tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN September 18, 2015 7:00pm-9:01pm EDT
becoming less important and most lling of this survey is that their current partner is only 43%. so, it is very important. and of course, all of these devices are growing. we've seen over the years that it is growing back in about 2009, we had the inflection point where there was at least one device on the internet for every person in the world. by 2020, we're estimating $50 devices on the int and it's starting to look like that number may be too conservative. this adoption of this internet of things and things on the internet has grown faster than any ore technology that has come along in our lifetime. or in previous lifetimes, too. so, with that, comes a challenge. we have all of these devices out there and by doing that, there
are more places that the bad guys can attack. there's more devices out there and not only are there more devices, but they're in more places. you have to worry about all those places. additionally with all those different device, there are a lot of different ways that you can find a weakness and sneak in to the device. now, when you add that to the fact that the end points being created in the consumer world are not really being designed with security built in. so they're oftentimes designed to get to market very quickly. they want to beat their competition with this next new, greatest device. they want to keep it low cost so it can be adopted by more people. there's a sensor out there that's about the size of my thumbnail. that is about $2 and it includes internet and can sense the moisture of maybe, the amount of
moisture in a field. and so, they're very inexpensive and they're designed that way without security built in. oftentimes using code that is either purchased or comes from open source. and so, there are problems there. as well as the hardware is bought as cheaply as possible and it may not have all these security built in that we need. so the people who are trying to keep the data secure, it become becomes a problem and the big question out there is okay, you have all this stuff, how are you going orchestrate, control. and most importantly, how are you going protect your data, your intellect yul property, your business and your country.
i'm here to tell you there is no silver bullet and we've seen that in the news lately with the high profile hacks and things like that. so the way security has been networked forever is that you build a wall around your enterprise and as things try to come in or out, you do an inspection and you look for things you know are bad and you have this one point in time when you can say yes, i will let it in or no, i'm going to block it. well, that doesn't work anymore and over the year, tlsk all these new technologies introduced and so, our big organizations have tons of security devices in their data center and don't talk to each other. they're fragmented. just too much to manage.
we are talk about a new parad m paradigm, what are you going to do before an attack? during an attack and what are you going to do after an attack? in the before, you want to know everything in your virlt. so, survey the prukd out there. mark talked about the continuous diagnosti diagnostics. there's also controlling who can get where in a network. a toaster should not be able to access point of sale data or an air-conditioning technician should not get point of sale data, so you're not just aloeing access. via user name and password. it's a user name, a password, how they're connecting, where they're connecting from, what
time of day it is and what their title is, so you want to segregate access to all of the things on the network. all of this is done before. during an attack, you want to block as best you can. there are many technologies out there. we offer them. our competitors offer them. it's important to use the best intelligence you have to block. if we know things are going to get in, we have to worry about after. and so, after, can you find what is in your network quickly? can you get rid of it and get back to business? get back to your mission? that's what we are pushing for at cisco is this before, dourg and after and then in addition, we say that it can no longer be perimeter baseded. it needs to be based on threats. are you looking for the threats
and using the platform? all of the things you have in order to find what is going on in your network and get rid of it and get back to business. so, this visibility is krit kachlt now, we haven't really gone that far in the protecting iot yet for the reasons i talked about before, so, if we apply this to iot, we have pretty much a standard data diagram here and when you start adding iot, you need to add things like a connectivity platform that takes into account internet of things. you need to have maybe some specific network elements. at cisco, we're creating rugd routers and switches. making all the things we call
swap, size weight power to optimize those internet of things. the sensor, which is what we talked about all day here and what are you going to do with all this data? so, you want to have these applications and processes. in order to do all of that, you need big data. and analytics and all of the things here and most important ly, you want to spread that data. when people say you're out there talking about the network, how do you secure these devices. my fist thought is, well, you can't because they're not designed for it. but the other thought is if i
push my capability close to the edge as possible, i'm going to best job i can and if i can push it into these devices and get innovation in the devices, then we're starting to talk about having it secure. i'd like to talk about the most famous case study. thety of barcelona. spain went through quite a bit of a recession. they were hit hardest in the last ten years, so they decided they wanted to use technology to pull their city through. they started by building a wireless foundation where they can capture all kinds of data and put sensors on things. as a result, many of the things you've heard about this morning happened. so, parking, they were able to
increase revenue. they were able to make it so their trash cans were emptied appropriately. they were able to put smart buses, bus stops, all kinds of things like that. save tons of money. so, they saved $47 million over a ten-year period just by doing smart lighting. they're saving $10 million a year on smart trash pick up. there's all kinds of dollars 1r06 involved, but the most important thing, they've revitalized their city and they say they are bringing more than 1500 new jobs in in the next three years. and most importantly, their people are happy. so, the frustration of looking for a parking place has gone away. the ability to not have to look for coins in your pocket has
gone away because they pay over a mart phone app. people standing at a bus stop are happier because they can see things on the screen that no one on the bus is coming, so it's just the attitude that has happened in barcelona is a huge thing and the link for the case study is at the bottom of this slide. you guys will have access to all these slides if you'd like. it's not just if it's secure, if we can put the internet things out there, we'd save money. and that is, you can improve services to your citizens. you can be more open, accessible to make it so that your citizens can do some self-help. better analytics and decision making and most importantly, much happier citizens. so, i'd loiike to leave you wit the thought of you're going to hear all kinds of scary stories and it's important we secure the internet of things and it's posht that we do it right.
as you leave here today, think about if you could have all the security, the data's going to be safe. what new things can you do in order to bring new things to your constituents? and i think that you'll find that the opportunities are endless. and that is what i had to tell you guys today. >> right up there. i'm going to invite back up on stage. it will be like musical chairs. we'll see you doesn't end up with a seat. mark. peter. kelly. and chris. all coming up. it's like a parade. i love a parade. and this is a real opportunity for us all to talk about, we want to move this? oh, okay. look.
just getting out of the way. i'm going to go over tho these guys. just talking to them during the break. marcus has been at a couple of events i've done and he's a google glass guy. he always takes pictures of me with the google glass. i post it on twitter. it's not bad. kind of amazing. they're not making the google glass right now. >> we're waiting for potentially another person. >> we were talking about what you guys are doing in terms of internet. talk a little by about that. >> right now, we've been involved with a some of the speakers today have mentioned about interoperaablety and standards. we've been involved with the open -- their sensor things working group and developing a way to exchange spatial standards from things. or a way to define things within
the standards. ogc does gml and kml, so for individual yulization, google earth for example is the standard that handles that. >> describe to me what that means in terrors of having, okay, i understand what -- basically puts it on a map. these are what kinds of things? how does this help government do its job? >> the premise is to show the usage of different organizations using just these standards. so there's actually a pilot for the ogc is doing that's dealing with the internet of things in a first respond eer scenario and it's sponsored by dhs snt. it's showing how you can have different agencies, different responders, fire, police or incident commander, be able to
have visibility on a scene from say like we're developing apple block that will be able to both display data coming in, alerting for a hazmat situation or take data from the user from the firefighter in the field and feed that back in. doing that, using just open standards. >> one of the things that's really powerful about world we live in, whatever we call it, particularly in light of emergency response situations, you can get all sorts of data coming in. i think superstorm sandy was the most tweeted event r, but making sense of what it all means. where is it coming from, herbally having a situational awareness, right? >> it's making sense of that data. and being able to make sense of data coming from different things and not just a vertical application, but urging systems and how do you deal with that. another thing brought up, bring
your own device or thing. when you don't know exactly what assets that somebody entering a first response scene will have on them. so have to at least make an attempt to have these devices interoperate is a key. >> all of you have the guide this on your tables. there's a case study for -- which we're all keenly aware of. a lot of stuff going on out west right now in terms of that. so that's in the guidance. we've got it online, too. hi. so, kelly, talk a little bit about, i was fascinated by your discussion because there seemed like so many places that the pose sal service can go. it almost feels like how do you choose amongst all the options where to spend your time.
