just released since november. and in each of them, i would like to know, were they transferred to other jails where they can't get back out? or were they just transferred to their families so that they can reengage in terrorism? i think that we deserve to know from the administration, when they release someone, are they just releasing them back where it makes it very easy for them to reengage in terrorism activity? or are they putting them in another or are they putting them in another prison because the public reports about each of these individuals have been that they've been released not to other prisons, but to their families. >> senator, on your question and the chairman's, many of the agreements we have with foreign governments are classified. that's the short answer, sir, on why we can't get in the details. >> well -- >>they are somewhere in between open release and a prison. the

kind of assurances that we generally get are travel restrictions, some kind of monitoring, information sharing from the government on what they are seeing and monitoring the detainees themselves. if terms of the five transferred to to qatar, what i can say is none have returneded to the battlefield. they are still in qatar. they're under a travel restriction. what i said about i think it may have been before you came in senator, after one year, we have you said -- what happens after one year, we'd like to talk to you in a classified setting. >> i know my time is up, but i do not understand why the american people can't be told a basic question when you're transferring someone who's been previously designated as one of the top enemy combatants, posing risk to the united states of america, members of al-qaeda

when they're being transferred how do you assure the american people if they're not being incarcerated again, that they will not reengage. i think that's basic information that the american people need to know. thank you. >> well, senator, since we are going to mark up legislation on this issue next week declassification of that information, i think could be a part of that legislation. the american people need to know the conditions under which a vowed enemies of the united states of america are, the conditions and restraints that may or may not be placed on them. senator kane. >> thank you, mr. chairman and i agree. the american people knowing more is a helpful thing. this is a balancing act question. i take seriously the recidivism danger and i'm going to get to

that many a minute. but i think to say that the concern about the propaganda value of guantanamo is just a political argument that the president has cooked up, ignores a lot of facts and an awful lot of opinions by very talented national security individuals. the cia open source center study in january, released in january, says there have been at least 30 occasions since 2010 in which al-qaeda and affiliates have referred to gitmo as justification for recruitment and violent jihad. dni clapper sent us a note to the intelligence committee 2013 arguing closing gitmo would quote deny al-qaeda leaders to the -- further their global narrative and cited the al-qaeda magazines in inspire promoting the boston bombing and highlighting the ongoing detention of prisoners of gitmo as a reason to engage in jihad. 42 former generals signed a letter on january 29 to this committee stating the abuses that occurred at guantanamo have made the facility a symbol to the world of the united states that is unstrained by

-- unconstrained by constitutional values. it strikes me that the propaganda value is not something that the president cooked up out of thin air. it's something our security professionals are telling us. and they're telling us loud and clear, so we have to balance a recidivism risk. let me ask you this. federal courts have convicted 556 people on terrorism related charges. from september 1 to december 13. 44 of those cases were tried in my state. has anyone convicted of a terrorism charge in a federal court in the united states ever escaped? >> sir, i'm not the expert on that, but i do believe nobody ever escapes from super max prisons. >> if we are concerned about recidivism i would like to know , for the record whether anyone convicted of the 556 terrorism

convictions since 9/11 that have been done in the federal court system of the united states, has anyone ever escaped? i'll submit that one for the record. let me ask another question. >> i'm told by somebody with more knowledge, the answer is no. >> i want it in record. i want it answered in writing and i want all committee members to have it. with respect to the taliban five, we were briefed in a classified setting about some information. i then saw it in public. stated be i the secretary of defense in newspapers, he was quoted. and i want to ask this question for the record. was there any evidence that any member of the taliban five had ever been engaged in violent activity against the united states or any u.s. personnel when they were imprisoned at guantánamo. secretary hagel has said there is no -- do you know? >> no, while they were at guantanamo, no, sir.

>> when they were in prison, was there any evidence that any of the taliban five had been engaged in any activity or planning to target u.s. or u.s. personnel? > sir, i'm told that information on this classified and we'd have to talk to you about it in that setting or provide you an answer. >> i'm upset about this for the same reason the chairman said we need information. i was told this in a setting that was classified, then i saw secretary hagel talking about it publicly, so i'm assuming it's no longer classified, but i want to submit that question. >> let me check that for you sir. i am not aware of the quotation from the secretary. >> finally, with an important point for us, we're all concerned about the ongoing viability and efforts in dialogue with the white house to determine whether that should be revised. and i just wanted to underline the continued legal ability to

detain at guantanamo does hinge upon the continuing viability of that aumf and so, if it were to sunset or be repealed, a legal status of the guantanamo detainees would be at least questionable. am i correct about this? >> that's correct. >> in terms of our own work, it's pretty important as we look at that. we need to take into account the effect of remaining detainees. the last thing -- i mentioned that 556 people have been tried on terrorism or terrorism -related charges in the federal courts of this country since september of '01 and not a single individual convicted has escaped. am i correct that the military commissions have only conducted eight trials since '01? >> that sounds right, but we can confirm that for you. it's been very few. >> those who would argue this is something that cannot be dealt

with through the article 3 courts of the united states since 1787 are clearly in my view not looking at this data. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you for being here today. this is a very, very tough issue and i would like to commend senator cotton for his passion on this subject. there are a number of members of this committee that have served this nation as you do and senator cotton has been a warrior. he has been a worrier -- warrior on the ground in iraq. i have been a lodge is tigs on the ground in iraq and all of us face uncertainty when we serve our country. senator cotton most certainly deserves kudos for serving his nation in a very difficult time and difficult situation when we

are looking at terrorists. so, his perspective is slightly different than my own, but i think we feel the same way. that whether it's someone who is kicking in doors and looking for terrorists and facing the threat of the enemy at close range or whether it's somebody that's driving trucks up and down the roads delivering supplies and worrying about ieds that are planted by these terrorists. drivers, just driving by, doing what they can do to support our warriors, taken out by terrorists. whether it's innocent civilians here in the united states. al baghdadi, before he was released in iraq, had stated i'll see you guys in new york. and i don't know, i don't have a doubt that either al baghdadi or one of his extreme terrorists will find their way back to new york or somewhere in this great country. they have an amazing network that reaches all around the

globe. and what i do not want to see and all of us should be able to agree on this, that we do not want to see detainees from gitmo being released and returning to the fight. my sentiments are exactly like senator cotton's. i could care less. they really should not be out there where they can threaten american lives or our nato allies, their lives, so, i would like to hear from you, generally, the types of activity -- activities that our detainees just -- just so everybody understands, the types of activities, our gitmo detainees were involved in before they were taken to guantanamo. please explain to me so i know many people will watch this testimony today. they will hear the testimony. i would like to know what types of activities they were engaged in before they were detained.

anybody, please. >> senator. of the detainees remaining at guantanamo, they have been involved in a range of terrorist activities. the worst are the names like khalid shaikh mohammed, who planned several attacks including the 9/11 attacks. that's the trial he is facing at the military commission. the one of the protagonists in the bombing of the u.s.s. cole is also under trial in the military commission. the terrorist, the people who are at guantanamo have engaged in a range of activities from being active on the battlefield to providing support functions to terrorist leadership. it runs the gamut. nick may have more detail. >> i think brian has it just right. it runs the gamut from known senior leader terrorist figures exercising leadership figures in terrorist organizations. some of the names he mentioned

but also including the full range of individuals who have played a role in al-qaeda plotting or in providing support activities or support to the taliban taliban. -- to the taliban as well. >> so, these are individuals who have murdered thousands of americans, been involved with the planning of murdering thousands of americans, service members, whether they're here on united states soil as with the 9/11 attacks, the u.s.s. cole, where they killed many of our service members, whether it's innocent civilians in syria and iraq. they did not need guantanamo bay to be imboldened to do those activities, so i push back on the president and this administration in that they will kill regardless of whether they are at guantanamo or not. that they are driven, they are terrorists. they will do that. do you agree with that? >> senator, i agree that terrorists are driven.

