has a role to play. >> to watch all of the winning videos, and to learn more about our competition, go to c-span.org and click on studentcam. also, tell us what you think about the issues that these kids address and that documentary on twitter. >> next, on c-span, three former three and ministers to afghanistan look back on the diplomatic roles and comment on the future u.s. role. the hour and a half performance is hosted by the middle east conference in afghanistan. >> welcome this afternoon to the middle east version of the three tenors. the washington version is three ambassadors. we are pleased to have the same level of challenge that you got from three tenors. i am delighted to begin the

session. the session which is part of the series sponsored by lewis who is sitting in front. we have been able to have a fine reduction -- a fine reduction of presentations over the years. again, thank you for making this possible. [applause] our three ambassadors are well known. ryan crocker to my left. he was the ambassador in afghanistan. and more recently than are other two participants. it is well known for his service in afghanistan and elsewhere. i was delighted that he could be with us. he is the dean at the texas a&m

university. presently. zalmay khalilzad is at the center for strategic and international studies and served as our special envoy to afghanistan from 2001 to 2003. he was at the united nations and so many other places. ron neumann, well known for his presence at many events. ron was the ambassador in afghanistan from 2005 2007 and is presently the president of the american academy of the diploma -- diplomaists.

when the middle east institute was created afghanistan was included as part of the middle east. this was for site. we were thinking of the greater middle east. and when pocket s -- and when pakistan came into being we threw them in as well. we are not new to this part of the world, and are delighted to have you here today and our speakers. the format will be, i will pose questions and we will have our participants respond to them. we will leave enough time at the end of the session for your questions. let's get started. gentleman. this panel is going to be looking forward. in the role of the united states in afghanistan and in the

country's future. before we do that, can i ask looking back, during your time in afghanistan, what gave you the greatest satisfaction? what was your greatest disappointment during that time that you were serving his country in afghanistan? whoever would like to start. there is no order. ok. zalmay khalilzad: for me, i would like to thank lou for his leadership and service of afghanistan during the time that i was there. i am delighted to be here with my distinguished colleagues. especially ryan. we have done quite a few things together. ryan crocker: of which we will not tell you about. zalmay khalilzad: for me, of

course, i was in afghanistan besides having been born there, and spending a lot of my early life in afghanistan twice in an official capacity. one as the president's envoy right after the bomb agreement, and in 2003 as ambassador from 2003 2005. i have to think about the emotional sense that i have returning after 30 plus years and seeing kabul devastated. essentially a dead city when i arrived in january 2002. flying in a small plane when i landed at the kabul airport, the international airport -- which

is now busy, the japanese have built a terminal, and the vip lounge is impressive. i remember an elderly man, who has since passed away, pushing a letter to the plane -- pushing a ladder to the plane so i could get off. we had a hard time synchronizing the ladder and the small plane that the government provided. if i had to reflect on the positives, the positive experience was that afghanistan was very divided politically. the last soviet takeover in 78, and fighting each other, there

are a lot of afghans in the audience, and others who are experts. and then my soviet coming in and fighting the soviets. and then fighting each other. and the taliban emerging. the northern alliance fighting the taliban. there is a history of not coming to agreement on key issues. the politics of helping of the united states in the aftermath of 9/11 play a critical role with the help of the united nations. they played important roles to get an agreement on the constitution and participating and getting the various groups. i know that some may ask about

the taliban not being a part of that process at the time, and i would be happy to engage on that as to what exactly happened and did not happen with regards to the taliban participation in the early political process. it was a high point, that i felt myself, and there were so many of them. the school opening was an emotional day that i will never forget and till i die. all the adults in the audience, including a couple of foreigners were in tears the day the schools reopened. both my colleagues, remember that march is the opening of the school year even after so many years. the first time when a cap the president was the chairman. that was a high point. the constitutional agreement,

the compromises made. they seized the moment. it was a very much a positive for me. on the negative, i would say that my own frustration, and i would value ryan's comments because he has that on both sides of the border as a distinction, i would say i own frustration and inability to get an agreement between afghanistan on pakistan cooperating against extremism, terror, and facilitating a settlement that would have brought the tally ban into the political process. that was my greatest political frustration. i could see, out of frustration, i would speak, even publicly,

that a sanction was being developed that would make the task much harder and would take more time and would be more expensive than what we were initially willing to in weston afghanistan. that changed over time, but the initial strategy was to make a minimum footprint. some effort, not a lot. we did not want to own the problem. we wanted the afghans to take care of it. that, was my biggest frustration. >> ron? ryan crocker: they are hard questions to answer. trying to tease out one or two things. on the side of satisfaction, partly just connecting to afghanistan, i did not grow up there, but i visited first in

1967 and was all over the country. through the center. reconnecting with the country and the society and the people. that was enormously satisfying. one of the things that continues to give me an enormous satisfaction is that i began to see the younger generation of afghans, the twentysomethings and thirtysomethings, who are really a different group and hold out the promise of a very different, better future for their country if we can get through the short term. i have great faith that it can go a long way and the longer run with younger leadership. i remember going to the american university of afghanistan which gave a great deal of help to get started and all of us worked on

that project, it was emotional because it is on the grounds of what was the american international school in kabul were my brother graduated from high school. going back in the early days and finding the students as inspiring as they work. professionally, most satisfying is the recognition that we were working on the energy side into many stovepipes. we were working too much, not wrongly, but that our focus had become so internal that some of what we were doing was like building an extension cord without making sure we had a socket to put it into. and starting discussions forgetting the afghan government to start discussions with uzbekistan and turkmenistan that led to the energy agreements that were essential to put power through the lines. and getting those things done was a great deal more effort

than conceptualizing what needed to be done. it reminds me, talking about something that my father told me years ago is that as an ambassador unitive finish what you start nor start which he finish. you pick up which her predecessor has done. you build on it. you start things which you do not necessarily finish. it is not a one year report cycle. my greatest disappointment was the inability to convince washington that 2006 was going to be a bloody bad ear. with the -- bloody bad here with the insurgency getting worse. we reported it and predicted it. iraq was sucking up the energy. not wrongly because iraq had its share of problems. we got no traction. the most visible example was

that we had recommended 600 million dollars, which seemed like a big number then, now it seems small, but it seemed like a big number for additional economic assistance to use in a variety of ways. including some of the north that needed stabilization in a combat area. out of that request months of bureaucratic wrangling, at the end of the day we got $43 million. we got less than a nickel on the dollar. much less because almost one quarter of that was not aid for afghanistan, but transfer to make up for the cost of debt rescheduling. for money on the ground we got $32 million out of the $600 million we asked for. it was a manifestation of the fact that we lost a lot of viable time, even when it was

possible to see that we were really going to need it. is a different comparison now. in zal's first tour it was a time when everyone thought the taliban was defeated. there was note neon sign that you had to be done by 2006 because the war would start, but by 2005 we were able to analyze what was happening. and to predict with a great measure of assurance that the insurgency was going to get bad and bloody in the next year. we got absolutely no help to do anything about it. that, certainly, is one of my greatest this appointments. someone asked me later after big budgets came in, how did it feel to have been right. i said, bittersweet. it is nice, but it does not

