[inaudible conversations] ..

>> this from the hill this morning, senate judiciary committee chairman charles grassley is a blocking 20 office domination side a slow response over his inquiries on hillary clinton's e-mail and a former top aide. i will object because in addition to the multiple inquiries i have made that are still unanswered, i sent another letter to the state department today and the department has failed to confirm receipt yet again, grassley said. my staff place multiple phone calls to department personnel to inquire as to the status of the most recent letter. department personnel have failed even to return phone calls. again that from the hill. you can read more at

thehill.com. earlier today during a senate foreign relations committee hearing on human trafficking chairman bob corker and democrat ben cardin had comment on the iran nuclear deal in yesterday's speech by president obama. >> white house had a veto threat against us lanes and on the iran deal, veto threat. up until an hour before the vote took place. because they did not want a public debate on iran. obviously, the committee chose otherwise. we passed out. everyone who voted for it. but they did not want the issue debated. what the president did yesterday by saying that senator cardin, ranking member who has questions about the iran deal senator menendez has questions about the

iran deal. by the way both of which voted against the iraq war if i remember correctly. senator johnson who has concerns about the iran deal. we are being compared to the hardliners in iran because we have concerns concerns that we're trying to have answers. just a few months ago the president publicly was talk about what a thoughtful principled person i was. i have to get the quote someplace, but now because i have concerns think anyone has concerns and people will have to make a decision. this will be one of the toughest decisions, but he's trying to shut down debate by saying those who have questions legitimate questions, legitimate questions, are somehow unpatriotic or so now compared to hardliners.

in iran. again it's to shut down the debate, to make the something but other than argument it on the merits of the deal. so i'm very disappointed. i know senator cardin was meeting with the president last night. i do want to say i wish that you'd been a last night to hear, to do the discussion about parchin. wendy sherman said she would come share with us how parchin how the arrangement was working. i called early this morning to ask her if she would at least at a minimum let us have her notes from when she was briefed by the iaea. and i'm beginning to believe that one of the reasons they do not want people to know it's not about iran's confidentiality. i don't think it would stand the test of late-night comedy. if people understood how the

parchin thing was being done. so i just hope that today we thank sarah for being here, the fact that we have concerns about trafficking that again on a unanimous vote. we voted to in the modern slavery in this world, that somehow we will not be viewed as people who are unpatriotic be viewed as people that somehow are not serious about this issue. >> first, thank you for convening this hearing. in regards to your opening comments i want you to know i think you are and always have been a thoughtful and still persevere i want you to know that i do respect great for your leadership on this committee in the manner that we been able to work together speak it hopefully if i disagree with you once you will not compare me to the hardliners in iran. >> that -- but i want i'm still

going through the review process. i have not reached a decision on the that will take place when we return in september. i want to underscore a point that senator corker and i working with our leadership encourage our leadership to provide for the debate on the floor of the united states senate that we think is befitting this critical issue. so yesterday without any objection we moved onto the bill. so when we come back on tuesday we will not have to go through come in september we will not have to go through a cloture vote, not any procedural hurdles. we will be on bill. at the point i expect that the majority of the put forward the bill that we will be voting on and we'll be ready when we return and use that week to debate this issue to each member of the senate make up his or her

mind as to what he or she thinks is in the best interest of this country. i did not intrepid from the president's remarks that he is challenging any of our independent judgment on this. you are correct or i voted against the iraq war. i do not see a comparison between this vote and the iraq vote. the interesting thing just make a sidebar on this i voted against the authorization for use of military force in iraq. and in my district congressional district not state at the time, it was overwhelmingly unpopular. overwhelmingly. it was not a close call. and is one of the most consequential votes in my career in the house. it was interpreted to impact on my reelection. this is not the case when it comes to -- the are divided views. this is not a clear situation where the popular view is

support the president or oppose the president. there are very strong views on both sides, don't get me wrong and that was a clear use that we are going to -- not authorizing use of military force. i disagree with the present interpretation but having said that i don't disagree with you presidents strong statement. he is clearly doing what we expect the president of the united states to do strengthen his position and take in the case. >> and people expect you would. i don't join my good friend and principled leader in the interpretation of the president's remarks. >> you can watch the entire hearing on our website c-span.org as well as read the iran nuclear agreement. today's force in relations committee will read air tonight on the c-span networks.

>> now on c-span2 an aspen institute discussion on cybersecurity. it runs about one hour. >> good afternoon. my name is david former assistant secretary for policy policy at the is department of homeland security and member of the aspen institute's homeland security group. i'm delighted to introduce our next session entitled cyber policy and national and international levels. we've already talked a little bit about some of the threats and concerned today in cyberspace hackers criminals and state actors who steal people's identities, corporate secrets and of more concern have sought to sabotage the vital physical infrastructure that has

sustained her daily life. this panel will look to what we can and are doing at home and internationally to counter those threats. specifically the panel will explore many questions that arise out of these threats and the parallel rise of a new world of ubiquitous connectedness and internet of everything raised for policymakers. how do we protect our increasingly connected society and he was responsible for what? what other rules of the road at home and across the globe? and what are the ways of how do we get to a place where normative behavior is agreed upon internationally and enforce internationally? moderating the session when john, probably the longest address oldest reporter covering this. he goes back to the 1970s. [laughter] writing the same stories until most recently come and his

reporter that the science section of "the new york times" and the part of a group of reporters who won the pulitzer prize for reporting in 2013 and has a forthcoming book to be published this fall called machines of loving grace, the quest for common ground between humans and machines. and with that the floor is yours, john. [applause] >> thanks everyone. my panelists to my immediate left our keith alexander that ceo and cofounder of ironnet tenuous thread of the national security agency and command of u.s. cyber command. suzanne spaulding is to his left pictures now undersecretary of homeland security for national protection and programs directorate and/or left his chris young, general manager intel security. we are charged with conversing about the rules of the road in cyberspace and how to find common ground.

i just thought it was so striking yesterday that director comey spent about half of its entity talk about cyber which shows where we are today. i just want to frame it briefly before we start because i really feel like rip van winkle. i think i wrote the first story on cyberwarfare it appeared in november 1981, and i quoted, and it was about discovering a backdoor that existed between a mathematics research center in austria and the kremlin allies and have access to the arpanet. and so much of me maybe we could settle the whole thing with the giant computer space wargame which is to be a good idea. and i wanted to sort of place that against where we are. the watson come here quick moment of the internet happened on october 29, 1969 at 10 p.m. and it was a message sent

between no at one and no to zero in ucla. and involved, it was actually a cloud because the electronic mail message. it was remote log into machine and a young hacker sent a message any type -- and on? >> caller: the system crashed and crashed because the buffer overflow problem. a very straightforward a programming error programming design air. i checked today and he we are 45 years later and the announcements both by the chrome team at google and the mozilla firefight team but they hatched buffer overflow errors. it's quite remarkable that the system we built is still that kind of fragile system. a final note before we start. we are charged with this notion

of discussing the rules of the road in this notion of a data highway. i think it's perhaps one of the worst metaphors you could possibly pick for the world we're living in. maybe this was a quantum universe where every address with extra every other dress that would make sense because that's the kind of wrote it is. jarno good and bad neighborhoods. i think a better metaphor may be a global comments but it may be a cyber tahrir square is where we are today. it is right next everybody and that is the problem and, of course, we benefit. i come at this as a replacement for a walk away and 2011. i decided after anonymous, iceland have an aneurysm and is time to do something else. so i would like a failed to start out with perhaps i could ask keith first, sort of let's

come to be something the optimistic about. give me a sense of -- [laughter] -- where we are making progress. >> i would start with the technology. when you look at the tables that are out at the front, look at how far we've gone in technology. it's doubling every two years. the amount of unique information that we are creating this year would more than the last 5000 years combined. in 2000 it costs us $3 billion took a mammoth effort to map the human genome, and now you can do that with devices that about $5000 or less. but they just wanted for at ibm taking it from a machine that played jeopardy to machine that is now helping to cut down the time for cancer research for people with rankings and other things. there some tremendous opportunity there. we get this question should we slow down and absolutely not.

