42 years ago. are we better off than when bush left office? of course we are. anyone who does not understand the suffering, anxiety the middle class and working families of our country are expressing today has no idea what is going on in this country , and that is my perception on capitol hill. there is a world here on capitol hill that is very different from vermont and the rest of the country, and i think it is imperative we close that gap and begin to understand what is going on with the working families of this country. meanwhile the wealthiest people and the largest corporations are

doing phenomenally well. the gap between the very, very rich and everyone else is growing wider and wider and wider. the top 1% now owns about 41% of the entire wealth of this country, while the bottom 60% owns less than 2%. today, incredibly the top 1/10 of 1%, 1/10 of 1% now owns nearly as much wealth as the bottom 90%. today the walton family, the owner of walmart, is now worth $157 billion. that is more wealth than the bottom 42% of the american people. the fact of the matter is, over the last four years we have witnessed an enormous transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class to multi billionaires. in 1985, 90% was 36% in 2013 went down to just 2.8%. -- just 22.8%. listen to this. if the bottom 90% have the same share of its nations wealth as it did 30 years ago it would

have more than $10 trillion in wealth than is currently the case today. meanwhile, the middle class has shrunk. people on top are doing extraordinarily well. today, the richest 0.1% have increased their share of our nation's wealth by more than a trillion dollars over the last three decades. in terms of income, as opposed to wealth, since the great wall street collapsed, 99% of all new income is going to the top 1%. our people all over the country struggle and worry about how they will feed their kids and how they will send their kids to college and how they will do childcare and worry about their parents. 99% of all new income generated in the last several years goes to the top 10%. a very rich get richer and everybody else gets poorer.

2013, just as an example, the top 25 hedge fund managers make more than $24 billion. that is the equivalent to a full salary of more than 425,000 public school teachers. is that what america is really supposed to be about? i do not think so. [applause] but income and wealth equality is not just a moral issue. it is also an economic issue. maybe more profamily, it is a political issue. the people who have the money are now putting their money under the mattress is. they are investing heavily in the political process. to make the rich even richer. as the result of a disastrous supreme court decision on citizens united, billionaire

families are now able to's been unlimited sums of money. i know that sounds like a harsh statement, but if anyone doubts what goes on in congress, that piece of legislation after piece of legislation is not done on behalf of the wealthy and large corporations, let me respectfully tell you you do not know what is going on in washington. according to media reports, it appears the koch brothers are prepared to spend more money in the next election the democratic or republican party. one family, the second wealthiest family and the entry, worth the process hundred billion dollars, may well have a strong political presence than anyone of the major two parties. here is from a recent article in politico. the koch brothers and their allies are pumping tens of millions of dollars into

a data company developing state-of-the-art detailed profiles on 250 main americans giving the brothers political operation or the mark of a political party or the coke network has developed in-house exit teeth in polling, fact checking, advertising, media buying, and nationally aggressiveness and years of patient experimentation, plus the koch operation actually exceeds the republican national committee's data operation in many important respects. because they had an endless supply of money, they only get stronger. i want everyone in this room and those listening to the program to step back and create a deep breath and tell me what you see. when the second wealthiest family in this country with an

extreme right-wing agenda and a few of their billionaire pals have more political power in this country, what is that political system called? i think it should be called by its rightful name. it is not call democracy. it is called oligarchy. that is the system we are rapidly moving toward. that is the system we must vigorously oppose. [applause] i have exceeded my time. i always get people in little nervous.

if i go on too long, yanked me. i have been yanked once or twice before. let me just touch on what a congressional agenda looks like to begin to adjust some of the problems. let's never forget today despite the improving economy, we have a major draws in income prices. we need to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure. i introduced along with barbara of maryland a trillion dollar piece of legislation that would go a long way to rebuild our crumbling roads and bridges and water systems and by the way support the creation of 13 million decent-paying jobs. [applause] when we talk about jobs and income, the $7.25 minimum wage here at the federal level, it is a starvation wage. we need to raise it over a time to $15 an hour to an own working 40 hours a week in this country should live in poverty. [applause] despite what my republican friends may think, climate

