tv Politics and Public Policy Today CSPAN November 9, 2015 5:00pm-7:01pm EST
to participate. we ought to be embarrassed so few people are participating in this day. >> we talked about 2016. but i want to talk about 2018. we know that latinos and minorities turn out in bigger numbers in a presidential year. we have have a gubernatorial election and turnout is terrible. looking back at 2014, governor abbott, won a big portion of the latino vote but it was a low voter turnout election. what is it going to take to get latinos out to vote in 2018 and in any nonpresidential year? is it going to take a castro to run for office how can we get hispanics to the vote when it's not a presidential year? >> i think it takes -- it takes all hands on deck. it's not just -- it's -- bottom line, it's connection to voters. hillary showed us well in san antonio this week when they
said, i'm with hillary, she said, i am your hillary. she made that connection. she has a history in texas of being here. and people remember that. but we also have younger -- 33% of the latino vote in texas is between ages of 18 and 29. it done matter if they're latino or any other race or ethnicity, that segment is the hardest and the leading indicator whether or not they're going to vote. so it means reaching out and connecting in a cultural way, in a personal way, whether we're at the hillary level or whether we're at the -- i put the burden on all of us on the ballot putting campaigns and resources together to not overlook the latino vote. i've been involved in so many campaigns where we only have so much money. what's our target universe? 50 and over? everybody else, you're on your own. so, it's been a self-fulfilling
prophe prophecy. if latinos aren't voting, we haven't been asking them. we haven't spent the resources on them. perhaps you have to spend resources to reach out and we will be thoughtful about doing that and connecting with them as personal as possible. >> we were at an event last night, a comment was made, it's going to take, to you all, less than hispanics. it's going to take money. it's going to take some strong candidates. and it's going to take some anger. with all due respect to donald trump, i think he's going to bring hispanic votes out. i'm not sure conventional wisdom, hillary clinton and bush. i don't know what will happen. this is different from when my brother 999 was running. >> fly by night operation. >> he didn't have the resources that you have on the other side. but look, in california. >> -- may your words not be
prophetic. >> in california they did something unique, strong hispanic population, happens in a democratic state, but the top two vote getters -- i don't want to have have to run for the hex of it, but if it helps bring more people out. there's a new experiment in california. the way the districts gary manded you have two democrats in my district, since 90% minority now, they were trying to help me, they said, why are you complaining, your district's 90% minority? my response in federal court i don't want to go on the senate floor talking to my damn self. if you have two people having to run every time, that might force -- you cannot underestimate the significance of money. you can't knock on every door with 27 million people in texas. you're in houston, harris
county, dallas. the bigger the district, the more significant money becomes. with that supreme court ruling, even if it's not partisan race, people with money have inordinate influence. >> 2018 we must have passed comprehensive immigration reform, whether democrat or republican. and we can no longer be asking hispanics to participate when on the one hand some of the republican candidates, some democrats, too, but insulting the new americans, insulting our family members and asking for their votes or with vocabulary, or insulting by saying i will pass immigration reform in my first 100 days, first year, and not putting the political capital into passing immigration reform. so both parties have failed this very, very -- people say new york hispanics, they're interested, polls show they're interested in jobs and economy
and interested in education, just like the rest of us. we're all the same. nonsense. of course we're interested in those, very, very important issues. but the filter is my familia. how are you treating the new americans. democrats get directed to spend your capital, instead of telling me, because we do remember, and the last immigration reform passed by a republican. or republicans, get your act together, let's pass it, we will have all kinds of wonderful relationships with the hispanics for many years. >> juan's earlier point, he mentions how do we get voters snout we give them interesting candidates. 2018, i think you're look at two candidates that can be very interesting. one, george p. bush, of course. truly, hispanic, though last name is bush, everybody recognizes and identifies him as hispanic. someone else more interesting, a person that is doing this over
the course of the last few years, and she is simply, i think, the future of the party. that is -- >> thank you. >> eva guzman. supreme court justice. she's fascinating, fascinating story. latina, she comes from mexicano community. she's articulate. she's smart. she says right things. she's very conservative and a true blue latina. true re, i should say. true red latina. i think you put someone like those two individuals at top of the ticket. governor, lieutenant governor, not that they're going to run against the current, but if there were openings, i think in that instance you galvanize the young hispanic vote, people who never voted before to say, this person's interesting to me, this person shares my heritage, this person shares my identity and
i'm going to get out there, much like obama did for the african-american community. the african-american community historically voted very strongly. but when obama came on the scene, goodness, numbers expanded, because he was a person that the african-american community can identify with, be proud of and energize them. we need our obama. >> we need a hispanic obama. >> i want to make a point, issues do matter. with all due respect, your party, you can run someone that looks like me, but if if they don't speak to issues that matter to people, you don't have hispanic candidates speak to issues that matter to latinos, in my judgment, you don't get the vote. end of the day, people tend to vote their interests. >> your idea what resonates with the hispanic community might be different than my idea, right? i believe in self-reliance, making sure we've got a good
ecosystem, economic ecosystem to create more high paying jobs. you might say we need universal health care. i disagree with that. but that's the debate we would have. but we don't have the voice to give a voice to that argument. >> i think it puts us on the same wavelength. regardless of someone's ethnicity, color, gender, or yeniati yentati orientation, early on, in terms of entertainment i like trump, but at the end of the day, when those issues are clear, people tend to vote on issues that they think matter. >> but my point is, elderly anglo individual would not have the credible in the latino community as a young latina female who comes from their community. giving more credibility and they listen to the message. and i think the message, once we get to that point, does resonate. unless we've got the voice to give that message, it's a
nonstarter. >> so, it is someone from a given community. >> right. >> speaks to issues that resonate. >> absolutely. i think we agree. >> i think -- honorary latino. >> we may be focusing too much on the messenger and not the message. and i think -- i think, you know, me running in cameron as a republican, it was somewhat unique? it was because there was a message there as i previous f e faced, there's validity, you to resonate with the candidate. you don't have to be hispanic or african-american to generate and promote a good message that's going to resonate with the voter. is it possible for an african-american to win in a hispanic neighborhood? if the message resonates with voters, i think it is. >> easy.
in dallas, ft. wrt. >> can an hispanic win in an anglo environment? yes. it goes to how you resonate that message you have a republican winning three times in cameron county in a county that's 75% plus democrat. three times. so the message resonated, hispanic, yes, cameron. but you know, fortunately or unfortunately, the way, the politics and the partisanship is, that outweighs, to me, the way i'm seeing it, ethnicity of a candidate, you know. i wish everybody would run at large. everybody just yell, there's no party affiliation, you kind of run, based on principle, message, based on this, i -- what i'm hearing from people is that, i don't want to be identified as who i am by who i vote for because it's very fluid. i mean one day you vote for a democrat, a republican.
you got back and forth on a ballot. not every single person on the d-side is -- may or may not be good and not every person on the r-side may or may not be good. but in cameron, people are deliberately choosing who they want to vote for. and that's -- to me, that's because the candidate actually resonated and connected with all walks of life in that particular coun county. >> you agree the money issue does make it difficult? they knew you. they knew you. and i'm assuming you didn't change much. you're the person they knew. >> i'm the same person. i didn't have a lot of money. it's hard to raise money. >> but you had credibility. >> you do other things. candidate dozen what they've got to do to win. i wound stand on street corners by myself with a sign. i got a lot of how dids, one-finger howdies, good stuff.
but it goes back. you touched on it, it goes back to connecting with grassroots, door-to-door. i knocked on a lot of doors early on. but unfortunately, money does generate. you cannot knock on 10 million households or 3 million households running statewide. but with social media, that's basically free, but then you've got to look at hispanic community, how many within the hispanic community that are of voting age have access to internet and some rural areas have access to facebook, have access to so what they call la face in spanish? how many have that type of access? >> when i think i saw senator rodriguez, el paso, you know, what i were a driver responsibility program, we knocked, i think i read as close to 500,000 people.
if that's the easiest way. i was walking last night. i didn't have my i. di. i'm in austin. i didn't know if i'd do in dallas. they know me here. are there things we could do using technology, using the law to make it easier? am i right? are we all embarrassed when they say, texas, you're at the bottom of on voting. me, i'd like to stay in but i'm embarrassed so few people putting me in. >> there's no mandate. >> i think there's -- there's a lot of concern. and, yes, it's embarrassment. but again, i go back to what -- my compliments to the legislature in trying to continue to outreach and reach out to the voting constituency about trying to make it somewhat easier, trying to facilitate. but again, you've got second or third world countries that their voter participation is higher and they're only voting one day.
