not the quantity. that means healthier americans and a healthy budget. today these programs are so fundamental it is easy to forget how hard people fought against them at the time. when social security was created, many called a socialism. when jfk created medicare, many said it would take away our freedoms. but ultimately we came to see that these programs are a promise that if we work hard, we will be rewarded with the basic measure of dignity, security and the freedom to live as we want. it is a promise that generations made to us and a promise that are generations will keep. thank you, have a great weekend. representative rogers: i would like to share with you the good news about programs that congress is making for every american. our focus has been your priorities. instead of top down bureaucrats taking when years and losers --

winners and losers, we want an opportunity economy. instead of the same outdated model in washington, we are working on solutions that empower you to achieve a better life. already, we have it enacted reform. now seniors will have the peace of mind to count on medicare and tax payers will save $3 trillion of the long term -- over the long-term. we have a balance edge of plan -- budget plan, and we have enacted tools to fight human trafficking. and we have a plan to advance an american trade and promote jobs. we ended the bulk collection of phone data and ensures that congress will have a say on the iran nuclear deal. that is just the last seven

months. since 2010, when you first elected a republican majority we reduced spending by more than $2 trillion, the most significant spending reduction in modern history. we projected 99% of americans from tax increases. we achieved job skills, student loans, and medicare -- medical reforms. we stopped the transfer of detainees into the u.s. we enacted a measure to help americans with disabilities. and we passed the most pro-life legislation in history. of course, we have more to do. dozens of solutions to deliver real results are in the works. the 21st century -- act which would accelerate the development of life saving innovations. the student success act, which will take power away from the federal government, so that

every child can have an equal opportunity to get a great education. and we are ready to monetize -- modernize the v.a. system to honor our heroes with world-class care that matches their service. here is the bottom line, we are just getting started on so -- on solving problems and allowing you to have the opportunity to reach your full potential. thank you for listening. have a great weekend. >> here on c-span, the communicators is next, with representatives diana degette and jim langevin. and then marco rubio will talk about national security and foreign affairs in south carolina. and a look at immigration.

>> c-span, created by american cable companies and brought to you as a public service by your local provider. host: this week on the communicators, we will speak with congressional cochairs of the privacy caucus and the security caucus in congress. first up, diana degette, of colorado. she is the privacy caucus cochair. when it comes to technology, where do you draw your personal line between privacy and security? representative degette: i think that most people who are putting information on to the internet, whether it is their social security number or other

personal information, they think it is going to be secure most of the time, but unfortunately as we know, no american is really secure from breaches. host:what can we do to protect that information? diane: the government is trying to keep up with hackers. we saw the most recent attack on the office of personnel management. so another private corporations have had customer information stolen. we can try hard to keep ahead of the hackers. what we need to do is think about how we minimize the need

for customers to put their private information on two websites. with the opm situation, did they need to take social security numbers who are just applying for jobs? don't you really want to limit that information you really need? we need to really think about minimizing the amount of personalized -- the personal information people are putting on these websites to begin with. secondly customers themselves need to be educated to make sure that they understand what their rights are and they ask the hard questions before just give their personal information. host: joining us is dustin from the national journal. dustin: you introduced a letter

to the government accountability office, asking them to take a look at what the government and private sector are doing and how they are helping and responding. it seems the sense of the letter is more needs to be done. is your sense the government and private sector are not responding to data breaches the way they need to effectively? rep. degette: the government and private companies they are saying they are giving protection to customers. in the opm case it was 18 months. of the problem is it may not be long enough. number two, in the case of minors it may be counterproductive. what we are saying is what could opm and these private companies be doing that would do a better job of protecting customers privacy and also of course monitoring the breaches. dustin: opm is saying -- they

are asking other federal agencies to share the cost of providing services to the affected people. is that fair approach that opm allows this to happen in a way? rep. degette: i'm not so concerned about who is paying the bill, i'm concerned we give protection to folks. there was massive amount of data that was stolen. much of this data was highly confidential data, social security numbers and other kinds of data that hackers could use to get private information about people. i'm not so concerned about who is paying for it as to make sure people get robust protection. doesn't there is support on both

sides, one know if flying companies to notify customers after a breach. we haven't seen that legislation go very far. is that a breach legislation something we could still see happen in this congress? rep. degette: given the events of this summer with opm added reach as we saw last year with so many large corporations, i really think the urgency is increasing. and perhaps do they see more of an relation -- more of an inclination to bring this legislation to committee. many of these bills are ready common sense. it seems it would be easy to pass. host: you represent a high-tech area in the denver colorado

region. what are you hearing from some of the companies? why do they feel a need to have all this information about users of their products, such as access to all their contacts? access to all their photos whenever they download an app or use a service? rep. degette: from a marketing standpoint of a lot of private companies have wanted to get access to as much data as they could in the past. i think what people are now realizing is when there is a breach that people who you don't really want in possession of that data will get it. both consumer groups and companies are beginning to recognize that may be need to stand back a little bit and say what data do we need before we will give a credit card or before week get access to our sites or so on.

