boards and employees and industries the importance of cyber security risk management. as we face ever more threats in cyberspace which incorporate the public-private cooperation into the toolkit the threats are not but threats are not letting up and neither should we. thank you very much for inviting me. questions for mr. carlin? >> lefty rely on you. >> i had. >> i had a radio show at the national press club on climate change. in my radio show i deal with a lot of ngos that don't trust the government and when they see the government partnering in the private sector, they get really nervous.

ideally there was a chamber of commerce that hired a number of offensive cyber firms to engage in the cyber attacks against some of these ngos. i don't know that the department of justice or anyone else in the federal investigated or prosecuted that. i'm not sure on the liability repercussions. and it is really thick among the community working on the climate change into a lot of other things when we consider the full weight of the government and the private sector standing on our backs. what i would like to know if have you considered that the federal government might reassure all americans that it's working to protect everyone and not protecting members of the chamber of commerce when things like this happen.

>> at its private consumers, companies or nonprofit organizations, and in fact we have seen too often got they are targeted on the cyber attack b-day by the nationstate adversaries or criminal groups. and so i would encourage those who are -- who suffered a breach to come and work with law enforcement as the crying as they would have in any other circumstance. and we would be happy to work and are working on cases like that all across the country >> other questions on today's topic if you would please >> politico cybersecurity. you've spoken in the past on the indictment of the chinese officials and all of the government approach.

the problem in those remarks it was promised that this is not the end, this is a new normal. what are the type of circumstances that will lead to more aggressive movements by the government against the nationstate what types of things are sort of the threshold to see more of the tools being deployed? i think for too long when it came to the nationstate actors there was a lot of good work being done on the intelligent side of the house to find out what was going on. but for too long on the criminal side of the house, we were not working day in and day out to see whether or not it involved the nationstate actor that we could bring appropriate criminal charges and that's why in 2012 we started the national security network and how the prosecutors trained all throughout the country on both have a handle on the one hand and the

complexities of the electronic evidence and on the other hand how to deal with the sensitive choices and methods and expertise the prosecutors have been bringing to bear. now that people are looking at the cases in that manner and the fbi is regularly sharing intelligence with the specially trained prosecutors, the case will be brought and we proved that was the case by bringing the case against the members of the liberation army 6198 earlier this spring. the prosecutors and agents continue to work and we will see additional cases because the crime continues of stealing the economic information. at the same time, we need to look with our partners and our developing sentience from the department of treasury, commerce and to the designations bringing suit to make sure that we leave no tools in the toolbox grade we

bring everything to bear to increase the cost so at the end of the day those that have information from hard-working american businesses and customers decided that it isn't worth the risk of getting caught >> john with american express thank you for coming today. can you shed a little bit of light on the impact of some of the latest takedowns? and in partnership with some of the private private sector community to affect that? >> once again, that is an example of a takedown where several things were happening at once. the unique action inside the united states in order to disrupt the command-and-control servers that keep them from sending the commands. you need the cooperation of the partners because many of the servers and the infrastructure

so that they could simultaneously take action and to the extent that we could and we did, you need to find attribution of the bad actors responsible working with the countries to bring them to justice. that collaborative action that took place in the u.s. government, foreign government abroad into the private sector was able to the thousands of computers that had the malware on them and bringing to the individuals to justice. that is the type of action that cannot take place without the help of the private sector into the private private sector was essential in the speed with which you are able to remediate some of the damage to some people's computers and that is what i think bob anderson referred to in the future.

can you go over some of the challenges that you have with the obtained digital evidence? i know in the metropolitan area there are a few organizations with the exception of the local fbi agency that has the ability to gather the information that is to maintain it and keep it secure. so what are some of the challenges that you have in the country? >> it is a challenge. we've proven to that they can't. there are cases where we can have attribution and we know that person involved.

with that said it's a difficult case in part because the difficulties of gathering electronic evidence and that's true domestically let alone the challenges of gathering electronic evidence outside of the reach of our orders which require close cooperation with our foreign partners. and i think that we have come a long way in that regard proving we can bring some of these cases but we need to go further and continue to work on developing those relationships with our partners and making sure that they have parallel statutes on their books that allow us to acquire electronic evidence and further that criminal investigation. >> thank you very much for coming here today. we appreciate the good work of view and the team. >> thank you. i look forward to working with the chamber of commerce in the future and as i worked together on this joint threats. thank you. [applause]

