, they were about one issue -- cutting taxes and not

just generally, but on what the people. the only issue that unit ,verybody -- united everybody unifies every republican, is more tax cuts for wealthy people. we have seen on several occasions that does not create job growth. that old trickle-down idea does not yield jobs. that is not how jobs are created in our economy. ,ost: i just want to mention you have image in your book, a picture from that debate he was just talking about. you can find other photos in jonathan alter's book, "the center holds: obama and his enemies." guest: and some funny ones:too. things that happen behind the scenes. for instance, at 11:12 p.m. on

election night, nbc news call the election for president obama and he was standing in his suite at the fairmont hotel. won!ie jarrett says, you and the president said, i will believe it when i hear it on fox. i tried to take people behind closed doors in this book, whether it was the situation room when there were getting bin laden, the doors to the roosevelt room or the cabinet room and the white house, the suite where mitt romney was on election night in boston, and many, many other such scenes where it is usually very hard for the public to go. i did more than 200 interviews for this book to take you behind the scenes of that campaign. it is the first book out about the 2012 campaign. i also tried to give some historical context we been talking about today. host: jonathan alter, "the

center holds: obama and his enemies." thank you for joining us from new york city this morning. you can see "washington journal" every morning here on c-span. outside the supreme court, the justices have been dispensing of a handful of decisions on this last scheduled day of their term. the court decided this morning to send back to the lower court a case still with affirmative action in the 14th amendment equal protection clause. the case to live with one of the university of texas at austin use of race and undergraduate a ministrations -- the commission's decision is constitutional. but of seven to one, the court saying the lower court had not held the university to add demanding burden of strict scrutiny. the supreme court also announcing this morning it will in fact hear a challenge to the president's power to make recess appointments. the justices said they will review a federal appeals court ruling that found the obama

administration violated the constitution when he bypassed the senate last year to appoint three members of the national labor relations board. where decisions are expected thursday. work court days as court dispenses with its decisions. we will watch the scene here on the supreme court steps this morning.

>> live-action outside the supreme court this morning as the justices are handing down decisions. and we're still expecting decisions on cases involving states' rights and the voting rights act, same-sex marriage, and a challenge to the defense of marriage act. those expected happen on thursday. we will have live coverage here on the c-span networks. the last week of legislative business in congress under way before the july 4 recess. it begins this afternoon at noon

eastern the senate and for the debate on immigration bill. harry reid is set the stage for a vote to advance the new border security and damage to the bill at 5:30 eastern. a vote on final passage later this week sometime read live coverage of the senate when they return on our companion network, c-span2. the u.s. house will return in about 10 minutes for a pro forma session members will gavel back in tomorrow at noon for speeches and at 2:00 eastern to begin work for the week on the agenda. several to with offshore oil drilling rig live coverage of the house when they return here on c-span. with the house not back until tomorrow, live coverage plan this afternoon, the brookings institution holding discussions on u.s.-mexico relations with the mexican ambassador to the u.s. and an official at the homeland security department used to be the head of u.s.

customs and borders protection agency. that will be live here on c-span starting at 3:30 eastern. >> first ladies have a capacity for personifying if they so choose. this is a pattern in american woman and politics, famous or not, sort of two things. one is there are women, real people who actually do things, but there is the secondary capacity of being a personifying figure, a charismatic figure. i think many of first lady has come to become first lady and realized this was sort of larger than life. that was something dolly figured out. she becomes a figurehead for her husband's administration and makes the white house and to symbol. -- she does not know the british are going to bring the capital city and all of this work she put into helping the public identify with this house they

call the white house under her term is going to pay off because it will give this surge of nationalism around the war. >> our focus on person is continues every monday night. our next program, catherine algor on why we study first ladies. tonight at 9:00 eastern on c- span. homeland security secretary janet napolitano's thursday said the fast growing threat against the u.s. for cyberattacks and her department is continuing to implement cybersecurity policies will respecting civil liberties and private information. she made these remarks at an event on servers could protection at the wilson center here in washington, d.c. this is about one hour, 20 minutes. we will break away briefly at 11:00 eastern for house pro forma session.

