tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN September 30, 2015 10:00pm-12:01am EDT
>> in that last moment here, i have a question about the defense of networks. resilience, denial and this issue of hybrid warfare and what steps you are taking to incorporate in a u.s. or nato response for incorporating a response capability from the cyber warfare concept. >> so it's a concept we are partnering and it will also highlight the work that the teams are doing in this regard. this is part of our broad discussion on how we respond to
the revolving world around us. the international framework is a little more difficult. i don't think it as as far advance as us and nato. it is an area we might want to work on. >> my time is up. thank you very much. >> thank you mr. chairman, i appreciated your comments to earlier questions that were directed from congresswoman susan davis but i would like to follow up and build on that regarding recruiting and training top talent. what are your efforts, and this is for you admiral rogers, in particular, what are your
efforts to develop a cyber career track for those in the military? >> so have the responsibility for training and equip in our agency. the joint services have been totally integrated as to how we are going to develop it, what are the standards and the skills and how are we going to create this workforce. that's what i did in my last job. i'm very comfortable with how each service has tried to create a career path that enables us to extend over an entire career over both capability and generate the insights we need to move forward. i think that is a big change for us in the five to ten years. it's not an area i look at and say wow, i don't have any concerns there. i fink we have a a good broad vision and the capacity and capability that i have yet run into a st. mary zero that we
didn't have the level of knowledge. the challenge has been i might have had a handful of people with the right knowledge and i have to build that capacity more so we have more of it, if you will. >> i appreciate hearing that. that's very encouraging to hear. the department has recently floated a number of personnel reforms, compensation, retirement, etc. how will these. how will these reforms affect the cyber workforce? >> i was going to try to jump in here because this is a huge priority. he came into the department believing that over time, we have created these barriers for service in our government. he wants to really, borough tunnels through these barriers or widen the aperture. he uses cyber as an example of new ways in which we might bring
people into the government and allow them to serve for a while and go back into the civilian workforce and come back in. he has challenged us, and the under secretary of defense, on this force of the future to say how can we make sure that in areas like cyberspace, space, electronic warfare to have more permeability in the department to make sure we are getting the best ideas from outside the department. i don't have any specifics to give you right now because we are in the process of going through a deliberative of which ideas are good but we have the right intent for your question as far as how people can come in and out of our government. this is an exciting mission for many people. maybe they don't want to make a 30 year government career but if they had a chance to help adm. admiral rogers for a two or three-year period, they are all
in. we need to find ways to make that happen. >> you have anything to add? >> comments, while were waiting for that, we are moving forward on some pilot programs to bring industry into the government and for us to pull civilians out of an industry. those pilots are moving very well as we use those to inform brad and his work and i think you'll see great things coming out of this. >> thank you for your answers in the great work that you are doing. mr. chairman, yield back. >> thank you all for being here. it's obvious it's a topic of great importance. i think, as you said, so much of this is about personnel being able to attract the people and keep the people who have the skill set and the commitment to thinking this through because it's not easy stuff, that's for
sure. i gather from the testimony i've heard that there is a fair amount of comfort level with what dod and the military services have been able to do. they have been able to put in place appropriate means of training, hiring and compensating even though you said you may have to come back to us in the future. you also commented that this is an interagency effort and you're working with the department of homeland security, law enforcement, the fbi and intelligence community. how much sharing across those orders is taking place in terms of the skill set that you need in each of those aspects of this and how comfortable are you with the ways you are working together and how they are responding to the challenges they face in matters of personnel? >> i would argue very well. i have personally set down with the director of the fbi and talked about things we should be doing together and that was a
conversation i had with the leadership at homeland security. i've also had it with the private sector where we've argued that we are both competing for the same pool. what works for you and what we can do differently, can we partner, i would make some small twist. i would tell you on the opposite side, the single greatest issue i've experienced with my workforce is just the hint of a shutdown. i have had more agitation from the workforce saying that this is the second time in two years that we are having this discussion. even if we don't shut down, just the fact that were getting this close, the workforce is very open with us about their not so sure they want to be part of an organization where there is this lack of control and i can't count on stability. that really concerns me because i can't overcome that. >> do you have any -- >> this is a very competitive field as the admiral said.
we are building up a total of 133 cyber teams in the cyber missing force. some are focused on protection of the networks, some are focused on national infrastructure and some are focused on combat and commanders. we want to build to a total of 133 teams 33 teams. it will be about 6200 active duty military, civilians and in some instances contractors. we won't get there until 2018. we are in the process of building these. this is a very competitive space. we are doing well in our recruitment but as adm. rogers says, any hints of shutdown or sequestration will really set us back. we think we have a good mission that people want to participate in but we are not where we need
to be yet. we still have until 2018 to build up the force to what we think is the minimum necessary for our missions. >> i serve on the boards for one of the service academies. i know in our discussion we have heard that it's been difficult to attract young airmen because they come into the academy with a particular idea in mind of where they want to spend their time so it's not always as simple as we would like to think given the extraordinary challenge. the department has shown its commitment to leveraging cyber information and i commend sec. carter with making his way out to silicone valley to create some presence there with a satellite campus and have a way to interact more easily with that community. i just wonder how will you extend that program and look to other parts of the country where
you have cyber innovators and cyber experts? >> if you're really deferring to the defense innovation experimental, that is an experimental unit. we want to see how we can interact with the private sector in the best way. one of our ideas was to bring people back to the pentagon and show them what we are doing. i said no, what we want to do is go to the field and see what you're airmen and soldiers, marines and sailors do. we want to help them. once we do the lessons learned there we expect that to be successful and become a permanent unit. then where would we expand? we would go to other centers throughout the country and mr. halverson has been helping with this thing also. >> the secretary went out to silicon valley and were doing a similar thing in boston and not
just waiting. we have some of the more mature cyber companies as well as a group of the innovative companies. i think what we are trying to do is take what silicone valley stands for, not the geographic location, and make sure to say it's more about the concept of innovation and not just in silicon valley. you will see us spending more attention in the northeast and in the southwest sector. >> there is no substitute for physical presence and physical interaction, day-to-day interaction that can take place. thank you, my time is up. >> the army is establishing a cyber campus within the aviation missile research development and engineering center.
this campus consists of qualified cyber personnel and facilities to provide world class cyber support by using cutting-edge, research and development of cyber solutions to challenges associated with emerging and legacy technologies they coordinate cyber activities with industries, academia and government partners. their position to integrate the department of homeland security, the department of justice, the space and missile defense and the industrial base. additionally it can provide deep technical app expertise and reduce cyber threats posed as it relates to hardware, software, firmware, networks, firmware, networks, test and evaluation, modeling simulations, forensics, supervisory control and data acquisition systems. with that as a backdrop in these questions are for each of you,
how does the army's vision with this integrate with the department of defense overall cyber strategy customer. >> as admiral rogers said, each of the services are developing cyber skills within their title ten responsibilities. this is just one reflection of many, many, many, many such organizations that are being set up. the air force has units down in san antonio and so i would ask adm. rogers to give you more specifics but each of these are going to have specific skills. in this case, the one you talked about really focused on the aviation systems of the army and how they can make sure they are not vulnerable to cyber attack. they develop other skills too. >> so, every service is developing a similar kind of capability, similar kinds of relationships.