feels like we're treading into the shallow end right now. >> that's a good point. >> i think it's a perfect one for us to talk about. how important it would be to know who the first responders were in advance. only giving access to that information, to those appropriate people who need it.l >> we would want to do that for the person proofing event of individuals in advance ch because we have friends, we don't take the taxpayers money. some revenue in the organization to sustain it. where's an opportunity to do -- delivering mail or physical goods to someone and then figure out if there's an opportunity at
least into a revenue stream. that has monotized to someone else. which could mean we would partner with -- and do something to help support his initiative. and allow that to then get monotized out through other companies that would integrate other tools. we do give the opportunity to do work sometimes that is strictly for the greater good. and we appreciate that opportunity when they do come to us. but typically through the white house or other organizations requesting us to get involved. >> so, again, on this topic of how you prioritize, how do you spend if you're, there are a world of opportunities out there. how do you make sense of how do you decide where to spend your time, energy and effort? >> is it okay? >> yes. okay.
ioc is so broad, and you can tackle. the focus from our perspective, my perspective, is it may sound weird, but kaeting new jobs and improving the economy. creating new business opportunities or save lives and all these things that you can sort of see that can iot do that. well, they're made up of many out there, but there are -- that's how we prioritize importance. >> i completely agree. it's really up to each agency to look across the spectrum of technologies. and be creative. to figure out where they can increase operational
efficiencies, so it could be in lot of cases, costs. it could be lives. it could be resources. it could be reaction time. taxpayer dollars. all of these things. really, we're looking to work with the different agencies to help them reach out and understand what is the art of the possible. and where can we increase these by bringing new sensors, new devices to bear on the problems. >> peter, my sense is is is that a lot of agencies are really sayinging okay, there's a lot of cool things we could do. but how do i find the money, the time, the energy to do this? and so, again, it needs to be part of your mission, right? >> right and when you prioritize, my first thought was you do what's burning you. pull your hand out of the fire. but the other thing is that we've seen is that it's not just finding the money because some of these projects can actually create revenue. we talked about the phone booths in new york.
where the kiosks are now down. with the parking in barcelona. they generate money by better enforcement. they automatically, a ticket is automatically generated if you stay too long, by better collections. and so sh it's much easier, you can even reserve a parking space and it blocks it off for you and you can go park there. so, you get this better service. that you pay for and it generates revenue. it was an interesting stat in here. here in d.c., where we have the park mobile app, which has been awesome, but revenue from tickets has dropped kind of throwing the cities a little bit of a problem deal iing with tha because they made money of tickets. zb but they benefit from less traffic and they get that revenue from the meter. >> on security, mark, we're talking to the cybersecurity guy
and he says we're really just terrible at risk analysis. human beings don't do a very good job at this. talking back to when the whole eboue la thing was going on. the most dangerous thing we do in our lives is get into a big hunk of steel and move it along at 60 miles an hour and now, we not only do that, but we take out a device and do something else while we're going at 60 miles an hour. in terms of ris analysis, we do a really bad job of this. i'm trying to pull this to an internet of things. how do we do an effective job of risk analysis in that kind of space? >> yeah. >> really long way to go. basically, what came out of the the cyber spring activity is looking at where the high value
assets are because that's when you're the malicious activities 22. so, being aware as to how or which ones are high value assets, setting that as priority. so that's the key element. dhs is definitely engaged. the threat and then how do you sort of wrap up in on the network side. second is information. because basically, there's a lot of inputs coming in from across the federal agencies. things of that nature.
we're also have a lot of information coming in in regards to the cyber hygiene of the agency. how do you put that together? how do you blend that set of information and what trends are we seeing from that? because that's going to help identify where we need to put additional efforts and priorities. right? >> and then i think the third element is looking at in essence, from perspective of how best to leverage the resources, we do have. agencies, everyone, is tight in regards to cyber resources. and you know, we have quite a challenge there. losing resources and bringing new resources in. so, in taking a look at how best to use that, that's why we're coming up with the risk scoring capability. that's being put into the dashboard. so, instead of having cyst ko
and the team attack a thousand things at once, let's take a look at which ones to prioritize based p the risk tolerance and the threat factors. those are just three aspects we're promoting. trying to help an agency establish risk management. >> all that makes sense, it just seems like if you're an agency like opm, they knew what data was really important and it doesn't feel like it was protected at least from everything and i'm not going to put you in the position of commenting on opm, which he's going -- i will put in a plug for my next live show in two weeks, we're talking about the opm stuff and trying to pull some lessons learned. take some of the lessons learned so we don't make these mistakes again. anyone else want to comment? go ahead. >> so, the example of cars. being hacked remotely.
that's important. remotely. not with any kind of break ins. that's pretty scary stuff. somebody could just sit down in their family room and do something with a mobile device. drive your car. really, it comes down to the fundamental cause of design. i heard a lot of people say we have experienced 40 years of cybersecurity. why can we apply that to other things for cyber physical systems? my response is you're right. you can apply those knowledges to cyber cps, but physical part is completely different ball game and most importantly, the interface between this cyber and physical have to be really thought of. at the end of the day when i talk to my cybersecurity friend and talk about this car, oh,
they should put a better firewall. well, people get from higher level. fire wall itself is not an issue. you should design the system so that you can separate the like critical safety critical stuff from this connectivity. you should put some sort of measure to decouple that. so, it comes down to not adding fire walls anymore. it has to think of from the -- holistic perspective, combine cyber, because that's a new area that needs new expertise. >> i got to drive a tesla and download, because they found out some hack, so it's like my iphone. i got to download. i have a question. all of a sudden, i feel safer. no one's going to attack my -- >> question. >> no one? >> thank you. i love your tie, by the way. >> thanks. >> craig jolly, usaid.
okay, cool. so, there's been a lot of discussion of smart cities today. and we work a lot with cities in the developing world. and the question i have is what is the most important piece of the enabling environment for lack of a better term, for cities that want to become smart cities? is it having good connectivity? good political leadership? having high smart phone penetration? what's the really key piece there. and what i keep hearing out there is that a lot of these poorer cities have been able to jump almost jump a step and all of a sudden, have a lot of infrastructure in place that we don't have even in this country even in some ways. >> in some cases, sure. >> what do you see out there? do you see anything? oh, look, you stumped the band. i love that.
it is you know, you'll notice when i talk about the barcelona case study, the first thing they said is we need to infrastructure to do this, so they put in wireless throughout their city. there's a lot more than just saying we're doing wireless. you need the capability to put it up there, but we mentioned there and several speakers today talked about how you need someone that's going drive and push this forward and you need the citizens so support it. i would say those are the two things. whether people have cell phones right now, that's not so critical. >> i'm going to take his question and put it in a u.s. context. there are a lot of times you're driving around with some o the infrastructure out there. or not out there. what should cities, federal agencies, what should they be
thinking about? there are some that aren't even thinking about this and where should they sfart? >> i would say start with the social media. if you look out today, it acts like ways where you're taking everybody, their driving experience, they're all feeding in, i now know what traffic is really like. i know where the police are, where the best route is. leverages it that way. somebody else mentioned potholes. having the postal service, who are out on the roads every day, having them report potholes. you can go online now in most cities, report a pothole, things like that. really just leveraging your citizens more. we all have in the u.s., cell phones now. that's pretty much standard, so be able to design apps that will engage those users and get them to contribute and put in the information so that communities, local, state, national, can harness that data and make it
useful. >> certain extent, there's a bit of an advantage that's in not having a tremendous legacies that you know, countries like the united states have in terms of some of that. when you are having the opportunity to build from scratch. with all of the efficiencies that we see with the mobile first perspective. then you can be into crowd source information from those enabled citizens of the country because we are seeing such huge penetrations with smart devices. there is a lot, if you start there, that you naturally inherit from the data. as opposed to where we are currently. it makes it easier in some ways to go down the meddle of building in a new security right off the bat. do that through authenticating those users, having verified providers to your solutions and i think that has a tremendous amount of power.
