escalation is not something in the domain of cyber. in a more judicial world, cyber is the same kind of thing. -- ? do you think you have have you addressed it sufficiently? this event? are there others that give you concerned that this is leading down a dangerous path? we have seen the damage. not just iran, but countries like china. the dangers that this is and the dangers of the follow-on cycle. are you comfortable that we have a handle on how to deter america's adversaries from cyber attacks without creating a further problem? admiral rogers: we are not where we need to be. where we want to be collectively. this is still the early stages of cyber in many ways.

we will have to work our way through it. that is why, quite frankly, i am interested in forums. a broad set of perspectives. which will be different from what i bring to the table. i am interested in how we collectively, as a nation come to grips with this. we see what is happening with the world around us. the threats we are facing when it comes to cyber continue to grow. jim sciutto: you have iran where there is history. russia is a source of attacks in the private and government sector. i spent years in china dealing with this or you have enormous costs to the business community. tens of billions of dollars. and they have had success in stealing secrets. people are talking about a coming cyber war. when i look at that as an

observer and reporter, and looks like we are already at a low-level war. these are attacks with throw consequences and capabilities. admiral rogers: history to date has shown us that you can name any crisis. any confrontation over the last several years, and there is a cyber dimension. whether it is what we saw in georgia, in the ukraine, in iraq , the challenges with isil. it is not something isolated. among our challenges as we move forward, if cyber will be a fundamental component of the world we're living in and the crisis is we are dealing with how will we work our way through it? what we are trying to argue, is over time we can get to the idea of norms of behavior if we develop concept of deterrence

that will give us a sense of how far you can go. what is aggressive, what isn't aggressive. what trips response thresholds? jim sciutto: you say that we have not even define the concepts. it sounds like you are saying we have a long way to go. letter says -- admiral rogers: we are not mature and where we need to be. there is no question about that. jim sciutto: leon fernanda fears a cyber pearl harbor. what does that look like? admiral rogers: and action directed in my case, as a member of the united states military and action directed against the of the structure of the united states leading to significant impact. whether that is economic, executing day-to-day functions as a society, as a nation.

that concerns me. you have seen some. you look at what happened with sony. you look at what we've seen nation states attempting to do against u.s. financial websites. were it successful, or our ability as private citizens to access our funds, if that was ever contested. think about the limitations for us as a nation and as individuals. jim sciutto: which states are capable of carrying out an attack like that? admiral rogers: we have talked about the big players in cyber. nations we see active. we've talked about concerns with china and what they are doing with cyber. russians and others have capabilities. we are mindful of that. you will have me going into an assessment. jim sciutto: understood. but china and russia are capable

of carrying out an attack. there is a small-scale attack that went through the white house system. on one side, do you find they are showing off, and on the other side, testing and finding weak points? admiral rogers: i think nation states engage in actions. in penetrating systems in the cyber arena for a host of reasons. the two you have identified. whether is a step of intellectual property, depending on the source as a nation, we lose between 100 billion or 1400 billion dollars in year of intellectual property theft. in the department of defense it is an issue of great concern as we watch nationstates penetrate our key defensive contractors and steel enabling technologies giving us operational advantages as a military.

jim sciutto: we have a cyber audience, and i want to go to them and give everyone a fair amount of time. if i can touch on a couple of topics outside of cyber, and related to the personal patriot act. i want to set aside the privacy concerns. which, as you know, are severe for some quarters. admiral rogers: and i would comment they are very legitimate press as a nation. how will we strike the requirement for security and acknowledge our rights as citizens is foundational to our structure as a nation? it goes to who we are and what we are. jim sciutto: do you think that the metadata collection, did they get that balance right? admiral rogers: i think it generates value for the nation. i honestly believe that.

is it a silver bullet that in and of itself guarantees that there will never be another 9/11 ? or there will not be a successful terrorist attack? i would say no. i would say no, it is not a silver bullet. it is one component of a broader strategy designed to enhance our security. at the same time, we realize that in executing phone record access, that we need to do it in a way engineering the measure of confidence in our system. that it is being done on a lawful basis within a specific spray work -- specific framework to ensure that the nsa and others are not abusing access to the data. jim sciutto: i would like you to quantify the value generated for the nation. early when the programmers revealed, the administration

banded about a 50 plus figure. over time that figure was whittled down among others by senator patrick leahy to a smaller number at where the metadata was zero. where the metadata is necessary. where other programs cannot have accomplish the same thing. could you identify a specific plot that without the collection we would not have been able to identify that? admiral says -- admiral rogers: i will not do that in a broad form. jim sciutto: i place my assessment that i truly believe it is generated value for us. he would not have forestalled an attack if you didn't have it. the criteria i would argue is if

you use that, it would argue widely maintain fingerprints? if you cannot prove that collecting fingerprints forestalled criminal activity, why would you do it? jim sciutto: is there not a higher standard? you fingerprint when you have a reason to. data is collected regardless. if you look at the amount of bigger of print information collected and maintained, -- jim sciutto: talking about the privacy concerned. officials from inside the national security industry and institutions of government, the fbi and others, who are concerned that they will lose tools they find extremely useful. going after hotel records etc. in the battle to maintain phone metadata collection.

quoting f.b.i. officials than myself, see as less important? >> to be honest, i never heard that argument. nor is it a conversation that the director of the f.b.i. and i have. we talk regularly. >> you don't -- >> and other issues. >> you don't think the fight over metadata could hold up, particularly when we speak of the renewable or extension of 215, other tools in fighting? >> yes. the value of this effort and the legal framework to continue it is a conversation we need to have in an of itself. so what do we think? and does the program as currently with the amendments that were directed by the president or changes that congress may -- remember this is all derived from a law passed by congress, patriot act, specifically section 215 of the act. and should congress decide as at the look at -- because no action is taken, the authority expires on the 31st of may, 2015, in that case the first of june we will no longer be able to access

this data and generate activities overseas and potentially activities in the united states. remember, that's what drove this in the first place. in the aftermath of the 9/11 attack, if you read the 9/11 investigative report, one of the comments made in the report was hey, look, you had in at least one instance phone kecktift -- phone connectivity between one of the plotters who -- who was in the united states to those back overseas. guys, you should have had access to this, you should have connected the dots. you should have realized there was an ongoing plot in the united states. that was the genesis of the idea of how can we create a legal framework that wean able us to make a connection between known activity overseas tied to a nation state group, a set of individuals, how could we try to take that overseas data and see if there is a connection in the united states and how could we try to do it in a way that

protects the broad rights of our citizens? that was the whole idea behind it. so i would urge us in the debate on this, and it's important that we have a debate, not to forget what led to us do it in the first place. >> what are the prospects for renewable extension, 215 specifically? >> to be honest, this is where i'm glad to be a serving military officer. i have no idea. this is just beyond my expertise. i realize it's a complicated issue. >> if you lose that will that greater hamper your ability, the n.s.a.'s ability to thwart terror attacks? >> do i think if we lose it makes our job harder, yes. on the other hand, we respond to the legal framework that is created for us. we at the national security agency do not, do not create the legal framework we use. that is the role of the legislative branch and we as we interpret the legalities of the law that whatever framework that's developed we'll ensure it was executed within the

appropriate legal framework. that's what i know as director of the n.s.a. >> let me turn to counterterror. a lot of talk when i speak to intelligence officials they will acknowledge that terror groups have altered the way they communicate, post note. and that's made a difference. i wonder if you could quantify or describe how much that's hurt your capability? >> i would say that it has had a material impact in our ability to generate insight as to what terrorist groups around the world are doing. i'd rather not get into the specifics because i don't want them to have any doubt in their minds, we are aggressively out hunting and looking for them and they should be concerned about that. i want them to be concerned, quite frankly. i'm concerned with the security of our nation. i'm concerned about the security of our allies and their citizens. so anyone who thinks this has not had an impact i would say don't have -- don't know what

they're talking about. have i lost capability that we had prior to the revelations yes. >> how much does that concern you? >> it concerns me a lot. given the mission of the national security agency, given our footprint around the world i mean, us as a nation. when i think of our ability to provide insights to help protect citizens wherever they are whether they be out there doing good things to try to help the world, whether they be tourists, whether they be serving in an embassy somewhere, whether they be wearing a uniform and find themselves in the battlefields of afghanistan and iraq today, clirle i'm very concerned -- clearly i'm very concerned. as well as our key allies. >> do you develop new -- have you found yourself force to develop new capabilities to make up for the lost capabilities? >> right. to be successful we have to be an adaptive, learning