what's going on in this area, it's going to change the way we live for good. what we have to do as you mentioned, 1969, this is a country that created the internet. we out to be the first to secure it and we can do that. i am very optimistic we can do that. >> we will talk more about that. >> it shouldn't take more than a day. >> suzanne, point of optimism. >> let me start by thanking the aspen institute for having me back again. it's great to be back in 20 thank all of you who are in here instead of out there on this gorgeous day. as we walked up and the room was empty i thought it's a beautiful day, which all came back. and so were keith sees signs of optimism into account i this i see signs of optimism in people. we have peoples attention.

there's the expression never let a good crisis be wasted and we definitely have folks attention odyssey folks are starting to really get it. it's a lot later than it should be but i think across the carpet we are deathly seeing this as a secretarial level, our secretary, secretary johnson engages with his colleagues on these issues on a very regular basis. i have to say i see optimism in my interaction with the private sector. i meet on a regular basis with ceos of critical infrastructure, and they did it that cybersecurity is part of your over all enterprise risk management, that it is not just about securing their ip networks. it's about looking at the ways in which your mission, if you're federal government, your

functions can be affected. you're going to provide services to return. and the ways in which cyber can do that. then you to a risk management approach. that does not stovepipe cyber and physical. i see increasingly the private sector getting it and attack were moving in direction and the federal government as well and that is i think a very important step forward in achieving the kind of security. and understanding the role of technology to the role of people and the role of process. >> i also appreciate the opportunity to be. is my first aspen security forum and hope i will be invited back after we are all done. i see the opportunity for growth and technology has really driven tremendous growth. intel, what are the companies, our founders is famous, gordon

moore, the progress we've driven the growth we've driven and technology will be available to us as human beings is incredible when you think about possibilities for health care possibly transportation, energy, essential functions been transformed i technology. while we have challenges i think that by putting pressure on us now, the opportunities for growth and but we have seen with technology and what we are about to suit with connected devices the judgment to introduce our panel mention the connected device. that's good to change things even more dramatically than we see today. >> so i want to ask about this process of internet governance that we're going through right now. we are basically transferring what was a u.s. dominated institution that was, controlled part of the unit into something

new. and we get at something that we're gaining something and we've got a situation where you have these countries that every little in common with the trend in terms of politics, economy and culture. at how quickly define the grandpa government process and maybe that's a huge opportunity to sort of deal with this issue and get common behavior that we're looking for. suzanne bibby first spirit is not going to be an easy transition but again i think one of the signs of optimism here is that we're going to a transition process of the recognize it more role of the private sector. i was struck by the panel that was induced in the program about what other are the rules of the road and which government gets to decide. that is a very traditional national security mindset first vatican would decide and secondly that it is as opposed to a global threat requiring a global response. and secondly that it is for

governments alone to solve the private sector has a unique role in cybersecurity, different than in our traditional national security context. multi-stakeholder approach to these governments issues is absolutely critical. i think that's how we will make our way forward. forward. >> griscom have you been involved in his? >> we can't help but be involved because we sell globally. we have customers both on the scary side as well as on the classic intel cyber we build microprocessors. we are dealing with customers all around the globe. we've already been sort of i would say embroiled in a lot of discussions around okay what are the right norms? how should we be interacting at a geopolitical level because our products, our solutions are being used across countries.

at something that i think is really not if you want a clock back by virginia's that was as much in the discussion that i think the last three to five years it's really hit home quite a bit. >> teeth how does is put into the military cyberpunk to these institutions emerging speak to the military question? with hundreds of countries developing military cyber capabilities? >> what suzanne said is right. they got to be involved in this. and help set it up as we go forward we can't afford to have this done i'm going to use the word politicians, decide the future of unit. the technology has got to drive what's possible. so as you look at it that's the first thing. with respect to the military and others, abdel rogers will be up later this evening and did a tough questions, we throw to him. -- admiral rogers.

actually from my perspective this is an area that whether we like it or not i don't think we can unilaterally say it will not be used for military operations. it's too late. we are connected. i think that really drives us to now how do you ensure we have a defensible architecture? for countries, sectors of our nation and our allies do i think that's where we need to drive this. we should not be naïve enough to believe that we can say we will not use this and others wouldn't in a crisis. >> one of the breathtaking aspects of director comey's interview yesterday was that the social messaging network is barely five years old that limits message to 140 characters is the principal propaganda tool in the world today. how did that happen? and what to do about it? technology changes quickly.

how does twitter or facebook fit into your defensive responsibilities? >> we have a national program which i lately have responsibility for both cybersecurity at the protection and defense of our civilian.com networks and helping with the protection of dot com and capacitor but we have the over arching mission of strengthening the security of is that of the nation's critical infrastructure. that's in the counterterrorism realm as well. so we really see the convergence you between those two nations and it warns against of looking at these issues across both physical and cyber. so we've been very much engaged with the department countering violent extremism efforts and looking at the ways in which our adversaries are using cyberspace to their advantage, and how do

we use cyberspace to counter that and to our advantage? and i think there are a couple of key things. one is weird to recognize that one of the ways in which the internet is used its microtargeting. that's when things that if a service and the data analytics help to do. we need to bring that to the fight. we need to understand that it's not just one audience were trying to reach. is many audiences. it may be the individual who may be prone to being turned also might be the friends, friends don't let friends drive drunk the maybe friends don't let friends go to syria to get may be the parent. mib other members of their community. we need to talk about messages out of their haircuts one of the things that twitter allows you to do. it's one of the things the internet allows you to do. so use that instead of being afraid, use it to our advantage.

>> let me follow up hypothetically to avoid any kind of classification problem. what of the things that didn't seem be spoken about what we talked about twitter, is that it cuts both ways, doesn't it? history nobody knows you're a dog on unit. i was thinking if i was an islamic state operative trying to contact a 19 year old in california, how could i wish i was talking to to in 19 year old and not somebody else? i would be very paranoid. i was taught that -- a big part of intelligence gathering today. >> is so i've heard spent isn't this a gold mine for the u.s. to know what these people are? >> i think it clearly helps especially in countering terrorism and other areas. i think what director comey said, just about to click like i

think two sets of issues. first is how do you ensure the security of the conditions and give law enforcement and intelligence community the access they need under court orders or however we do it so that they can protect our country and our people? and the same for our allies. that's the debate because many countries coming in with many different sets of conditions. that's on terrorism and to use. then you have how do we protect our networks to the same set of messaging and stuff that can be used for communications director terrorism can also be used to penetrate networks and other things. you have two sets of issues that have to be looked at and debated. it really resonated with me the way that comey talked about the first part, how do we do this. i think he's right. we've got to have the private sector silicon valley to sit down with the government and say is there a way we can do both?

that sets this up first this nation what about our allies and other countries? that's the debate. is not an easy answer because you can see both sides of this issue. i do think it is said that when a site. we have to solve that problem. without it we let something that happened before the debate. have the debate now. i think i cybersecurity, that is yet a different issue about how networks are secured. i think we should talk about that but it's not the same as over here on the committee patients. >> if i look at that particular case and i think, what it tells me however, security issues are only going to become more and more personalized in our society. the situation where you've got terrorist organizations recruiting people on twitter to sit inside the trying to come it's just a pointed me technology become and much more personalized aspect of pretty much all of our lives.