.. >> ok, can everyone hear me ok? again, welcome to the chamber's third annual cyber security summit. thank you both for joining us. we are going to introduce you both and talk about the bill itself and go from there and perhaps take some questions from the audience. let me introduce our speakers. so glad to have you here. california senior senator dianne feinstein has built a reputation as an independent voice working with democrats and republicans to find some common sense solutions to the problems facing california and the nation. since her election to the senate in 1992, she has worked in a bipartisan way to build a significant record of legislative accomplishments. which include helping to strengthen the nation's security

both here and abroad, combating crime and violence, battling cancer, and protecting resources in california and across the country. in the 111th congress, she assumed the chairmanship of the senate select committee on intelligence. where she oversees the nation's 16 intelligence agencies, and i should point she was the first female senator to hold that position. it is also my pleasure to introduce the honorable saxby chambliss. in 2008, saxby chambliss was elected to serve a second term in the united states senate. georgia trends magazine which has named him as one of the most influential georgians calls him a highly visible and well respected presence in washington. and it says he has a reputation as an affable but a straight talking lawmaker. georgia trends also named

senator chambliss as georgian of the year. his leadership and expense of homeland security and intelligence matters during his tenure in the house of representatives earned him an appointment to the senate select committee on intelligence where he has served as vice chairman since 2011. he is a strong advocate for improved information sharing and human intelligence gathering capabilities and the topic will get into here. again, thank you both for joining us. i was sharing with the senator feinstein, which all have, our propaganda if you will. i thought we could start with that, why did she decide to push this legislation or why it did and what does it do. or why it dd and what does it do. >> i'll begin, but let me just say to begin with, ann, first of all thank you. it's my understanding that the chamber is prepared to support this legislation, and that's very important. i think if i can speak for the vice chairman and myself to our whole committee. but on a personal level i just want to say to the gentleman on my left what a great pleasure it's been to work with you.

we've put out now a number of intelligence authorization bills, the fisa bill, the cyber bill, and ladies and gentlemen, one of the things that i've learned certainly in about four years of public life back in a two party system if you want to get something done, compromise is not a bad word. and so if we sit down and try to share everything that i know with senator chambliss, either i had to give or he has to give, or we find a mutual road to go down. and we have found, i believe people second this, that's a very productive way of producing for the people of this country. i remember when we had -- before our intelligence committee, and to give us a classified briefing on what was happening in the united states with respect to cyberattacks. and then the director of the fbi

said, you know, there's one thing that's comment about this. 90% even know they have been attacked, the other 10% may not but they have been attacked. and that virtually almost every big american company today has been attacked. the question is how serious and by whom and how much. and i think it fhom and how muc. and i think it's fair the economy into business is estimated in the trillions of dollars. so it is very serious. we started on this with a different bill, and we put that bill together. it went to the floor and it got 56 votes. we needed 60 votes. it only got one republican vote. sowas to go back and do a bipartisan bill, and that's essentially what the vice-chairman and i have done,

ann. we put together a bipartisan bill. it was put out by the committee by a vote of 12-3, and it awaits action on the floor of the senate. there are a couple of groups that don't like this or don't like that. we've been prepared and look forward to receiving their comments. the staff has received and. david is here today, our staff director. and jack from the minority side as well, and so we are open but we do not want to produce something that cannot get a vote. what we've done is an entire voluntary system. it essentially moves to let companies do three things. to monitor their networks, to identify cyber indicators, to use countermeasures to protect against cyber threats, d

third, to share and receive information with each other and with federal, state and local governments. companies who use the authority to monitor and share information are provided full liability protection for doing so. as long as they do so with, within the bills parameters. and those parameters are pretty clearly spelled out. the bill has a number of protections to make sure personal information is protected, and to make sure that government doesn't use information for any purpose other than cybersecurity. and, finally, the bill requires the director of national intelligence to put in place a process of sharing information on cyber threats in the governments hands with the private sector. so we believe we have a good bill.