what i would say about guantanamo in general and the view of the administration is there is certainly a risk to release and we try to mitigate the risk and i think we've had some success in doing that, but we believe there's a risk in keeping guantanamo open. the military leadership of the country has said that, you have the letter from three dozen former military leaders who think it is a propaganda tool, that inspires recruitment of additional terrorists. i agree with senator cotton. there's plenty of terrorists out there who don't need guantanamo to attack the united states or u.s. interests, but we believe it serves as a tool that leads to greater recruitment of terrorist organizations. >> well, that is the administration's point of view. i would beg to differ. i think they are going to do what they are going to do. regardless of guantanamo bay. and their imprisonment there. my time is expired. thank you, gentlemen, very much.

thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator reed. >> three quick questions. first, falling off this discussion of guantanamo as a accelerator of terrorist activity or deterrents, mr. rasmussen, you mentioned in your testimony, guantanamo is consciously used by a host of terrorist organizations, to prop -- to recruit and propagandize. is that a fact? >> purely just judging by an ek -- by anecdotal evidence and looking at the material the terrorist organizations put out. we see something in english language, we assess they are trying to reach potential terrorists or extremists here in the united states or western european countries and we see the issue of guantanamo featured in that propaganda. senator king asked a good question.

we need to draw the line more tightly between anecdotal evidence and what we can say with more precision about recruitment efforts. but i would say this. the terrorist landscape we face right now is increasingly characterized by actors who are not necessarily affiliated or tied to terrorist hierchy or leadership. they operate on their own in many cases. in many cases, they radicalize and mobilize themselves for violence on their own, so that particular type of prop, -- messaging activity that goes on from terrorist organizations, uses many, many factors and guantanamo is one of them. certainly not the only one. other aspects of u.s. foreign policy feature that as well. but i just would have to, it's indisputable that this material does not future terrorist -- feature terrorist propaganda. we do owe the committee a better understanding of the direct connection.

>> thank you and quickly, miss secretary. there's a discussion of the classification of the arrangement of the countries. is it fair to say that it's the other country that might insist much more on the classification of our own purposes as a cooperation then the united states? is that a fair judgment? >> that's a fair statement, yes, sir. >> thank you. and finally, mr. secretary, the issue, about the status of enemy combatants at the succession of hostilities. that would affect guantanamo and any other place that hostilities -- any other individual is being held, if hostilities come to an end legally, than our ability to hold combatants is -- so, we would have the address this question regardless of whether

guantanamo was open and closed. is that fair? >> that's correct. >> senator rounds. >> thank you, mr. chairman. senator reed hits exactly on the question i was going to ask. my question would be and if you've answered it already i will defer. what happens at the end of hostilities? what is the plan for taking care of the issues revolving that may still be there? individuals held as enemy blinlgelligerents and may have to be released. what is the plan to take care of the issue? >> what we're working on now, i went through in my opening statement, but you were still at the prayer breakfast. to transfer those approved about 50 or so, those will take some time. and we have a periodic review board process that is re-examine

-- re-examining several who were first looked at and determined to be held under law or detention authority. there is some number that we are unlikely to be able to release. at the end of the day as we run through this process. following the president's charge that he wants to close guantánamo, we've got to look at all options. one would be the possibility of bringing remaining detainees back to the united states. we can't do that now because of the stat chur bands, so we would have to come to the congress to talk to you about that, repeal that and we were at the end of hostilities and the question of our authority, our ability to hold them was in question, we would, part of that conversation would be what is the authority we need from the congress to continue to hold those people. >> can you give us some kind of a time frame as to when you would be making those requests?

>> i cannot give you a time frame right now, no. >> thank you. that's all i have, mr. chairman. >> i thank the witnesses for being here today. for the record, in 2009, legal council of the white house came to my office and met with me and senator graham and said they wanted to close guantanamo. i said, fine, i do, too. give us a plan. in the intervening years, there has never been a plan forthcoming from the white house and there isn't today. yemen is descending into chaos. we don't know what to do with the present population. how many are capability. what do we want to do with the remaining 70. how many of the remaining detainees with assessed. we hire medium risk, we couldn't be told that today. where would we send the detainees governed by state

sponsors of terrorism or currently beset by instability or insurgency of groups like al qaeda or isil. too dangerous to release, but incapable of prosecution. we have no plan for that. the administration, we hope will seek additional authorities to detain elsewhere such as the united states. and we don't know how to ensure there will not be a court marshall release of a dangerous terrorist that is in long-term detention in the united states which is the reason we need legislation. so, here we are, six years into the obama administration and we still haven't complied with requirements of the ndaa. nor do we have a concrete plan as to how to address the issues that i just described. that's why six years later, we are having this hearing.

and i again, urge the administration who just responded to senator rounds, you don't know when you're going to come forth with a proposal. we need a proposal and in its absence over six years, congress has acted. and we will continue to act. unless we can work in close coordination with the administration to come up with a plan and one of those plans that is for us to make sure that these individuals who are judged too dangerous to return, are not allowed to. and accommodation is made for the continued incarceration of those individuals. i thank the witnesses for being here today. and senator ayotte, i'd like to make a final comment. >> mr. chairman, with permission, can i have a follow up questions? i don't know if anyone else is

but i'm willing to direct that. i know you have to go. >> senator manchin? go ahead. >> thank you. let me make the point, as we look at the taliban five, i think the point made clearly they were top commanders in the taliban. i read you the quote about what one of the commanders on the ground said in helmand province. like pouring 10,000 jihadists back into the fight, so you can't say they weren't directly involved because they themselves only issued the commands to kill americans and didn't kill the americans themselves, the leaders are often more important than the foot soldiers asked to carry this out, so i don't understand the argument made with all respect from my college

from virginia. these were top taliban leaders who themselves made many orders that were involved in killing us and our allies in afghanistan. i would like to ask admiral myers, we had general mat is before the committee the other day, i'm sure you know the general. and one thing he said when he talked about our detention policy and he said that he did not understand he was perplexed , by our lack of detention policy. and in fact, when i asked him about it, he said that ma'am first and foremost, i believe this, we go into a fight, we've not seen certain of ourselves to hold prisoners. the people we've taken in the fight, do we take on the troops on p.o.w. camps in texas, let them go back and get another

shot in normandy? we kept them until the war was over. we did not start this war and if an enemy wants to fight or be a truck driver, we didn't say to his radio operators could he be released because he didn't have a significant role. if you sign up with the enemy, they should know, we're coming after you. if the president and commander in chief sends us out, you'll be prisoner until the war is over. this is pretty much war fighting -- not war fighting 301 or advanced war. my biggest concern, if our troops find they are taking someone prisoner, a second time, they will just and they have just scraped one of their buddies off the pavement and zipped him into a bag, the potential for maintaining the imperative we expect of our armed forces is going to be undercut if in fact the integrity of our war effort does

not take these people off the battlefield permanently. in other words, they will take things into their own hands and under the pressures of warfare. admiral, do you share general madison's concerns? is we captured someone on the battlefield, then our men and women in uniform encounter them again after having seen their brothers and sisters in arms killed by this enemy, don't you think that's real concern and our men and women in uniform should never been forced to confront someone we had previously captured? >> i do not believe the moral of -- morale of the men and women on the combat forces field have my impact whether it's the same person the first, second time.

i do not believe it is impacting the morale as far as those engaging in combat operations. >> okay, but if we captured someone in battle, do you think our men and women in uniform should ever have to confront them again? yes or no. we had them. we had them captured incarcerated. we released them. do you believe they should ever have to confront them again? >> i do not believe anyone should have to confront them however, as you have seen through history, that's not always the case and people have re-entered the battlefield through the history of time. >> they're going to when they're being transferred to third party countries where they're not even being incarcerated again and where there are few conditions on their confinement if any. i think this is something that is atrocious that in of our

allies or anyone working with us should ever be force edd the problems we face here, the other question i would like to ask, if we get al -- or baghdadi, the head of isis, where, what will we do with them, where will we put them? i understand what my colleague from virginia said about article iii courts. will they be told they have a right to remain silent, mirandized? >> senator ayotte, our policy, if we detain new people on the battlefield is to examine them and follow a case by case basis depending on all the circumstances. we would certainly interrogate them. if we had an article 3 case that we could build against them, we would pursue that.