>> good afternoon. hello, everyone. please find your seats. so much for starting on time brigit something we vowed to do. but welcome to the wilson center. i am jane harman, director, president and ceo and this is a national conversation of great importance and what i personally feel i have been living for the last couple decades. imagine the local power generation facility in your home town. you know where it is because you drive by it everyday on the way to work. it has a fence and a few cards and it is safe, right? wrong. that facility like many others is probably controlled by an automated system that monitors

valves and cooling elements. it is run by private sector company, connected to the internet so it can be managed easily. that automated system runs on software that could happen in over a flaw in the export of oil by hacker is determined to cause us harm. chair of the care prevention subcommittee of the house of a to was for some years, and before that served on our intelligence committee for eight years, i can tell you this scenario has kept me and many others in congress and out up at night. it is for a possible. but many members of the congress and the public don't appreciate or even understand what our government, especially the homeland security department, could do to help prevent cyberattacks in the private sector or elsewhere.

many also recently are confronting this issue of cyber attacks with what they've been reading a newspaper about the nsa programs. there are big differences and maybe that will expire today, and maybe not. for anyone listening or in this audience, this topic has to be addressed on its own. for those worried about compromising privacy, as all of us should be, we have many different issues to discuss. i think this is a reset moment for the department of homeland security. now that the president has released an executive order on cyber and has asked for recommendations from the executive branch, we can help explain and help conduct conversations are around dhs's important role in cyber. it is not to launch cyberattacks, something he may

have read in the newspaper, and not to defend us from all cyberattacks. but it is a very significant role and it relies on an active partnership with the private sector. i had a conversation the other day was someone on capitol hill. it is senator tom coburn. i mention him because he is a republican, i was a democrat in the house. he was a good friend of mine, but that does not mean we agree on everything. he has a significant role given his senior status on the senate of a to was committee. we talked about dhs. positive. was very of course i would relate of good news story. but this is a guy you would not necessarily think that the department homeland security should be a ground zero on parts of this issue.

and he said, and i have notes of what he said, he said the process used to craft the executive order should be praised. it was inclusive. and our government listen. he also said he was impressed by the dhs staff, some of whom are in the room or in this audience looking right at us, that he met with and that he will work for a bipartisan solution for legislation that could enable this process. i think that message coming from tom coburn means a lot, so i wanted to be sure everyone heard it. everyone in this room should know what the stakes are. you'll hear more in the panel that follows or maybe even from the secretary. i kind of think is almost like the israel-palestinian peace process.

we all know what the end needs to be, we just don't have to get there and get the parties there. maybe we should lock the doors and bring in food and figure it out. the only missing ingredient is currently serving members of congress, but maybe i could get them to come down as well. someone to keynote this panel, the one, is the secretary of homeland security to napolitano's, whom i have known for decades and decades. she will tell you when we met, she had a perm. at no recollection of this. but she was a rock star and u.s.ics in arizona, was attorney, was attorney general, then was governor twice then left to take on this job where she is now in her fifth year as a secretary of homeland for the obama administration. she will deliver keynote

remarks and will be followed by a panel discussion, led by npr reporter tom gelltin. no, i'm not win a match in his wife. on our panel will be former dhs , whotary michael chertoff i found when i was in congress to be just exemplary partner. michael, our friendship has exceeded our tenure in their old jobs. michael's first question always was, what is the right thing to do? not, what parties represent? i salute you for that. and the co-director of the cost is research center for homeland security of northeastern university, or is about to be that, but who has worn a number

of hats and is superbly qualified to address this topic. and we also have a variable private sector representatives, frank taylor, who is head of security at general electric. i will say one more thing, this national conversation follows a lunch we had with dhs representatives and private sector representatives. i urge everyone be very candid about their views of each other. some of it was not so pretty, but i certainly left the launch hopeful and i'm sure you'll hear some summaries of the lunch we at the wilson center want to use our convening powers and our expertise to advance conversations like this. we are looking for the best policy ideas to form action plans to solve the toughest problems. we i think on the subject,

