And that humility is what god came to him. Because you did not ask for great wealth, i will give you wisdom so that you will be renounced. We have to be humble enough to accept all the new idea whether left, right or middle or where ever they are from, hopefully, the debate will be the change in office. Nothing is less at stake than the great middle class. Thank you for this support. [ applause ] well now take a brief pause to refresh the tables and well begin shortly. Thank you. Hello, everybody, we got a lot to look forward to. We need to keep our programming going. Leading up to lunch well hear from Kamala Harris, thatll be followed with a timely conversation by russia with senator murphy and congressman adam schiff. First, there is a woman whos not given up the fight, a smart and thoughtful leader, championing the vital role that women play in our economy who understands why working families need paid leave and healthcare and who knows how to get things done and help lead the effort to repeal dont ask and dont tell. Please join me welcoming Senate Senator kersten graham. Thank you nera. So this is a terrific opportunity for so Many Democrats to talk about some of the work we need to do and i feel fortunate to be working with my colleagues and sharing a stage with so many men and women that i work in the senate everyday. I was originally going to talk about how President Trump is portraying the working class voters that he pledged to fight for. Every single week is a different thing. According to reports, it appears that the president it was provided by an ally with the agreement that would not be shared. If this was true, President Trumps actions are not onlier irresponsible and putting lives at risk. I believe we have to fight back harder than ever. We must not stop until we have full transparency and accountability and that means not voting for an fbi director until a special prosecutor is named. [ applause ] we cannot let donald trump distract us from our everyday work fighting for working families. I brought one idea that i would like to challenge the president onto step up. I want to challenge the president in fighting for a National Paid leave program. Mr. President , if you are really standing up for working americans and fighting for them then there is no excuse for not having america joining every industrialized nation in the world. It is a middle class economic issue that creates Economic Growth and rewards work of the country. We are shorting changing our economy and that should not be acceptable to any of us. This is important. If we are going to pass a paid leave plan, it has to be a real one. It has to be gender neutral and allow you to care for not just a newborn infant but a sick and dying member. Remember on the campaign trail, candidate trump broke away from his party, he announced the support of his paid leave. Paid leave should not be a democratic or a republican idea, it rewards work because it helps us care for our family and grows the economy. It is something that we should all agree on. Again, this was another one of Donald Trumps empty promises. Real paid leave works like this. First, it has to be national. A state like north dakota or nevada does not have to worry about it. We have 20 million people. Second, paid leave must be gender neutral. It has to cover women and men or husbands caring for their wives who are sick or son who wants to care for a dying parent. Third, paid leave has to be comprehensive. You have to cover all illnesses. No one should ever have to choose between a paycheck and being able to sit with their dying mother who have been diagnosed with cancer or alzheimers. We have to make sure you can be with your child or be we that dying member. It has to be sustainable. National paid leave can only be sustainable if every worker in the entire country is apart of it. Everyone who is benefiting needs to chip in. It needs to be a universal benefit. Paid leave has to be affordable and manageable. Now, we have great data in from california, it was a statewide program and it was up and running for ten years. What we know from california is 90 businesses have no negative impact or positive impact on its bottom line. We know 99 of business have a positive impact. Small businesses around the country, 70 of them want a plan for paid leave because they have to level the plainfield. How are they going to compete with facebook and google of the world. So uhyou dont have national p or paid leave they can never compete. Businesses have also seen the numbers. They know it is good for the economy. If we had a National Paid leave plan, it would put into the economy 21 billion annually. It make sense. A woman in her lifetime loses about 320,000 because you dont have paid leave. To do a real paid leave plan, it is not just a tax cut. This is not about giveaways for successful companies. We need a bill, we have a bill. It is called the family act. Let me tell you what i does. It is a common sense bill that passes a National Paid leaid le plan. It is affordable. Let me explain to you what it costs. It is a cost of a cost of coffee every week. You are asking every employer to say would you buy one cup of coffee for each employee per week. For a worker would you put two dollars a week in a saving plan to know that when your mother dies, you can be by her side. It is not a lot of money. It is 2 a week. Thats 104 per year per employee. Thats muni business can afford. I think this is something that made sense. I want to talk about how we are going to get pass. We have been stuck in a madman era. Something is happening in america that i have never seen in my lifetime. It is about you and it is about the grass roots. It is the reason how many of you showed up today. How many of you march for the womens march . We marched all across the globe and in new york and worldwide. It was a moment in history where people believe that their