protocols in place for dealing with this at least after the fact to reassure the victims who are federal employees and federal retirees. i'd hope this committee once again will help prod the system as it did last year, only this to act. thank you to my dear friend from pennsylvania. >> now the chairman of the subcommittee on i.t. mr. hurd for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. my mama always told me you can always find the good in any situation. let me try to start off with that. dhs caught them caught the problem. that's a good thing. when they were engaged, we found it. wish it was sooner, but we caught the problem so that's good. i also got a letter from the

chief information officer of opm. dear mr. hurd the u.s. office of personnel management recently became aware of a cybersecurity incident affecting its data and you may have been exposed. we have determined the data compromised in this incident may have included your personal information such as your name, social security number date and place of birth and current or former address. i know ranking member cummings and mr. micah were talking about how could an adversary use this information. i spent nine years as an undercover officer in the cia. if it was the chinese, any federal official traveling to china, former official, someone there, is a subject of being targeted for elicitation of information about what's going on in the federal government. if it was the russians this information is going to be sold and used against them to drain

people's bank accounts, create new access codes to get private information. if it was narcotrafficantes in mexico, it's the home addresses of men and women in border patrol, people that are keeping us safe. the threat is huge. the impact is fantastic. one thing my dad always said was it never hurts to say you're sorry. following thus letter it says -- nothing in this letter should be construed as opm accepting liability for any other matters covered by this letter or for any other purpose. later it says, we regret this incident. i'm sorry actually goes a long way. i agree with what my colleagues from virginia had said about this long committed attack by advanced persistent threats and my issue is not with how we

responded to the threat. i think the immediate technical steps that were taken were good things right? and i believe all the folks involved in the mitigation of the immediate threat were doing some things that can be used in other places. what i have a problem with is everything before this. if you were in the private sector, the head of a privately traded company and ernst & young was doing your yearly audit and you had at least five years of audit information saying that your digital infrastructure had some high risk to it and needed to be immediately fixed, the board of directors would be held akontable for criminal activity. by multiple years. i would penetrate the networks of companies and identify the problems they had. a lot of times if there was a high risk issue we'd call the customer immediately and say this has to be fixed right now. the company and customer would

do that immediately. then we'd issue our report saying here was the high risk report but it was fixed. because a company like ernst & young doing an audit would probably not put this information in an audit to go to the board because it's guys you've got to fix. so my problem is these high-risk issues identified by the ig haven't been addressed. key point. my first question is ms. ann di camillo, have they reviewed key point's network? >> we were on site at key point's network in loveland colorado with our inner agency partners. we went there in an abundance of caution baseod the event that happened at usis and opm. we needed to look at contractors performing background clearance.

this was done out of an abundance of caution. so our team did an assessment. some results came back that caused some concern. so we sent an instant response team on site and reviewed their network. we were there for a couple of weeks. >> when we hire contractors, are they subject to the same standards of network hygiene that u.s. government networks are? >> our contractors subject to the same? it would be part of the contract language associated with requirements that are for any kind of network that houses government data there are certain requirements per the fisma law of 2002. >> in his opening remarks ranking member cummings read some of director archuleta's comments to the senate committee. the adversary leveraged a compromised key pont user credential to gain access to

opm's network. when the written information that key point submitted said we have seen no evidence of a connection between the incursion at key point and opm breach that's the secretary of this hearing. mr. hess, feedback? >> congressman hurd, it is true that the key point incursion, we've seen no evidence of the connection with the opm -- >> are you saying ms. archuleta is lying? >> she is correct from the knowledge that i have been given. there was an individual who had an opm account that happened to be a keypoint employee and that the credentials of that individual were compromised to gain access to opm. >> thank you. i yield back. >> we'll now recognize the gentlewoman from the virgin islands. >> thank you very much. good afternoon, everyone. i think that it's very interesting. i was listening to the ranking

member cummings talking about the vulnerability of government contractors and the questions of my colleague mr. hurd regarding whether or not companies that have government contracts must keep the same level of security and care that the opm or other agencies would have to in terms of preparing for cyberattacks. mr. gianetti, i have a letter that was sent from usis to ranking member cummings on december 5th of 2014. and the letter says that the federal agencies had the failure of the company. and i wanted to ask you some assertions that you made in that letter. it says their council wrote the critical cyberattack defense information only flowed in one direction, from usis to the government. is that correct? >> in the discussion we had

earlier about the shared responsibility to notify from a contractor to the government and the government to the contractor, that is correct. >> what you're qualifying it now. so you're saying -- >> i'm not qualifying it. i'm suggesting that we were required and obligated by our contract to notify opm we had an intrusion, which we did immediately, and in the discussion that was held earlier, opm recognized they did not notify usis or, i believe, keypoint of their intrusion of march of 2014. >> in terms of the cyberdefense information, was it one way or did it go both ways? >> in my humble estimation it was one way. >> it was from yours to the others. what would have been your estimation been the requirement of opm or the others toward you? >> well i'm not a lawyer or -;(j i don't have the contract in

front of me but my understanding is that there's a requirement to notify, to say we've got an issue. here's what the issue is so that there's a free flow and sharing of information. >> so if you have an issue you're supposed to let them know correct? >> that's correct. >> that's what you felt you did. >> absolutely. >> what did they do about that information that you gave them? >> the cert team? >> yes. >> we invited the cert team to our facilities in grove city, p.a. formally via a letter. the cert team arrived. shortly after receiving that letter. and enumerated our network and understood through discussions wuths our technicians as well as the third party we hired what had transpired from the 5th of june through the time they arrived. >> why does your letter also

state that cert has not provided usis with any findings it may have recovered during its review. >> i didn't write the letter -- >> you are here testifying for your company. i am an attorney. i'd never write a letter as an attorney forra a company without the entire company agreeing. >> you are here to testify for the veracity of the letter. was the letter correct? >> we did not receive a briefing from cert as to the findings they had vis-a-vis the intrusion. >> then let's ask cert since they're here. >> we did receive some recommendations relative to what we might do to -- >> that's not a review? >> our invitation to cert requested their assistance in identifying threats to our network. and we did not receive that. >> okay, well let's ask ms.

barron dicamillo. >> our team was on site. an uner agency response team including law enforcement partners. we worked part of the incident response team. we're working with the system administrators daily. informing them every day of -- >> how many days did you inform them on a daily basis? >> we were there about two weeks. >> that's at least ten report ooze. >> we worked through the weekend. >> that's 14 reports they were given asserting what -- >> the daily findings. and they can change. >> did you find something and give them ideas of what needed to be done? >> why we were able to discover there was malicious malware on the network and compromised credentials, specifically -- >> how did those compromised credentials -- what were the two areas you found within their own system that should have been taken care of previously? >> we found a lack of some

security mechanisms that would have helped prevent this. we weren't able to find the initial point of entry. >> can you talk about the lack of logging. >> there's logs that can help us piece together what happened within your network. >> why weren't those there? >> it's a risk-based decision. it can cost a lot of money -- >> it's a risk and cost decision made by the company itself? >> it can be. it can require quite a bit of storage. >> the government contractor we hired to do government work for us decided a risk and cost decision on their part did not require them -- they didn't put in the log ins necessary to protect the system. >> i can't answer that specifically. i can just give you some of the reasons that people are not having the historical logs because of the volume of data. there's millions of net flow

records that happen a day. >> the letter sent by usis to ranking member cummings, would you agree with that? >> we provided daily reports and a findings report. we went over that with the team and provided a mitigation report and i have documented evidence of all of that. >> did you want to respond to that? >> if i may. >> sure. >> it's my understanding from our forensic investigator strauss freedburg that was was found by the cert team vis-a-vis ms. barron di camillo's comments was not information they hadn't already discovered. >> so the log ins that were needed for them to be able to go and do a deeper forensic was something they already knew? >> that's -- >> yes or no. >> -- the forensic evidence of the third party partner. what he's saying is it was a

