stupid it met the belief aspects of evolution and be up front about the difference here. >> eying courage you to explain to us, why you should accept -- we should accept our word for it that natural law changes for thousand years ago, completely, and there is no record of it. there are periods that are older than that. there are human populations that are far older than that. backraditions have gone farther than that. it is not reasonable to me that everything changed for thousand years ago. by everything, i mean the species, the surface of the , and, the stars in the sky the relationship of all the other living things on earth to humans. it is just not reasonable to me that everything changed like that. >> evolution versus creationism. the science guy, l knight, working with darwin's origin of

species and can hama with the e, working withy darwin's origin of the species and ken ham working with the bible. >> the president spoke at a safeway grocery distributional center outside the nation's capital for about 20 minutes. ♪ >> ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states. ["hail to the chief"] ♪ >> good morning, everybody. it is good to be here.

i want to thank jack jacobs and all the partners at safeway for having us here today at this busy distribution center where delivery trucks get everything from doritos to diapers where they need to go. by the way, i have a soft spot for safeway in my heart because some of you may know i went to high school and lived with my grandparents -- our main grocery store was safeway. [applause] my grandmother would send me out to go shop at safeway and everybody treated me very well so i very much appreciate the good work you guys do. i want to thank all the workers and business people and labor leaders and environmental leaders who are here today as we take another big step to grow our economy and reduce america's dependence on foreign oil. in my state of the union address, i said this would be a year of action and i meant it. over the past three weeks, i

have acted to require federal contractors to pay their workers a fair wage of $10.10 an hour. we believe in a higher minimum wage. [applause] we need to train workers with the skills that employers actually need and match them to the good jobs that are out there right now and need to be filled. i directed the treasury secretary to create something we are calling my ra to help americans start saving for retirement. we have brought together business leaders who have committed to helping more unemployed americans find work, no matter how old -- how long they have been looking. i am eager to work with congress wherever i can, but whenever i see opportunity on my own, i will do that. all of you understand that although the economy has been doing better, we have spent the last five years fighting our way back from the worst recession of our lifetime.

the economy has grown. the unemployment rate is the lowest it has been in over five years. the long-term trends that have hurt middle-class families for decades have continued. folks at the top are doing better than ever before. average wages and income have not budged. too many americans are working harder than ever to keep up. our job is to not only get the economy growing but also reverse the trend and make sure that everybody can succeed. we have to build an economy that works for everybody, not just the fortunate few. opportunity for all. that is the essence of america. no matter who you are, where you come from, no matter how you start out. if you are willing to work hard and take responsibility, you can

succeed. i have laid out an opportunity agenda to help us do that. part one is to create more jobs that pay good wages. jobs in manufacturing, energy, exports, innovation. part two, we have got to train folks with the skills they need to fill those jobs. our three, guarantee every child access to world-class education. part four is making sure that the economy awards our work with wages you can live on. savings you can retire on. health insurance you can count on. there are very few factors that are helping our economy grow more than our commitment to american manufacturing and american energy. that is why we are here today. five years ago, we set out to break our dependence on foreign oil. today, america is closer to energy independence and we have been in decades.

for the first time in nearly 20 years, america produces more oil here at home than we buy from other countries. our levels of dangerous carbon pollution that contributes to climate change have actually gone down even as our production has gone up. one of the reasons why is because we've dedicated ourselves to manufacturing new cars and new trucks that go farther on a gallon of gas. that saves families money, cuts down on pollution and creates new advances in american technology. for decades, the fuel efficiency standards of our cars and trucks was stuck in neutral. even as other technology leapt forward. that left families and businesses and our economy vulnerable to fluctuations. every time oil prices shot up, the economy got hurt.

our automakers were in danger of being left in the dust by foreign automakers. carbon pollution was going unchecked, which was having severe impacts on our weather. that is why after taking office , my administration worked with automakers, autoworkers, environmental advocates and states across the country and we put in motion the first ever national policy aimed at both increasing gas mileage and decreasing greenhouse gas pollution for all new cars and trucks sold in the united states. as our automakers retooled and prepare to start making the world's best cars again, we aimed to raise fuel standards to 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016. >> while. wow.ah,

[laughter] [applause] that was an increase of more than eight miles per gallon over what cars that average at the time. what we were clear about what is, if you set a rule, a clear goal, we would give our companies what they needed to innovate and out build rest of the world. they could figure out if they had a goal that they were trying to reach. thanks to their ingenuity and hard work, we are going to meet that goal. two years later, we've already seen enormous progress. we are building on that progress by setting an even more ambitious target. we're going to double the distance our cars and trucks can go on a gallon of gas by 2025. we will double it. that is big news. [applause] what it means is, you have to fill up every two weeks instead of one week. that saves a family more than

$8,000 at the pump over time. i'm assuming that you can use $8,000 that you're not paying at the gas station. [applause] in the process, it cuts american oil consumption by 12 billion barrels. automakers decide how they're going to do it. we said, go figure it out. they invested in innovative and cost-effective technologies. some are already making cars that beat the target of nearly 55 miles per gallon. they have plug-in hybrids, electric vehicles, taking advantage of the investments that the recovery act made so cars are getting better. they're getting more fuel-efficient. for anybody that said that this cannot be done or that it would hurt the american auto industry,

the american auto industry sold more cars than any of the year since 2007. [applause] since we stepped in to help them retool, the american auto industry has created almost 425,000 new jobs. we raised fuel efficiency, help ed consumers, help improve air quality and we are making better cars and the automakers are hiring folks again for good jobs across the country. [applause] more plants are running at full capacity. some are running three shifts, 24 hours a day, putting out some high-tech, high performance cars

in the world. that is the story of american ingenuity. american grit. everybody has a right to be proud of that. but today, we are taking the next step. heavy-duty trucks account for just four percent of all the vehicles on the highway. i know when you are driving sometimes, it feels like it is more. [laughter] they are responsible for 25% of the carbon pollution in the auto sector. trucks like these are responsible for about 20% of our on-road fuel consumption. since they haul about 70% of all domestic freight, 70% of the stuff we use, from flatscreen tvs to diapers to produce, you name it -- every mile that we gain in fuel efficiency is worth thousands of dollars in savings every year. that is why we are investing in

research to get more fuel economy gains. thanks to a partnership between industry and my administration, the truck behind me was able to achieve a 75% improvement in fuel economy over the last year. 75%. it's what i call a "super truck." [laughter] it is impressive. this one right here as well. these are -- first of all, they are really big. [laughter] you can see how they have redesigned the truck in order for us to save fuel economy. and improving gas mileage for these trucks, which is going to drive down our oil imports even further and reduce carbon pollution even more and cut down