change is real. climate change is caused by human activity, and it is already causing devastating harm. we have got to transform our energy system away from fossil fuel to energy sufficiency and sustainable energy. [applause] we have to pass pay equity for women workers. it is unacceptable they are making $.70 per hour. [applause] if we are going to save the middle class, we need to fundamentally transform our trade policies. they are not working. corporate america will have to start investing in the united states. not in china. [applause] we have got to learn from the rest of the world that investing in a higher education is an

asset, it is a positive step. it is a national disgrace that billions of our young people are graduating school deeply in debt and many others cannot afford to go to college. that is not the way you create a great nation. anyone who has the ability and [applause] six, you cannot regulate wall street. wall street is regulating the congress. the sixth largest financial institution have assets of almost 60% of our gdp. if teddy roosevelt were president today, you know what he would say? break them up and he would be right. it is time to break up the large wall street bank. [applause] as i mentioned earlier, the united states remains the only major country on earth to put out a national healthcare program and yet we spent almost twice as much per capita. it is time for america to guarantee health care to every man, woman, and child, as a right of citizenship. [applause] my colleagues in congress, some of them are republican, working day and night to cut medicare

and medicaid. needless to say, i strongly disagree. we have got to expand social security. not cut social security. [applause] we need real tax reform. it is not acceptable that major corporation after major corporation making billions of dollars pays nothing in taxes. we lose $100 billion a year in revenue because they stash their money in tax havens. it is time for the large corporations to rejoin america and start paying their fair share of taxes. [applause] so let me thank you and my forgiveness for overextending my time. we are at a crucial moment in american history. it is imperative we learn from the civil rights movement, which

achieved so many extraordinary victories, that we organize, we educate, and we bring people together to create an america that works for all of us and not just a handful of billionaires. thank you all very much. [applause] >> senator, when will you declare your intentions of 2016, regardless of what they are? senator sanders: that is a good question. the reason i have been thinking about becoming president sitting here with my wife who is less than enthusiastic about the

idea, it is not because i wake up in the morning and say, i have a burning desire to be president of the united states. i am as proud as i could possibly be to be representing the great state of vermont and i have reached a higher level of political achievement i ever dreamed to be possible. the reason i am thinking about running for president is that at a time when the middle-class of this country is disappearing and so many people are giving up on the political process, -- last election, 63% did not even bother to vote. we need candidates who will stand up for the working-class this country. it ain't an easy task. it is easy to give a speech, but we are taking on the koch brothers and the billionaires and wall street and the insurance companies and the military-industrial complex. that is not easy stuff. not easy stuff. i do not want to do this thing unless i can do it well.

can we put together the political movement of millions of people prepared to work hard to take on the billionaire class? that is what i'm trying to find out. i go around the country and there is a lot of support for these ideas. more than i think the inside beltway pundits understand. can you convert that into a grassroots organization? i woke up the other day and said, i -- if i were really successful and did something unprecedented and had 3 million people contribute $100 each, and my election campaigns, i think the average contribution is $45. not a lot of money here in washington, d.c. i do not do these fundraisers for $100,000 each. i do not know anybody who has got that kind of money. if i were really enormously successful and had 3 million people check -- contributing a hundred dollars each, 3 million people, that would be $300 million, an enormous sum of

money, one third of what the koch brothers themselves will spend. >> you are an independent and you caucus with the democrats. if you ran, would you run as a democrat or would you run as an independent? senator sanders: great question and i'm getting bolder and bolder and grayer and grayer and trying to think through all of these issues. if you go out among the american people and ask if you have a lot of confidence in the democratic and republican party, they will tell you if -- the republican party has moved to a right-wing wing extremist party and the democratic party, once the party of the american working-class, very few people to see it would be the case anymore. more and more people all over the country are looking for alternatives to the two-party system. it is one of the reasons one might run as an independent and what is the negative? as you all know, it is awfully hard to run as an independent if

you are not a billionaire. i'm not a billionaire. how do you put together a political infrastructure? outside of the two-party system, how do get invited to debates with all due respect to the media, will the media follow someone who is an independent not debating? some places, you cannot get on the ballot as a third-party candidate. those are the issues we are trying to work through. >> what makes you an independent, given that you always do caucus with democrats in the senate and with the republican senate, are you forced to vote with the democrats anyway so republicans cannot get their agenda passed? the question is what really makes you an independent? are you really a democrat? senator sanders: as i started my discussion, my first victory was