organization. as the profile of our targets change, we have to change with it. >> i wonder if i could turn to -- i want to give time to the audience -- this time back to intelligence reform to some degree. so recommendations 24 and 25. we haven't talked about it. this was big news a year and couple months ago. as often happens in washington -- >> i have not memorized it. >> neither have i. i just happen to know it was 24 and 25. one was splitting cybercommand military leadership, civilian leadership to the n.s.a. of course we have you. >> right. >> do you think that's a problem? >> no. i would argue where u.s. sign remember command -- as many of you may be aware, i am both the commander of the united states cybercommand. so an operational organization within the department of defense. as charged with defending the department's networks as well as if directed defending critical infrastructure in the united states. that's my u.s. cybercommand role. in addition i'm also the

director of the national security agency. in that role two primary missions. one is foreign intelligence. and the second is information assurance. given the cyberdynamics we're seeing in the world around us today that information assurance mission becoming more and more critical importance. so discussion in the past about a year ago now little bit longer, about so should you separate these two jobs? should you have an operational kind of individual running u.s. cybercommand and then have an intelligence kind of individual running n.s.a.? the decision was made at the time which i fully supported it when i was asked as being interviewed for potentially to fulfill these jobs, my comment was given where u.s. cyber command is in its maturity and journey it needs the capabilities of the national security agency to defend u.s. infrastructure and defend the department's networks. combining both intelligence and operations in the same way we have seen and the lessons of the wars in the last decade that

integrating these almost seamlessly generates better outcomes. that's the case here in my mind. >> and the president obviously -- >> has come to that conclusion. >> has come to that conclusion. do you think the pressure is off to some degree? you remember this pressure. this is when your predecessor was still in the hot seat. this was enormous focus from inside, outside washington. i know we have this deadline coming up june 1, but it's not the same tenor. do you feel the pressure is off, that worst fears and concerns have either been forgotten? >> i wouldn't say forgotten. people would say, ok, now we've seen this work under two different individuals. we seem to be comfortable that the construct is generating better value if that were to change we would have to clearly relook at it. >> thank you very much. i'm still going to ask you questions. i want folks to ask some questions as well. i know we have a microphone going on.

i know we have questions coming in via social media i'll wait for those. why don't we start with the crowd since you took the trouble coming here today if i could -- right here in the center of the audience and she's coming right behind you. >> yes, admiral, thank you for coming. we were talking about the sony attack earlier and we heard the justice department is investigating it as a criminal matter and we've seen sanctions. what is exactly your role in this? not just identifying this, but do you see any action that you intend to take or have taken in response to this? >> well, i'm not going to get into specifics what, as a member of department of defense putting on my u.s. cyber command role, if you will, what we may or may not do. i think the president's comments about we're going to start with economic peace and then we will look at over time the potential

of additional options or different applications capabilities. that the positive side i think is the immediate actions. remember, the hack, the destructive piece occurred in late november. on the positive side, several months have past and we have not seen a repeat. i think it was part of the entire intention, look, this is sun acceptable. we don't want this to -- this is unacceptable. we don't want this to happen again. in the near term it has had a desired effect. as i said coincidentally, i was testifying in the house. i said, look, it's only a matter of time we see this destructive offensive actions taken against critical u.s. infrastructure. i fully expected, sadly in some ways, my time as commander of the united states cyber command the department of defense will be tasked with attempting to defend the nation against those kinds of attacks. i didn't realize it would go against the motion picture company, to be honest. >> if i could just follow on

that. during this one phenomenon in a way in regards to north korea, china has come around on being alarmed by some events inside the political structure there. how much help did you get from china, if at all, knowing internet is routed -- north korea's internet is routed through china. >> we reached out to our chinese counterparts. this is a concern to us and it should be concerned to you that in the long run this kind of destructive behavior directed against a private entity purely on the basis of freesmed expression is not in anyone's best interest, that this is not good. and so they were willing to listen. we'll see how this plays out over time. on the positive side we were able to have a conversation which we were grateful for. >> was the u.s. behind the retaliatory attack on north korea? [laughter]

>> let's make some headlines. >> not going to go there? >> not going to go there. >> did china offer any material help other than listening? >> i'll be honest. i didn't work that specific aspect of the problem. my knowledge of the specifics of the p.r.c.'s response -- it wasn't an area that i worked. >> ok. over here. microphone is over there we'll try to get to the other side of the room. >> good morning. david sanger from "the new york times.” good to see you today. >> david, how are you doing? i apologize, i did not read "the new york times.” >> only my mother reads me early in the morning. my question to you goes to the question of encryption something that has come up here recently. you saw in the fall when apple turned out a new operating system for the iphone 6 it basically put all the encryption keys into the hands of the users and said if they get a request, either a legal request from law

enforcement or one from you, all they could really hand over from the phone itself would be jibberish. you'd have to go break the code. they made it pretty clear in recent times, even when the president was out in california last week, that they planned to extend that encryption eventually up into the cloud and so forth. and we've heard the f.b.i. director say this is creating a dark hole that's going to get in the way of their investigations. we haven't heard very much from the intelligence community on this. i wonder if you'd talk a little bit about this whole phenomenon of basically handing the keys to users, how it would affect your own abilities, whether or not the computing capability you're building up now is designed to be able to try to break that and what other solutions you might have. >> broadly i share the director's concerns and i'm a

little -- perplexed is the wrong word -- the debate i've seen is it's all other nothing. total encryption or noin encryption at all. part of me is, can we come up with a legal framework that enables us within some formalized process, a process that neither n.s.a. or the f.b.i. would control, to address within a legal framework valid concerns about? if i have indications to believe that this phone, that this path is being used for criminal or in my case foreign intelligence national security issues, can't there be a legal framework for how we access that? now, we do that in some ways already if you look at, for example, we've come to a conclusion as a nation that exploitation of children is both illegal and something that is not within the norms of our society. so we created both a legal framework that deals with things out there that would pass as

photography and imagey, that reflects the imagery of the exploitation of children, we've told companies, for example, that you can screen content, that's unacceptable. that it violates not just the law but a norm for us as society. so from my perspective, we have shown in other areas that through both technology, a legal framework and a social compact that we have been able to take on tough issues. i think we can do the same thing here. i hope we can get past this well, it's all encryption or nothing. that we got to find -- what are the levers we can create that would give us the opportunity to recognize both the very legit mate concern as privacy which i share as a citizen and the very valid concerns of, look, this is the path that criminals, foreign terrorists are going to communicate, how do we access this?

we have to work our way through that. >> i walked to the other side of the room so i can get the microphone. thank you. there's been reports by cybersecurity analysts and the snowden documents that united states is engaged in spyware for purposes of surveillance. how significant is spyware to the n.s.a.'s surveillance capabilities? >> well, clearly i'm not going to get into specific of allegations. the point i would make is we fully comply with the law. ppd-28 provides a very specific framework for us about what is acceptable and what is not acceptable and what are the guiding principles that we have to keep in mind when we're conducting our foreign intelligence mission. and we do that foreign intelligence mission operating within that framework. that's the commitment that i make as the director. we got a legal framework and we will follow it. we will not deviate from it.

>> he's taking the microphone. >> bruce schneider, we haven't met. answer is yes, very significant. and your own question, it's not the legal framework that's hard it's the technical framework. my question is also about encryption. it's a perception and a reality quefment we're now living in a world where everybody attacks everybody else's systems. we attack -- we attack systems. china attacks systems. and i'm having trouble with companies not wanting to use u.s. encryption because of the fear that n.s.a., f.b.i., different types of legal and sarpetishes access is making us -- what can we do to convince people that u.s. products are secure that you're not stealing every single key that you can?