>> in some way, we've learned on the federal perspective, newer agencies, the recovery board, they were -- old crap, can we say crap on cspan? sorry. the old stuff. >> you can. >> we'll see. we may be taken off the air in a minute. we don't have the old stuff they have to maintain and fix an patch and all those kinds of things. makes it a lot easier. anyone else wanted to comment? >> go. going back to the i.t. example. i would also suggest that the political support's going to be key. because of you know, being former vaa for management and cio or usaid, i know the percentage you're talking about. the region. and you know, from the smart phone perspective, i think there's a lot of that out there. in a sense, how do you start blending that to helping a city
into a smart city mode and road map? in those cities, i think that you're talking about where -- the political support's going to be key because they're going to have to breakthrough a lot of the supersilos. between the agencies within those cities within the country itself. >> not sure which is the case. either you can't keep a job or everyone keeps recruiting you, but congratulations on that. hi. >> the question that's aimed particularly at kelly sullivan, but i guess everyone could kind of address it, when it comes to workforce and other things, a prior question you'd answer to kind of indicated that hope is is basically not to have a bunch of jobs shed, but to have people repurpose. did i read your response right that the ideal would be to hold on to jobs? and in general, how do you change a workforce radically as
change the way people peopshoul doing. >> you have a lot of people who drive cars and deliver mail and getting them and the internet of things stays. not an easy shift, right? >> it's not easy for us and some of it has been quite public. i think there's a lot of conversation around what's happening with our unionized workforce and i'm sure that's probably what you're references as well. our unions are being partnered with the postal service in this conversation. they would like to keep those positions around for the workforce. which means that there is a reinvention. in some scenarios, you may have seen the postal services now testing the delivery of groceries. there's an interesting extensions of the mail service, for coming to the house in addition to delivering those packages. what are the other items that we can provide that would be of value to the consumer. that's part of that expansion of the position. letter carrier first and
foremost. their job is still to deliver and secure the united states mail, but if they can provide an additional service, that allows us to keep those positions, and extend to something that the consumer is interested, that's definitely what we're interested in. >> does this change the nature of work essentially? how people do their work? there are things, there are probably going to be jobs that just end up disappearing. that happens with every sort of technology and again, change is one we don't have to change. so -- >> right. there will be some jobs that may not be kept at the same level. as we have today.7 but historically, if you look at hundreds of years, that happened any way. 50 years ago, there was really no job category called software engineers and now, we have a lot of software engineers. that's a huge job category.
there are no right now, there where were the like a lot of typewriters. they were dedicated person, a lot of typing. we do that with word processors today ourselves. the world is going to change and world of i.t. is not an exception, but there are new jobs created. we talk about drones and new technologies. think about it. if you have drones, who's going to operate? somebody has to be able to be experts. somebody has to be expert. new job category. maybe there's a majority of engineers going forward. we don't know what kind of jobs are going to be created, but historically, i'm kind of like a little optimistic about it. historical historically, i believe that a lot of experts are needed. retraining, education, that's critical, but i think it's going -- >> and over time, our lives have gotten better. even the less advantaged people in our society today have a life
that is much better than it was even 20 years ago. and like any technology, it can be used for good or evil and hopefully, you know, your seeing that some of these sensors on trucks are driving some bad behavior that makes drivers do different things that may not be positive. but on the other hand, it awe l allows the driver of the truck to have automatic logging. if he's pulled over by policemen, you can see he didn't drive too many hours and things like that. there's always a balance and it get down to the people making the decisions, not the technologiful over time, we've seen our lives ip prove though. >> hi, chris. my name is bern ket debt. i'm a serial entrepreneur. and based in the arlington area and i see a lot of investment or a small amount, going into very much me lineal apps.
here we are in the seat of our national government with really pressing problems, so i encourage those of you who are in a position to influence the investment community. i see a little bit of the hey, let's bring in in court people from silicon valley because they'll shake things up and show us how to do things. there are a lot of really smart people in the d.c. area who work within government and with government in a contractor capacity and they just need to get the funding like our company to be able to work and make it big and awesome just like they're getting the funding to do in silicon valley and let's stop fixing me lineal nice to have things and really fix some of our country's infrastructure and you guys can play an instrumental role in doing that. >> uber or something like that. cisco, you guys, talk to her after.
does raise a point about money and how do you get within there are a lot of smart people in the federal government trying to figure this out and how do you, back to what we were talking about in terms of priority, but also, sometimes, there isn't always the money associated with these kinds of projects because they just don't have, they haven't proven themselves, right? >> so, yeah, actually joined the government only two years ago. before that, i was a start up guy and worked, i was entrepreneur basically. you were absolutely correct and in d.c., there are all kinds of smart people inside and outside of the government. and we all talk about silicon valley a lot of times because there is more concentration on companies you know of over there. one thing is just not an easy question. regardless of whether you are a government employee or not. it's not exactly an easy
question, but the only thing i see is the reason we talk about silicon valley is and the reason they have a lot more venture capitals than the area is because they have more, it's just number. not quality. more engineers and more entrepreneurs over there. and if you look at how many of them actually got funded, that's not the percentage of entrepreneurs get funded. it's not that different than across the region of the united states. so, yes. i would agree that we should more in funding create ideas and entrepreneurs will have right business model and that's the key. right business model. technology itself doesn't really cut it. you have to find the model, applications that can actually, investment, return. and can provide the right path to return. >> i gree up in the silicon valley. there's a big chunk of luck
there, too. people, right time, right place. it all somehow magically appe s appears. >> just look add joe real quick. one of the mean differences out there, it is more geared forwards ma lineals and they're a lot earlier on the adoption curve. the government, we're farther back. it makes it harder for start ups because a lot of times, we're looking for more mature technology. we're waiting for a lot of that stuff to be flushed out and in doing so, it just, it leads itself to being more conservative and that's why we're not seeing the level of start up funding here. >> on this, we're talking about small conservative. government has tended to be more conservative. mostly because there's a risk. certain risk aversion, right? we don't want to make a mistake. >> stakes are hire. >> right. but my sents is with this stuff, you need to figure out a safe
way, it's not like we used to be in the place where we'll just wait and let everyone else see if it works, then jump in. my sense is this stuff doesn't work. you have to be practicing as you go because it's really evolution and if you just wait, you're so far behind the curve, it's almost impossible to catch up. >> you've missed it and they're on to the next opportunity. that's why i think it's really important for our agencies and the government as a whole that's why you're seeing organizations like -- like to put our own group in the mix in terms of doing rapid prototypes. trying to identify opportunities out there that we can lean our existing practices and add things that add value to not only our current consumers, but also, the larger company and country as a whole and part of that is like we do have to take a little bit of f a risk. we have to fail fast and be successful even more quickly.