we are thankful for the support that your organization is provided. we understand the financial services network supports us, the telecom supports it. but let me say one thing. we will not have a bill. i tried to get this bill on the floor and so far have not had success. until communities like yourself take a good look at it, agree with it, come forward and say do it, and do it now, the stakes are too big to let this language any longer. >> thank you. senator chambliss. >> well, again, ann, thank you very much for having us here today. and thanks to the chamber on two accounts. number one, what i found as i've been around the country, literally around the world, but around the country and around my state, and i talk about cybersecurity, until six or eight months ago as i was under beaudry club and i said the most

important we've got to deal with cybersecurity, everybody eyes glaze over. this is not what i as a lawyer referred to as -- you can't see what's happening out there. you can't really feel it, except that people are starting to understand that this is serious, that it has huge financial consequences, not just to the economy of the united states but to me personally. so what you are doing today is helping educate people about this, and i am very thankful for that. secondly, the support of the chamber is key. i ran into the former dni just last thursday, we had a cybersecurity conference in a gust of georgia and former director mike mcconnell was there and we were talking about the bill. and he said where does the chamber stand? i said, the chamber is absolute fully behind us. he said great, i think your chances just improved significantly.

so to all of you, thanks for your willingness to let us have a chance to dialogue with you on this. i want to echo what diane said, number one, you would think this a mutual admiration society, and it is. she and i had a great working relationship, and it's proved that democrats and republicans can check their political hats at the door every now and then and do it in the best interest of the country. diane and i've done that on a number of issues when it comes to national security. and i am so glad to have her in the foxhole when we're fighting these battles, whether it's in the airwaves or on the ground come and she's been a great leader and a great friend in the process. as diane said we had a cybersecurity bill on the floor of the senate a couple of years ago. they were -- there were competing factions that didn't allow the bill to generate more than 56 votes, and what she and i did after that, we were

involved in the process but actually we were kind of fighting each other on the bill. but we both knew the importance of the issue. so when that bill went down she and i sat down together and said look, this is foolish. we know how important the issue is, we've got to come up with a bill that the bipartisan that you and i can agree on and that we can get the majority of our committee to agree on. it's not easy, as she said come in these times on capitol hill seeing bipartisanship that is somewhat of an anomaly. but diane and i slugged it out. we did make the right kind of compromises on positions without compromising our principles to come together on this bill. it received a 12-3 will coming out of committee. you do see many 12-3 committees coming out of any committee on the senate side these days. that was going into the election

too, by the way. what my priorities in this bill war was never want to make sure that we had a bill that was going to provide jon and i, our other law enforcement and our government agencies the tools that they need to make sure that they are able to detect intrusions on to any system be a public or private, and to make sure that they have the ability to share that information both from a public to private standpoint as well as private to private standpoint. because if we don't do that we are not publishing anything. and we wanted to do that in a voluntary system. if we banned it to the private sector you will do this -- if we mandate it to the private sector there will always be pushback from the private sector. and with the level of trust that exists today between the public sector and the private sector, we knew that our chances of success long-term were not going to be very good. so what we did was go to your

companies, go to the private sector and said okay, we want your ideas. we want you to start, help us start on the ground floor and let's build this building called a cybersecurity bill. and we did that and we've been able to incorporate good ideas from the public sector, good ideas from the private sector, and i think we accomplished what we set out to do from a voluntary system. secondly, it's imperative that we incorporate strong privacy measures in this bill. we simply can't allow someone's personal information to be shared on a wholesale basis. we agreed on that and we think we've come up with good language to ensure that that does not happen. thirdly, it's important that we put language in this bill that allows flexibility. this is not a short-term project from our standpoint. this is long-term, and with the

way that the technology changes in the world of cyber on virtually an hourly basis, not a daily basis, we want to make sure that 10 years from now that there is flexibly in legislative language that allows the public sector and the private sector to make industry changes to adjust to what technology comes forward in the intervening time frame. and then lastly, ma i'll say it again i know the key aspect of this if this is going to work is to ensure that there is liability protection given to the private sector. we think we've done that in the right way, and we think that the private sector, those folks who are involved in it as well as i hope as dianne said, i hope all of you will read the bill, i think we need to you will be like the folks in the private sector that we have involved in it. you will have some comfort in