i think this is a recent phenomenon. in the past people thought if there is a breach we will just give people credit monitoring and other types of services. they really need to look at the front-end. dustin: a consumer privacy bill was introduced and private -- and privacy advocates have concerns with it. is consumer privacy something that could gain some traction in congress? essentially what would that look like? rep. degette: i think people want to look at a consumer privacy bill. on the other hand there is a balancing that needs to be made. i've been in congress a long time and technology has changed

over the time i have been here. and the ability of more sophisticated hackers to get customer information has changed. it is a challenge for us as legislators to put a regulatory framework in place that will put text -- that will both protect customers and allow the free flow of data operations and for government. dustin: we saw similar movement on government surveillance. the government passed a freedom act. is it hard to get the momentum and attention for these corporate consumer privacy issues, thought about companies like his book and google? is it hard to get the focus their when you don't have the year-long scandal as we have seen with government surveillance? rep. degette: what happens, i inc., is you get some shocking data breach of millions of

customers data you it is either in the government or private industry. then people have a hard time figuring out what would a legislative like? then it kind of trip away. it is hard to get the momentum to come up with a regulatory framework that would type of breach from happening for you host: one of the things you are looking at is the internet corporation for the assignment of numbers -- assignment of names and numbers. do you agree with the president's approach to make it more of an international body that governs internet? agree with what congress did and hold back on that issue a little bit? rep. degette: as we see these

increasing reaches by countries like china and other countries it is important to have a robust regulatory body that can regulate internet numbers and so on. i would agree more with the president's approach. this is an issue worth continuing oversight to see what, if any changes we need to make to regulatory process. dustin: the senate is still try to figure what it wants to do it government and the private sector. there are still many privacy concerns. is that something that ultimately will happen in congress as well you rep. degette: i never predict what the senate will do. they have a different pace than what the house has been the fact

we were able to pass this legislation and the house shows there is a, i would really hope the senate would take some later in the fall. jose as a member of the energy and commerce committee net chalabi has been an issue that you have looked at. how is it proceeding? rep. degette: with the court ruling on that chalabi, it is the law of the land and we often joke and say everybody knows what it is but nobody can define it in the same way. the court's ruling gives us a sense of what the law will be. that's neutrality -- there is concern in congress about net neutrality and humvees are opposed to the court's ruling particularly with title ii.

litigation lawsuits have been filed. i think it would be wise to congress to sit down in a bipartisan fashion and try to give certainty to what the interpretation of title ii is going to mean by coming up with a bipartisan bill. i know there has been some interest expressed in doing that but so far that fall has not moved far down the road. host: and you supported? rep. degette: it depends on what it would look like. i think net neutrality is a very important concept and i agree in general with what the course said. i think there is some benefit to consumers as well as the industries have certainty and legislation to back up the court decision. again, it would depend on what it would look like. i told my colleagues on the other side of the aisle i would be happy to discuss getting some

kind of legislation together. dustin: you mentioned china earlier. the administration has not publicly blamed them that individuals have publicly linked china to that hack. there's not going to be a direct retaliation. is that an appropriate response, to have a nationstate hat with the personal information of 22 million and no direct response at all? rep. degette: i can't really comment about that, because a lot of that is classified information. dustin: are you concerned countries may see the was not responding as a way to open up more cyberattacks? rep. degette: even though the government is not responding

publicly i know there are efforts to clearly identify and respond to those who were participating in those cyberattacks. part of it is making sure we can do this in a way that will be effective for those whose security was breached. host: cochair of the privacy caucus in congress and member of the energy and commerce committee, thank you for being with us. up next we will talk to the cochair of the congressional cyber security caucus. rhode island representative jim blanchard and is cochair of the congressional cyber security caucus. what is the purpose of this caucus? rep. langevin: it is bringing a group of members together concerned of a -- concerned on a

single issue. we provide a forum for off the hill to come in and do presentations, educate members and staff about a particular topic. it is a great way for the staff to collaborate. host: why did you get an interest in this? rep. langevin: i was cheering the subcommittee on the homeland security subcommittee. we started doing eight deep dive into cyber former abilities. one of the big things that came to my attention was a vulnerability in safety systems that govern pumps and valves on things like regulating turbines, such on the electric grid or

sewage treatment facilities. national labs found a significant vulnerability that allowed a hacker to take control of the systems and the safety systems. the national labs found a way to close a generator turbine and actually demonstrated that on video. the committee sought and was later released to a news publication. it shows how this blew itself up. started doing a deep dive to see how significant are these vulnerabilities. we found they were significant then, they are significant now you it's not a problem that is

ever going to go away. you have seen the stories about cars that have been hacked. our private businesses doing enough to protect us from hacking cyber security threat? rep. langevin: this problem is never going to go away. it is a challenge we will have to deal with for the long haul. the internet was built with security in mind -- wasn't built with security in mind. our hackers have exploited these vulnerabilities for their own purposes. it has made our society and our country, who is more dependent

than any other country in the world on the internet, more vulnerable. the aperture of phone ability is wide open. we need to take it down to something more manageable. unfortunately congress, which could be doing more should be doing more, isn't doing enough. we haven't passed anything really meaningful. the information sharing legislation has passed the house a couple of times, but we are waiting for the senate to get their act together and pass their own information sharing bill. dustin: the senate has indicated majority -- it may come up in the coming weeks. the differences in information sharing are different than what the house passed.