in particular the upcoming generation. part of what i'm thinking, part of what i think will be important for us is not just focus on what we see happening today but as technology becomes more personalized, more affordable we are doing every single day we've got to think more forward looking around what are the implications from a policy perspective from a security perspective, a communications perspective but i don't want to wait. >> suzanne, i thought one of the great challenges of al-qaeda was that they've gone to using triggers. if the opposition now is using the internet isn't a plane to our favorite? >> well, not if after taking advantage of the encryption technology is now available to them. that is precisely the challenge the director talked about nt is talking about the ipod the

director of talked about it exactly right last night in terms of it is not a problem that the government is going to force a solution to. he also acknowledged that is something we need to consider any much more grandeur away. it's not one problem. is a range of technologies. if we try to solve it as if it is one problem are going to be trying to solve the hardest part first because that's inevitably what happens. let's take the easy technologies first, begin to her our way through. we need to make this much more grandeur and we do need to have those come we need to rebuild the trust that is made those conversations so difficult to have, and we need to find our way forward on this. and to some degree we need to acknowledge in government that it may only be a delaying an inevitable but if we can even have a conversation with the private sector that by the time

to figure out how we're going to deal with a world in which we don't preps have all the access we once had that's meaningful. that's helpful worth doing. >> i won't belabor it but i do believe that knowing who is talking to is a very viable thing and perhaps we have a misconception about the internet. we know much of more about who is talking to and we think we might. i wanted to use that to get to the question for which i don't know this happened on your watch but i believe it was largely funded by the discovery development for its own purposes and was that a mistake in retrospect given the role that it is to come to play in the world? >> i'm not through with the origins to be honest it is the onion router which is an a not a miser for a anonymizing communications director and. i'm not familiar with the origins of it. so i don't know what the

original intent was. it's like ideas that people have. some of those ideas are pretty good anything that makes sense under some conditions and not under others. the question is how are they used? this is an issue of setting up houses and procedures which become very difficult a negative that is not easily governed. i think that's the real issue. if you want to anonymize for these reasons, you should be okay but not -- we want to get you. if we could get into the deal we would be okay. [laughter] >> i believe it was largely funded by the office of never received because they were interested in our spies been able to connecticut's attorney. i think that's the history. let me walk into the question of crypto. one of the things director comey said last night is a sort of made a plea to sort of surface

of the best ideas that we might have in this country, tactical ideas to find a compromise. you guys are in contact with those people. father ideas first the technical side to make to sort of square the circle and to protect privacy and to make those things that law enforcement needs accessible 50 thinkers new tactical ideas? >> encryption is not new. we're talking about a very old technology, relatively old set of techniques for basically protecting communications. when i think about that crypto discussion can what worries me is were going to get very focused on how the government can actually get access communications that are going over, going over legitimate organization communication

channels. the reality is a lot of what we see happening regularly is the attack patterns will move or communication patterns will move. what i've read that if we get too focused on we need a specific organization, a set of organizations to follow a certain set of guidelines. we're going to just push the traffic elsewhere. i do think we need to take a step back and say we have a certain set of technologies, some of them are used to protect legitimate communications. they can be used to protect the legitimate communications. had we step back and say what are other ways of which we can get at the problem we are trying to solve ultimately? that's where some of the communications we started to have around information sharing and working together to define standards can define norms around what we do for these problems, makes a lot of sense to me. >> suzanne, does the administration have a single point of view on this? i know director comey does of what is the administration's

point of view? >> we support very much strong encryption and we particularly and the department of homeland security where we have a cybersecurity mission, we understand the tremendous value of strong encryption to cybersecurity to prevent protection of privacy the human rights can advance human rights around the world. but we also have a law enforcement mission and the department. we also understand very well the challenges that are presented. if you cannot with a judicial order or probable cause believe that criminal activity is taking place access to communications that our public policies and we think the government should be able to access. it isn't easy and it. yes, we are of one mind that that is our position but again we do not know what the answer is and what the solution is. i agree with chris the conversation needs to be

broader, in part i think they can because i think we need to think long term. so as i said even if we can come up with for some of these technologies some short-term ways in which we bought ourselves some time ultimately what we're looking for is how do we, as you say use technology to help be a more safe and secure nation? it does have to be a broader conversation, and to think that helps us get some of the technology folks to the table. >> teeth, the last time we had discovered nation, the nsa was a big player in the conversation. is time and maybe to change today, this time the ball has been carried by the fbi so far. is there a reason why the ground has shifted? >> clearly the leaks and all the issues that are on the table. i think most impacts the fbi right now with what's going on in the united states. i think what director comey

talked about all the threads he sees in the country and the problem with encryption and not be able to see what those communications are let's say that he gets 1000 messages to the m.d. degree then he would know to go to look at these transfers. he can do that even with a court order if the encryption, the people he serves is to come cannot decrypt it. that's the issue. so i think this is where the debate has to go. what do we bought? do you want to have it all the way here? and i think people can put on the table other countries can create encryptions we can use and bad guys can go get that that we can't decrypt. what does that do to this? what a nation-states like china and russia to send on my watch we want it all. how to put all three together? that makes it a complex problem. there is no easy solution. i think for my old you know, and

mike can correct this later but it seems to me that's a huge mission to protect this country. they are the ones who stopped the new york city subway plot because they could read that communication. if they couldn't that could have gone off. that would have been huge. so be a discussion about we have. i think going into it the first part is it isn't an easy answer. the second part, that's a debate, i do agree that if it is a unique solution is going to come from some of our innovators in our tech community. that's what had to put on the table, put all those problems out there and say this in but have a good solution that we could all live with? >> does them in silicon valley have and tactical solutions we think would move the ball down a bit? >> i actually think -- look there's no shortage of new

companies in silicon valley adult companies in silicon valley that drawing to race after this problem. i would say this but i do think one practical solutions i don't think we're talking enough about is everybody would agree we have a huge shortage of cybersecurity expertise and professionals, even in silicon valley. i cannot hire good experts who have technical backgrounds fast enough to build the product we need to of customers on the ground with the issues they've got. one solution that you think, we could get after right today is we should have a cyber court. we should be training a much larger group of people to deal not necessarily with geopolitical issues but with the issues that are affecting citizens in the u.s. like, for example, good example, it's almost something equivalent to a cyber national guard and we could actually use what we're dealing with today.

i worried about the average citizen because the average citizen in the u.s. should assume his or her information has been compromised at this point. we add up all the bridges, add up the numbers, the average citizen has been compromised. we don't have enough people who are capable of helping either enforced against some issues we are facing or even defend in the organizations are holding this sensitive information that is getting out there in the first place. >> is about a private sector problem? >> private and public. >> imagine if chris with all the money he can do is have a hard time recruiting fast enough, the challenge for the government. when i talk to folks like chris i want to try to make a deal, which is to say you help work with us to build a the pipeline, we work on that together. we will take them right out of school, give them on the job training to give a lot of responsibly fast, a sense of mission. you will know them away with

offers a big box and defense house in silicon valley and able to work for you for a while. wind up with the kids to college and have made a lot of money maybe they will miss the nation and come back. >> that's exactly what i think we want to do last. [laughter] >> intelligence background but we don't have enough. don't have enough people going in today to make a dent in this problem. >> walter had an idea on a cyber court which is where you would bring in young people, serve one year. i think that's a great idea and walter might be something that you put on the table but they serve one year you get them training. they get to serve in some of these missions, they can go in and get it to about government they would serve. i understand that. and it off the info for big bucks back after a year.

but if you think that would help train spent if they didn't wind up going to work in a cyber field, having a cadre of trained cyber citizens could be a tremendous assistance spent if i could tell a story that's okay, a two-story in this case -- [laughter] i think the reason that resonates with me is and i know mike hayden and others are here, when i think about what the folks at guinness and cyber command are doing at the folks in government, they are often vilified for no reason at all. for doing what are nation assess. great case in point in 2013 in the midst of all the snow didn't think i got called down to the white house. i'm going to get what i said. it was, i was called down and i sat across from national security advisor and they said the president and we decided to do a review group on nsa. i said that's a great idea. we can get great leaders like colin powell and others.