>> so, i guess where, where, where would you put al baghdadi? do you know the answer? do you know? >> in the first instance, we would interrogate them -- >> where would you interrogate them? >> in sight, in c2, where we pick them up. >> after that. >> or we could do it in another place, we've done it with mr. warsami on a u.s. ship. >> so, ship, and you can only keep someone on a ship for so long because it's temporary. when we get the leaders of these terrorist groups, this is the problem i've been asking since i got in this senate and i've been asking top levels of this administration for years, if we catch the head of al-qaeda tomorrow, what do we do with them and you know what i've heard? we're working on our detention policy, we'll get back to you. it's been years and what worries me is as we sit here to the

chairman's point, so many questions remain unanswered, including having that gaddy -- baghdadi or sa wary on the ship is not long enough to interrogate them to find out what they know about al-qaeda, isis, to protect americans and there seems to be no plan for that. >> senator, if we were to get one of these people you mentioned and we could build an article three case, we would ultimately bring them to the united states in new york or virginia where these kinds of cases are normally prosecuteded. if not, we would look at whether we could prosecute them through the military commissions process. we would certainly interrogate them for a time. >> except you know of course once they go into an article 3 court, they're entitled to

miranda, they're entitled to rights to a speedy trial, so we aren't going to get a chance. >> we would do the interrogation and if there was an option for federal court prosecution, we would bring in a separate fbi team that had not been privy to the prior military or ic investigation to then build the case, so it would be a separate interrogation. >> we had them on ships because this administration is so adverse to putting anyone in guantanamo, they'd rather hold someone who's a terrorist on a temporary basis on a ship rather than make sure that we can have the opportunity for a lengthy interrogation as you know, sometimes, it takes a long time

to gather all the information that someone like the head of al qaeda or the head of isis would know. >> please answer. >> yes. senator, i don't think there have been any pressure on the intelligence professionals who do these interrogations to speed it up and i believe although i would double check this for the record, even after we went into the federal court system, mr. warsami gave us plenty of information. federal prosecutors have got a lot of tools, so, we are not without tools to get the proper information. >> the senator's time really has expired. senator sessions and if you'll close it down. >> thank you. >> well, thank you for those questions. it goes to what i believe we need to think about here.

mr. rasmussen was it al libi that was captured by a commando team in libya and taken to a ship? >> that's correct. >> and wasn't that a high risk thing for american soldiers and they were sent in to capture him alive so that he could be interrogated because i believe the "new york times" referred to him as the mother load of intelligence possibilities since he was involved all the way back to the kovar towers activities of al qaeda. >> i defer to my pentagon colleagues. what we assessed from

intelligence perspective >> if they meet the standard for law or detention aurnd the muf and laws of war, yes, sir. >> and certainly, mr. al libi would have qualified. as that would issue authorization against al-qaeda. >> sir, i would say on the case of mr. al libi, there is a preference to capture for the

intelligence gain, but the judgment is made primarily by our military colleagues, whether that is feasible. >> just trying to wrap up. >> i understand, sir, i just want to give you the whole picture. >> we all know that. so, the question, so, under the laws of war, a person who's unlawful, who is a prisoner of war, can be detained until the conflict is over on the general principles of war. >> technically, sir, there are unlawful enemy combatants are not considered pows. >> they could be both, could they not was to mark and see, i don't know why there would be any difficulty in having them qualify in both. >> sir, this is where i'm getting out of my lane with the legal question. i ask somebody from our general councils office. generally, we do not consider them pows. >> you also don't consider them as a difference between civilian prosecution and military detention and military commission trials either. in which case, you are dead

wrong. if a person is captured, if they're taken for military trial, and testimony, if they can be prosecuted in an article 3 civilian court, they will be. is that the policy we're now operating under? >> what is the same is that all options are are on the table and we would look at prosecution in both article 3 court or military commissions, but if we can do it in the article 3 process, i wouldn't say there is a preference, but we have a good ability to do that. >> you almost repeated what you said before, which is if we can prosecute them in 3 curtourt today. >> under considerable success and a lot faster pace than military commissions. >> i have prosecuted in federal court. senator ayotte is correct.

a person is brought in federal civilian court. they are immediately pointed a lawyer or if they or allies or conspirators have money, they can hire their own lawyer, isn't that correct? >> that is correct. >> and before they can be asked any questions, they are given their miranda rights and told not to answer questions. is that correct? >> once they are in that system, but we have done the interrogations with our ic and military professionals before we put them into that system. they are not mirandaized. >> and if they have a lawyer, the lawyer is going to tell them not to cooperate unless he tells them do for some reason. isn't that correct? that is what did lawyers do. don't talk to the police until you and i talk and i approve of

it. that's what goes on in the real world. then, the person charged in civilian court has a right to demand a speedy trial. he has a right to demand discovery of the government's case. he has a right to documents that could be relevant to his case. and he can ask for information that frequently in my experience advocates -- applegate's -- implicates the issues of national security and intelligence and how it's gathered and that kind of thing. i'm sure mr. al libi is going to demand information about how he was captured and how you had information about him. >> he is deceased, sir. he dad before trial. >> he was taken from the ship after how many days? >> i don't know how long he was

on the ship? >> mr. rasmussen? >> it was a small number of days but driven by his rapidly deteriorating health status and -- >> he could have been taken to any doctor. any doctor could have been flown to guantanamo to treat him, but instead when he was taken to a doctor in maryland as i recall he didn't have to be put in civilian court. he could still be in military custody. so, if the person is taken to military custody and treated as an unlawful combatant or as a prisoner of war, they could be detained and interviewed over a period of months. and isn't it true that a person held in that condition is not entitled to a lawyer.