>> so first of all we don't. number two, my point would be that's the benefit to me of that legal framework approach. hey, look, we have measures of control that are put in place to forestall that. i think it's a very valid concern to say, hey, look, are we losing u.s. market segment here? what's the economic impact of this? i certainly acknowledge that it's a valid concern. i just think between the combination of technology, legality and policy, we can get to a better place than we are now. realizing we are not in a great place right now. >> on that point it's not just encryption but you speak to high-tech executives. they speak about tens of billions of dollars in loss, cloud computing, etc. should that not be part of the cost-benefit analysis of something like phone metadata collection, etc.? frankly, it's not really a question for you. it's a policy question. but i'm asking you anyway. you're recognizing those broader

impact costs should be part of the decision. >> i think we certainly need to acknowledge there is impact here. i say, look, let's not kid ourselves. there are entities out here taking advantage of all this to make a better business case for themselves. there are entities out there using this to create jobs and economic advantage for them. let's not forget that dimension at all, even as we acknowledge that it is a dimension to this problem. >> just to move the microphone around. do we have question from somebody in the -- do we have a social media at all? fine. we'll wait for a little bit. let's move the -- ok. >> thanks. patrick tucker with defense one. couple reports have come out in recent weeks about isis using the dark web to raise money through bit coin, a dark web, basically a bunch of anonymous computers and people that are able to find each other.

can you speak a little bit to that problem in terms of intelligence collection of the dark web, what does it mean to you, and how are you going about finding a solution to some of these really big problems of how to find people using that that don't want to be found but are effectively using it for fundraising, particularly isis? >> well, clearly i'm not going to get in the specifics but let me just say this. we spent a lot of time looking for people who don't want to be found, that that is the nation in some ways of our business. particularly when we're talking about terrorists, we're talking about individuals engaged in espionage or anybody against our nation or our allies and friends. in terms of what we're trying to do broadly, i mean, first, i would acknowledge clearly it's a concern. isil's ability to generate resources, to generate funding is something we're paying attention to. it's something of concern to us. it talks about their ability to sustain themselves over time.

it talks about their ability to empower the activity that we're watching on the ground in iraq in syria, libya, other places. so it's something that we're paying attention to. it's something that we're also doing more broadly than just the united states. this is clearly an issue of concern to a host of nations out there. i won't get in the specifics of exactly what we're doing other than to say, hey, this is an area we're know cussing our attention on. >> as we move across here, just to follow on that question regarding isis. because when we speak to counterterror officials, they talk about isis supporters here in the u.s. different level of the problem than you have in europe, for instance, and certainly the middle east. since the web is the principal form of radicalization for a lot of these -- particularly lone wolves, right, folks that travel, it must be pretty easy to track, is it not? if it's happening on the web etc., can you identify pretty

quickly and easily someone who is going down that path? >> i mean, it's not quick and easy. remember, as the national security agency, we are a foreign intelligence organization. a foreign intelligence agencies. not a domestic law enforcement or surveillance organization. so when it comes to the homegrown kind of in the u.s., that's really not our focus. our focus is on the foreign intelligence side, attempting to find the connections overseas and then quite frankly partnering with f.b.i. and others to say, ok, if we generate insights of activities we're seeing overseas, hey, how does this tie into activity we may or may not be able to detect in the united states? and that's why partnerships are so important to us because we're a foreign intelligence organization. >> folks here that make contacts with folks over there, that's my -- it's not as easy as it sounds. >> it's not easy but something we pay attention to, something we track. it's something we partner with the f.b.i. and say, ok, we've seen this.

there may be a u.s. connection here. hey, this now becomes a law enforcement problem. >> ethan chow. >> hey, ethan. >> as director of n.s.a. and united states cyber command, do you think we're positioned effectively to address the new cyberspace as a new domain of war fighting? and how does that differ from land, air and sea and do you think we need improvements and in what aspects? >> so do i -- do i think we're where we ought to be? no. no. part of that is just by culture. as a military guy, you are striving for the best. you are striving to achieve objectives. you push yourself. i would say we're in a better position in many ways than the majority of our counterparts around the world. we put a lot of thought into this as a department. u.s. cyber command, for example,

will celebrate our fifth anniversary this year. so this is a topic that the department has been thinking about for some time. in terms of what makes it challenging, what makes it difficult is let's look at this from a defensive standpoint. one of the points i like to make is, so we're trying to defend an infrastructure that has been built over decades literally and most of which was created at a time when there really was no cyberthreat, that we're trying to defend infrastructure in which redundancyy resiliencey -- redundancy, resiliency, and defensibility were never design characteristics. it was all about build me a network that connects me in the most efficient and effective way with a host of people and lets me do my job. when we designed most of these concerns about people's ability to penetrate those networks, to manipulate data, to steal data really wasn't a primary factor. so there's also a component in the department as we're looking to change our network structure to something that those were really core design

characteristics. so that's a challenge. and clearly we're trying to work our way on the offensive side through -- it kind of goes to one of the questions, jim, that you had previously asked. how do we do this within a broader structure that jives with the law of conflict. when you look at the application of cyber as an offensive tool, it must fit within a broader legal framework, the conflict, international law, the norms that we have come to take for granted in some ways in the application of kinetic force , dropping bombs. we got to do the same thing in the offensive world and we're clearly not there yet. >> the gentleman has been patient over here. >> admiral, my name is hugh, retired naval cryptologic officer. i was remarking with another

colleague, who may be here, that we were having the same discussions 20 years ago. there has been progress. there's n.s.d., f.b.i. but why is it taking us so long to grapple with this as compared to the advent of nuclear weapons and we have the national security act of 1947? >> well, my first comment would be, a guy who was a crypt tolks -- a guy who was a cryptologist 20 years ago, i sure don't remember having those conversations. can you say the last part about it again? you were talking about duration why is it taking so long? >> i do not want to minimize the progress and your position i view as progress but it is taking us a long time. if it's not 20 years then it's 15. and that compared to a much more compressed time scale for other cataclysmic changes in national security in the middle of the last century. >> well, take, for example the nuclear example you used.

we take for granted today the nuclear piece is something with very established norms of behavior, well established principles of deterrence. my comment was you know how long it took to develop -- we take for granted now because we look at over almost 70 years since the actual development of the capability. we take it for granted now, but if you go back in the first 10 20 years we were still debating about, what are the fundamental concepts of deterrence? this whole idea of mutually assured destruction, that didn't develop in the first five years, for example. all of that has taken time. cyber is no different. i think among the things that complicate this is the fact that cyber really is unsettling in terms of the way we often look at problems. so if you look at the military we often will use geography to define problems. it's why we have a central command. it's why we have a european command.

it's why we have a southern command, for example. cyber doesn't recognize geography. if you look at the attack from north korea against sony picture entertainment, it literally bounced all over the world before it got to california. infrastructure located in -- on multiple continents, in multiple geographic regions. cyber doesn't really recognize this clear delineation we as a nation have generated over time what's the function of the private sector, what's the function of the government and how does this whole national security piece? cyber tends to blur that because the reality is, for example, if i go to work and i'm using at work literally the exact same software, that same devices i'm using at home on my personal system, it just has blurred the lines so that makes it very, very complicated.

i share your frustration in the sense it's not as fast as i wish it were, but it isn't from a lack of effort and it's not from a lack of recognition, if that makes sense. >> oh, you got one. >> i thank you, for coming. alex thomas, c.s.o. at yahoo!. it sounds like you agree with the f.b.i. director that we should be building defects of encryption into our products so the government -- so the u.s. government can decrypt. >> that would be your characterization. \[laughter] >> i think bruce schneider and ed felton and all of the best public cryptographers, it's like drilling a hole in a windshield. >> i have world-class guys at the agency. >> i talked to some of the folks. >> we don't accept this premise. >> we'll agree to disagree on this. \[laughter] >> if we're going to build

golden master keys for the u.s. government, we have about 1.3 billion users around the world should we do so for the chinese government, the russian government, the saudi arabian governments? >> i'm not going to -- the way you frame the question is designed -- >> do you believe we should build back doors to other countries? >> my position is hey, look, i think number one that this is technically feasible. now it needs to be done with in a framework. i'm the first to acknowledge, you don't want the f.b.i. and you don't want the n.s.a. unilaterally deciding. what are we going to access and what are we not going to access, that shouldn't be for us. i believe that this is achievable and we have to work our way through it. i'm the first to acknowledge there is international implications to this. i believe we can work our way through this. >> so you do believe that then we should build those for other countries if they pass laws -- >> i say we can work our way through this. >> i'm sure the chinese and russians will have the same