and so, here we give folks the opportunity to vote for two weeks, plus election day, all kind of locations, and yet we can't seem to do that. it goes back to what we've talked early on. we'll agree on one thing, it's up to the candidate to get that message out. they got appeal to the constituency. they've got to abstractive. it's not just the messenger. it's the message. >> i think with that, we'll open it to q&a from the audience. we're running out of time. go ahead. >> i just witnessed, on a local level, our school district is primarily hispanic and we've never had an hispanic school board member. what i've seen repeatedly is wonderful hispanic candidates running and being crushed. they get the message out, but
they're still crushed, because what we have is voting machine of caucasians that are holding the power. so i'm still here wondering, what does it take? to me it's not about the candidate. i've seen it happen locally, excellent candidates, excellent messages, but they're being crushed. i still have the question, to me the question is, are we ready to share the power? >> ex-len question. you can have an outstanding latino or latina, who has a wonderful record in the community, and if they don't have campaign resources, i.e., budget to reach out do three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, mailers, tv ads, social media advertising, to run
a robust, aggressive campaign, to reach beyond the anglo 50 and over, it costs money. i've raised money. i've worked through this with my staff. it's hard. when you only have so much money you go with the high propensity voter. it's going to change over time. but you have to have the complete package. you have to experience. you to have a good candidate. you have to have resource to say i'm not going with the baby universe. i'm going with the robust universe so i can get more turnout. in my mine, in my experience, it's come down to money. >> my question is, it has to do with early voting, something maybe the elected officials have learned since they got elected, if you can handle something administratively rather than trying to pass a bill one way or another, it's easier to get something done. but we're talking about getting our people out to vote and we have early vote. is there a way to ensure there
are two saturdays or two weekends in that period to where everybody can come out to vote? the issue seems to be politicize the elections. one party sees there's a certain technique of voting, early voting bringing in a lot of numbers for the other party you want to mess with that and reduce the amount of time, reduce the amount of i guess any kind of exposure you have to losing votes. to our secretary of state, is that something we can do to ensure there are other weekends? last time there was a within cut-off, there's only one saturday. a lot of people, my polling is the other direction and i have to vote early. but if you limit the number of days, you're in fact impacting the election. >> let me just, briefly, talk, i think if i remember my county judge days, the county commission sets those locations and hold those times. there is some planneder manner
that is up to the local commission, say, open it up. but it comes down to money. there's limited resources. the election is one of those departments in county government, there's no replans in it. it's an election department. it's like having an i.t. department. you don't know what you've got until you turn on the switch and nothing turns on. but i think you need to go down to the local counties and emphasize that with them, open it up. at least in cameron, it was where are you going to have locations? got to have them within the precinct, in the center of the county, and it's always do you want to have it at a catholic school, east side of brownsville, that's where the majority of democrats are, at least in cameron that's where they're all at. even at that level it's politicized. but i think you reach out to the local county commissioners and let them know you want to have two weekends, you want to have
after 5:00. a lot of polling locations are open until 7:00, early vote open up at 9:00, go to 7:00 p.m. >> some of the local -- >> politics is local. these local levels what is transcends into state and federal politics. that's what it is. if you want to vote for a state official, county election office is running that election, coupled with county commission races or county judge or district clerk or whatever. >> if you're asking for guaranteed two saturdays, that is something the legislature could address. i'd be in favor of than historically, we've had two saturdays there is year, unique, i think we cut one off. but adding two saturdays, i think, makes perfect sense to me. one less limitation the senator would be upset about. >> would you be co-sponsoring a bill next session? >> i'm in. we celebrating, i guess commiserating 50th anniversary of the voting rights act.
we wouldn't be having this discussion if that bill that ly lyndon johnson passed. barbara jordan added texas. it's sad that we've come full circle. now, states can make those changes because they decide to do it on a political wlihim. most people don't give up power willingly, you've got to run. i've lived long enough, been in this game long enough now, interested in my legacy, to win the next election. the tragedy most decisions end up being made by people will put in a certain position to protect a certain group. and that is a real tragedy. i hope in the next congress they can fiend a way to do what democrats and republicans historically have done, realize significance of lbj and martin luther king and cesar chavez's
voting right october. >> what format and language voter education materials be for hispanic audience? >> english and spanish. >> what format? >> well, you can go to votetexas.gov. gives you the outline -- >> but that hasn't seemed to be -- in terms of unlocking the hispanic vote that hasn't seem successful. what other ideas would be more successful to the his spapic audience? >> i'm going back. i think the fundamental responsibility of voter outreach, is up to candidates themselves running. our role to provide information and the languages that are prevalent, which is english and spanish, provide that information that's readily online. and i go back to the question. has anyone really done a study as to on the latino hispanic, how many have access to online -- >> fastest growing group.
fastest growing group. facebook is going like wild. >> s.o.s. office, we started getting aggressive with our facebook page. we're posting stuff every day. with twitter, instagram. we're doing everything we believe -- is there more? absolutely. >> if we're looking at structural things that secretary has control over, his staff was in support of, well, couldn't say if they were in support of, but they said we can do this online voter registration if we look at latino vote, again, they are young, 33% between 18 and 29. so they -- i don't know about you but i don't know any person in that age who has a book of stamps in their purse. so they're not going to go to his website and print out a piece of paper and fill it out and mail it in. so again, we go back to structural things. if we can do the same day
driver's license, why not same-day voter registration? for a young, mobile voter who moved here from l.a. or from harris county to south austin, they wake up in the middle of early voting and say, damn, i didn't change my voter registration. these are small, simple barriers that we can overcome. when we have a lieutenant governor who suggests we can't overcome them, we are doing a disservice to the american heroes who took the hoses and the dogs of bull conner and gave up their life for the right to vote. >> we're running out of time. last question. >> i teach young college
students about texas government. what i find is fundamentally the problem, i think you're not all addressing, is they don't trust the system. they are alienated from the system. they are angry at the system. it's not addressing their issues like student loan debt and income inequality. most fundamentally, i think, a lot of them believe their vote doesn't matter at all and that money controls the entire political system. my question to you is, how do you really address the issues of young people and particularly -- which is mostly young hispanics -- they fundamentally are alienated from the system and -- i mean, how about public financing of elections so that they would feel their vote matters? >> i can tell you that you're absolutely right. thank you for your public service. when i was speaking at one of the universities i asked the question of the student body, who did not vote? there was a path, did not vote for various reasons. give me a reason. number one reason was that of
trust. and again, i think you go back to the candidate, you've got to engage these young adults, you know, public finance, that's beyond -- that's above my pay grade. i'm thinking that we have to engage -- the question i pose to the student was, okay, so you don't trust anything and everything. so that means you're going for the next 50, 60 years and not vote because you don't trust? that's why -- that's why i indicated to this student, cast a blank ballot. at least you get your number, you did vote. and in time, if you have enough blank ballots, i won an election in 2010 by 69 votes, every vote does count. if i'm there, there's 200 blank ballots, 200 people out there that took time to vote but they were so disenfranchised with all of the candidates they didn't bother to cast a vote for any individual. you're right.
but it's going to take people like yourself, people in the audience, people up here, to convey that message. at the end of the day, it's up to the candidate as an individual to regain that trust. i said earlier, it's not so much the messenger but the message. maybe a combination of the two. thank you. >> thank you very much to everyone for coming by. >> let's take this question. >> revolt. >> so, i want to know -- i want to knowing i heard both of you speak to how low turnout is related to voter disinterest. principlely because of the way you district, according to the voting rights act? the way we draw the lines, really, only increases minority right? you're adding power to minority districts and as a result, these
districts are principally uncompetitive. in a general election it's d or r. the real election is all about the primary. because of the specific issue, would you support repealing the voting rights act to remedy that aspect of the politics? and if so, what protections would you put in place to protect the right to vote? i think this is the principal reason, the voting rights act paradoxically may be the reason we have uncompetitive elections in the country. >> i think you read it the wrong way. the voting rights act the principal reason we have diversity in american politics. under the old system, all kinds of slick schemes, you know, to run for a state rep seat, you'd run in a congressional district. that would mean today's number, represent a district of 220,000 you'd run in a congressional seat of 650,000. so this system was designed so
people can stay in power. but look, in the old days, my predecessor, african-americans in the state senate, they had to fight with their democratic counterparts because in the old days they'd try to crack la teen flow and african voter. you want some but not too many. in this generation, i have to argue, respectfully, but strongly with my colleagues, they want a packet. no, it has nothing to do with race. it has everything to do with party. i would say blacks and hispanics have a right to decide which party to vote in, like everybody else. they want to pack it in there. we've gotten where we are because of the act. but you couldn't, under prep prepreclearance you count make changes without some independent entity looking at it saying den
group. >> the secretary of state appointed by the governor. serves at the will of the governor. the chief liaison with commerce and members of the legislature, now it's kind of both, but when you're in that position, you represent the governor, whether a democrat or republican. i think we ought to try to take some of the partisanship out of the electoral process. voter registrars, appraisal folks at the local level, i think our responsibility ought to be more than just handle the elections. we ought to be thinking a way to make this easy for people to participate. why not have open discussion? in brazil you get a parking ticket. you pay a buck if you don't vote. i think structural things we could do. even when you had contested primaries, texas was still at the bottom. in terms of the number of people who turned out.
>> i think that -- >> let's plea address me addres. we're 97 anglo in the republican party primary. i was able to win. i don't think race should have an impact on whether or not we have the bipartisan that you're referring to, +a8ñright? merely because we have communities that need to be represented african-american or hispanic or anglo shouldn't be scrapped because you have perception that those rids vote in bloc to for one side or the other. i think if you're a good candidate, and you're anglo, you can win an african-american candidate, if you're a good candidate, you can win in an anglo district. >> thank you very much to our panelists for being here today.
