mr. lahood to talk a little bit more about his ideas of bipartisanship, starting with the question: when obama assumed anice, he was confronted by opposition party that vowed to do everything they could to defeat tim. and they have never stopped to that effort. how do you expect that he would have been able to reach across the aisle and get those people to work with him in the face of such an attitude? and what did you expect them to do to overcome that -- him to do to overcome that? guest: i do think the president made some very strong effort. i think his chief of staff i know for sure made a lot of effort. and i think the press did, too. it kind of fell on deaf ears and that was not helpful. so we are where we are. host: how is ron doing in chicago right now? guest: he is struggling, but i think the fact that he admitted there is some real issues in the police department, he fired the superintendent of police, he has asked for a committee of outstanding citizens to do an investigation, he has accepted the idea that the justice department will do an investigation, he went before the ent

mr. lahood, if you could please address, first of all, if you have already spoken about it, please forgive me for bringing it back up. but in february 2015 president obama made a proposal to actually do a six-year revenue fix for the transportation infrastructure by taxing the businesses that take their business overseas. >> guest: right. >> caller: could you speak to that for me, please? >> guest: sure. that's called repatriated funds, and the president and some people in congress have proposed the idea of using that money to pay more infrastructure. i think -- for infrastructure. i think the business community is going to resist that because they're parking that money offshore, probably earning some pretty good interest on it, and they want to use that money maybe for r&d or their own purposes. i think it's going to be difficult for them to come to grips with the idea it's going to be used for infrastructure. but we'll see. i mean, it's a debate that's going on here. it's not only just been proposed by president obama, but by some people on capitol hill too, and maybe it'll have legs. >>

mr. lahood. until people start paying a stiff price, u don't know if this is going to change. i know as a prosecutor putting together a case like this is very difficult. just the chain of evidence and proving whose fingertips were touching the keys to carry out an attack can be difficult. what more can we do internationally? >> thank you for your question, sir. so right after -- i'll answer your question over a period of time. right after september 11th, i was sitting in a meeting with a large number of information security professionals from within the intelligence community. the question was posed in the auditorium where there are about 250 people. when are we going to start sharing information? and the answer came back from one senior person in 50 years. and the other answer came from another person not in my lifetime. it was very disappointing, to say the least. you roll forward 15 years and look at where the intelligence community is today, it's not like that at all. today i see the intelligence community sharing information in a way like they have never shared it before

mr. lahood, thank you for taking my call. guest: good morning. caller: good morning. i disagree with your characterization of tea party people. they do believe in government, they just believe in limited government. and i think our federal government has gone far field of what the founding fathers ever intended. my question is -- you can comment if you like -- but my question is the davis act. restrictse fact priorities and it keeps from hiring policies in our construction projects. and also, i think it keeps artificially high the price of public service construction jobs. feel about the davis-bacon act because i think it should be repealed. guest: i supported it when i was a member of congress. i think it does really help those people who build roads and bridges earn the wages for very, very difficult work. these people are limited in the number of years they can work because of the hard work that they do. and i think davis-bacon has enabled many of these folks to earn a good living and really be able to take care of their families. the reason that i say -- you know

mr. lahood. >> thank you. i think the witnesses for being here and your testimony. question, when we talk about cybersecurity and these breaches in the private sector or in the government and whether we described them as hackers or something more sophisticated, every time this is done in the private sector or to a government agency or entity, would you describe that as criminal behavior? is that a violation of state or federal statute in some respect? >> one of the challenges, it is a global phenomenon, many attackers are not in the united states, the legal considerations can be complicated. it is more and more infrastructure moves to clout platforms deployed globally where the assets are, it becomes more of a unchallenged. in general the answer is yes that there's a lot of complexity to the global nature of cybersecurity. as a follow-up if we look at traditionally when there is criminal behavior engage in eventually there is somebody held accountable or responsible, there's prosecution, a beagle process that happens. it seems as if the question is are you aware of

lahood: can you point to me and the commonwealth of virginia where there has been a successful prosecution? mr. wood: we just change the laws in the last six months, and i would have to refer to law enforcement to let you know. rep. lahood: thank you. i yield back. a number of great examples between law enforcement and the private sector. i can give you a number of them. , a fraud botnet aound, put out by public-private partnership. online, version came companies and fbi rock down that botnet. this was the botnet propagating things like crypto locker, extorting you to get information back. so there are some successful examples, but to your point, a much more consistent global approach is needed. rep. lahood: were there actual individuals held accountable? there was ar: particular individual in eastern europe that was prosecuted and imprisoned. rep. lahood: in the united states? mr. schneider: no, in europe. thank you for holding this hearing. it is an important issue where there is a lot of room for bipartisan cooperation. the technology always changes so much faster than policy changes. that

mr. lahood's question earlier. as a former prosecutor, i, too, am quite frustrated it seems that individuals are able to attack networks and individuals with relative little punishment, and i understand the challenges of these attacks originating in russia, ukraine or from state actors, but for non-state actors, i'm just wondering what -- what could we do internationally to maybe have an accord or an agreement where we could make sure that we bring people to justice? i remember i asked a high-ranking cyber security official at one of our laboratories naively, i guess, you know, well, are re going after these individuals? and this person kind of laughed, not being rude, but just saying, we're not going after them. we're just trying to defend against what they're doing, and i agree with mr. la hoahood, un people pay a stiff price, i don't know if it's going to change. as a prosecutor, purting a case together like this is very difficult. just the chain of evidence and proving who's fingertips were touching the keys to