defeating a five-term democrat and i've defeated democrats and republicans for many years. this is what i think. i think we have a political system right now, and i think the republican party has become extremely right-wing. this is not the party of david eisenhower. there is no way i would caucus with them. within the democratic party, you have some great people and you have some really, really good people who often do not get the credit they deserve. many progressives or some progressives in the senate working night and day for working families. for me, given as a member of the u.s. senate, there are two caucuses, so there is not much question about which caucus i would be in. i want to think harry reid and the democratic leadership in the senate for treating me very fairly and very decently. to my mind, there is no question, the democrats are far preferable to republicans on the issues i am concerned with.

>> if you ran and if you were elected, how would you work with congress? there seems to be a gridlock between the white house and congress now. would that be the same case if you were in the white house? senator sanders: the reason congress is dysfunctional is not because of the so-called gridlock that exists. it is not that every member of congress has a personality defect and is unable to communicate with people in another political party, or the people end up hating everybody around. it is just not the case. this is what is the case. the case is, right now, the united states congress is not representative of where the american people are. they are way out of touch. the american people say, raise the minimum wage. united states congress says, give taxpayers to billionaires.

-- tax breaks [laughter] the american people say we have to move toward sustainable and clean energy and energy sufficiency. united states congress says, kill the keystone pipeline. on and on. you ask me a question, and it is a very important question pair i happen to have a lot of respect and personal affection for barack obama. i think history will judge him in a lot kinder way than his contemporaries have. [applause] i think that as a politician, he has run campaigns that will also make history books. not telling you any secrets, what the major mistake has been is that he thought after putting together this extraordinary, grassroots movement of young people, minorities working-class people, putting together a coalition and getting elected to the presidency, and then he thought he could sit down with republicans and

negotiate all of these fine agreements, he was mistaken. the only way any president in this day and age taking on the billionaire class can succeed, the only possible way, is to mobilize tens of millions of people to say to congress, guess what. this is what you are doing. you are going to raise the minimum wage. you are going to create millions of jobs. you are going to protect our veterans and our seniors. you are not going to give tax breaks to the rich. you are going to make college affordable. we are watching you. if you do not vote for this legislation, you will not return to office. what i will say with 100% certainty, that if we continue to have elections in which 63% of the people do not vote, 80% of young people don't vote, then the rich will only get richer and will continue to dominate what goes on here in washington. any serious president that wants to represent working families

has to mobilize people all over this country to make the congress an offer they cannot refuse. [applause] >> how will your decision running for president be affected by what others do? secretary clinton, if she gets in the race and depending on what she does or says, if she goes to wall street and comes out very strong against wall street, or if senator warren or somebody like that got in, with that affect your decision to get in or get out? senator sanders: i do politics. people in vermont understand this. you are looking at somebody who has run in many elections. in the house for 16 years, eight elections. in the senate twice. do you know how many negative

ads i have run during those years? not one. i never ran a negative ad. so i don't run against people. it's not my desire to trash people. hillary clinton is a remarkable woman with an extraordinary history of public service. it would not be my job to run against them. it would be my job, if she ran and if i ran, to debate the serious issues facing our country as intelligent people should be doing in a democracy. [applause] this is how i always get myself in trouble and i am getting my wife nervous already. we can't have that serious debate if the media doesn't allow it. so i would urge my media friends, that instead of political gossip, let us talk about the real issues and respect different points of view. but when 63% of the people in a poll last year didn't know which

political parties controlled the house and the senate, something is wrong with political consciousness in this country. so what we need is civil intelligent debates on the real issues facing the american people. not more political gossip of "who's winning today and who's losing? who slipped on a banana peel? who said something particularly stupid?" i'm sure i did today. but let it be -- "how do we rebuild a crumbling middle class? how do we lead the world in transforming our energy system so we can save the planet from climate change? how do we deal with the grotesque level of income and wealth inequality?" not easy stuff. how do we do it? those are the issues that serious people should be talking about. [applause] >> i had read that you were frustrated about the number of

times you were asked about secretary clinton's e-mails. i wonder if you view that as a total tempest in a teapot, or are there real transparency issues about how the government operates at the core of this that people like yourself should talk about? senator sanders: the frustration is out of all of the years i have been in congress, not one person in the media came up to me and said, bernie, we have the highest rate of childhood poverty in the industrial world, what will you do about it? bernie, we have 11% of our people unemployed today. how are you going to put those people back to work? bernie, are you worried that so few people have so much political power? what will you do about that? those are questions i do not hear very much about. i do not know a whole lot about it. i know what you know, what you read in the newspapers about the e-mails.