knowing that in the corporate boardroom people are going to say wow mike, if we share this information with our competitor, we are going to have protection and we're going to be able to do this in a way that lets us put the right kind of countermeasures in place without the fear of liability from outside sources. so i'm pleased about this bill. obviously, dianne has a lot more influence on senator reed than i do, but i have implored that if there is one piece of legislation that needs to be concluded between now and the end of the year, this is it. if we don't do it this year, i fear that it will be at least another year before it rises back to the level that it is now. and if we wait another year we are really risking the economy a united states come in my opinion. so i'm very hopeful that when we

get back in a couple of weeks that senator reid is going to agree with us. we will have this bill on the floor. we will slug it out. dianne and i are joined at the hip on this. we are going to be together, and if somebody has an amendment that makes the bill better, we are okay. it's a bill that tries to send a political message of some sort, then we're going to work to beat it back. but i do hope we get the bill on the floor and we see the senate work in the way that the senate historical has worked, to provide good legislation. thank you. >> thank you, senator. i think you are saying all the right things we like to be. liability protection, flexibility. i will tell you admiral rogers was here. he's very big on the information sharing bill as will any said the same thing. he doesn't want personal identifiable information. he does want to get into the privacy issues. so i think that information

sharing we talked to earlier, something we can talk about a decade or so now, and i guess i'd ask, to put you on the spot but what our chances this bill a lame-duck session, do you think we have a chance be? well, i do think we have a chance. i think it depends on people in this room and a lot of rooms like it throughout america. i look back three years and both saxby and i sat down in the chamber then when you had some concerns about the bill, and it was really useful. i think i weighed 23 or four big meetings and generally came to understand what those concerns were. i think those have been remedied in this bill. this bill is in the sun, the moon and the stars. it isn't a regulatory guideline how to. it's a voluntary bill. it allows the voluntary sharing of information with each other or the government, with immunity, from lawsuits

essentially. and i think that's critical. it's a first step bill. it's the first thing we need to do. now, here's my worry. saxby, if we don't get this bill passed now with you retiring, i think you're right, we go back, we'll have all the arguments we've already had and disposed of but with a new cast of characters, and companies are going to continue to get hit. so you and i, because of what we see, share a big sense of a laxative that we need to get this thing done. we really need others to stand up and say yes, we are in support with this. we oppose the last bill, we are for this bill. let's get to it. let's pass it. >> one other thing that gives us the potential to get this build on, the white house came out with their executive order virtually a year ago. i was frankly very apprehensive when they said they're going to

issue an executive order because i did no one is going to say, even though i have talked with both of us about it in advance but, frankly, the lay of the land that was put forward in that executive order is very positive in concert with what we have done in our bill. and some standards are being sent by nist. there are some other things that are being done there that i think lays the groundwork for some of, to solving some of the objections that were in the lieberman-collins bill. and we focus on information sharing which is the guts of it. if you don't have information sharing it's not going to work, but i think the white house needs to be commended for laying out the executive order the way they have. and i've commended nist publicly and i will continue to do so about the job they're doing.

>> we at the chamber certainly agree with you. we have michael daniel, the white house cyber coordinate this morning when he first came out with executive order he was here at the chamber a couple of times which is unheard of to shop around an executive order like that. i think the extent they went to get to that, not buy-in but situational awareness from the private sector on the executive order was very helpful. i will tie you that the nist cyber friend to something the chamber fully supports. we're doing, socializing with small communes has country so we agree with you that the cybercrime and executive order was a step in the right direction. >> i think, ann, if i may, i think if we can get this up on the floor i believe we can pass it. you can't pass a bill that is a bipartisan, and this one is anything we can. and both saxby and i were closely with admiral rogers, the house chair, the vice chairman.

and mike has said we are ready to go. if you get a bill, we will sit down, get it conference and we'll get it done right away. so you really don't wait, want to wait until the legislative bodies change on this. because then you got to go back to your dot and start all over again. that means in -- inordinate delay. i would hope we can get people to stand up, saxby and ann, and come forward and say you've got to do this and do it now. we are happy to make the bill language available. i think it is already. and are staffs are here. they're happy to sit down with you, or we can as well, but we really need the help to get it passed. >> and i will just say both of your us kids have been -- staffs have been terrific to work with. let's take a few questions from the floor. we are having a very hard time seeing you out there with these bright lights.