on business's fuel costs. it should pay off in lower prices for consumers. it is not just a win-win, it is a win-win-win. you get three wins. [laughter] in 2011, we set new standards for heavy and medium trucks to take effect for this year and last until 2018. three weeks ago, in my state of the union address, i said we would build on that success. today, i am directing anthony fox and gina mccarthy, two outstanding public servants -- [applause] their goal is to develop fuel economy standards for heavy-duty trucks that will take us well into the next decade, just like our cars. they're going to partner with manufacturers and autoworkers

and other stakeholders, truckers to come up with a proposal by march of next year. they will complete the rule a year after that. businesses that buy these types of trucks have sent a clear message to the nearly 30,000 workers to build them. we want trucks that use less oil, save us money and cut down on pollution. so far, 23 companies that join our national clean fleets partnership to reduce their oil consumption or replace their old fleets of trucks with more fuel-efficient models. collectively, they operate one million commercial vehicles nationwide. there are a lot of and some are competitors. if rivals like pepsico and coca-cola and ups and fedex and at&t and verizon can join together on this, then maybe democrats and republicans can do the same. [laughter] [applause] maybe democrats and republicans can get together.

so when you see these companies, it is due to this partnership. safeway was an early leader on this issue. by improving the aerodynamics of its trucks, investing larger trailers, more efficient tires, safeway improved its own fuel efficiency and the result is so solid that safeway now encourages all the companies it hires to ship its products to do the same. to help our businesses and manufacturers meet this new goal, we are offering new tax credits for companies that manufacture heavy-duty alternative fuel vehicles and those that build fuel infrastructure so that trucks running on bio diesel or natural gas will have more places to fill up.

let me say this -- the goal we are setting is ambitious. these are areas where ambition has worked out really well for us so far. make big plans, not small plans. anybody who had dire predictions for the auto industry said, we could not do it. manufacturers cannot bring jobs back to america. every time they say that, they're proven wrong. every time somebody says that you can't grow the economy while bringing on pollution has turned out to be wrong. [applause] anybody who says we can't compete when it comes to clean energy technology like solar and wind, they have had to eat those words. you can't bet against america or you'll lose money every time because we know how to do this when we set ambitious goals for ourselves. [applause] from day one, we have known that we have to build our economy for

a clean energy future and it would not be easy or quick. we have a lot of work to do on both counts. the economy has grown. we are creating jobs. we are generating clean energy. we are cutting our dependence on foreign oil. we are pumping out less dangerous carbon pollution. if we keep going down this road, we're going to have a future full of good paying jobs. we have assembly lines that are humming with components of a clean energy age. we have some of the best trucks and cars in the world designed and interfered -- engineered in america. if we keep going, we're going to leave a better future for our children. i'm proud of safeway and its workers for helping to show us the way. if it can be done here, it can be done all across the country. congratulations to all of you. thank you, and god bless america. [applause] ?

>> at the center for strategic and international studies held a discussion with federal officials and telecommunication officials on the upcoming spectrum shuffle. here's more. >> we're going have to do more sharing in the future. we have to do that right. that is going to require policy. we are working hard to make that happen. technological innovation is the key to that. ultra change -- culture change with everyone. perspective, from a dod perspective, this is harder. it is more problematic and when you are focused on 10 different things all over the world, literally things are happening every single day of a dod perspective and you're worried

about the next threat urination, this sometimes does not have the same priority but it does matter from a lot of perspectives and it makes a more capable of we do it right. ed is the key. partnerships and collaboration -- we are not doing this without those. there's a person back there that talk to me more about the public-private partnership. i think that is what we are doing today that we have discussed with. i think that is the key to a lot of our future out there. proactive versus reactive. i cannot jump on that anymore. proactive has to happen on both sides. there is a global context to this that i don't understand, and i would argue that don't -- some industries don't understand the full impact of it. midterm and short-term goal deliverables. what can we do today? we made a conscious choice that sharing was not available in the last spectrum change from a

technological side as well as a regulatory side but in the next change, i think it will be. i think that is a critical point. government oversight and accountability. as has to be a team effort and we have to get rid of old thinking as to everyone stating ing a position and stat line in the sand. the last part of it is the cooperative test part of it. let me see if i can say correctly. national advanced spectrum amplification test network. one of the recent things we learned about the spectrum is how do we test something. we have someone from industries saying this, someone from dod saying this, and other experts -- how about we have a clearinghouse of testbed that we can actually work through, that we can actually have an where they can pay a fee, come through, and validate all the particular requirements

they have, although the capabilities they have and rolled these things out and we can agree at the end that the test results are the right ones and we can make decisions based on that. it is one the perspectives we had out there. that was the final piece of that slide. i'm going to throw one slide up there at the end that i have up your because we are going to see this in the 20th. that will be our strategy that we have called call to action. it is revolution in an evolutionary way. i would like to spec that -- change that to spectrum revolution in an evolutionary way. that is the perspective on that. that will be later this week during that is part one. at now is theking implementation of that. that is the electromagnetic spectrum integrated across the team. a lot of dod speak. the bottom line is that this makes implement a double action. there is a vision and there is implement double action.

implementable action. how to be proactive versus reactive in the future. i can give you an example and that is all. of that event all at the center for strategic and international studies tonight at 10:45 p.m. eastern on c-span two or any time online at c-span.org. tonight, our conversation with tennessee republican senator bob corker on his early career in business. starting working when i was 13 doing odds and ends. i migrated from being a construction laborer and a rough carpenter. when i graduated from knowledge, i ended up being a construction superintendent. after four years i built some regional malls around the 25 i wentd when i was

into business. i started doing a lot of small projects where i could get paid quickly and the company grew at about 80% a year the entire time and we ended up building shopping centers around the country, retail prejudice -- retail projects. it was a great place to be. the energy when you come in the front door would almost knock you down. i sold that when i was 37 to a young man who had worked with me for many, many years. done of course, he has several things cents. i ended up acquiring a good deal of real estate and through the years, through or folios and other companies, but i love being in business. i loved anything i've ever done. >> later we will talk with democratic senator amy klobuchar from and a soda -- minnesota. upshe called me and i picked

the phone as i was walking into the senate and she said mom, we said we can wear bikinis at the pool party but you can wear something else and dad doesn't understand the difference. on the phoneim right now. as i did this, i walked head-on into lindsey graham and knocked them over. i thought i'm not doing as well. if you are a senator or a nurse, trying to keep a family in the works, you never do it perfectly and anyone who says they do is line. 8:00 p.m. starting at eastern on c-span, c-span radio, and c-span.org. 2 all this week, took tv in prime time. tonight, james carville and his wife discuss their book "love

and war." the book "life inside the bubble." that his book tv tonight on c-span 2. on c-span three, it is american history tv. it has been 15 years since president bill clinton was acquitted by the senate after being impeached by the u.s. house. we will look at the house impeachment debate at 8:00 in the trial at 11:00. that is american history tv. >> the title is "down to the crossroads." stash civilil my rights march that begins in memphis and ends three weeks later in jackson. in those three weeks, you could make the argument that the civil rights movement transforms, that it approaches its crossroads. the call for black power is first turned on that march.