help. >> you might have gathered from ron's remarks that his father was the ambassador to afghanistan from 1867 to 1973. -- from 1967 to 1973. ryan crocker: we were both engaged in afghanistan after the fall of the taliban. i've reopened the embassy in january of 2002. i could not even land in kabul. the runways were inoperative. we had become men, ford a river go through miles of devastation to get to what was left of the capital. that perspective with a sense that the glass was glass full when i returned subsequently in

an ambassador in 2011. given the absolute nothing with which the country started, the achievements always seemed to me even greater than the obstacles. it left me with a deep sympathy and affinity to the afghan people, generally, and to president karzai in particular. we had our rough innings with him, but given what he went through -- the absolute nothing with which he started and what he was able to oversee, i think history and this country will look at him in a more kindly light. we fast-forward to my time there. the achievements that occurred

on my watch for which i cannot claim credit, but i will, in my career i was blamed for a lot of things that i don't think were my fault. the achievements were to put into place bilateral and international architecture for the long-term security and stability of afghanistan. these things came together fairly quickly in the spring and summer of 2012. this future partnership agreement between afghanistan and the united states that i let the negotiations for. i saw it as a historic moment. we had never had that kind of written alliance, if you will between the united states and afghanistan. president obama flew to afghanistan to sign it with president karzai in the

beginning of may. it seemed to me that we have the bilateral block in place. we went to chicago later in may or the nato summit. what the summit did was to solidify international commitments to the long-term international support for afghan security forces. they are, we were much motivated by what happened in afghanistan after the soviet defeat. the afghan forces literally soldiered on with the soviets gone. they kept on fighting until the money ran out. that is when the state

effectively collapsed and the civil war was on. getting that second block in place was very important. the third came in july of 2012. the tokyo economic ministerial in which the international community stepped up to the economic side of the challenge with $16 million pledged in economic support against afghan undertakings that they develop themselves for steps they would take to ensure that the funds were a good investment. my greatest disappointment was the flipside of this. in which the united states seemed to lose interest in afghanistan. a fundamental truth, whether in

iraq or afghanistan, you do not end a war by withdrawing forces. you simply leave the battlefield to your adversaries. it is not just a failure to fulfill the promise of the partnership, but we are america. where america leads, others follow. that is what we demonstrated in chicago and tokyo. if america does not lead, everyone find something else to do, particularly if it involves money. we are gathered here today, in what i hope and would like to believe is the beginning of a new dawn for afghanistan, the united states, and the international community in the wake of president asraf ghani's positive visit.

from hope to depression. some of us never learn. >> you just mentioned the visit of president ashraf ghani last week. there is much talk in town on the contrast between that visit and our relationship with kh arzi before. we will continue our remarks about how fortunate the united states is to have these two men. in many ways they complement each other. if given the opportunity. let me ask, in this light, at this point in time, how can we assure that these men will succeed?

ronald neumann: i will make one comment. they have to succeed if afghanistan will have a future. together they have a mandate. they have a heck of a mandate together. neither one, despite whi what they believe have a mandate if they separate. their relations are good. they want to make it work. i colleagues will also speak to this. there were a lot of tensions in this relationship. that is inevitable. there are a lot of tensions in the personal relationship and a desperate group of supporters

that are not necessarily loyal lieutenants, but groups hungry for their own share of power. that is a tough act to follow. we should remember that this is still a weak central government. for those of you who have some historical background, in many ways you could compare what you have in afghanistan to the middle ages. a time of state consolidation. it is not about decentralization . it is about having enough authority to control. in this difficult situation, the united states has to play a careful role. it has to maintain its support, military and financial. without that everything falls apart. the second thing is to be willing to help moderate and arbitrate, in some difficult

cases, some of the frictions but not to be in it all the time. not to be responsible for governing afghanistan. not to jump in and take responsibility and tell other people how to run things. at the same time, there will be issues when the prestige make it almost essential to have a third party involved. i do not believe they could it preach the settlement they have without our intervention. that kind of work is what we need diplomats for. it is not the work you can do with a committee in washington. it is an art form. not a science. if it is done well it will not show much. it is an essential piece in hoping them get success.

zalmay khalilzad: generally when we look around the world, the history of unity governments is not a successful one. they generally do not work. on the other hand, i know both of these gentlemen quite well. we came to america together. since high school in other worlds. and the other since the soviet war. i think they have been witnesses to the tragedy of recent afghanistan. not accepting each other.

wanting off oneself. and nothing for the other side. producing great tragedy for afghanistan. they have been witnesses to the recent history. the agreements between them was not easy. prior to the election they both talked about a consensus and the need for consensus on issues. as part of the platform. they needed to accept each other and winner take all would be a disastrous approach for

afghanistan given the complexity of the place. i agree that our road was -- our role was indispensable in helping bring them to agreement. i think the principle of wanting to work together was there. that makes me hopeful. it would not be easy. it would require constant work on the part of the two leaders. they are very committed in my judgment. there are national rivalries. it will require work on the part of the two leaders.

i agree that there has been a qualitative improvement in our relationship with afghanistan and there has been a time, lest we forget, when we had a tremendously positive relationship with president kazai for it went sour. we have to take part of the blame with what happened. and he too. we cannot take it for granted during my time at least that we did not have any problem that we could not work out with president karzai at that time.

his skills were compared to president clinton at one point when he addressed congress. for him to be the successor -- he was lucky and his predecessor in that regard. we cannot take the honeymoon that we are in that it will automatically continue. in require work and we have learned from our experience with president karzai. we have to be careful not to repeat some of the mistakes that called that souring to occur on our part. similarly, for the afghans, one of the things i learned was that when i went back to afghanistan after 30 years i thought the

afghans are anti-foreign and would not want to much america. what i discovered in the course of the first month of my envoy sh -- envoyship, the greatest fear was the fear of abandonment rather than unbalance. at that point, in any case, of being run by or dominated by america. ryan crocker: simply put. it is to be the long-term strategic partner to afghanistan . about which we have an agreement signed by two presidents saying that we well. -- we will. he is right about talking about

a fear of abandonment. the run-up to the visit we heard this over and over and over. a fear that we were going to leave afghanistan alone with the prospect that it would not fare much better without us than it did without us in the first half of the 1990's. that is fundamental. we do need to learn how to manage that relationship particularly with the two principal leaders. they rely greatly on the u.s.. both bilaterally and a leader in the international community. they are also profoundly afghan nationalists, as is president karzai.

we have to respect that. that is not an impossible challenge for diplomacy. although sometimes, we fail at it. it is knowing when we need to be in gauged, and how to be engaged. again we have good and bad examples. since 2001 of what to do and what not to do. i would agree with my friends that it is rather unlikely that afghanistan would be where it is today without our intervention postelection to help broker an agreement that each side could live with. we'll have to be attentive to the tensions inherent in that relationship, and other tensions and contradictions throughout afghan society. in particular, while president

ghani and dr. abdullah can work together and engaged together, that is probably less true as you go down the line in their respective camps. we will have to be alert to that. fundamentally, we have to be clear. we are in this relationship for the long run. without it this in typical forces will take over -- the centrifugal forces will take over. this is particularly important in pakistan. i served on both sides of the drawn line. and the greater middle east to account for my presence somehow. so i folded them in.

when things are going badly and fingers are pointing at us blame the british. [laughter] for the pakistanis to understand, this is not going to be 1990 all over again where they go from being the most allied of allies to the most sanctioned of enemies overnight. they did the confidence that we are a long-term strategic factor on their border and in their country. that is if we want them to stop hedging their bets. i take from the remarks that all three of you agree that neither we nor the afghans have a plan b. that we have this one opportunity.