i do not know what the rules are, but frankly, from the calls, just mentioned, i asked at the front desk, how many calls are we getting about hillary's e-mail? in washington d.c., zero. >> how would you handle the federal reserve as president and what do you think about the push the republicans to have the fed audited? senator sanders: an important issue. when i was involved in dodd frank, a major piece of financial legislation, we managed to get an amendment for the first time in history in the united states that did not audit the fed in its entirety but did audit the fed during the financial crisis. boy, bloomberg was active in that effort as well. i think they brought forth a lawsuit.

what we found out was that during the financial crisis, $16 trillion in zero or low interest loans, was led out of virtually every major financial institution in the united states and central-bank all over the world. $16 trillion, zero or low interest loans. and yet, working families today have to figure out how they will pay 7% to 8% interest rates. in terms of auditing the fed that is legislation -- here is an example of strange bedfellows, together, ron paul and i worked together on that legislation, which we managed to pass some of it in the bill. the idea of auditing the fed does not make sense to me.

>> several questions about war and defense we are running short on time. we're trying to combine a few of them and you will jump in. you have opposed the wars in iraq and afghanistan. if you were president, how would you have responded to the attacks of september 11, 2001? that is one question. another questioner notes you are a big advocate of cutting defense spending, and yet this person also believes you are a supporter of the f 35 program, which has come under a lot of criticism is being wasteful. how do you reconcile that? f 35 and september 11. senator sanders: i voted for the war in afghanistan. the reason i did this because we had a pretty good idea who led the attack on 9/11. osama bin laden he was being harbored in afghanistan and they refused to give him up and i supported our troops going in there.

i did not then know that the war would go on and on and on. that, i did not know. i strongly opposed the war in iraq and i think history will call that the right vote. how you deal with isis is a difficult issue. none of these issues are simple. anyone who jumps up and thinks they have a magical solution is usually very wrong. this is what my fear is. we have been in war in iraq and afghanistan for over a decade. the cost of that war and human life and suffering and financially has been very heavy. i strongly feel that some of my colleagues are hell-bent in getting us involved in never ending war in the quagmire of the middle east. i will do my best to oppose that. right now, what you have is a

situation where, as an example saudi arabia, some of you may know, is a country controlled by a multibillion-dollar family one of the wealthiest families in the world. it turns out saudi arabia has the fourth largest military budget in the world. now why in god's name is the united states contemplating sending combat troops into iraq again, when you have got the saudis sitting there, watching us do that? what you have now the middle east is in fact a war for the soul of islam. what will islam be? will it be the peaceful religion many believe it to be, or will it be isis inform? it is incumbent for saudi arabia, kuwait, for jordan, for the countries in the region, to

get actively involved in that effort against isis. i think united states and western europe should be supportive of their efforts. but i do not believe the united states should lead that effort. [applause] >> we're almost out of time. before i ask the last question i have a couple of other important matters to take care of. i first want to remind you about upcoming speakers. fda commissioner margaret hamburg will be here on march 27. and the chief internet evangelist for google will be here on may 4. second, i would like to present our guest with the traditional national press club mug, which is really a nicer and more valuable gift than anything you would get as president of the united states, let me tell you. [laughter] senator sanders: thank you very much. [applause]