>> all persons having business before the honorable supreme court of the united states admonished to give their attention. >> boldly opposed the forced internment of japanese americans during world war ii. after being convicted for failing to report for relocation, he took his case all the way to the supreme court. >> this week on c-span's landmark cases we'll discuss the historic supreme court case of korematsu versus the united states. after the attack on pearl harbor, president roosevelt issued an evacuation order sending 120,000 people of japanese origin who lived close to military installations to internment camps throughout the u.s. >> this is a re-creation of one of the barracks, topaz. the barracks were 20 feet wide, 120 feet long, divided into six
different rooms. they didn't have ceilings, they didn't have the masonite on the floor. would have been freezing, even in daytime. only heating they would have had would have been a potbellied stove. but this -- this would not have been able to heat the entire room in a comfortable kind of way. >> challenging the evacuation order, he denied that order and was arrested, and his case went to the supreme court. find out how the court ruled in view of the war powers of congress, with our guest, peter irons, author of "justice at war" the story of the japanese-american internment cases and karen korematsu, executive director of the fred t. korematsu. we'll follow his life before, during, and after the court's decision. that's coming up on the next landmark cases, live tonight,
9:00 p.m. eastern, on c-span, c-span 3, and c-span radio. for background on each case while you watch, order your copy of the landmark cases companion book, $8.95, plus shipping at c-span.org/landmark cases. >> as part of our veterans day coverage, c-span presents u.s. chamber of commerce and george w. bush institute hiring our heroes conference. speakers include lara bush and thomas perez. medal of honor recipient. you can watch that conference tuesday, 8:00 p.m. eastern, c-span. then on veterans day, wednesday, it's the annual ceremony at arlington national cemetery, wreath laying at the tomb of the unknown soldier followed by a national observance program hosted by the department of veterans affair at memorial amphitheater. live at 11:00 a.m. eastern, c-span and c-span.org.
the defense department's chief information officer spoke with reporters about ongoing cyber security challenges facing the pentagon. breakfast hosted by the "christian science monitor" is about 50 minutes. >> i think we're set. i'm dave cook from the monitor. our guest terry halvorson, in that role he oversees world's largest private computer network. he's accompany by mary anne bailey, principal director, deputy chief information officer for the defense department. he holes a bachelor's degree in history from widener university in pennsylvania, and a master's in educational technology from the university of west florida. he served as an army intelligence officer, and later as civilian, he was deputy commander of navy cyber forces
and then became the navy's chief information officer. he's been in his current role as pentagon's chief information officer since this march. miss bailey has bachelor's science degree from university of maryland. she's been a member of the national security agency workforce since 1984. thus, ended the biographical portion. now on to the riveting mechanical details. first, thanks to underwriter, northrop grumman. please, no live blogging or tweeting. in short, no filinging of any kind while the breakfast is under way to give us time to listen to what your guests say. there's no embargo when the session ends at 10:00 sharp. to help you curb that relent also selfie urge, we e-mail several pictures to all reporters here as soon as the breakfast ends. as regular attendees know, if you'd like to ask a question, please do traditional thing and
send me a subtle, nonthreatening signal, i'll call on one and all. wu o we will offer our guests to make opening comments with that, breakfast is over, sorry about that. thanks for coming. >> thank you. i'd like to thank the "christian science monitor" for inviting me today and all of you taking time i'm figured breakfast must be really good, that's why everybody's here. as introduction mentioned, d.o.d. is the largest private network. if we were, you've heard me say this before, gets to our scale if d.o.d. was fortune 500 company we'd be fortune zero, everybody starts with us in terms of any way to measure, total value, number of employees, cash. we're very, very large.
we're also attacked more than anybody else. one of the reasons i brought mary anne with me today, she is my deputy for cyber security. i thought maybe there might be some interest in cyber security questions, given some things going on in the world today. i'm going to focus opening comments quickly on three components. while they are focused around cyber security actually apply more broadly than that. i get a question all of the time, what keeps me awake. i think most people expect me to answer, it's security or it's dollars. it's neither of those things. it's culture. we're in the midst of having to make some major culture changes. i'm going to say d.o.d. but i think in the nation we have to make some culture changes. one of the things we have to do with d.o.d. establish a culture of cyber discipline. is that surprising? it shouldn't be. when the internet started and
just we should take a minute and say happy birthday to the internet. internet its birthday today, first connection across today. would mention, it was d.o.d. connection. happy birthday to the internet. when it first started, it was a research network that was built to share information. it continued that way. and people got to be that it was a trusted area and frankly it wasn't until it matured we started to see a series of bad actors on the internet. but they are out there today. but they're not visible like they are in a physical world. i think it's easy for people to forget that there are bad actors out there. certainly easy for parts of our workforce to do that. so we are really trying right now to make sure people understand, go to the internet, it is an important part of our business, important part of our culture, but you have to go
there with the right rules and right understandings. you will see a lot of activity on that. we have just signed out cyber security implementation plan, chairman and secretary signed out the cyber culture work, piece, that talks about what we're trying to do. and it talks about leadership, accountability, transparency because we face so many different threats, there's different answers. the other part we have to do is move to right side of cyber economics, which is another culturing change. it means you've got to understand economics much better in cyber than you do other areas. as a military area, cyber is one of the first big warfare areas where, frankly, in phase zero and phase one we have to worry about nonmilitary targets being attacked. because we get much of our advantage from the way we use cyber and high technology, it's
going to make us some what vulnerable to those type of attacks. you want to think about sole of the things that could cause us issues in a cyber world. i mean you look at what would happen if somebody disrupted wall street for the day. weave talking a trillion dollars. a trillion dollars becomes strategic money. you could interrupt potentially the power grid. lots of things you could do that would cause us great economic differences. the other problem today in this area, it's much less expensive for someone to attack us than it is for us defend and we've got to turn that around. today we are on the wrong side of that piece. part of moving to the right side of the cyber community we need to automate cyber security, particularly pa lly baseline pid go past automationing go to autonomous tool that self-learn
and take actions on a network to stop, quarantine the attacks so it doesn't get lateral movement. then maybe the biggest thing we have to do in d.o.d. is develop enterprise culture. cyber's forcing us to think different about that. unlike other areas, cyber truly is enterprise, it's connected. you can't help it. it's going to be a connected piece weep have to get much better at that at d.o.d. we need to think about what it means to be enterprise, where we're going to act as enterprise, under what circumstances do we need to act as an enterprise. that gets us mission, security, cost effectiveness. without doing those things right we won't achieve that balance of the commission effectiveness and security. we've got to integrate technology and tools closer than the past. it also needs to partner with industry. you heard my history major, in college, i couldn't decide what
i did, i majored in premed, prelaw, history, and economics and ended up with a multiple set of degrees. if you looked at world war ii, we had a different relationship with industry during the second world war. we need to take a look at how we re-establish some of that. it was not uncommon for industry and civil sector to move back and forth in employment, to have industry partners working right inside the projects. i think we have to start thinking about how we do that. that's particularly true in cyber i.t. because we do not own the market space. we're a big influence but we don't own it. if you're buying a submarine, we kind of own the market space. if you buy an air craft carrier, we own the market space. you're buying software, we don't own it. the commercial world, they're doing more innovation in that area than we are. it's really critical that we partner with that. we're doing a couple of things to expand that, some of you have
reported on this and know we're doing it. for the first time putting civilians out into companies. we've done that with military but now putting civilians out in six-month tours with i.t. companies and we're bringing i.t. company personnel into d.o.d. we've done that with cisco. this year we're going to do it with about ten companies and they will be either on the d.o.d. my staff or on the service cio staff and they'll will be in areas we think we need to expand on. some of it, how do you do software define networking? an area we need expertise in. automated security, we've already talked about that. so we'll pick areas that we need to match up with the companies. we'll make sure we have all of the right ndas so no one gets any advantage and we've done that in the past. i think that's things we're going to have to do to make sure that we continue to have the
edges that we gain through our use of the cyber and technology. and they will also help us get to an enterprise. also help industry get to enterprise. one of the things we'll see in industry, there's going to have to be more partnering in the i.t. business. there's nobody who corners all of this. it's going to take much more partnering, i think, among the industry players for this to work. i really think that's going to have to be a major change in the way industry does business, too. i think you'll see more smaller companies partnering with mid and bigger companies so they can scale. that's a problem for us and d.o.d. one of the constant issues that i face, people will say, i've got this great tool, we've tested it for 25,000 people and they get mad. now you have to test it for 1 million, so i can know it will scale. i get that's hard for smaller companies. i do think partnering with bigger companies is the way that's going to have to head to keep pricing and delivery speed
in right place. i think that sets the stage. happy to take questions. >> i'll do one or two. then jason, olivia, chris, mark, shawn, and sarah, to begin. let me ask you about the cyber economic curve. you've talked about the fact an enemy, in another speech, an enemy can spend, quote a small sum of money and cause us to spend quite a bit. right now we're on the wrong side of the cyber economic curve, unquote. so, how are you going to change -- can you change that curb? if so, how? >> i think we can change that. first thing you have to do, one of the things we're doing with cyber culture and cyber basics is you raise the playing level. when you get your cyber basics right and you've got people doing the right things, frankly, you eliminate all of the small end players, and that's one of the things we have to do. the other piece of that will be
bringing on the economist tools so what we are doing is doing that with an automated piece, not intensive man power. man power costs money. so i think, as we get there, you will see it will get more expensive to cause us problems. so i do think we can get to the right side of the curve. >> is that, in terms of time horizon, is that a three, five -- >> i think that's an 18 to 24-month flan will get us there, we are in better shape. not exactly where we want to be but we'll be very close, and we'll have elilnated much of the whoo i'll tell you canned attacks that are somewhat successful today that you can download from the internet. >> one last for me, then we'll move on. i was interested in reading, getting ready for this, that you're operating at what appears to somebody who doesn't know a lot, to be diverse ends of the security spectrum.