>> i understand that. if you move to a trial and actually put them in a status of being prosecuting for unlawful acts against laws of war, then they do have to have an attorney, but you can hold them for months, could you not? and gradually build up a relationship with them and attempt to obtain more information over time. >> that's correct, but that's not precluded in the criminal system and as you know as a prosecutor, sir, the federal have a lot of powers during courage operation. >> they don't have any more powers than the military pross have. that's just a myth you guys have been talking about. all the powers you have is a plea-bargaining. they can be we bargaining military commissions, too, and if you don't know that, i'll tell you that. so, to me, i'll just wrap up. the vote is ongoing. there is absolutely no way that you can contend over a number of

cases as a matter of policy, it's better for the national security of the united states that people be proptly taken to civilian court to be tried in civilian court ratter than be held in military commissions and tried at our will and as i understand it, if even after being detained in military detention, over a period of a year or more, they could still be sent to civilian court for trial. but i would think we want to try them in military cart -- court. >> i think we look at all options. >> have you in the last number of years, how many have been sent for trial in military commission? >> well, we have military commissions ongoing at guantánamo. and what i would say in terms of -- >> under this president, and the recent months, years, people have been captured, have any

been sent to trial there? >> we have not added to the population at guantanamo bay that is correct. what i would say, sir, in terms of the efficacy of two systems, because the military commission system is essentially new because of the new stat choir framework, these cases are dragging on. where as in thesy sycivilian court system, we're getting convictions and putting these people in prison fairly quickly. >> well, they can be done that way in military commissions. the problems will be worked out. the judges taking everything in the first impressions. i am sure they take more time. but had we been moving these cases forward for a long time, those issues would have been decided by now. the cases could probably move faster. and they have different issues so i'll wrap up. my time is up. i just want you to know i appreciate that you're

advocating for the president's policy that we are a product of a canton promise based on lack of understanding of the lack of reality of guantánamo. it is a perfectly humane and good place to keep people. we set up proceedtures to try them fairly and over time and in a way that we are in control of the situation. rather than a federal judge whose duty is to respond to moving cases trying to assist the government in obtaining intelligence. senator graham and others and ayotte and prosecutors see it as i do and are more knowledgeable than i, but i really strongly

feel this is a mistake. it's not helpful. to the national security of the united states. thank you all and the meet ging is is adjourned. >> both the house and senate were in session today and both chambers are now done for the week. earlier, the house asked a major that requires federal agencies to assess the economic effects of regulation on small business of all stop while considering possible alternatives. the house returns tuesday for general speeches. you can see it on c-span. the senate tried once again and failed to move forward on the home and security spending bill. the chamber needed 60 votes but the final tally was that the 2-47 with no democrat voting to advance the major.

nevada republican joint democrats in voting no and so did mitch mcconnell but for procedural reasons. the legislation would have also blocked the president's executive order on immigration. the house has already passed the bill but president obama says he will be double legislation of it reaches as desk. -- his desk. follow the senate live on c-span two on monday. president obama spoke at the national prayer breakfast earlier. he discussed global great inspirations and the recent violence by isis. here's a look. >> part of what i want to touch on today is the degree to which we have seen professions of faith used both as an instrumental -- instrument of

great good but also used used -- misused in the name of evil. as we speak around the world you see fate and inspiring people lift up one another to feed the hungry care for the poor comfort the afflicted make peace where there is strife. we heard the good work that sister has done in philadelphia. incredible work. we see fate driving us -- safe driving us to do right. we also see it being twisted and distorted. used as a wedge or a weapon. from a school in pakistan to the streets of paris, we had seen

violence and terror perpetrated by those who profess to stand up for faith. their faith. it is best to stand up for islam but they are betraying it. we see isis, a brutal vicious death cult that in the name of religion, carries out unspeakable acts of arbor is a -- barbarism, terrorizing religious minorities, subjecting women to rape as a weapon of war and claiming the mantle of religious authority for such actions. we see or in the -- war in syria, the murder of muslims and christians in nigeria. a rising tide of anti-semitism in europe.

often, perpetrated in the name of religion. >> that was just part of what the president had to say earlier today at the national prayer breakfast. you can see his entire remarks tonight in about 15 minutes here on c-span. tomorrow on washington journal, maryland representative donna edwards looks at president obama's audit request and how it affects -- audit request -- budget request. john fleming discusses his membership in the freedom caucus, designed to challenge the republican study group. we will take your phone calls, facebook comments. washington journal live friday 7 a.m. eastern onn c-span. here are some of our featured

programs for this weekend on the c-span networks. on c-span do book tv saturday night at 10:00, washington bureau chief for the sunday times of london on the british efforts in 2009 to stop the taliban advances while awaiting u.s. marine reinforcement. sunday at 10:00, the senior editor at belvaux house books on the u.s. senate's torture report and why is company decided to publish it. on the c-span3 all this month, interviews with former korean war pows. this sunday, at 10 a.m., and army sergeant who was captured by the chinese and i was a pow 1950 until 1953. just after 9:00, a look at psalm and the voting rights at 50 years later. you can find our complete television schedule at c-span.org.

let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. call us, e-mail us or tweet us. join the conversation. like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. earlier today, john boehner held his weekly briefing with reporters at the capital. he discussed military force against isis and said it is the president responsibility to make the case to the american people on the need for military action. this is 10 minutes. >> our economy has shown some signs of progress but most families are not seeing this improvement in their day-to-day lives. we have passed bills due built the keystone pipeline would -- which would build 42,000 jobs expand natural gas exports which would create 45,000 new jobs, help small businesses hire new veterans and restore the 40

hour work week to help people work full-time again. while republicans continue to focus on jobs and the economy the democrats are dragging their feet. what secretary kerry was sworn in, he guaranteed a fair transparent, accountable review of the keystone pipeline. now, the state department is stonewalling and are fusing to answer basic questions about its review. i am calling on secretary kerry to address this issue and immediately deliver the transparency and accountability he promised at the american people. the keystone pipeline will mean tens of thousands of american jobs and will soon be on the president's desk. he should reconsider his veto and sign this jobs bill. the american people want to fund the homeland security agency but

they also want to stop the presidents unilateral actions with regard to immigration. that is exactly what the house bill would do. several times this week, democrats, including senators, claim they oppose the president's executive actions and voted to block debate on this bill. i think it is really simple. republicans are standing with the people while democrats are protecting the president. finally, on a happier note, a bit of goodness. on september 24, his holiness pope francis will visit us here at the united states capitol. that day, he will be the first hope in our history to address a joint session of congress. we are humbled he has accepted our invitation and we look forward to receiving his message on behalf of the american people . >> is there an update on the

selection process? >> i think we are still having discussions and interviews. i think those discussions are still underway. >> do you think the administration should expedite getting the jordanians equipment they have asked for to take the fight to isis following the brutal murder of the pilot? >> jordan is one of our strongest allies in the region. there is a lot of things in the pipeline speeding that process up. what would certainly -- we will certainly help the jordanians. >> senator mccain said yesterday

the definition of insanity is making the same bill over and over. what should senator mcconnell do? >> i am the speaker of the house, not of the senate. i'm not going to suggest what the senate should do. i will say this. the house did its work. we want this fight. -- won this fight. it is time to come together and hold the president accountable. democrat senators have made comments with regard to executive action. we're not talking about amendments on the bill. they will not allow a debate to occur. it is time for them to get their act together. >> what would you like to see in

light of what is happening with isis? >> i believe and have always believed that when it comes to fighting a war, the congress should not tie the president's hands. i'm expecting there will be an authorization of the use of military force set up in the coming days. we will go through a rigorous set of hearings and continue to discuss this. it is also going to be incumbent upon the president to go out there and make the case to the american people for why we have to fight this fight. his actions are going to be an important part of trying to get the votes to actually pass an authorization. this is not going to be an easy list. >> given the fallout of the last

few weeks, was the indication to the prime minister still and -- a good idea? have you spoken to the ambassador? >> it was a very good idea. there is a measure -- message the american people need to hear and i think he is the perfect person to deliver. the threat of radical islam is a real threat. the threat of iran to the region and the rest of the world is a real threat. i believe that the american people are interested in hearing the truth about what is happening in that part of the world. >> last month, the u.s. supreme court took up the issue of same-sex marriage. what do you hope is the outcome? >> i do not expect we will weigh in on this. the court will make its decision and that is why they are there.