that march. it immediately generates controversy and a great swelling of enthusiasm among many local black people and, in a lot of ways, it ignites a new direction in black politics. those changes might have happened over the course of time anyways, but what the meredith together to bring the people from all across the country and put them into this laboratory of black politics as it moves through mississippi. he created all of these dramatic moments that highlighted some of the key divisions and some of the key tensions, but also some of the key strengths that had long animated the civil rights we were. >> a look at the civil rights movement on afterwards. march 2, more about black power in the civil rights movement. eph willy and peniel jos take your calls and tweets.

at book tv's book club, you have on the guestnt bonnie morris. up, brookings institution scholar peter singer on the current and future state of cyber security. .e discusses his recent book it is from an event held earlier today by the air force association. this is one hour. >> good morning, ladies and gentlemen. for those of you i have not had the pleasure to meet yet, i am the dean of the mitchell institute. i would like to welcome you all here today for our february mitchell form -- forum. a special greeting to our andence watching on c-span, a mother special greeting to my 93-year-old dad who promised he

would get up this morning to watch the show. peter, the rusher is on. it is my -- the pressure is on. it is my pleasure to introduce peter singer. it is not just his book, but peter has been a valued contributor to the defense policy debate. he is currently of -- the director of the center for 21st century intelligence and a senior fellow at brookings. his research focuses on current defense needs, future priorities, the future of war, and the future of the u.s. defense system. peter is joining us today to discuss his most recent book, "cyber security and cyber war: what everyone needs to know." ago, cyberspace was just a term and cited section --

in science fiction, used to describe a network linking computer labs. today our entire way of life fundamentally depends on in cyberspace. we face new questions in everything from our rights and response abilities as citizens to both online and real world, to simply how to protect ourselves and our families from this new type of danger. yet, there is perhaps no issue that has grown so importantly, so quickly, and that touches so many that remain so poorly understood. issue is especially important to the mitchell institute and it falls directly in line with our mission to educate about the virtues and values of aerospace power, informed the policy budget debates, and cultivating the next generation of policy leaders. peter, the podium is yours and thank you for being here. [applause]

>> thank you for the very kind introduction. it is an honor to join all of you here. i want to thank the mitchell institute and the air force association for hosting me. mentioned, when we speak about computers and the internet and cyberspace, there is a relatively short history we are talking about. i am old enough to remember the very first computer that i ever saw. my father took me to a science center in charlotte, where i got to see a commodore and i took the class on how to program. i learned a entire new language for the sole purpose of to -- designing a smiley face after a series of letter m's, which

printed out on one of those old school printers. later, thees centrality of computers to my almost impossible to comprehend. 40 trillion e-mails are sent every year. in first website was created 1991. today, there are over 30 trillion individual webpages. the internet is no longer just about compiling or sending information. it is also starting to shape the real world through the emerging internet of things. cisco estimates that over the next five years, the number will of internet enabled devices will rise 40 billion. linking together refrigerators to smart cars, google recently bought a smart thermostat company, smart power grids.

commercehat range from to critical infrastructure to conflict. 90% of military communications run over the civilian owned internet. all of this depends on this globalized network of networks. we truly do live in a digital age. with the rise of this dependence, we have reached a potential tipping point. is just ase side rapid. second, nine new pieces of malware are discovered. 97% of fortune 500 companies know they have been hacked. the other three percent really

should know, but they are not willing to admit it. more than 100 governments have created some kind of cyber military command, some type of military unit designed to fight and win wars in this space. polls found that americans are more afraid of a cyber attack than they are of irani and nuclear weapons, north korea nuclear weapons, the rise of china, or climate change. coalesced intoe one of the most rapid growing industries out there. we can think about it not just in terms of the businesses themselves, but one of the rapid growing parts of government. government at the national level, the state level, and local level. thatit really means is while we live in an age of cyber

dependency, we also have to admit that we are in an age of in-security. i would like to do something a little counterintuitive. the challenge of how do you write a book about cyberspace and make it interesting, how do you give a speech and keep it visual and interesting? you i will do is lay before a series of pictures and images and they are a collection i put together of what i believe are the best and worst examples of cyber war art. one, they are fun pictures. it is to give the visual side of the story of cyber insecurity out there. third, not just to give you something to look at when you get tired of looking at me, but studies have found you are 60% of more likely to retain what i

am saying if you are looking at something at the same time. it does not have to link to what i am saying, he just engages that part of that brain -- that part of the brain. all of to remember that our human identity and foibles are what is behind all of this. we have to work within that. this will work for us. this will flash behind me. i hope you enjoyed the best and worst examples of cyber war art. .et's pull back on all of this why a book about cyber security and more and why now? this is from president obama who declared that cyber security risks posed "a most serious and national security challenges of the 21st century"

the second quote is from the former cia director, rarely has something been so important and so talked about with less and less clarity and less apparent understanding." you can see this kind of gap in all sorts of fields. havef business executives made some kind of cyber security decision for their firm despite the fact that no major mba program teaches it. schools gap is that the who teach our lawyers, journalists, diplomats, and the military has been racing to catch up to that gap. in sad see this anecdotes. from the former

secretary of homeland security in charge of the civilian agency that runs and is responsible for the civilian side of cyber security and told us last year, don't laugh, but i do not use e-mail at all. she went on to talk about how she used social media for over a decade. her reason for not using it was not a fear of security or privacy. because she did not think it was useful. that is the same thing in the judicial branch. a supreme court justice told that the supreme court will decide issues that range from net neutrality to the constitutionality of some of the nsa at diggity, talked about how they -- nsa activity, talked about how they had not gotten around to e-mail. , andcyber stuff problem

that comes from a quote from the siloed -- senior military leader who described how cyber stuff was so important. this is not just an american phenomenon. we saw the same thing play out in discussions from leaders from china, great britain, uae am a france. the cyber security czar in australia had never heard of a critical technology in the space. do not worry if you have never heard of it either, it is in the book. cyber security is out in portland at a personal level -- is as important at a personal level from the security of your bank account to your personal privacy. it is important at the global level, the future of conflict, the future of world politics. those connect right back down to the personal level with the privacy concerns.

it has been treated as a domain crowd, thee i.t. i.t. folks. the technical immunity understands the software and the hardware, but it does not deal well with the people side of it. they look at the issue through very specific lens. often fail to appreciate the ripple effects into other domains. cap and thisf this stove typing -- stove piping are diverse. whatever organization we are in, we will make decisions about cyber security that will shape the future well beyond the world of computers. we often fail to do so with the proper tools. basic terms, essential concepts that define what is possible and also what is proper, what is right and wrong.