actually we've already selected the group and push it across the table. in some bushes across the table to you like this is not good news. i bet the first one and i was reading on down, board member of the aclu. and i said i'm not proud of this, you've got to be -- me. this guys on aclu. the president has decided. we went back at the next day we breathed as anderson and i were you guys are the we had a big table at nsa. ex-aclu sitting at the end like this, you look at me like i was darth vader. luke -- [laughter] i looked at him and he had come with all these ideas about he could fix innocent office think i gave him all the breaking. our seniors gave it to him and then we all left and for the next five weeks our young people did the job, showed 100% transparency. after the five weeks the outreach the.

he came around the table and at that he's going to attack me but he came around and shook my head. he shook my hand and said he under the have the greatest integrity of the agency i've ever seen. i was stunned. you could get me with a wet phish. i said don't tell me tell the people of nsa come to the white house and tell the american people. these that i will. so he wrote this and he said the people of nsa, they're stopping terrorist attacks, acting with great integrity and following the rule of law and they're doing exactly what we've asked them to do. been decided, geoffrey stone, board member of the aclu. none of that really made the press. because in this case it easier to vilify people in government and sell papers that it is to put the facts out there. so from my perspective -- [applause]

where we can hope is this isn't debate for the good of our country. it really does. these are great people working there. they are doing what we ask them. they hold themselves accountable and after 18 months of review, not one person was found anything wrong with this data. that's a good thing. that doesn't mean we should not a debate like we just said. what he does it you got to put the facts on the table so the american people really understand it. these are people whose only thought in life is how can i help our country? they take that seriously. it was a privilege and honor to serve with him and i know that's the same kind folks at dhs and every other, trying to do the right job. we come us on the outside, got to help them. >> i wonder if there isn't a thought towards the encryption problem. larry said code is law. our system of government is based on checks and balances. christmases and, could we start

the back door in such a way that they were multi-parties that hold the key so it was accountable? would that work? have you heard this as an approach? >> i have to get one of the things that's been proposed and one of the things that some of the experts, technical experts out there have said is not adequately sufficiently secure. and does present vulnerability i'm not much of a technical expert but i think all these ideas need to be out of. that proposal does bring to mind clipper wars, dare we say and some of the discussions then. but again i think we need does we need to have a lot of really smart grid of people looking at all kinds of interest. part of what helps is if you it's been presented as a debate

of absolute sometimes. that you have is absolutely secure technology out of your and anything that you do to permit any kind of access will make it completely insecure completely vulnerable. neither of those things is true. which are looking at is along this spectrum. >> didn't you just have a 30 day sprint to try to make things what did you do what did you think and what didn't you get in didn't you get in? >> it was refocused on identifying the high value assets and this is again, this is basic cybersecurity forever, identify your key assets, do you risk assessment. we started identifying what of high-value assets within the government. and then all of the basic practices to protect those to make sure we can detect, respond and recover. the 30 day sprint event.

we were participants in going then after the departments and agencies have hired the highest value assets. we started with repositories the book of david to scan those, looking at that this is scorecard and making sure that some of those basic steps that departments and agencies have put those in place with appropriate sense of urgency. there were a number of things and it was an interagency effort to get to jumpstart within 30 days. we do not at the end of 30 days say there i say mission accomplished, but instead it's the beginning of an ongoing process with a greater sense of urgency. >> is the gulf of multi-factor authentication that the entire government, and how close are you? >> multi-factor identification

is one of the most important things and we talked about access, starting with privilege, those are the building to really do a lot in your network and system and moving to unprivileged users. we've got dashboards and frankly, i think there was one of the most successful things in a 30 day sprint was bringing folks up to where they needed to be on multi-factor authentication. >> let me speak to the opm situation. is there a technical solution down the road? if we secure our own data we secure from ourselves don't we? >> absolutely. this is where, for example, we are inventing heavily at the intel level and analytics capabilities in silicon so you can actually process larger and larger amounts of information faster. like, for example, a little over a year or so ago intel did a big partnership with pashtun

made a huge investment which is a distribution provider. we are literally working close with companies in order to be able to accelerate all the analytics, capabilities they want to make available in the data center. that's a big area of focus is enabling ourselves to process large amounts of data more quickly so you can say i want to overlay encryption on that data can still shoot at getting the same on the same day the i do it at a lower cost. that is something that into a most of our partners are investing heavily in. >> suzanne, what do you do to prevent opm kind of situations with the information? we have at this 86 ashton kutcher protected short of new technologies to? so again you are just as we talk to our private sector folks about basic cyber hygiene to our

basic steps that frankly were not in place adequate across our federal departments and agencies. federal cybersecurity was not and still is not where it needs to be. though it's better than it was. and so again as i said our private sector folks basic cyber hygiene can prevent depend on which research study you look at 80-90% of the intrusion activity that we see. that is a starting place. we do a defense in depth and that's a big part of our mission at the department of homeland security. is providing a baseline of technology and practices for the civilian dot gov. you have a perimeter set of tools that allow you to know what's come in and out of your system. our most recent iteration

einstein suite of tools that allows you to block known malicious activity has coming in. we are rapidly developing technology working with the private sector to be able to detect and block things we've never seen before the data attributes of bad behavior or look risky for a variety of reasons using our large amounts of data and analytics that the private sector helps us to do. so that is that but then that's never going to be perfect. there's no silver bullet. you have to assume they will get into your system. we have this suite of tools working with the private sector, continuous diagnostic and mitigation. tell you on a near real-time continuous basis about the health of your system, if it is configured properly set up to the next phase will tell you who is on your system and the third phase we will tell you what they're doing on your system. and begin those are ways to

address both of those but also detection we have to get much faster at detecting because we've got to know that they're going to get through. we've got to be taken quickly. in working with her and agency partners more effective response and then you've got to be able to recover and be resilient. >> so let me just add to it because this brings up an important part of the government private industry partnership. first, sony, i think everybody would get to the point where sony should not attack back for a whole host of reasons. although sony i think would have won. the reality is that an inherently government responsibility, but here's the problem. the government could not see that sony was being attacked. there is no way for a government too, like you do for aircraft flying over the country, for the government can do something bad is, one of our commercial entities and they need help is

got to be the government steps in to we can't say to the commercial side you guys do really good and conditions it will come in and kick your butt. can't do that. we can't have both. i think it's got to come up with a way that i want to take this one step further. imagine, so we can do this but the big banks, my experience the big banks of the best in the world at security there in front. in jpmorgan gets hacked, we've got a problem. and so the approach we're taking is not petitioned to imagine if we did this at every one of these cables was an individual entity that like a radar could share data, cybersecurity did it come not personally identifiable, about when they are being probed. and jpmorgan was attacked, six of the banks were probed at the same time but that all went into the firewall difficult as the and difficult to share it is not shared. what if it was a shared? they would have all known that

thethese european actors were going after them. they would have seen an insecure. it brings you to the point come if they could share it with in the sector they could share with government. if you did then sony would've had a way of telling the government help us at network speed and the government could have helped them. >> the other vantage to the information sharing that keith is talking about -- advantage -- it does allow you to get this network that he described and imagine that these cables are all connected, whether they all come in to the intake at dhs would we like -- nccic, the important thing is they're sharing information. than you can imagine a world in which the adversaries maybe can get away with something once but only once. because as soon as it comes in its detected, the indicators are picked up and rapidly shared with everyone and the filters are in place to block the. that would be huge advance from