i think that also detect especially from things you have said before, that the three view question the plan to have an exit of military forces by the end of 2016. the president, at the moment has been flexible with respect to the troop withdrawal in 2015. he has stood firmly on the exit in 2016. what will it take for him to change his mind as you see it? how likely do you think that is? and with what consequences? zalmay khalilzad: i think afghanistan has been lucky to a degree because of the experience in iraq.

and also the rise of isis or isil. in the sense that we have had an experiment almost, in the case of iraq that both ryan and i served in. and you too. yes, of course. i forgot you came from iraq afghanistan. that our totaled apart your forces and having the cooperation of the embassy follow a series of developments was not good for iraq, us, or the region.

it was a polarizing effect in iraq by regional rivals trying to fill in the vacuum created by our departure. add to that the unraveling of syria. now, we have to go back to get involved in the fight against isis and send people back in. i believe that afghanistan, with the investment we have made and the building of the security forces, and the commitment that has been made in chicago to the afghan security forces, and with the president, that is a success in my view. if you can go from 120,000 to a

force of 5000 or 10,000 -- and work with the environment and the afghans so that they can truly manage their security problems, that is a marvelous success in my view. sure, i would like for it to be done in five or 10 years, but i can tell you stories as we started slow on building the security forces initially. we only wanted the forces that the afghans could afford. and given what ryan discussed and i discovered, that afghan could hardly afford anything. i remember being told repeatedly, get your hands off the bike and let the afghans

take care of it. i said, where is the bike? i will be happy to get my hands off of it. there was her the anything at the time. there was an enormous uncertainty in the environment on terrorism, on what happened. the afghans would like us to maintain a force. it is not popular in that region to have forces there. to have afghanistan related interests. terrorism related interests. broader regional interests that justify maintaining a residual force beyond 2016. whether the president will change his mind on this issue there is an indication he is willing to have a conversation about it. i think a conversation was had during this visit.

i think he had political imperatives or not appearing that he would easily change his mind. he is probably thinking at this point, to get something from the afghans that they will deliver on their part on the unity front and some of the reforms that they have committed to. i believe, i cannot predict, i think the political requirements are a national interest in my judgment and required to maintain a residual force in the case of -- as the case of iraq has demonstrated. that is my judgment. ryan crocker: anyone looking for controversy among us is not winding it. i would agree completely with my

colleagues. iraq has instructed in a dramatic and sad way what happens when you say you are running a war, but conceding a battlefield. our disengagement, as indicated earlier from afghanistan and pakistan after the soviet defeat is instructive. we can look at iraq for a parallel. you find the example in afghanistan decades earlier. as they have said this is our vital national interest. there's something else in the argument from a calendar-based timetable to a conditions-based timetable, as i have long argued

needed to be in iraq and afghanistan. this is the intersection of american interests and american values. we are unique among major states and as a nation founded on values that we interweave them with our policies. it is very difficult at times, as we know. we are seeing some of that that occurs around the world. iran cited the newest greatest generation afghanistan. the afghans that have come of age post-taliban exemplified by the graduates of the american university in afghanistan. they are like no other generation that afghanistan has produced. open to the world. plugged in. wired up.

a think in terms dramatically different from their parents. they are the long-term guarantee for security and stability in afghanistan. they have to have the chance to solidify their presence and influence. women in afghanistan and sometimes it seems that we are trying to have it both ways, we urge women to step forward. we supported them as they did so. now, or at least up until president ghani's visit is as though we were saying to them goodbye and good luck. the luck would not be very good if we decided that we were done and whatever happens is not our problem. in addition to the security ramifications that we have all

addressed there are fundamental issues about who we are as a nation and the people. are we going to let the young people that we encouraged the girls and women in afghanistan that we have encouraged take it in the neck, quite literally, by pulling out prematurely and letting things unfold as they may. he saw the episode recently. it is not just the taliban. there are pretty dark forces that permeate afghan society. they are moving in the right direction, but they will need us for some time to come to ensure that they do not backslide or, part in a way that threatens our security and calls into question what values we really hold us americans. we will be judged by this.

ronald neumann: i agree with my colleague so i will try not to say the same things. ryan's point about the moral implications is very important. president obama in the last six months has made a number of incremental decisions that i would call positive and correct in terms of slightly extending the timeline for forces, allowing air support for afghans , and extending not largely but extending the time for diplomacy. in my judgment, those are very correct decisions. the way we are making them robs them of much of the psychological value. we have all made the point about the need for america to remain a long-term partner.

a piece of that, a big piece of that, is the afghan a regional belief that that is so. the incremental way in which we are approaching policy continually undercuts the police -- undercuts the belief that we are there for the long haul. we will continue support for afghanistan, but we will do it in such incremental fashion that we will never get the political value of those decisions with either the afghan people or the insurgency. it is not the nature of the decision by the way they are made which is important. i subscribe to the notion that we do not have the ability to end the war. we have never been about ending it. just pulling out our forces leaving a nasty war to someone else. i wish we would be honest about it.

what are we planning to do about nato? nato does not have a time limit per se but it cannot stay without us. it will not, and cannot, make any decisions without our decisions being made first. this ought to be a no-brainer. even in a combat role we said we would leave the military in afghanistan in a training mission at the in the sea. if we are training we probably want other people helping us train. nato is the logical vehicle. there will be an assistance requirement for afghanistan if we are going to be doing assistance we will want help. if other countries have troops involved a will be more inclined to make assistance commitments. we ought to be focusing very hard and extending, to some degree, the nato mandate beyond 2016 however we constitute our

part so we do not fall off the edge of the cliff. nato is 26 nations. steering a supertanker is easy compared to getting quick adjustments with 26 nations. we are contemplating her own future, we need to speak on nato policy. thank you. marvin: we want to leave time for questions from the audience. and want to pose one must question for the panel. how do you view the prospects an agreement with the taliban. what priority should the united states give to the strategy of finding terms of what we can hope the afghan government and the taliban can agree on?

in the course of your remarks if you could indicate where you think pakistan figures in this please do. ron? ronald neumann: i will try to keep this short. i know my colleagues will have something to say. i agree the political solution is highly desirable. i think we should stop saying there is no possibility for a military solution you could lose. i think it is important for americans to understand that a political solution comes when everyone decides they cannot win . it does not come by running around with your tongue hanging out chasing a political solution, which suggests desperation. we have almost nothing with which to negotiate anymore except we could betray the afghan government and leave them on their own.

negotiations are not our real business. they are the business of the afghan government. we should support them but not try to be in front of them. secondly the biggest support we can get to negotiations is the belief we will continue our support so the afghan government and military will not lose. they don't have to be able to win, they have to be able to not lose. i will stop there. i believe in this and think it is a long-term solution. i think when you look at other conflicts ended by the negotiations you have to look at a very long-term proposition in which you should expect that the fighting will get worse as you begin negotiations as people seek to improve their positions on the battlefield. supporting negotiations dean's supporting a long-term help to afghanistan financially and militarily.

