processes. : a for five years or the life of the satellite. would be extremely helpful for companies like boeing and other manufacturers who are looking at in technologies. there's only an annual commitment. it's hard to make those strong investments that require capital. we've also heard that the reason, for the hesitation by

the department to enter into long-term contracts is because the market conditions could change and the rates would fall and they would be stuck with a bad acid or at least at a higher price. but the commercial market has already addressed that. there's way too building contracting language to derisked the type of concerned where you would actually adjust the rates based on market conditions. so the last thing i think i'd like to bring up is the spectrum aspect. so spectrum is a scarce resource. the ability to work with the government spectrum and how federal government allow commercial users to use that spectrum on a non-interest basis would be helpful for our business. >> i'll let the rest of the questions come later. thanks. >> thank you very much.

and next up is senior vice president of government relations at digital globe, and i believe he had a satellite that sitting somewhere down in cape canaveral about the launch. maybe you can tell us a little bit about that as well. >> it's got a beautiful ocean view right now. so i've been with digital globe almost five years. for those who don't know, before that i was in air force on the operational side of things. the kind of a dual perspective. a couple of things i want to address how the government can better leverage commercial and also what policy needs changing to make that happen. and so just as an overview for you all, there are three things i want to talk about in the first of delivering actionable insights from a multiple source kind of platform.

the second is looking beyond acquisition to actual integration. so douglas loverro will concur wholeheartedly. from a policy perspective i will touch on both regulation and responsible face for space traffic management. we will start in just a few things. let's talk about deliverable actionable insights. and so for those who don't know, digital globe sometimes we get painted as the old guy in town and not very flexible but, in fact, we understand that you do not exist by pure -- alone. if you look at our plan and what's already in action, we have imagery, platform and services which is analytics. we believe that's the way i look at as a three lane highway of the future. to make that happen you need a number of different things which we are using.

first is a data. that data has to be accurate and that accuracy impacts a number of different things. not just the quality of the image but the usefulness of the analytics that come from the information. the metadata as well as the actual picture. using that good information gives you better analytics and better services on the back and. we have right now would bring about 70 terabytes of data a day. our future plans for the consolation will bring in about 120 terabytes of information a day. we have storage of around 100. i tell you because we use that for what we are doing with that information. along with that information you need algorithms. of course digital globe as a great team and rebuild algorithms to extract information not we also believe in using the wisdom of other folks that are building algorithms. we have a program called

geospatial big data, and it is a platform that's not just our information in the long 15 plus year archive of information but its a variety of other sources of information. so it's an ecosystem we built. we have around i think it's now about 30 commercial customers as well as some government customers. so we invite folks to bring in your information, bringing your algorithm and use our cloud-based platform to get the information you need. holy believe that answers is the future and so that's the direction we are going. we also believe that leveraging crowd sourcing and automation are key. so in that platform rebuilt machine to machine learning where we are helping narrow search space is something you can give that information to the analysts and they cannot spend the time doing hours and hours

and hours of finding the needle in haystack of needles. so with that becomes a predictive analytics as well. just a couple of the things i will mention. we have partnering with and bringing in some great 3-d images because with it for a couple of the other things people may not be aware of and this is where this actually goes to, there's number of cocom specifically figures of this but we use human landscaping. is such as the imagery of the geo or the physical but it is of the cultural information that comes with it. so there is an entire system or program that's built and it helps identify not just borders of countries tribal borders and tribal alliances and how medical or water security gets into different areas. a number of different cocom's use that kind of information.

one of the aspects that could be applied in the military environment is if you're going to build a supply line or a supply have it somewhere, taking that information into consideration so you know who you're negotiating with. maybe you limit the number of tribal leaders or warlords, maybe you avoid building another warlord because you've taken all of those things into consideration. a couple things i think if we let it go beyond acquisition to actual integration. would've things would like to do it is ingrained throughout some of the more new capabilities that are out there. if you take schoolhouse in duty training, i think in the schoolhouse is there still using imagery and most of the schoolhouse is which is a great,