it made a very good start today. please welcome my friend with a different hairdo, but a phenomenal resume and a very wise mind, janet napolitano. [applause] good afternoon, everybody. we're here to discuss a topic that not only is incredibly important, but it is fundamental to the role of homeland security in a number of ways. so i thought what i would do this afternoon is briefly sketch the threat landscape, talk about the president's executive order and the president's policy directive on critical infrastructure because that also comes into play. and layout for you what is going on at dhs, some of which you may have heard in other panels or at other times, but to reemphasize the importance of this within

the whole schematic of the department of homeland security. it is the third largest department of the federal government, it covers a myriad of missions. we have seen the department grow and mature very swiftly itr the last 10 years since was enacted. we just celebrated our 10th anniversary. >> we will leave this row graham and come back in a minute. no legislative business will be conducted. live to the house. k: the speaker's rooms, washington, d.c., june 24, 2013. i hereby appoint the honorable andy harris to act as speaker pro tempore on this day, signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the prayer will be offered i be -- y our chaplain, father conroy.

chaplain conroy: let us pray. loving god we give you thanks for giving us another day. as the energy and tensions of these legislative days play out, may there be peace among the members of the people's house. grant that all might be confident in the mission they have been given and buoyed by the spirit of our ancestors who built our republic through many trials and contentious debates. may all strive with sincerity for the betterment of our nation. many years ooling you blessed after his hospitality to strangers. bless this chamber with the same pirit of hospitality so that all know that all voices are

respected even those that are disagreed with. may all that is done be done for your greater honor and glory, amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. the chair will lead the house in the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. pursuant to clause 4 of rule 1, the following enrolled bill was signed by speaker pro tempore wolf on thursday, june 20, 2014. the clerk: h.r. 475 to amend the

internal revenue code to include act seens against seasonal influenza within the definition of taxable vaccines. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the house stands >> the house finishing up a short session. you can see the house alive when they return here on c-span. the senate votes on immigration this afternoon. you can see the senate live on c-span numeral two. -- 2. this is hosted by the wilson center here in washington. ofit goes into the creation intellectual property. i think of these as crimes using -- using with new

technology. one area is child exploitation. we just sit down a major operation involving that, facilitated by the internet it is cyber terrorism and tiber -- cyber attack. this is what most people think about who are in this room. there is no doubt that there is a continuum of those who seek to do us harm the country ranging from individuals to organize groups to even groups that you could detect as state or state sponsored who have been and are in attacksengage against united states and our article infrastructure using the

whole cyber realm, which gives them a whole new set of ways to go after us. what does it mean? it means that critical -- could bere, like subject to attack. if you think that doesn't have a cascading set of issues, if any of you live in the new york or jersey area during hurricane sandy and you saw what happened there with the power utility being down a number of weeks all of the sudden, not 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 just a virus, 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 incidents, and issued 7400 alerts to the united states and this was a 68% increase over 2011. that is why this area is so fast growing. we have an industrial control systems search, -- 177 incidents last year. we have 15 teams deployed with significant private sector incidence. so -- 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. the 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 disclosures about the nsa, this 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, and what this is -- is for the private sector, working with us, -- to set the framework

and the standards -- to have a system that creates a voluntary program, a voluntary set of incentives, for owners and operators to adopt the best practices, to change their practices for evolving threats. i think -- frankly, i know that some in the private sector are suspicious of the department of homeland security or any government agency's ability to fulfil their functions. i have some question as to whether the private sector is willing to fulfill its function. if we can make this work and show there is a vital ongoing strong partnership 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 not yet come to closure on 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 implementation 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 120 days, the issuance of the ppd, we have already offered deliverables. these are at omb, where they are undergoing a review process. the 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? 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 pause a moment. i said unclassified. to receive classified material on a real-time basis. the information sharing challenge goes both ways.