accepting that negotiations will have to pass through. we will have to pass through a time of intense as -- intensified combat if we are to get there at all. zalmay khalilzad: i mentioned before in regard to unity government, we tend to start wars with great fanfare and commitment and enthusiasm, and we do not end them well in recent times. on the specific issue of reconciliation i know the new government in afghanistan is trying very hard, and made a number of adjustments

unilaterally to encourage reconciliation. a peace process and agreement. they have intensified engagement with pakistan, recognizing that pakistan plays a vital role in facilitating and helping or hindering such a project. they have moved against elements in pakistan so that there would be no reason for pakistan not to help. they have sent some troops to be trained in pakistan, which is not popular in afghanistan given the history of the relationship. they have -- frozen military

assistance from india. saying let's take another look at this and wait. it does intensify relations in china because of wanting to impact pakistan, recognizing that pakistan-chinese relationships are important for pakistan. having china involved in afghanistan is seen by the leadership as indicating to pakistan that their fear of india being so involved is balanced now by wanting their friend the chinese involved also. saudi arabia is another country that has been in relations in part because of the impact that that could have or they would like it to have, on reconciliation and relations in pakistan.

on the negative side of the ledger, in my judgment, the uncertainty about the long-term u.s. commitment to afghanistan. already there is a dramatic reduction in the force presence. i think, probably, some in the taliban leadership the military wing are assessing the forces now that they are largely on their own without the u.s. help. if there is a belief that beyond 2016 there will be none, that may encourage them to wait and see what the balance of forces of power would be after the coming fighting season and even after 2016.

that is one issue. i believe the government recognizes that they need to prepare and push for both engagement relatively quickly. it is with some disappointment that the meetings they expected to see happen with representatives or the leadership of the taliban have not occurred. with all of measures and steps taken, perhaps a meeting would of happened by now. at the same time, they need to prepare for and intensified fight for the coming season and push simultaneously for reconciliation. with all of the elements that i described, my own judgment is that in the near term, prospects or not -- prospects are not very

promising because of the uncertainty in regards to the u.s. in the longer term and the desire to test the forces without that much help internationally. maybe opportunities for the government with elements because the taliban is quite fragmented and diverse. perhaps, more opportunities in that domain in the near term. that and a comprehensive settlement. even if a meeting occurs, i think it will be a process. a time of fighting and meeting if a meeting has occur. ryan crocker: i think everything we are saying has been said by my colleagues, but that will not stop me from saying it again. two critical elements were noted

. as ron said, this ultimately has to be an afghan matter. a peaceful future in afghanistan is not going to be negotiated by the united states. it has to be done by afghans. we have got to persuade both allies and adversaries, as well as those on the fence, that we are in this for the long run. we have many great qualities has americans, but we have a few shortcomings. one of those is a lack of what i call strategic patience. we are good at going in with drums and vehicles at the start of the campaign, and when it gets hard, costly, and is taken way too long, meaning it is not

over a week from friday, we start finding other things we want to do. what is happened in the greater middle east over years of this, this is something our allies fear in us and our adversaries count on. our greatest contribution to negotiations is not being a part of it, it is demonstrating to friend and foe alike, at this time we are in it for the long run. that is the only way the calculus in pakistan and among the taliban is going to change in a way that would make a negotiation first possible and ultimately successful. there is something we can do, if and when syria's talks are held. that is to ensure the afghan government understands the importance of involving women in the negotiating process.

i talked about this before. what happens to women in afghanistan in the long run is very much in concern. in employment opportunities, it can be measured in lives. if we want to facilitate and foster a solid negotiation, and ultimately the prospect of a solid agreement, the other half of the afghan population has got to be an integral and key part of this process. president obama: good morning everybody. it is wonderful to be in the beautiful state of utah. and i want to thank the general and the kernel and everyone here at the air force base. one of the most outstanding facilities that we have. every single day, nor work -- your work kids are air force

ready to meet the many threats that are out there. threads like iso- -- isil, the work we are doing in iraq. you support our troops, our humanitarian missions around the world, and you keep the american people safe. to all of our folks in uniform and the civilian to support them, i want to say thank you. i think -- the american people want you to know how much they appreciated. i just had an opportunity to take a look at these solar installations you have here on the base. the mayor doing outstanding work and leaders in the solar industry, as well as our community college system. we are talking about salt lake city's commitment to renewable energy, its impact on jobs, business, and its impact on the

environment and climate change. since i took office, solar electricity has gone up 20 fold. and our investment in renewable energy and energy efficient to have not just helps to cut carbon pollution, they have made us more energy independent and they have helped us create a steady stream of high wage middle-class jobs. this morning, we learned that our business created another 129,000 new jobs in march. that adds up to 3 million jobs over the past year. more than 12 million new jobs over the past five years. that is the longest stretch of private sector job creation on record. but we have to be relentless in our work to grow the economy and create good jobs. parts of the globe have seen their economies weaken. europe has had a weaker economy. asia has been slowing down. we have had this trunk is the economy, but -- the strongest

economy, but we are impacted by what happens around the world. and that is why we have to redouble our efforts to make sure that we are taking the steps that are needed for us to be successful. i think everybody here understands that one of the most important aspects of national security is strong economic security. we can maintain the best military that the world has ever known unless we also have an economy. a lot of our men and women in uniform at some point are going to transition into civilian life, and we want to make sure that after they fought for our freedoms, they have jobs to come home to. that means working together, not only the private sector has to work, but government has to work to to take the steps -- to take the steps that we know will grow our economy. i am hoping we can get some things done this share. rebuilding our infrastructure all across our country.

those are jobs that can't be exported. and it makes us competitive over the long-term because businesses are going to locate where the have top-notch infrastructure. investing in education and job training to boost growth right here in the united states because again, businesses will locate where they have got a trained workforce. making sure that we are passing trade promotion authority. orrin hatch is working very hard on that. utah is one of the leading exporting states in the country. part of the reason the state has been so successful. we are very grateful that senator hatch is working with senator wyden to make sure that we can get that deal done. and what i am doing here today is to highlight the fact that the solar industry is actually adding jobs 10 times faster than the rest of the economy. they are paying good jobs, they

are helping folks enter into the middle class. and today, you are going to try and build on the progress that has already been made. i am announcing a new goal to train 75,000 workers to enter the solar industry by 2020. we are creating what we call a solar ready program that is modeled after some successful pilot initiatives that have already been established over the last several years. it is going to train transitioning military personnel for careers in this growing industry. at 10 basis, including right here at hill. as part of this effort, we are also going to work with states and war veterans to use the g.i. bill for solar training. as one of the many steps we are taking to help military members and buses get a job. about 30% of the federal workforce is now made up of veterans. i have said it before, i think

employers are starting to catch on. if you want to get the job done, hire a veteran. hill is leading by example. they are getting maybe 20% of their energy through renewable energy sources. dod, the department of defense our military across the board is becoming more and more efficient because that saves money. and it means that we've got more money for personal, raining, equipment, to make sure -- training equipment, to make sure our forces have what they need to get the job done. and it is going to provide are numerous prospects for jobs and careers for a whole lot of folks out there if we continue to make this investment. so we have to lead by example, invest in the future. train our workers for good, new jobs. that is how we are going to keep our economy going and that is

how we are going to create new jobs and new opportunities for the american people. as a byproduct of that, we will make this country safer. and we will make the planet more secure. with a going to make sure that the environment we are passing on and incredible beauty of these remarkable states are passed onto future generations as well. thank you to all of you for the great work you are doing. and thank you to the state of utah for your wonderful hospitality. i was telling the governor yesterday, as we were writing from the airport, that i'm going to make sure i come back next time where i don't have to do so much work and i can visit some of these amazing national parks here and have a chance to visit with some of the wonderful people here in the great state of utah. thank you very much, everybody. [applause]