the army has really chosen to harness that in alabama. the positive side for me is they have a good strong collaboration across the services as to who is doing what and where. the question i think, increasingly for us over time is, as we get more experience to be nine to invest in certain areas where we are seeing strong results rather than perhaps other areas that haven't played out as well as we have liked. >> thank you. would you like to add anything mr. halverson? >> the policy actually talks about how we do better within industry and part of what they are doing is bringing in industry to be part of the solution to the problem. i think they are perfectly aligned when they say the move is in the policy. >> is there a consolidated effort to ensure cyber centers,'s such as the one at redstone are interconnected with other services in department of defense capabilities to properly
leverage knowledge sets? >> i don't know that we have a formal -- i know there's regular analytic and collaborative venues where they all get together. i participate in some of those. i don't know that there is a formal process, if you will. i tried to synchronize that mi level with each of the service components that work for me. hey we have to look at ourselves as one integrated enterprise because we have to maximize effectiveness and efficiency. there's money and time and we have to maximize output. >> sir i don't believe there is a formal program right now. we look at it in terms of function so right now i can tell you in terms of defensive networks, everything is on the same playing field. we all have the same scorecards
and we rate ourselves exactly the same. to your specific question on whether or not we have a formal program, that is something i will need to go back and research and say it sounds like a good idea i just don't know exactly how we would implement it yet. >> thank you for your insight. i yield back. you were talking about the three basic tenets of deterrence. the first two, denial and resilience, i understand pretty well that there are questions about the third one which is cost imposition. i'm interested in knowing how we communicate or advertise the consequences of cyber attacks to potential adversaries.
to the degree that you can talk about that change their behavior and how have some of the consequences that we have imposed thus far change their behavior. how do we, how have the dog on that third tenet of cost imposition? >> there is a policy statement that says we will respond at the time, place and manner of our choosing. then we have to communicate, i think adm. rogers said yesterday, we are pretty good at stopping 99.5% of the attacks. getting rid of the basic hacker. it's the state adversaries that pose the biggest challenge. i would just like to weave in, i think the chairman mentioned that she and president obama decided on the agreement. that came about from intensive
discussion saying this behavior is unacceptable. there were four specific aspects of what i would consider this confidence building measure. the first one was that we have to have timely response for information and assistance to chime in and say there is an actor that is conducting these activities. we've agreed to share that information. but the united states and china have agreed that they will not knowingly conduct cyber related theft of intellectual property for commercial gain. were making common effort to develop these norms of behavior which we have never done before. then we agreed to a a high-level joint dialogue. people say there's no enforcement mechanism but it's a confidence building measure and it is the first time that the president of china has said i will commit my government to these things. we believe it is very, very significant and could lead to this. it came about from high-level
dialogue where we say we find your behavior unacceptable. we do have options. how can we work this out? we attributed, we did sanctions, i believe those type of activities will prove the united states is very serious about this and may lead to differences in terms of behavior. what are you actually seeing in terms of change behaviors? >> i understand the statements of intent, what are you seeing in terms of the number and severity of intrusions or cyber attacks following letting our adversaries know that they can choose the place and time of our response and responded in some of these cases. what has that done? >> in an unclassified form, but in broad terms, we haven't seen the north koreans attempt to engage in cyber threats of
american systems for several months. in service activity we saw the iranians back in the 2012, 2013 timeframe. we have not seen that of late. i would argue for other nationstates, the impact to date has not been significant changes. it's early with regard to how this commitment plays out over time. >> i think that is something that i am perhaps other members of the committee would be interested in receiving a briefing on going forward. just to look at how behaviors are changing and whether that third option of insuring their adversaries understand the
consequences and costs and make sure it's really working. i appreciate your answers. i yield back. >> we now proceed to congresswoman from indiana. >> as you said earlier, russia is a competitor in terms of our cyber technology and the cyber threats that are out there. i guess i am interested to know what your perspective is. faced truck nine isis targets and i think this is a reprehensible activity that is happening today. many questions as to high we ended up here and i'm curious with this development here of an overaggressive russia, how in the world do we go forward with talking about. competitors and sharing intel information for trusting anything that comes from
pollutant and russia. >> clearly your point is much broader than the cyber arena. >> i think it's completely related. >> i didn't say was unrelated, i said it was broader. >> with their not be an element of trust that would have to prevail here when we just literally saw this morning and for many of us who have sat here on this committee for a long time saw a red line of violations of all these countries around the world with the administration who doesn't have a plan or strategy. how would we take a a step forward today. i know you're looking at the broad context, but i don't understand the gap for 30 been there in the gap that will continue to emerge today. how do we reach that and how do we say to the american people, with all seriousness and look our constituents in the eye and say that we have their back and they were looking out for the
security of the united states and our allies are watching vladimir putin walk right into the middle east next to our co-heart and friend, does that not change the equation of trusting or having any kind of semblance of trust? >> i only argue this relayed latest issue in terms of russian the ukraine. it is not a new phenomenon. i know the secretary has had conversation with his counterparts. one of the point to try to make is, from watching the russians use cyber in an ever more aggressive way. >> this is alarming to me that you just talk to the president yesterday and said stay out of our airspace. we get one hour of warning and they go in and tack syria. now they are a main state player
and were fighting back and forth over all kinds of things. we just had the pope here and it seemed that he is using a window of opportunity to go in and be another major push in syria. the alarm for lawmakers and for the citizens are our country that we are battling to protect as we have now watch them establish themselves in syria. in the middle east. >> he believes he is following his national interest. we are alarmed at what happened this morning. the agreement was that our militaries would talk so we could d conflict our operations. so. >> so have we not seen an example of why this doesn't work would we not see this as a
failure? >> i don't believe it's a failure. i believe it's a an aggressive action by russia right now in advance of our discussions between our two militaries. >> are you confident that we have a strategy with the presidents of united states and vladimir putin and that we have a strategy and we are holding up our end of the bargain? or you confident that the administration is looking at this as we expected this to happen? i think it was a gigantic breach was there a strategy that was supposed to prevent this or is our attitude now that we know they're going to go do their things and we'll just see at what point we will try to contain them. >> we have a disagreement on strategy. >> they are doing military action.