it comes -- it goes from private 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 information sharing, and we have 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. likewise, the same needs to

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 develop 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 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 protection plan and we need to develop critical infrastructure performance goals that link to the nist framework. the goals are how to the what. 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. we need legislation. we need legislation to make sure real-time information sharing occurs. we need some additional law enforcement tools in the digital age and we need 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. we are competitive because of the mission we are performing and the fact that people want to be involved on what really is the foundational work. that experiment i talked about, the work is that dhs. the mission itself is a huge recruitment advantage for us. let me not say that, we 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. we cannot 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 npr. some very provocative thoughts therefrom 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 programs.

it is a great honor for me to be able to moderate of these discussions. it was interesting to me that 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 really depended 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 year ago when mandatory approaches were very much a part of the discussion. the use -- the word she used 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. this is a provocative idea that 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. >> it 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 it 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 in place, i think it can be done. 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? there are 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. >> i guess i would say, there is an element of this that is novel. if we use the cold war after stepping off point, a lot of this is back to the future. we mobilize the academic community. as a stepping off point, this 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 required, 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. if we take infrastructure, a lot of the power we get from the northern new england area comes from quebec. 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. this requires -- 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 quote anyone, 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. there is risk in the physical 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? this is expensive, but it is not so expensive you cannot do it. there was a discussion earlier on the 80% 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 from the cyber threat, stealing data, or disrupting networks, two, and during those networks. with the risk of sabotage as a result -- 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. we are coming late to the game

and we are trying to boilerplate security safeguards. it is a bit like taking -- it 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. silicon valley works because it 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. the economic case is simple, if a business wants to continue to

provide its service, it does not want to be disrupted. how do 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. the enemy of the good is 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. having lived through 9/11 in a position of responsibility, if we had something like that in cyber, you would see legislation passed. the time to think about this is 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 accountable for managing is maybe a question that someone have. understanding the risks is very 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? >> private entities cut corners? 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? there are mechanisms to do this with third parties. we have to stop pretending this is all happiness of best practices. we have been doing that for how many years? the threat is growing. that was 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. it is not that dire or drastic, 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 be to dress the risk, i think 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 reported -- that is one of the 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.

it would've -- 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. it has to be a recognition. there is not risk elimination, there is risk management. looking at the system, the 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.

>> it is so important, this conversation, we cannot have this conversation without 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. most utilities set -- cannot set the rates, they are governed by the states. you worry about trees colliding with the lines. you are worried about aging equipment and backed up substations.

the government says, you need to 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 northeast, i was in connecticut, 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. i think we have 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. >> i read in this report where they were talking about a lack of cyber protocols. who will be 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 commit the cyber crimes since computing is growing rapidly out-of-control. who will take responsibility for that? who is responsible for governing 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. >> i think you put your finger on an important issue. nobody controls -- every enterprise can set its own requirements and standards. 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. on 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 key is, 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 sure those outliers are isolated

from the system. that is the only way we know how to do this stuff. we have to talk about the 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. i want to associate myself with whoever made the comment that we are in the beginning of this discussion. the standards we are talking about, which do exist, currently 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 taking on this unique role? >> you have to separate the businesses that have to make a relatively modest investment. much of the discussion was about the top critical infrastructure. those are enterprises that if 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. we need to talk about the state 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 types 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 conversation.

>> 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.

what 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 given day about 1.8 million people in a port authority facility. tunnels, bus terminals, airports. all of that requires energy.

that conversation -- that 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. >> we 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 area, in my view, is fraught 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, chemical facility, not a lot of private sector input. it adjusted over time, but just

it adjusted over time. but just coming out with a compliance regimen without a real collaboration and corporation -- the notion the private sector does not understand this risk, we operate globally. we operate with the internet and cyber systems been critical to our model. we are attacked every day. we have an understanding of the impact of this. the question is, how do we work with governments here and around the world to protect what is on criminalork and accidents that network occurring around the world that impact us as well as national security in regions around the world? --i would like to invoke invite the folks