past myth and future hype we've together, obscuring with what actually happened with where we are now. some threats are overblown and overreacted to and some threats are ignored. history, itho loves , and me when i hear people people of done this range from national security adviser, four-star general, senators, newspaper columnist, who say things like, cyber is just like a wmd or we are in a new version of the cold war. if you know your history and your cyber side, you quickly realize that if there is any comparison, it is not the one they think they are making. -- to the early

days of the cold war. we did not understand the technology or the political dynamics that it was driving. the period of time where we took the real-world version of dr. strangelove seriously. is of my favorite examples from air force's tree where there was an air force operational plan that proposed to nuke the moon to show the soviets that we could do interesting stuff in space, too. there is a series of manifestations of this problem. one a particular as that we often look together -- hooked together things that are unlike simply because they involve the zeros and ones of software. take the idea of a cyber attack. the lead u.s. general for both nsa, whichnd and the

, decide whether it is appropriate. congress, this is general alexander, "every day, america's armed forces face millions of cyber attacks. to get that number of millions, we were combining everything from automated address scans, to attempts to internet works, to carry out everything from pranks to political .rotests, to carryout espionage none of these attacks, these millions of attacks every day, were what his audience thought he was talking about.

the so-called cyber 9/11 attempt or a cyber pearl harbor, which had been mentioned in a series of government speeches and news articles. you can find over half a million references in the mainstream media. well we talk about cyber attacks, we are bundling together a series of like and unlike activities simply because they involve the same technology. the parallel would be a lot like saying that a group of teenagers with firecrackers, a group of political protesters in the street with a smoke bomb, james terrorist with a roadside bomb, and the russian cruise missile -- these are all one in the same because they involve the technology of gun gunpowder.

of course not. take the organizations that are act of. i had a senior military official argue with me that al qaeda and anonymous or the same thing. i do not care where you come down on anonymous and i have discovered i am probably the -- one of the most empathetic people towards anonymous or maybe the most afraid of them, but wherever you come down on that, they absolutely shared nothing with al qaeda in their organization, in their personnel , and their means. those much the only thing two organizations share is they are both nonstate actors that begin with the letter a. these gaps in understanding, these disconnects of policy and reality, mean that we are not only seeing a growing tension.

we explore the challenge that has laid out in the most important state to state relationship between the u.s. and china, but we are at a fundamental level being taken advantage of. it can be at the individual level, when you are tricked by a hacker into doing something stupid. gosh, mom is stuck in thailand and she needs me to send bank account information. i did not know mom was in thailand. we laugh about jokes like that, but at the prior g 20 meeting, a group of diplomats were spear fished. they received an e-mail tailored to them which had a fantastic offer if they would just click a particular link they would be able to see nude photos of the

french first lady. many of them clicked the link and it downloaded spyware into their computer. to being in taken advantage of at the business organizational don't do enough to protect ourselves or get taken in by hucksters that offer to solve all of our cyber problems with some kind of silver bullet solution, some kind of widget that will solve everything. or frankly, at the national political level. this can even happen to a president. obama expressed his frustration that the complexity of the technology was overwhelming policymakers. our inability to have a proper discussion in the space is also creating a distortion of threat

and a missed application of -- misapplication of resources. 31,300, that is the number of journal and magazine and news articles that have focused on the phenomena of cyber terrorism. zero, that is the number of people who have been hurt or killed by an incident of cyber terrorism. i joke that it is a lot like a discovery channel shark week where we access about the danger from sharks even though your 15,000 times more likely to be hurt on your toilet. the real-world version of jaws has hurt or killed someone. let me be 100% crystal clear, i am not saying that terrorist do not use the internet. we explore how they use the internet. saying there is not a

danger of cyber terrorism. indeed, the development of new weapons show the growing dangers in the space. it was a weapon that was able to sit back -- set back the nuclear in -- iranian research. that same story shows how it is not as easy as it is portrayed. we had a senior defensive to -- official talk about a couple of teenagers sipping red bull in their parents basement could carry it out a wmd style attack. you need a wide variety of high level expertise in everything to intelligence analysis, to expertise in things like nuclear physics, engineering.

it is not something you get from sipping red bull. it gives you wings, but not the ability to carry about wmd style attacks. cannota wants to, but it . china could, but does not want to. my point is not to focus in on the cyber terrorism narrative, whether it is at the national level, business level, or personal level, it is always about choices, priorities. we need to weigh the centrality of what we talk about from a what we've set about. -- what we talk about, what we about.-- obsess we need to weigh what we focus on versus the greater threats out there.

for example, the largest theft in all of human history that is playing out right now is the massive theft of international -- intellectual property. you not just focus on the sexy cyber per harvell -- cyber pearl harbor scenarios. another aspect is one of the things we have learned from regular terrorism is that it is not just the incident, not just the attack that matters in history, it is all of the ripple effects, including how we respond. one area that i am worried about is what is hitting that core value that makes the internet work of trust. trust is being attacked.

the trust is being hit by other activities. one of the repercussions of the is a loss offfair trust in american technology companies. why silicon valley is so upset is according to at least one study, they will lose about $180 billion worth of revenue. this was activities designed to go after one kind of terrorism, but it ripple effect out or -- more widely. attempts by authoritarian governments to leverage this, to change the underlying structure, the underlying governance of the internet itself. a push by china and russia to put more state controls in.

if you like the chinese internet wall or the blacklisted websites in russia, watch out. this may be the future. the internet, which is been the most powerful force for political, economic, social change in my lifetime, this thing the internet is at risk. mayinternet my son inherits be fundamentally different. -- the gap on more in the field also means we act on bad assumptions or do not make connections across dashed domains. take the notion of offense .ersus defense we see it moving over to discussions in cyber.

there is an idea that has taken hold that cyber offense is inherently privileged against the defense. it is not just at a definite advantage, but it will be this way for the foreseeable future for as long as we can look out into the distance, cyber offense will dominate cyber defense. focus -- theus to 2.5 to spending roughly four times as much on cyber offense research and development as we are on cyber defense research and development. there is a threefold problem. the first is the cyber offense is not as inherently privileged as it is argued. truly --and to build a

a true cyber weapon, to carry out a true cyber campaign .equires a lot of things it is not just that story of teenagers sipping red bull. defense is not so weak and helpless. history, when you go to the military history side, is replete with examples that every single time someone assumes that the offense would be dominant, they would get a wake-up call. yearsout the 100 anniversary of that, where every single military in europe looked around and said because of these new tech knowledge ease, the offense will be dominant.