so please wait for a microphone toome to you. tried to get to chamber members first, if you make. >> cory bennett with a hill but to discuss a lot of the ways that -- high, over. i could get the bill passed in the lame-duck session. what pressures on the things that might be a someone blog and might prevent from getting passed in this upcoming session. >> let me be candid. there were essentially two categories of people who have concerns. one trial lawyers. we think we've worked that out, and that there aren't problems are now, cross my fingers. the other is the privacy community, which is a big, broad nerdy. and i think we made another six changes that we've agreed to, but, you know, it's always more more more. now, we i think if the bill

comes to the floor and, obviously, we have a set time and a number of amendments, we are willing to take amendments and do them on the floor. so that shouldn't stop it. but those are really the two groups that we have concerns about. and i think one of them will be settled, and with respect to the privacy community, you know, what i've heard is we want the old bill. well, the old bill, not exactly -- got exactly one republican vote on the floor. that's not a good message if you want to passed something. so you have to find a way to work together to get it done, and we believe we have done that. >> that wasn't my vote. this one will get my vote. [laughter] >> other questions, comments? over here.

>> this morning coordinator michael daniel start but how he's working very closely with you on legislation but where is the white house stand on the bill today? do you think they are supported enough? >> well, i can quickly state as the chairman. what we have done is kept the white house advised. the staff has done this. they sat down. they have worked with the white house, and i think, in less there's something that's new that i don't know about, there's been a relatively close working relationship. >> this is, it's not been a one-sided conversation. i've had direct conversation with the president, even rode with him in a golf cart one day and we talked about in the golf cart as we were trying to focus on our game. we were more importantly focus on cybersecurity that day.

but we face any number of conversations with the white house on it, and i'm not about to speak for them, but we have taken their original concerns into consideration and we know that the president has got to sign whatever bill comes out. and we are going to continue to dialogue. i'm hoping that by the time we get back and assume senator reid says yes, this is something we need to do, that the white house will come out and be a strong advocate with those. is it a perfect bill? i mean, all of us know, particularly those of you have been around the senate for a long time, nothing is ever perfect. and that's the way you get those and the way you get things done is to craft something that while it can always be improved, and as dianne said, this is the first step. who knows where we're going to be a year from now, but if we do

nothing, shame on us. and i know the white house feels strongly about that aspect of it. >> and for those of you that may not be so in the we just we are, we are talking of 2588, cybersecurity information sharing act of 2014. a little summary that we put together, this represents a workable compromise among any stakeholders. it also safeguard privacy as you discussed. protect civil liberties because there is the role of civilian intelligence agencies and desensitizes sharing with a narrow liability protection. it would also help businesses achieve timely and actionable situational awareness, information sharing and real-time. so i just want to point out you have this in your folder. we've got 1 16 organizations alg with u.s. chamber of commerce now in support of this bill so very supportive. we have a question over here, matthew spent matthew with each

other. senators, i wanted to thank you for your work on the bill and the work of your staff members have done a very big a job in terms of working with us on aspects of the bill. one thing that might not be well-known is the bill does mandate that this is sharing information with government have to remove personal information -- they have to remove pii. the bill says you must remove pii. i think it's when the eldest of the. we didn't originally agree with. primarily because we thought that small and midsize businesses that are not as sophisticated in terms of doing the removal might say instead of sharing the i'm going to sit this one out. we recognized that is a big issue and that one element of the bill that we find the messenger to compromise our ground. you might be interested to know we have been meeting with many offices in the senate to try to educate them about the bill. it is our number one cyber legislative priority.

so i wanted to just think and say yes, ev do have a chance and women opportunity to pass the bill on the floor, please urge senator reid, put it on the floor. we think the bill deserves at least a shot at the. anyway, thank you. >> one thing we did to address early on privacy concerns is with regard to the definition of cyber indicator threats. and we narrowed the definition of it, and the focus is on really that serious issues of cyber threats. it's not able to be expanded from a privacy standpoint into non-cyber issues, which i understand from a privacy standpoint. so that was another big compromise that we came together on. dianne with me again.