if it's not 16, it's almost 16 and a still better quality than the other stuff that's out there right now, but there's a lot that has progressed since then. so having leaders understand what the capabilities are an starting at that ground level and vacation people people are where what's out there, there's a program we have called global egd and if anyone with a dot mil or dot gov address can apply to this. it gets better to the government but it is literally life or six clicks and you'll get whatever part of the planet you want to look at. it's the most current information. we have imaged, downloaded or directed and headed on the left side -- a website in a couple minister if you're one of those guys that out in afford operating base and want to get the most current information, it's not just the most current picture, it's the archive that continually changes as well. that's out there and i'm quite certain that kind of stuff that is not being disseminated as well. so we need to work to

disseminate that information better. besides major combatants would also use that kind of thing for humanitarian assistance or natural disasters as well. ilogistics abdicate get into greater detail if you like to touch on the policy changes that would be really welcomed. no surprise to vote for been pushing predatory modernization as well as responsible space lately. regulatory modernization, it's slow, restrictive, commerce and i know there's a lot of people working on it but there's a lot of benefit that would come with improvements in that process. the concern with it, the slowness of it, i'm pretty sure rich and i will agree on this one, that's slow and cumbersome process just pushes customers to international competitors.

we know that they use the cumbersome process of the u.s. government as a reason not to go with use companies at times. and then just quickly on space traffic management or responsible space. i think that's a conversation that definitely needs to occur. we've been talking but i think for the last year and a half it has go but it is an area that needs to be discussed and there's another different areas we're looking at of different altitudes for maneuverable and non-maneuverable satellites, are making, particularly if you're universe your eighth grade class, coming to space, let's learn. but let's make things trackable so we minimize the potential for space. and clearly i think things are going to need to come to a lot more quickly than 25 years as it stands right now. >> thank you. and our last panelist, richard

leshner was vice president at planet, formerly lan labs. the name changes official taken place. >> it's a branding so we are still planet labs. we go by planet. >> go by planet. and so rich, i will turn over to you. you're also in the imagery remote sensing part of the space market but very different than digital globe. i'll allow you to explain. >> thank you. nice to see everybody here today. it's always challenging to be the last one on the panel with so many insightful and smart people because you wonder what the heck am i supposed is after everybody else has had such great things to say. but i'm going to try maybe to abstract out a little bit. i will not necessarily talk about planet labs specifically. we are a small satellite. we want high visit across the globe with medium resolution. we got that out there.

but i think it's interesting. boeing has been the space business right thing was just a little over 50 years. plant has been in the space business for just a little over five years. so what i think you're seeing industry are companies that range of emerging to established. they are working on space-based platforms that range from small to medium to large. in constellation of single to dozens to hundreds to multiples of hundreds of satellites in many orbital regimes. and what that is doing is creating a diversity of information that is being generated about our plant in near real-time that is being fed through the kinds of tools and devices that marcy mentioned for machine learning algorithm development and creating i think what can reasonably be called an information infrastructure about the habits and change and

sustainability of the planet we are living on. i should mention in addition to the ways that we see diversity in the space segment, there are also many different portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. and so all of this activity generates an interesting perspective in response to something scott said where oftentimes historically the space policies been a derivative policy driven by national security or the crisis of immense but i think the evolution and what we are seeing is pushing a different perspective which is the commercial space industry is now a partner leg of the stool to our, our national space capabilities to national security and civil in a way that is more than just being the industrial contractor base which it had been so capably and so critically for so long. and i think that sort of pushes on the question of what can be

done that sort of new and different and interesting in the area of policy plans in the can take the advantage of what you are seeing from space, from space countries as they are emerging. faster to develop a times, aggravated systems, companies that are planned short orbital lifetimes so satellites with intentional orbit and replenishment capabilities. you see people intentionally doing graceful de- orbiting, graceful degradation. so if you have that sweet come if that's the overview of which are seeing industry in all these categories, before you can get to questions of immigration, be it from the data integration side and inside side, albeit from the space side into the think about what hardware can do for you in a new kind of way, you have to to have a bit of a period of demonstration and exploration. industry is doing things different and quickly. i would say that government,