they're making headway through that whole eastern european area. they have been doing military action and today are watching a live bombing and from your perspective and the perspective of the ministration, we expected that? the american people didn't expect that. >> the russians russians made clear that they would support the asad regime with airstrikes and we made an agreement to have our militaries talk so there would not be any problem between our interactions between our forces. >> do you think one hour of notice is legitimate for two forces that are talking?? it honestly broke down. what is our response now? >> you have me at a disadvantage because i don't know exactly what has happened over the last hour. we heard about the attacks this morning. they asked us to avoid the area where they would be operating. we continue to fly throughout syria. >> and we continue to talk? are we talking to our russian
counterparts? >> we have agreed for our militaries to meet in that meeting has not occurred yet. it was just an agreement between the two presidents a couple days ago. we are trying to find out where we will meet, where it will be. >> would you not agree this is a quark crisis because for the first time they have now entered the middle east and for the first time we have watch the broadening of putin's powers who was was just here on american soil right next to a hotbed of war. he was right next to our dear ally israel. have we not now watch something elevated to the point that this is now a crisis because russia has gone from their position through the ukraine, looking at eastern europe and has landed themselves with a coalition inside syria. >> i do not believe it's crisis. i believe it's a disagreement in strategy and that's what were trying to work out. >> i respect that but i believe it is a crisis. i believe we have a president
with no foreign-policy whatsoever. we are wondering who in the world is defending our country. with that, mr. chairman, i yield yield back. >> we now proceed. >> thank you, i would like to rebalance and refocus to cyber strategy, if i may. a lot of my colleagues have asked about deterrence and this is something i i am concerned about after recent events that have been discussed. with the current threats to our cyber network, the need to discuss here emma including creating and maintaining a persistent training?; environmt and building the joint information environment to secure the dod enterprise. the development of these priorities cannot only serve as a deterrent but need the
readiness to be the best in the world. where is the dod in allocating resources for these priorities. if you could address each one, joint information environment, persistence and training. >> it will take us several years to finish. i think we are in the third year of funding and were working through 217. again i sense strong support for this and i haven't come to an issue yet where we have problems with the way ahead. unified platform is a relatively new idea for us. we think the department used to create a capability somewhat separate from nsa to execute operations.
we really are starting out with the 17 build. as we gain more experience it and we do this over time we will continually reassess and ask ourselves if some of these assessments are proving what they thought they would be. >> they're on track and will be fully operational by the end of 2017 i wanted to go back to integration of personnel. i know the secretary mentioned, i want to focus on defining where the role of the national guard fits into the cyber strategy. i'm a member of the guard and all of us here on this community have constituents in the guard.
can you touch on some of the points on where the guard can increase their role in the larger cyber mission? >> let me start by saying our cyber force that we are building to as we discussed earlier is about 6200 active and civilians and special cases contractors. you didn't mention national guard. >> 2000 national guard and reserves on top of that. some of them will be part of the cyber teams that i've talked about. others will be extra capacity that might be able to help the states. we have been working very, very closely together. our policy shop is working through all of the aspects of what we can do under title 32 and title x authorities in support of the state but the guard and reserve will be central to the cyber mission. about one quarter of the entire
force, 6200 on the active side and another 2000 and the reserve and national guard. they are absolutely central. >> the only other comment i would make, i am the son of a guardsman. as a child, i watched watched him every day, every month, every summer participate in guard activities. i spent spent a lot of time playing inside armories with my father. the air force is using the guard and reserve to fill out a part of the active requirement for their share of the 6200. in the in the case of the army, they have decided that the guard and reserve opportunity can generate over and above the 6200 people. the navy and marine corps don't have that structure so it's a little different for them. the discussions have been very good. i think as the secretary said,
we have to figure how we are gonna work our way through this and how we are going to view this as one integrated enterprise so we are maximizing the capabilities at the department. >> use of spoke earlier about the cyber teams and the number of teams you are building. i understand there may be opportunities for these teams to be holy guard. you didn't say that today. >> i said in the case of the air force, their share of 133 are creating a small number of teams that are holy guard. one more question. >> how resilient are our military networks to cyber attacks and how do you measure and qualify resilience question. >> we are getting better but we are not where we need to be. that is why secretary carter says security of our network is
absolutely job number one. first, get the network as dependable as possible so the j i.e. in the joint regional security stacks will take the firewalls down to 200. the number of enclaves, and terry can talk about this, would be dropped. the first thing thing is to make your network with the services, the fewer services as possible and as dependable as possible. the second is to build up the teams. that is another big part and the other one is to have a cyber scorecard which is telling us exactly how well we are doing. mr. halverson was the creator of the scorecard and i'd ask him to
tell you how we are going to track this. >> it's actually a measure on the scorecard that we are actively developing. it will look. >> your time has expired. >> do you use telecommunications equipment manufactured by while we? >> in the office of the secretary, absolutely not. i don't believe we do in the pentagon, any systems of the pentagon. >> no. >> why do you not use it for smart. >> for us i think it's a broader conscious decision as we look at supply-chain and potential former abilities within the system. i think that is a risk we felt was unacceptable.
>> what about your contractors question what should they be using one-way telecommute acacia >> this is a broader departmental issue. the contracts we have, we specify security standards that you have to meet. we specify the requirements that you have to notify us. i don't know what the current languages we are very explicit and that is not allowable. i would appreciate if you get back if there are any that are using that equipment. my next question has to do with
those who recognize the vietnam era that help provide security. they they say we need to get new modern helicopters because we are talking about nuclear weapons. based on a meeting i had with the air force, i am very concerned that that will take four or more years to get these helicopters. these are icbm fields and i had a hearing on this security issue and it came up and it's alarming, the concern that we are being told about the security of these fields. what can you tell me about why we are looking at such a long period of time? >> this is an extremely high priority and we are dealing with it right now in pvr 17. last year the air force plan to replace those helicopters was to
take their uh 60 days, and upgrade them to you age 60l. they were just too old and it became cost prohibited. that's why the timing slid because now we will have to buy new helicopters. >> they have come in and said we cannot afford to wait for four years and we are looking at a wider variety of measures to mitigate the problem. until we can get these new helicopters built. it is a very high priority issue for us in this budget built and i will be able to give you a little bit more information once we work out all of the different
options before us. >> i just want you to understand that i really believe that we should see an immediate reprogramming request for the budget. with that, i will close by saying that now this is about to be sent to the pres., i would like to talk to off-line about our new injun as soon as we get a chance to privately. with that i will yield my time. >> thank you mr. chairman, thank you gentlemen for your service. we are dealing with some very savvy actors and foreign countries that have been hacking into us. the agreement with china, you seemed somewhat elated by the agreement and yet i have reason to be very skeptical about them
complying with what they agreed to comply with but more importantly, i would like to ask you what is it in the agreement that you would have wished was in the agreement. >> i wouldn't characterize my reaction as alisha so much as i i believe it is a very good first step. >> i understand that, but what wasn't in the agreement. i have very limited time so please answer the question. >> again i believe this was a
confidence building measure. china will either prove that they are serious about this or not and then we can take action as necessary if they prove not to follow through on their commitment. >> the opium pack was devastating. it's clear that china did it. they deny it. it's also very clear that they now have very personal information. what went on with the joint chief of staff and classified email worries me a great deal whether it is russia or china. access to that personal information is such that if they know who your family members are, who your neighbor is and they can pretend that they are your family member or next-door neighbor, you are more likely to click on to that email and then they can get in. what steps are being taken to deal with fishing in terms of requiring greater accountability
by those who have higher levels and click on those. will they be punishment enforced? >> almost every one of these intrusions that have occurred have occurred because of simple operator air. bad cyber hygiene. they click on a phishing attempt. we are going after that and i would just like to say that is the biggest problem we have which is getting our cyber hygiene better. >> my point is this. what kind of, is is there any kind of penalty being imposed on those who, in a careless manner, click on them? >> the simple answer is yes. i won't be go into specifics on what has been imposed but we
have action to take on people who have misbehaved in a cyber way. we have training and we have taken certain actions on the network to eliminate the ability to click on links and we have a warning that says you must think about this link. in some cases you cannot click on the link via any of our networks. >> i would say from a network perspective i have implemented many changes where i have told users i'm going to make your life harder. if this is what it takes to drive a change in behavior, i will make it harder to preclude this from happening. >> what is keeping you up at night? that is my last question. >> i would say from my perspective there are three things that concern me in cyber. will we see action taken against u.s. infrastructure?