opinion, sir. >> i believe we can work our way through this. >> ok. nice to meet you. thanks. \[laughter] >> thank you for asking the question. i mean, there's going to be some areas where we'll have different perspectives. it doesn't bother me at all. why i believe in doing things like this, when do i that i say, look, there are no restrictions on questions. you can ask me anything. because we have got to be willing as a nation to have dialogue. this simplistic characterization of one side is good and one side is bad is a terrible place for us to be as a nation. we have got to come to grips with some really hard fundamental questions. i'm watching risk and threat do this while trust has done that. no matter what your view on the issue is or issues, my only comment would be that's a terrible place for us to be as a country. we've got to figure out how we're going to change that. >> for the last technologically knowledgeable, which will describe only me in this room

today, just so we're clear you're saying it's your position that encryption programs, there should be a back door to allow within a legal framework presumably approved by -- whether it be congress or some civilian body -- the ability to go in the back door? >> back door is not the context i would use. when i hear the phrase back door, it sounds shady. why not go in the front door? it would be public. we need to create a legal framework to do this. this shouldn't be something we should hide, per se. downtown want us unilaterally making the decision. i think i'm the first to acknowledge it. >> the capability. i do want to get to the back. but do we have a social media question? >> we have a selection. >> fantastic. we have 13 minutes to go. why don't we do a couple? i see you in the back so i'll get to you as well. >> i would note, according to the internet and some of our five profile twitter users in here we are now trending.

so newamcyber , you should continue to tweet. >> where are we in relation to birdman? >> ok. here is the selection based on the previous comment about back doors for russia and china. christopher c. segoyan, i may pronounce this incorrectly -- are our phones secure and if so what could be done? >> i apologize. i didn't hear the beginning. >> are foreign governments spying on our cell phones in washington, d.c.? are our phones secure or what should be done? >> do i think there are nation states around the world that are attempting to jen right insight as to what we're doing as individuals, i think the answer to that is yes. the second question is do i -- >> what do you think we should do about it? >> well, one thing i remind people, don't assume -- there's

a reason why we have unclassified system at the department of defense. the reason why we have classified systems and unclassified systems and so for d.o.d. users, i always remind them, hey, look, we're potential targets. make sure you're using your cell phone in an appropriate way. just why i use mine. just the way i make sure i use mine. the standard of encryption we talked about. i'm not arguing that encryption is a bad thing neither where i say security is a bad thing. i'm a u.s. person, i'm a u.s. citizen. i use a cell phone. i use a laptop. i want those systems to be every bit as secure for me and my children as do you. i'm just trying to figure out, how do we create a construct that works us between those very different viewpoints. >> i'm sure that question came out of the concept of encryption of commercial cell phones. so on that point from russell thomas, what can be done institutionally to make collaboration between the private sector and the

government marginally better on cybersecurity? >> i mean, i think clearly i would second the thought. i think clearly this is an area of significant improvement. i think on the government side we got to simplify things. one thing i constantly tell my counterparts is, look, let's be honest. if you were on the outside looking in at the u.s. government in the area of cybersecurity, we can be very complex. we got to simplify this. we've got to make this easy for our citizens, for the private sector and for us to interact with each other, to ultimately get ourselves to a position where we can share information real time and in an automated and machine way. given the speed and complexity of the changes we have in cyber, that's where we got to get. we got to work our way to how are we going to do that and the u.s. government, homeland security, the department of homeland security clearly plays a central role here as both the director of n.s.a. and the commander of u.s. cyber command, our capabilities support them and other u.s. government partners in our attempts to do

that. >> on that topic, as a journalist, i asked the n.s.a. whether my cell phone communications have been monitored in any way? as i submitted through proper channels, i got a response, we appealed. why -- and we got a stock response which others have gotten. i'm a journalist, i lived overseas for a long time. as part of my work i spoke to people who i would imagine you might want to listen to. some in the terror community etc. why as an american -- a law-abiding american, why won't the n.s.a. tell me if they looked at my phone communications? >> well, first, if you're asking me directly, i don't know the specifics for you. >> but it's a policy because they told others the same thing. >> the thing i would say, look it's a matter of law to do focus collection against a u.s. person -- i must get a court order. i have to show a valid basis for why we are doing that. is there a connection with a foreign nation? i.e., that person is acting as an agent of a foreign

government? and yes, that does happen out there. is that u.s. person part of a group, in this case, let's say, isil as an example who is attempting to do harm? i have to show a court, a legal basis for the why and it can't just be, well, we don't like journalists. what? that's not a valid legal reason. >> so if it were to happen you would have to have a court order. but that's something you wouldn't tell the person who was involved? >> no. >> ok. all right. >> ok. i have one more topic. >> one more and we'll go to the back. >> ok. so from john, the question is based on last week's announcement or research that one announced there were -- there was news of firmware hacking. has the firmware, repeaters been similarly hacked and if so would this compromise the architecture of the internet? technical question. >> my quick answer would be no. in terms of -- i'd go to the first part.

i'm aware of the allegationes that are out there. i'm not going to comment about them. but in terms of based on what i have read, does that mean -- lead me to believe that internet has somehow been compromised? no. >> thanks very much. >> back to the room on the left. >> mike nelson, professor of internet studies at georgetown and recently work for cloud flair which protects attacks sells encryption. i was at the summit the white house did a week and a half ago and one of the topics you kept hearing in the hallways was about how american companies are very uncomfortable sharing information with the u.s. government if they can't share that same information with dozens of other governments. i'd be curious to know how we're supposed to decide which governments are ok to share with and how we deal with the fact that belgians and the french and the turks and everyone else

wants to know what we're sharing with you and our customers want to know that too. >> again, this is another reason why that legal framework becomes very important here. to be honest, now you're getting into specifics that isn't my personal focus. i certainly understand the concerns, don't get me wrong. but my comment would be that idea is not unique to cyber, for example. there's -- you name the business segment and just because we share something internally within the united states doesn't mean we do so automatically everywhere in the globe. so i would argue cyber's not exactly unique in this regard, nor is the challenge it presents and it's a challenge, i acknowledge that, unique to cyber. >> we got time for a couple more. way in the back. another area we haven't -- to be geographically fair.

>> listening to the conversation today, one thing that's fairly clear and you mentioned it we need to decide what the social norms which we build the policy and legal frameworks, but clearly listening to bruce schneider and alex stamos and you, the social norms aren't worked out yet. what's the process by which we get the dialogue going to figure out what these norms are to see what the policy and legal frameworks are? >> think interactions like this, interactions with our elected representatives. hey, they are the ones that create the legal frameworks we use. i encourage all of us as citizens to articulate our viewpoint, to help them understand the complexity of this issue and help them understand just what our viewpoints are as we're trying to work our way through this. the other thing, at least for me, i'm trying to do outreaches well in the academic world because one of the things i'm struck by is -- and it goes back to your question, sir. if you go back and look at some of the foundational work that

was done on nuclear deterrence theory, for example, much of that back in the 1940's and 1950's, was done in the academic arena. you read much of the original writings, kissinger and others, there was a strong academic focus. so how are we going to understand this new thing called the adam bomb or nuclear hydrogen bomb. i'm trying to see if there is a place in the academic world for this discussion. how do we get to this whole idea of the social norms and what are we comfortable with? >> way back here. >> all the way in the back. >> you are so close. >> thank you. leandra bernsteen, sputnik international news. >> was it -- >> leandra. >> i couldn't hear you. your voice trailed you have. apologize.