>> last question, ben and jerry periodically retires its flavors. as a powerful political personage, what flavor would you use your considerable clout to save if it ever got put on the chopping block? [laughter] senator sanders: ben and jerry are good friends. they have stopped eating a lot of that ice cream and then is a lot skinnier he used to be. i like them all, i have got a confession, but i am old-fashioned. chocolate sells just fine with me. [applause] >> thank you for being here today. i would like to thank the press

club staff for organizing today's events. if you would like a copy of today's program, or to learn more about the national press club, go to our website, press.org. thank you and we are adjourned. [applause] senator sanders: thank you very much. >> another picture. >> tonight on q and a director of the georgetown university medical center watchdog progress -- project on how pharmaceutical companies influence doctors on

what medications to prescribe. >> the promotion of a drug actually starts seven two 10 years before a drug comes on the market. while it is illegal for a company to market a drug before it has been a pure -- before it has been approved by the fda, it is not illegal to market a disease. they have sometimes invented the -- invented diseases or exaggerated the importance of certain conditions or mechanisms of drugs. then they blanket medical journals and meetings and other venues with these messages that are meant to prepare the minds of clinicians to accept a particular drug and also to prepare the minds of consumers to except a particular condition. >> tonight at 8:00 eastern. on the next washington journal

william kristol will discuss congressional involvement in the iranian nuclear negotiations. this week's event in ferguson, missouri. the 2016 gop presidential contest and other issues. health care reporter kimberly leonard has the latest on health care law enrollments and cost projections. kevin constant and -- kevin come canon talks about changes in the national school lunch program. you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. defense secretary ashton carter was in fort meade, maryland friday where he addressed her with men and women of cyber command. he thanked them for their service and talked about their work and the challenges they face in their jobs. this is 25 minutes.

>> ladies and gentlemen, the secretary of defense. we are blessed to be joined by the 25th secretary of defense, secretary ashton carter. he is uniquely positioned to build on the work he did in his previous time in the department to take cyber to a greater level of capability and service. he is energized to see how his initial work has now become a reality.

secretary, thank you for your time, sir. [applause] secretary carter: thank you all. thank you, admiral rogers. we are lucky to have you in charge here, and we count ourselves lucky to have each and every one of you i see front of me. i have been learning, then updated on the development of cybercon and nsa, the two biggest groups represented here. we are grateful that you serve. this is the first troop event i have done as secretary of defense in the united states. there is a reason for that. that is the importance of what you are doing to our department and our country.

that should tell you something about how vital this mission is that you will have taken on. how important it is for the security of our country, and for that matter, the security of our economy and our people in their individual lives. cyber touches all aspects of their lives. if you do nothing else and get nothing else out of this encounter, i want you to go home tonight or make a call or tweet at your family or do it every people do, but, in whatever medium you use, please tell them that you were thanked today by the leadership of the department, and, through us, the entire country for what you do. we do not take it for granted. you are what we wake up for every morning.

your service, your sacrifice your professionalism, and your welfare and that of your families is all we care about. we are so, so grateful for it. with all that is going on, in iraq, ukraine, the asian pacific, the domain that you protect, cyberspace, is presenting us with some of the most profound challenges, both from a security perspective and an economic perspective. the president had a cyber security summit a few weeks ago and, as you can see, our national leadership at every level is really seized with the need to get on top of this problem.

cyber, which is what you do, is a marriage of the best people and the newest technology. that being the case, and it being the case that there is a high demand for both of those things, the best people in the newest technology across the country, means that we, and i know that we as a government and the department and military need to be open to those sources of good people and new technology. we need to be open in order to be good in this field. that means we need to build bridges to society. bridges that are not as necessary in other fields of warfare that don't have a civilian or commercial

counterpart. to the extent that this field does. we need to build bridges and rebuild bridges to the rest of our society. that means we need to be open. of course, we cannot be open with what you do in the traditional sense. we need to be open to new ideas, we need to be open to people we cannot always tell them what we are doing, but we need to be open enough with our government so that it knows what it is doing so that its officials can, in turn, turn to our people and say, i'm sorry, i cannot tell you everything, you would not want me to tell you everything that is being done to protect you because that would undermine our ability to protect you but you should trust that your senior officials and elected officials and so forth are acting on your behalf. and i think we do have that trust.

and people do understand that what you are doing for them is necessary and being done in an appropriate manner. we need to be open generationally. we to be open to a new generation. because we need the young to be attracted to our mission. we need people who grew up with technology that was not available when i was growing up. that will be true with even those of you who are now the young people in front of me who are now smugly nodding your head -- [laughter] -- you too will be overcome by technology at one point. our institution in general needs to be an open one.