>> you spoke today on an ac a replacement. how does that interact with the working group? will those recommendations the reconciliation? >> there are no decisions that have been made about reconciliation. i do believe that senators have worked on this issue before. clearly, our three chairmen have an awful lot of work to do to come up with our replacement. i would expect all of this to be part of the discussion. there are a lot of ideas out there. the key is due -- to boil those concepts down to what a roll

placement -- real replacement would look like. >> do you know what mcconnell's role is? do you know what he is doing? >>. no he has a tough job. i have a tough job over here. god bless him and go block -- a good luck. >> is very practical -- is very practical message -- >> senator mcconnell is trying to win the fight. >> it is not going to happen over there. is there a practical message taken over here about dhs? >> we won this fight. senate democrats need to work with senate republicans to stop

the presidents unilateral actions. >> what is next? it is not going to happen. >> you should be asking senate democrats why they continue to block the consideration of the bill. thank you, everybody. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] >> tomorrow on washington journal, donna edwards looks at president obama's 2016 budget request and how it affects the federal workforce. then, john fleming discusses his membership in the newly formed freedom caucus which was designed to challenge the republican group. we take your phone calls facebook comments, tweets.

washington journal live friday 7 a.m. eastern on these been -- c-span. this sunday on q&a, david brooks on writing an article for the times and the award he gets out at the end of the year. >> they are given for the best magazine essays of the year. they can be in journals, or literary magazines. the idea is they always come out around christmas week. that is a good week to step back and not read little stuff newspaper articles but do step back and have a time to read something deeper and longer. it is to celebrate those longer pieces. i believe magazines change history. the new republic was the most

influential american political magazine of the 20th century. it changed history, created a voice for modern liberalism. conservatism barely existed. >> >> coming up tonight on c-span president obama talks about religious freedom at the national prayer breakfast. then the senate committee examined data security issues. then a hearing on the future of the guantanamo bay cousin and detention center. from usa today, a " massive breach" at anthem. many customers have had their account information stolen. on a website that company created for information hackers gained access to anthem's computer system and got birthdays, e-mail addresses,

street addresses, and employ ment information including payment data. a data hearing was held on consumer rights. this is an hour and 35 minutes. >> and now president obama speaks at the national prayer breakfast. [applause] >> thank you everybody. thank you so much. good morning. all praise and honor to god.

it is wonderful to be back with you here. i want to thank our cochairs, bob and roger. these two do not always agree in the senate but in coming , together in uniting us all in prayer, they embody the spirit of our gathering today. i also want to thank everybody who helped organize this breakfast. it is wonderful to see so many friends and faith leaders, dignitaries, michelle and i are truly honored to be joining you here today. i want to offer a special welcome to a good friend. his holiness, the dalai lama who is a powerful example of what it means to practice compassion. he inspires us to speak up for the freedom and dignity of all human beings.

i'm pleased to welcome him to the white house. [applause] we are grateful that he is here to join us today. there are not that many occasions that bring his holiness under the same roof as nascar. [laughter] this may be the first. but god works in mysterious ways. [laughter] so i want to thank darrell for that wonderful presentation. darrell knows that when you're going to 200 miles per hour a little prayer cannot hurt. he probably had the same thought that we have in our own lives. jesus, take the wheel. [laughter] although i hope you kept your hands on the wheel when you are thinking that. he and i share something.

we are so grateful to stevie for the incredible work that they have done together to build a ministry where the fastest drivers can slow down a little bit. and spend time in prayer and reflection and thanks. and we certainly want to wish darrell a happy birthday. [applause] happy birthday. i will note darrell, when you are reading that list of things people said about you, i said, you are a piker. [laughter] if you really want a list, come talk to me. [laughter] because that ain't nothing. is that the best they can do in nascar?

[laughter] slowing down and pausing for fellowship and prayer, that is what this breakfast is about. i think it is fair to say washington moves a lot slower than nascar. certainly, my agenda does. [laughter] but still, it is easier to be caught up in the rush of our lives and the political act and back and forth that can take over the city. we get sidetracked with distractions, large and small. we can't go 10 minutes without checking our smartphones. for my staff, that is every 10 seconds. for 63 years, this prayer tradition has brought us together, giving us the opportunity to come together in humility before the almighty. and to be reminded of what it is

that we share as children of god. this is a chance to reflect on my own a journey. many times as president, i have been reminded of a line that eleanor roosevelt was fond of. she said, keep us at tasks too hard for us that we may be driven to be for strength. i wondered at times, is god was if god was answering that prayer a little too literally. but no matter the challenge, he has been there. for all of us. he has certainly strengthened me with the power through his spirit. i have a softought his

guidance. not just in my own life, but in the life of the nation. over the last few months, we have seen a number of challenges. certainly over the last six years. part of what i want to touch on today is the degree to which we have seen professions of faith both as an instrument of great good, but also twisted and misused in the name of evil. as we speak, around the world, we see faith inspiring people to lift up one another. to feed the hungry, care for the poor, comfort the afflicted, and make peace where there is strife. we heard the good work that the sisters have done in philadelphia. the incredible work that dr.

brantley and his colleagues have done. we have seen faith driving this right. but we have also seen faith twisted, sometimes used as a weapon. from a school in pakistan to the streets of paris, we have seen violence and terror perpetrated by those who profess to stand up for a. -- for faith. they profess to stand up for islam, but instead are betraying it. we see isil, a brutal, vicious death cult, that in the name of religion, terrorizes religious , carries out unspeakable acts of barbarism. terrorizing religious minorities like the yazidis. by

\ we see the murder of muslims and christians in nigeria. the religious war in the central african republic. a rising rising tide of anti-semitism and hate crimes in europe. so often perpetrated in the name of religion. how do we, as people of faith, recognize these realities? the profound good, the strength, the tenacity, the compassion and love that flows from all of our faiths. operating along those who seek to hijack religions for their own murderous ends. humanity has been grappling with these questions throughout history.

unless we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, the member that remember that during the crusades and inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of christ. in our home country, slavery and jim crow all too often was justified in the name of christ. michelle and i returned from india, and incredible, beautiful country. full of magnificent diversity. but, a place where last few years, they have been targeted religious faiths of all types have been targeted by other peoples of faith, simply due to their heritage and police. -- heritage and beliefs.

that is the kind of intolerance that would have shocked gandhi the person who worked to liberate the nation. this is not unique to one group or religion. there is a tendency in us, a sinful tendency, that can pervert and distort our faith. in today's world, where hate groups have the twitter accounts in hidden places in cyberspace it can be even harder to counteract such intolerance. but god compels us to try. in this mission, i believe there are a few principals that can guide us. particularly, those of us who profess belief. first we should start with some basic humility. i believe that the starting point of faith is doubt.

not being so full of yourself and so confident that you are right and that god speaks only to us. and doesn't speak to others. that god only cares about us and not others. that somehow we alone are in possession of the truth. our job is not to ask that god respond to our notion of the truth, our job is to be true to him. his word and his commandments. we should assume humbly that we are confused and do not always know what we are doing. we are staggering and stumbling towards him. and to have some humility in that process. that means we have to speak up against those who would misuse

his name to justify oppression or violence or hatred with that fierce certainty. no god condones terror. no grievance justifies the taking of innocent lives or the oppression of those who are weaker. as people of faith, we are summoned to push back against those who try to distort our religion. any religion, for their own nihilistic ends. here at home and around the world we constantly reaffirm that fundamental freedom freedom of religion, to practice our faith how we choose, to change our faith if we choose, practice no faith at all if we choose, and to do so free of persecution and fear. there is wisdom in our founders.