confirmation and whye were able to confirm the credentials with the third party forensic firm in there and discover additional findings through the assessment we did. >> for now we'll recognize the gentleman from alabama, mr. palmer, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ms. archuleta, last week i brought up a letter from two of my legislative staffers received warning them their personally identifiable information may have been compromised in the cybersecurity hack. i bring this up again because earlier you disputed the number of people that are affected by this when ms. seymour admitted after i questioned her about the letter that she signed that this goes beyond the people who filled out the form 86. and i just want to know

considering the fact that a vast amount of personally identifiable information. was it likely exposed by foreign contractors, outsourced by opm and opm's failure to aed by by the ig's recommend agss? >> can you repete that question? >> let me rephrase it. do you stand by your assertion this is limited to a smaller group than is being undicated in the media and this extends beyond the people who filled out standard form 86? >> thank you for clarifying the question, sir. i think it's really important not to conflate to the two incidents. the first incident was the employee personnel records, which is the 4.2 million -- >> i'm just asking -- >> and the second incident, we haven't determined the number

yet of the scope of that incident and the number of employees that's would have been affected by that. >> so the answer is yes, that it's more. i think it's very evident that this attack on the federal employees personally identifiable information not only puts those workers at risk but also puts secondary groups at risk. for instance if they have their personal e-mail addresses as it's evident from as i pointed out last week that some of the breaches occurred through personal e-mail addresses. that all of these employees and second -- their secondary relationships is it possible that certain information was exposed there as well? >> yes. the team is working on the analysis of the scope. it's exactly why we're taking our time to make sure it's accurate. the sf-86s we've talked about

earlier. the data in there is -- includes not only the employee but may include other information and pii for other individuals. that's why we're being very, very careful about that and looking at the data because it's -- it could be that there was no pii for -- >> beyond this i'm talking about where the breach apparently occurred as well through personal e-mail addresses, particularly at the immigration, customs enforcement agency that was reported in "the wall street journal." i brought this up to you last week. >> yes. >> but where they got in on personal e-mail addresses that would expose everybody in their e-mail chaun and i think we've got -- >> i understand your question. >> you received a letter from senator mark warner with some specific questions about a contract that you awarded to csid. have you responded to senator

warner's letter yet? >> i have to check with my staff, sir. we were attempting to respond as kwuk quickly as possible. >> have you personally read his letter? >> i read his letter but i don't know his response made it through our system yet. >> he raises a question about how quickly this contract was awarded to csid. you didn't go through the normal process and it was awarded in 36 hours, i think is what senator warren says. was it intentionally steered to csid? >> no, sir. >> who made the decision? >> i would ask donna to talk about the process that we used. it was a fair and competitive process. >> fair and competitive process. >> our contracting officer made the selection on the contract. >> did you evaluate the management of csid?

>> i did evaluate the technical and cost proposals. >> are you -- did you evaluate the people who run the company? >> i had resumes for the people -- or for the key personnel that they provided in the proposal. >> are you familiar with their board of directors? >> no sir, i'm not. >> do you know owen lee, one of their directors? >> no sir i don't. >> okay. mr. chairman my time is expired. i yield the balance. >> from start to finish, how long was it from when you got the proposal that you awarded the contract? >> i would have to go back and look at exactly when we released the rfq but i believe it -- and

i don't want to misspeak. let me go back and find out when exactly we received the rfq and when we awarded the contract. i don't have that data with me. >> but it was less than 48 hours. >> i think it was in about that time frame. >> and the award is how much money? >> the contract is about $21 million for the services that we're providing for credit monitoring notification and the identity theft insurance. >> why was it made so fast? >> we wanted to -- >> and what was there other companies that could do just as good job? trying to figure out how we got that company. >> we received a number of proposals and evaluated them based on the government's needs. several requirements we put in the rfq that the companies

responded to. and we evaluated all of those proposals that we received against that's criteria and they provided the best value to the government based on those requirements. >> will you also copy when you give senator warner the answers those questions, will you also send us those answers as well? >> yes.sir. >> yes. >> i think he raises a number of important questions as to mr. palmer here and we will continue to pursue that. now recognize the gentleman from pennsylvania, who's been waiting patiently, mr. cartwright. >> thank you, mr. chairman. find myself you the lerly dissatisfied with the explanations we've heard today. i want to train my attention on you, mr. haas. you have made some fine distinctions about what the employee of your company was doing, the one who got hacked and who was working on opm's systems at the time. and because of that hack, that

employee became a victim and lost personal information and that led to the successful hacking of opm's systems. have i broadly described that correctly, sir? >> we actually do not know how the employee's credentials were compromised. >> but it was a key employee am i correct in that? >> that is correct. >> you are the ceo of key point? >> that is correct. >> and you are denying accountability for the opm hack and what you said is the employee was working on opm systems at the time, not key points, that's what your testimony was, correct? >> that is correct. >> we have an individual's opm credentials that were taken. that individual happened to be a keypoint employee. did that keypoint employee have credentials as part of his or her scope of employment with keypoint? >> correct. >> it wasn't a coincidence this

keypoint employee had credentials. it was part and parcel of his scope with your company, is that correct? >> that is correct. >> and it was keypoint paying this person as the person was working on opm systems at the time, am i correct in that? >> that is correct. >> and you understand under traditional concepts of the law, keypoint is responsible for the acts of its employees acting within the scope and course of their employment with your company, you understand that don't you? >> i'm not familiar with that construct. >> all right. >> mr. hess, you're here today because of cyber espionage operation succeeded in breaching very personal information that your company was entrusted with on january 6, 2015 my ranking member, mr. cummings sent you a letter requesting information about the data breach. his letter requested a number of documents. did you get the letter?

>> immediately upon receiving the letter keypoint counsel reached out to ranking member's staff to arrange for a briefing. and we tried to have a date and time set up. and we are still waiting for confirmation on that. >> you got the letter, right? >> yes, sir. >> and more than five months later you haven't responded with documents, am i correct in that? >> we've reached out immediately to the ranking member's staff to brief the staff and we have not received a spoons on it a time and date to do so. >> let's go through the document request that mr. cummings made. he requested a log of all successful cyber entrugss into your company's networks in the last four years. that's a reasonable request, isn't it, mr. hess? >> i don't find it unreasonable. >> will you provide this to the committee? >> i will take that back to my team and let you know. >> you're the boss there, aren't you? >> i am the ceo. >> all right. but you're going to get

permission from your team who work for you is that it? >> i'm going to take it back and discuss it with my team. >> next question copies of all forensic analyses and reports concerning the data breach including findings about vulnerabilities to malware. when will you provide these documents to the committee? >> i'll take that request back to my team and let you know. >> ranking member cummings requested a list of all affected customers affected by the data breach. will you provide that to the committee? >> i'll take that back to my team and let you know. >> mr. hess, your company exists because of the largess of the united states federal government. we expect you to respond to requests from this committee. mr. cummings does not write letters because he just enjoyce writing letters. he's concerned about the security and safety not only of federal employees, but of the united states public. this is really important. will you please treat it as such? >> i do, congressman cartwright.

we responded immediately to the the -- to congressman cummings' request by calling their staff having our counsel -- and i would also -- >> by responding and calling, but not providing the documents. we want the documents, mr. hess. i yield back. >> gentleman yields. >> let me take a second. i just want to clear this up. because you just said some things that you talked about my staff. >> yes sir. >> it's my understanding they did get back to us, but for months, for months, back and forth because you all did not want to agree to the scope of the meeting. and then -- then just recently, because of this hearing, you finally said, scrap the limitations on the meeting, the scope, and we'll meet. and so i don't want you to, you know, i don't know whether you have the information or what, but i want you to be accurate. >> that's not the information

that i have, sir. >> well, then your information's inaccurate. >> i will research that. >> mr. hess, is it reasonable by the end of this week to provide us the documentation on the communication and lack of the the last several months? is that fair, by the end of the week? >> i will take that back to my team. >> you're the ceo. >> it can't be that difficult. >> chairman, i was asked last week, on wednesday, to -- >> you were asked months ago to brief the minority staff and that didn't happen. i just want to see the documentation. is that fair? >>ly take that request back. >> no i want an answer from you. i want to know when you will provide that information to this committee. >> i will take that back to my -- >> no i want -- you give me the date. when is it reasonable? you're the ceo. >> i understand, sir. ly take that request back to my team.