part of that is just executing through our prototype. frankly participating in conversations with a community like this one where we get a lot of interesting feedback and look at the what's happening with the private sector. public private. relationships are very important for our -- >> going to dock back to you because i'm going to bring up a really, really boring topic, but acquisition. do we have an acquisition system that doesn't move real fast, generally. and we're talking about things that are changing so quickly and of course, the federal government has a real reputation of buying yesterday's technologies ten years ago prices. really making not getting good value and how coowe do we move it where we're in, move to a space where we get to where we want to be? >> i'm not an expert, but i only know that it's slow because i work with cities. because a lot of the
corporations and a lot of small start ups usually wants to work with cities. they say acquisition cycle is so long. there's not nothing really we can do to dramatically change it overnight. however, by showing the real impact and federal government helping these companies and universities show, helping them to show the impact of the cities. cities are going to be able to realize, say that really works, that's not a science fiction anymore and by the way, it works in my city 15 miles away from my city and by the way, you think that city is using it, i will use it. that's like city to city communication -- toews thipgs, kye i kind of call it a federal problem as playing field. that's kind of how i put it. it's important role. i think that we should be playing. >> i agree. the acquisition process, but
there, i think it's much more awareness as the need to be more agile along those lines. we're seeing that occurring, programs and activities promoting. another point in regards to the funding aspect, too. one of the challenges and this again came out of the cyber spring activity when we were looking at how i.t. is being funded. is cybersecurity 19 had been linked together so as i.t. budgets are impacted, it impacted the whole collection of activities within i.t. what's being viewed now is that cybersecurity should be viewed separately from cybersecurity. so when decisions are made in regards to reductions, you're looking at cybersecurity in relation to everything else in i. tchl. so, those are some of the
conversations being discussed now across the systems that as we move forward, then as we're looking at budgeting, we can ensure there's more emphasis, the criticality of cybersecurity. >> saw a couple of people who said they were working on early stages of iot things. anyone want to talk about their experiences, their lessons learns so far? >> good. try not to fall. >> hi, so, again, we're working on a project where we're combining historic data from hhs and epa with realtime air quality monitoring and we've driven the price down because of a massive reduction and cost of hardware with a 13 sensor box to below $5,000, so we're going to give the government a good run for its money and hopefully show we can clegt it for a lot less than what epa pays, around
$200,000 a box and show health impacts of air quality and chemical exposures. my findings are that innovation is really easy with the sensors and open source software and hardware. it's difficult to get government to publish the data largely because of fear of embarrassment, so we work pretty closely with the stewards of that data to try to get them through the hurdles and move them from the slow migration to need to know to need to share. i would say agencies, information security officers are our biggest roadblock because they have nothing to gain professionally. only blame if it goes wrong. >> that's a good point because we see that a lot. >> my favorite line about open data, said if you're easily embarrassed, don't get into open data space because all of us have really bad data in some place and you just need to basically say we're going to be embarrassed about something, get
on with itment but i hear that complaint a lot is that chief information security offices end up being chief information notes officers. they're the people who stop you from doing things. how do you get that kind of partnership so you can get things done. everyone wants to do it safely and securely, but how do you find that safe space? >> goes back to the one of the points on communications. basically, the dialogue between the cio and emission are critical and as you're putting forward one example there, the cards, the what does that mean for us aid as an example? when you have a foreign national emission site and you're going ñ if it'sded as to okay,2h all cards are being addressed for the privilege versus
nonprivileged, area there, well, the impact on emission can be a bit to define. if we're going to put this situation or cybersecurity aspect in place, what is the mission impact and work with the mission as to okay, what activities do you now need to be able to adjust to because of this and are you cog any sent as to why we're doing it because you're protecting the critical data you're responsible for. that dialogue is critical to make sure that as we're becoming more sophisticated with the cybersecurity, type of activities that we don't have all these smart people trying to work around them, but in essence, they're working to partner together to implement cybersecurity. that's a key element that can stress to the cios and -- in relation to emissions,
especially as we're accelerating cybersecurity implementation. >> always seems one of the challenges for cios generally is to not be the chief information officer, not the chief information know person. if you're the know person, then these days, people just go around you, right? they figure technology finds a way. >> that has happened. >> you know, use box or something. they figure out a way to do it without you. >> you talk about change is good as long as i don't have to change and that remind me of a friend of mine. he used to do business transformation consulting. he used to say the hard stuff is easy and the soft stuff is hard. meaning the technology, the processes, those you can do reasonably well, where as getting people to change is the hard part. and when we look at you know, specifically this technology, the technologies are getting there and are almost there. we have technology to measure almost everything.
we have technology to protect most things, but most of the time, it's getting people to enact it. people to use it. is the hard part. >> business transformation consultant. that sounds like that sounds li guaranteed employment. >> you talked about if i.t. is going to get in my way, i'll go around it. we've done surveys with customers. how many outside supplies do you have for cloud? they'll say ten. we're finding five to seven times more applications being used in their environment than the i.t. managers know, so it is getting done. people go around it. it is called shadow i.t. >> less shadowy all the time. kell kelley, how do you deal with this world, because you have to deal with things in a secure space? you have to get your job done, right? how do you navigate those
spaces? solve the problem for us, for goodne nesness sakes. >> if we have five minutes, we can solve the problem with everyone here in the room. >> you have ten. >> ten, perfect. one of the easiest things we can do is first create frameworks for developers. ultimately, all of us have business goals and objectives we're trying to reach. and the established sort of this is the way it's been and this is the way that it is don't always work when you're trying to drive rapid change and iterate quickly to reach something in the market right now. but if we can advance a series of, if you will, recipes, if you want to deal with this type of information and you want to share this information publicly, this is how you're going to do it. go ahead and just dive right in and tackle some of what are the biggest things people are asking for in advance and lay out the kind of road map.
maybe this is going to be the hosting scenario. these are the languages you're developers are allowed to use. these are going to be the security practices that have to be in place in advance and make it clean and easy for folks to follow. i think in doing that in advance you'll have more people comply. but when we take the old standard of these are the 400 controls you have to put in place and this is what we're going to do, we're going to evaluate you over a period of eight months, after you're finished with your bill activities to see if we'll let you deploy, that's when you end up with business that's going to fight against the cios. it won't be scaleable. it'll have an issue, and it'll create problems for them. but i think we can proactively try to get ahead of what the business is driving a little
bit. i think we know what they want. >> did you have something you wanted to add? you looked like you were on the edge of your seat, mark. >> basically, it's getting those standards upfront, right, because it's mission owners that are going to be driving those applications? cybersecurity everybody owns. making sure that as we're moving forward with new applications, we're considering cybersecurity. everybody's included regardless of the impact. it's keeping that communication open. >> sorry. i just wanted to add to his point. people wouldn't want to choose going about getting electricity in a different way. it is a key part. the function and security just needs to be part of doing business for them. >> one of the things we haven't talked too much about today is standards. i cannot emphasize enough about
the importance of standards in iot, especially iot is extremely fragmented right now in terms of applications and technologies. that relates to everything we just discussed about the focus and all these things. it's kind of happening, per se. a lot of corporations, including cisco, form alliances and c consortiums to figure out the right standards. i think a lot of the issues we're talking about today, including all these human factors and process, will be a lot easier to figure out. >> it's good he brings up standards. >> i had to. >> or else they don't allow him back in the building. i'm going to ask a final
question of all of you. what should they take out with them as they think about iot? before i do that, i'll do a couple of reminders. if you want your cpes, we know what it stands for, it's engrained in our heads, we'll send an e-mail to you. there's a qr code in the back. make sure you fill out your evaluation. we'll ship all the slides to you at the e-mail you're registered with. megan, anything i'm forgetting? i got it? good. how unusual. chris, what should folks think about? what should they take home with them? >> technology's just continuing to increase and it's going to. we're going to see sensors everywhere. we're going to see more wearable computing devices. we're going to see them in places that we haven't in the
past seen them. what i'd like to take away from this is that you need to be in a place where you can take advantage of all that data. you need to start thinking about how you're going to build out your infrastructure to be able to collect, harness, and makie s use of all that data because it's going to be there. the standards are developing. we do have the technologies. i think we're all in agreement the technology is there today. it's just how are we going to build out our infrastructure to utilize all this data. >> kelley? >> think about when have we gone too far. in what scenario would you not want to share your information? that's a question we need to ponder as this continues. where do we draw the line? is there a line? if i can be anonymous, maybe there's not a line at all.
>> clear all that stuff out. the terms and the conditions. they own all my data, which is a little freaky. should be my data. go ahead. mark -- peter. sorry. >> i'm very enthused by all of this. i just say look at the possibilities, right? in your job, what could this internet of things do to measure, to change, to enact that could make your job easier and make it so that you're more effective with your constituents. of course, do not forget security. it should be built in, not bolted on. >> mark? >> i guess two points. one is having everybody here to exchange ideas is key. second is cybersecurity is owned
by all. as we talk about agencies and the cio and the cisco, the missions are correctly responsible for securing the critical data of the government. >> sokwoo? >> i'll suggest we all look around in our agencies and see how we can improve using this new technology and how to work with other agencies. this is more important probably. there's virtually no agency in federal government that has no stake in iot. there are some things you can always do. by combining forces with other agencies expertise, you can escalate and amplify the impact. and by doing that, what i expect -- standards are important. the way to get the standard is by practicing and coming up with the best practices.
show the real efficiency and impact and real value. i really suggest everybody kind of try to work with other agencies as much as you can because if you keep yourselves in the silos, this will never be solved. >> i'll leave with two points. we've had furlows and sequestration and shutdowns, oh my. my goodness the opportunities out there these days are just so h large. pretty exciting stuff. i agree with chris. go do it. try it. the other thing is the power of sharing information. we've seen too many instances of people saying we can't share that with another agency. we can't work together. people hate us out there, so
let's change that. go do it. do good work. we'll talk soon. thank you. thank our sponsors. go. have fun. go do good work. [ applause ] a signature feature of book tv is our all day coverage of book fairs and festivals from across the country with top non-fiction authors. here's our schedule. near the end of september we're in new york for the brooklyn book festival celebrating its tenth year. in early october, it's the southern festival books in nashville. the week after that, we're live from austin for the texas book festival. back on the east coast, the boston book festival.