writing in those documents that helped found this nation the notion of freedom of religion. they understood the need for humility. they also understood the need to uphold the freedom of speech that there was a connection between freedom of speech and freedom of religion. for to infringe on one right to protect the other is a betrayal of both. part of humanity is also recognizing in complicated diverse societies, the functioning of these rights calls for each of us to exercise civility and restraint and judgment. if we defend the legal rights of the person to insult another's religion, we are equally obligated to our free speech to condemn such insults.

and to stand shoulder to shoulder with religious communities, particularly religious minorities who are targets of such attacks. [applause] just because you have the right to say something does not mean the rest of us shouldn't question those who would insult others in the name of free speech. because we know that our nations are stronger when people of all faiths feel that they are welcome, that they too are full and equal numbers of the country. humility, i think, is needed. the second thing we need is to uphold the distinction between faith and our governments. between church and between state.

the united states is one of the most religious countries in the world. far more religious than western developed countries. one of the reasons is is that our founders wisely embraced separation of church and state. our government does not sponsor a religion, nor does it pressure anyone to practice a faith or any faith at all. the result is a culture where people of all background can freely worship without fear of coercion. when you listen to darrell talk about his faith journey, you know it is real. you know it is not saying it because it helps in advance or because somebody told him to. it is from the heart. that is not the case in the theocracies that restrict people's faith.

that is not the case in authoritarian government that elevate a political leader or party about the people, or in some cases, above god himself the freedom of religion as a value we will continue to protect at home and around the world. it is one that regard vigilantly here in the united states. last year, we joined together to pray for the release of christian missionary kenneth they, held in north korea. today we give thanks that he is home where he belongs, with his family. [applause] last year we prayed together for pastor said, detained in iran

since 2012. i was recently in boise, idaho and had the opportunity to meet his beautiful wife and children. i conveyed to them that our country has not forgot about brother said and will do everything we can to bring him home. [applause] then i received an extraordinary letter from him. in it, he describes his captivity and expresses attitude gratitude for my visit with his family. he thanks us for standing in solidarity with him during his captivity. the pastor wrote, nothing is more valuable to the the body of christ moves ahead of countries and leadership's through united prayer. he closed his letter by describing himself as " a prisoner for christ was proud to be part of this great nation

the united states of america that cares for religious freedom around the world." [applause] we are going to keep this work. for the pastor and all of those around the world who are unjustly held or persecuted because of their faith. we are grateful to our new and ambassador who has hit the ground running and is headed to iraq to help religious communities there. where is david, i know he is here somewhere? thank you david for all the great work you are doing. [applause] humility, a suspicion of government getting between us and our faith, or trying to dictate our faith or elevate one

faith over another. and finally, let's remember that if there is one law we can all be most certain of that seems to bind people of all faiths and people who are still fighting finding their way towards faith, that have a sense of ethics and morality. that one law that golden rule, , treat others the way you wish to be treated. the torah says, love thy neighbor as thyself. in islam, there's the hadith which states, none loves his of you truly believe until he loves his brother what he loves for himself. the holy bible tells us, love binds us together in perfect

harmony. whatever our beliefs, whatever our traditions, we must seek to be an instrument of peace and bringing light where there is darkness. and sowing love where there is hatred. this is the message of his holiness, pope francis. like so many people around the world, i have been touched by his call to relieve suffering and show mercy and compassion to the vulnerable. to walk with the lord and ask, who am i to judge? he challenges us to press on in what he calls the march of living hope. like millions of americans, i very much welcome to look forward to welcoming pope francis in the united states later this year. [applause] his holiness expresses that

basic law -- treat my neighbor as yourself. the dalai lama, who has had an anyone who who has had an opportunity to be with him senses that same spirit. kent brantley expresses that same spirit. kent was with patients in liberia when he was infected himself. with god's help, kent survived. [applause] and by donating his plasma, he helped other survivors as well. he continues to advocate for a global response in west africa. reminding us that our efforts need to be on loving the people there. i could not have been prouder to welcome kent and his wife to the

oval office. we are blessed to have him here today goes he reminds us what it means to love thy neighbor as thyself. not just words, but deeds. each of us has a role in fulfilling our common and greater purpose. not merely to seek high position, but to plumb greater depth so we find the strength to love more fully. this is perhaps our greatest challenge to see a reflection in each other. to be our brothers and sisters keepers. to keep faith with one another. as children of god, let's make that our work together. as children of god, let's work to end injustice. the injustice of poverty and hunger. no one should ever suffer from such want amidst such plenty. as children of god, let's work

eliminate the scourge of homelessness. as sister mary says, none of us are home until all of us are home. as children of god let stand up for the dignity of every man, woman and child, because we are all equal in his eyes. and work to end the scourge and sin of modern human slavery and trafficking, and to set them free. [applause] if we are properly humble, if we go up to our knees on occasion we will acknowledge that we never fully know god's purpose. we can never fully fathom his amazing grace. we see through a glass.

grappling with the expanse of his awesome love. but even with our limits, we can heed that which is required. to do justice, love kindness, and walk calmly with our god. i pray that we will, and as we journey together on this march i pray in his name that we will walk and not be faint. and that we will heed those words. may the lord bless you and keep you. thank you bless this russia's country that we love. -- this precious country that we love. thank you all very much. [applause] >> next on c-span, a senate

committee examines data security issues. then a hearing on the future of guantanamo bay prisons and detention center. and later, another chance to see president obama's remarks at the national prayer breakfast. on the next washington journal representative donna edwards of maryland, cochair of the democratic during and policy committee, discusses how president obama's 2016 budget affects the federal workforce. then congress meant john fleming of louisiana is here to talk about his never ship in the newly formed freedom caucus. a group decide to challenge the republican study committee. washington journal is live every morning at 7 a.m. on c-span. join the conversation with your calls and on facebook and twitter with your comments. coming up at 10 a.m. eastern

dr. joel stein the 2012 green party present a nominee, announces her plans for the 2016 residential election. we will have coverage here on c-span. here are some of our featured events for this weekend on the speciee c-span network. washington bureau chief for the times of london. on the efforts to stop the taliban in afghanistan while the marines reinforce. then the u.s. senate torture's and why he decided to publish it. then on c-span three, an interview with former korean war pows. charles ross, an army sergeant

captured by the chinese and held as a pow from 1950-1953. then a look back at soma and the voting rights act figures later, with eleanor holmes norton, and cbs correspondent bill plante. we will see the whole schedule at c-span.org. let us know about the programs you were watching. e-mail us at comments @c-span.org. like us on facebook follow us on twitter. >> usa today reports that as many as 80 million customers of anthem health insurance have had their account information stolen in a cyber attack. thursday, the saidenate held a hearing on consumer breaches and rights. this is one hour 35 minutes.