you've talked in public speeches about rolling out at the pentagon, quote, secure enough mobile devices. and then the industry was fascinated when you mentioned, i guess earlier this month, working on a top-secret capable device that would let forces communicate anywhere, anytime, at a top-secret level what happen are the challenges of operating at two different ends of the security spectrum? >> i don't think the challenges much different for any. you've got to get the right security level for the mission and the time and the cost. so you know, you want the capability would be for a small number of users in a select set of missions. the more mobile device for everybody, obviously scale of that's bigger. >> right. >> but the analysis you do to decide what's the right level of security, cost you want to spend, is not much different in terms of process for the high
end of security and low end of security. and secure enough, actually arc plies to everything. i mean, it's a bit of a joke but everybody tells me, i can secure the network today. i really can. i can secure it completely in the next five minutes. it would be completely shut down and we'd get no work done, but it would be perfectly secure. this is a balance. it's always a balance. it's a balance across time, money, mission, threat, and it's getting that right. the other thing that's part of that understanding data. most of the data that we have, and i joke about this, but i'm thinking harder and hard bar it, i think data ought to come with like how the milk carton comes by used by? data ought to come from with a stamp, after this date, who cares? it's perishable. you know, i tell a little bit of a story, back in my younger career, where i was part of a
operation where we used to have squad radios so i could yell, mary anne, duck. mary anne could get that quickly and duck. we did this thing, people decided they had to be encrypted. i will tell you everything that you can believe. there is is a truism. if the threat can put small arms fire on to you, they know where you are. that's a given. so we encrypted this. by the time you yelled duck, when it went through encryption, you no longer had to worry about duck, it was a different problem. you've got to be secure enough for the environment. if the enemy knows where you are, they can put small arms fire on you, maybe that doesn't need to be encrypted. we don't encrypt that now. when we do, we have better ways of doing it, but back then it was a problem. i think, knowing what your data's per risch ability is something else, we've got to understand better. >> jason, where are you? there you are. go for it. >> terry, can you talk about the
cyber implementation plan and pieces and parts of it. >> first of all we go after basics. the basics you know, higher education levels and more tools around some of the common attacks like spear fishing, setting up fake websites, things like that. and it's a combination of tools, culture and training and education. that's kind of step one. step two raises it to the next level where we really start looking at more advanced attacks and how do we prevent those. and it's the same type of combination of training, education and tools, but they're just more advanced, you have to have more education, more training. and it's really also educating leaders at every level what their responsibilities are and what they need to know. and when you're growing up as -- and i actually started as an infantry officer. they teach you very quickly what
things when you go out to your units that you should ask that can tell you rather quickly if the unit's prepared. we have to do the same thing in cyber. what questions should you be asking about cyber as a commander at any level? we've also developed, in 6h!ç conjunction with all of this, a cyber scorecard that measures a series of things and will change. as we get good at certain basics, we'll move that up. we just had about an hour and a half discussion with sec def on that. i laid out for him how that would change and the progression of that. that's really one of the first attempts that will measure that consistently across all levels and across all forces. it includes co-coms, each of the agencies, each of the services. everybody gets to be measured. it's an interesting drill because i think it's an area where we were used to measuring readiness in other areas, we frankly weren't doing that cyber. again, i don't think that should surprise anybody.
cyber is a relatively new warfare. if you look at the history of aviation, you look at the history of how we developed nuclear, it took us a while to get to this point. i think the big difference in cyber though that we're having to react to is it moves faster than any other warfare area. so, that's a challenge. the things we do today in cyber probably won't be the same things we do tomorrow. that's frustrating on industry, too, and i'll share that. you know, we did our latest cloud documentation working with industry. we brought industry in, we helped them write the policy priorities. but one of the things they wanted to do was put in, this will be good for a year, this will be good for two years. the answer is no. it will be good as long as the threat and technology says it's good. when that changes in cyber, you've got to be able to roll fast. it's hard for any big institution to grasp at that. it's hard for industry to do that. it's accelerated change and
we're generally not good at accelerated change as humans, period. >> oliver knox from yahoo! >> i thank you for coming. roughly how often per hour, per day, pick whatever time you want, are systems tested by foreign hackers? have you seen a shift in their targets since the opm hack? >> the answer to the first question is always. >> there is no time i'm not being attacked somewhere in the world. it's continuous. >> have they changed since the opm attack? >> i don't think they've changed. focus on data collection, vice data disruption. that would be the biggest change. >> but not things like food distribution versus missiles, anything like that? >> to the extent i can comment on that, no. >> and you mentioned establishing a culture of cyber discipline. i have some active duty friends who have posted things on facebook they probably shouldn't have and things like that. is there such a thing as a cyber boot camp, is that something you're looking to establish for
people? >> i don't think we'll be doing a cyber boot camp. this is cyber so it will probably be done in the cyber environment. but i think some of the things we're doing would be like the basics you would get in another boot camp, only we're delivering them through a cyber means. >> chris stromm from bloomberg. >> secretary carter mentioned in the spring that a russian hacker got into d.o.d.'s network. can you elaborate a little bit, how does that happen? do they actually steal any information? >> the answer to your question is no, i can't elaborate on that. >> ian clapper has said that russian hackers are the most sophisticated hackers, or they've been the most aggressive lately. what's your assessment of the threat of russian hackers versus the threat of hackers from other nations. >> given that ian said it, it's probably true. >> what is your vision of hackers? >> i think the russian hackers
are a serious threat. >> we will go to mark thompson from "time." >> last month before this the house armed services committee, you were asked, what keeps you up at night, and you said foremost in your mind was the fact that terrorists might be launching offensive cyber attacks. >> i don't think i said that, i think mike rogers said that, but that's okay. >> i've got the transcript right here, sir. i think it was you. >> i don't actually think so, but go ahead. >> then that makes that moot. leon panetta was in our offices in new york three years ago and he warned of an electronic pearl harbor. he said there's probably not going to be a cyber armageddon. rather, it's going to be this sort of gradual incrementalism of problems and troubles. is this going to be a persistent thing? it's going to basically become white noise?
we've been hearing about an electronic pearl harbor for a long time, and industry plainly keeps waiting for it to happen before they're going to roll out a lot of big money. where is the threat? how much is a cyber pearl harbor and how much of it is just a persistent white noise we have to learn to grapple with? >> i don't know that anybody can answer that. i would tell you two things. industry certainly is shifting money now, big money, into cybersecurity. a lot of that happened after the target attack. that will tend to get you spurred when the coo, cio, ceo all got fired. we see that. we talk to industry a lot. i'll tell you when i knew cybersecurity was getting really important to industry. i was giving a speech, and after a speech, i was getting questions from these two gentlemen. lots of good questions and i said, where are you from? they said coors miller. i'm trying to think, coors miller financial -- no, it was coors miller beer. i think the industry is getting this. the financial sector certainly got it a while back.
is there a potential for a cyber pearl harbor? probably. i think it will depend on what scale of engagement you're going on about. in kind of the normal phase zero, yeah, i think there will be persistent cyber probing, there will be persistent testing of cyberthreat technology. i think that is something we're going to live with. i don't think, again, that should surprise us. any time we've had new technology, that's what happens. it gets probed. as it matures, it certainly becomes more available for threat to look at it. i think that's going to continue in the cyber world. and it will depend on -- a little bit on how much nations decide they want to cooperate, too, and i don't think there's any answer that's come in on that yet. we certainly hoped it will get to some of that, but i don't
think we will see that -- i don't think we're going to see quite the cyber cooperation we think for a while longer yet. >> here's your quote about offensive cyber attacks. >> i see it's an extract from the testimony. i really don't remember that. i thought mike rogers was terrorism, but we'll check. >> i have been known to make mistakes. >> we'll check. >> hey, shawn. from federal computer week. >> in terms of j and e, there was a report earlier this week by the "new york times" that russian vessels may be probing underwater cable links, and i'm wondering what role jie can have in warding that off, if you've gone through those scenarios and if you think you're prepared to handle that threat. >> shawn, be really careful. i'll just say that cables are certainly always a concern. jie really won't have any impact on that one way or the other.
they're looking at the physical part of the cable. no way jie plays in that. >> okay. how are you prepared to defend against the physical part? >> that i'm not going to talk about. that gets into a whole bunch of classified programs on how we protect the cables. >> sara sorcher from pesco. >> admiral mike rogers said earlier this year that the government's focus on defense isn't working and that it's time to consider boosting the military's offensive capability in this space. kerry asked the cio for your opinion. what do you think, if you're feeling this need pretty consistently, and as the u.s. considers it, what does that look like? >> i think that's probably a question to ask mike rogers. i'll give you my quick summary on it. as the cio, i am responsible for the defense and the security side of that. i don't think it's a secret we are looking at what offensive actions could the u.s. take. i think there is always things we're considering.
we don't, however, discuss that in public, other than we're considering those things. >> so do you also feel a need to move into that space and go -- expand the definition of defense? >> i think what we're telling you is we're probably already in that space, and how much of that do you -- i think this is more of the question. but how much do you publicize of that so it becomes more of an external awareness that would be in some way a deterrent? again, that's an area that we tend not to talk too much about in public. >> down at the end of the table, mr. marks from politico. >> you talked a little bit about the program you're working on -- the embed program you're working on in private companies. can you go into some more detail on who those people are, and specifically, i imagine there are people who work from the d.o.d. to industry or the intelligence areas who already have clearances and so forth. is that the type of people you're looking for?