-- these newin technologies, the offense will be dominant. it was written into french military law to only choose the offense. every single military urged its civilian masters, we have to be able to go to work quickly so that we do not get stuck on the defense. that is the worst thing that can happen to us, which helped accelerate this crisis in world war i. what happened? the defense was pretty good. metaphor.issue is a even if this is true, we have to understand that we are not in a cold war some of the thinking -- if you'reance standing in a glass house and you are worried about actors outside that range from gangs of teenagers to criminals to

militaries, you would not think to yourself, you know, the best way to protect myself is to go by a stone sharpening kit. what can we do? is last third of the book the what can we do kind of questions. how do you protect yourself and the internet? i will not try to summarize 100 pages. i will focus in on five things that cut across all of those. the first theme is knowledge matters. it is vital that we demystify this realm if we ever want to get anything effective done. we have to move past thinking that this is a domain for the nerds. we have to move past the situation where the president

receives a briefing on cyber issues and then asks for it to be repeated back, this time in english. that would happen at any corporation, university, military command, you name it. we have to demystify this. people matter. cyber security is one of those wicked problem areas that is rife with complexities and trade-offs and the reason is not because of the technology. it is because of that -- the people part. is usefuled -- this from a writer's perspective, a time that pakistan actually kidnapped all of the world's cute cat videos for the day. if you want to set up your responses, at the global level, you have to recognize the people behind the machines are what matters to both the threat and

any responses to it. .ncentives matter if you want to understand why happeningis or is not in cyber security, look to the motivation, the relative cost, the tensions at play. there is a reason why finance companies are better at their own cyber security, but also doing that important thing of sharing with others the information. this also points to the role that government can and should play. in some situations, it should be a trusted information provider. go back to that issue of trust. research anddoing development. in other situations, it has to be setting standards. just like at your local grocery

store, having voluntary standards is not enough. government has to create market incentives or disincentives. that has happened in all sorts of other spaces. history matters. there is a history to how we got here with the internet and understanding that is key, especially when you hear a silly idea that is given credence like, it's just building new or more secure internet. orlet's just build a new more secure internet. it is not going to happen. we need to look at other realms of history. if we are wrestling with how do we help a domain of commerce and communication and conflict? deal with nonstate actors that range from individual criminals to quasi-state linked groups?

we can look at the age of sail and how they dealt with a type of pirate. if we are looking to build effective government action, let's look to the examples of the most effective government agencies in history. i would argue that one is the center for disease control, which is an amazing success story of a government agency that starts with a couple of scientists taking a $10 collection. it went on to eradicate malaria, play key role in the global effort against smallpox. it was a back channel to the soviets during the worst part of the cold war. this leads to the fifth and final lesson. and franklin had a saying that,

an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. the cdc did studies of this and found that ben franklin was right when it came to public health. far more effective to focus on the prevention side. that equally holds for cyber security. while we like to mystify this space and make it seem so advanced and complex, and i need a man on cyber horseback to rescue me, the reality is very basic steps of cyber hygiene would go an incredibly long way. one study found that the top 10 and top 20 controls would stop up to 94% of all cyber attacks. people sometimes push back against this. i am really special and i am in the six percent.

it is less likely that you are, but let's say you are. go talk to your i.t. folks. oni did not have to focus in all of the low-end stuff, i could concentrate on the advanced side of the threat. they would also say that most of the advanced threats get in through the low-end side. for example, the most important outside penetration of u.s. military networks happened when a soldier found a memory stick in a parking lot and thought it was a good idea to pick it up out of the dirt walk inside the base, and plug it into their computer. rule.s the five second this idea of hygiene is important, not just because of the long way these preventative steps can go, but it is about

building collective responsibility. we teach our kids things like cover your mouth when you cough, not just to protect themselves, but we teach them that with the idea that they have a responsibility to protect everyone else to come into contact with. that is the same kind of ethic we need to be building in this space, at the individual level, national level, all the way up to the global level. to bring the story. oh, at the beginning of the talk, i explained how i was first introduced to computers as a young kid. if you had told my seven-year-old self that this steale would one day money from people's banks, steal their identity, that it would be a weapon of mass disruption, i

would have been against lead with my father not to press the red button. do not turn it on. today we would not have it any other way. our journey into the world of cyberspace has given me and the rest of humanity all sorts of powers that were unimaginable then. we would have described them as superpowers. the ability to find out the answer instantly to any question we might have. the ability not just to converse with someone half a world away, but to become friends with them without having met them. the ability on the military side to carry out network enabled operations. the same as it was back then is the way i believe it should be in the future. we have to accept and manage the risks of this world, whether it

is the online world or the real world, because of all that can be achieved. end, that is really what everyone needs to know. thank you. [applause] >> i think we have some time for some questions and comments. we can give you the honor of the first one. wanted to ask everyone, if you have a question, please be so kind to stand up. it will be easier for the c-span audience to see where the western is coming from. -- where the question is coming from. you give us some examples of where militarily the offense did always win against the defense? could you tell us what your lessons learned from that?

was, when hasn the offense dominated? -- defense has dominated world war i is the classic example. everyone one of the nations in europe believed the new , fastlogy of the railroad shooting artillery, machine guns, gave the advantage to the offense. you had to mobilize quickly. instead, they made the defense dominant and you get multiple years of trench warfare. what we often do is over us in one direction or the other. most of the militaries of europe spend the next -- this is an interesting challenge. i was having a great conversation with an air force

officer earlier today about this. are we enter an -- entering and to an equivalent? globaloperations on the level, but we also have strategic reading room and a massive amount -- breathing room and a massive amount of technological changes. it would be everything from .yber to unmanned systems back then, it was the tanks, airplanes. this is not just in terms of the battlefield impact, but what it means for organizations, core identities of officers. there was an assumption the defense would be inherently dominant. that is when you get the french who previously written into law the offense. the germans took a different believe and built the blitzkrieg. this an interesting way of segueing into what should be

, butng more discussion also discussion beyond. war oroms truly in cyber computer network operations? we have done a lot of fantastic things right now, but we have not achieved synergies. it is a lot like how in world war i, they have the radio, they had the tanks, they were using them, but they had not brought them all together. when we look at the military use of cyber, that is where i think we are right now. we have a great amount of dependence, we've introduced a certain type of cyber weapons, but we have not brought it all together. the example would be operation orchard. this is the difference between cyber war as discussed in the public, a major magazine had a

cover story. on the front of the magazine was a picture of a city with a pixelated mushroom cloud over it . when you read the article, credit card fraud and service attacks. operationat to orchard, were israel was able to synchronize an air raid with conducting cyber-electronic warfare on syrian air defense systems such that the defense systems in syria think tonight is just like any other night and attacking jets are flying right over and they do not know about it until the bombs are literally dropping. it allowed israel to carry out an attack in a very different way. that kind of synchronization is

where we are going to move in more -- in a war. the actors that do it best will be at an advantage. the challenges a twofold one. of who is inissue charge. second is the issue of transparency. -- if you go out and speak with folks in central about thed ask them cyber side of things, they will say, we do not have access to that. it is need to know. it is a different kind of need to know now. side.elates to the power