at the start of november, we'll be in portland, oregon, for word stock, followed by the national book awards from new york city. then we're live for the 18th year in a row from florida for the miami book fair international. that's a few of the fairs and festivals this fall on c-span's book tv. tonight on c-span 3 from washington journal, a look at the congressional agenda with two members of congress. we'll hear first from freshman representative dave brat of virginia, followed by democratic congressman jim himes of connecticut 37 th connecticut. then a hearing on food safety. representative dave brat, republican of virginia. you've been in congress for about a year after knocking after eric cantor.
how has your life changed? >> pretty dramatic. being a professor was a nice life. getting to see the kids and that kind of thing. now all that -- it's hard. when you're done here, i promise to go to nine counties in the city. i'm up here in three weeks. then i've got a week back with my constituents. i promise to go through nine countiesn the city. working all that and keeping a family balance is tough, but i asked for the job and i love it. i feel it's very meaningful. it's all worth it. >> do you see things differently now being on the inside? >> yeah, a little bit. i taught economics for 18 years, so you kind of know roughly what to expect and the politics, roughly a lot of votes are taken to follow the money. so in economics, i knew that. i've been pleasantly surprised on the personal side. everyone's been very gracious to
me. almost universally not one person -- everyone's been very gracious, giving me good advice, tips. got super friendships up here already on both sides. lift weights in the weight room in the morning. bipartisan jokes. that part's been great. >> as you well know, there's some issues going on in congress. we want to talk to you about those and have our viewers participate in those. do you think that the house, the congress, the government should shutdown because of the planned parenthood issue? >> i think the whole premise is wrong. the press always asks in terms of the horse race. i get that question every day. it's important to provide the context. last year i came in with almost
this exact same thing. then you're going to throw in that we had a bust last minute. after we promised regular order, we were right on the cusp of having both, so not totally to pla blame on our side of that one. who's in charge of this shutdown? really? i'll just explain to the listeners a little bit what's going on. i'm the budget committee, and i'm not in the room talking about any of these shutdown questions. who's in charge of the united states budget right now? i ask the press that and they don't know. well, barbara mccculcculskey's e
room. i call that the incumbent protection zone in the senate. they don't vote too often, but now the appropriations process is busted. a few months ago, rogers said we need more flexibility on the budgets. the numbers are going to go up, not down. so right now, we're hearing that we're going to have a cr this year, a continuing resolution, that gets us to maybe early december. then an omnibus. then we'll throw in the kitchen sink, and representative tom cole, who is a good friend, smart guy, ph.d. in political science, i think. he said before we went in on recess -- we've got three really
tough votes coming up. we're going to break the budget caps, break the debt ceiling, and we have to do something with this six-year long-term transportation funding. how do you avoid taking three tough votes on those three, any one of which could cause headaches? well, you throw them all into one. i'm on the record giving numerous town halls. i predicted this six months ago, exactly what would, because it's on the calendar. at the end of this, there's this shiny object in planned parenthood. it's a false narrative. you find a shiny object to blame on the budget process. d.c. likes to break budget caps because they like to grow government. the virginia school, one of our
noble laureates, he said the government's no different than you or me. we want to maximize happiness, individuals. firms want to maximize profits. government wants to maximize government revenues and the size of the government. it's no surprise that both sides it looks like are going to get together and break the budget caps. i also taught ethics for 18 years. you get spending on all this good stuff? no, but i want to pay for it. so all of this is adding to the debt. the debt's already 18, 19 trillion. the deficit this year is 400, 500 billion. it's going up to a trillion a year in nine years again, so the deficit's going up. who's paying that bill? the answer is our kids. we're passing along an anemic economy that's growing subpar. the kids can't find jobs.
the unemployment rate for kids coming out of college is horrendo horrendous. we're not skilling them up to work in an international competitive environment. so we've got some work to do. and so government shutdown, i kind of reject the whole narrative because it just focuses on this shiny little object period. that's what some folks would like you to look at. look at the fundamentals. look at the debt, the deficits, the unfunded liabilities are $127 trillion. in ten years, in 2027, all federal revenues will go only to the entitlement programs and interest on the debt. all revenues. go to their website. brat's telling the truth. all federal revenues go only to entitlements and interest on the debt.
so as an economist i thought it's my moral obligation to hit on this issue, so i'm hitting fairly hard. i think it's reality. i'm glad you have me on. i get to share a little bit. >> congressman brat, what's the solution? what's a politically feasible solution to what you're talking about? >> you can't spend more than you have. firms are firing people right now instead of hiring because they can't meet payroll, so that's how the real world works. the only place that doesn't work like that is up here. our states even have balanced budget amendments. most of the states have the balance their budgets. number one, you've got to trim the spending a little bit. right now in the short run. in the long run, everyone knows it's the entitlement game. 2/3 of the pie is entitlements. that word entitlements,
mandatory spending, there's all sorts of names for it. 2/3 is entitlement mandatory spending and only 1/3 is discretionary. what i just said by 2027 in 11 years or so, the entire budget will be mandatory spending, so there won't be any discretionary spending whatsoever, unless your deficit spans the whole government. if we go up to that, then we're grease. i'm not a doomsdayer, but you come up on that point and we're grease. you want to reform the programs and the solutions, the big problems, social security, medicare, medicare. they were designed when the average death age was 65. they were designed to break even. now people live to 83. we haven't changed the law. any third grader can do the math
on this. that's why they're insolvent. you can go to medicare, social security, their board of trustees reports. we're insolvent by 2030 or so, and that's severe pain for somebody in the future. everybody right now fine, but somebody in the future is going to get a 30% reduction in benefits to those programs if you don't fix them, so we've got some smart folks. paul ryan is in the back room working on something. but we need some major reforms, not just tweaks to inflation indices. you hear some clever little stuff out of d.c. but this thing, you're got to get the economy running full speed again. you're g you've got to go all in. if you do all that, you still can't even solve the problem. at a minimum, you have to get moving down that road. >> what do you think of john
boehner's leadership in the past year? >> i'd like to see us take a much stronger stand on this kind of thing. we were promised regular order as republicans and our leadership said that. i came in on the omnibus. that also funded president obama's unconstitutional amnesty. i asked the solicitor generals before the supreme court is this unconstitutional. yes. president obama said it on tv. i don't have the constitutional authority. i voted on the rule. dave, whatever you do, never vote on a rule and never vote last. you can see a little foreshadowing coming here. my first week i vote against a rule and i vote last because i'm sitting here watching all the real world horse trading going on and learning real world economics and politics. so we ended up funding something
that in my mind and most people's minds was unconstitutional. our leadership said we're going to fight tooth and nail. this was the first round -- maybe not the first, but it was a round of extreme executive overreach, the presidential powers. in the entire year, that has continued. epa overreach. talked to my farmers and ranchers. they have to fence in every bass pond. they can't do it and run their business. one guy runs a small marina. then you get the iran deal. another executive decision out of the president. should have been a treaty. should have had to have 2/3 vote in the senate. i voted no on that. that's going down the wrong road because in the constitution it says any treaty in the senate,
it requires a 2/3 vote. the reason it went through is because all president obama is 1/3 of the senate. that's through. our leadership has said we're going to fight, we're going to fight. planned parenthood, we have these horrendous videos. nobody can watch them and even think through what that is. the human mind recoils from having to picture that. am i happy with leadership? no. we're not winning. i give them all "fs." fail. we did not fight. we didn't win. my district sent me up here to score some points. you've got trump and carson and t fiorina over 55%. people on both sides -- on the left, you've got bernie and some outsiders. the country wants to see some change, and so i hope we get it
right. we'll see on the budget deal coming up. this trifecta, if we bust the caps and raise the debt ceiling and throw a bunch of programs in without paying for it, the american people are going to say what are you guys doing. >> those votes should be taking place the 29th and 30th of september? >> yeah, yeah. we'll probably do some sort of cr to give us more time, but it gives you more time to back into a christmas holiday when the pressure is to get out of town, so you can just see the drama coming. the cr hopefully is not that controversial, but then that end product, the whole nation is going to figure that out and do the math. everybody's doing the math now. shows like yours, the blogs, the news outlets now are infinite and people are actually paying attention to their political process, so that's what's
changing. >> dave brat is our guest. republican from virginia. tori, you are first up. hi, tori. >> caller: hello. i wanted to ask him about the budget. with the planned parenthood and the government shutdown, is this attached to the national defense fund because usually it is? that's the reason why they don't shut the government down and they vote that way. also, i'd like to bring up the entitlement. entitlements deny people our social security, which a lot of people pay into and they depend on that. that is something that the government was never supposed to touch. yes, they should raise the age limit, okay, because people are living longer, but at the same time they throw in the threats
to the people that are on disability or social security disability that if they shut the government down they're not going to get their paycheck. what is in that bill that's attached to the planned parenthood, which is the so-called focal point right now? >> tori, i think we got the point. >> tori, thanks for the range of questions. your questions shows the connectedness of all these issues. unfortunately, a lot of these big issues, which you're getting to these connections between military spending and controversial votes, et cetera, they're called must pass. if you're a clever legislator, in order to get your way at the end of the day you attach something you want to get through to the budget on a must pass vote and that's what's making everybody cynical up here. we should just be in regular
order debating the controversial issues, the budget issues, the social security issues you talked to. those trust funds shouldn't be rated. i think at the guts of your -- i could the angst in your voice over the social security and disability benefits. that's the true crisis that's coming. if you're wasting money on this, that, and the other thing, that's the tragedy. the money's not going to be there for the folks who really do need it. i've got people coming up -- just tragic cases. folks are severe m.s. are in the office. we had a cures act this year. i put in an amendment on the cures act, and you would have thought all heaven and earth would have been shook. our side created a new mandatory program. i didn't like that.