>> we don't actually have the number of people you would think move from industry into d.o.d., and there's a really good reason for that. if you do that, you're generally taking a fairly significant salary cut. what we're looking at is some of our top government performers who have predominantly been government going out to industry and learning a couple things. there are certainly some technical things we want to learn. we also want to learn how the industry is doing their business processes. that's important for us. and one of the things that in the office we spend more time than they have in the past is understanding what businesses are doing, what do they understand our economic drivers are, understanding what they're investing in in the future to see if we can influence that, if that makes sense. so they'll be doing all of those things in areas that we really think that we need to get some better read on. and we've talked about some of those. some of that is -- it's called software-defined networking,
software-defined route, whatever you want to call it. it's a software-based tool. that has a big advantage for us. it lets you be more agile. you don't have to replace the hardware as much as you can update it with the software. it's also cost-effective for us to do that. we're looking 13 to 15 grade levels so that they've got a good track record of high performance inside the government. >> we're going the other direction -- the two-year programs you talk about we're going from industry to government. >> it's a one-year program that they come in to us. again, we're looking at industry to help us solve some specific areas. so in the case of cisco, they gave us a routing specialist. that's what they do, cisco routers. as we look at other companies, we'll bring in kind of what their sweet spot is in things. certainly this year, we're looking for some software-defined pick your name expertise. modular data center technology.
i do think that's going to be bigger as you look at it. we are certainly continuing our effort to close data centers. we have too much capacity. but as you do that, you start looking at -- the modular data centers can run at higher temperatures, they run with lower manpower and less power. it is still true the number one cost driver in a center is labor. i have said it before and i will say it again. right now in d.o.d., our labor costs are higher than industry. i've got to get those labor costs down, and some of that is applying newer technology, and this industry has been able to apply it faster than we have. >> can you explain just for a novice why your labor costs would be higher -- you're saying if you move from private industry to d.o.d., you typically take a pay cut. so the reason your pay costs are generally higher -- >> it's numbers. we take -- >> because our data centers are not at the same level technology
as industry, the really leading industry, we just -- we just have a sheer number of people hired. it truly is count the numbers. it takes us, in general, more people to do the same number of things that industry can do less. and industry is really leading. you've got data centers now in some of the really advanced companies that are completely lights out. what used to take -- even five years ago in industry, what used to take 25, 30 people to do, they're now doing with ten people in a central location managing three of those sites. we've got to get to that same type of level. >> going to go next to tammy abdallah from the associated press. >> so, you know, your discussion about partnering with the private industry, and you touched a little bit on this issue of labor costs. i mean, this has been a longstanding problem with local government as well as state as well as federal, trying to get private industry to come back to government and avoid that sort of brain drain of government folks, really good government
folks usually, heading out to private industry. aside from trying to get labor costs down, what other ideas do you guys have about ensuring the people that, you know, it's not a one-way street? >> one of the things, and probably the single best recruiting tool we have is our mission sit. we are able to keep people, and frankly, attract some people from industry, because the one thing you get to do in d.o.d., there is nobody that's got more exciting things to work on. that's our biggest advantage. that will work for a while. but i tell you what i worry about is when you get into the kind of your middle years in this, that's when you're having kids, you're looking at college costs, and people come to you and offer you what can be two or three times what your current salary is, that's hard for even the mission to hold that. and frankly, we are seeing some drain, and i'm not winning that war right now. i'm losing. we're looking at some special pay legislation, easier ways to
recruit. speeding the time up. that takes legislation. we're working on it. we have some and i can do some hiring under some special cyber acts, but i can't really compete very well on the pay. i don't think we're gonna be able to compete on the pay. maybe we get a little closer, that would help. i honestly don't have a good answer how we win that one. >> mark signal from mcclatchy. >> i'm curious what the trust factor is when you talk about working with private industry. because it seems to me the last few years, one of the major themes has been a lack of trust between private industry and the federal government, particularly the pentagon over nsa spying, encryption, et cetera, et cetera. and i'm wondering, when you talk about partnering more with private industry, are you finding private industry willing
to do that, or do you have a big trust issue you have to overcome? >> within d.o.d., with our partners, i don't have a big trust issue, and i think there are two reasons for that. i'm not naive enough to think that the first reason is i spend $36.8 billion a year. that buys a lot of potential trust. but i'm going to say this, and i actually had a very good discussion on this on my trip overseas. i do think american industry responds to d.o.d. very well and has a very great history of doing that. i was talking yesterday at a table where i was speaking at milcom. and a lady gave me a suggestion, and i think i'm going to follow up on it, that we have industry with us on a forward edge. when we tell industry, listen, we need help in getting smaller communications to this far-flung unit and we need people out there, they deliver.
when you talk to the industry and i'm talking about the workers that get this, most of them are happy, grateful even, to support the d.o.d. mission. i don't see a big trust problem. do i think there are industries that worry about parts of d.o.d.? yeah, but that's generally not the industries that i'm doing as much business with. the ones that are doing business with d.o.d., i don't see a big trust problem. as a matter of fact, i applaud them. they're -- we give them a challenge. they're generally up to meeting it. >> may i add something to that? >> sure. >> the cybersecurity problem is very complex, it's very distributed, it's very difficult and it's something we all share. that's another opportunity where we've had great partnerships with them as we figure out together as a nation, as an industry, as a department of defense how we're going to figure out that problem. we share successes we've had. we've had a lot of great
dialogue with our big industry partners on how they're doing that, how they're having successes in their companies, things we may want to look at, so i think there's been great collaboration. >> anybody who hasn't had one that wants one. yes, ma'am? then we'll go down there. yes? >> hi. so earlier this week, we saw that the d.o.d. cybersecurity culture and compliance initiative memo came out. i was wondering, what does this memo mean for your office, and how are you carrying out some of the directives that are inside it, like the directives for culture change? >> well, amber, as we talked about, we certainly looked at how we're changing the training to get it down to every level and going up to every level, getting it to all the commanders. we are expanding what we look at in the cyber scorecard. i do think the things you measure will get attention, and we are now measuring those things.
we're having a lot more discussion with industry, as marianne said, about how wee better share all of the data that's available from both industry and the d.o.d. on what the threats are, how to counter the threats and then passing that around to both our partners in the industry and outside the d.o.d. all of that has to be orchestrated in the riet way to get that culture change and that's what we're trying to do. you asked specifically what my role in my organization is to make sure that gets done. we do the measurements and we are trying to make sure the orchestration gets with all the data at the right time. >> what are some of the things you're measuring? and how are you measuring? >> are we doing the two-factor authentication?
are the systems administrators using tokens so we know what systems administrators are on the networks? have we put all of our public-facing and forward-facing, meaning on the internet, servers behind the right set of firewalls or other security boundaries? firewalls will change here somewhat. but there will still be a security boundary, whatever that technology is. have we looked at how all of our data is encrypted or not? when -- there's times when data should be encrypted and are we following all those processes? >> next to greg otto. federal scoop news. >> thank you for taking my question. you had talked earlier about partnering with industry, particularly smaller partners. i know d.o.d. has stood up an experimental innovation unit in silicon valley, so i would love to hear your thoughts of how
that process is going in the early stages. >> i think it's going about how you would think in the early stages. we're making some progress. we're still learning that. it's out there really to learn how silicon valley does business than to teach silicon valley how d.o.d. does business. i think that's a key that the secretary set very smartly for that. here's what d.o.d., when it comes down to it, if you're a small business and you're doing your innovation, you live on a three- to six-month funding cycle. if you don't get money in the three- to six-month window, they're not there anymore. that's what they have to do to pay back their backers. we're generally not turning that fast, so one of the things we try to do up there is how do we make the smaller investments we have to make faster to buy some influence? and i think we're doing okay. i would tell you the secretary probably thinks we need to do better and be able to still get faster. the other thing that unit is doing is not educating silicon
valley about our business process at d.o.d. but actually educating about our processes and what do we need? what are the areas that we need the most help with? i think that part of it is going really well. and we've coupled that with -- we've had a couple trips out to silicon valley. we will have -- when i say silicon valley, it's the concept more than the location. we've put one out in california, but we're taking a trip -- my deputy will leave up the east coast, because there's actually a lot of innovation going on in boston, new york, places like that. so we want to make sure we're not just capturing what's out in the physical silicon valley but getting that concept. we're even looking at some places -- you know, there's some interesting innovations going on in london and places like that. how do we make sure we capture all that? so in addition to partnering with industry, we're also doing better relationships with our counterparts. i spent quite a bit of time on
the phone with mike stone, who is the u.k.'s cio for their ministry of defense. we exchanged ideas. i just came back from australia similar discussion to see how they're doing. some of the smaller governments, they're a little smaller, they can turn faster, but they're the exact same problems. so we can look and see a little bit what fails or succeeds faster, which is a big help for us. >> i'm going to keep moving around the table, but i want to ask a question, if i can, about veterans. we were talking before the breakfast started that you were scheduled to testify on tuesday to the house committee on oversight and government reform about electronic records interoperability between the d.o.d. and the v.a. you were out of town and had a deputy there. as you know, former secretary gates lamented that he never succeeded in cracking the bureaucracy and said if there is
one bureaucracy more intractable in defense, it's the va. so how does the record inoperability thing stand? i ask that as an older veteran myself. >> it's getting better. i don't think it's good enough. and i guess i would answer more about what we in d.o.d. are doing. i'm sure all of you are aware we have just signed a contract to make d.o.d. more commercial like. we're going to have commercial and we're using a very broadly accepted commercial software to do that. we're spending a lot of time looking at how to make that work better. we are actually taking more and more commercial practices. now, i think that what d.o.d. will do -- and this is my opinion so i stress my opinion -- but as i look at what
we're doing there, that is an area of business where i think we will tend to -- continue to move more and more commercial. i think that is a place where the commercial market frankly does it better than the government. >> and is it your sense the va is doing the same thing? >> i'm not going to comment on va. >> okay. i've been trying to get mr. mcdonald to come and do a little veterans day appearance. we'll see whether that happens or not. other people who have one? >> on tuesday the senate, after five or six years of hammering finally passed the cybersecurity bill of information sharing between the private sector and the government. even supporters like harry reid said this is a very weak bill, this is a small step. we need to do more on cybersecurity. how will expanding be for your purposes and what else would you like to see from congress? i know you mentioned special pay legislation, but what else?