>> sputnik international news, russian press. so you've addressed the kirsprsky and there was another report on the n.s.a., gqs -- --gchq hacking in a sim card provider. can you respond to that? you said we need to have a discussion, a public discussion. so how do -- would you get that harded by addressing these allegations. >> the first one is listen to these allegations for some period of time. this is something unique, per se. and, again, my challenge as an intelligence leader as even as we try to have this dialogue which i acknowledge we need, how do i try to strike the right balance between engaging in that broad dialogue and realizing

that compromising the specifics of what we do and how we do it provides insight to those that we are trying to generate knowledge of, who would do harm for us as a nation? so as a general matter of policy, i have just said, hey, i'm not in unclassified forums getting in the specifics in the very specific questions you asked. i'm not going to chase it. i don't have the time. we need to focus on doing our mission but making sure window it within the legal and authority and policy framework. that's the promise that i make to all of you. that's what we do. >> when private companies make these allegations against you, can you address that impact generally? >> i'm not going to get in the specifics. >> we got time for one more since it's a cyberconference and we're trending. do we have another one on the web? >> \[inaudible] >> ok.

fair enough. you are ruthlessly efficient. how about right here in the front? probably be our last one. >> thank you. jim marx from "politico.” i want to talk to you about cyber com and n.s.a. can be duo hadded. one of the process of building up cyber comm is moving them over to cybermission forces. are you afraid you're not bringing up new people, new cyberexperts into the military and you're taking away some native capability that ought to be in the services? >> the short answer is, no. i say that, remember, in the job before this, i was also in my previous job before these two i was the navy guy. i was a service guy, responsible for developing the navy's cyberforce.

i lived in that service worm -- in that service world about how you man, train, equip, how you train a force. now i find myself as joint commander with responsibility across the whole department. if i go back to when i started in cyber, in the department 10 years ago, our ability to recruit, retain and train and educate a cyberwork force over time i was really concerned, would this fit within the traditional d.o.d. model about how we develop people, how we promote them? how we retain them over time. fast forward a decade later and i have been, and knock on wood, pleasantly surprised by our ability to do that. so for now my quick answer is no. we've been able to gain access to the people we need that in so doing i haven't been able to strip massive amounts of capability from other valid similar requirements within the department. we'll have to watch this closely over time, though, to see if that changes.

there's no doubt about that. >> since time's up, final thoughts? >> none other than i thank you for your willingness to engage in a discourse. and i think it's positive. clearly these are important issues for us and yet we're able to do this today without yelling and screaming at each other or pointing at each other and making accusations against each other. we have got as a nation to come to grips with what's the balance here and there's going to be a lot of different perspectives out there. i understand that. i'm constantly reminding our force, our work force, be grateful that you live in a nation that's willing to have this kind of dialogue. that's a good thing for us. and are there tensions along the way? yeah. it's not unique to cyber and it's not the first time in the history of our nation where we had challenges like this and it won't be the last. if we really are willing to sit down and have a conversation, we can move where we need to be. with that i thank you very much for your time. >> admiral, thanks very much.

really enjoyed it. [applause] >> here are some of our featured programs for this weekend on the c-span network. on c-span2's book tv, at 10 p.m. eastern. alan rick sent -- alan ryskind talks about hollywood in the 1930's. in an death, a three-hour conversation with harvard law professor and author. her books include lift every voice and the minor's canary. and on c-span3 at 6:00 p.m. on the civil war. a discussion on the burning of columbia, north carolina following the surrender to sherman in 1865. on sunday at 2:00 in the

afternoon and interview on the pentagon papers. a classified study on vietnam which he gave to the new york times in 1971. find the complete schedule on c-span.org, let us know what you think about the programs you are watching. call us, e-mail us, or sent us a tweet. enjoying the c-span conversation, like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. >> the annual conservative political action conference known as c pack began on thursday. it is sponsored by the american conservative union. i will show you some of the speakers. later today cpac will release the results of their presidential poll. we will get your comments as well.

we begin with thursday speakers, including dr. ben carson who called for republicans to provide on alternative to obamacare. this is 20 minutes. ♪ >> thank you very much. i'm delighted to be here. it seems like each time i am here, we are getting closer to a critical time in our country. i started to talk about all of the failures of the current administration, but i figured that was too depressing.

it is so depressing. i think that is why they try to rename everything and redefine everything. it is probably why they are ready for hillary. [laughter] it is interesting how they love to relabel and rename things. for instance, if you are pro-life, then you are anti-woman. if you are pro-traditional family, you are a homophobe. if you are white and you oppose a progressive black person, you are a racist. if you are black and you oppose a progressive agenda, you are crazy. if you are black and you oppose a progressive agenda and you are pro-life and profamily, they don't know what to call you. you end up on a watchlist for

extremists. [laughter] unbelievable, but we won't pay attention to that. we have to pay attention to how we use the brains that god gave us. to recognize when things work, and fix problems. for instance, you think about people and our country who are downtrodden. how do we treat them? starting in the 1960's with the great society programs, we figured if we just threw money at the program -- at the problem, that we could solve the problem. in 1969 --.

it is a 10% increase. we had more broken families out of wedlock. everything that these programs were supposed to fix has gotten worse. what do people do? people with look at this and say, we need to change course. that people who perhaps failed to utilize their intellectual capabilities with look at that and say, we need to do it more. we did not do enough. that is the difference. we need to move in a different direction and understand true compassion in order to reach out to individuals who think that maybe being dependent is

it isn't. it is not compassionate to pat people on the head and say, i'm going to take care of all your needs, your health care, and your food and your housing. don't worry about anything. i'm going to fix it. that's not compassion. that is the opposite of compassion. that is making people compassion. real compassion is using our intellect to find ways to allow those people to climb out of dependency and realize the american dream. that is what we need to be thinking about. it's about investing in our fellow human beings, just like the nobel prize in 26 with his program of micro-lending lifted

millions of people out of poverty in bangladesh. we are very smart people, and very compassionate people. we need to find out how do we strengthen the fabric of this country. it is our responsibility to take care of the indigent, not the government's responsibility. [applause] some people say, that does not sound very compassionate. it is compassionate. i was in the airport a couple months ago and a lady sat down next to me, african-american lady. she said, i like what you had to say. it makes sense, but why don't you want for people to have health care? i said, you have been listening to the propaganda. i want everybody to have good health care. we spent twice as much per

capita and we still have terrible axis problems, inefficiency, and we can do so much better. that is why i have advocated this system. i hoped congress would listen carefully to what i'm about to say. they need to grasp a health care alternative before they try to remove obama care, if they really want to get some traction. what i'm talking about is health savings account systems. the work extremely well. when people see how these work, you don't have to force them into it. there are a variety of different ways to pay for it. we can fund the indigent how? we spent $400 billion a year, according to the heritage

foundation, on medicaid. $400 billion a year. a quarter of our people are involved with medicaid. divide 80 million into $400 billion, $5,000 each. concierge practices on average cost $2000 to $3000 a year. you can put everybody in a boutique practice and have thousands of dollars left over for catastrophic health care. that's how wasteful we are. i'm giving you an example of what we are doing and even asking for more. it really isn't the affordable health care. it's not affordable. it is about redistribution and control. if we really want to use our intellect, we will come up with something that works for everybody.

what are the things that will destroy us as a nation? our depth. 18.1 trillion and rising. we need to get out of the mindset that says because the debt did not go up as fast in this quarter, it's a victory. the debt needs to be going down. we need to be able to deal with that in a logical way. the other thing that threatens to destroy us, radical islamic terrorists all over the world. let's not get distracted by isis. we need to recognize that the shia in iran are every bit as dangerous, perhaps even more dangerous. we also need to recognize the we have friends over there. let's not turn our back on

israel. i have so many things to talk about and only 12 minutes to do it. what am i really ready for? not philly, but i'm ready for a country that puts our constitution on the top shelf every part of it. and for those who have any doubt, that includes the second amendment. i'm for a country where we take the restraints of the most dynamic economy the world has ever known. i'm for a country where we develop our natural energy resources. let's not make that a curse.

that is a wonderful thing. it doesn't mean we can't also look for alternatives and take care of the environment. some people think it is one or the other. it's not one or the other. that's why god gave us these fancy brains so we can do more than one thing at a time. i'm ready for leadership on the world stage, not waiting around to see what other people will do. i'm for school choice. education is the great liberator in our country. no one has to be a victim. i'm for putting our health care in our hands and not in the hands of some bureaucrats, and for balance thing our budgets and for a start taxation system that allows us to get rid of the irs and for a strong military.

wasn't it wonderful seeing those cadets from the citadel? and for taking care of our veterans. and, for honesty and integrity and common sense and courage. courage is what we really need. we should not submit to the p.c. police and people who are trying to control us by intimidation and by irs audits and messing with your job. the only reason they can do that is because we sit silently by. that's what they want us to do. we have to stop sitting silently by and express ourselves.