>> no. i need an answer from you. we'll sit here all day. you want me to issue a subpoena? is that what you want me to do? i'll sign it today. give me an information that's reasonable. >> i need to take that information back to my staff. >> seriously, when are you going to provide that information? >> i'm trying to be helpful, chairman. i did do a briefing last week and we did reach out to congressman cummings' staff immediately upon receipt of the letter. and we did not receive by the information that i -- >> why -- am i asking for anything unreasonable to provide the correspondence and the interaction? i mean, they're going to have their half. i just to want see their half. i'm trying on give you an equal opportunity here. >> i understand that, sir. >> when is it a reasonable date? >> let me get back to you with that information. >> no. i want you to decide. before the end of this hearing. we're going to go to the next set of questioning. you can counsel with all the people sitting behind you, but it's a reasonable question.

>> c-span gives you the best access to congress, bringing you events that shape public policy. every morning, "washington journal," is live with your comments by phone, facebook, and twitter. c-span created by america's cable companies and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. >> talks in vienna over iran's nuclear program are expected to extend over the tuesday deadline. big differences remain between the u.s., iran, and five other countries. the european union's foreign-policy chief was saying it was not impossible to reach a deal with iran but that both sides would take a few more days if necessary. secretary of state john kerry is in vienna, earlier he tweeted this photo of himself and other representatives from the p5 plus

one, taking part in a working lunch as iran's foreign minister heads home to speak with iranian leaders. he is expected to return to the negotiating table in the next day or so. >> while congress is out for the july 4 holiday break "booktv takes over prime -- "booktv" takes over prime time. tuesday, book publishing. wednesday, the digital age. thursday, griffey and memoirs. and friday science and technology. watch her primetime edition starting monday at 8:30 p.m. eastern and tune in every weekend for the latest in nonfiction books. "booktv," television for serious readers. >> last week, the supreme court handed down decisions in cases involving the health care law and same-sex marriage. we will take a look at some of

the reaction to those rulings beginning with the court's 6-3 decision that tech subsidies should be available to those in states with federal exchanges. president obama spoke from the rose garden. >> [indistinct chatter] president obama: good morning, everybody. have a seat.

five years ago, after nearly a century of talk, decades of trying, a year of bipartisan debate, we finally declared that in america, health care is not a privilege for a few, but a right for all. over those five years, as we've worked to implement the affordable care act, there have been successes and setbacks. the setbacks i remember clearly. [laughter] but as the dust has settled, there can be no doubt that this law is working. it has changed, and in some cases saved, american lives. it set this country on a smarter, stronger course. and today, after more than 50 votes in congress to repeal or weaken this law; after a presidential election based in

part on preserving or repealing this law; after multiple challenges to this law before the supreme court, the affordable care act is here to stay. this morning, the court upheld a critical part of this law -- the part that's made it easier for americans to afford health insurance regardless of where you live. if the partisan challenge to this law had succeeded, millions of americans would have had thousands of dollars' worth of tax credits taken from them. for many, insurance would have become unaffordable again. many would have become uninsured again. ultimately, everyone's premiums could have gone up. america would have gone backwards. and that's not what we do. that's not what america does. we move forward. so today is a victory for hardworking americans all across this country whose lives will continue to become more secure

in a changing economy because of this law. if you're a parent, you can keep your kids on your plan until they turn 26 -- something that has covered millions of young people so far. that's because of this law. if you're a senior, or an american with a disability, this law gives you discounts on your prescriptions -- something that has saved 9 million americans an average of $1,600 so far. if you're a woman, you can't be charged more than anybody else -- even if you've had cancer, or your husband had heart disease or just because you're a woman. your insurer has to offer free preventive services like mammograms. they can't place annual or lifetime caps on your care because of this law. because of this law, and because of today's decision, millions of americans who i hear from every single day will continue to receive the tax credits that have given about eight in ten people who buy insurance on the

new marketplaces the choice of a health care plan that costs less than $100 a month. and when it comes to preexisting conditions -- someday, our grandkids will ask us if there was really a time when america discriminated against people who get sick. because that is something this law has ended for good. that affects everybody with health insurance, not just folks who got insurance through the affordable care act. all of america has protections it didn't have before. as the law's provisions have gradually taken effect, more than 16 million uninsured americans have gained coverage so far. nearly one in three americans who was uninsured a few years ago is insured today. the uninsured rate in america is the lowest since we began to keep records.

and that is something we can all be proud of. meanwhile, the law has helped hold the price of health care to its slowest growth in 50 years. if your family gets insurance through your job -- so you're not using the affordable care act -- you're still paying about $1,800 less per year on average than you would be if we hadn't done anything. by one leading measure, what business owners pay out in wages and salaries is now finally growing faster than what they spend on health insurance. that hasn't happened in 17 years -- and that's good for workers and it's good for the economy. the point is, this is not an abstract thing anymore. this is not a set of political talking points. this is reality. we can see how it is working. this law is working exactly as it's supposed to. in many ways, this law is working better than we expected

it to. for all the misinformation campaigns, all the doomsday predictions, all the talk of death panels and job destruction, for all the repeal attempts -- this law is now helping tens of millions of americans. and they've told me that it has changed their lives for the better. i've had moms come up and say, my son was able to see a doctor and get diagnosed, and catch a tumor early, and he's alive today because of this law. this law is working. and it's going to keep doing just that. five years in, this is no longer about a law. this is not about the affordable care act as legislation, or

obamacare as a political football. this is health care in america. and unlike social security or medicare, a lot of americans still don't know what obamacare is beyond all the political noise in washington. across the country, there remain people who are directly benefitting from the law but don't even know it. and that's okay. there's no card that says "obamacare" when you enroll. but that's by design, for this has never been a government takeover of health care, despite cries to the contrary. this reform remains what it's always been: a set of fairer rules and tougher protections that have made health care in america more affordable, more attainable, and more about you -- the consumer, the american people. it's working.