will we see that of information to manipulation of the data that's in our system? in the third thing that worries me is are we going to see nonstate actors meet terrorist groups and that's probably at the forefront of my mind as they start to use the web as an offense of weapon. >> we have a large number of systems that were built in an era where the systems were not built to withstand the cyber environment that we are in now. what keeps me up is can we get through all of our systems and make sure they do have cyber hardening. going forward were making sure there are keeps performance parameters in every system that we have but we have to go through risk mitigation on every system and say what is the critical cyber vulnerability and have we taken care of it. it's the manipulation of data, since we rely on our networks,
that eats me up at night. >> your time has expired. >> thank you for joining us today. sec. work, i want to to begin with your perspective on how we address the cyber threat. we have construct the military that is very adept and capable of addressing kinetic threats. we have specialists and women leased these come in they learn strategy within that environment but we have a very piecemeal environment with cyber threat. should we have the same top to bottom capability capacity? shouldn't they also get training in the cyber round? how do we construct a force that
is as capable as it should be in the cyber realm? we are far behind and we need to catch up. what is your perspective on how we should do that. is that valuable to do and what are you doing to get to that point? >> it is very valuable. the first thing is to include, what we call improving the cyber hygiene of the entire force. making every single member active duty, civilians, contractors and reserves to understand the cyber threat that we face each day and understand the actions they can take to improve our security. i think many of the things you say in all of her education in our schools, cyber is now an important part of our curriculum. we have read teams that are going out and helping commanders understand where their vulnerabilities are and how they can improve. we have different types of means
by which we hold people accountable like if you have a negligent discharge with a weapon, that is a bad thing. we want everyone to know that a negligent discharge in cyber is just as risky. this is a big shift that adm. rogers spoke to earlier. >> this is so foundational to the future in terms of our ability to execute what the nation's counting on. we don't need the same level of training that the dedicated mission force has but there has got to be a level of basic cyber awareness across our entire ranks. this is one environment in which if we have given you access to a keyboard you now have potential vulnerability. everyone is involved in this environment.
>> in that realm, that priority also has to be reflected in how resources are dedicated. how are we dedicating resources within personnel, within training, within hardware and software. the tickets also reflected on not only what you are doing from a class v standpoint and training standpoint, but where you dedicating resources to make sure that you are successfully meeting that objective? >> when sec. carter was the deputy secretary, starting around fiscal year 13, there is a a concerted effort to increase the investment in cyber forces. i believe we are doing very well in this regard. we could always do more. they said wherever our budget ends up, cyber will be a top
priority. one area i think we could do better on his in tools. i think we had to build the human capital first, which we have been doing very well, but if there's one area where we could do better is to invest more money in tools and then he could create better options for the force. >> i think were doing a very good effort but what i think of we will have to look at over time are tools, situational awareness and training and asking ourselves, over time, if the man pyro or piece -- manpower piece correct?
we have to take this in bite-size chunks and keep moving. >> if you could, i'd love to see a breakdown for what you are proposing and resource allocation now what your projection is in the future. you talked about the time element. time and this is critical. getting your perspective on how you will accomplish that both strategically within the planning sense as well as allocation of resources. >> thank you mr. chairman. many of my questions have been asked and answered i wanted touch on something that was mentioned a few minutes ago about the government shutdown. i've been sitting here since february and i i admire everyone on this committee. i've learned a great deal. i'm from nebraska. it is unfathomable, beyond belief, incomprehensible that
this government or congress or anybody would even begin to talk about shutting down the government. for whatever political gain they may get, we were in the middle east in february at the beginning -- not the beginning of the isis effort but the beginning of stage of our efforts to combat them. we were in baghdad and there was discussion about standing up to address social media issues. it was at the very, very beginning, at least in baghdad of getting civilian and military personnel up to speed on what was going on with isis and social media. we are now in october and i know this is a little bit of a speech and i apologize but i came back with a sense of all the things
we've done. i understand this is democracy and we can talk about what we want to talk about. why don't we debate and discuss and give to the military, some clear plan and understanding of where we want to go with not only isis but in the middle east. it seems to me we are reacting. we are reacting to what the russians did today these other threats are there. we need to indicate what we do want you to do and where we want you to go because i think that is totally lacking. all the things that went on in the house.
what is our military thinking, we can't get our house in order? they look at me like we are nuts. where asking them to do an impossible task around the globe and were talking about stuff that has nothing to do with giving you the capability to move forward. i have said enough. i'm picking up on your third point about the social media issue. that was the third thing that keeps you up at night. what's your analysis of where we are in the next -- where we are with that third element in how you see that evolving. >> the ability and the information arena is very important.
we focused a large piece of our strategy to stop or stall that battlefield activity level. i think we have to do the same thing with the information dynamic. part of their ability to get out their story, their propaganda, their vision, we, we need to contest that. isil is, in many ways and in and idea as much as it is a physical threat. >> how are we doing on that question. >> i think it's fair to say we have not achieved the impact that we think we need to have and that we want to have. >> if i could just say that your opening statement certainly resonates with senator carter and me. it's all about balancing and determining your means. if you don't know what your means are arts almost impossible to have a good strategy. we are in a situation where a continuing resolution is better
than a a government shutdown. it is, but it's certainly not something i would want to operate under. essentially what we have is a nine month fiscal because three first-quarter, we are limited to do what you told us to do last year. rather than doing the things that we need to do this year. it is an incredible situation. there is no member of congress, in any house or party that would sit in my job as a coo and say we can make this work without compromising our national security. i'm sorry i'm on a soapbox but this is something we deal with every day and hope that we don't have a government shutdown. >> my time is up, but thank you very much. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you gentleman. now that you are on topic, i will make sure i'm on the record saying after serving 26 years in
the uniform, and seeing government shutdowns and the impact that has, i am struck strongly arguing against that shut down. i would urge all my colleagues that if you want to keep the government open you have to vote to keep the government open. that would be my encouragement today. prior to running for congress i was a professor. one of the last courses that i participated in was a senior executive seminar related to cyber terrorism. in your strategy, you talked about maintaining robust alliances and partnerships. obviously this is a global domain. they are now starting a program
on cyber security studies. i'm wondering if you could speak to how they fit in with the strategy, how you feel as far as resources in order to use tools like these security centers like the marshall center to execute that strategy and whether you need new authorities for additional resources in that venue. >> first of all these different centers are very vital. part of our strategy, regardless of what the resources are comes from partnerships. we need to establish strong partnerships. this is a collaborative environment that we all face the same threats and need to operate together. i don't know if there are any authorities that mike would ask to work more deeply with our partners.