in the prerevolutionary days our ancestors got together and talked about what kind of country did they want, what were they willing to fight for, and they did fight for it. we have to be willing to fight for it. the baton is in our hands. we need to talk to our uncle who has not voted in 20 years. go to your grandmother who is in intellect and make sure she has an absentee ballot. the baton is ours. freedom is not free. it must be fought for. we live in the land of the free and the home of the brave. you cannot be free if you're not brave. thank you very much. [applause] thank you. thank you.

now, i think we are going to have, for the first time at cpac we will have a q&a. >> i'm here, dr. carson. good morning. please behave for me. this is my first time doing this. we have conservatives all across the country via twitter sending questions for you to answer. as you all know, it's a different format this year. anyone that the media for sees as a presidential candidate will be subjected to the same questions and answers. let's start with the first question. what is your specific land for national security and managing the threat against isis? >> the key thing is concepts. we have to recognize that if i decide to run and if i were in the office of president -- i have to say those things -- i

would recognize that there is a role for the commander-in-chief and his staff, and that is to define the mission. what is the mission? the mission is recognizing that we have radical islamic terrorist groups that are in their adolescent stage that wish to destroy us. we have two choices. we can wait and see what they're going to do and react to it, or we can destroy them first. the mission i would give our military is to destroy them first. i would not tie their hands and let them get it done. [applause] >> are you ready for the second question? >> how do you plan to restore the american dream and make us feel more united and less divided? >> the bully pulpit and the

position of the presidency is very, very important because it sets the tone. we have a nation now where we have people in the highest levels who exacerbate the division. they have created a war on women, race wars, income wars, aege wars, religious wars. you name it there's a war on it. the real enemies in our country are the purveyors of the vision no matter where they are. i think we have to call them out on that. and recognize when we say, a nation with liberty and justice for all all means all. that means everybody. it means we don't pick and choose the laws that we want to enforce.

we don't pick and choose the people that we want to favor. everybody gets treated the same. when our policies are that way and our leadership begins to talk that way, i think it will make a dramatic difference for our nation. >> thank you. we are moving right along here. the next question is a simple one, but a complicated one an important one. how do you feel about common core? >> as i mentioned before, education is a great divide in our country. it does not matter what your ethnic background or any other background. you get a good education, you write your own ticket. the best education is the education that is closest to home. i have found that, for instance, homeschoolers do the best, private schoolers next best, charter schools next best, and public schoolers worst. that's why we need school choice. common core is not school

choice. i believe in standards. those standards are set by parents and people who do home schooling, or they would not be doing so well. those standards are set in our private schools. our public schools need to learn how to compete with that, but they don't need some central government telling them how to do it. [applause] >> this will be the last question. just because your answers are sosa synced and concise -- suc cinct and concise, and we appreciate that -- the last question is, how do you plan to bring your message to the minority community and make them feel more included, and how do you plan on making them feel included? >> the key is to tell them the truth.

no more of this hiding what is going on. what i want people to have israel freedom -- is real freedom and real prosperity. i hear people saying, carson when he was a kid, he benefited from welfare and all this stuff and now he wants to get rid of it. i'm not interested in getting rid of the safety net. i'm interested in getting rid of dependency. i want us to find a way to allow people to excel in our society and as more and more people hear the message, they will recognize who is truly on their side and who is trying to keep them suppressed and cultivate their votes. >> dr. carson, thank you for were -- for your remarks this morning. good luck, and thank you. ♪ >> the annual conservative

political action conference, called cpac, featured a number of speakers who are said to be considering a run for presidency in 2016. among them, new jersey governor chris christie. this is just over 20 minutes. ♪ >> hi, everybody. this is in the round here. this is like vegas. it's great to see everybody. thank you for spending some time. i was asked to do this today. it has been 2 1/2 years since

you graced my radio show. you're not exactly a regular on the talk radio circuit. are we the ugly stepchildren? >> i have my own radio show. we will see how this goes today. instant feedback. >> i got it. this has been a rough couple months for you in the media. we have read articles about how you came in as a reformer and now some of these reforms have not panned out. gail collins savaged you today and said your post, your campaign is over, you're not a reformer. how do you survive this onslaught? >> the media covers me every day. i'm in new jersey, i have the new york times in mind.

they just want to kill you. that's what they try to do to me every day. i'm still standing. what matters more is the fact that i wake every morning knowing how to fight for the people of my state. i don't care what they write about me in "the new york times." i don't subscribe, by the way. >>, core is a huge issue for conservatives, everyone in this audience knows what the struggle is. in 2010 you signed the application for the race to the top fund and signed onto common core, even though states like virginia are right nearby. virginia did a virginias standard. what gives with the common core? >> the hesitations i have now -- in new jersey we have always been for high standards.

we had those beforehand. my concern now -- it's not only the heavy foot of the federal government coming in, but it's not doing what we need to have done in new jersey. we need to have local control parents, teachers in those classrooms. they are the ones who should be helping us at the state level set the standard. we signed on to try to get funds during a difficult fiscal time. >> regrets? >> sure, of course. >> not political regrets? >> these are implementation regrets. unlike people who get to just talk about this stuff, we have to do it. once you start to do it, i have seen the concerns i have are significant. i have set up a commission that is coming back to me with emendations. we've got to keep government at the local level. education, there have to be

parents involved. >> scott walker is making a strong pitch to social conservatives. when it comes to someone like scott walker, in the fall he was softer on the issue of abortion. i think he did a 30-second commercial that said, i signed legislation that leaves a decision between a woman and her doctor. where does social conservatism and chris christie live together? how do you compete with walker and these strong social conservatives? >> i stand on my record. i ran as a pro-life candidate in 2009, spoke at a pro-life rally. the first governor to speak at a pro-life rally in new jersey and vetoed plan parenthood funding five times out of the new jersey budget.

[applause] i have always thought that what the people have the right to know is what you believe and feel in your heart. people make assumptions because you're from new jersey. what they should do is look at my record. when you look at my record on those issues, it has been strong and resolute. don't believe what the media will tell you about the fact that if you are a pro-life candidate, you can't get elected. i got elected with 61% of the vote, reelected in 2013 as an unabashed pro-life candidate. what they care about is what is in your heart, and are you willing to fight for them. >> here are the words used to describe you. >> here we go. is beautiful the first one? >> supermodel. >> explosive. short tempered. hothead. impatient. that is what your friends are saying.

that temperament, the presidency -- >> the word they miss is passionate. [applause] i am the son of a sicilian mother and irish father. in my household i learned about dispute resolution really early. what my parents taught me was that if you really care about something, you need to go all in. there were no half measures in the christie household and there are none now. i care about fighting for the people i represent. i care about fighting the fights that are worth fighting. i'm going to speak my mind and be direct. i do not have political consultants saying, this is how you say it. no. you will hear it directly from me and bluntly because i care.

if i did not care, there is no reason to do this. >> but sit down and shut up? >> sometimes people need to be told to sit down and shut up. >> i'm sitting down, by the way. >> some more of that stuff should be happening in washington, d.c.. there is so much ridiculous stuff being spewed. [applause] >> you and the teachers unions it has been a rocky relationship. you had an adverse court ruling the other day in the state about how you decided not to fully fund the teacher's pension after you agreed to do so. i know you are appealing. how are you bringing people together in the state? you have such a constant adversarial relationship within the educational arena. what do people take from that

experience into a national footing? >> let's talk about the court ruling. liberal judges getting themselves inserted into decisions that are supposed to be made by elected officials -- the teachers union and i have not had the warmest relationship. i went after them early on because i wanted to reform education in our state. when you are tough like that that's when you get in a position to negotiate and bring people together. you don't do it from a position of weakness. they understand what my positions are. i believe teacher tenure needs to be reformed. i believe we need to have more choice in schools. that's not popular with the teachers union. when it comes time to resolve a problem that all 40 states have on pension -- i have brought the teachers union to the table, and we are negotiating together, have an initial roadmap that

will help save the pension system in new jersey. >> we have a shortfall in the budget are at how will you make that up? >> we don't have one. the judge has not ordered us to do that. we are spending $2.3 billion less in discretion all spending than we spent in fiscal year 2008. that's being fiscally responsible. we will cut spending if we have to. [applause] >> the last gallup poll, only about 7% of americans think we should have increased levels of immigration. 7%. jeb bush has recently said that immigrants are more entrepreneurial, harder working and more fertile than others. he even suggested that he try to should be repopulated with

foreign workers, immigrant workers to spur the economy in detroit. at a time where we have so many people unemployed, what does governor christie in a national setting -- there seems to be a disconnect with the people on immigration. >> that is misdirecting the priorities. what i would be concerned about are the people in detroit right now. the hard-working people who stuck with the trite and who stayed there, we want to create economic opportunity for them, a better educational system so their children have a better future. >> jeb bush says there are more entrepreneurial, harder working, and more entrepreneurial than americans. >> the most entrepreneurial people in the world are the people in the united states. that's why folks want to come here.