and with this case behind us let's be clear -- we've still got work to do to make health care in america even better. we'll keep working to provide consumers with all the tools you need to make informed choices about your care. we'll keep working to increase the use of preventive care that avoids bigger problems down the road. we'll keep working to boost the steadily improving quality of care in hospitals, and bring down costs even lower, make the system work even better. already we've seen reductions for example, in the number of readmissions at hospitals. that saves our society money, it saves families money, makes people healthier. we're making progress. we're going to keep working to get more people covered. i'm going to work as hard as i can to convince more governors and state legislatures to take

advantage of the law, put politics aside, and expand medicaid and cover their citizens. we've still got states out there that, for political reasons, are not covering millions of people that they could be covering, despite the fact that the federal government is picking up the tab. so we've got more work to do. but what we're not going to do is unravel what has now been woven into the fabric of america. and my greatest hope is that rather than keep refighting battles that have been settled again and again and again, i can work with republicans and democrats to move forward. let's join together, make health care in america even better. three generations ago, we chose to end an era when seniors were left to languish in poverty. we passed social security, and

slowly it was woven into the fabric of america and made a difference in the lives of millions of people. two generations ago, we chose to end an age when americans in their golden years didn't have the guarantee of health care. medicare was passed, and it helped millions of people. this generation of americans chose to finish the job -- to turn the page on a past when our citizens could be denied coverage just for being sick. to close the books on a history where tens of millions of americans had no hope of finding decent, affordable health care; had to hang their chances on fate. we chose to write a new chapter, where in a new economy americans are free to change their jobs or start a business chase a new idea, raise a family, free from fear, secure

in the knowledge that portable affordable health care is there for us and always will be. and that if we get sick, we're not going to lose our home. that if we get sick, that we're going to be able to still look after our families. that's when america soars -- when we look out for one another. when we take care of each other. when we root for one another's success. when we strive to do better and to be better than the generation that came before us, and try to build something better for generations to come. that's why we do what we do. that's the whole point of public service.

so this was a good day for america. let's get back to work. [applause] [applause] >> and now, we will show you some of the reaction outside the supreme court, beginning with families usa president, ron pollack, who spoke to the media. >> hi. my name is ron pollack, and i'm executive director of families usa, which is the national organization for health care consumers. and with me is gwen jackson from texas, who is one of the millions of people who are receiving the subsidies that were upheld today by the supreme

court. make no mistake about this today's decision has monumental significance. it means that the affordable care act is not just the law of the land, it will remain the law of the land. >> yes! >> it means that the millions of people who have been receiving subsidies that make all the difference in terms of whether health insurance is affordable people will continue to receive those subsidies, and they will continue to have health insurance. so, this is a big sigh of relief for millions of people across the country who previously were uninsured, who previously couldn't afford health insurance, but who today can afford insurance because they are receiving subsidies. and today, the court by a 6-3 margin upheld the provision of those subsidies.

so, at this juncture, hopefully, now that the affordable care act is clearly a stable part of america's health care system hopefully, we can move on. hopefully, we can have bipartisan efforts to try to make even further improvements with respect to america's health care system, making sure everyone has high-quality health care and at an affordable price. but most importantly, the affordable care act has produced enormous progress. more than one out of three people who were previously uninsured have now received health coverage. and now that progress will continue. we will not go backwards. and more and more people will be able to get the health coverage they need to protect their families. so, i want to introduce gwen jackson. gwen is from sugarland, texas. and gwen is one of the millions

of people who are receiving the subsidies and whose subsidies will be protected. >> yes. so, thank you, ron. >> speak up, please? >> go ahead. >> so, i am excited today. i'm excited. my husband and i are self-employed, both self-employed, and my husband had a severe tumor that required surgery, and we were uninsured. but through the marketplace, my husband was able to get an extensive surgery, subsequently to get additional surgeries and may continue to have to have surgeries as a result of this. this was an aggressive bone disease of his jaw, and it impacted us greatly, but we are thankful today that the courts upheld this and realize that affordable care is not just for

-- i don't know -- it's for everybody, and it should be. it would have impacted over 6 million people, had they not agreed to this. but now, we don't have to worry about this anymore, and i just thank everyone that supported the act. gwen jackson. >> gwen jackson from sugarland texas. >> can you spell it? >> g-w-e-n jackson. >> your name, sir? >> ron, r-o-n, pollack, p like peter, o-l-l-a-c-k, with the national organization for health care consumers. i just want to say one additional thing. we have seen just extraordinary progress as a result of the affordable care act over the past two years. over 16 million people who were previously uninsured have gotten health coverage as a result of the affordable care act.

and most of the people who have signed up in these marketplaces have done so as a result of subsidies, and these subsidies involve thousands of dollars in terms of relief, in terms of premium costs. today the supreme court clearly held by a 6-3 margin that those subsidyies will continue. the people having health insurance will be able to continue getting health insurance, and we will continue to make progress in the years ahead so that, hopefully, at some point in the not-too-distant future, everyone in america will have health insurance. so, thank you very much. >> my final thing is to say, aca is here to stay, and i thank god for that. >> thank you. >> hello. my name is neil katyal, a

partner and former acting solicitor general of the united states. today's decision is a resounding victory for the president and for congress and for the american people. the supreme court by a 6-3 decision overwhelmingly upheld what the president has been saying all along, which is that these health insurance exchanges, whether set up by the state or federal government, provide subsidies to individuals who can't otherwise afford them. i was sitting in the courtroom as the decision came down, written by the chief justice who, after all, was appointed by president george w. bush. and for the first ten minutes, you could see right away where the decision was headed. the chief justice started off by saying that the affordable care act was based on three premises, three kind of legs of a stool. one was, there was a lot of discrimination in health insurance. and so, you had to get rid of that discrimination with

so-called guaranteed issue requirements, allowing everyone access to the insurance markets. the second piece of it was the chief said, congress said, well, you also have to have an individual mandate. you have to have something to insure that people buy that insurance. and then the third piece of it was the subsidy, to make sure people could afford the insurance that the affordable care act requires them to have. the supreme court, the chief justice said that's precisely what the affordable care act does and how it's written. it was a resounding victory for the government and a resounding victory for the current solicitor general, don virlie, who gave the oral argument of a lifetime in explaining why the president's interpretation was the correct one. today we have for the second time in three years a republican-dominated supreme court upholding the democratically elected affordable care act. it's a resounding victory for

the president and for the congress and for the american people. thank you. >> and plenty of reaction from lawmakers on capitol hill. here is what harry reid had to say. >> today, this great country of ours obamacare, has survived the latest repeal attack. the supreme court ruled against republicans who were seeing to strip the 6.5 million americans of the subsidies. america won, i repeat.

very pure, very simple. more than 10 million americans covered in these exchanges operating across the country many of them insured for the first time. 85% of these men and women have seen tax credits help with that coverage. but on top of that 12 million more americans now have coverage through the medicaid and the children's health insurance program's. the commonwealth fund recently found more than eight in 10 adults, four-fifths of people who have these programs are satisfied with them. affordable care act is not perfect. this law is working for millions and millions of americans. approximately 20 million americans. once again for affordable care act prevailed. so, mr. president, i say respectfully to my senate colleagues, and i mean that, stop banging their heads against the wall on this legislation passed. it is of the laws of this nation. stop it. move on. they should pause for a minute and look back.

mr. president i don't know the number anymore. i don't know, i lost count of it. is at 75? -- it 75? . certainly approaching 100 about to vote have taken place to repeal the law. never even came close to passing of course but have done it time and time again. stop it. think of the time wasted doing that. as einstein said, the pure definition of insanity is someone who keeps doing the same thing over and over again and gets the same results. i would hope republicans would rethink whether you been up to. reckless attempts to increase tax and millions of americans. that's what it amounted to. i was interested in looking at the paper today at what republicans have suggested to do the supreme court ruled against this law.