is there going to have to be some sort of conference to bring those together? how do you see that proceeding? rep. langevin: they work out what the differences and then an identical bill goes back to both houses in identical form and is folded up and down. in this case both houses would pass it and it goes to the president for his signature. i look forward to getting to a conference. we haven't even gotten that far yet. the reason why information sharing is so important is that it allows us to communicate threats back-and-forth, what government knows, what private sector knows, and allows us to prevent hacks before they could actually be carried out. right now there are legal prohibitions from the government sharing classified threat information.

back with the government. this will allow those barriers to be removed so that you could share information on threat signatures, very narrowly defined. if we could probably share that we could widely share that phone ability. unfortunately we haven't passed that legislation yet. host: are their liability concerns? rep. langevin: we have to be mindful of protecting it.

a great value on that. i believe very confident that their house bills, the house intelligence committee that came out of past -- with strong bipartisan support and very strong privacy protections in their, the privacy and civil liberties committee was consulted. for the most part they signed off on it. protections in there as well. i'm sure there could be just as concerned. we are going to make sure those protections are interim. dustin: backfiring in a way. you have some of data in one

repository. and for mission sharing wouldn't have actually perfected. rep. langevin: it is about the threat signatures for the exploits of malware. those are the things we want to prevent in the first place, if not the malware itself. by sharing that information, not the book data, but the threats that is what we want to share more broadly. i haven't seen the draft of the senate bill yet. once they actually vote on something i can comment on it. it seems like they are a long way from passing something on the floor. they tried to do it.

unfortunately democrats didn't support it. they need to bring it up. a stand-alone bill. hopefully we worked out and get it to the president. host: the government -- dustin: the government has linked this to china. it appears officials are saying they are not going to publicly blame china at all. 1.1 million fingerprints. no direct response for public blaming.

n/a -- is it ok country can be hacked and known can be blamed. rep. langevin: it is not ok. i'm enraged the attack happened in the first place. no one is going to be held accountable, no one is going to be prosecuted for it. the real challenge in all this is attribution. it can be difficult to prove in an ironclad way who is responsible. realistically it is the attack that came from china. the question is was it an individual hacker? was at the government? was a proxy for the government. you have to have a very strong case.

they are strong indicators or fingerprints, able to trace factory particular entity. who do you hold responsible? that is why we have to do better on a defense side and information side, so we can prevent these from happening in the first place. we could have been doing much more. opium was a flick of the switch. i was outraged when it happened. we have stolen off -- they stole all the security clearance information of individuals and the contacts of their family members. as you know we called for the resignation of the director of opium at the time, because opium

have been warned for years that they were materially deficient. they should have been doing more. that is no excuse for opium not speaking up, the director not speaking up. we need more resources. that never happened. it was a flick of the switch. host: who is in charge when it comes to the government? who can you turn to when you want information? rep. langevin: you have the cyber security coordinator.

i have the opportunity to speak with them several times. he is a coordinator and doesn't have or budgetary authority to reach across government and compel different departments and entities to step it up. the department of homeland security is the agency extensively charged with carrying out assignments security for the domain. even the secretary does not have the budgetary authority to compel agencies to do more. i have introduced legislation to fix that problem of the game.

the national defense authorization act did passed the house. you failed to act on, so it died. -- the senate failed to act on it, so it died. dustin: is there any continuity among government agencies and have a protect information online -- and how they protect information online? rep. langevin: the department of homeland security is methodically tried to deploy governmentwide -- the tool that is extensively, the tool that will do a better job of protecting the domain. right now it is such a small percentage of the domain.

that was sent to negotiate with the internet service providers and the agency. as time goes on we will have more and more departments and agencies protected. if the department or agency isn't taking it seriously enough cyber security isn't necessarily going to be their primary mission. they are doing a primary mission and are the top people going to get cyber security? perhaps not. perhaps the resignation is going to wake up and take this more seriously. i think we can compel them to do more.

dustin: is part of the problem -- going back to the opium hack is part of the issue also that the u.s. is very aggressive on cyberspace and we have lost the moral high ground with our own espionage? we have seen officials come out and express jealousy is it hard to respond when we are doing the same thing? rep. langevin: we have very present capabilities in cyberspace. the range of government entities around the world, i can tell you the type of hacking by nations like china represent an unprecedented new method of

operation, especially talking about the type of information they are stealing and taking data. it is the largest wholesale transfer of wealth in human history in what is going on with cyber attacks. we don't hack into different companies and corporations around the world and then exploited. china is doing it. it is outrageous and it has to stop. this is one of the reasons we need international rules of the road about what is allowed and what is not allowed area china and russia are way out of bounds on these things. we need to have these international rules that will prevent it