-- whipped. that's the way things get done. i empathize with the rational and the reasoning behind it. that's why we were able to make the changes that we are able to make on both sides. thank you for your input. when the chamber has input, you speak for a myriad of sectors of the economy as well as individual businesses, and that's critically important to us. >> thank you very much. >> he gave you a little inside information. didn't have to do that. >> any last questions, comments? one back there. >> to what extent is the debate of surveillance in the lame-duck going to put into the ability to pass this bill. you know, i've heard both that

it is necessary to this bill would also be a death knell for this bill because they don't want them to get inextricably linked. how do you plan to navigate that in the lame-duck? >> well, i'll kick that off. you're talking about the fisa reform bill and how does it relate to the potential for discussion and debate on this bill. the thing about fisa reform is that we don't need between now and then the end of the year. we've got a bill. that bill expires the middle of next year. we do know who's going to control congress, but this has been a vigorous debate as to the changes that need to be made in fisa, and i think there's a lot of accord on that. but that's not something that urgently needs to be done between now and the end o end oe year, simply because we have laws on the books today that deal with that issue.

cyber we don't. and there should not be any connection between the two, and i certainly hope that's not the debate we get into, or not the position that we get into when we get back into session. >> let me say this. you've hit on something, because i've heard this in roundabout ways, that fisa reform has to come first. and if i understand the current status, the house has passed a bill which was are difficult for the house to pass a bill. we have passed a bill on certain fisa reforms that went out of our committee i think 11-4. the president has a distinct view on this, and that is that he supports the house passed bill, and senator leahy, the chairman of the judiciary committee, is putting together a

fisa bill that would essentially echo the house bill with a few changes in it. one having to do with the public advocate/amicus, and also with a couple of other things. here is the big problem, and the problem is how do we get something done there ask the vice chairman has said quite correctly, well, this doesn't we need to come up until next year, but that's a long time to wait. my concern is that we do need to do something there. i don't think it's necessary to put the fisa bill first. our bill is ready to go. it could pass the senate. i think at the very least they would show that we can pass something. we can get it conferenced. we can get it back before the senate for a final vote and we can get to the president.

so we can do this with not a great deal of debate, probably with a joint rule between the two sides that there be a couple of hours for debate and a limited number of amendments, and then get it passed and then conferenced it. so we could get something done. and i very much hope that that will happen. >> we hope so, too. we have time for one more question if there's anyone else out there. there's one here in the middle. >> my name is jason from senator mark kirk's office. i wanted to ask senator chambliss, who will hold the banner for information sharing the next congress for republicans? who has that institutional knowledge of working with the chamber but also -- [inaudible]

>> the mos >> the most senior person in line to me is senator burr. i'm sure he will be the next republican to either be chairman or vice chairman. behind him is senator risch, and we have senator coats and rubio, senator collins but we are losing senator coburn so there's a lot of republican experience that will be coming back, and i'm confident that whoever it is is going to work diligently with dianne to move something. but as we both alluded to earlier, we've got lots of new members on the intel committee in the coming back and trying, coming in, and trying to educate those folks about the issue itself, plus there are a lot of members that simply look to dianne, to me, and other senior members of the committee to

basically have some security, and from the standpoint of knowing a complex issue, having worked on a complex issue, they're willing to go with us. we've got a lot of folks are going to be coming in that are not going to be in that position. so that's why i think, and, obviously, dianne agrees with me, that it's going to be a long time if we don't get it done by the end of this year. hope that answers your question. >> i think that's one of the things that we want to work with you on, that educating of new members, and what happy to continue to do that. i want to thank you both for coming here today. thank you for all the work you've done on this bill. it's a terrific bill. again we've enjoyed working with you and your staff, both of you. take you very much. the chamber will continue to push for this bill. >> good, thanks. >> thank you, ann. [applause]