[laughter] every one of them without exception would be a tremendous blow to the budgeting process in america. this bill makes america money. it's cut the deficit significant -- significantly and that's what i say it makes the country money. it allows for more healthy nation. republicans were not content to jeopardize the health of americans. they were happy trying to do that. so, mr. president, i also think it's important to note that

republicans who worked on this legislation in the process going through the committees, they admit the legislation drafters never discussed withholding subsidies. so, mr. president, i think the public has basically had it with republicans trying to take away a law that protects them from insurance company discrimination when they get sick or hurt. enough is enough. i had a group of people there from nevada who have family members who suffered from cystic fibrosis. they were able to tell me that for the first time in the life of their children they could not be denied insurance. they are adults now. they can be denied insurance coverage as of this law. it has been -- if it had been repealed, people with cystic fibrosis and many other diseases would not be able to get health insurance.

so, mr. president, let's move on this topic. stop this, stop wasting time the time of the american people by trying to repeal the law. i appreciate the work done in the supreme court, a good decision, a strong decision that upheld the law. enough is enough. let's move on. >> mr. president, we're even discussing another of obama cares self-inflicted brushes with the brink yet again is the latest indictment of a law that's been a rolling disaster for the american people, a rolling disaster for the american people. today's ruling will it change obama cares multitude of broken promises, cleveland resulted in millions, literally millions of americans losing their coverage they had and wanted to keep. today's ruling will not change obama cares spectacular flops,

spectacular flops from humiliating website debacles to the total collapse of exchanges in states run by the laws loudest cheerleaders. to visually will that change the skyrocketing cost in premiums, deductibles, and co-pays benefit the middle class so hard over the last few years your the politicians who force obama to the american people now have a choice. they can crow about obama cares latest wobble towards the edge or work with us to address the ongoing negative impact on me to do -- 2000 page law that makes miserable for so many of the same people it purported to help. >> the senator from south carolina.

>> i would like to be recognized for five minutes to speak in morning business. >> without objection. >> thank you. i have two very brief comments. one involves our national security world at large come and the other involves our nation as a whole. first as to the supreme court ruling. i'm surprised, i'm disappointed but the ruling is now in and senator mcconnell said it well. this doesn't mean that obamacare is fixed. it means that is going to continue until somebody finds a better way or will be left with obamacare for the rest of our lives and your children's lives and those that follow. 2016 race, domestically, will be centered on health care as the most dominant domestic issue in the country. if you're running for the house you are running for senate or running for president, here is

what this supreme court ruling means. if the public wants to continue obamacare, which i think would be a huge mistake, vote democrat. if you want to repeal and replace the obamacare with something better for you and your family, bipartisan, vote republican. hillary clinton, the most likely democratic nominee, with the obamacare her own. deliver the republican party may nominate, the one thing i can assure you is that they will repeal and replace obamacare with something better. so to the people of the united states, you finally have a chance to have your say. this election in 2016 for the

house and the senate and the white house will give you a chance to stop obamacare and replace it with something better for you and your children. take advantage of this because if we fail to change the course, obamacare will damage our future and i ink it will be a mistake. -- think it will be a mistake. >> one day later, the justices ruled 5-4 that gay marriage should the allowed in all 50 states. we will have reaction as well as the plaintiffs' lawyers speaking to the media. [cheering]

[indiscernible] [cheering] crowd: u.s.a!

u.s.a! u.s.a! u.s.a! u.s.a! [cheering] [indiscernible] >> good morning. my name is jim obergebell and i live -- obergefell and i live in

ohio. my husband passed away from complications to als. i am here today regarding my situation with john. when my husband passed away from one of the crew list diseases known to humanity, the state of ohio, a state in which i lived and paid taxes for most of my life, they refused to put my name on john's death certificate. no american should have to suffer that indignity. john and i or one of 30 plaintiffs as part of this lawsuit who decided to fight. i know in my heart that john is with me today. that meant cared and loved me for 20 years. today's ruling from the supreme court confirms what millions across the country know to be true in our heart. our love is equal.

that is the full word etched onto the front of the supreme court, equal, and it applies to all of us as well. all americans deserve equal respect and treatment when it comes to our situations within family. now at long last, ohio will recognize our marriage, and most importantly, marriage equality will come to every state across our country. it is my hope that banning gay marriage will soon be a thing from the past rid this day forward, it will hopefully simply just the marriage. our nation will hopefully be better off because of it. i hope his decision will have a profound effect in reducing stigma and the hurt and stigmatization against gay people when we live our lives openly and authentically. at the same time while we will celebrate today's victory, i

heart is also in charleston. these past weeks and months have been an important reminder that discrimination in many forms is alive and well in america. it shows the unfortunate reality that progress for some is not progress for all. we can have as many steps backwards as we have forward. if we want to have the values that our nation's cherishes, we have to ensure that all americans are tweeted -- are treated equally. i want to thank my legal team who stood by me every single step of the way. thank you to aclu, glaad, and all of the plaintiffs and organizations who fought for equality. today's victory, our shared three, was only possible because of each and every one of you. i would like to thank those who

brilliantly argued our case in front of the court and affirmed my life and millions of others alike me across the country. we oh you all a huge debt of gratitude. most importantly, i wouldn't like to thank john for loving me for making me a better man and for giving me something a worth fighting for. i love you. this is for you, john. thank you. [cheering] >> this is mary from gay and lesbian defenders. mary: hello everyone, i want to say today was a momentous decision. it is going to bring joy to millions of families, gay and straight across this land.

and now every person in this country who is lb gt -- lgbt can marry tomorrow. they can marry the person they love tomorrow and can take on the unique commitment just as justice kennedy talked about this morning. it is also a great thing for kids who no longer have to question why their parents were deemed unworthy of marriage, and those kids can also have the same security and protection that marriage provides to families. this is also a great day for our constitution, make no mistake about it. the court stood by the standard that we do not tolerate laws that go against people for who they are. so it is a day for quality liberty, and justice under law. as i say this, there are thousands of people together who are mourning in charleston

because people are targeted and can face unspeakable acts of violence because of who they are. as we celebrate what is a landmark ruling for love and for justice, let us also rededicate ourselves to ensuring that every person in this nation can live safely and securely and will have the freedoms and opportunities our constitution promises us. we need to do this for each other and we oh this to future generations, and i ink everyone who makes -- who made this possible. thank you. [applause] >> and now douglas will speak. douglas: this is truly a great day for all americans.

the court stated in its opinion that marriage is fundamental, it is fundamental to the families it is fundamental to society. it is hard to believe that less than two jacket ago, people -- two decades ago, people were jailed for being with the person that they love. today, the supreme court validated all gay lesbian and transgendered individuals and the person that they love and that they are entitled to the full measure of equality and dignity that the constitution promises. by protecting the rights of gays and lesbians, the court has protected the rights of all americans the cousin of those rights that are fundamental

should never depend on being able to persuade a majority that they should be tolerated. that is in fact the nature of being right. but this victory did not come just by happenstance. it was the product of many decades of hard labor by many, many people, less certainly -- most certainly by my colleague mary who has been a leader in a this cause for decades. she was willing to stand up and it took many, many organizations and the collective efforts of which today was realized by this momentum decision -- momentous decision that we can all celebrate. thank you very much. [indiscernible] [cheering] crowd: 1,23!