that's the part that's $127 trillion short already. no, no, no, no. this cure's act, i'll give you the same amount of money, but let's put it in the budget and put it right at the top because it's very important. you would have thought i attacked something's that good. i don't have a metaphor on the tip of my tongue. we need to pyrioritize. i'm used to thinking about these things. the things at the bottom don't get funded. you don't do this budget gimmickry with this must pass stuff. i think that was the guts of your question. thank you. >> dave brat has a masters of divinity and a ph.d. in economics. the next call for him comes from don in taylor, michigan.
>> caller: i want to thank c-span. thank you, peter. we all new the constitution inside and out. this planned parenthood would be no issue. let god be the judge on that. you have no right to tell any woman what they can do with their body. you only work 100 days out of the year. that's a waste of money on congress and the senate. bernie sanders only worked 200,000. he never got rich. nobody gets rich being in the senate. he's 6 for 2 for 30 years. that metal cage around there represents fascism in this country now. you and i both know it. that's what's destroying this country right now. you know it and i know it. >> don, i think we got the
point. congressman? >> i'll get at the overarching thing with planned parenthood and religion and rights to privacy. all those are hugely important issues right now. i think we kind of are at a crossroads. thanks for mentioning -- i went to princeton seminary for three years. i've been trying to put those two together, economics and ethics together. people laugh trying to put economics and ethics together in d.c. he was talking about the european migration problem. he said we've got this underlying moral value system, so it's interesting. we've got through 150, 200 years
in this country without reaching this point, but i think we're at this point now because government is growing so much that this clash of values is reaching a focus point. so you say let god be the judge. some people say we can't legislate morality. we do every day. what's funded. what's not. morality comes up on the welfare side or entitlement side. take care of the least amongst these. you're coercing other people to pay the bill for that. we take a 1/3 to 1/2 of people's income away from them. to say government is not in the business of morality at all, i don't agree with that one. we're in the middle of that.
so we're having that issue. we have all sorts of constitutional challenges now. a couple of supreme court decisions a few weeks back that are hugely controversial. i think the values discussion is coming. the kids in the schools these days in k to 12 they're not taught ethics. there's no such things as ethics. there's confusion ethics. there they're competing systems because they disagree and that's the challenge when you live in a secular society and you have to teach all the kids. what system do you teach? what's true? i think that conversation is coming to a head. there's no way around it because we're going to be dealing with very scarce funds, and we have to reach some moral consensus going forward. >> patrick in maryland here in the suburbs text into you, the representative failed the
integrity test when he failed to list government giveaways to big corporations and tax cuts to the rich. >> who me? what's he referring to? >> when we were talking about the budget and the deficit. >> i don't know -- that's what i ran on. sometimes i miss the obvious. that's what i ran on. integrity is integrity to something. i ran on six principles in virginia. we have the virginia republican creed. it's very similar to the national creed as well. but those six principles i ran on and stayed true to them. but the feedback has been very positive. some people disagree with my philosophy. that's okay. most people say, dave, you're one of the few that's been up there and done what you promised. what i've promised is adherence to the free market senystem.
strong national defense and faith in god required for strong moral fiber. i've tried to live out those principles and implement those principles. so integrity, i think i'm holding tough, but if you want to push me harder, that's okay. >> what about support for the xm bank, export/import bank? did you vote against that? are you pleased that went away? >> yeah, yeah. it's no longer with us. there's a push to bring it back. again to the last call or whatever, xm violates a bunch of the principles and that's why i'm against it. i don't just willy nilly vote you can forecast my votes very simply. my district montpelier, i don't
think i'm that much of an enigma when you put adam smith and james madison together. they would not have been in favor of a special entity that subsidized loans to the richest agencies. if the bank is such a good thing, privatize it. if they're making profits and pushing money back to the treasury, i don't think that's true. if i were true, good. privatize it. equal treatment under the law for all people. fiscal responsibility, we're out of control up here. we were just talking about prioritizing. that's the priority? i don't think so. i can go on and on, but i'm a no
on that one. >> dave brat, you've been here a year. have you had lobbyists come by, interest groups come by, and want to hold fundraisers for you? >> for me, no. that's not a regular occurrence because i have all these principles, but i always tell everybody who comes to meet with me just get to the chase. ask me what you want. i don't like doing the dance. i say just ask me what you want. if it's in line with my values and principles, i'll say yes. i want to do the right thing for the country. if it's in the best interest of the country going forward, i'll do it. if it's not, i'll tell you right now. it's usually that simple. and so i get along with everybody. lobbyists aren't the bad thing, right? james madison, his hole constitutional architecture was you want a lot of small competing entities. you want a lot of factions fighting against each other.
the lobbyists, they're all doing their job. they're all representing their different groups. the one group that i have noticed that doesn't have a lobbyist is young people, the next generation. everybody is up here making deals for themselves in madison's architecture. every faction should be represented. the kids aren't, the debt we're throwing on them. that's one of my promise, so i pledged to do that. >> have you had an conversation with eric cantor recently? >> no. >> at all in the last year? >> nope. >> tony is in indianapolis, democrat. you are on with dave brat, republican from virginia. >> yes, my comment is about the refugees from syria. no one ever talks about saudi arabia and no people can stand their region. our country does not need to take in none of them. a lot of them are single men
because i watch every day. i seek my information. the families that are coming, the refugees that are over there in hungry, they're letting the families through, but a lot of them are single men. they need to be turned around and taken back to saudi arabia -- not saudi arabia, syria and fight for their own country. >> tony, thank you. congressman? >> yeah, thanks tony. it is interesting. there's several subgroups, countries in the arab world, and very few of those countries are taking any of the refugees. you have a valid point. the american people are tightening the belt buckle on the budget side and asking about our force structure and the
resources. we're supporting the rest of the world, et cetera. i worked for the world bank when i was in grad school up here at american 20 years ago or so. it's very interesting. if you look at the foundational reasons we arrive at this point, if you follow adam smith and james madison, you wouldn't be here. my whole life is devoted to spreading free markets and the rule of law across the world. the other side, the left, the political left does not like free markets too much. they recoil at capitalism and all these kinds of things as if human nature changes radically from society to society. human nature is the same everywhere. if you want to help the poor, the free market system is the only game in town. i think the evidence is overwhelming on that. when i started teaching economics 20 years ago at
randolph macon, the chinese and the indians were making somewhere in the ballpark of $100,000 per capita. now the chinese are up to $8,000 or $9,000 per capita. they're moving toward the free market system. they're bringing 2.5 billion people, a huge fraction of the world, 2.5 billion people out of poverty from caloric intake to providing education, some health care, electricity, the basic goods everybody wants. there's no disagreement there, but the toddata is just clear. under a top down system of government, every nation in the history of humanity has failed. there was no economic growth. all of human history. then boom. due to what?
free markets. if the left is really concerned about the poor and they're really concerned about migration from the poor, where are the poor coming? to the rich. if you want to solve this, there is a solution. i push it every day while i was teaching, while i'm up here. i think we have to get back to basics on that. i think we can help the folks where they are with food stuffs and get them through a hard spot, but encourage some of these other countries to do their share. the u.s. can't do it all. >> mary tweets, better learn to dance, sir. you are participating in secular government. >> i'm not known for dancing. what else? >> because you're working in a collaborative secular government.