[indistinct chatter] [indistinct chatter]

[applause] >> president obama live in utah yesterday. he was greeted in salt lake city by senators orrin hatch and mike lee. he is heading back to the white house shortly. this is his first visit to utah as president. that leaves him one state short of touching down in all 50 states while in office. the only state he has not yet been to is south dakota. as "the hill" new sport reports he visited mount rushmore when he was on the campaign trail in 2008. speaking on the economy today after the labor department released the jobs report for march, 126,000 jobs added last month. that is the fewest since december 2013. and the employment rate remaining at five point send -- unemployment rate remaining at 5.5%.

you can see more on our website c-span.org. and later tonight here on c-span, bill clinton moderating a discussion. on a health summit with many young entrepreneurs. all part of the annual clinton foundation health summit. you can watch that tonight at 8:00 eastern time. >> here are some of our featured programs for this holiday weekend on the c-span networks. on c-span, saturday at 8:00 p.m. eastern, former texas state senator wendy davis on the challenges facing women in politics. and easter sunday at 6:30 p.m. eastern, golfing legend jack nicholas receives the congressional gold medal for his country visions to the game and community service. on ""booktv -- "booktv," activist and author cornel west

on the radical and political thinking of martin luther king junior. and saturday at noon, a live three-hour conversation with a -- ronald kessler. he has written 20 books, including "escape embassy at a." -- "escape from the cia." and on lectures in history professor charles calhoun on the obstacles faced and a compass meant -- compliments made by ulysses s. grant during his presidency. and saturday at 6:00, a to her of appomattox courthouse in virginia. the site of the confederate surrender. >> the chair of the house homeland security committee talked about cyber security threats, recent attacks on u.s. companies, and with the government's role is in securing cyberspace.

he also outlined new cyber security legislation. the hour-long talk to place in washington dc. -- took place in washington dc. [indistinct chatter] host: good morning. i will be hosting this event. we are very fortunate today to have an old friend of the family and a real expert, chairman of the house, michael mccaul. in 2007, a couple of us had the idea that maybe we should do a report on cyber security. we have been talking to some people who said that there are some people on the hill that we really need to talk to. he has been concerned with this

and an expert in the field for years and years. eight years, maybe a little bit more which is longer than almost everyone else in washington. a true leader in the field. this is his sixth term. i don't know how he does it. running for election every two years. he was a former prosecutor, did counterterrorism , and is a fourth-generation texan. is that really true? chairman mccaul: yes. mr. lewis: he is one of the true experts in the field and we are grateful he took the time to come and talk. the format will be chairman mccaul will make remarks, and then we will go to questions and answers, which hopefully everyone in the room will be energized about. with that, thank you. [applause] chairman mccaul: thanks, jim.

for whoever the next president of the united states is going to be, i'm going to talk about the president's proposal on cyber and what is happening in the congress in response to that. i'm glad he is providing leadership on that. you said an old friend, i know that my hair is getting w hiter, but we do go way back. i remember, you know, when i was at the department of justice here in washington. when i was working as the attorney general, i had the idea in 2001 of doing a summit on terrorism and cyber security and a guy named dick clark was going to be my keynote speaker. the date of the event was september 12, 2001. but we ended up rescheduling that.

by way of background, how her back on this issue the former , director of nsa, a very good friend of mine, over time, and we have come a long ways. it is to the point where this issue finally has the attention of the american people and the congress. i formed the cyber security caucus to get the attention of members and educate them on this issue because it is so important out there. i do want to thank jim and the -- and denise for your latest report on cyber security. that is a job well done, as always done by csis. i don't normally do text, but in this case it is recommended that i do that. and then i will open it up to the questions and answers. which i always find very -- i enjoy having a wide discussion

and dialogue. as a nation, we are finally beginning to grasp the magnitude of the cyber challenges we face, and particularly as they start to hit home with millions of americans. last month, our country sector ond largest health care -- our country's largest health second care provider, anthem announced it was a victim of cyber intrusion. the attackers gained access to a database containing sensitive records of 80 million individuals, including names birth dates, and social security numbers. nearly one in four americans may have been compromised by that attack. this is a wake-up call that are cyber adversaries have the upper hand and the consequences will get worse if we fail to reverse the tide. today i want to discuss three issues with you. including the scope of the cyber threat our nation faces, the government's cyber defense role particularly the department of

homeland security and how we have been enhancing it, and finally some of my legislative goals this year to defend american cyberspace against destructive attacks and costly intrusions. first, we must recognize that a silent war is being waged against us in cyberspace. and that we are losing ground to our adversaries. the cyber landscape has shifted quickly. at the dawn of the digital age our nation saw endless opportunities to generate prosperity but expanding our networks and connecting to the world. but today, american prosperity depends on much as defending those networks as it does on expanding them. we cannot tolerate accept cyber vandalism, cyber theft, and cyber warfare especially when they put our nation's critical infrastructure and secrets at risk. and when they compromise american innovation.

yet are cyber defenses have proven week -- weak in the face of agile enemies. as i speak, government computer systems are being hacked proprietary data is being stolen from american companies, and the computers of private citizens are being compromised. and most of it is being done with impunity. criminals, activists, and nationstates have managed to exploit networks by staying at the cutting edge of technology. in the meantime, our defenses have liked behind. these intruders change their tactics and escape justice by masking their identities. usually they are operating beyond the reach of u.s. authorities. china, north korea, iran, and russia are among the most advanced of our cyber adversaries, but even terrorist groups like isis are working to develop or acquire disruptive cyber attack capabilities. it is obvious these threats are escalating in sophistication and destructive potential.

we are confronting almost daily frightening new precedents including nationstates launching cyber attacks on our own soil. this happened at least twice in the past year. the director of national intelligence, james crawford recently revealed iran was behind a devastating 2014 cyber attack on las vegas sands corporation, the world's largest gambling company. nine months later, north korea more famously used a digital bomb to destroy computer systems at sony pictures -- an attack that was not only destructive but a cowardly attempt to intimidate americans and stifle freedom of speech. the impact of cyber intrusions are felt across america, from kitchen tables to corporate boardrooms. the recent breach at anthem illustrates how easy it is for ordinary americans to become

attack victims. this followed intrusions and -- at target, and even jpmorgan. all of which were designed to steal the personal information of private citizens. but our cyber adversaries are not just seeking to steal american identities, they want our security secrets and our innovative ideas. we were reminded of this over the weekend when the state department was forced to shut down large portions of a computer system in an attempt to expel hackers who invaded our diplomatic networks. they are believed to be tied to a foreign country. digital espionage extends into the business world. we know that chinese hackers continue to breach corporate networks to give their own companies a global advantage in the economy. in states like iran, they have targeted major u.s. banks to shut down websites and restrict

americans' ability to access their bank accounts. make no mistake, such attacks are costing americans their time, money, and jobs. keith alexander, the former director of the national security agency, describe cyber -- described cyber espionage and loss of american intellectual property as "the greatest transfer of wealth in human history." but the threat extends beyond the industrial engine that drives our economy, to the critical infrastructure that supports our way of life. our adversaries are hard at work refining cyber capabilities that can shut down critical infrastructure, and they want to use these tools to threaten our leaders and intimidate our people in both times of peace and times of conflict. a major cyber attack on our gas pipelines or power grid, for instance, could cripple our economy and weaken our ability to defend the united states.