>> [inaudible >> on the next "washington journal," a look at the recent drop in gas prices in the u.s.. our guest is "wall street os.rnal" reporter nick timira we will talk with matt lewis of the daily caller and a mandatory all of the daily post. as a part of our spotlight on magazine series, haley sweetland edwards from "time," plus your phone calls, e-mails, and tweets. live onton journal" is c-span every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> the c-span cities tors takes

book tv in american history tv on the road, traveling to u.s. cities to learn about their history and literary life. this weekend, we partnered with for coloradovisit springs, colorado. >> in 1806, the gum or a pike with and into the american southwest to explore the region. very similar to lewis and clark, who were sent to the northwestern part of the newly acquired louisiana territory. pike was sent to the southwest part of the territory, and from his perspective when he came out here, he really walked off the map. he went to an area that was unknown. grandike first sees the peaks, he thinks they will reach the top of it in just a few days. it really takes weeks to approach. reach what we believe is a lower mountain on the flanks of pikes peak called mount rosa, so they turn around and at that point, pike wrote in his journals that given the

conditions, given the equipment that they had at the time, no one could have summit did the peak. i speak inspired the poem that became "america the pewter will -- "america the beautiful." down to the plans from the top of the mountain inspired the poetry and inspired the images that are captured in that poetry. events from of our colorado springs saturday at noon eastern on c-span two's book tv and sunday afternoon at 2:00 on american history tv on . span3 president obama said the u.s. cannot shy away from the fight against the ebola virus. the president made the remarks yesterday before leaving for a

fund-raising trip to wisconsin. he spoke for 10 minutes. >> good afternoon, everybody. i just want to offer a quick update on ebola and a number of the issues that have been raised. we know that the best way to protect americans ultimately is going to stop this outbreak at the source. and i just had the privilege of speaking with some of the men and women who are working to do just that -- our disaster assistance response team on the ground in west africa. first and foremost, i thanked them for their incredible dedication and compassion. these are the folks that, from the minute that we saw this ebola outbreak growing larger than we had seen traditionally, were deployed, were on the ground, and were helping to coordinate the countries where the outbreak is happening to make sure that the response was

effective. and it's typical of what america does best -- when others are in trouble, when disease or disaster strikes, americans help. and no other nation is doing as much to make sure that we contain and ultimately eliminate this outbreak than america. we deployed this d.a.r.t. team to west africa back in early august. they're now the strategic and operational backbone of america's response. they've increased the number of ebola treatment units and burial teams. they've expanded the pipeline of medical personnel and equipment and supplies. they've launched an aggressive education campaign in-country. the bottom line is, is that they're doing what it takes to make sure that medical personnel and health care workers from all countries have what they need to get the job done.

and the good news is that it's starting to have an impact. based on the conversations that i had today with them, they're starting to see some progress in liberia, and the infrastructure is beginning to get built out. that's thanks to the incredible work and dedication of folks from the united states who are leading the way in helping liberia, guinea, and sierra leone. and it's critical that we maintain that leadership. the truth is that we're going to have to stay vigilant here at home until we stop the epidemic at its source. and for that, we're going to need to make sure that our doctors and our health care professionals here in the united states are properly trained and informed and that they are coordinated if and when an ebola case crops up here in the united states. but what's also critically important is making sure that all the talent, skill, compassion, professionalism, dedication, and experience of

our folks here can be deployed to help those countries deal with this outbreak at the source. and that's why, yesterday, the cdc announced that we're going to have new monitoring and movement guidance that is sensible, based in science, and tailored to the unique circumstances of each health worker that may be returning from one of these countries after they have provided the kind of help that they need. in fact, tomorrow i'm going to have a chance to meet with doctors and public health workers who've already returned from fighting this disease in west africa or who are about to go -- not only to say thank you to them and give them encouragement, but to make sure that we're getting input from them based on the science, based on the facts, based on experience, about how the battle to deal with ebola is going and how our policies can support the incredible heroism that they are showing. so we don't want to discourage

our health care workers from going to the frontlines and dealing with this in an effective way. our medical teams here are getting better and better prepared and trained for the possibility of an isolated ebola case here in the united states. but in the meantime, we've got to make sure that we continue to provide the support of health workers who are going overseas to deal with the disease where it really has been raging. it's also important for the american people to remind themselves that only two people so far have contracted ebola on american soil -- the two dallas nurses who treated a patient who contracted it in west africa. today both of them are disease-free. i met with one of them, nina pham, last week, and she is doing wonderfully. and i just had a chance to get off the phone with amber vinson, who is on her way back home and

also, as many of you saw in her press statement today, is doing well also. of the seven americans treated for ebola so far, all have survived. right now, the only american still undergoing treatment is dr. craig spencer, who contracted the disease abroad while working to protect others. and we should be saluting his service. and we are focused on getting him the best care possible, as well. and our thoughts and prayers are with him. meanwhile, the west african nations of senegal and nigeria have now been declared ebola-free. that's in part because of outstanding work led in many cases by americans working in coordination with those countries to make sure that we did not see an outbreak there. so the point is, is that this disease can be contained. it will be defeated. progress is possible.