>> it hasn't been an authorities issue as much. there needs to be support and someone can say hey i think this will generate good outcomes to this. i have committed to that because that's what i can bring. i don't think either of us, off-topic forehead know the specifics other than its ongoing. >> sometimes we have senior officials from 45 countries. this is not a technical course. it's more of awareness of best practices, policy issues and for some of our less powerful counterparts.
how to work and respond and work with each other intel wise and threat wise. i think it goes a long way. i was very impressed with the capabilities that we have there and i think it's a little bit of an investment of a potentially huge strategic outcome. >> we will be in nato to do exactly that. some of that is a result of some of the marines that work directly from the marshall center. >> i look forward to working with you in the future. this is a global issue. thank you. i appreciate it. i yelled back. >> thank you mr. chairman. gentlemen, i am very interested in looking at vulnerabilities in our infrastructure. i would love to go down
specifically what supports our core functions : i took a tour of a contractor, a wonderful company and as part of this facility they were very proud to show me what they would do it one of our facilities and one of our bases. i won't say what base it is out of a secret room. it was home for a major maneuver
division of the army. from another state that i was i looked at that pace and that person asked the person who is turning the lights on and off at the base. i said do you have a secret friend. and i asked if they had anybody with a secret. but this was was a nonsecure room, people were coming in and out. amazing technology that will help us save tons of money when it comes to environmental cost and efficiency and as a democrat i love. but i'm concerned that i was concerned watching them turn the lights on and off on a major division in the can committee. what are you doing for the army
installation command, the marine corps installation command, and also local civilian infrastructure as well. by the way, this the way, this bases outside of a major metropolitan city. not one of the army bases in the middle of nowhere. but i was deeply concerned. >> we share your concern. the commands are working with each individual installation. i have been an installation commanded myself so i have experienced myself. when you are so dependent in some ways on infrastructure is outside your immediate control and that drives your ability for the omission. it's why electively we ask ourselves what is the capability we need to bring for the installation and backups and so we have a level of control. we are working our way through this. the challenge we find is, again is the scope of the problem that is out there. just the infrastructure that we
count on as a department. just the broad swap and size of it. we're trying to collectively work through that. it is a problem that will take us years to work through. i don't think there's any doubt about that. >> to have a liaison on cyber command and installation command for each branch of service. >> know i work through my service components and work with the installation command. so when i was the navy reporting u.s. cyber command, i was working directly with the navies installation command. and what we're doing with naval installations around the world for us. we still do do that now. >> is there any policy that looks like, one of the great things about this committee it is very bipartisan and i want to continue on acquisition reform. one of my concerns is the north american regional headquarters is in my district. i have concerned that we are talking about service
subcontractors that are several layers down and we are not inspecting them. there is no one inspecting this contractor. no one making sure they were that they had secured the facilities and computer, and turning on and off the lights on a major military base. >> so will look at that for action and provide feedback on that. i share your concern man. this is something we'll have to work our way through. >> what are you specifically, do you have plans and place, what are you doing to address this issue. >> mike let me take that one. there is policy in place. we're looking at all installations and radiant them and looking for where the priorities are. as mike said, this is a priority issue. a priority issue. there's a vast number of installations and frankly the control system for power water when their bill, there is no consideration of cyber. now we have to go back and fix
that. we have a list of the priorities, we are prioritizing on the spaces that have more strategic assets first, which i think is smart. will go down that to fix those issues. we have new language to meet certain requirements for the security control system and that is in place. >> can i have a copy of your priorities list tenured language language for new contractors, is that available for congress? >> i'm sure it is, we'll figure out how do get that to you. >> think you are you'll back my time. >> we now recognize gentleman from arizona for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. admiral, i appreciate people like you that put yourself at risk and try to do everything you can to protect the homeland and the future generation, my children thank you. i'm going to paraphrase here but in recent press briefings at the
wilson prep center you said what keeps you up at night, i know you've asked that today as threats to infrastructure and you have observing nationstates spending a lot of time with them the power structure of the united states. as you know better perhaps than anyone, the department of defense, the electricity needs without which the department's position position is it cannot affect its mission. of course there 320 million americans that depend upon it pretty significantly for everyday survival. in a widespread collapse of the electric grid with the two gross societal collapse. so under your cyber hat, how protected is your electric grid from cyber attacks and lesser discussed attacks that could come from geometric disturbance
or electromagnetic pulse. defined defined industry to be a willing partner to secure this grid, and what have you been tasked with record made with and asked to do with from the department of homeland security and the frc. in regards to hardening the electric grid and protecting it, and just giving us your best military advice. a lot of questions here. i'm sorry. what you sorry. what you think needs to be accomplished to robustly impact our grid. >> remember dod does not physically act on private-sector networks, i am not responsible for hardening. >> that's true without maybe
you'll certainly revisit that. >> my only point is your question is specifically what are you doing as? that's not cyber community. we partner with dhs and their role. i try to make sure because that one of the missions you heard us talk about in the beginning where there is an expectation that dod needs to be ready to respond if the president responds that we need to respond to a cyber event approved significant, a power issue is certainly one of it. we partner with the cyber guard segments from two different parts of the united states that participate in a united states. in terms of the grid, if you will vulnerability, i would argue it is pretty broad. if you look at the eastern part of the united states the greatest operating on the margins are ready just between capacity and demand. the other point i tried to make in the eastern part of the united states, you need to think more than just the u.s. our grid and it east is into
hydroelectric and other power generation capacity on their side of the border is flowing south to meet our basic needs. the other challenge i find in the power sector and they are quick to remind us is the business model. we are regulated industry. the only way for us to generate revenue is through rates. those are governed. i just can't universally sam going to up charges to generate a $5 billion capital fund that i can use to invest in basic infrastructure. each of the utilities within the sectors trying to work their way through it. >> i appreciate that. one of the things over the years in dealing with this issue has occurred to me is that what you just said, your absolute crack. this is not your responsibility to tell the private sector what to do with the grid. within the private sector we talk about hardening the grid for security purpose they say that the national defense apparatus job. in the meantime,
this is what could be a profound be a profound threat given the fact that all her other critical infrastructures rely heavily upon the grid. they wash the 13th floor of the congressional the bay no one addresses it. there is always a moment in the life of a problem when it is a big enough to be seen as small enough to be addressed. i think we we live in that window. i don't offer you any advice. the question i hope lingers in our minds, is are we doing what is relevant to protect the national security on this particular threat. certainly a loss of the grid would be the ultimate cyber security issue. if you turn those computers on you can't do much else. there's no arrogance in my comments, i think you're doing a great job. i hope you'll you'll consider this as much as possible. thank you. >> thank you general for yielding back.