today spent to exploitation serves a 7000 banks is far bigger than the government by itself spent let me ask any differently. the bank said that if not best practices but we have a set of isps that a broad view of the internet. i think it's pretty well-known they are not doing everything they could because it would cost money. for example amplification attacks, very straight forward protocol and hardware you could install on an isp and it hasn't been done. how do you get them to move? >> but we just talked about, the isps become a key part of the because they see all those entities and would be a keyboard. this is where actually commercial industry, the financial sector come energy sector the health care sector and the government could each build your own. the isps become a critical part of that because they are serving all the communications. the isp can do things on a distributed analysis service attack and nothing to clean that up but those are not the things

that are really turning people off. it's these exploitations that are stealthy and difficult. so that's where the power of you is what we can all see. not what one company see. if you bring that together, do it publicly so everybody knows what's going to be on the table, which end up with is think of this, instead of one bank protecting itself, 7000 banks helping protect each bank the that's far beyond and do the same for the government. >> part of the way they are doing that so quickly is machine to machine sharing of information. that is not effort to get underway that the secretary has directed us to complete done ready in a few months to both send and receive because we've developed a language and the protocol for machines to sure if it indicates with machines in milliseconds. in ways that are consistent with privacy protection and civil liberties. that's why we're so anxious to

congress enacted this information sharing legislation. and you started in a wonderful way by starting for sources of optimism. i will say that congress investment in a an and unusual enough as a source of optimism in this context. they passed five cybersecurity bills -- used to work as a congressional staff, i can say that -- but does not do a whole lot, action is make progress in service could only bipartisan basis. i commend the leaders of the homeland security committees particularly for that progress. they are moving forward on information sharing legislation and on authorizing a suite of tools i talked about, einstein which is a border our third legislative agenda item is a national breach notification law spent want to open this up i want to ask one last question and that is that this is a network that we are all connected by that was built with

no thought of private security architecture at the ousted. there are a couple of efforts around the world to start over. start with a clean slate the they are very interesting. any of them practical? are they going to see pashtun are we going to be saddled with this? >> if technology doubles every two years its when can you refresh in way that doesn't pose the industry but when you look at the infrastructure $6 trillion investment. you and that these are going to change all that. what you going to have to do is build, here's would want to be and about to get to that is sufficient to we got to come up with ideas that put in civil liberties, privacy and security. ..

you've got a technical infrastructure out there that literally still running mainframes or burial system and so we've got to protect not only back but sort of protect audible bills that are not all connected by the internet. ... i don't think it's about replacing what we have today that it will be about migrating to some the architects to get

the best privacy and security. we are going to have to pay down debt. it's not free and that is something we have to keep in mind. >> questions from the audience. why don't we start there. >> sean waltman from "politico." i wanted to ask you know recently the u.s. government promoted in the u.n. group governmental acts or its three peacetime norms peacetime security to attack each other's critical infrastructure but they won't attack each other's nerves and i'm blanking on the third. >> espionage. there are actually four. >> you only promoted them.

is that realistic? general alexander, we can't unilaterally declare this as itself but is there something that has to be done to put in place rules of the road? >> in my opinion yeah. you can't do that with today's infrastructure in my opinion. you have to have architecture to ensure you can stop that. i think between suzanne and i there is an opportunity to make this much more defensible. first we've got to get there. before anybody adherence to any other principles. this is going to be much like the nuclear race. our infrastructure across the

board is acceptable to all of these. it's difficult to enact that when those countries that seek to do us harm can only do it one of two ways cyber, and terrorism. they will reach out and try to do it helpfully. we've got to come up with a way of holding them accountable in this day. i'm not sure we are at the point we can hold them accountable or prove they did it. >> i guess i would disagree slightly. i don't think -- if you have a defensible network you don't need behavior. we need a precisely because offense has rapidly outstripped defense across the board. this discussion about these peacetime norms reminds me back in the 70s when there is a lot

of talk about good we have an international treaty on counterterrorism. and we couldn't. it was too hard. they were different in views and today we have fundamentally different views. not everyone agrees the internet should be up in interoperable resilience. there are fundamentally different views of what we did in counterterrorism is that up the pieces where we had consensus. and these peacetime norms are attempting to do that. we are not succeeding in coming to a big consensus, but maybe we can say cybersecurity response team are kind of like ambulances coming to the rescue that we have the content that you shouldn't attack ambulances. there are also the nuclear contacts where we had an

agreement they don't go after command-and-control because you need a way to pull things back. we understand we are all vulnerable to attacks against infrastructure that are critical to providing services and maybe we can take those off the legitimate target. >> to add to the disagreement, the key point and were not disagreeing, in order for our country to defend itself we have to have a defensible architecture. it won't be perfect but our government needs to know when we are under attack and today we don't. if we could get to that point, step one is our nation would be the best in the world. if somebody chose to attack us in cyberor physical space, if we could know that the rules of the road becalmed much more meaningful because they look and

think this country can defend self. if we attack them, we know they can reciprocate. take that off the table that way. if we do it without fixing our infrastructure there's so many gaps in it that we will never get there. those countries on the other side of the argument will say yes, that means no. we have to take some steps in and as some steps and that is where britain and the ability to communicate with devices and networks and the legislation is hugely important for our nation and allies. >> this gentleman here. >> -- center for progress. he mentioned the speed of progress every two years. the president of m.i.t. and the

national accountability of engineering at a symposium 10 years ago i heard them say the following profound statement. this never forget that technological progress of a much, much faster rate and sociological progress suggest that many people may be afraid of high-speed and the source of a driving force for terrorists in general or cyberterrorism. >> so there certainly have been scholars in this room who are far better equipped to address this. but i have read their work and there certainly is some thought that the rapid pace of change and modernization have contributed to some of the groundswell of support for

destructive nature of terrorism. >> if i could just add this is where walter and the idea of a cybercorps could be hosted is a huge education problem we have. when you look at how many people understand the internet, we have generation working side-by-side. write me, call me, e-mail me. they all have a different view of the network. we could take a generation now with these ideas and educate them on what could be and i would be hugely beneficial to do that so they would understand what we could do and why this is important. >> one question way in the back. "the l.a. times." >> try and benefit on chad bennett from "the los angeles times." should the u.s. be investing in

developing a cyberweapon that would act as a deterrent something like the nuclear deterrence policy during the cold war it would be so powerful that any actor would not want to launch cyberattacks on u.s. interests. what pitfalls and should the u.s. be invested on. [laughter] >> dear minutes remaining. >> one thing we can't forget if there is a significant criminal element out there. while we discuss nationstate oriented attacks is a lot of criminal activity to be dealt with in that deterrent isn't going to deal with that problem. we cannot forget we have citizens, men and women children affected by what is happening here. i want to make sure we balance the discussion between what goes on between nationstates and what is effect in people in our

society. that is an important piece of this. the law-enforcement aspect is critical. >> in all honesty we should recognize all countries are racing forward in this area. all the meetings i've ever sat in the white house for both administration shows great concerns for doing this right, setting this up. every nation will create offense and defense of capabilities and a nice part about our country their civilian controls and how we use it on the president said that in his 2009 i cyberthat we look at the full spectrum. the military at activities to provide options to the president and the civilian leadership and how they want to respond. >> our hour is up. we thank our panelists.

[applause] >> you can watch this four-month cybersecurity and all the aspen security form panels on her website, c-span.org. more cybersecurity from the hill this morning. the house oversight jason jay fitz sent a jay fitz sent a request to the office of personnel management which is still struggling to recover from the recent cyberattacks that they are over 22 million people sensitive information spurred by recent revelations that committee chairman is second demanded the agent the fire his chief information officer donna seymour who oversees computer systems and network. i am deeply troubled midfielder remains that are posed chaffetz said. read more at the hill.com.