in order to be really good at anything, especially good at what you do, when you to be open to a younger generation. your leaders know that, i have talked to them about that. we know that that is the only way we will continue to have any elite corps of people like the ones who are sitting in front of me right now. i actually think that, in that regard, the development of the cyber workforce, which we are working on now, can be a model for other things we do in the department. the freshness of approach, the constant effort to stay up and reinvent that your field demands is something that we can use everywhere in the department. we are looking to you in a sense as a model and a trailblazer for

many other things we do in the department. one of the things i have said, i'm determined to bring up to our department is openness to new ideas, the only way we will remain what we are today, which is the greatest fighting force the world has ever known, we will. for the institutions that you joined, be they military services or field agencies or new commands, they are trying to figure out how to welcome this new breed of warrior to the ranks. what is the right way to do that?

how do you fit in? i had lunch with some of you earlier, and we were talking about how this skill set and this professional orientation fits into the traditional armed services. it does not fit into the traditional armed services. we have to figure out how to get it to fit in so that you all have the full opportunity to bring to bear on your careers that you gain here and sense of mission that you felt here and carry it into the future. i know that is a challenge in front of us. you all feel it in your individual careers. i am determined that we can create that fit, but that comes with doing something new and different and exciting, you are going to be pathfinders but we will find a path together. you are, whether you are civilians, military, contractor,

all parts of our workforce. we regard you as on the front lines in the same way that last week, i was in afghanistan, and we have people in the front lines there. it is the front line of today's effort to protect our country and, while you may not be at risk in the way our forces in afghanistan are, we require if you the level of the professionalism and dedication and i know you show that and we count on it.

nsa and cybercom, one around for a long time, and one pretty brand-new. the honest truth is that it is a work in progress, we are working out that relationship. my view is that we are doing the right thing and having the leadership of those organizations be in the same place and, one way of thinking about that is, we do not have enough good people like you to spread around. we need to cluster our hits as a country. that is one of the reasons why we will keep these two together, at least for now. i want you to know that, in addition to thinking about how you are organized, a big priority of mine is going to be to make sure you are getting the training and equipment and

resources you need. this is a high-priority area. if you read about sequester, which is a terrible, stupid thing that we are doing to ourselves, i have nothing good to say about it, but i think that even in the era of sequester, we understand that this mission is one we cannot afford not to keep investing in. that means that that fact, together with our determination to help you chart rewarding, lasting careers, in this field -- those two things together on to tell you also how much we value what you do. let me make one last point, and this is something that you will know but it is important to

remind our fellow citizens and for that matter, the rest of the world. we build our cyber mission to defend the openness of cyberspace, to keep it free. we are the ones who stand with those who create and innovate. against those who would steal and destroy. that is the kind of country we are that is the kind of cyber force we are. we are going to execute our mission while being as transparent as possible, because that is also who we are. that is why i wanted my remarks to you to be public, because we are being filmed here, that is an unusual thing for you, and i know some of you cannot be seen on television because of the nature of your work.

it is rare that media come into the premises of this organization. but i not only wanted you to know how important what you do is for the country, but for everybody else to get that, as well. what that means, i suppose, is that even though -- even if you forget or to lazy or for some other reason do not tell your family that you were thanked today, they will learn anyway. [laughter] so i suggest you beat the media to the punch and, once again, go home, call home, call a friend and say, today i was thanks by the leadership of my department and, through them, by the country for what i do.

tell them that. thank you very much. [applause] there are two microphones here which, in nsa fashion, our only connected by wires through the floor. have at it. any subject at all, any question or comment -- yes? fink: in a budget constraint environment, what are your top priorities? secretary carter: first and foremost, people. that has got to be number one, because that is what makes our military the greatest in the world. it is also technology and a lot of other things, but first and foremost, it is people. that is something we need to keep investing in.

i know that is not the only investment we make and we have to have a balanced approach to defense spending, because each of you wants not only to be adequately compensated but you want to have other people to your left and right, you want to have the best equipment, and you don't want to go into action without the best training. each of us wants to see some balance in how we spend the defense dollar. it is not just a matter of money. it's a matter of caring about our people, make each of the safety and dignity of our people is respected, and all of those things. number one, for me, is people. the second thing i would say is we need to be an open institution.