that's the system we have set up and created. what we need to get back to in this country is creating an economic atmosphere where people want to come here and come here legally and create a great life. the people already here are doing that for themselves and their families. my focus on detroit would be to say, how do we make that city -- for the people that are there, how do we make it better for them from an economic perspective so the more people want to come to detroit because there's great opportunity? >> we have 58 million americans of working age who are operating outside of the workforce. 62% labor participation rate. it's embarrassing for our country. yet there is an unending hunger for foreign workers mostly pushed by big business. the disconnect between what american people need and what politicians want -- how do you

get the middle class hard-working american in columbus to look at the democrats or republicans and say, they represent me? >> what they need to look at is what the person is saying and what they have done in their career. in my career, i've always tried to put the hard-working people in my state first. we vetoed five different income tax agreements because we care about hard-working taxpayers. we care about people paying the bills and working hard. the focus with a lot of people in politics right now is what they say on the editorial page of the "the new york times" and "washington post." they want opportunities for great careers, for themselves, and their children. we had better start talking about that.

these folks are the backbone of our society and that's where we have to be focused on. >> 5% is what you got in the recent public policy poll that came out a few weeks ago. chris christie a year ago was one of the front runners. now you're near the bottom. jeb bush, scott walker, ben carson ahead of you. that's pretty low. you are low in a bunch of polls. how do you overcome that deficit? >> is the election next week? [applause] i don't know. in 2009, when no republican has been elected in new jersey in 12 years, now when there has been 42 years since we sent a republican to the u.s. senate in new jersey, everyone said there is no way chris christie can win in 2009. then they said, he won because the other guy was bad.

51% of the hispanic vote, 22% of the african-american vote, and 54% of votes from women. i'm not worried about what polls say 21 months before we will elect the president of the united states. if i decide to run, i will run a hard fighting campaign fight for the hard-working taxpayers of this country, and i will take my chances on me. i have done pretty well so far. i remember in february 2007 it was going to be rudy giuliani against hillary clinton. i feel pretty good. >> you do have the jeb bush fund-raising machine. it is formidable. you have the jeb bush family pedigree.

it carries baggage, but that is a formidable thing to overcome. you talk about the record of you and scott walker. the fancy political consultants and media types govern this today. they think this is jeb bush's race to lose. >> the elites in washington if they make decisions about who the president will be, he will be the front runner. if the people want someone who looks them in the eye connects with them and is one of them, i will do ok if i run. [applause] >> you get the sense in the country -- one of the tweets that came in -- one of the points was, we seem like we can't get ahead. we work and work and work two jobs yet we can't save money for a rainy day. politicians are always fighting

with each other about things that don't matter to us. more people seem to tuenne out politics than ever before. the credibility of both parties is in the toilet. they don't believe you when you say one thing because you say something different to do months later. -- two months later. how do you break the distrust? >> i wake up every morning with a democratic legislature. i wake up every morning knowing him got -- i'm not going to get everything i want. the reason why "the new york times" continues to write awful things about me is because every time that i read something they disagree with, i stick with where i've been. when you are pro-life in 2009, you don't cut a commercial four gears later because "the new york times" doesn't like you. just because they write bad

things about you, you don't change your mind. once you do that when you stand up firmly for your principles, you are in a position to negotiate and break that logjam. i have done that in new jersey with a democratic legislature. if i decided to do something with a more difficult group in washington d.c. -- i'm willing to fight and talk, and i have shown that in new jersey. at the end, it's about standing up for what you believe in, and that is why you get some of those comments you made about me before. sometimes those special interests -- more than anything they hate the truth. [applause] >> we look at the next election. let's say hillary is the democrat nominee. republicans have not beaten the clintons since 1992.

bill clinton lost one election. how do you beat hillary clinton? >> i think you make sure very directly that you talk about your different vision for the united states, different from the obama-clinton vision of the united states. >> which is? >> our vision is one to make sure -- as republicans, they try to say we are the party of the rich. i don't mind rich people, but we don't need to be standing up to the party and defending them all the time. we need to start fighting for the people who have not had a wage increase adjusted for inflation in 15 years. mrs. clinton's answer to that is to say to raise the minimum wage. no parent sitting out a kitchen table tonight is saying, if my child can get a higher minimum wage, every one of our aspirations for them will be realized. it's not happening. [applause] i want a country where those

parents can honestly look at the children and say, you can aspire to be anything you want in this country, no matter where you come from. my dad put himself through college at night. his son is the governor of the state of new jersey. that's what i want our kids streams to be about if they want. that's not about a minimum wage, a bigger government lifting you up. that's about your dreams and effort and work ethic lifting you up. that's the kind of country we need again. >> we are going a little over on the time. there's a lot of politicians canceling townhall events. a lot of people in this room are frustrated. they feel like they call, e-mail, try to get in touch with their congressmen or senators including on this executive amnesty deal, they are angry

about the way the republicans have handled this. they feel like no matter what they do -- they know they're in the majority and public opinion yet they can have an effect. we say we're going to be transparent, and we are not. what about you? >> anyone who is frustrated come to new jersey. yesterday i held my 128 townhall meeting. we don't do things with cards like this rehabbed to fill out cards and then people screen them for you and we decide which questions i might like to answer. we had 500 people in new jersey. i come out and speak and then i take my coat off and we took questions for an hour. raise your hands, i call on you and take the question and i answer it. that's what elected officials owed to their constituents. you can't be afraid. you have seen these clips. i get a lot of people yell at me

and let me have it read what i tell them in new jersey is this, if you are kind and disagree with me, i will disagree kind and gently back. but we are all from new jersey. if you give it, you will get it and return. that's the kind of interaction we should have with the people we are working for. >> i sense a veiled reference to jeb bush. there have been a few events. is that what you're talking about, the other republican runners are not being as transparent? >> everybody who aspires to high positions of leadership in their state or country should be willing to take unscreened, unrehearsed questions from the people who pay their salary. [applause]

>> it's also good theater. it's fun. >> we are out of time. what did you give up for lent? >> i went to my priest and said to him, i'm giving up "the new york times" for lent. [applause] don't cheer. it's bad news. he said, chris, you have to give up something you will actually miss. >> thank you governor. [applause] >> another possible 2016 presidential candidate who spoke at this year's conservative political action conference was former hewlett-packard ceo carly fearing a. -- fiorina. her remarks are about 20 minutes.