all of our members have completed the questions. i want to thank the witnesses for their time. in preparation for this earring i know it takes a lot to get ready for these. your time here today has been very beneficial to us. with that, we are adjourned. >> congress averts a shutdown to the federal government by passing a short-term continuing resolution funding the government through december 11. covering it all, tamara holland's joynes room capitol hill. how did the house and senate get to this point. >> is because we weren't able to pass any appropriate bills over the last six months. the house managed to get through six before it stalled out in the senate was not able to take up anything. the democrats were saying they were not happy with the republicans framework and blocked any bills or make it to the floor. >> in the senate by the vote of 78-20 and he said the final tally was 277-151. one of the most painless votes on the spending bill in a while.
how did house leaders make sure that was a painless votes. >> the biggest thing was john boehner's announcing he would retire at the end of october. there is a lot of pressure before for him to kill federal funding for planned parenthood, something democrats said they would not allow. conservatives are using a challenge to boehner speakership to force him or to the right. with with him announcing his retirement that lifted the weight off his shoulders for him to just go ahead and put a so-called stopgap on the floor. leaving planned parenthood funding in place and leaving it acceptable to democrats. the deadline didn't hurt either. >> we mentioned at the beginning, december 11 is a short-term spending measure. what does the cr include question work. >> it includes relatively flat funding levels for most federal agencies. it includes an extra $700 million to fight emergency wildfires in the west. it includes a flat level of
funding for the pentagon to go fight wars and to go fight isil. it includes special provisions of the department of veterans affairs to finish building a hospital in denver and to help get through the backlog of health record. >> is the fiscal year ends, and the cr passes the senate and then the house, you tweet shut down the threat evaporates for now but major storm clouds ahead. what are some of those storm clouds quest my. >> the same pressures that are on the speaker this time will not go away, they only get punted. otherwise it is going to add up. people want to negotiate a new budget deal to raise the sponging tax to get some final preparations build through. there's pressure from from those parties to do that particular from part who want more spending for the pentagon. there are conservatives who say they do not want bad and they will fight tooth and nail to make sure it doesn't happen. there's action on the debt limit that will be
required in november or december, there's a deal on highways that need to happen. perhaps tax extenders. two. it's all coalescing at the end of the year. it could be really messy speak the change of leadership in the house with the vote, how might the change in leadership complicate the negotiations ahead over the budget and other issues. >> boehner is under extreme pressure from democrats to negotiate as much as he can on some sort of budget deal with the white house and with the mitch mcconnell. they know how to deal of pain or want to get as much done as possible. it will be hard to get that taken care. a lot of the responsibility will fall on mccarthy, the front runner for speaker. kevin is going to be under the same pressure that boehner was under without really vocal right wing that will want to push him to not make a deal. same with the republican convention on field. >> on the senate side of things. the senate passed the resolution
78 - 20. what has mitch mcconnell set about the future for appropriations and working out a budget not only with the house but with white house as well. >> mcconnell has been blunt the last few weeks. he said there would not be a shutdown this year. he was straightforward about how he thinks there needs to be a budget deal in order to make sure that happens. that means negotiating with the white house to raise the spending cap, finding ways to offset the increased spending, he mentioned earlier this week that him and boehner talked with pres. obama earlier this month and negotiations over the budget appear to be starting. >> she covers the budget stuff and you can follow her on twitter pittard thanks for joining us. >> coming up on c-span two, donald trump campaigns in new hampshire. former massachusetts governor there and gop nominee, mitt
romney. that's probably by the palestinian president speaking before the un general assembly. >> the house and senate approved a temporary government spending bill before the midnight deadline. on our next "washington journal" we'll get your comments on the funding measure. >> colorado congressman ken buck will join us to talk about the republican agenda. speaker banners right said nation and the upcoming gop leadership contest. in california, congressman ten lou will give his take on the continuing resolution to fund the government through december. also the debate over planned parenthood. you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. "washington journal" live east morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> the he will talk about the
geopolitical situation in eastern europe with searing refugee crisis and his countries increase in defense spending. live coverage at 12:30 12:30 p.m. eastern on c-span three. >> the c-span cities tour working with our cable affiliates and visiting cities across the country. this week and we are joined by comcast to learn more about the history and literary life of santa rosa, california. consider part of napa wine country will look at the evolution of the wine industry in sonoma county. >> sonoma county agricultural history, i guess you could say began with my because the first vines planted here were by general vallejo and at the mission in sonoma in the 1820s or early 1830s, which was a very long time ago. their mission grapes and no one in their right mind would make wine out of them now. with that wine country label
that started in the 70s, by the 80s and 1990s we we are beginning to be better known. >> when my folks first purchased the ranch in the late 50s they did not know at the time, but they saw quite a change in the egg industry happening just in our little valley here. having been the quote, unquote wine country, we have a wonderful story and agriculture history here in the valley and in sonoma county. >> we also visit that jack london state historic park. author of the call of the wild and white fang. >> we are on jack london speedy ranch also known as the ranch of good intentions. this is where jack london lived until his death in 1960.
jack london probably would have been writing longhand when people came upon him in his office. his very productive here. two thirds of his writing is published after he moved here. books like. books like white fang was published in 1906, a year after he brought his ranch property. valley of the moon was published while he was living here. little of the lady was published here. jack london claimed he worked to our sedate writing. he would write 1000 words a day before breakfast. i think a lot of his time was spent, because he was trying to build the ranch of good intentions so that could be a model. that is took a lot of his time. >> see all of our programs from santa rosa saturday on c-span's two's book tv. all campaign long c-span takes you on the road to the white house, unfiltered access to the candidate at town hall meetings,
news conferences, rallies rallies and speeches. we're taking your comments on twitter, facebook, and by phone. everything we cover is available on our website at c-span.org. >> republican presidential president donald trump. >> thank you very much. what a crowd. they still have lines of people outside and they felt that the second auditorium already.
it is amazing, they have quotes circuits but i will go and see the closed-circuit folks after we're finished. should i do that? clapmac yes i think so, right. we'll definitely do that. so paul just do that. so paul just came out, usa as you know, which is a highly respected pole and we are doing great. [applause]. we are up by ten points over everybody else. so it is just incredible. i think we might even be better than that but who knows right. even if we win by one point, that's okay, that's not so bad. but not so bad. but let's went by a lot. another one morning counsel, we are at 36, ben is at 12, carly's at 10, marco carly said ten, marco is at nine and take cruises at seven. so that is pretty good right we are 36-12. zero jeb got in there too good. mike huckabee, good guys at
seven. we are doing great there. a funny one, and, and i always say this but it sorta just got finalized, i thought i'd do good in the debate even though i was being asked to many questions. the funny thing is, for two hours they are asking me question after question, someone asked me 47% were either to me or about me. in other me or about me. in other words they would ask one of the candidates donald trump is not a good person, what you think about it. i'm standing here like this. in the final 45 minutes they couldn't ask me any questions because the pass me so many it was embarrassing. i even apologized and i'm not the one doing it and they said donald trump decided to take off in the last part of this. first of all they made up from from two hours to three hours, which is ridiculous. they said donald chon took off. they do in as many questions. i said wait a minute, i don't want to be rude, i don't want to interrupt other people. so the polls just came out on the debate.