the way we are going to stay excellent is to be the most excellent part of society, and to do that, you have to be pulling the best of society. you guys are superb. this is why people want to hire veterans so much, because you are all so good. i know that is another problem and i don't want you being hired away. and i can't stop you. the reason people want to hire you is because you are so darn good. >> you spoke of military trying to fit in with respective branches? where the possibilities of establishing a cyber branch of service? secretary carter: that is a very good question and we have asked ourselves that overtime. there may come a time when that makes sense.

for now, we are trying to build upon our strengths. we are trying to draw from where we already are strong. not to take too many jumps organizationally, at once. why is cybercon here? we didn't want to start over somewhere else. maybe there will come a day when these two things will be so strong and different that they will need to be in the same place, but that is not now. initially about why we use so many uniformed people. they do we should use more civilians. we started we thought we had strength. i think you have to look at this as the first step in a journey that may, over time, lead to the

decision to break out cyber the way the army air corps became the u.s. air force. although that still has service parts to it. we are trying to get the best of both. armed services give us years of crowd tradition, a whole system of recruiting, training. -- proud it is not something you walk away from and say, you are going to start all over. it may come to that, and i think it is an excellent, thoughtful question. we have given some thought to that, and for right now, we are walking before we run. that is one of the futures that cyber might have. >> good afternoon. my question is in regard to cyber and authority.

the massive amount of our work is done with network administrators. currently, most of what we report on is recommendations. what is your vision to make those recommendations a requirement for network administrators? secretary carter: that is also a very insightful question. it gets down to a fundamental issue. let's put it out on the table. the information networks that it is cybercom's first responsibility to protect -- there is no point in me buying all these ships and planes and tanks if none of them are going to work and our kids aren't going to work unless there are networks that stitch the whole thing together. we have got to got to got to make our networks secure.

if you fall in on a network, and say there are a whole bunch of people working on december, they are responding to people calling the helpdesk and driving them crazy with a problem they cannot figure out, people who want more and more and more, want faster and want to add to people, they are trying to juggle a lot -- many of them are administering networks that are outdated. and have been around for a long time. there is going to be a tension. we go into this with our wives -- with our eyes wide open. i will stand with you on the side of requiring protection because it is not adequate

network administration to downplay security. you are leaving it open to risk. we cannot have that. if all the network owners and operators were good at protecting themselves, we wouldn't have to -- right? --we would not have to have these national mission force protectors. but they are not. we are counting upon extra-proficient people to help them. there will always be a little tension when you show up at the door and they have a problem but you got to do what you got to do because they are no good to us if they are penetrated or vulnerable. i think that is all i can take for right now. let me once again thank you.

and please pass that on. [applause] i would like to look each and every one of you in the eye and say thank you and a very personal way. you also get one of the new carter coins, which are hotly minted, and the price hasn't been run down on ebay yet. [laughter]

[inaudible] what's the u.s. commission on civil rights hold a hearing tomorrow on workplace discrimination against lgbt employees. the commission is looking at federal protections and how biases impact hiring compensation, and termination of employment. that is live at 9:00 a.m. eastern on c-span two. a senate homeland security hearing on records and how in accuracy is have resulted in improper payments to those who have passed away and the withholding of money who were listed as disease. that is at 4:00 eastern, live coverage on c-span3.

monday night on the communicators, fcc commissioner on their recent net neutrality ruling. invisible broadband, and the subsidized phone and broadband program, lifeline. >> i am proposing that we overhaul the lifeline program make it concurrent and in sync with the information age. it challenges providers to give more to their consumers. the prices and opportunities have gone down. it should be for lifeline consumers. that has been the number one problem that we have been seeing with not so positive headlines. there is a vulnerability in the system we need to plug. >> monday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span two. tonight, on c-span. q and a with dr. adrian few berman.

then david cameron takes questions from the house of commons. ted cruz was the featured speaker today at this♪ announcer: as we our -- as we our guest is dr. adriane fugh-berman. she jeeps and all on the lobbying practices of the pharmaceutical interest -- keeps nra on the lobbying practices of pharmaceutical industry/ brian: if you could change one thing about the pharmaceutical industry and its relationship to doctors or patrons, what would you do -- patients, what would