♪ >> thank you so much. good afternoon. when i was a little girl, my mother in sunday school gave me a plaque that read, what you are is god's gift to you. what you make of yourself is your gift to god. [applause] years later i would be fortunate enough to enroll and stanford university, where i would enroll -- earn a degree in medieval history and philosophy. all dressed up and nowhere to go. although the degree has come in handy recently since our president keeps talking about the crusades. [applause]

yes, mr. president isis wants to drive the whole world back to the middle ages, but the rest of us moved on about 800 years ago. while you speak of moral equivalence, the world waits for moral clarity and american leadership. with a degree in medieval history and philosophy, i was unemployable and so i went to law school. i hated it. i quit after a single semester and had to go back to work full doing what i had done part-time to help put myself through school. i typed, i filed i answered the phones for a nine-person real estate firm. i would eventually become the chief executive of the world's largest technology company hp. [applause]

together, with the great people of the great company, we would double the size of the business from 45 billion to 90 billion triple its rate of innovation to 11 patents a day, and go from a laggard to a leader in every product category in every market segment in which we competed. i know that it is only in this country that a young woman can go from secretary to ceo. [applause] and that is because our founders knew what my mother taught me everyone has god given gifts. everyone has potential, often far more than they realize. i have learned this over and over in my life. from my fellow workers in business to the slums of new

delhi, india, i have seen it in norfolk, virginia, as i distributed diapers to young mothers who had the courage to bring the children into the world. every life has potential. our founders believed this must be a country where everyone has the right to fulfill their potential. this is what they meant when they said life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. and so we became the greatest nation in the world and throughout all human history because here, more things more possible for more people in more places. here people could fulfill their potential. [applause] when i was typing in that little company, and throughout my career, i have needed someone to take a chance on me. when i battled cancer, i needed many helping hands.

when my husband frank and i lost our younger daughter lori to the demons of addiction, we relied on the strength of our family the solace of our faith, but we also were lifted up by the prayers and the kindness of so many strangers who became blessings in our lives. everyone needs a helping hand, but no one wants to be trapped in the web of dependence that has been woven over decades in our nation. [applause] to fulfill their potential people need education tools training, and they need a job. the president of the chicago teachers union once said this we cannot be held responsible for the performance of the children in our classrooms because too many of them come from poor and broken families.

liberals may be prepared to dismiss and disregard americans because of their circumstances. liberals may be prepared to confine some to lives of dependence while others who think they are smarter and they are better will take care of them, but we as conservatives are not. we know that no one of us is better than anyone of us. we know that each one of us has god given gifts and can live a life of dignity and purpose and meaning. work is a central part of such a life. elizabeth warren is right crony capitalism is alive and well. government and government programs have grown so big, so powerful, and so complex that only the big and powerful can prosper.

elizabeth warren is wrong about how to and crony capitalism. whether it is dodd-frank or net neutrality, the big get bigger the small disappear, and the powerless are trapped. we are destroying more businesses than we are creating for the first time in u.s. history. most americans get their start the way i did, in a small business, the dry cleaners, the coffee shop, the hair dressers and real estate firms of american main street create most of our new jobs and employee half our people. if we want more jobs, we need more small businesses. [applause] and we need more leaders, not mn anagers. managers are people who do the

best they can with an existing constraints and conditions. managers are people who tinker around the edges of a problem. we need leaders who do not accept what is broken simply because it has always been that way. [applause] we need leaders who will change the order of things, leaders who see and seize possibilities and know the highest calling of leadership is to unlock the potential of others. [applause] technology gives us the tools to engage american citizens in reforming our government as never before. why should we except that veterans have to spend many months filling out paperwork when they return from the battlefield, and many more months waiting for a bureaucrat to approve them before they get the services they have earned? why should we accept that? [applause]

we must unlock the potential of every american. we must fundamentally reform government, and we must restore american leadership in the world. i know bibi netanyahu. as i sat in his office five years ago, he spoke then of the dangers posed by iran. he travels here next week not to offend our president, but to warn the american people that our president's insistence on a deal with iran at any cost is a danger for the world. [applause] i know king abdullah of jordan. i applauded king abdulla's leadership when his response to the beheading of a jordanian pilot was to immediately execute two convicted terrorists and begin bombing.

he came to this country seeking our support and he has still not received it. neither have the kurds, nor the ukranians. when the egyptians bombed targets in libya in response to the beheading of 21 christians, this administration stood silently by and neither condemned nor condones egypt's forceful response. this is not leadership. [applause] nor is it leadership when secretary clinton asks, what difference does it make when our embassy is deliberately attacked by terrorists and four americans are murdered. it makes all the difference in

the world, mrs. clinton, and the requirement bonds has never,. -- required response has never come. like mrs. clinton, i too have traveled the globe. unlike mrs. clinton, i know that flying is an activity, not unaccomplished meant. -- an accomplishment. i have met vladimir putin. i know his ambition will not be deterred by a gimmicky red reset button. mrs. clinton please name an accomplishment. [applause] in the meantime, please accept and explain why we should except that the millions and millions of dollars that have flowed into the clinton foundation from

foreign governments do not represent a conflict of interest. [applause] she tweets about women's rights in this country and takes money from governments that deny women the most basic human rights. [applause] she tweets about equal pay for women, but will not answer basic questions about her own office's pay standards, and neither will our president. [applause] hillary may like #'s, but she does not know what the leadership means. [applause] ladies and gentlemen, now is the time to declare without

apology, and without equivocation that this is the greatest nation the world has ever known. [applause] we are a force for good in the world. now is the time to reaffirm that every american regardless of their circumstances, has the right and the opportunity to fulfill their potential. we must rise together to meet our challenges. now is the time for citizenship and leadership. let us declare the end of identity politics that seeks to divide rather than unite. let us declare the end of lowered expectations. let us refuse to accept what has

been broken about our politics and our government for so long. let us together restore the promise of this our beloved are beautiful, our blessed united states of america. tank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. may god bless you all. thank you so much. [applause] >> thank you carly fiorina. thank you. >> that rousing speech. the tweets have been coming in. i have a few questions. along with that hashtag -- first off, in helping the middle class, the current president was

to redistribute income through changes in the income tax code and make two years of community college free in doing that. is there a counter approach to that and what would that be? >> one of the things this president loves to do is distract us. i think he's trying to distract us from the fact that we have too many failing high schools in this country by offering community college for free. if we want to educate our children, let us make sure that every parent has a choice and a chance to educate their children so that they can fulfill their potential. and as far as the tax code is concerned, our tax code has grown so incredibly complex tens of thousands of pages. well of course we should lower

rates so we do not have the highest business tax rate in the world in an era where we have to compete for every job, what we really have to do is radically simplify the tax code. regular people and small businesses simply can't deal with the complexity anymore. all those loopholes, all those write-offs. they benefit the powerful and connected and the wealthy and the large. >> thank you. next question, people can't get enough of hearing about job creation. what is the best way to improve unemployment, increase the hiring of more quality jobs? >> first of all, we have to recognize that while we talk a lot about rebuilding america which is true, we also have to retrain america. we can't give up on workers who at 45 or 50 or 55 or 60 lose their job through no fault of their own.

we need to retrain them so they are qualified for the 21st century jobs. i go into too many towns where i see an organization, many factoring facility with help wanted signs up and unemployment that is too high. we have to retrain america, as we make sure each one of our children gets a quality education. we have to rebuild main street. it's a shocking statistic but we are now destroying more businesses than we are creating. when we are destroying small business, we are destroying jobs for the middle class. 2/3 of jobs are created by small business. we have to do everything in our power to compete for every job by simplifying our tax code, lowering our rate, simplifying our regulatory structure, educating our children, retraining our workers, and rebuilding small businesses in the u.s. [applause] >> one last question.

how important is it to have a female candidate in a race this year for the white house and the next two years going into 2016, and do you have any suggestions on who that should be? [laughter] >> i think our party needs to be as diverse as the nation we hope to represent. women are now 53% of voters. as i like to tell some of my democratic friends who continue to talk about the war on women we are not a special interest group, we are the majority of the nation. [applause] and i will say this, if hillary clinton had to face me on a debate stage, but the very least, she would have a hitch in her swing. [applause] >> thank you. that's it. >> thank you so much, ladies and

gentlemen. god bless you. [applause] ♪ >> texas republican senator ted cruz is said to be considering a run for president in 2016. he spoke at this year's conservative political action conference, hosted by the american conservative union. this is 25 minutes. ♪ [applause]

>> wow. god bless cpac. there's not a single democrat here? it's almost like cpac invited benjamin netanyahu to speak. well, you know, we could have had hillary here. but we could not find a foreign nation to foot the bill. this is a room full of patriots. america is in jeopardy, and we are met today on a great battlefield. the men and women gathered here today are gathered to fight for

freedom in our country. [applause] the men and women of cpac are going to play a fundamental decision the men and women gathered here today are going to play a critical role in reigniting the miracle of america. how do we do that? how do we win? how do we bring back the miracle that is america? [laughter] god bless you. [applause] >> ted cruz for president. >> number one, we reassemble the reagan coalition. [applause]