synchronizing things, if you do not usually -- approach that effectively -- these are the guys that will be in charge of it. we had a report at brookings that was written by an air force officer and his worry is that we -- we have the technology, the command-and-control relationships keep you from taking control of it. other questions? i am a marine and i teach at the naval academy. you made the assertion that by combining things that are only superficially linked leads to bad outcomes and misallocation of resources. it dovetails nicely with the example you just gave about the

israelis ability to use it, does the term cyber war itself do that? i would argue that is not cyber war. it is electronic support to the conventional military attack. does the term cyber war lead to these bad outcomes? >> it is a great question. cyber war is a term that is as abused as war is. we see war used to describe everything from actual political we -- politically motivated violence, the classic definition of war. there are others things we do

not use were to describe. how korea was a police action. now we call it the korean war. more than 400ing airstrikes in another country is not a war because it is being done in a not so covert manner agencyly a civilian using remotely piloted unmanned systems. we do not call it the pakistan more. term warsee the applied to everything from war on drugs, war on poverty, war on christmas, war on sugar. the term is abused. when you add cyber to it, it is

equally abused. now we get into war versus warfare. . agree with you careful in our use of it and it is very difficult because you also get into when you're trying to express what you are talking about and what -- when someone asks about cyber attacks, they are interested in a broader set of things. we have to become much more refined. it is a lot like the political side. there is a nuance that is needed that is often difficult to have in this space because how we has been highly that,cal and because of

it is for the highly technical folks to handle. or it is like the movie spinal tap, turn the volume up to 11. it is the fear factor side. spacee to normalize this and be able to have a discussion about it. discuss it in the same ways we talk about naval warfare. ,hat is where this will be except it connects across. i am a graduate student. you talked about how in the post-snowden in sa area, the government has lost status as a trusted source. what are some actions the government could take to add that status back as a trusted

advisor? >> how long do we have? was a lot of doubt about the review commission the president put together to advise him on steps to take because the makeup was primarily ask government officials -- x ex-government officials. we are picking and choosing the easiest to implement, not the most difficult when it comes to the kinds of reforms that are needed. because of the changing technology, the ability -- things we can do that had not been imagined back then. the second is the should do. running with this technology and using it in ways that should not of been done.

some will take executive action and the other side will take congressional action and now we get into a political will problem. beyond this, we have to set.ntangle the problems th while the origin may have been nsa activity and someone leaking the ripple effect has moved beyond it. as an illustration, what i raised about the governance of the internet itself, this is already being pushed by authoritarian regimes prior to edward snowden moving to hawaii. they were already pushing this. a push for a move away from the current governance model of the internet.

itu were held back at the conference two years back. the challenge is that they are making a new push so we have powern abusive government monitoring on the internet. now we are seeing states argue that this is why government should have more power over the governance of the internet. it is not right, but that is what they are doing. some of the key partners in the coalition that help them back previously, the swing states, germany,il, it india, who have a very different political space right now than they were back then. if we do not watch out, we will effect. ripple one of the things we have argued

was that we need to enact reforms on the u.s. side, but we they are to understand more broad than that. we need to get our slacker back on internet freedom issues. internetagger back on freedom issues. there is a difference between meta-monitoring and blocking the information. the blocking of information is dangerous to our digital economy. that requires presidential level leadership to engage on this. to give you an illustration of the balance right now, if you go sc,the national security -- n

you have 12 people working national security issues. on the academic -- on the economic side, you have one. on the to bring it back national level. the president should give a speech that outlines our vision of the future of the internet. inshould give that speech one of the countries where the internet's future users are, africa.razil, because of the massive economic damage that these kind of models would have, they have to find a way of winning back silicon valley and engaging them in this fight and getting silicon valley .o engage their partners the irony is where brazil's and thea governments are, bottom line is reforms need to

happen internally that are about legal questions, but there's also a strategic level of interest that needs to go on here. >> [inaudible] do you think there is a possibility of a parallel within the united states? that's great question. -- >> great question. in the book, there is a chapter on the chinese approach. aspects besides the massive campaign of intellectual property theft, you have how this links into and where you'retrine looking at a potential enemy and saying, i'm going to turn their strengths into a weakness.

also -- the ability to massive human capital behind it. this is used to describe the ,nternal self censoring model is human flesh search engine how it translates. when you talk about the number of folks involved, a mix of cyber militia and patriotic hacker communities, the scale is enormous. it is measuring and hundreds of thousands of folks. most of those are people who are not all that talented. when you combine the massive itle and weak defenses, it is a dangerous mix. it is challenging for the chinese government because how is challenging

it. that is why we stop the hacker communities rolled into militias. what is the u.s. approach to it? we do have a patriotic hacker community. it has been mostly focused in recent years on counterterrorism . one of my favorite stories in the book, which shows the power , oneber counterterrorism of the best folks at going after terrorist websites that post propaganda and videos and the like is a private citizen who is better known for his day job.

he was the gentleman who invented the housewife next-door of internetgenre porn. for the most part, it has been broadly, we- more corporatized it. a lot of those capabilities in other nations are held within patriotic hacker communities or in the case of russia, you have a mix of organized crime and cyber which has been deployed in operations against estonia or georgia. it is in the beltway. bad. is a good and a on the one hand, it means it is more organized. on the other hand, maybe it cost you a lot more and you have the

strange market incentives that play. just like there is a management problem that china ran into there was the episode in 2001 are one of our navy with a hotes bumped dogging chinese fighter and there was an online back and forth between communities and how you control that. how do they bring in that nationalism side? on the corporate side, the recent proliferation of hacked back as a business model. the best way i will protect you is by hacking back the people going after you. it is a great business model for that company. it is not a good business model for the clients and it may be even worse for the nation. for the client, you are paying

someone to go after an attacker -- you knock down one. for the nation, you could have companies for private reasons getting involved in things with political ramifications. a lot of lessons to learn from the real world side of private military firms. >> peter, thank you very much. >> thank you. [applause] [inaudible] >> thank you. you have written a book. we have another one for you to read as a token of our appreciation for you being here. those of you who are interested,

peter has a box full of his books back there if you would like to get an autograph and write him a check. thank you. >> thank you. [applause] >> here is a look at our prime time schedule. eight 8:00 eastern, american profile interviews with senator bob corker of tennessee. on c-span two, it is book tv programming. on c-span 3, it is american history tv with a 15 year the brookings institution held a discussion on the u.s.-russia relations.

panelists discussed the popularity of vladimir putin. executors and russia and you do not spend time talking about and what a modern country that says, this is a cities that has many big , not just moscow. people are not worried that their neighbors are going to rack them out for making a joke about the leader. they have cell phones and they travel. they have businesses. in many ways, it is a european country. our experience in watching vladimir putin and people who andto make a difference, people who are perceived as a threat to the kremlin, they get wack-a-mole. like

and we do not fully understands their society. cooling -- vladimir putin is not imposing himself on a reluctant siding. he has the support of most of the country. he has control of tv and most of the mechanisms. without that, it might be a different story. this is a country that is being rule the way it wants to be ruled. ordinary friends who do not know much about russia, when we were there, -- until youat understand that. you do not understand them. they look at their country and their history and their leaders in a way that we don't. they do not understand it the way that we do.