>> backs from a farm on alzheimer's disease specialist talk about how it impacts the elderly as well as the cost associated with care. senator susan collins who chairs a special committee on aging and senator dick durbin does urge a bigger role for the federal government to play in treatment

research. [inaudible conversations] >> good morning, everyone. i am margaret smith president of atlantic lad i then sat the atlantic and i'm here to welcome you. we are here to talk about a disease that steals language and memory in the presence of the person we want to. one in three people over the age of 65 guys with dementia. we do not know the impact of the disease of massive with family and friends. how many people in this room have a parent or a padded parent or loved one? i see very few hands not up and i think it's not surprising that i have my own story too. my late father was a theoretical physicist. he led a life of the mind and in the end had profound dementia

and we watched his mind betray him. i remember he was trying to get into an assisted living facility and he had to take a test in the test was can you name three animals and he could only come up with the name of insects. and spider, fly. it was a painful moment for all of us. in the end he could barely feed himself and he could barely talk. it is costly emotionally financially. some estimates say alzheimer's cost americans $200 billion a year $200 billion. this morning we hear from people on the frontline of the deceased are researchers working to find treatment to family members who care for relatives and two senators who coordinate national response to alzheimer's. a few notes before we get rolling. we're in twitter at atlantic -underscore oblige. use hash tag atlantic

-underscore alv and we are streaming atlantic.com/live. we'll take your questions after most of the session and i want to thank our underwriter who made this morning's conversation possible. now we will hear a little bit about the associations work from the president and ceo harry john and the alzheimer's association is the coanchor of "pbs newshour," judy woodruff. the floor is yours. >> thank you, margaret. i am delighted to be here for this important conversation and i'm pleased to have this discussion with harry john. we have been chatting about this. i see you have a close cousin of mine whose wife has been

diagnosed and seen as perhaps all of you have not only the physical but the personal toll this can take. i want to launch right in with you and ask you about the role of the alzheimer's association. how does the association fit into this big alzheimer's picture. everyday we pick up the newspaper look online for another article and maybe another promising devout and. how does your organization it into this? >> the alzheimer's association is the leading nonprofit entity in the world in alzheimer's research, care and support. here in the united history provide care and support to individuals 24 hours a day 365 days a year because as you've indicated devastation to the families as well as individual is so great. they need that support each and every day.

we are dedicated to ultimately ending the disease that we don't longer have to provide the support to people. thomson reuters has recognized us as the highest impact research organization in the nonprofit world and around the globe and third only behind the u.s. federal government and the chinese government. we work hard to fund research, but we also work hard with people here in this city and inside the beltway to do the public policy that will ultimately allow the change in the course of the disease with 5 million people in america who have the disease. 15 million caregivers, 47 million people worldwide. the scale of the impact is staggering. you heard 226 alien dollars a year in costs for care alone and 1.1 trillion by the middle of

the century if we can change the course. >> you talk about their research. do you employ the scientists? what is your relationship and the money you raise how does it get to them? >> we find globally. we have a group of researchers around the world with the very best projects. scientists are not on our staff we have access to the best scientists around the world and right now the reason we are here is running the largest research meeting in the world. we move it around to locations around the world. we have researchers from everywhere who are working every day on this problem. we not only directly fund as well as move public policy to increase funding that is so badly needed but we also convene

to gain collaboration around the world on what the latest is happening so we don't lose the advantage of the communication. this meeting is to occur every two years. limited annual. the exchange is so valuable and. >> is researched the only thing the association is focused on? >> in terms of care and support in every community around the united states we have chapters to make a difference every day. and the thing you've experienced yourself. my own mother had this disease so i've seen it up close and my wife's mother just died of the disease in the last several weeks. so 15 million caregivers right now need the help but all of that is set to triple by the

middle of the century again if we don't change the course. those people need that help every day. >> how do you know at any given time and i'll ask you about the fund-raising and support you have to get from this government and other governments. how do you know which research to focus on? there has to be so many promising smart young scientists to have an idea. how do you decide? >> first thing is absolutely true. i don't. i don't know. i am not a scientist. we have access to the best scientists around the world. this meeting has 4500 people most of them find his and many people work on an ongoing basis. limited application for projects and funding, we have thousands of people who help us choose those projects along with the

advisory council made up of people who are at the very top of their field so they can look at a project i'm in a vertical basis and have expert from around the world to take a look at that and see what they think is the most promising. we have for years and years that the association funded what is the cutting edge of research when others won't when others haven't been able to. >> what is an example? >> will refund the technology early on that identified the plaques and tangles and the hallmarks of the disease and we funded research when no one else would do this now change the field of alzheimer's research. that identification let us know now that those plaques accumulate as much as 20 years

in advance of the symptoms occurring said the thinking in the field today is very different than it was a few years ago that we must intervene in advance of the symptoms and we can potentially slow or stop the progression. if we can slow the progression by five years we could cut the impact and have both with human devastation and the cost so devastating. >> my understanding is the field is still a distance away from being able to do that. be not weary distance from ultimately realizing ambition of the alzheimer's association. we are distance from now. i'm not a scientist but the way everyday situation is we are within a reasonable period, a few years have seen the additional treatments. we have treatments today that don't change the underlying course of the disease.

i believe we are two years have seen the initial treatment that will take years to develop sufficient treatment. not unlike hypertension were more likely be a cocktail. the disease is heterogeneous. it would not be one drug. no silver bullet. >> you are talking about the nearer term the following progression. >> and we can see a drug that has a clinical effect bearing number of prevention trials now under way. i'm proud to say the the association was an early funder to get started. they wouldn't be possible without technology i mentioned. does prevention trials have to do exactly what we are discussing to slow or stop progression. >> when you make the argument as you do to members of congress and those that have the ability

to determine how much support you will get from the government which has to be the biggest source of support, what is the argument you make? so many other important causes out there that affect people's well-being and gas alzheimer's affects many people, but how do you make that argument? >> i'm proud to say we've made great progress on cancer. we found about $5.5 billion in cancer research annually at the national cancer institute. cancer funding has been high for many years and we've seen results. we funded hiv/aids at 3 billion a year were seeing the results of chronic disease today. heart disease, mortality down. brutality rates are down as a result of investments in the past. alzheimer's disease we have a triple threat. there is nothing else like it in terms of impact that has so little done about it at the

federal level. it is huge prevalence and growing. it has huge cost and growing and it is the only one of all of the leading causes of death in america that has no way to stop it prevented or even slowed down. so the investments today until recently there's about $400 million even though it's costing 226 billion annually going up to 1.1 trillion. i have to give credit to the leaders in congress chairman cole and his committee in the house and chairman blunt and ranking member murray and that committee in the senate. those leaders in the congress

have stepped up for $350 million investments in the new appropriations but to be approved when he do see that sign into law. those are big advancements if we can see them through the science community believes the alzheimer's association convened a group some years ago and believed we need to reach 2 billion. 2 billion annually. right now we are only up to 600 million. the underfunding of alzheimer's research has a direct impact on what is the failure of the change in the course of the disease unlike what we've seen in cancer of the hiv/aids, heart disease. there is a clear correlation between making research investment in the mortality rates go down. >> is there an alternative if you don't get the government funding you need? is there anything to rival what

the federal government potentially has the ability to do? >> the alzheimer's association funds directly. we are about to raise our level of funding of this to a higher higher -- from private givers. it is impossible in any disease to not have the strong investment of federal government because there is an enterprise if he will nonprofit organizations like ours the federal government and the private sector. it takes all three sectors to make it work. if you look at the gains made in cancer, heart disease, all the situations require all preset is to make it happen. >> and thinking of you sitting down in the office of a member of congress, would you say to them? they must know and i'd be

announced you name it. hiv. not to mention the enormous array of other good causes out there. >> you've read the what has occurred. it's taken time for people to understand thoroughly what is the impact here. what we see today, you know, one of the things that just things that have happened but it's important to this is the alzheimer's association also has made a huge effort at getting the american public to realize impact of the disease. if you look at what is happening in cancer or aids or any other cost, their first has to be a discussion in the american public about the issue. when i came to the organization there is not a discussion about alzheimer's. it was pretty much taboo. i'm proud to say the alzheimer's