these scenarios sometimes sound alarmist, but we must take them seriously because they grow more realistic every day. in fact, we saw a preview of this in 2012 , when iranian-backed hackers hit saudi arabia's national oil company destroying 30,000 hard drives. simultaneously hitting our financial sector in the same year. in fact, iran is attempting to penetrate and infiltrate our financial sector every day. to combat these threats and live up to our obligations to provide for the common defense, our government must secure cyberspace. we cannot leave the american people and our companies to fend for themselves. the digital frontier is still very much like the wild west. at this moment, there are far more cyber outlaws then convicted cyber criminals, a clear sign we have a lot of

catching up to do. we are in uncharted territory. not since the dawn of the nuclear era have we witnessed such a leap in technology without a clear strategy for managing it. to establish order and defend americans interest in the digital domain, we must map out the rules of the road and clarify responsibilities inside and outside the government. we are not quite there yet. i would argue we are at a pre-9/11 moment when it comes to cyber security. in the same way that legal barriers and turf wars kept us from connecting the dots before the 9/11 attacks, cyber threat -- the lack of cyber threat information sharing and the lack of it is leaving us vulnerable to enemies. between the government and private sector, we have the information needed to limit cyber threats and stop fresh attacks. but we are not sharing that

information. critical information is not disclosed efficiently enough to stop cyber intrusions before they start or to shut them down once they happen. the danger of poor information sharing is really not a hypothetical, it is real. this month, the head of the u.s. cyber command, admiral mike rogers, warned congress that our adversaries may be leaving cyber fingerprints on our critical infrastructure to signal their ability to attack our homeland. he believes that before he retires, we are likely to see a destructive cyber attack against critical infrastructure. if we are not swapping information about these threats, their impact is guaranteed to be more widespread and more severe. but the reality is that 85% of the critical infrastructure and the threat information is in the

hands of the private sector. because of this, collaboration between the government and industry is vital to homeland security. admiral rodgers had it right when he said cyber security is the ultimate team sport. no single entity in the government or private sector can tackle these threats independently. each stakeholder must have skin in the game to prevail against attackers. this is where the unique mission of the department of homeland security comes into play. dhs serves as the primary civilian interface for sharing cyber threat information, and for good reason. dhs was created to stop terrorist attacks after 9/11 by connecting the dots and is well positioned to do the same to stop cyber attacks. the department's key tool in the national cyber security and communication's integration center is quickly becoming the

tip of the spear for cyber threat information sharing between the government and private industry. last year alone, dhs estimated it received nearly 100,000 cyber incident reports, detected 64,000 major vulnerabilities issued nearly 12,000 alerts or warnings, and responded to 115 major cyber incidents. we cannot measure its effectiveness in numbers alone. it actually improved and increased information sharing, and it needs to be a trusted partner to the private sector. its job in doing this is made easier by virtue of the fact it is not a cyber regulator. they cannot prosecute you, and it is not a spy agency. it is a civilian interface. accordingly, it has no authority to do anything more with the

information it receives other than use it to prevent and respond to cyber attacks and enhance our cyber posture. during the last congress, i led efforts to strengthen the cyber security foundations, including landmark legislation authorizing information sharing. we managed to get five cyber security bills passed into law for the first time in the history of congress. this is now a starting point for our efforts in this congress. importantly, we passed legislation supported by both industry and advocates for privacy and civil liberties. it was called a pro-security and pro-privacy bill. very few bills in congress where we can say that. first we established a federal civilian interface to facilitate information sharing across 16 critical infrastructure sectors

and with the private sector. second, we lay down the rules of -- laid down the rules of the road regarding how information is shared. third, we are sure to americans' rights and personal information will be protected. fourth, recognizing human capital will ultimately determine our ability to succeed. we position dhs to improve its cyber workforce. and fifth, we enhanced the department's ability to prevent respond to, and recover from cyber incidents on federal networks. this brings me to my cyber agenda for this year. we have made a lot of progress in 2014, but we still need to remove obstacles to information sharing while protecting the privacy interests of americans. right now, the lack of liability protection for the private sector is a problem. companies are hesitant to share information about cyber threats and intrusions that take place in their networks.

they fear that doing so could put their customers' privacy at risk, expose sensitive as this -- sensitive business information, or even violate federal law and the duty they as a result, the vast majority of cyber attacks go unreported leaving others vulnerable to the same intrusions. this is an urgent problem that needs to be solved now. the bottom line is clear -- if no one cares, everybody is at -- if no one shares, everyone is at risk. distributing threat information she not be punished. it should be encouraged. which is why we need to create legal safe harbors for companies to be about to exchange threat information without fear of being sued. moreover, better information sharing improves industry to safeguard our personal data by allowing them to keep the prying eyes of hackers outside of our digital health records and bank

accounts. i'm pleased to announce we are aiming to resolve and strengthen our cybersecurity foundations further. this week, i'm releasing the draft of the new bill that would further enhance the role as the primary federal-civilian interface for the sharing of cyber threat information to enable timely, actionable, and operational efforts between the federal government and the private sector. this draft bill would give protections for the volunteer exchange of cyber threat information, including government to private and private to private sharing. if a major bank calls -- falls victim to a major cyber intrusion, it would not be held back of sharing details of the attack with either the government or other banks and businesses. as long as the sharing is done through appropriate channels and does not compromise the private information of customers and

citizens. moreover, the draft bill would give liability protections for companies to monitor their own information system and use defensive measures to prevent intrusions. in the current environment companies do not feel they have adequate legal protection to take these measures. we are not incentivizing to be a full participant in the safe harbor and ncic. right now, i am working with the house judiciary committee on crafting a liability exemption standard that addresses these issues and will be used in other cyber information sharing legislation in the house. with this legislation, i also plan to continue our laser-like focus on privacy protections so information sharing can be done without risking exposure of personal data. my draft bill would ensure when information about a breach

changes hands, whether it is provided to the government were or exchanged between companies that it is thoroughly scrubbed for personal information so americans do not have their sensitive data exposed. it would also require them to destroy any personal information that is unrelated to cybersecurity risks or incidents. and i take that issue very seriously. fortunately, d.h.s. has some of the strongest privacy protection mechanisms in the federal government. it has established the first privacy office. such built-in privacy oversight is an important reason why d.h.s. is the leading civilian interface for these exchanges. privacy advocates have already endorsed the role as an information sharing portal. the changes made by this draft bill will increase what we know

about digital threats and enhance american security. today we have a dangerous , incomplete picture for the cyber weapons being used against us. more rapid and frequent information sharing about these threats will give us the ability to head off cyber adversaries before they can do more damage both to the public and to private networks. the president has proposed steps to enhance liability protection, and i was pleased he did so because it moves the debate and the discussion forward on both sides of the aisle. i would submit that it does not go far enough on liability protection, which is why our bill aims to create a more robust liability protection piece. the committee on homeland security will mark up this hill -- bill in the next few weeks.