military, civil doesn't matter that it needs to find what to do rapid demonstration and get data into the station about what capabilities can bring. that data and information can't inform plan in a new kind of way. i think we are all used to the historical process of analysis of alternatives and missing all kinds of information about potential costs and schedule sensitivities around new development. but you can call them that with rapid demonstrations on different size platforms an industry that can respond in 12 to 18 months you get significant greater confidence in the decisions any plenty might make when it comes to how you might choose to flexibly designed a future architecture, so which is a single point solution, where would you fall? would you go with this aggregate network, et cetera but that expectation and demonstration period to give you confidence of a decision about how you want to be flexible, confidence and a

quickly or with what kind of speed you can execute either change in architecture or an update to your architecture, in case you speed and confidence of how much of it has to be a service the decision of sosa with a satellites or associate with products and services that are derived from satellite and other data that could be provided by cloud services. the last thing it does, i think it gives the folks were in government positions the idea to play with subtlety. so how you choose to go with the government only versus a more service-based decision for some kinds of things, how you choose to go with dedicated point solutions in a single satellite versus at this aggregate architecture and i choose to do this rapidly and consistently iterative and demonstration capacity can send signals as scott was talking about associated with which part of the architecture of the want to get most about and might respond most aggressively to, which are

the ones you're willing to tolerate a different kind of risk, which underwent you might even be more willing to consider integration for the commercial or international level. so those are abstracted points but i think in terms of the question driving the panel which is how do we see the government writ large adequate for specific to military, i see it by first recognizing that industry is changing with all of the factors we mentioned. choosing to find ways to engage with industry to demonstration, experiments, data and thinking it out in real time and then integrating that into the planning so that your future, now that your future architectures are integrated as well. will because, i'll close with this, what we're seeing, marcy talked about the kinds of things you can bring to the table. what we are seeing in industry

is the evolution of just data to information, insights, to indicators advanced instruments to do something based on the indicated he received. that's happening across many market verticals that it's the same set of trends and movements happening inside me government decision-making and so if we're both seeing that, we might have different ends and different objectives in terms of what those incidents are. but we might so find ways to work together smartly on part of that process. >> thank you. all of the panelists, great opening remarks. i think we really set the stage for a good discussion. while the audience is getting their questions ready, i wanted to start the discussion with doug, i will go to you first. from a military perspective if you could reach out to the commercial space industry and direct how they're spending their money. if you could magically make them

invest more or less in certain areas, what would you do? what would you like to see commercial companies putting their enhancement and where they're going in the future? >> first of all let me make sure we understand, this is your question because i wouldn't actually do that. but seriously, i think the big issue that the government is going to look at as we try to in just commercial space services is cyber vulnerability. that is the key. we have seen a much valued experiments people are doing an anti-satellite activity across the globe but quite frankly the soft underbelly evidence-based system is in cyber vulnerabilities. this is not just a military statement. this is a commercial statement as well. because if you're going to

depend on satellite services, they are more than many other services, depends upon the security that you can bring to the cybernetwork. that's got to be a key area where we as the government needs to be concerned about the it will be hard for us to rely on space services fielded to the commercial practices that don't have good cybersecurity. of course it's very difficult to go in and add that on later. that's something. to collect interest from the get-go. it tends to be fairly expensive when you do that. there's this tension that is developing. what's interesting is if you're a commercial satellite manufactured you may not want to guard against any type because likely of your satellite gets shot by some sort of a sack is quite low. on events like good data network gets attacked in the cyberattack is quite high. as we see every day.

that is something both the commercial world and i think the government world should be concerned with is how we go ahead and in your satellite capabilities, space capabilities, be they commercial, civil, government, entrepreneurial, international, how do we make sure they are defended against the cyberattack. that's the key focus i would -- that's a key area i would focus on. >> scott, and your decades of experience in this area, and i know he may have had a hand in some previous laws and policies that were enacted. what has changed fundamentally about the commercial space industry and what does it mean in terms of updating government laws, regulations, policies? what you think needs to happen right now? >> well, i think one of the things that happened is some of the visions that people had in

the reagan administration from early bush administration, bush 41, have come to fruition. that is, there is the thought that if we have more commercial activities in space that not only without spur innovation to provide pressure on both the civil and military communities who otherwise would lock into their own ways of being. they would achieve a detente with each other and do not move. and so the idea of injecting in another innovative force from the private sector was something we thought about back in the '80s. what of the things that can happen is in the '90s is about you start to see the integration of space with information technologies. from a nerd perspective you realize this makes a lot of sense because photons don't wait anything itself launch costs give an advantage to moving information. but you saw with a drop of gps