>> a brookings institution discussion coming up tonight. you can watch it at c-span.org. >> on the next washington journal, a guest from the peterson institute discusses the impact of nafta. michael hirsch will discuss the economic recovery act five years after its implementation. hear from a special inspector general for afghanistan. plus your phone calls, facebook comments, and we. -- tweets. >> a discussion on u.s.-europe trade. the lead european trade negotiator held talks and said

that they were on track. this is one hour. >> i'm jon huntsman. i am the new chairman of the atlantic council. i am delighted to enjoy -- join the atlantic council during such an exciting time for the transatlantic relationship. as the former governor and ambassador, and u.s. trade representative, i am keenly aware of the positive impact trade and investment can have on a company, state, or relations between sovereign nations. the transatlantic trade partnership that the united states and european union are currently negotiating has the potential to become the largest trade and investment deal ever negotiated. it could cover 47% of global gdp. along with u.s. efforts to

promote trade to as many countries as possible across thisand latin america, represents the most ambitious american trade agenda in at least a generation. if ever. liberalization represents bipartisan goals that are left your washington. for those of you are interested in getting things done. the overwhelming economic benefits on the table, here the council, we would like to think of ttip as more than just the traditional trade agreement. we have an opportunity to revitalize the transatlantic relationship and provide a powerful economic counterpart to the greatest military alliance the world has ever known. by revitalizing the world hostile largest economies, pe

we can the u.s., demonstrate that a system based on strong protections, labor and environmental right, and rule of law, can succeed and serve as a model to others. ttip will go well beyond the classic approach for removing on investment services and public procurement. its most ambitious goal aims at making eu regulations and technical products that are more compatible. whether it is through mutual recommendation or streamlining the regulatory policy making process. unambitious ttip agreement will create over 740,000 jobs in the united states alone. this is only taking into account increased trade between the u.s. and the eu.

there are anticipated increases. those numbers will only grow. reports of sector-based analyze a specific impact of ttip on the u.s. economy. has thew that ttip potential to dramatically boost american exports across all sectors. ass is vitally important jobs tied to exports tend to pay more. they drive international competitiveness. -- ony unambitious ambitious ttip program is worth fighting for. many disagreements on gm oh foods are well-known and well entrenched. it is my sincere hope that we

will see more activity effort from the obama administration. we should see leaders on capitol hill and influential voices from paris, london, and brussels coming out strongly in favor of this agreement. the united states and europe have a lot to gain here. i am delighted and honored that we are joined this afternoon by the leading player in the eu when it comes to ttip. karel degucht is here. a comes directly following series of meetings with. they discussed the current state of play in negotiations and planned out where the two sides are headed. ambassador robert kimmitt is also here. he will be moderating our conversation. bob is an influential member of the council.

he has done great work on trade and investment policy. we thank you for being here and joining us. let me know in our event here is on the record. it is also be live streamed online. was appointed as european commissioner for trade in 2010. during his political career, he has served as a member of the your in parliament, the belgian parliament, and the minister for international trade. he has held many other -- in 2009,d host he became a commissioner for development pos. ts. ] thank you for joining us here today. this promises to be a stimulating conversation. the floor is now yours. [applause]

>> good afternoon. governor huntsman, ambassador kimmitt. i am here to take stock. we are going to discuss our negotiations for a transatlantic partnership. ttip sb: europe -- ttip, as we call it in europe. it is an acronym that works on both sides of the atlantic. [laughter] , itver you want to say it has been in the works for eight months. that thingso say are on track. teams to getating

all the issues on the table. we have identified areas of common ground. they have found areas that need more work. certainly the marquette areas are still larger than the common ground. we now have a clear picture of the whole area. the next phase will be hard. this is where the real negotiations begin. the message tosh our negotiators. they need to stand up here. they may get advice to go even lower. i would like to use my remarks today to go through what that will mean in practice. i would like to remember -- [inaudible] we have a shared goal.

forould like to clear paths small, medium, and large companies to do business. to create jobs and growth and respect people's rights as workers. we want to protect health, safety, and the environment. we have tot goal, divide negotiations into three areas. we have work to do on all of them. the market.ea is goods and services. we have to exchange -- >> our average tariff levels may be low, but we need to keep our ambitions high. that means tackling high tariffs that remain. it means we must make sure that we move quickly so that our economy start to feel the benefit as soon as possible. on services, we are still preparing.

i am confident we will be able to exchange them soon. we both know that there is a huge potential for greater services trade and the importance of high body services in the economy. that is why we both have high commissions. it is for new markets opening and commitments to keep service markets open as they are today. we also need to make steady progress on procurement. ,e need to open markets here because it offers significant economic gains. our objective should be to remove this discrimination between european and american arms. all aspects of the market are equally important. it is essential that we move forward on all of them in parallel to keep balance. the second area of the talks

that we need to work on in the coming months is what we call rules. tradehinking of facilitation. it will take the u.n. and the u.s. system to the world trade organization. we know that specifically smaller companies find fees, charges, and security is difficult to navigate. i am also thinking of the hugely important discipline in establishing a state-owned enterprise. setting a high standard is crucial for our efforts to encourage trade partners to play by the same rules. we need government support for business. the same goes for rules and raw materials for energy. marketsest served if

are regulated in a transparent manner. exports is classic politics that undermines the common good. it has no place in transatlantic agreements. i am thinking of the crucial issues of labor. we have to make absolutely sure that transatlantic trade is not under manning -- undermined. there are sustainable development issues. at forl not sacrifice th commercial gain. there is the potential to go beyond what we have been able to include on these issues. the final area we need to work on is the most difficult. it is also the most important.

reducing regulatory differences to facilitate trade. it is difficult technically and politically. the technical difficulties are obvious. in what we call the good old days, that was all we had to work with. those are fairly simple tools to understand, as are the effects of changing them. however, we have a discussion that becomes broken and much more complex. regulators, not trade negotiators are in charge. we will get nowhere without their hard work. , because if you want to make trade easier without undermining your objectives or regulation, then two groupscome of all areas of policy. you must understand and respect

the purpose of the laws and rules. it is to protect human health, the environment, and promote stability. we must come to terms with new fields of expertise, biology, chemistry, psychology. negotiators know a thing or two about that. we must master the legal mechanism that would put our goals into practice. politics, the european union and the united states is trying to remove all politics from regulation. concepts like independence and impartiality are the core of how our systems are designed. in neither system have we been able to eliminate this entirely.