voices actually mattered. After seeing donald trump get elected, they say this is not my country and i did not sign up for it and i dont agree with this person. For the first time in their lives, people across america made a sign, they made a sign talking about the issues they care most about. They talk about issues that made them angry and issues they have passion for and issues theyre not going to stand President Trump unwhiining. Whether you are marching for black lives matter or reproducti reproductive rights or clean air or clean water or immigration, it does not matter, it is your issue and what you care about. We are only going to pass it if every single one of you stand up and fight for it. It is important for our business and economy and family. It is about us. If we are willing to fight, it will never happen. This moment is about democracy. It is about each individual having a voice. It is a 17yearold girl that tweets something that made a difference. It satys it exactly like it is. All of us need to be apart of it. If we are apart of it, well win. Well defeat donald trump and well do good things like passing the National Paid leave plan. Thank you all. [ applause ] please welcome senator chris murp murphy, adam schiff and david sanger. Thank you very much, i am from the New York Times and i am delighted to be here with senator murphy and congressman schiff discussing of other issues in the news. I want to start with what we had on the front page today. So some what remarkable situation where the president had his meeting with Prime Minister lavrov alast week, we learned about the details from photos issued because we did not get in for any of those. That part, we now read a set of descriptions of the conversations. The president did not reveal any sources of methods but describe a fairly sensitive intelligence around the program that concerns the isis ability to put laptops on computers that could be loaded up with explosives and seem to suggest the city and which some of this was learned and so forth. Congressman schiff, since you are familiar with the difference between revealing sources of methods which nobody describe in the program in some details. Tell me which part of this we should be concerned about and what part is all concerning. Well, what we should be concerned about and not briefed on so i can go on the basis of whats alleged publicly and what the Administration Responds then. The president discussed a threat to the country with isis. The russians could determine what the source of gathering that intelligence was. The denial by the administrations are really a form of non denial, denial. Thats stating that the president did not discuss war plans as a bit, the president did not comment on sources of methods is also a bit of a ruse. Whats the implication of that . Well, it can compromise the source of information so that source can drive up or go away or it can be worse. If the source is a sister Intelligence Agency of a friendly country, that country could decide they cannot trust the United States with information or worse that it cannot trust the president of the United States with information, that obviously, that is serious repercussion. Particularly when we are talking about a threat to isis. If they are and certainly the president s tweets suggest that he talked about something of a concern here. We immediately have to go into damage mitigation mode and find out what steps we take minimize any risks to our sources and any damages to our allies and what steps we can take to reassure our allies that we treasure the relationship and the information and we are going to work much harder to protect in the future then i have to hope that someone will counsel the president about just what it means to protect closely held information and why this is so dangerous ultimately to our National Security. For senator murphy, lets start with you on this, the president made an argument in his tweet this morning trying to bring the russians over to be more active against isis, we certainly seen cases where president of both parties, president obama and president bush revealed some intelligence some information about the source in order to go motivate another country to help along. You may put it in another conte context, tell the chinese more of the north Korean Program if you are trying to give a sense of urgency. Could you argue this is the kind of thing that president s sometimes have to do. Well, you could argue if you are under the belief that this white house was operating in a way yes, you are right, in previous time, other president s have decided to share classified information so called adversaries but they only did so after consulting with the Intelligence Agency and have a whole government approach to declassifying that information. It was strategic. This clearly as far as we understand was not strategic and the idea that russia is going to be a responsible partner in the future of syria is of years and years of facts on the ground. We have been trying to get the russians to be a meaningful partner inside syria and they end up doing more damage than good. They end up conducting themselves in a way that kills, hurts civilians such that more and not less people on the ground inside syria are pushed into the camps of extremism rather than moderate. We have enough experience understanding that russia is not a credible partner. You are right there is a reasonable way to use classified information in order to win new friends or influence adversary. Thats not whats happening here. This is a president showing off how much he knew in the context of that meeting and potentially did syria jeopardy Immediate National security concerns as we are finding out today that some of our allies are already rethinking whether or not they should share information or reaping what kind of information they should share with the United States. Chris is