>> i am here with my husband, michael, and are two adopted children isabella and isaiah. we are also joined by a coplaintiff who is back here his parents didn't make it but we are quite glad that he did. we are just so grateful to be here. i am saying what i think everyone is going to say, and that is when something very good happens in their lives, we need to cause and give thanks to god. as lifelong practicing catholics, that is how we feel we feel that this is god's in tensions and this is god's work so we will pray and thank him for it. michael and i have been together for 33 years, he have been legally married for 11 years. that not until today did the state of kentucky recognize our

union. so this is a watershed day for our family, it is the same for all kentuckians and for all americans. it has been a long path for us in our 33 years. we know that people have been fighting this fight for decades. many of them are here with us today, and we thank them all. we also thank so many people, especially the aclu who have been so supportive us, the stanford law clinic, and are superb legal team up back in kentucky who got us started at the law office we have had so much support from so many people including evan walton we can't leave him out, and none of us would be here today without the foundations that have been laid open for the last 30 years, actually. so we are grateful to be here for the end.

michael and i have been here for a lot of it. we never thought we would see it happen. we never thought we would be here to see this happen. i tell you what this will mean for our family, this means that our children will now be able to have two legal adopted parents two legal parents after 16 and a half years of being raised by the both of us. now, we will finally be able to request from the commonwealth of kentucky adoption records and we will be a legal family in the state of kentucky. that means the world to us and it is very important for kentucky and for the country. one thing i would like to say is that there is a song that we sing in our church and it starts out [indiscernible] and that is the way that we feel today. we have overcome. today we are equal and we have earned equal rights to marriage and the freedom to marry for all kentuckians and for all americans and i just want to say

it feels very good. so thank you very much. >> now we have the director of the aclu lb gt -- lgbt project. >> hello, everybody. i am james azeris, director of the lb gt -- lgbt project at the aclu. this morning, the supreme court welcomed same-sex couples into the american family. it recognized that we have commitment and that we have love and we need protections that are at the core of marriage. that makes today a watershed moment in the moment for lgbt equality and for the country at a -- country as a whole. today we leap for joy and love. this journey started a long time ago, at least as early as 1967, when mildred and richard loving brought a court case to the

supreme court right here and the court struck down the ban on interracial marriage. he continued in 1970 when a couple named jack baker and michael mcconnell addition to the freedom to marry. the aclu is proud and honored to have represented mildred and richard loving and jack baker and michael mcconnell, just as we were able to represent jim obergefell and others today. this is also a day to say thank you. thank you to all of the people who have been working on this issue for such a long time, take you to all the people who came out and all those who came out and talked to the public, because this is something that has collectively over time changed america's understanding of same-sex couples. we rejoice today because today's decision has made the country more fair, more free, more

equal, and in short, more american today. for that, we are in or mislead grateful -- we are enormously grateful. >> we are one of the four plaintiffs for ohio. for us, this started out as a dream to add my name to our son's birth certificate. it became so much more important and so much bigger than just that. i don't think anyone dreams more about having their marriage recognized in the state that we live in and the state that we work in and the state that we travel through than we do as a family. when you have kids, you do anything that you can to protect them, and what we did to protect them is that we brought them all the way to the supreme court.

that is how much we love our kids. we are so happy that when we return home today that our marriage is recognized, just the same as our neighbor's marriage is recognized. >> and we are so proud and thankful to be a part of this case and to be part of the historic movement that this is. i want to thank all of our eternity's -- all of our returnees -- our attorneys and we all a lot to them and thank you. >> also, thank you to all of the people who have spent the last 50 years to make this dream come true. [applause]

[crowd singing] >> death certificates and birth certificates, and we needed that done now, but it turned out we had to win marriage equality nationwide in order to solve this ohio problem. well, he did that, so we are so grateful to be part of this effort and we are proud to represent these plaintiffs and excited to be part of this historic moment. thank you. [applause] >> next up is susan sommer. susan: today is a beautiful chapter in a love story. we saw wonderful decisions on the same date, lawrence versus texas -- lawrence v. texas, a lucky day in history for same-sex couples and gay marriage rights, and in this ongoing love story we see

families, families like the york-smith's, mothers who care so much for their families and their children, they come to the supreme court. today they seek justice, and today they saw an affirmation of their dignity, of the commitment that they and so many other couples around this country have for one another and for their desire to support their children and their families. on the stories day -- on this joyous day in this american love story, we can also celebrate what we had -- have done as a society, our constitution has stood up for those along-pressed, and we also -- those long-oppressed and we also are reminded until we have justice for everyone until we have racial justice and we have

justice for all gay lesbian bisexual, and transgender americans, our work is not over. so let wedding bells ring across the country, and let young people know that when they are lesbians or gay, they can grow up and marry the person that they love. children will now grow up with the dignity and support of their parents across the land. let wedding bells ring. thank you. [applause] >> today's decision is perhaps unprecedented in our nation's history. it rendered irrelevant and ignored the voices of thousands of americans, not only did it ignore the voices of american children, who deserved to know and be raised by their mother and father, and rendered those voices irrelevant, it rendered

the voice of a voters of tens of millions of americans and who have gone to the ballot box and said that marriage should be a between a man and a woman as it has been for countless millennia. we know that the freedom that does not get democratically addressed is at the heart of liberty, and today five justices stole that. this is one of the most pressing social issues of our time. they stole that from every single one of us. i would now like to introduce our colleague austan. austin. he argued against proposition -- argue for proposition eight california's marriage law. austin: today, five lawyers as

the court mentioned takeaway -- took away the voices of millions of americans in one of the most important institutions in the history of the world. just as justice roberts mentioned in his dissent, so many people of good faith will suffer consequences. we are of course concerned about the freedom of conscious of millions of americans who continue to believe that marriage is between one man and one woman and that both mothers and fathers are essential for child rearing. nobody has the right to say that mom or a woman or a dad or a man is irrelevant and their differences should be celebrated. the court choked off that debate. we hope that millions of americans who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman will continue to proclaim that today in our

culture, notwithstanding the court's decision. i will take any questions if there are any. i will introduce my colleague jordan lawrence. jordan is senior counsel of the alliance of defending freeman -- defending freedom. jordan? jordan: the one thing to be stressed here is that only the government can violate the constitution. not individual people with their own beliefs. what i fear as we saw with the very strong reactions to individual business owners etc. who express a view, that marriage is only defined between one man and one woman, is that laws compel them to participate in ceremony that they don't agree with or force them to make messages about marriage and a definition about marriage that they don't agree with.

as justice kennedy said moments ago in the courtroom constitutional rights are not up for popular vote, so popular laws cannot take away the rights of people's freedom of speech. their right to freedom of press and assembly and their right to choose their own jobs, and we hope this decision today will not be used as a excuse -- as an excuse to ostracize or demonize people who hold views contrary to what five of the nine justices said today. thank you. >> and a look here at what the white house looked on friday night. it was a little up in the colors of the lgbt community as a show of support for the supreme court's decision. we also heard from president obama earlier that day, speaking from the white house rose garden.

pres. obama: good morning. our nation was founded on a bedrock principle. we are all created equal. the project at each generation is to bridge the meaning of those founding words with the reality of changing times. a never-ending quest to insure that those words ring true for every single american. progress on this journey often comes in small increments. sometimes, two steps forward one step back, propelled by the consistent effort of dedicated citizens.

and then sometimes, there are days like this, when that slow steady effort is rewarded with justice that arrives like a thunderbolt. this morning, the supreme court recognized that the constitution guarantees marriage equality. in doing so, they have reaffirmed that all americans are entitled to the equal protection of the law. all people should be treated equally, regardless of who they are or who they love. this decision will end the patchwork system we currently have. it will and the uncertainty hundreds of thousands of same-sex couples make from not knowing where their marriage is legitimate in the eyes of one state and will

decide if they will move or even visit one state or another. this will strengthen communities by offering to all the loving same-sex couples dignity across this great land. in my second inaugural address i said that if we are truly created equal, then truly the love that we commit to one another must be equal as well. it is gratifying to see that principle enshrined into law by that decision. this ruling is a victory for jim obergefell and the other plaintiffs in this case it is a victory for gay and lesbian couples who have fought for so long for their basic civil rights, a victory for their

children whose families will now be recognized as equal as any other. it is a victory for the allies and friends and supporters who spent years, even decades working and praying for change to come. this ruling is a victory for america. this decision affirms what millions of americans already believe in their hearts when all-american -- hearts, when all americans are treated equal, we all are free. my administration has been guided by that idea. it is why we stopped defending the so-called defense of marriage act why we were pleased when the court struck down the provincial provision of that law. that is why we ended don't ask, don't tell.