>> i think any time congress takes this and talks, and even if it's weaker legislation, i think the legislation will help. i think the liability will help people share in anything that encourages people to share data here is a good thing. if you ask me, the biggest piece of legislation i needed hopefully the senate will pass tomorrow, and that's the budget. it is -- i don't know that everybody understands when you're working on what amounts to be a nine-month fiscal year, and we've done that for seven years, nobody can do that right. you will get inefficient and you will lose gains. so the big legislation is hopefully the senate will pass the budget bill tomorrow. we were glad to see the house do so last night. >> anyone else who hasn't -- yes, ma'am, i'm sorry. >> a couple questions. a few years ago, chelsea manning leaked a number of documents. >> can you speak into the
microphone? thank you. >> a few years ago, chelsea manning leaked a number of documents to wikileaks, and after that there was an executive order to create some sort of insider threat initiative. government-wide but particularly at d.o.d. have you fully implemented that? what's the status of that? are you fairly confident? >> the answer to have we fully implemented is really hard to say yes. have we implemented to the known threats? yes. but as we talked earlier, that's another area that keeps evolving. are we where we want to be, i think, in terms of how quickly we can use analysis and adapt to that, no. but have we done some very good things about that? yes. how you look at what our norms for people searching their data. there are norms that people should stay in within data by their job position. we certainly look at that.
>> when someone deviates from that, you know to look at them more closely? >> yes. when you talk about insider threat, it really does tend to be, what are you looking at that's deviation from the norm? now, as the threats get more sophisticated, you've got to get more sophisticated at being able to understand that, and that's where i think we have to continue to develop and figure out how we do faster -- frankly, faster forecaster analysis. that's hard. we need to do that across the board. one of the things that we've done with the cio staff and some of the other staff, there is a book out called "flash foresight." interesting book, and it's written not by a futurist but a guy who was a biologist. he says, these things are certain to happen unless you have some cataclysmic event. these are things that are going to happen if you don't take action, and when you start to look at it that way, i think it
gives you more focus and a better ability to be more predictive. we're looking at how to do that because i think that's the key. >> so the nsa has the assurance division. there's cyber command which also has a unit to help defend networks, not the defend the nation teams but more of a defensive helping to support the cybersecurity aspect of the d.o.d. networks. and then there's your guys. >> then there's what? >> then there's your office, right? the cio. what distinguishes your -- >> so we actually own the iea money. nsa, their ia is looking at what i'll call the broad strategic. they get down to the technical tools. cybercomm is what you take from that industry and offer.
>> so you don't have operational. >> i don't have direct operational control. we certainly play in operations typically around the defense like measuring the scorecard issues, but yeah, we are basically policy in balance. >> anybody who hasn't or we can do a second round? this is a quiet moment, this doesn't happen very often, so let me ask you about contracting challenges. the deputy secretary of defense for cyber policy was at an event at the center for strategic international studies and talking about the challenges that you face, that the defense department faces in acquisition that you need to be careful that you're not buying things that build in a security threat. he was talking about poor hygiene effects, poor security built into products, poor security on networks that you are absolutely looking at
regulations that can help define what those standards are. where does that effort stand, sir. >> i think we are in pretty good shape on that. we have published a lot lately. frank kendall put out directives that are required for contractors that are going to be in the network or network tool providers. they must do a little bit more about securing their supply chain. they must have certain things in their contract. they must make certain code available to us to review. do i think that completely solves the problem? no. and i think that's another one where the problem is speed because what we tend to do there is we're writing policy about what the known threats are and what known has happened. that's what you do. again, how do we get ahead of that is the challenge there. what's the next place that the threats will go to look at even in the supply chain or what else will they try to do in marketing different tools.
i mean the other problem you have in today's contracting world is the fast pace of what company owns what company. that is a concern for us. you know, you find out -- >> in terms of foreign ownership? >> yeah, absolutely. so that's -- and again, it's just the pace. the pace at what change happens in every aspect in the cyber i.t. world makes acquisition harder because while you must acquire with higher speed, you also must do all the extra due diligence that the threat -- i mean, they're absolutely in opposing affects so how do you balance that? that will continue to be a challenge. >> last question, mark thompson. >> cycling back to that hastert hearing last month and i think you said, yes, we are enforcing accountability among our people who are responsible for poor cyber hygiene. when you're asked, well, what did you do, you declined to say.
if you're trying to change the culture, isn't there an element of deterrence in letting folks know if you make this error, this is what's going to happen? why you won't say for the chairman of the joint chiefs intrusion, without naming the people, what accountability was meted out? >> the proper accountability. yes, there's the deterrence in t people who inside the d.o.d. need to know that. i don't think that's a topic i need to talk about outside of the d.o.d. like going to "time" magazine saying when you do editorial review boards, do you publicize that? >> when we make a mistake we publicize it and print it. >> do you? that's an interesting question. >> i don't see much other than the one letter retraction with a we made a mistake. i don't see that the reporter was -- we say we took the proper action. we are saying the same thing. i'm not going to tell you what specifically happened by individual. what actions we take. >> how about general? >> generally what we have done in some places we have applied
ucmj where that's appropriate. written counseling where that's appropriate. we have taken the appropriate actions given the tools that d.o.d. has to take those actions. >> has anybody ever been fired? >> absolutely. >> thank you. >> on that cheery note, we'll -- thank you both for doing this. we really appreciate it. >> thank you. thank you. they were great questions. thank you. >> thank you. >> tonight on the communicators, we'll discuss cyber security threats facing the u.s. and other countries. james lewis from the center for strategic and international studies is our guest. also, cyber security legislation passed by the house and senate. on the program mr. lewis is joined by tim starks cyber security reporter. >> they have neither authorities or resources.
that would be a good thing to change. they need to think about critical infrastructure. again, the bill in 2012 would have delalt with critical infrastructure, probably not in the right way. you saw the obama administration put out an executive order in 2013 that imposed light requirements on critical infrastructure to protect their networks. congress needs to go back and ask if that's enough. >> watch the communicators tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span 2. henry montgomery was 17 when he killed a louisiana deputy sheriff. he was originally sentenced to death, but the louisiana supreme court reversed it. he was retried and sentenced to life without parole. mr. montgomery has served more
than 50 years in prison. here is the one-hour oral argument before the nation's highest court. we'll hear argument this morning, case 14280, montgomery versus louisiana. mr. bernstein. >> mr. chief justice, and may it please the court. the issue is whether to decide the question of miller's retroactivity in this case or in a federal habeas case such as johnson versus mannis, number 15-1 on this court's docket. in today's case there is no jurisdiction over that question because the point is enforce the supremacy clause which states that when, quote, the laws of the united states, unquote, apply, quote, the judges -- these are the key words -- in every state shall be bound thereby. there is no such thing as supreme federal law that depends on whether a particular state voluntarily makes federal precedence binding.
when a state does that, when a state voluntarily adopts non-binding federal precedence, that creates no right under federal law, which is what 1257 requires, and michigan versus long does not apply. >> how would you describe the adequate and independent state ground on which this decision rested? >> i would say that the lack of a binding federal law question is an antecedent requirement, to borrow the terminology of the sg's brief, before you get to the adequate and independent state ground analysis. >> why don't we have jurisdiction to answer that question? >> you certainly have jurisdiction to answer the question whether teague is constitutionally required in state collateral review courts. the second part of the brief said why it is not constitutionally required in state collateral review courts, and that basically this courts precedence from danforth to the
beginning in desist and in kaufman have said the teague -- what have become the teague exceptions are matters of equitable discretion and not matters of the constitution, and the federal habeas statute, on its face, only applies in federal court. so the federal habeas court can grant relief if relief is warranted under the teague exception. >> if a state says we acknowledge that we are holding a prisoner in contravention of federal law but we choose to do nothing about it, then the answer is federal habeas corpus, there is not a second answer that the state can be required under the supremacy clause under its own procedures to enforce the federal law? if i am -- if i were to take -- to argue the second position, i am not quite sure what case i >> well, i think that your
honor's opinion for the court in martinez versus ryan. 132 supreme court at 1319 to 1320, suggested that there are advantages to citing the federal habeas right in the federal habeas statute rather than what the court called a free standing constitutional claim. a major advantage here is, if you say that the state courts are bound by the teague exceptions, by the constitution, then when it goes to federal habeas there will be deferential edba review. if you say that the redress question, as the rationale of danforth indicated, in state court is a matter of state law, then, when the issue goes to federal habeas, it will not apply because the state court will not have decided the federal issue. it is a major difference. you would actually be weakening the federal habeas statute to recognize jurisdiction in this
case. and this court will benefit from having de novo percolation in the lower courts, the lower habeas courts, which all would be out the window if there is jurisdiction because the lower federal habeas courts will only be able and the courts reviewing them on appeal to apply the highly deferential edber review. >> are you saying the supremacy clause binds the states only in direct criminal proceedings? >> no. >> is that another way of phrasing your argument? >> it would be that the supremacy clause only binds the states in direct proceedings and in collateral proceedings where it's an old rule. because that's the equivalent of a direct proceeding. but if you are talking about the retroactivity of a new rule, then -- that's where the teague -- the two teague exceptions apply.