>> i don't know what she means. >> she's saying play the game. >> i'm not playing the game. i'm an a-plus 100%. >> is there a lot of pressure to play the game as it is? >> yeah, when you come up first year, you've got a light switch. it's on off. you go 100% leadership or i don't. we always refer to this team. if there's this team, let me know when we scrimmage, when our practi practice is, so i can be in on it. i'm not going to go along with the secular morally nebulous game. don't worry about that. i'll stay true. >> have the appropriations and budget committees and processes been neutered with the contin continuing resolutions over the last several years? >> yeah.
i'm taking it out on my own party a little bit, but prior to that when the democrats had the senate, they wouldn't produce any budgets. the president wouldn't produce any budgets. and so we're doing them relative terms much better job. at least we produced a budget document in our budget committee. that's in that improvement, but the whole process is neutered. the american people aren't paying enough attention and holding enough of us accountable. if all the numbers are moving in the wrong direction constantly, which they are from a macroeconomic standpoint, then we need to do something. the military, et cetera, very hard decisions to make. you're got your force structures as weak as its ever been.
on top of that, now you have cyber threats. it takes smart minds and a lot of resources to go after that. you've got the new threats, the new things you've got to look at, so there's constant pressure to always go up. when you go up in government spending, you go down to private sector spending. you risk slowing down the golden goose, the economy itself. if you hurt that, all bets are off. >> will in fairfax, virginia, we have about a minute left. what will it take to go to zero based budgeting? >> a miracle. everybody should want to do that. go back. start from scratch. have to explain the basis for everything on a yearly basis. i'd be a huge fan of that. unfortunately, there's 12
appropriations bills. they're territorial. within those, there's programs. every one of those programs are territorial. they have interest groups fighting for their continued existence. i'm all with you on the logic. i'm doing everything we can to move in that direction. >> how much time -- are you running for re-election? >> sure. absolutely. i've term limited myself to 12 years. >> 12 years. >> 12-year term. if you have a term limit of 12 years, your whole life is not aimed at being a chairman of a committee, building up this nexus of power in d.c. i think it keeps you a little more honest to your responsibilities back home and to your constituents. i've signed onto every term limit bill i can sign on to. i think that's the most important single thing you can do up here to improve the structure of things.
>> dave brat, republican from virginia, first time on the washington journal. please calm back. on your screen, representative jim himes, a democrat from connecticut. you probably heard a little bit of our earlier conversation with america regarding ahmed mohamed. what are your thoughts? >> that kid had the ninth grade day of all time, right, where it starts out in big trouble and it winds up with mark zuckerberg and the president. on the one hand, obviously just terrible what happened to the kid. on the other hand, we spend all our time telling people if you see something, say something. be vigilant. maybe you could argue that folks overreacted. i suspected they probably did. >> "wall street journal" editorial this morning stuck on
zero, criticizing the fed for leaving interest rates where they are. do you agree with the fed's decision? >> yeah. let me put it this way. i'm not sure with my three years of college economics i'm willing to say i know more. oil prices are shockingly low reducing the possibility of inflation. i'm not going to second guess them. the wall stre >> put on your former vice president of golden sachs hat. do you approve of what the fed did? >> they were pretty clear that rates were going up this year.
i don't see the point into getting into a huge argument of whether the right month was this month or next month. the economic recovery in the country has been pretty solid, but they did their work. i think they probably arrived at a smart decision. >> is the government going to shut down? >> i get asked that question a lot these days. what you're going to see play out in the next couple of weeks, i've got to tell you it makes me crazy. we're now eight legislative days from a government shutdown. this week the house of representatives has been focused on planned parenthood, trying to focus on what they consider out of line lawsuits. we should be focused on a budget. this is a political fight between the far right-wing party and the john boehner
establishment wing of the republican party. i think it's quite likely they're going to have to throw a bone to the conservatives and watch the government shut down. remember, they tried this before. we had a 17-day shutdown. it was a hugely politically costly for the republicans. my guess is you're going to see a very brief shutdown and people like mitch mcconnell and john boehner are going to reassert themselves. we're going to move on. >> could this planned parenthood issue -- has it been politically damaging to the democrats at this point? >> i don't think it has, peter. like a lot of issues, immigration where the national headlines aren't really about what's the right way to solve a complicated problem, they're about donald trump calling mexicans rapists and criminals. my friends on the other side of the aisle can't resist the
temptation to take this a lot further than it needs to be taken. so i think sure, there's a lot of people who are anti-choice, who are really upset. i get that. those are pretty tough videos. on the other hand, half the people in this country are women. they're watching a bunch of guys who look like me in ties and suits middle-aged white guys talk about their reproductive rights. >> you have submitted an amendment to the planned parenthood bill that's going to be debated today. we've put the numbers up on our screen if you want to participate in our conversation today. >> my amendment says let's set aside this conflict we've had a very long time over pro-choice versus pro-life. i happen to be pro-choice strongly, but i have a lot of
respect for people who see it differently. if you're pro-life, let's be pro-life. let's not cut off the funds to planned parenthood, until medical experts can look us in the eyes and tell us you're not going to see more abortions or women dying in childbirth or more women dying of breast cancer or aids, then once that's true, once we know this act won't actually kill more women, then let's let it through. if they succeed in cutting funds to planned parenthood, more abortions will happen because fewer women will get access to birth control, to the kinds of education and training. my point is simply you're going to achieve the exact opposite of your objective by defunding planned parenthood. >> one more topic before we go
to calls. this is on the front page of the wall street journal morning. obama rethinks strategy in syria. you're a member of the select intelligence committee. what are your views? >> i've been pretty frustrated for a long time by our strategy in syria. i would almost put that word in quotes. if you think about what we're doing -- you saw the head of central command testify this week. we are trying to train up through the department of defense so-called moderate rebels against assad. think about what we're telling them to do. go in and fight asaad. by the way, fight isis. isis and asaad are fighting each other. we're on both sides of a middle eastern civil war. we haven't made a lot of procesproces progress. i think what we need to focus on
at this point let's get at the root cause. let's get everybody who has sway in the region, and that includes vladimir putin, who is pouring weapons in right now, the ir irania iranians, the jordanians, let's get them around the table and make an attempt to stop the civil war. you almost have to do that on a moral basis as long as people are dying every single day and thousands of people are dying in the mediterranean. the smart thing would be to do to get in there and stop the war that's causing it. >> with the refugee problem, should we increase our quota? >> the president has proposed 10,000 refugees in the country. i happen to believe that that number is way too small. think about it. the nation of lebanon, which is about the same size of my state of connecticut, has taken hundreds of thousands of
refugees. the idea that we can't help more than that is a little miserly. >> let's talk some calls. you're on with representative jim himes, democrat from connecticut. >> caller: good morning, guys. thanks for the call. about planned parenthood and those arguing for defunding and shutting the government down, it seems like their main argument is that a crime was committed, that there was profit being made. you have to ask people what is the cost of procurement and transportation of that tissue because in order for them to claim that there was a profit being made, that monetary value that there was in the video, has to be more than what the cost was, otherwise there's no profit, no crime, no argument, in my opinion. >> all right. congressman, any comment?