the dredge pole, 680,000 votes, grudge which is an amazing guy, and it's donald trump 51%, carly at 23% who did a good job by the way. marco at seven and takers at six. the time magazine poll, i have no influence over time magazine even though eyes on the cover last week. time magazine has trump winning 55% for trump, 20% for carly, 7% for marco rubio. and i'm saying to myself gee i and i'm saying to myself g i am watching the shows and they say trump was okay. not great. maybe he had an off night, i don't understand i thought i did fine. they're just tried to beat me up. i thought we did good and i think we are doing well. the most important paul is the
one that the usa just came out a couple of hours ago. that is fantastic. i want to thank everybody in the room and the other rooms that are filled up, who who we'll see in a little while. [applause]. new hampshire, i tell you what it is amazing place, it is a great state. a friend of mine from new york said what are people from new hampshire like? can you believe these questions i get. i'm. i'm being honest. what are they like #i said they are an amazing, amazing people. they. they love the country. they love to work. like me, i love to work, i love the country. [applause]. we are all in the same boat. we are going to straighten it out, we are going to make america great again, that i can tell you. we are going we are going to make a great again. we made that horrible iran deal, i just wrote this down. i was watching one of the networks and it said we
should've had the prisoners released as far as the deal. we should have made a deal about knocking the hell out of isis and syria out of the deal, there are 100 things that we should have gotten. we gotten. we are giving them $150 billion, we got nothing. except a fee. because we don't win anymore as a country. it's really embarrassing. so i actually tweeted this before. do you believe this. iran wants to trade our three prisoners, by the way we have for prisoners, there are only talk about three, the fourth they're not even talking about, so so they want to trade three prisoners for 19 prisoners held by the united states and many other things. i mean how stupid are we? how stupid are we? it is just going to change. it's just going to change. so embarrassing.
we get one person they get five killers they want to sell badly. do you remember him he left, he deserted and we had five and probably six people killed going after him. the other day i read for the first time, well he wasn't feeling well, he may not be psychologic-who the hell cares. [applause]. i think he might get off with nothing. six people died. six. six people. he was a deserter. in the old days what do we do with deserters? that's right. there was no deserting. you deserted you had problem. he desserts while he has psychological problems, he's a nice nice person right. i don't think so. so a lot of the press has been
nice to us in the last few days because we gave a very detailed tax policy where we substantially reduce taxes. very substantial. [applause]. i'm going to go over it but we are going to create a lot of jobs, were taken jobs back from china and all these other countries that have been ripping us. ripping us, mexico, china, japan, we going to be taken aback. but you know they're so happy, in a certain way they said well, we want policy. so i gave policy on immigration and they're sort of happy with that. they didn't nest really agree growth everything, a grout lot of people do not agree build the wall. they said you can't build a wall it will be too expensive. our trade deficit with mexico is $45 billion per year. i love mexico, i love the mexican people. i have thousands and thousands of mexican people
that have worked with me over the years. thousands. i have a great relationship. but their leaders they're too smart for leaders, too cunning, to shop sharp, they are ripping us. nabisco is moving. nabisco, what is more united states than nabisco? they're moving to nevada new mexico from chicago. they're they're going to make oreos in new mexico. now think of it. then we have ford motor company. to have billion-dollar plant, you heard that story am not going to tell it. if i do they'll come up. i have all these live television sets. every other candidate could go and make in speech, every other other candidate and they make the same speech for months but they have 100 people. for instance jeb bush is down the road and they're expecting a hundred 25 people tonight. now it's true. i'm going to tell you because we have been getting amazing crowds, we had 20,000 people people on friday in oklahoma. 20000 people.
[applause]. oklahoma, great place. that was that was an amazing event. we had 20000 people, we pull up a stadium where the mavericks play, and it's called american airline center. that's in dallas. 20000 people showed up. some are so far up i said can you even see me? we had three days to do it because when we got it, in fact when they said you know you can have that arena if you wanted. i said when, monday night. this is like thursday. i said how can we fill it up? the first up? the first day they did 12000 people. then we went to mobile alabama as you know, just just before that. we had 35000 people. it has been amazing. so tonight, and i want accurate counts because these people they don't count heads. they say yeah this place the press was okay. by the way.
pan out on these people please. cnn cnn and all you live cameras, pan out. [applause]. you know they do, they have that camera, live television on my face the entire amount. my wife says i go home were there any people there tonight darling? they never show the crowds. they never show the crowds, they never want to. in this room we have another room just as big. but it's so important. so the fire marshal, so a lot of people can't even get in. 300,500,064. exactly 3564. the fire marshal said he can't be in the aisles. now if there's a fire i'll be the first one out the door.
so we have 3564 people, we have close circuit, it's amazing. it's always like this it's amazing. we had one event, so beautiful in south carolina. i was called by friend of mine who is african-american, great guy. the south carolina african-american chamber of commerce, he he wrote the most beautiful letter tonight. he said i was going to read it for you and he put it in one of the papers. >> and. ..
something incredible is happening. so we put our policy of immigration to build a wall. people have to come into the country legally. they have to do it or we don't have a country. baker babies we have to do something there. by the way when i first brought that up, they're on the other side of the of border they have the baby because nobody stops anybody we're open territory. the woman has a baby on our land in the united states now we have to take care of that baby 85 years it is a citizen and. everybody say no that baby is a citizen born in the united states. it turns out i write. because they are not coming it legally and if you read them eggs which television
scholars say it is ours but people are coming from china , all over asia, latin america south america and mexico. they walk across the border. i didn't think they said you have to go through a whole big thing every state has to vote a referendum the 14th amendment and so many different things but that is not working that way it is wrong. and it turns out i write because the real scholar said he is right. how could it be wrong? so this is something that has come up we have to get rid of the sanctuary cities. that is disgraceful. [applause] i have had so many friends
that i have made. first of all, cate who was shot in the back in san francisco a stationary city. i and a big chunk of the bank of america building there. i/o prop. one daschle property there i was also good now you learn about a century cities. this state of florida had them when jeb bush was governor nobody said anything. i have gotten very, very friendly with a lot of the people because it has become a very important issue for me with illegal immigration and crime it is far worse than anybody here in this reminder stance. far worse. a tremendous people, you have terrible problems. the other week that got a lot of press so bowman 66 roles better and raped and sodomized and killed by an
illegal immigrant. killed her. 66 year-old veteran. this is happening all over. we will stop it and we will have a wall. and i am really get out walls. believe me that is why with the infrastructure of the country falling apart we're spending money all over the road we don't even know i was going to bring up:some of the dumb things the country does one of those is a washer with discreet is an extra grip it is to sense and by the time i think it went from south carolina to texas a circuitous route it costs $988,000 to have it delivered. so many things like that.