they apply to new rules and they apply to collateral review. those are based in statutory equitable discretion rather than the constitution. the court has already held that both direct review and the application of old rules present federal questions. >> how do you differentiate this case from standard oil? >> in standard oil the issue was the underlying status of the federal government arm and the court said that question is controlled by federal law. standard oil is like miller itself where the issue was what does the 8th amendment require. that's a federal constitutional issue that applied. in standard oil, as a combination of statute, regulations and federal common law, federal law controlled the question. here the statute doesn't apply in state court as danforth and numerous other cases have held, like the federal rules of
evidence don't apply in state court, even though many courts follow similar provisions and certainly follow federal precedents in interpreting. >> we did say that that state could define the exemption any which way it wanted. >> correct. >> it's almost identical here. we would announce what the federal law is, send it back. the state has already said it's going to follow teague. but i guess it might or might not be free to change its mind about doing that. >> i think the difference and what makes this case special is that this court has held since murdoch since city of memphis over almost 150 years ago. 87 u.s. at 326 to 327 that the 1267 jurisdiction is question by question. it is not like 1331, case by case. it is question by question. and i do not believe the court has jurisdiction to skip over
the question of whether federal law applies and then answer the hypothetical if federal law applied, what would it be. i think the question of whether federal law applies is a jurisdictional question. >> how -- let's think of the first teague exception. suppose, substantive matters. suppose that many states had sedition laws, that make certain conduct unlawful so there are 1,000 people in prison. this court, in a new rule, holds you cannot criminalize that behavior. all right. what is the law that would make that retroactive to people in prison? it sounds to me that it isn't like some kind of statutory discretion. rather, there are human beings who are in prison who are there without having violated any valid law.
because it was always protected by the first amendment. if that's right it's the constitution, the due process clause, that says they are being held, even though they committed the crime 22 years ago, they are now being held in confinement without due process of law because you cannot criminalize their behavior. you see where i am going? that being so, teague drops out of the case, the only question is whether to satisfy the two exceptions. >> well, in your hypothetical, respectfully, i don't think that would be a new rule. >> i have made it a new rule for purposes of my hypothetical. >> if it were a genuinely new rule, then under danforth and going all the way back, the justice harlan's opinion in mackie said we're not creating the substantive exception because the constitution
requires that -- >> danforth is a case saying the states could be more generous. it wasn't a case -- this is a case that the opposite of being generous. can they be more stingy. and i cannot find anything in harlan. maybe i'll read it again, but i cannot find anything there, nor can i find anything in danforth that answers the question. so i thought, it is a new question. hence, that question i posed you because i want to get your response. i don't think you can answer it by means of precedent. i think you have to try to figure it out without the help of precedent. >> if it is a new rule, the court has held and sorry to cite a precedent, linkletter held retroactivity on collateral review that it's not unconstitutional. >> then we have teague and teague is saying we don't like linkletter and -- >> teague said we don't like -- >> you're saying that we have -- maybe then that's wrong. i mean, why doesn't it violate
the constitution to hold a person in prison for 20 years for conduct which the constitution forbids making criminal? >> well, it does violate the constitution. >> it wasn't criminal at the time. it wasn't prohibited by the constitution at the time he was convicted, right? >> fair enough. >> would be the reason. >> fair enough. >> but the -- the constitution, according to the cases, is satisfied by the federal habeas remedy. i think this is where -- >> is there anything else you can say? i could say, which -- witches, being a witch. some people in salem were imprisoned for being a witch. lo and behold, in 1820 it was held by this court that that violated the constitution. now, you see, i just make a more outrageous example of the same thing. i want you to say, okay, i got
your point. it didn't violate the constitution at the time. i also got the point you have some authority. anything else? >> this court has been reluctant, even when there is a violation of the due process clause, to create an implied judicial remedy on top of the federal statutory remedy. that's cited in our briefs. >> that's not what's happening here, mr. bernstein. i mean, if you assume the premise of justice breyer's question, which is that there is a constitutional violation in keeping somebody in prison for some conduct that can't be criminalized, the state has set up a collateral review mechanism. we're not asking it to set up a new mechanism that it hasn't had before. it has a collateral review mechanism. and the only question is whether it's going to comply with federal constitutional law in that collateral review mechanism.
>> and the other question is whether that issue of retroactivity is itself a federal constitutional issue. if it is, obviously there is jurisdiction. if it is not, i would submit there is not jurisdiction and that the proper remedy is federal habeas. if i may reserve the remainder of my time. >> thank you, counsel. mr. plaisance. >> mr. chief justice and may it please the court. miller versus alabama established a new substantive rule prohibiting mandatory life without parole for juveniles which should be applied retro actively. this court has jurisdiction to hear henry montgomery's claim because the louisiana supreme court relied exclusively on federal juris prudence. in miller this court held that mandatory life in prison was unconstitutional. it also held that life in prison would be an uncommon, rash
sentence even today. >> isn't it just like a state saying, we have a fourth amendment, and the federal constitution has a fourth amendment. we are going to apply our own constitution, but in applying it, we will follow the federal precedent. i think we would say, in that case, the case has been decided on the state constitutional ground, even though the state court, in interpreting that ground, is looking to federal decisions. >> in this case, your honor, the louisiana supreme court did not state that it was exercising any independent grounds at all. under michigan v long -- >> i thought the case it cited said that. the case -- i thought it cited an earlier louisiana supreme court case, which made it very clear that it was following the
federal rule as a matter of discretion and not because -- not because it had to and it could, in a later opinion, decide not to follow federal law. >> it is my interpretation of the earlier case that the louisiana supreme court said, we have a choice. and they made the choice to apply teague. in fact, they said in that opinion, we are dictated by the teague analysis. and that's what was done in this case. under michigan -- >> did they not say in taylor that they were not bound to follow teague? didn't they say we're going to follow teague but we want to make it clear we're not bound to do that? >> they did say that. >> they've never retracted that. >> correct. but the choice itself is not necessarily a matter of state law. while the supreme court had the authority to make that decision, it said, we believe by choosing teague we believe that is the
better law and therefore we will follow the federal guidelines from teague, the federal juris prudence in doing so. i believe that under michigan v long, unless they state a clear and independent ground, this court can conclusively presume that they applied federal law as they believe this court would apply. >> i thought it's unless they clearly state otherwise, we will assume that they're applying federal law. and here they did clearly state otherwise. they said we don't have to follow federal law, but we're going to model our state law on federal law. it seems to me that satisfies the exception requirement of michigan. >> it is my opinion that michigan v long indicates the reverse, your honor, that the state must say we are following state law in making this
decision. we are applying state law rather than federal law. >> they did say that here. they said that. this is a matter of state law. we don't have to follow teague, but we choose to, as a matter of state law. i thought that's what they said. >> and i believe that that's sufficient to indicate to this court that it is applying federal law. it is not applying state law. >> mr. plaisance, i think what people are saying to you is that this is different from your standard michigan v long question. i mean, this is a different question. it's a state that says, we're not bound to follow teague. we know we can do something different. but we want to follow teague. that's what we want to do. and then -- in all its particulars, all right. then the question is, if the state commits to following teague, it's not -- it doesn't think anybody else has committed it, it self-commits to following teague and to following federal law, then what happens?
is there enough of a federal question to decide this case. that's not a michigan v. long question. it's more like a merrill-dow question or something like that where federal law -- the state has chosen it but it's part and parcel of the clam because the state is so committed to following federal law in all its particulars. >> i agree with your honor. even in danforth this court said that the question of retroactivity is a pure question of federal law. >> i'm sorry. why don't you finish. >> that's the answer to your explanation or hypothetical, that you said if the state decided that they were choosing federal law, then what's the next step. and the next step, the question is retroactivity, which both the majority and the dissent in danforth said the question of retroactivity is a pure question of federal law. >> federal statutory law. right? i thought that was the point of danforth.