>> carlo is exactly right. it's worth remembering in the messiness of this debate that there is zero evidence, zero, out of a number of investigations that planned parenthood committed a crime here. they are reimbursed for the expens expenses which are associated with conveying fetal tissue for research. also not an illegal thing. people donate their body to science. again, you can say that that's wrong. that's a question of values and ethics. though i would disagree, i would treat the people that feel that way with respect. it appears that planned parenthood committed no crime. a woman has the right to an abortion if she chooses to exercise whichthat right. the opponents have a standpoint.
they're seizing on every possible opportunity as a practical matter to reduce the availability of reproductive services to women. you see laws in states which are designed to as a practical matter reduce the number of clinics where a woman can go to get an abortion, to reduce the kinds of educate that might prevent a woman from getting pregnant in the first place, all in the service of trying to reduce abortion. if that succeeds, you're likely to wind up, as i said before, with more abortions. if women don't have access to planned parenthood, they don't have access to birth control. they don't have kiaccess to the kinds of educational things that serve to reduce the number of abortions in this country. >> the planned parenthood issue is not about abortion. it's about harvesting body
parts. why would he deceive us? >> i happen to disagree with that. whether it is all the state rules that make it harder for a woman to get into a clinic that are focusing on -- i'll give you another example. today on the floor of the house of representatives there will be a bill that says if an aborted fetus is alive subsequent to that abortion, that medical aid must be rendered. who disagrees with that? yes. why are we talking about? because like a lot of medical procedures, this is not something you want to talk about over the breakfast table. it's like autopsies or anything else. the fact of the matter is tissue research has contributed to medical advances, to the development of cures that are helping an awful lot of people, and you can be squeamish about that.
you can oppose abortion. as i've said, that's a respectable position i happen to disagree, but then we ought to have the conversation and use the mechanisms of the law to revisit. if you believe abortion is wrong, go back and revisit roe v wade. >> 202, if you would like to text in a comment to representative himes, you can do that as well. 2027179684. if you happen to send a text, if you could include your city and your first name, that could be very helpful. dennis is calling in from katy, texas, on our republican line. hi, dennis. >> caller: how y'all doing? >> hey, dennis. >> caller: seven years the democrats have had the house and the senate. y'all haven't had a budget yet. you're sitting up there and
talking like you'll have been doing it. y'all haven't done anything. you've spent more money than anybody i've ever seen. as a private business person, i think it's absolutely person, i think it is crazy what you all have done. and as far as the president goes, he's done a terrible job, i'm sorry. >> well, dennis, i guess i agree with half of what you said. the congress has been dysfunctional and not gotten a budget done. the only thing i would change, is that you started by saying that the democrats have had the house and the senate for the last seven years. of course the republicans took control in 2010. so it has been a republican congress since 2010 and later when the republicans took the senate. so i couldn't agree with you more, that the failure to produce a budget, that the fact that we're probably going to see a government shut down and elements are calling for a shun down in favor of planned parenthood. that is beyond irresponsible but
the fact is since 2010 the house of representatives had a been run by the republicans. so i'm with you. we ought to change that and make this institution more functional than it has been. >> robert in orland park, illinois. >> good morning. c-span and representative. i have a comment about the v.a. i'm disappointed with the so-called customer service i receive at the v.a. while a patient there. and recently there has been talk about lives mattering. and according to what i heard in the media, apparently 300,000 veterans have died while waiting for health care at the v.a. i'm normally a democrat, and i'm very interested in supporting ben carson for president because he's interested in abolishing the v.a. i wonder, representative hines, could you comment on the scandal
at the v.a. recently and give me and other veterans an idea of what we, as veterans, can expect from the v.a. in the future, thank you for your comment. >> yeah, thank you, robert. and of course, thank you for the service that gave you access to v.a. services in the first place. you're absolutely right, and this sort of came to light a couple of years ago when it became evident that certain hospitals and parts of the v.a. were really incompetent. even corrupt. and you ask what has happened? as honorable as a man as general shinseki was and as much as he served his country, i think a lot of us arrived at the conclusion that bad things happened and so now we have a new head of the v.a. a lot of senior managers at the v.a. have moved on. we're seeing progress in terms of building out the systems which solve the problems that we assign to v.a. hospitals.
i point out, this is spotty. it is interesting, we've had some areas in the southwest where the v.a.s were beyond belief. in my own state of connecticut, the west haven v.a., they struggle with a lot of volume and people coming in but the service is quite good. and so i make that point just to say that it is not the organization as a whole, it is certain elements of it. and of course the elements were stressed by the fact that people don't realize this, but what is really causing the bulge in the python in terms of the demand for v.a. services is the vietnam veterans are reaching an age, 60 plus, where they need a lot of health care, just at the time our younger men and women are coming back with injuries and other trauma associated with -- both the afghan and iraq wars. so robert, you're good to remind us all of the need to stay focused on the v.a. but i do think that directionally things have turned
the corner and over time you'll see better service in areas of the v.a. that were short. >> congressman hines, a tempt from the 330 area code. i think the rate should stay until congress does something about a jobs bill to help us get out of poverty. >> i assume that means the interest rate. so i think -- i'm not sure who that came from in the 303 area code, but in nonfederal reserve terms, that is what they said yesterday. that could turn into less demand for our goods is concerning for them. when you say less demand for our goods, you are saying jobs for the people who make the goods. so i think the 30 area code is exactly right. and what i agree with there and made me crazy the last couple of years what i would say with respect to a jobs bill, where i come from, we have highways
falling apart and bridges falling down. we missed a huge opportunity in the last six years to make a major national commitment to an investment in our infrastructure. we're -- you talk to any of the engineers, forget the democrats and republicans, talk to engineers and people who understand our highways and railways and tell us the bill coming ought us is in the trillions of dollars. we have zero interest rate and if we had a program to bring our highways into the 20th century, we could have borrowed that at 0% and put millions of people to work. and i say this, not to castig ate where we were and i hope we will do this and bring the focus of congress a little less planned parenthood and to the things and the constituent of my
our. >> and your financial services hat and your former career at goldman sachs, why do the markets respond negatively when the rates are kept at zero. >> explaining financial markets. i'll tell you, if i was at any good at this, i would probably be doing something different. no, so market behavior is not so much about the facts as it is how did the expectations of what was going to happen, in fact, correlate to what happened. so where were expectations. so you're see a company reported $0.25 per share profit and the stock goes down because the market expected $0.30. there were probably people betting on a rate decrease. they sold whatever they bought to try to play that game. any way, the point is day-to-day market moves are really not that important relative to the much longer term. >> what is the new democrat coalition that you are part of? >> so the new democrat coalition
is a group of some 50 democrats, a lot of us have business experience, and therefore we're very open-minded and like to encourage and think about what you do to help new innovative businesses get started in this country. if i had to summarize the new democrats in one word, it would be the word innovation. what he had casual systems, what infrastructure, what do we need to make sure that the next google or the next microsoft or the next facebook or the next tesla, that those world beating companies are here in the united states. and so we focus on things like immigration. what can we do to make sure every huge brain that will start the next intel is here and not in china or germany. so i would call us sort of pragmatic policy oriented innovation oriented democrats. >> next call for representative heims comes from kelly in georgia. republican line. >> yes, sir, thank you for
taking my call. i have three questions i wanted to point out. i just had one question. it seems like a lot of barack obama's successes seem to be coming off of people don't understand are republicans giving him successes. i wonder why democrats, when they oppose the trail deal, y'all weren't called racist and bigots. you opposed him on policy, however, whenever republicans oppose obama, we're called racist and bigots. we didn't do it on policy, we did it because of his skin color. my next question is about planned parenthood. i live in a county that offers almost 10 clinics that do not perform abortions an they offer services to women who are poor and cannot afford health services. and if i'm not mistaken, doesn't
obama care also now offer free contraception. you mean to tell me out of 40 different ways of contraception that abortion still needs to be offered in this country? no. if you need planned patierentho they should only offer -- only offer what the -- the services that you say they should offer. if you need an abortion, then let another company offer it. but the tax funders, those of us that are against it, we should not have to pay for it. and every single one of you that think you are for an abortion, go walk through one of those clinics and watch the women walk out and -- >> kelly, we're going to leave it at those two comments. that is a lot on the table. representative heims. >> thank you, kelly. first, i don't think anybody, republican or democrat, is for abortion. the question is, should a woman
who chooses to end a pregnancy have the right to do so. and that's a fair argument. and as i've said before, i happen to think the answer to that question is yes. i happen to think that middle aged men, which make up most of the united states congress and most of state legislators ought to be humble about telling women what they can and can't do with their bodies. with you i get -- but i get it. this is a fair debate. nobody is pro-abortion. however, it is the law of the land, two things -- number one, subsequent to rowe versus wade in the 1970s, it is the law of the land if a woman wants to have an abortion, she has a legal right to get it. you can, if you disagree with that, work to change that law. i would suggest that there are better ways to work than shutting down the federal government and hurting the economy an the american people but you can work to try to change that law. bup secondly, the only