>> this is the first subcommittee i have chaired in eight years in congress. i was apparently nervous enough not to turn on the microphone. [laughter] we look forward to being educated and getting a good understanding. first, i want to thank my colleagues and their level of interest in this important topic. i would also like to thank our witnesses for joining us today. expertise is important to us as members of congress. unfortunately this is a very timely topic. the purpose of this hearing is in many ways, somewhat narrow. is to examine the merits of the security standard, and the need for preventive data breach notification. we know that we live in a

digital world where consumers have embraced online products and services. kansans, my folks at home, they know they can make purchases to determine their credits toward, conduct banking and health plans, offer me mobile phone computer, or tablet. that is true for consumers in the u.s. and across the globe. but this digital economy create new risks. in a world where one bad actor can face off against a team of experts, we need to make certain that consumers are protected and that is mrs. have the tools to protect their customers are. for more than a decade, the commerce committee has been contemplating issues surrounding data breach notification. in 2004, the committee held its first congressional hearing to examine the high profile breach of choice point, a data aggregation for. this breach caused many

conversations in congress, and today we continue that dialogue. the attack on sony late last year is the latest example that highlights the ongoing and serious cyber threat in america. just this morning, we woke up to news of what experts are calling the largest health care breach yet. this time, as cyber criminals were able to infiltrate the nations second largest health provider. they retrieved information including income data. these high-profile breaches are the most severe what is become common occurrence in our society. it is estimated more than 4400 breaches have been made

public since 2005. the verizon 2014 data breach report field more than 63,000 security incidents and found 1367 of confirmed data breaches in 2013. on average, that's just shy of four breaches every day. while congress has developed sector specific requirements for those who deal with health information, congress has been unable to reach consensus on the development of a national data breach standard, . as a result, states have taken on their own standards, and as of today, as mrs. are subjected to a patchwork of over 50 state laws that determine how they must notify consumers in the event of a breach. 12 states have enacted laws regarding data security taxes. the need for federal action occurs each day.

president obama announced his support with strong preemptive language, in part because he recognizes the benefit to american consumers and businesses of a predictable, uniform outreach notice. the president support, along with bipartisan interest, has renewed optimism among stakeholders that congress can develop a balanced and thoughtful approach with legislation in the near-term. today we will focused on some of the key questions and topics of this debate, including the benefits of a data breach notification standard. should congress and limit the standard, to whom should that standard apply, should the standard free and state standards, what should be the trigger for notification, that specific conditions that notify card to consumers in what circumstances or timeframe should a company be required to notify consumers?

today anwhat lessons can we learn from states that have included their own standards? i am confident that our panel can share insight into our questions as we work to help us find the right balance. to these issues i would. i would like to recognize senator blumenthal to deliver his opening statement. i would indicate to him that i look forward to working very closely with you in a very thoughtful and bipartisan way. thank you. >> first of all, my thanks to senator moran for his leadership in a very bipartisan way. reaching out to me and also convening this subcommittee on a critically important topic. i really look forward to his continued insight and very thoughtful leadership on

consumer protection issues. i am proud to serve as the ranking member of this very important subcommittee. i have served on this subcommittee for two years now and it is critical to consumer issues that affect everyday americans. we have delved into the general motors recall, the to, airbagakata airbags. today, the data breach is no less central to american lives even though it seems less spectacular. 2014 was known as the year of the data breach. the importance of this issue was brought home as senator moran said, just this morning as we read about the anthem breach. which is absolutely breathtaking

in its scope and scale. it is not only breathtaking, but mindbending in its extent and potential impact and potentially heartbreaking for consumers who may be affected. not only birthdays, addresses e-mail, employment information but also social security numbers, and income data were taken from antehhem. potentially, although the committee said there is no evidence so far, critical health information. this breach comes after j.p. morgan indicated a loss of personal information to hackers of about 83 million households. of course, in november hackers had ties to the north korean government and orchestrated an attack on sony. the sony attack would be comedy,

but it is literally no laughing matter to other businesses, including financial institutions on wall street, health insurers and others whose data may be taken. to quote the fbi agent in new york who supervises the cyber special operations division, " we are losing ground in the battle with hackers." in december of 2013, we learned about targets data breach which revealed personal information for as many as 10 million consumers. the point is that these losses of data are not only losses to these companies, they are potentially life changing loseeses to consumers.

target, jp morgan, and and failed not only the companies but there consumers. this cost of lifeis an invasion of their right to see, it is an invasion of consumer privacy, potential effect of identity and personal atssets. the billions of dollars that could be saved i creditors banks and others were collecting sensitive data spent money and resources on better protecting that information. it is one of the fact that brings us here today. as attorney general, i brought a number of enforcement cases against companies that violated connecticut's data breach law. i worked with my colleagues, including lisa madigan, i expressed my gratitude to her.

i worked with kelly, who is now a colleague. this issue is hardly a partisan one. in fact, it is simply partisan, involving strong protections for sensitive consumer data. we recognize the state as laboratories of democracies and the great works they have done in this area. let me conclude by saying i think that we have a lot of work that needs to be done. a lot of good work that should be done. but one guiding principle is first, do no harm. do no harm to the state protections and state enforces who every day are seeking to protect their citizens from this scourge and spreading problem of data theft. in order for consumers to trust retailers and banks, they need to know their data is secure without abuse. whether they are shopping online

or a brick-and-mortar store, they expected. beretailers will do everything in their power to protect that. data they have a right to expect better. we are receiving from retailers companies, insurers, banks, all of the institutions, including universities and nonprofits, that increasingly have the coin of the realm, which is data about consumers. thank you. >> thank you senator blumenthal. we now turn to our witnesses. with us today is miss sherry f acquire. -- maguire. mr. mallory duncan, senior vice president and general counsel of the retail federation. the chief information officer at brown university.

dr. gil kleiman, president of policy. mr. doug johnson, senior vice president of risk management policy of the a ma american bankers association. > thank you very much chairman moran. thank you for the opportunity to testify on this very important issue. as the largest security software company in the world our global intelligence network is made up of millions of sensors to give us the unique view of the entire internet landscape. as we all have seen, even as of this morning, the recent headlines about cyber attacks have focused mostly on data reaches. a cross spectrum of industries. 's network intrusions that result in stolen data have deep and profound impacts.

for the individuals who must worry about and clean up their identities, for the organizations and systems that have been treated, and for the government trying to establish the right notification policies, as well as deter and apprehend the perpetrators. the magnitude of thefts of personally identifiable information is unprecedented. over just the past two years alone, the number of identities exposed is approaching one billion. those are just the ones we know about. how many assume breaches are the result of the sophisticated malware or wrote resources actors,, it is much more troubling. according to a report, 90% of last year's breaches could have been prevented if organizations and committed a basic cyber security best practices. we also must not lose sight of the other types of cyberattacks that are equally concerning and

could have dangerous consequences. there are a wide set of tools available to the cyber attacker. it ranges from a sick competence schemes to denial of service attacks. the attackers run the gamut including highly organized criminal enterprises disgruntled employees individual cyber criminals so-called activists anhacktivists, and state-sponsored groups. what gets less attention is the causes of breaches. in simple terms, trickling people into something they would not do. last year, more than 62% of data breaches occur through network intrusions right and unauthorized user.

another major cars is the lack of recent computer hygiene practice. while good security won't stop most of these attacks, which seek to exploit older vulnerabilities, most organizations do not have up-to-date security, do not make full use of the security tools available to them, or have security unevenly applied throughout their interplay enterprise. assessing risk and managing a plan is essential. there are many guidelines, including as we discussed yesterday, the new cyber security framework, the fcc guidelines for small businesses, and many others. for the individual, we provide resources managing online security to our norton customers. and the ftc and others have tips on their website. just this week, the fcc published best practices for investors to secure their online accounts.

in short, there is no shortage of available resources. strong security should include intrusion protection, repetition based security behavioral blocking data. encryption, and data loss prevention tools while criminal tactics are constantly evolving, basic cyber hygiene is still the simplest and most cost-effective first step. turning to the policy landscape. as you said chairman moran, it balances thoughtful standards for notification based on three pencils. first, the scope of any education should =---- this covers the government and private sectors. second, implement and pre-breach security measures should be essential to any legislation. they should seek to minimize likelihood of a breach in the first place.