but we're going to have to stay vigilant and we've got to make sure that we're working together. we have to keep leading the global response. america cannot look like it is shying away because other people are watching what we do, and if we don't have a robust international response in west africa, then we are actually endangering ourselves here back home. in order to do that, we've got to make sure that those workers who are willing and able and dedicated to go over there in a really tough job, that they're applauded, thanked, and supported. that should be our priority. and we can make sure that when they come back they are being monitored in a prudent fashion. but we want to make sure that we understand that they are doing god's work over there. and they're doing that to keep us safe. and i want to make sure that every policy we put in place is

supportive of their efforts, because if they are successful then we're not going to have to worry about ebola here at home. america in the end is not defined by fear. that's not who we are. america is defined by possibility. and when we see a problem and we see a challenge, then we fix it. we don't just react based on our fears. we react based on facts and judgment and making smart decisions. that's how we have built this country and sustained this country and protected this country. that's why america has defined progress -- because we're not afraid when challenges come up. thanks to our military, our dedicated medical and health care professionals, the men and women who i spoke to today in west africa, that leadership and progress continues.

and we're going to keep on making progress and we are going to solve this particular problem just like we've solved every other problem. but it starts with us having the confidence and understanding that, as challenging as this may be, this is something that will get fixed -- in large part because we've got extraordinary americans with experience, talent, dedication, who are willing to put themselves on the frontlines to get things done. i'll have more to say about this tomorrow when i have those workers here. but i just wanted to emphasize how proud i am of the people who are already involved in this effort, and how confident i am after speaking to them that, in fact, we're going to get this problem under control. all right? thank you. >> are you concerned, sir, that there might be some confusion between the quarantine rules used by the military and used by health care workers and by some states? >> well, the military is a

different situation, obviously, because they are, first of all, not treating patients. second of all, they are not there voluntarily, it's part of their mission that's been assigned to them by their commanders and ultimately by me, the commander-in-chief. so we don't expect to have similar rules for our military as we do for civilians. they are already, by definition, if they're in the military, under more circumscribed conditions. when we have volunteers who are taking time out from their families, from their loved ones and so forth, to go over there because they have a very particular expertise to tackle a very difficult job, we want to make sure that when they come back that we are prudent, that we are making sure that they are not at risk themselves or at risk of spreading the disease, but we don't want to do things that aren't based on science and best practices.

because if we do, then we're just putting another barrier on somebody who's already doing really important work on our behalf. and that's not something that i think any of us should want to see happen. all right? thank you, guys. >> mr. president, did you speak to governor christie about this? >> with the 2014 midterm election next week, our campaign debate coverage continues. tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span, live coverage of the

louisiana senate debate between three candidates thomas senator mary landrieu, representative maness.sidy, and rob then at 10:00, the texas senate debate between senator john cornyn and david allaamell. -- and david alameel. then the new york governor's debate with governor cuomo, rob hawkins. howie then jeanne shaheen a scott brown. on c-span2, the new hampshire governor's debate between governor maggie hassan and while tappa -- walt havenstein. at 10:00 the south dakota senate debate between four candidates, former governor michael, rick weiland, larry pressler, and

gordon howie. c-span 2014, more than 100 debate for the control of congress. >> "washington journal" begins at a moment. we will look at today's news and take your calls. longtime washington post editor week. dlee died last he oversaw the post coverage of the watergate investigation during the next and administration. his numeral will be held this morning at the national cathedral and we will have live coverage starting at 11:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span.

good morning everyone on this wednesday, october 29th. republicans are entering the final week of the midterm elections with an edge over democrats. the federal government's ability to deal with major problems, and the direction of the country. this according to a new "washington post" abc news poll. it founding an overwhelming majority saying the country is badly off track. we'll begin there this morning. is the economy impacting your vote? republicans (202) 585-3881, democrats (202) 585-3880, and