that the reason the states can go beyond the federal interpretation is because we're a talking about the federal habeas statute. >> that's correct, your honor. but even in yates this court said that, on state habeas if the state considers the merits of the federal claim and the merits of this claim are, is mr. montgomery serving an unconstitutional sentence. is miller retroactive to address the fact that he is serving an unconstitutional sentence. >> how do you deal with mr. bernstein's point that your client would be worse off if you are correct, that is, if the question comes up on federal habeas, then the federal court decides it without any edka problem. if the state court goes first then the federal review is truncated. >> that would be my
understanding, your honor, that, while mr. -- while henry -- while jurisdiction in this court does not depend on what has occurred so far, it depends on what this court does decide. again, whether he can go to federal court or this court doesn't affect the jurisdiction that i believe this court has today. and the question is -- >> but in -- how do you answer the argument -- all right. suppose you're right. but your victory is going to leave your client in a worse position because, when he gets to the federal court, he will be saddled with edba. >> not if this court rules it has jurisdiction and it would be retroactive. makes miller retroactive. then at that point he would not be going to federal court. the question is is mr. montgomery being held unconstitutional. in miller the court said a mandatory life in prison sentence is unconstitutional because it fails to address the fact of the matter that this
court believes kids are different. >> mr. plaisance, on the jurisdictional point, let me see if i understand what you're arguing. a lot of state rules of procedure are modeled after federal rules of procedure, and a lot of state courts simply follow the federal rules but they follow it as a matter of choice. and not because they think they're bound by the federal rules. so let's say that there is a disagreement in federal court about what federal rule of evidence 403 means. the state court says, well, you know, we're going to follow the federal rule, and we think that the right course as between these two divergent federal courts of appeals is the second circuit. so we're going to follow the second circuit's interpretation of federal rule 403. would we have jurisdiction to
review that decision as a decision on a question of federal law? >> if it was clear to this court that the state court made a conscious choice and sent enough of a signal to this court that it was adopting federal law to use as state law but in this case there is no indication that the state of supreme court of louisiana was making that decision. they said that we are -- our analysis is dictated by teague. and in doing so, they found that mr. -- they would not apply miller retroactive. that's the real issue of this case. >> suppose we hold that we can review the -- we have jurisdiction because the state court said it was going to follow teague and then we go on and we say that, under teague
miller can be applied on collateral review. then the case goes back to the louisiana supreme court and they say, well, we said previously in taylor we were going to follow teague, but that was based on our understanding of teague at that time. but now that we see what it's been interpreted to mean by the u.s. supreme court we're not going to follow teague. then what would happen? >> i think louisiana would be bound to follow this court's ruling, as you set forth. >> why? because it said that we would voluntarily follow it in taylor? that bound them? >> i think they made the conscious choice to follow this court's laws, this court's juris prudence. in doing so, it must follow this court's juris prudence. as i said before -- >> they changed their mind. they have now chosen the course not to follow our juris prudence. what forces them to stay where they were? it's a matter of state law. they decided to change state law. >> they didn't do that in this case, your honor. >> not yet.
if we agree with you and send it back and they look at it and they say, oh, if that's what teague means, we're not going to follow teague. what stops them from doing that? and doesn't that make us look follow teague. what stops them from doing that? and doesn't that make us look foolish? >> no, it doesn't, your honor. >> render decisions that could be overruled by somebody else? >> if a state considers the merits of a federal claim, it must grant the relief the federal court -- >> but the question is what's the federal claim. why isn't you cite standard oil versus johnson in your response to questions from justice scalia and justice alito? >> i believe my friend the solicitor general -- >> the name of the case. standard oil versus johnson. >> that was a case cited by the solicitor general. i believe my friend from the solicitor general's office can answer that question a little bit better. >> are you asking us to decide
the question of -- left open in danforth? danforth said that it was a minimum -- there could be a cons -- constitutional minimum but it wasn't answering that question. are you asking us to answer that question? >> i am saying, your honor, you don't need to get to that question. >> let's assume -- >> under michigan v. long this court has jurisdiction. i reserve the balance of my time. >> thank you, counsel. >> mr. dreeben. >> thank you mr. justice. may it please the court. this court does have jurisdiction to decide the question of miller's retroactivity because louisiana has voluntarily incorporated into its law a holy federal standard. in this court's decisions in standard oil, merrill-dow, three affiliated tribes and most recently ohio versus reiner the court recognized that when a state chooses to adopt federal law to guides its decisions and binds itself to federal law
there is a federal question. >> they can change their mind, right? you said voluntarily chose to follow it. they can voluntarily choose not to follow it any more. >> the same is true in any michigan versus long case. what that says said is that this court has jurisdiction under section 1257 to revolve state court resolutions of federal law and it will presume that a state constitutional decision of a mirror image say of the fourth amendment will be binding but recognized that the only circumstance in which the court will not treat federal law as governing both questions is when the state makes clear that it would reach the same result under state constitutional law as it did under federal law. it did not preclude the option of the state going back and reaching a different decision once enlightened by this court as to the content of federal law. standard oil is completely clear on this. it says the state chose to use federal law to determine whether
a federal post exchange was a federal instrumentality. we're going to correct its understanding of federal law. on reman, the state now freed from its misapprehensions of state law decide what it thinks state law requires. >> how does it work. should be pretty elementary. i mean, i looked at the indian case. that seems a little far out. the -- definitely gives you support on your statement here. suppose you took justice scalia's example. we have iowa state rule 56. we interpret iowa state rule 56 the same way as the federal rules of civil procedure. that's our rule. now this is what it means in that case. they say but we're doing it under iowa state rule.
you say we can review that because they said that iowa state rule is the same as the federal. is that right? how do you fit that in the words of 1257? >> i doubt that that would satisfy the court. there is a theoretical answer and a practical answer. let me give the practical answer first. the states that govern the federal rules of evidence and civil procedure uniformly say we will treat federal precedent as guidance in our decisions as for its persuasive value. they recognize that there are state rules of procedure and state rules of evidence that will belong to the states. >> they say in a particular case, it's guidance. it's great guidance. we agree.
our interpretation is the federal interpretation. >> well, i think -- >> how can we review that because it wasn't in fact the federal interpretation. but can we review it? yes or no? >> there is a distinction between this case and that that may suggest that this case the court has jurisdiction over and that one the court does not. >> you say the court does not in the example of the federal rules of civil procedure that justice scalia -- >> this is a stronger case. i doubt the court would have jurisdiction or would choose to exercise it because i accept for premises of argument your honor's hypothetical but in the real world it doesn't happen. >> you are implicitly acknowledging that, if we adopt your argument we are going to get that case and lots of similar cases. and we are going to have to parse the words that -- the words that were used by the state supreme court. well, we're following -- we're going to be guided by it, we're going to be strongly guided by it. we're going to adopt it. we're going to get all of those cases. why should we go down that road?
when there is more perfectly available and possible superior yore remedy available to the petitioner by filing a federal habeas petition. >> there are several reasons. first of all, i don't think that it is going to come up in that way to this court because that's not the way states treat their own rules of procedure. i don't think it will be very difficult. there is a principle in the courts' cases that when federal law has been adopted as such the court will review it even if the state could have chosen a different path. >> mr. dreeben, what's the problem -- >> did you misspeak? when federal law is adopted as state law, the federal courts can review it. isn't that what you meant to say? you are very careful. you don't make mistakes, but i -- >> i think, justice kennedy -- >> you said -- >> this is. >> when state law adopts federal law as federal law then there is review. okay. >> the state has adopted teague for a reason that does not exist in any of these civil procedure
cases, and that is that the state knows that that federal law will be applied to the very case in a habeas case. so the state has decided consciously to synchronize its law with the law that it knows will be applied. this supports a very important purpose. the state says, if we have to rectify in a constitutional error in our case that's become final we would like the opportunity to do it. if the federal habeas court is going to treat the decision as retroactive we'd like the first crack at it. >> you're saying hooray that the federal habeas court will thereafter be found by it. >> no. this is a reason. 2254 d applies to state determinations on the merits. that's the only time that the deference provision kicks in. a determination under teague is a threshold determination that comes before the decision on the merits. this court has saithat in any number of cases.
it's not a merits resolution of the case. so deference to a state determination on retro activity would never occur. what i -- >> i was going to suggest maybe you're a little bit more on the merits. >> certainly mr. chief justice. the rule in miller versus alabama, in our view, is a substantive rule because it goes far beyond merely regulating the procedure by which youths are sentenced for homicide crimes. it compelled the state to adopt new substantive sentencing options. an option that is less severe than life without parole. the only other time that this court has ever invalidated a mandatory sentencing provision was woodson versus north carolina in 1976. so we went something like 36 years before we had another
decision that concluded that the law must change to accommodate the compelling interests in having the characteristics of youth that mitigate culpability included in the sentencing process. >> is it that the states say with with respect to people sentenced to life without parole we agree it would be parole. >> that would be the same remedy the court ordered in a graham versus florida case which held that youths who do not commit homicide cannot be sentenced to life without parole at all. the court's remedy for what problem could either be a sentence of a term of years or also converting the life without parole sentence to a life with parole sentence. >> mr. dreeben, how do you explain how your articulation of your test wouldn't apply to the guideline change that we made.
>> i think the key difference is that, with respect to the guidelines there was always a minimum and a maximum set by statute, and the guidelines, even when they were mandatory, did not preclude judges from sentencing outside the guidelines depending upon the presence of aggravating or mitigating factors that weren't taken into account. and as justice alito's opinion for the court in united states versus rodriguez recognized, even the top of a mandatory guidelines range was not truly mandatory. so even under the mandatory guidelines which for sixth amendment purposes were treated as if they established elements of the offense, for the purposes that we're looking at here, they are not mandatory in the same way. so booker brought about a procedural change. >> what is the substantive