association really push the discussion as to you and your colleagues talking about these things. we worked very hard. we fund advertising about this issue. we work with chapters and communities to get the word out. in cancer years ago cancer wasn't discussed. once the discussion came to the public attention, once it was important to the public, things change. funding for research changed at the private level of the public level. two thirds of people being cured is way beyond where we were in alzheimer's. every person who got the diagnosis will die and many people don't realize it is the leading cause of death. many people don't realize alzheimer's is itself a cause of

death. based upon the cdc statistics and beyond that, years ago in cancer way underreported in alzheimer's today is a survey that showed 45% of people with a diagnosis of a habit. it is unimaginable. that many don't know. half the people who are diagnosed are told. that echoes what happened in cancer. the public discussion is a huge part of driving the answer to your question about having members of congress step up on this. i see members of congress in the past couple years last few years really step up and see what needs to be done on both sides of the aisle, a bipartisan effort. i will say that another part of that is leadership from the top. there are about give or take 20

presidential candidates. >> 21 as of today. >> each one of those candidates has an opportunity to be the first president to truly embrace this issue. it has not yet truly been done. any one of those people, all of them as far as i am can turn i hope they would all embrace the issue because there is leadership opportunity for the congress and the president instead of the sixth leading cause of death that is more likely higher. the most recent study released indicates instead it is about 500,000 people a year who die at this as a result of this disease. >> how important -- i know there are still people who are ashamed and embarrassed to talk about family members of alzheimer's. how do you change that? it sounds like an important part of the story. >> it is. we continue to raise the

discussion and i believe we've come a long way. on sunday here at our conference, we hosted a session of people who have a really rare form of the disease the genetic form of the disease which is absolute. if they had the gene mutation they will get the disease. that's only 1% of all incidents all prevalent. to see the people together to come to the meeting together to talk about that and the public about it is the kind of thing that can truly change the discussion of the stigma. i give them great credit for anyone who has a diagnosis and their caregivers who step up to talk about this is the single greatest effect on answering the issue you raise. >> i've been given time cues and i can't read it to save my life.

and a last thought you want to leave anybody with? >> i appreciate everyone who was helping us advance this. it is a huge team effort to do so and i particularly think the leaders in congress stepping up on this. even if appropriations go through, we've still got to get it much higher. the science is promising enough we can change the course of this disease as we change the course of others. it can hop in. it can be done. >> harry jones, thank you very much. >> thank you. [applause] >> thank you for that excellent beginning. we just heard the top 10 diseases that take the most american lives. alzheimer's is the only one without a viable treatment of any kind. funding level taken on the scientific and financial resources for multiple spheres. the federal budget stretching to keep up the cost of care and

cost of research where should the money be going? or to address the question is dr. richard was a distinguished research fellow at eli lilly and dr. alert laurie ryan new has been aging branch at the national institute of health joined by contributing editor mary louise kelley. take it away. >> thank you. good morning everybody. so we are going to be throwing a lot of facts and figures that you all this morning. i am going to focus our next session on one we just heard in the last conversation. alzheimer's is the sixth leading cause of death for americans. of the top 10 it is the only one with no way to prevent it no way to slow it down no way to stop it from developing in the first place.

we are joined by a great panel talk about this. i would like to throw this question to both of you. the big wide-open question, let me start with you. why has alzheimer's proven so tough? >> alzheimer's is a complex disease and that's one of the things in the last decade that there's multiple different risks they take you at the end of the day and your risk may be different than mine. maybe cardiovascular coming years may be genetic. trying to untangle that has proven difficult. it is likely when a treatment that are different for different individuals. of little more than the precision is what you've heard but ultimately to identify and and to attack those for different people. >> i would also be true of cancer. there is many drugs on the

market. >> if you think about the war in cancer started in the 1970s. the program started in the mid-80s. we are a bit behind in terms of where we've had research efforts. the real focus has come a little bit later than i started with cancer. >> i think it is important to understand until relatively recently many people didn't think of it and the original patient and of course when it happens in the 50s or 40s people identified as a disease. a lot of people including the medical community until the late 70s or 80s thought this was an inevitable process of normal aging and there is no way to intervene there. beginning in the 70s and 80s we begin to understand the biochemical abnormality that

starts to go one. there's certain high risk and that opens up the opportunity in the mid-70s to begin to privately develop a pharmacology that would intervene and so the process that is clearly abnormal. we have been late to the game but now we have the tools and scientific basis that allows companies to think we can eventually have a medical impact on the disease that will be real and meaningful for patients. >> we're talking about this. in the 70s and 80s when finally research, tension and money drug after drug looks promising and then foiled in cases and in some cases shown to accelerate. we have some insight into what causes alzheimer's. the problem with drug if

they attack harmful functions and what we are constantly grappling with. >> since i was responsible for one of those drugs that was very promising and was found to make patients worse the results of those studies have been published. a couple things about that. one is what we now believe is the drug was having we didn't understand when they first introduced the patient. it's important to understand when we go into a new area that is highly complex, we have to learn as we go along in each new effort to develop an intervention that has a specific effect had to does the market closes the avenue of and directs it towards something else. over time we get better and what we see now is a few compound that have specific effects that are positive and i'm sure that will ultimately lead to better

efforts and not pathway. i don't think we should do failures of the scientific process. the process is working. it's moving us in the right direction but we will have a lot of dead ends along the way to work through. >> absolutely. they are not trust that we can understand why things didn't work for things we didn't know before. absolutely we have to test those drugs and it has to be a systematic process. everybody would like things to happen very very fast and unfortunately we've got due diligence in the drugs. >> bring us up to speed on what the landscape looks like now because we are hearing what may be the glimmers of promise that we are maybe turning a corner. what are the most promising thing in development right now?

>> at the nih we find basic science and work that goes into discovery process but we also fund trials and partner a lot with companies that we are co-funding the large trials trying to leverage resources. there is a large landscape would look at subtly drugs are one piece and they are very exciting now because we realize we have to go earlier as you heard terry say and the changes occur. [inaudible] part of what is going on as they go into present semantics. people love risk factors for genetic risk who do not have dementia currently and if you intervened and can we slow the process here that is something tested right now and is very exciting to go earlier until he had the pet scans we were not

able to see these changes occurring early. now we have ways to identify it earlier. that has been very helpful in the trials are extremely and will be telling us that we can have an effect. >> flesh this out a little bit. >> the aviator related compounds are the most advanced in a come from a lot of work supported by the nih and private funders that identify biochemical pathways that lead to the amyloid plaques in the pharmacology around not largely comes to the pharmaceutical industry and those are the leading edge along with that. we develop tools that allow us to identify people way before they develop symptoms. 10, 15 years u.k. a long time before a heart attack a long

time before you get dementia. that looks like we need to move those clinical trials earlier. we are learning on the therapeutic side and beyond that we have aspects that are less well understood and how that led to pharmacology yet, but that includes neurons. as one of the well-known risk factors and no pharmacology around that. i assume over time will develop other pharmacology approaches that will improve it. >> for me start on this idea of testing people any of us could be 10 or 15 years away from being symptomatic. specifically what tests are we talking that you're working on? i was reading a headline this morning. saliva tests may look from the scene in terms of identifying genetic markers. >> as we were mentioning the pet scan has been a turning point that we can image in the

brain. we are always looking for things less invasive. that is much more difficult. we can see it earlier bond and scam people and know that because you that because you have high doubles your risk. you are not necessarily going to get it but it does do it increase risks. older adults, high levels that are cognitively normal. they don't have dementia. can we get it there and see if we can slow that trajectory into dementia and stop it. >> the i.t. and the status for become part of an annual physical, how are you identifying to test everybody? >> there's a lot of discussion. the best test the one that convinces people the most is the story mentioned the brain scan that essentially allows you to do in a living person will be so only do after person died. the trouble with that as it is

sort of invasive come a pretty good. not sure anybody would want to do it. there's a lot of efforts ongoing to find less invasive, less expensive ways of identifying people who might be candidates to get scanned so you don't overuse those scans. there's a lot of work of that sort going on the blood tests or cognitive screens that would be helpful. >> as you look at the spectrum of drugs and possibilities and research out there we are not likely to come up with some miracle drug silver bullet for days. alzheimer's is a mention of a complicated disease preventing comic your income is floating up above all kinds of different therapies that may be different from patient to patient. >> i think that is true.