item after item. hammer's that you buy for $73 selling at thousands of dollars that we buy as a country for thousands of dollars. some people are getting really rich. who are the people making these deals? you probably thinking what a piece of these companies but they are selling things that sell at the store for pennies for thousands of dollars there is so much fat. and i get a lot of credit covering up with immigration. some people don't agree and think it is harsh but dwight eisenhower was a wonderful general and a respected president to and he moved 1 million people out of the country and nobody said anything. but eisenhower doesn't it's
okay. that was also in the '50s. remember that. it was a different time when we had a country. [applause] that is when we had orders because without borders you don't have a country but they used to take him out and put him on the other side of the border to stay there and they come back and they do it again if they do it again then they said this doesn't work so then they moved them all the way south and they never came back again because it was too far. amazing. i'm not saying this joking because this is what happened. then they literally moved them all the way and i have to tell you a lot of the
politicians they never came back for kurtis too far. it was too far south but then a lot of things happen didn't changes to please now we are so politically correct as a country we cannot even walk or think properly prepare retirees say something that isn't politically correct that is a politically correct nobody respects women more than i do. i will tell you that. it's true my mother was the greatest person there was. two weeks ago was making a speech i cherish women. and helen rees said we don't want to be cherished. we want to be respected. i said i said that. that is better than respect you and loved and cherished you want to be everything. am i right?
[cheers and applause] and women's health issues where jeb bush recently said he will not fund them then he misspoke. you cannot miss the. that is so important we will take care of the women and veterans we will really take care of people because i know how to do with. we will bring jobs back into the country. we are a poor country. a debtor nation. we now all $19 trillion china is 1.$5 trillion. think of that they take our jobs, they take our money
and we owe them 1.$5 trillion? how does that work? we owed japan the exact same amount. 1.$5 trillion. they sent millions of cars here and we pay for those they don't pay tax. try doing business in japan. how many chevrolet ddt will find in the middle of tokyo? maybe zero? i think it is zero. we sell the beef and they don't want to. they send it back. the farmers don't want it but we owe them 1. $5 trillion. think of it. we owe them money. it has to stop. is so easy. we have to balance out. i went to my people this week and said i want to know
how much are we behind the eightball the u.s. trade deficit u.s. tried and in mexico? it is almost $400 billion per year with china. japan is almost $70 billion per year a and mexico is 45. they see you cannot get mexico to pay for the wall. believe me i built a better bicker stronger for half of the price. much less. [applause] much less than half the price. i know how to build. i will watching myself. it will be beautiful. did you see the picture in the big magazine this weekend? they have a wall 9 feet with a ramp going up rand ramp
going down with cars and trucks going over it taking drugs. me get the drugs they get the money. they drive over the wall. you cannot do that with the wall that is higher than the ceiling or it is a long way down of a message. people can get away with it they will. but we will make our country so strong and beautiful. so i put in something on policy with regard to the second amendment. i of a big fan of the second amendment. [applause] and in two weeks we will take care of our veterans. i will put in a policy on the veterans in the veterans administration.
it is in even the money we spend so much we have corruption. a few weeks ago on wednesday the longest wait in the history of the veterans administration. to see a doctor? they are dying. use of the reports. hard to believe so many people are dying while waiting. they could be taking care of with a pill or of visit but they are dying. it will not happen. when they wait too long they will go to a doctor in whatever the hell is in the city to pay the bill and take care of these people.
i have met some of the greatest people on this trail. can you believe i am a politician? i say i am so embarrassed. i hope not but i guess that i am. go ahead. [applause] it is funny. he said he is a great speaker but he speaks through the applause. bear right rigo people start applauding and i start talking there's so many days we have to do. i get excited. i speak through the applause
if a guy will keep doing it because it is exciting to be. but i appreciate it. although he is right. i don't know. so i came up with a great tax plan that has been praised and some people say it is to but -- too big to put the country back to work. the highest taxes in the world corporations are leaving because the taxes are too high. they had a very sophisticated detailed policy now prior to that especially that he talks will and great schools. and then to speak details and that tax plan is
something they're proud of. >> it will help in a lot of ways. and to then come back to our country. but if anybody agrees the money should be allowed to come back. but they don't come to a conclusion but it is a bigger number than that. but i am letting it come in for a reasonable price. right now the tax is so high
you cannot get it and. i will simplify it but they do this to get the money. and other places in the world to have some big incredible big-name companies better thinking of leaving the united states to get the money and lower taxes. the only thing dustoff citizen market place. with the tax reform to make america great again.
been too few americans are working in timid the middle income families cannot make ends meet and to make the challenges is also a business we will make them competitive again and by the way nothing to do this but get rid of the regulations mounting upon a daily basis. it is ridiculous. there will be some but there will be meaningful not every
single day like it is happening. of the planet will provide major tax relief for middle income and most other americans. it will totally simplify the tax code to grow the american economy and all this will add up to a point we will not increase our debt. [applause] i space am running against. who is better at that than i am? who is better?
whenever that craziness is up there. you need that. you cannot just be a politician and they would not know what to do. carl icahn. he can mount to say trump is still the one who knows what he is talking about. i say you handle china don't arabia will do well. we will come now grey. the country's rip us up and don't even like us it is hard to believe. [applause]
so we will cut the individual rates. cutting down from seven brackets down at 42520 and 10 and o. if somebody isn't making enough to live than what is the purpose of them to do returns then going to get help from h&r block that we will intended to put out of business. [applause] days people need help so what is the purpose? plus the bookkeeping is a tremendous percentage. they have to go to the process. it is brutal. 25 and 10% that is the major reduction. people say it is too big.
some say it is too much. in to earn less than 50,000 what is the purpose? we eliminate the marriage penalty that is the killer. what is the purpose of that? everybody agrees they cannot get it done. if we eliminate the alternative minimum tax. is a double taxation. with the death tax. as an example is new hampshire you leave it to
your kids to have a tax bill. now they mortgage and the bank will take over. and you are paying taxes all the while. sold the businesses have been destroyed. that is very important our plan reduces and eliminates most of the deductions. because big league hillary lowe's bush will spend $100 million of head. they are friends of mine.
some of them i don't like purple mini that i don't. but every time you see an ad money comes from special interest and lobbyist. if they want something down -- died one year from now will that be a terrible thing if trump does not make it? >>. >> $25 million for advertisements? what about immigration? how to solve that problem? in to be very, very weak on immigration and. how do you solve a problem when you say if you can make
a speech in spanish to open the borders? he didn't want people to hear it so he made the speech in spanish. that is true. [laughter] ivy be wrong but i have to tell you this. bush is the mentor of rubio and everybody said this is politics at its worst. i cannot stay and these politicians. but bush goes out everybody said rubio will never run because that is disrespectful to his mentor. i get that. loyalty. said everyone says with those pundits in to talk
about bush what about rubio? he is my dear friend. he is so wonderful i love him so much. the veterans know what i read about loyalty. right? right? so they asked rubio? he is my good friend. they hate each other. trust me. i know. lawyer did anybody in this room. but it is political bloodshed -- bullshit.