prices, seeing today in gps and remote sensing information fusing together to even of the frontside, space and time have a high degree of overlap with each other. so there's been that integration which has been the change. the other big change has been the rise of private equity finance and venture capital financing, which in part, people of debates about this, in part has been driven by quantitative easing that has been done since the financial crisis, driving interest rates down and people search for yield going to high risk areas. so the private equity and venture capital portion of activity has been surprising to me not because people are interested in space and i.t. things but the range and depth that this has gone on in part driven by macro economic conditions as well. so looking forward to the

future, what might come out of this is that the increasing trends in the budget of mandatory spending being what it is and the pressure this is putting on all nondefense discretionary spending. we can argue about variations between this or that view, between the white house or congress or parties or whatever and what programs often or not move but the budget allocations and caps and the overall structure of the federal budget is going to be the grinding pressure point. it's like a glacier coming south pushing all before it. so in that environment the political kindred is going to fight it self-dealing with that front and foremost. the operational community on the space side, a commercial site are going to be looking for how do they get the most out of the limited, increasingly limited about of resources that they have.

this is going to drive deeper questions about what should be done in house, what should be set out what intellectual capacity should we need to retain in government, and which ones are we willing to let go? and so we can argue about particular projects. the difficulty for the commercial community in responding to that is going to be how realistic they are, truthfully are within so as to where i is anything coming from and where is it simply government privatization. so some of the colleagues here, their market segment has seen amazing growth in ways i didn't predict or didn't see back in the early '90s when we first started high resolution sensing. in the last decade what you've seen is location-based services and people like google and facebook bringing new demand to market. not just government demand repurposed, say the way nga might be doing, but actual

brand-new private sector driven demand. so that sector of the space market is a very different kind of beast that was happening i would argue can launch with a government is still primary driver of this activity, although there's a lot of new stuff that is potentially coming along. >> and the last question, for the industry panels, you can enter in whatever order you wish. what do you see, several of you hinted at this and talked about some changes you like to see on the government side in contracting, and licensing, regulations. what are some specific areas where you think they're some quick wins, especially given this is a presidential election year? they did with god a change in administration. are there some quick wins for congress and the new administration next year with a good update laws, change

practices in a way that would both benefit commercial space industry and also the government? >> we will tag team is probably. so i would say actually congress at least certain committees have made great strides in trying to address the issues that are cumbersome and whereupon commercial. we're incredibly thankful for that. it is the path forward and we hope it continues into the new administration and the new congress. i believe that it will. some the things are looking at is the regulatory oversight which probably when it was to have 20 plus years ago made sense. when every satellite was declassified government satellite but now that the world is different, we need to look at what do they really need is

overseas and what can we let go? that conversation is ongoing want to help 2017 is the year with the answer comes, there's a lot that can be let go and then we focus on the things that really are, one, monitoring what the companies are doing so we know much like the fcc oversees commercial satellites. and then when there is truly a very unique national security implications that we don't disregard that. >> i don't have anything specific or i wanted to steal your thunder from early when you mentioned space traffic management. i do think, but i'm going answer the question slightly different way to say that it's an area where i think we should be aware or be a little cognizant of the potential downside of trying to

go for quick wins. looking at space traffic management as mary because it's really important. there are lots of posthumous unanswered about how authorities might be owned for evaluating debris or conjunction or collision risks associate with new imaging large-scale constellations in multiple different orbits. so there's clearly an emerging need but if one response possible to correctly, one could begin a solution that is not quite right and crates more headaches that if one took little bit of time. and so i think one of the things the government has agreed power to do before they can choose to regular or before can choose to do any kind of oversight function is to have a bit of a convenient function, and stand there with the warning that some

folks are afraid, hey, if we don't see certain things evolve we might have to step in and start to regulate. and exert that function and then with it say what can you industry did establish some of your own ideas for most of the road or norms of behavior that are relevant to the issues will be facing with traffic management, situational awareness and debris that could alleviate the pressure and little bit to move on the legal or regulatory fronts but doesn't take away the time in the sense of urgency for people to act and make smart decisions. ..