exactly right. And looking at the president s tweets that have an impact of our policy. We try to look for a method in this when there may be not. If you look at some of the comments he made of north korea, you ask if this is some part of a strategy, you may conclude it was true if it was done in concert of other administration and in a cohesive fashion but too often it is not. It is not quite sure who to believe and as much as we try to rationalize it and explain it, the reality is we have create not a strategic am biguity of where we are and where we stand for and what we see happen and what our policy is. So the other fascinating intelligence leakage story thats going on right now is that it appears that it has been released by a group called the shadow broker. Outside those groups are tooled developed by the nsa. I realize that neither of you can comment on that. Lets take that for a moment as the working aassumptissumption questions have leaked out and may have been by the North Koreans to be used for a greater habit. What should american taxpayers think about that, that Cyber Weapons that are being developed by the United States are showing up basically in black markets and being exploited by our adversaries. Lets start with you since i am sure i heard a bit on this topic in the committee. Well, sure, i think what this incident points up and you are right, we cannot confirm a comment on what the shadow brokers disclose whether it came from the u. S. Or did not. We did know a few thing that is the director of the nsa have said publicly that from time to time well discover vulnerab vulnerabilities of software. That can be exploited in time and in cases thats linegitimat. That poses a vulnerability. There is a process to determine whether the importance of that potential access out weighs the risks of that vulnerabilities get out to the wild and can be manipulated by bad actors. According to director rogers and 90 of the cases of the Intelligence Committee reveal to the Technology Committee hey, you need to patch this vulnerability and what ever the problem maybe. I do think that one of the implications here that if indeed this came from the United States again, i cannot confirm or deny whether it did. I am sure it influence the process disclosing to technologies of vulnerabilities because we have seen the risks of not disclosing to technologies. We dont know if it is possible or a u. S. Government discover vulnerability. It was disclosed to microsoft recently before they patched it in march. It does raise the question, do we have the system under control . Well, this is a question i think that the committee will need to continue to kmexamine a explore. I will say that it will have an impact on one of the debates we have been having in the arena and thats the whole debate of encryption. The government can say you need to decrypt for us or allow us the argument of the Technology Companies is greater by saying not even the u. S. Government led alone our company cannot be trusted the key to that door. This will have implications beyond the issue of potential exploitation of vulnerabilities. We have a massive scale over the last 15 years of conventional American Power doubling u. S. Defense budget from the start of iraq war until 15 years later, we have a massive scale of our abilit ability and there is the old saying that all you have is a hammer, everything looks to you loo i c like a nail. Lets talk about the only means by which we actually took a Nuclear Security threat off the table at least for the time being. Thats your respect to the iranian nuclear. We certainly use cyber tools along the way but that was not ultimately positive. So this speaks to the broader imbalance thats available to americas president. If all you have is cyber warfare tools or conventional tools, you simply cannot meet the broad away of threats thats presented to the United States. Many of us are deeply worried about these deep cuts of the state department because we fear that this enormous plus on the other side, a, it is vulnerable and the reality of cyber warfare vulnerabilities and misunderstanding of the way you saw some of these complex problems which wont be through internet attacks. It will be through capacities that today the state department has and can affect. States get a 30 cut in that. I dont think anybody think it is slightly go through. What does it tell you of what the president think of the role of security i think it is clear that he views Foreign Policy through a military lens. Thats not just evident in the way hes budgeted but through the fact that he has loaded up National Security cabinet with x military officers and left an entire level of professional service appointed in the state department. We are here talking about big ideas. When i think about big ideas for the future, i think we should be talking about instead of a 50 million increase in the military budget. We should be talking about what you can do with a 50 billion increase for the nonconnect budget. The fact the matter is all of the virtually all of these new threats that are posting to the United States are not conventional military whether it is terrorism or terrorist recruiters or the spread of corruption. None of those threats can be confronted with the stuff that we very proudly make in connecticut submarines and helicopters and jet engines, those are state department tools. Yes, i think as president views policy through military lens, how our adversaries confronting of a symmetric power and not conventional power. This is a point where our military understand and everyone our president does not. In the military, they have expression if you are going cut diplomacy and developments, you better buy me more bullets. General petraeus he had something on the chalk board that said essentially money equals ammunition and what he meant by that is the resources they put in Development Projects