in the meantime, we will continue meeting with industry and private groups, as we always have, to ensure we are getting this right and crafting the best solutions possible to combat the surge in cyberthreats we are all witnessing. our plan is to take this legislation to the floor of the house by next month. when we do so, we will be forward-leaning and reaching across. -- reaching across the to get it passed. this will be landmark. this will create how we deal with cybersecurity for the next decade. and now is the moment to take action. these threats are not just looming on the horizon, they are not hypothetical. they are real. they are already inside of our networks and they're putting security and prosperity in peril. safeguarding the digital frontier is one of the leading national security challenges of our time, and our generation will not back down from that challenge. it is clear we have been losing ground against our adversaries in cyberspace. but better cyber threat

information sharing will help us turn the tide and defend our networks against instructive -- against destructive intrusions. thank you very much for having me. i appreciate it. [applause] host: i will say a couple of years ago that chairman mccaul told me he was going to pass cyber legislation, he was going to pass multiple bills. at the time this was the start and i thought, that would be a good trick. but he delivered. when he says he has a new bill, i would probably bet on this one. i do not bet the last time. with that, i have loads of questions. we will start with the audience. one in the back? go ahead. >> good morning, i'm a retired navy captain. i'm glad to see you guys wearing green ties for st. patrick's day.

i'm glad i'm not the only one. my question is, how do we combat insider attacks, which seems to be one of the biggest problems we are facing? there are all these outside guys , but there are all these insiders. and with the u.s. being a global company and business and so forth, there is a lot of openings for that kind of attack. chairman mccaul: it's very hard. we are being infiltrated not only in cyberspace itself, but also human capital. human capital intrusions. that is a matter more than human security measures, to ensure through clearances and things like that that we have properly vetted individuals to our -- who are participating in this process. but it is an issue that i think is open to -- i mean, we are vulnerable in that regard, just like any spy who can penetrate any federal agency in the physical realm, they can also do

it in cyberspace. in our bill that we passed last congress, we called for more clearances. we heard that complaint over and over, that we need to issue more clearances. i would argue that the information we are giving is kind of like when i worked with the joint terrorism task force. we had terrorist threat information, we do not give the sources and methods, just the threat information. the same is true here. we are not giving sources and methods, but the actual malicious codes themselves. if you've seen them, it is just ones and zeros. that is why the privacy piece is so important. it does not share the private information. the filtration by human spies is -- human spy elements is very real and you cannot be totally secure from that. host: we have multiple questions. let's get the ones in the front. >> i've been in the cyber realm

almost three decades now, and looking at homeland security and recruitment, you look at workplace retention and satisfaction scores. in terms of getting people to join homeland security and dod any agency, what you recommend in terms of changes to recruitment policies and strategies? chairman mccaul: the bill that we passed enhances the workplace, being able to hire and retain more highly credentialed individuals. i would argue within d.h.s., this is the most innovative, most vibrant office within the department of homeland security. if any of you have been over to ncic, over the last five years their capabilities have really stood up.

the head of that and the undersecretary both came from mcafee. they bring extraordinary experience. we have a partnership with any -- with n.s.a. with a detailed program where they can learn their expertise. with the legislation that we passed last congress on enhancing the workplace there, we are going to get more and more talent. the problem is keeping them. i remember i went to work for the justice department because i wanted to check that box and move on to something else, and that is what i did, but you have to recognize it's a great place to gain great experience, but we also want the more experienced people coming over there. you cannot keep them forever. it's hard. even the n.s.a. has a hard time keeping good workers because the private sector is so attractive

. it's one of the most lucrative fields out there. cybersecurity. that will always be a challenge. i will tell you of the last five years, they really have well credentialed individuals. anybody watching this podcast, i would encourage them to look at -- look into working with the department of homeland security. we have several portals, and this is going to be the primary civilian interface with the private sector. the future of the ncic and dhs and legislatively, too, because it has been authorized, it's a bright future for the department of homeland security. host: that is actually the fourth question all my list. -- on my list.

we have four more in the audience we will take in sequence. >> my question is, as your team drafted this bill, consideration that it will be legislated, what consideration has been given to include other countries who are probably considering legislation to support information sharing? and if you could talk about that in the context of u.s. multinationals that also have footprints in those countries and is there any consideration for reciprocity if countries ask for information sharing on your people here? chairman mccaul: that is a great question. i'm really glad that you brought this up. i think the rest of the world is watching the united states right now to see what we do. the other countries are not as far along with legislation as

the united states. as i mentioned, what we do this year will change cyber for the next decade. it also has an impact locally -- globally because the other nations are watching to see how we are crafting this. it will be a model i think for the rest of the world. and they will take what we do and try to apply it in their own countries, and there is an opportunity for an exchange of information. our view is within the civilian interface, there are several threat streams of information. you have the intelligence community, the department of homeland security, and the fbi all funneled through the civilian interface. i think that is a model that will play well, and i think the rest of the world will appreciate that model, particularly post-snowden. i find that the high tech companies prefer the civilian interface because they do not

want when they do international business, they don't want the idea that the n.s.a. is in their networks. it is important for them to have a civilian interface. if somebody wants to voluntarily work with the n.s.a. to get information, you will see legislation providing for that. so we will have that portal and the d.h.s. portal, depending on which portal that you prefer. but again, talking to the tech companies that i deal with, they would prefer to the civilian with the privacy protections when they do international business. but that's a great point to make, this will impact the rest of the world. not to get into all the other -- i am on the foreign affairs committee, too, but after sony that raised so many issues about proportional response, what is an active cyber or fair to -- cyber warfare. those questions are still unanswered today. that is something we are going to work on, legislation to

greater define when you have a nationstate attack, like in the case of sony, which is north korea, when you have a nationstate, what is the proportional response. host: thank you. >> chairman mccaul, thank you for your comments. in d.h.s. today, you have an undersecretary, general taylor who is probably the most knowledgeable and understanding individual relative to information sharing, and with his time at dhs, with his time at the state department, the overseas security advisory council and the private today, . how does he handle this with a staff of 300 people? he cannot process the information that he needs. the f.b.i. has 10,000 analysts

he has 300. it seems he is a much larger task in front of him but does not have the resources necessary to accomplish it. what can you do to help them make that happen? chairman mccaul: frank taylor is doing a fantastic job. the challenge for intelligence and analysis is not to compete with the intelligence community and duplicate efforts, but rather provide a unique product that dhs can provide primarily through intelligence that we get through overseas t.s.a. screening at airports and customs and border patrol and secret service. that intelligence can create a unique intelligence product. you start trying to compete with the c.i.a. you will get , destroyed. you will lose that competition. in times past, that was the failure of d.h.s. i think frank taylor is taking this to an innovative, new place. to answer your question, i think the white house has proposed sort of an intelligence sort of

a melting pot, if you will, of information, similar to the national counterterrorism center, but it would be for cyber threat information. that could greatly enhance d.h.s.'s capability and general taylor's office by providing this other into the back can -- entity that can synthesize this information and feed it to d.h.s. to be shared. one important point that was not in my remarks as the real-time sharing is absolutely vital. if we cannot do it in real time, it's worthless. you have to stay ahead of the threat curve, and if you cannot you will lose in this game because the threat is always evolving. real-time sharing, we are looking at machine to machine. we're trying to take out human error as much as we can so this is really sharing machine to machine in real-time. host: we will sweep across the room. let's start over here.