>> to preserve it for satellite, not give it to terrestrial, would be extremely helpful. [laughter] >> [inaudible] >> in terms of things that for congress to, things to suggest, one of them going back to doug's point about i.t. security and so forth, this administration has put the funding in for space defense and resilience activities which i think has been a very positive development, and i think the next administration would be well advised to continue some of that work. because a lot, lot more needs to be done. the second thing i would say regarding regulations, there is this large issue of

mega-congresseslations that richard referred to -- constellations that richard referred to. i've been participating in u.n. discussions, and 12 of 16 guidelines eventually reached consensus this last june. and, you know, sometimes, you know, the u.n. activities, it's like watching paint dry as it works its way through. but when something comes out that actually has consensus and gets out, it's fairly powerful. about half of the guidelines that did come out that dealt with regulatory issues and, again, i was reminded of this because of richard's comment about convening functions. some of the regulatory guidelines sound zero order, but the fact that you got consensus on them, it was amazing. please talk to the industry you're going to regulate, the other ministries that might be involved this doing this. think about cost benefit. this stuff sounds, i mean, really basic. but getting other countries to kind of buy in and go, yeah, that's something we need to do is particularly important for

space because any one bad actor can make things really harmful. and then the last thing i wanted to mention, commercial regulation was already are touched on, but i want to get back to sort of the spectrum be issue. spectrum is important not only for the space community, but for many developing countries because they don't have access to space, they don't have really their own infrastructure. and there is a split, as many people in this room know, between the fcc which responds to itself as an independent commission and everybody else, the agencies who respond to the executive branch. and so you have a separation of powers issue going on there between fcc and the agencies which makes getting both ends of pennsylvania avenue synced up on spectrum to be especially hard. there is a lot of money that is running around in things like terrestrial mobile broadband, and that pressure of that amount of money is immense. and so space provides very unique capabilities that, i think, aren't always recognized

or realized by the commission. and when it makes these decisions. and so not just satellite spectrum, but gps, weather, environmental. these are all things if they were missing, it would be just as devastating as if we were actually attacked by a foreign enemy. so making sure that doesn't mess up is also something that i think the congress as a whole will want to watch. each of the major committees with an interest in space are also going to watch the spectrum issue, because it touches their abilities. >> all right. and with that, i'll open it up for questions from the audience. i think we have a microphone. we have a microphone in the back here. we'll go to this gentleman here on the aisle. >> i was just wondering, question about the need to leverage commercial capabilities for national security purposes. do you see any role for our allies and partners in terms of capabilities or technologies or platforms that could or should be leveraged for national

security? >> sure, thanks very much. yeah. normally my stump speech on this includes both commercial and international since this was mostly about a commercial discussion today, i left it at that. but absolutely. there, you know, if you look at most of the space-faring nations on the planet, most of them tend to be partners or allies of the united states. obviously, two exceptions to that exist, but the rest of them happen to be pretty good allies of the u.s., and most of them do want to partner with the u.s. scott was talking about the international space station earlier. we have a bunch of partners in civil space, we also have many partners in military space, quite frankly. in fact, we began a formal stance on that about four years ago, five years ago called the combined space operations initiative, cspo initiative, which includes five of our

allies s and we'll probably expand to more in the future. we've been playing war games with our allies. we just finished one in germany with seven different nations recently. every one of these nations, again, brings their own robust, capable systems to the fore. i always like to try to remind people that some of the most protected communications on the planet in the x band spectrum belong to our allies in u.k. and france as opposed to in the u.s. so there are incredible capabilities out there in all mission areas whether that be in the application and timing area, in the satellite communications mission air, space situational awareness, in every scenario you can think of there are capabilities that our allies bring that can easily be shared and easily be incorporated. we have not thought about doing that in the past, and that needs to change. it has been our habit to go

ahead and use just u.s. space capabilities, and that makes no sense at all in both the fiscal environment that scott talked about and in the threat environment that i talked about. it makes no sense not to go ahead and marry our capabilities with those of our allies. so 100%, we are looking at that. >> all right. down front here, if we could bring a microphone. >> hi, i'm pat with defense daily. i have a question. general heighten has talked about how he sees a role for reusable rocketry for military use. unfortunately, it seems like the air force's range are stuck in a 20th century mindset where they only launch every few months or so, and it's an expendable vehicle. i wonder if you see that as a problem and what, perhaps, you're going to nudge them forward to take advantage of