from x bending -- from extending full benefits to same-sex partners for having hospital rights and for expanding insurance rights, this seemed unimaginable not too long ago. i know change for many of our lgbt brothers and sisters must have seemed so slow for so long. but compared to so many other issues, america's shift has been so quick. i know that americans of good will continue to hold a wide range of views on this issue. opposition in some cases has been based on sincere and deeply held beliefs. all of us welcome today's news should be mindful of that fact. and recognize different viewpoints. revere our deep commitment to religious freedom.

but today should also give us hope that on the many issues with which we grapple, often painfully, real change is possible. shifts in hearts and minds is possible. and those who have come so far on their journey to equality have a responsibility to reach back and help others join them. because for all of our differences, we are one people stronger together than we can ever be alone. that has always been our story. we are big and vast and diverse as a nation. people with different backgrounds and beliefs, different experiences and stories, but found by the shared ideal that no matter who you are what you look like, how you started off or how and who you love, america is a place where

you can write euro destiny. write your own destiny. we are people that believe every child is entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. there is so much more work to be done to extend the full promise of america to every american. but today we can say in no uncertain terms that we have made our union is little more perfect. that is the consequence of a decision from the supreme court, but more importantly, as a consequence of the countless small acts of courage of millions of people across decades who stood up, who came out, who talked to parents

parents who love their children no matter what. folks who were willing to endure bullying and taunts and stayed strong. and came to believe in themselves and who they were. and slowly made an entire country realize that love is love. what an extraordinary achievement, what a vindication

of the belief that ordinary people can do extraordinary things. what a reminder of what bobby kennedy once said about how small actions can be like pebbles being thrown into a still lake. and ripples of hope cascade outwards. and change the world. those countless, often anonymous, heroes deserve our thanks. they should be very proud. america should be very proud. thank you. [applause]

>> there are three cases that have yet to be decided by the supreme court. they include the case of legal injection and mercury emissions. decisions on those cases expected tomorrow. here is a bit more on the supreme court as it approaches the end of its current term from "washington journal." host: thank you so much for being with us on this sunday. lawrence hurley of thomson reuters. thank you for being with us on this sunday. let's talk about rulings expected to come tomorrow. what can we expect? guest: there are three cases left. the court will decide on the lethal injection process in oklahoma that will get a lot of attention, though the case itself is not linked to any

major ratifications. the court will also decide a major environmental case on air pollution regulations. those are the two big ones. there is another one about arizona's redistricting process. host: let's talk about the two cases getting so much attention. first, king versus beer burdwell. what are your conclusions? guest: i think in some sense it was not a huge surprise that chief justice came out this way considering how he voted when the court upheld the affordable care act on constitutional grounds. it would have been slightly unusual for the law to be found constitutional, but effectively gutted. also, what is interesting, what perhaps has not gotten as

much attention is justice kennedy was also in the majority , not just the chief justice of the republican appointees. kennedy, of course, was on the other side in the previous case. he switched this time. it showed that there were two different cases, two different legal questions. host: on friday, the ruling on gay marriage -- you had four different dissenting opinions written by those for who did not go with the majority. how unusual was that? guest: it is fairly unusual especially the chief justice was one of the dissenters. he read a summary of his dissenting opinion in the courtroom, which justices do from time to time on the losing side, but is it is the first time he has done it since he has been on the court. host: a number of stories on

network news. really a week that changed the nation. so much happening on the issue of the confederate fight andes to two supreme court rulings. would you agree? guest: i think what is interesting is often the supreme court decisions are important to lawyers. people perhaps not see the made immediate impact. these two cases have very profound and immediate impacts. the marriage case allowed people to marry in states where they could not afford. the formal contract basically took a big political issue off the table, at least for the time being. even another decision from a few weeks ago, the court issued this decision about confederate phonics on license plates in texas -- confederate flags on

license plates in texas. host: skating critiques from -- scathing critiques from justice scalia. as you read his dissenting views, what are your thoughts? guest: justice scalia is well known for his dissenting opinions. obviously, at the end of the year like this with a high cases, it is not surprising to see vitriol from some of the justices on the losing side. it would seem like business as usual. host: there's always speculation at the end of the term whether any of the justices would step down. any sense that we would see that this term? guest: there has been no indication of that to date. we probably would have known by now. host: lawrence hurley who

>> we will have more from the supreme court tomorrow on its final decision day. we will also hear arguments from the remaining cases right here on c-span. >> monday night, we visited microsoft's washington, d.c. office. we will talk with vice president , and research engineering. >> at some point, congress will take on high skilled immigration. frankly, i don't know the exact number, but when we have some of the innovators that are here, the researchers that are here, people from all over the world that make contributions at microsoft, scientists and engineers. and it is for other companies as well. there is still a need.

when you look at it from a job perspective. >> the application of project premonition is actually to collect mosquitoes that have bitten people as to determine what kind of viruses might be around, what kind of diseases might be around, through taking the blood samples of the mosquitoes and figuring out the genetic code of some of the constituents of their blood. >> the premise of this research project was around what we would be able to do with data that is freely available in the environment today. one of the things that we have noticed is that there is a lot of aircraft lying around in the united states that could he considered sensors. they have data on them. they are providing information. and it is relatively freely

available. it is provided by the faa. and there are companies to provide information to the community about what airplanes are doing. so we decided to take that information and see if we could use that to help us predict a more accurate forecast. winds aloft to what the wind -- winds aloft. what the wind is doing above the surface of the earth. >> a visit to washington's microsoft d.c. office on c-span2. >> democratic presidential candidate martin o'malley recently talked about security challenges and how to better protect the homeland. he spoke at the truman national security project in washington d.c. this is one hour.

doug: thank you very much. when i left the pentagon in 2012, i said no to a lot of tempting invitations that were presented but i said yes to the prospect of being part of the truman national security project and center for national policy. i did so because i thought then and convinced now this organization and its members throughout the country are dedicated to one thing -- making a difference. your political members are dedicated to making things happen while governing. your policy members are dedicated to strong, smart and principled approach to a national security policies. the returning veterans are applying your leadership values into the community. it is not often that all of those qualities can be embodied in one leader and that is why it gives me particular pleasure to introduce the keynote speaker.

martin o'malley comes not from a background of financial wealth. but from a heritage of service. he is a descendent of a veteran of the war of 1812. he is the son of an army air force pilot and veteran of world war ii. the washington post called his mother barbara who has served as a gatekeeper for 27 years perhaps the most well-known octogenarian on capital never elected to office. his wife is a baltimore city district court judge. his father-in-law was maryland's attorney general. martin lost his very first race for public office for mayor by 44 votes. he never lost again. he was elected to the baltimore city council in 1991 and served for eight years. he was elected mayor of baltimore in 1999 and served for eight years. he was elected governor of

maryland in 2007 and served for eight years. do you see a pattern here? [laughter] >> as mayor of baltimore, he made things happen. his city use a tracking system based on accountability and results in government which is saved baltimore hundreds of millions of dollars and generated a surplus. he won his first mayoral election with 90% of the vote. and a reelection with 87% of the vote. in 2005, time magazine named him one of america's top five big-city mayors. as governor of maryland, he made things happen. he recovered one her percent of -- 100% of the jobs lost during the national recession. he held firm to great pressure to keep college tuition costs down and education was recognized in maryland as having the best public schools in america for five years in a row.