>> i'm from the council of scientific study presidents. -- scientific society presidents. we have a long-term view of how we look at the world and far into the future. you are writing a bill that you say will essentially be the holder of the places we are going for the next decade. i think one of the most important things that we have to focus on are the personnel who will be doing this kind of job over the next decade. they will not be the people who are trained as computer software engineers. they will be people who can think ahead many generations of thinking and jump to the areas where problems are not currently seen. connect the dots that are not quite there yet. find them and put them together. there may be 10, 15 centers in the united states that have that capability, but they do not have any support to do it. is that possible to put into your legislative thinking? chairman mccaul: yeah, i mean, again, we had a bill to enhance

the talent in the work place last congress. that is an interesting point. right now the discussion will go around. that is something we will take a look at. i agree with you that you need creative talent, innovative talent that can think outside of the box on this one. because the threat is ever-evolving, and it's not just the classic software guy although that you need that. you also need the critical analytical thinker to put in there who can look outside the box for solutions. if there is ever an area where that is really needed, it's this one. so i take your point very well. host: while we are waiting someone asked me about proportional response. to north korea. they said how about we close down a north korean movie

company. i replied that people would probably be grateful. [laughter] >> thank you for your time. for many of our d.o.d. customers that we serve, one of their biggest challenges is situational awareness and one that is understandable all the way from the basic 18-year-old soldier straight out of tech school through advanced defenders. what investment are we making? you mentioned some portals. what efforts are you making said so that i as a private industry can go somewhere and understand the vector threat and how to react even if i have not made a significant investment in i.t. of for structure to handle that? chairman mccaul: the good news is that you just hire the former head of the nct to help you. michael wider is one of the most talented security experts in the country.

i always encourage companies to sit down with them and go to nctc and look at it. your abilities are more unique. it is very open, open information sharing portal that is there for no other reason than to share information. it is not there to do offensive work, it is not there to prosecute, it is not there to spy. it is there to provide threat information to the private sector. i would just say to anybody an -- extend an invitation to tour the ncic. it's impressive. i took a freshman member of my committee, i gave them a tour last week.

i think it is good to educate the members. they came back very impressed with the operation. >> mr. chairman, i'm recently retired from booz allen, where i lead d the business with the intelligence committee, so why i will out myself a little bit by saying snowden was in my group. prior to that time i was a lifelong intelligence officer. do you have a position on the programs that he exposed? not the ones against foreign intelligence but the things that are referred to as domestic spying? i would not call it that, but --you know, what is your position? if you think they should be modified, how would you modify them? chairman mccaul: he did extensive damage. i was offended. my hometown of austin, texas, he

appeared by skype and got a standing ovation. i consider him to be treasonous. not a patriot. >> i think we are aligned on that. chairman mccaul: it is demonstrated by the damage he is done to the national security of the united states and the amount of money. i read the classified report from dia, and maybe you have as well, and it is very extensive very damaging. it goes across a lot of different areas. in reading the document, it was clear to me he did not think this up on his own. because of the areas he targeted to steal and then release, it appears to me he was directed by a foreign country. a lot of the stuff, it deals with china and russia primarily, as you know. the fact he is in russia, fled

to china and is now in russia, says a lot. the irony is he is exposing, mr. civil liberties, exposing our government is so, where russia is a police state and there is no privacy in russia. so it does not make any sense to me. he has done great damage to our national security and done great damage to this advancing of these policies in this town and advancing this legislation. the one thing i'm more about as -- worried about as we present my bill and house intel presents its bill, which will deal with n.s.a., and i talked with the chairman, the political environment in the post-snowden world, how is that going to hamper our ability to move this legislation forward. what impact is snowden going to have on this? i would argue my bill, i think i

have an easier load. all am doing is adding liability protection and more privacy. i think i have an easier challenge in front of me. i would argue house intelligence, it's going to be more difficult because they have never codified the information sharing with the n.s.a. now, i support that. i think we should have any portal that companies want to go to on a voluntary basis, we should support that. we don't want turks and cylons, we want a complete information sharing. but i will say he has done great damage economically and to our national security, and he has done great damage to advancing the policies we are discussing here and potentially to the legislation. host: in a couple months, we're probably going to do a series

that tries to put the snowden revelations in the context of crimea and syria and isis, because it's a very different world than when that stuff first came out. we have more on the other side. >> hi, good morning. kind of dovetailing on that line of questioning, what about companies that have said in the past about information sharing bills they don't want to entertain the idea until they see n.s.a. reform? is that another factor this time around, getting a bill signed by the president? chairman mccaul: yeah, i mean, you will have this law take place before pfizer reform -- before fisa reform. if there is any overall strategy, which is kind of hard to find in congress these days that has a good ending to it. i think the idea to tackle this piece before fisa reform comes

down. is that the cart before the horse? the idea is we do cybersecurity first and then tackle that, but your point is well taken. >> good morning. i'm from the rand corporation. many of us regarded the sony attack as quite new in the sense it was an attack by a nationstate directly on our constitutionally protected liberties. i'm wondering if you have any thoughts about proportionality of response in light of this attack and when it happens again? chairman mccaul: i completely agree. i think sony -- look, we had attacks in the past, but sony really captured the american people's attention and curiosity because it involved hollywood. let's be honest. and it involved free speech.

you are right, it was a direct attack on our constitution, free speech. and in addition to being a nationstate threat and it was very highly destructive with the -- what they did. you go into your office, turn the computer on, there is a skull and cross bones, and all the hard drives were completely, completely destroyed information stolen, a lot of private information stolen that was leaked. that was very sophisticated, highly destructive attack on our constitutional way of life. what is a proportional response? i don't know, jim talked about hitting their motion picture industry. it is a hard question to answer, but i think it response is necessary, whatever that is. maybe you have all the tools in the toolkit that you look at but you have to have some response. i would say hitting them economically would be a good response.

you talk about stuxnet and i cannot go into detail about that, but i think a cyber attack merits a cyber response. as a deterrence. if they do that with impunity, without any response, it's just like my kids, you have to have discipline and a deterrence to stop them from continuing doing this. i think at one point, at some point we have to talk about it like we did with the csi document about other nations when it comes to cyber attacks. are we going to have a nato-like alliance. if a nation gets hit with a nationstate cyber attack, is that an attack on all the alliance members in the cyber world? that is really forward thinking, but we have to look at this and as a global event and an

international issue, and i think it calls for an international response and alliances. china and russia and iran, north korea, they do this, there will be consequences. without consequences, they will continue. >> hi, i'm from politico. with the bill that you are working on and the other bill, how do you see those being blended on the floor, and are you saying that your bill, no information going to dhs will be shared with other agencies? chairman mccaul: no, the information that d.h.s. will have to share through the civilian portal will come through the intelligence community, f.b.i., and d.h.s. the information shared by the private sector, and this is a piece we have not discussed, and

it is an important one, the information that we gain from the private sector will be shared with the federal government to protect and defend this country. i have been very encouraged by the sense of patriotism of companies that come into my chairman, this is such an important issue, it is not just my company anymore, it is about the united states of america defending the nation, and i want to help and be part of this information sharing process. that information is a two-way street. again, 85% of the information we don't have, it's not shared private to private, it's not shared with the federal government. that can be used to better protect our defenses and our nation from attacks. as you know, every federal agency is being hit, and country is under attack. >> what about the other part? chairman mccaul: i cannot really