when it comes to basic regulatory choices, politics is necessarily involved. there are laws made by our own legislature, the council of member states, which is a bicameral system. even when we have full delegated powers, we are forced to make judgment calls based on the information available even when it is imperfect. uncertainty is a fact of life. it is a principle that plays a role in both of our systems. alongside all of these decision making processes, we know that public debate is every bit as political and passionate as any electronic campaign. -- electoral campaign.

regardless of whether it is executive action. that is the complex space in which ttip takes place. people have very serious concerns about what ttip might mean for regulation. our sharedns is that values toto lower have a real economic impact, well keeping the levels of regulatory protection that our citizens have chosen, will be a challenge. it is certainly possible. 30 years ago, the european union went much further than we were going to go. we were able to demonstrate to people that it was possible to adapt the rules and reach common standards by facilitating the highest standard of regulatory protection. hard work from trade negotiators and regulatory authorities in the coming weeks

and coming months. at ruless that looking about how we met regulations and solutions to current -- to address current issues, results that make a difference, we need to look at the way that we produce regulation. can we make the process more transparent so that we can give useful feedback in the early stages of the regulatory process? that would allow regulators to deepen their relationships and solutions to new challenges together. time, if we want to be credible, we need to find regulatory illusion. -- regulatory solutions. if we can get rid of double inspections for pharmaceutical or medical devices, if we can make sure that we implement

international laws on finance in a compatible way, if we can simplify the procedures for approving food products and avoid inspections in areas where our safety rules are equivalent, then ttip will have a positive impact on our economy straightaway. to take all of these areas forward, it will require effort. that we arer know doing it. the answer for me is unclear. there is strategic vision on one side. the growth and jobs argument is clear. open-market boost demand. exporters have access to new customers. it helps smaller companies even more than larger ones.

they do not always have the resources to find clever ways to do with regulations. they also work on the supply side of the economy by lowering rises. there are intermediate goods for companies. , competitionse make the economy more productive for everyone. ton you apply these effects the largest trade and investment relationship, you can expect significant results. our own estimates expect for the economy to expand by more than by the time the agreement is finalized. recovery,of gradual both europe and america need to seize opportunities like this. you also need to remember strategic reasons and getting down to the serious work.

the regulatoryh and the rules aren't of this agreement are so important. level, thisbasic will provide global discipline. there is new momentum brought to the wto. i am working with our colleagues in geneva to use that momentum to make progress on the rest of the mandate. even if we manage to meet all of -- all ofthat goals our goals, issues will remain. ,onvergence on how to proceed is not a sufficient step towards global rulemaking. there are solutions that can later be applied more widely. atwill already be operating

40% of the world' con he. world's economy. the european union and the united states will be important players, but we will have less weight than in the past. by 2050, our share of world output will drop by as much as half. consequence ofal the prosperity in other parts of the world. it will have an impact on the systemased international that we have assembled over the last 6 years. that system needs to adapt and accommodate the new rising players. it is possible. america has a strong interest that the system continues to be based on principles, not just of

openness, but also high standards for health, the environment, labor, and consumer protection. the truth is that the eu and the u.s. share much more than they differ on. it should bring us even closer. we should have strength in our shared values on the global stage. governor, ambassador, ladies and gentlemen, these issues will be a challenge. see, there are reasons for us to make the effort. doing so will be quite a serious commitment. our have a political calendar this year, europe is ready to make this commitment. i have every confidence that the u.s. will join us. i president's day, there are many great leaders to look to for inspiration in these efforts. perhaps kennedy is one of them.

in 1962, he needed to rally support for trade talks involving the embryonic european union. it was a round of talks that would ultimately be named in his memory. we recognize that trade is no longer about local economic interests, but high national policy. striking a bargain with the common market is important. possibility we have before us. i'm looking forward to seeing us working together to achieve that. thank you very much for your attention. [applause] >> thank you very much for the comprehensive remarks. of two arduoust

days of negotiations. what you were describing was your official response. i know you also keep a close eye on politics on both sides of the atlantic. talk abouta lot of politics in the u.s. lately with statements made by president obama and senator harry reid and vice president joe biden and of course, our midterm elections are coming up in november. six months before that, you have important elections in europe for the european parliament. that is an institution you know well. that is a general belief there is a strong element of that parliament is skeptical about the european union. there is some skepticism about trade. can we get your views on how

politics are going to play out in the near term in europe? mimi first entree, and some likely -- mainly, first entree, it sounds like a wind tunnel. [laughter] at present, the european parliament is not skeptical about trade. we have a lot of questions on sustainable development, environmental issues, health and safety. mental health rights. generally speaking, we are not against trade. we have managed to get a trade deal adopted. the one with columbia, peru, south america. we got an agreement with the that easily pass

parliamentary scrutiny. the idea that there would be skepticism in europe is not true. sure that if you , it wouldach a deal be widely debated, because it and the a big deal, idea is to insert a stent to merge -- the idea is to a certain extent to merge two markets. it would provide problems in european parliament. , first ofts in europe what are the things i have learned after 35 years in youtics is that whenever

try to have a judgment on the outcome, you are mistaken. it is always different than what you expected. it is difficult to predict. that therery well be are more eurosceptic members of the european parliament. from great britain entree, they are very positive. that is not the only thing they are positive about. [laughter] you could expect to have more eurosceptics. case, itere to be the the nature of relationships between the institutions. parliament works

more or less like the american parliament. proposala legislative and the majority for the proposal can be very much across the board. you have all kinds of specific coalitions. differentttle bit than the classical democratic system that we have in european union. it is not only on the continent, but also in great britain and ireland. that could change. imagine that you have 25% and youtic members, have to get 60% of the 75% remaining. i would expect that you have a close relationship, a political relationship, within the european commission and the european parliament. i'm not saying you would copy,

but you would move in the direction of having a my authority -- a majority coalition. that is not currently the case. that might change. whether it will make life more difficult, i am not sure. you are moving in the direction of a governmental program. you can execute it over the years. but you have to adapt it. it would have no effect on be operability of the relationship between institutions. ttip -- one thing that is different about this agreement is the explicit reference to the word investment in the agreement. that is not really surprising on the u.s. side because there

continues to be political debate -- around but we've trade, we seem to have coalesced. we have americans who work for companies based overseas. that is 5% of our private work is. the account for 20% of our private exports. those jobs pay higher on average. many of them are in manufacturing. 12.5% are unionized. that is versus a .5% of the overall economy. the investment is a big part of u.s. political debate. in europe, president francois hollande hosted investment groups. hesitation seen some on the investor side. i have wonderedth