amyloid is one of the main players we are looking at but there are other adjective pieces. lifestyle interventions. they can help you in delay when you might get the disease. having a healthy diet, healthy life are things we can do for people now and look at other potential disease targets. as you said there's not pharmacology in terms of drugs, the people working on this target and ways they can intervene. there will be any characteristics and profiles for individuals that mean you'll get a different head of drugs or recommendations come at interventions that i might not get. >> is a look at the landscape and trying to decide who to partner with, where you prioritize how to distinguish between a drug that will prevent

alzheimer's or slow it once it is already manifested? >> away the nih funds as we have a peer review process. applications come in for funding and get reviewed the research community and based on how they score nih make funding decisions. we get the benefit of the community to help make decisions and see which things make untrue but the most promising. a lot of what nih does is basic research. we also do translational moving than the basic science to identify new targets to get us into early-stage clinical development clinical intervention. a lot of were the bulk of our money goes is in the basic science discoveries that other people use like the pharmaceutical companies to take it further. >> to look over the future might go, this is a complex disease. i don't think we have one

treated to satisfy all. as we move towards treatments that would slow the underlying pathology of the disease, once those are introduced in combination with lifestyle things that have a key role to play just like in diabetes you have to keep your lifestyle in check, et cetera. what we see from a public health point of view is down the road i don't think we will see that disease disappear. but what you would hope to see is the risk for people in a given age for developing dementia and the accompanying disability will go down. they have gone down with a better control of cholesterol and blood pressure and so forth. >> it sounds as though and it's the importance of early detection and treatment.

we are seeing headlines every day and glimmers of promise that maybe there is some fun with all the conference two years ago would say there is a drug. it's very pivotal change. >> this has been incredibly important. we are stuck about the mantra and the people to genetically determined the disease where we know now for absolute certainty that the pathology begins 15 or more years before they actually develop symptoms and we've been able to map out the trajectory and his courageous families with the disease is determined by a single gene mutation and it turns out that it's probably the case in the worker are ready to seize that provides data that that is where we need to go. audio mac

>> yeah, we have to screen a lot of people at risk. people are very worried about alzheimer's disease and you can understand why. it's not just that you end up with something that will cause death, the great disability and burden. people are very anxious to participate. we've been encouraged by that. they are making sure we have people who have that level of risk. it is heartening and voluntary and then we can't do it without the volunteers. absolutely not. we have a relative go through the disease it's a great motivator to not want that to happen to your children or whatever. that is what gets people's

interest. we have two or three cases and oftentimes there's a lot of fear in the family as to what will happen down the road. and support the work. >> alzheimer's at a greater rate in women than men. and greater african-american population. it's not helpful in terms of trying to identify what is going to stop this to study those different populations and manifests itself differently. >> it is critical to understand the different groups and populations. one of the reasons for women is they live longer. it looks like there's some research that's not necessarily the only factor going on with

women. african-americans and hispanics are related to health disparities. and whether it's been taken care of. it's important to understand it is critical to understanding for sure. >> we've been talking about priorities are weakening the funding right in terms of cutting-edge research and the whole side of the coin of providing for long-term care and assisting people afflicted by the disease. from the federal government's point of view. >> our total focus is on research. our mission is public health and finding ways to intervene that will advance public health. we come either from a different

perspective. different aspects of other challenges so it is a research mission and we have to realize that. equal care is also extremely important and people mention family members. my father has alzheimer's disease. he is 92 now and doing pretty well. i have it on a personal level and also his primary caregiver. i certainly see challenges of caring. both aspects are critically important and there is a challenge with people that are trying to figure that out. >> since i work in a for-profit company, we identify areas where there's unmet medical needs but the science has that there'll eventually another thing they can produce there. we are focused on the medicines and diagnostic tools to go with them. and if there isn't the broker it

defense is to make the bag of steak in the caregiving systems to take care of the situation all of that has to go there together. >> we have microphones going around in terms of different tasks and early phases. that one sack and will bring this microphone to you. >> thank you for coming here today. my question has to do with misdiagnosis of alzheimer's impatience. can you comment on the brain soaks the wipeout tissues and characterizing this as

alzheimer's. i'm just trying to understand how we can better make that diagnosis or proper treatment. >> i can give you a first comment. the dementia which is the syndrome which is progressive over time and alzheimer's disease and the context of a particular biological abnormality. good clinicians and we don't have many as we need. if they do a careful exam they can usually get it right. there are a lot of times when the clinical picture is not very clear and you can make two kinds of errors. they don't want to make an era where we type of somebody when they're really not. it's normal forgetfulness. or you don't want to misdiagnose someone as alzheimer's when they've got some other conditions. send multiple strokes. the new diagnostic tools

developed like the pet scans and so forth help us to make advances there. it is still an area of some concern. >> we heard from harry john spira taken that they have some of the work around town in the world on this disease. i would like your thoughts on the bigger shortage. >> i will try to take that. i think we have moved into an era where we have a lot of good ideas. i work for a company that we have to make a profit. we don't go into an area. we have plenty of people working on diabetes and cancer and they've got ideas to take the money and have it sent there.

we tend to win some of those arguments. we kept the company in business for 27 years. i am not a fan of throwing money at things work can't be well spent. if elected to the portfolio grants and there's a lot of potentially productive science that is currently not funded. >> i want to follow-up on that. you work at a for-profit company. how much is the first drug that is shown to prevent alzheimer's how much is that worth? >> i actually don't work in that part of the business. i think we have to assume it is worth something. otherwise we spend a lot of time and might have to look for another job. you know if you look at other therapeutic areas that have

blossomed, if you look once the path with sonia could treat depression, eventually they are almost all generic and lots of companies develop drugs to lower cholesterol and now that era is looking for the next thing to ask again. i think it is going to be -- to keep companies involved there has to be some reward. we have to be willing to pay for new things and that's how we get generics. they live to their end. i know that they talk about

clinical trials and focused on testing drugs. more focused studies on changes in lifestyle there were others if those are other viable options about testing different types of drugs. >> i think i can take that because her lifestyle interventions that are not profitable for a company. the nih to support and we have a word of clinical trials and has an information web page. we are supporting a number of trials with dietary interventions, cognitive training as well as exercise. we are very interested and not. we don't think that it's going to be the thing that is going to stop or slow progression is

something we will add to what we do. as richard said to my lifestyle is extremely poor diet exercise. we are doing most trials. >> is there any research that shows how much of a difference that makes? >> a lot of things that have been done by people who live a healthy lifestyle looks like their age onset diseases much later. there is an observational study and they are underway. >> we have a question right here. >> thank you. you have mentioned cardiovascular disease a couple times. is there a relationship between the disease and alzheimer's.

there are vascular changes in the drain that can cause all strokes that can contribute to dementia we often see people who have some vascular damage in alzheimer's disease as well. the connection is not well-established, but you also see things like amyloid deposited around brussels and we don't understand that aspect as well as we should. >> it is a risk factor for dementia as well as some people trying to understand is that an amyloid pathology, cardiovascular is a risk diabetes is a