he took action to restore the health of chesapeake bay and reduced greenhouse gas emissions. he worked to uplift the dignity of all of his constituents by signing marriage equality into law. he worked to pass the dream act to get more marylanders access to college education. a little-known fact -- maryland under martin o'malley ranked first in the united states in the percentage of women-owned firms. martin o'malley served two terms as the chair of the democratic governors association where he carved out a position of leadership on homeland security among other issues and president obama chose him to be the democratic cochair of the council of governors to represent homeland security. it is not a little-known fact that his irish catholic heritage has been a strong influence throughout his life. reflected in his determination perseverance, easy and natural connection with people and the music which puts smiles on all

of our faces throughout the years as the lead singer of o'malley's march. i met martin working for a political leader of irish heritage who influenced a generation of young men and women who have made significant differences in this country. it is the words of another irish catholic politician that perhaps best sums up martin o'malley's approach to public service. there are those who look at things the way they are and ask why, robert f kennedy told the generation of americans, my generation. i dream of things that never were and ask why not? i'm very proud to call martin o'malley my friend. there are many in my generation and very many in years who would be proud to call him the next president of the united states. please welcome martin o'malley. [applause]

fmr. gov. o'malley: thank you. thank you very much. thank you. doug wilson, thank you very much for your kindness, friendship and your counsel through these years. it is a great honor to be with all of you, so many people who have done so very much for the country that we love. for more than a decade, the truman national security project has been at the forefront of nurturing a new generation of leaders in for policy and national security. from military bases in san diego to federal agencies in washington, you are not only advocating for a strong, smart approach to a national affair, you are taking action and you are doing it every day through

operation free. you are mobilizing a coalition of veterans, activists who know our reliance on fossil fuels threatens the security of our country. through no exceptions, you are working to make sure our military recruits the most talented americans regardless of gender and through the front lines civilians initiative, you are supporting the diplomats journalists, the development professionals who are not in uniform but nonetheless put their lives on the line to alleviate human suffering around the world every day. thanks to all of you, the truman project has emerged as a valuable source on some of the toughest challenges facing our nation today. we need those old ideas now more than ever. america's role in the world is to advance the cause of a rising global middle class free from

oppression, from fear. after 12 years on the battlefield of iraq and afghanistan, after a global financial crisis and a long recession that our people are still struggling to fully recover from, it is understandable that many americans would like to disengage from the world around us. understandable, but it is not responsible. because our nation's security in our children's prosperity demand that we actually be more engaged with the world around us and not less. we do this primarily by making our nation more prosperous and secure here at home. we do this by exercising our economic, diplomatic, military and healing power around the world in ways that are consistent with our most deeply held moral principles. in essence, we must create a

more farsighted and proactive foreign policy based on engagement and collaboration rather than going it alone. we must construct a new framework for national security strategy focused on the production of threats. today's challenges defy easy solutions. we may have the most sophisticated military in the world but we don't have a silver bullet. this morning, i want to share a vision with you of a more agile, innovative and forward thinking approach, one that will enable us to master the challenges of our time rather than falling victim to them. my purpose in our short time today is not to offer soundbite solutions to a laundry list of crises around the world. my purpose here today instead is to lay out a long-term framework for pursuing our national interests in a fast-changing world.

some important history -- as america and allies brought world war ii to a close, a man named harry truman became our president. having fought in the first world war, truman knew something about courage, service and sacrifice. it was truman who concluded world war ii. it was truman who brought forward the marshall plan that would turn our former enemies into longtime democratic allies. it was truman who led the united states to recognize israel immediately upon her founding and it was truman who crafted and signed into law the national security act of 1947, the most long-lasting overall of our national security strategy and institutions.

we must take the broader lessons of what work in truman's day and apply them to the emerging threats of our own time because today we face an equally daunting array of threats. these threats are much different and in some instances for more complex than those we saw in the 1990's. what am i talking about? violent extremism, nuclear proliferation, pandemics cyberattacks, rising inequality, failed to nation states, the mega-droughts and the floods caused by climate change. more refugees now on our planet than an anytime since world war ii. it is time for a new national security act, one focused on the reduction of threats like these.

understanding precedes action. to understand, we must ask the right questions. among them -- how do we balance the use of our military, diplomatic and economic tools to advance our national interest in ways that are consistent with the most deeply held american principles? what roles would institutions like the centers for disease control play in looking over the horizon to alert us far earlier to threats? what are the forward-looking investments in new alliances that we can make with other nations that would stem the root causes of instability? how can we best prepared to defend ourselves from our enemies while doing all that we can to prevent conflict in the first place? the first and foremost responsability of the president is to protect the people of the united states. today, this means transforming our military's structure to

focus on 21st century challenges. it means protecting our privacy and our security at the same time. it means reducing security threats not only with better technology, but with better human intelligence on the ground and in the cultures that are important for us to understand. did mean transforming the way we partner with the private sector and civil society. harnessing the energy and the talents of the american people to advance our values. it means joining with allies to deploy renewable energy technologies both at home and around the world to confront the very real danger, potentially reversible climate change.

it means understanding that comprehensive immigration reform here at home is both an economic and national security imperative. it means protecting the united states from cyber attacks, on the digital battlefields and servers and smartphones. it means rethinking every deal with nations like russia and like china which are neither trusted allies or total adversaries. it means forging a new alliance of progress right here in our own hemisphere which we have undervalued and neglected for far too long. and it means forming regional partnership to address emerging threats in places like the south china sea and the sea lanes of the middle east. there is urgent work to be done. nowhere is this more collaborative approach to this work more important than in confronting the growing challenge of severe climate change. for years, the pentagon has recognized global warning as an urgent national security threat.

your organizations leader, mike breen, put it best at a recent congressional hearing when he said "over 97% of climate scientists say that man-made climate change is a reality." "as a combat leader," he said, "if 97% of my intelligence indicated that i was about to face a leap of danger that would risk the lives of my paratroopers, i would be committing malpractice if i did not listen and act." mike is right. the energy technologies needed to combat climate change exist today. it is the political world that is lacking. america can and must lead the way by pursuing an ambitious plan to ensure our country is powered 100% by clean energy by 2050.

it is a threat to human life and also the greatest business opportunity to come to our country in over 100 years. we must seize that opportunity by creating an american green jobs agenda. it is a match for the climate challenge. we need to invest in resilience from the jersey shore to california's central valley. we need to spur innovation to develop cutting-edge technologies that will create jobs at home and unlock new markets abroad. we need new ideas at every level in states that show that it to work like california and as we did in maryland where in eight years we increased renewable energy capacity by 57% and made ourselves a clean tech jobs hub and cut carbon emissions by 10%.

america's leadership and example are absolutely essential because climate change is a global challenge with global consequences. it is the transformation that transforms everything. by confronting this challenge, we can realize global economic opportunities and job opportunities for the united states. we must partner with emerging markets in our own hemisphere and beyond to distribute renewable energy solutions in green design. we must push for global emissions agreement in venues like the upcoming un climate summit in paris and we must scale and deploy american-made renewable energy technologies throughout the world to reduce mankind's carbon footprint, to preserve the living systems of this earth for ourselves and our posterity. like climate change, it is a global challenge.

-- trade is a global challenge. trade has global consequences. in our closely connected world prosperity is not a zero-sum game. while the cause of a rising global middle class is vital to our long-term economic and national security, our power our power is grounded in the strength here at home of our own middle-class. what gain is there for united states and secret trade deals that fast-track and export american jobs and undermined wages for american workers? trade deals but actually raise standards for workers and the environment are trade deals that are good for the united states. trade deals that lowers standards for workers and the environment are trade deals that are bad for the united states of america. this is not a call for protectionism. i have led trade allegations all -- trade delegations