third, encryption or other proven security numbers that rendered data unreadable at rest or in transit should be a key element to establish the risk aced threshold for notification. this limits the burden for both consumers and for the breach organizationed. we will continue to work collaboratively with our partners. thank you again for the opportunity to testify, and i look forward to your questions there. >> exactly five minutes, thank you very much. mr. duncan. >> chairman moran, ranking member blumenthal, thank you for this opportunity. data breaches need to be correctly and forcibly addressed. they fundamentally affect our economies push for greater efficiency and

cost-effectiveness. by way of context, there is a long history of interception of private medications right individuals and governments. from stealing open letters, to tapping into telephone conversations. to date we have super computers and the internet. together they are creating a public network with no boundaries, far more versatile and efficient than any technology gone before us. government in them with critical infrastructure businesses with their most value will intellectual property, and millions of people take their deepest secrets into google all-knowing the system is vulnerable to intrusion, both by government and sophisticated bad actors. this interconnected technology is in many ways still in its infancy. having really commercially begun only a quarter century ago. we are still discovering its capabilities, limitations, and risks.

today, we are addressing one of the most significant risk that have occurred -- the data breach. it is congress's challenge to incentivize companies to manage this risk in ways that preserved the innovation and then hit that this technology really offers. how can congress do that? there are three essential elements uniform notice, express, and consent law. retailers suffered their share of breaches. government agencies and kurt a slightly higher percentages. hotels and restaurants combined constitute 10% of breaches. financial institutions represent 34%. it is not because those with most breaches have the most security. is because of bad actors are looking for the biggest bang for the buck. no security standard is fully protected from any industry. each type of business is

vulnerable to data breach in a different way, be it the theft of account numbers, cloud data or intellectual property. congress needs to provide incentives for companies to increase their security and nothing motivates like sunlight. requiring that every committee has the same notice occasions. uniform notice has two benefits. it can help individuals take steps to protect themselves, but equally important the consequences of recording all copies to expose data breaches is a powerful incentive for them to improve security. recent, the republic breaches and discussions of how to avoid these breaches, have engaged our most secret executives. are members are investing in solutions to address this ever morphing problem. our nation's economy is bigger than retail. congress needs to discourage

enclosure and the security. is across the board. there are more than 50 jurisdictions with breach notice laws. many have common elements, but they are not the same. they require a particular state officials to be notified. midsize copies struggling with the confidence of breach, face a morass of laws that become traps for the unwary. in the midst of a breach, when a company should be focusing on security and identifying affected customers, they instead divert their limited resources to law firms to clear them of legal gotcha. it would provide consistent notices for consumers nationwide. must be real preemption, otherwise federal law becomes the 52nd set of requirements that companies have to follow. finally, it would be

not be appropriate to preempt the state to adopt the weakest law. we should be looking well about the median. not the post excessive, but language that has strong consensus on state laws. we ask you to go further established the same notifications for all entities handling sensitive data. congress should not permit notice holds, where some are exempt for reporting breaches. if we want meaningful incentives to increase security, everyone needs to have a part in the game. those three elements uniform notice, express prevention, and strong consensus law enforced by a federal authorities and state ags are essential steps to address the data breach conundrum that is plaguing misses and consumers. -- business and consumers.

>> good morning members of the committee. thank you so much for the opportunity to testify today about the data breach and notification legislation. is truly an honor. i want to commend you for investing your elbow time towards this important area of protection. as citizens get online to learn and create, your work on this legislation will be critical. as the amount of data continues to increase exponentially primarily driven by mobile and highly connected lifestyles, your work on this legislation will be critical. as internet connected devices increase in number from 10 billion to a protected 50 billion by 2020 impacting our

economy by as much as $19 trillion according to many experts, your work on this legislation the critical catalyst to innovation. as connected robots and 3-d printing and mentally change how we manufactured goods and manage the supply chain, your work on this legislation will be critical to supporting next gen innovation in the world. we are actually looking at exciting times. i had the privilege and honor to serve as vice president of chief information officer at brown university. i am also a faculty member in both computer science and engineering. my area of expertise is in the internet of things, cyber security and aviation network security. i take great pride in admitting that i am a nerd.

there have been over 932 million records comprised in over 4000+ years since 2005. net breach may be impacting many people in this room, since many federal employees are covered by some of the programs anthem offers. we must maintain a laser focus on this area or the protection of our consumers and national security. currently, 37 states, including rhode island where brown is located, the district of columbia, puerto rico, and the virgin islands, have enacted data breach legislation. while there are similarities, no two are exactly alike. as a university with students from all 50 states, we are impacted by all of them. maintaining standards for each state is challenging and very difficult. this can clear the barrier for small organizations lacking the expertise to update on laws.

these types of laws stifles innovation in my view. i encourage you to consider a single national legislation. in my view, such a national legislation should carry the rules required and the case of a breach. issued measure the sprayed content, and delivery of notification. a tiered approach based upon the size and designation of the organization would make compliance possible for all. it should also encourage organizations that collect data to be transparent about the use of such data. consumers, especially the young ones, appeared to be using their data's for social media sites for the sake of convenience.

given the highly publicized breachwa already mentioned it is apparent more work is needed. certain expectations of security should be defined when data is collected and stored. most importantly, it should provide incentives to establish education to better combat breaches. preventive action is necessary. it is important for us to improve security in the u.s.. our national security cannot be off short. -- offshored. i stand by to assist you in any way that i can. cyber security education is critical. our national security cannot be offshored. >> thank you. mr. johnson. >> yes, good morning chairman

moran, ranking memory mber blumenthal. i currently lead the associations fiscal cyber security business continuity and policy efforts at the association. we share the concerns of congress about attacking consumers in this increasingly sophisticated world of electronic record-keeping. it is clear that consumers enjoy the convenience of electronic actions. our payment system remains strong and functional him a and it is mandatory that we remained that trust in the system so that it remains essentially a system that our customers can continue to trust. while the majority of transactions are conducted safely, consumers have the right to swift accurate notification

of these breaches. they have the right to that whenever they conduct business electronically. the business should do everything it can to prevent the breach from occurring in the first place. mr. duncan mentioned the verizon study. the international sample of private companies and police stations around the world. federal organizations such as the identity theft resource center note that for the u.s., businesses have reported over 30% of reported breaches for 2014 were financial station institutions. while we believe the u.s. numbers are more appropriate, i believe our intent is the same. our intent is to protect customer data. i think that is essentially both of our goals. the banking industry reports effective cyber security policy. we will continue to work with congress to achieve that goal.

we need acknowledge leaders to acknowledge cyber threats. it is critical that legislation takes a balanced approach that builds upon but does not duplicate or undermine what is already in place for the financial sector. the three key points that must be considered with regard to data protection standards: as others have noted, we need a national data standard. consumers electronic payments are not confined by borders between states. breach notification is of paramount importance. although some of these laws are similar, many are inconsistent and have conflicting standards horsing is is to comply with multiple regulations and leaving consumers without proper recourse or protection.

inconsistent state laws and regulation should be preempted in favor of strong protection and notification requirements. second any data protection and notification requirement must recognize some industries, including financial services, are already required to maintain robust internal projections. they are also required to protect consumer information and notify customers when a breach occurs within their systems that would put customers at risk. we believe extensive reporting requirements currently in place for banks provide an effective basis for any national data breach reporting requirement for businesses generally. finally, there must be a strong national data protection requirement. associated with any data breach law. all parties must share responsibility and cost for protecting consumers. the cost of a data breach should ultimately