those republican rocket technologies. >> sure. thanks, pat. so i don't know that i would call it a problem. i would call it a condition that we have right now. and that condition is predicated upon the fact that we haven't found a economic use in military space yet for responsive, reusable launch. i often view launch as the most exciting but, quite frankly, the most boring part of any space mission. it's exciting for those of you who have sat on a launch pad like i and general armor and marcy, it's a very exciting time. [laughter] that excitement tells us that that's the most important part of the space mission. it's not. that is a trucking operation, quite frankly. it's a very high horsepower truck to get things into orbit. what we care about is what we're bringing to orbit, and if what we're bringing to orr obit -- back to rich's point -- if you want to go ahead and replenish large constellations of small satellites we involved

capability constantly, you need that kind of capability. so i view that we have a condition of launch that exists today that reflect the space architectures that we have. we don't have a condition of launch today that reflects the fact that we can't do something, it's that we don't need to do something. the minute we need to do it and we might need to do it either commercially, we might need to do it militarily, the minute we need to do something, i'm fully confident that the kind of creativity that we've seen already in launch, quite frankly, with the likes of spacex and rocket labs and orbital atk and everybody else who's in this ever-increasing market, i think the solutions will be brought to bear. i am, i am far less worried about how we'll launch respond to our next architectural needs than how will our architectures evolve to meet our military needs. and i think that the launch capabilities will get there. if they don't get there on a federally-funded air force base,

they'll get there on a state-funded launch base which is, quite frankly, the way airports compete. and i think that's a much better model than the way we compete on launch heads today. >> i want to send the same question down the row here and see if any of the other panelists would like to respond, and particularly looking at how the advances that we are seeing in the launch market, reasonability is, you know, really a means to an end. the objective we're going after here is more responsive launch, higher rates and lower cost launch. would any of you like to comment on how that affects your business and the types of capabilities that become economically viable. >> well, in the commercial satellite business, the low cost launcher is imperative. i think that reusability is attractive to our customers for capturing the low cost and spacex and others are, you know, working on that. so i think that's good.

as far as constellations go, like was mentioned, i think it's an imperative. >> so i would say, excuse me, you know, you say reusable, but i think part of what you might also be thinking about there when that's discussed is responsive or readily available or some combination of response i and readily available. and i think whether you're in the small sat world or traditional, you know, what you care about is the opportunity to have a bit of predictability in your schedule, the idea -- the opportunity to control where you go in terms of orbit, when you go and to be able to do that in a cost environment that's affordable. and right now the smaller sat community has to the mostly be secondary payloads and be opportunistic in getting rides particularly if it's to orit that are of -- orbit that are of

the greatest utility. i do think that some of the companies that doug mentioned and the way that you're seeing the evolution of, as the smaller satellite launch capability that has these advantages of being, you know, responsive, potentially reusable in parts, flexible for scheduling and so forth will only to further enable more of the satellite architecture based on those satellite, satellites or satellite architectures that can utilize that type of launch probability. so there is a feedback mechanism between the two. >> the only other thing i'd add is that, clearly, how we've launched in the past is not necessarily how we will launch in the future, and you absolutely have to physically look at all options there. so we'll be looking at a lot of the different options as we go forward. >> yeah. let me add one more thing, because i think rich hit on an

important point that i didn't mention. there is a feedback loop between how we launch and how we build systems, right? if every launch is $100 million or -- and that would be a cheap launch today, quite frankly, if every launch is several hundred million dollars, then you tend to maximize the ability, the capability on any system, and you make those systems last longer and longer. if launch is cheaper, you may change the kind of system. so there is a feedback loop, and there is a question -- i always view it from the satellite end of things, but there are people who are launch people as well, and they view it from the launch ends of things. i think that neither end is the correct end. you have to go ahead and view it from both ends. and there will be an evolution along that, along both sides as we see cheaper satellite manufacturing. then you're going to see a strive for cheaper launch to match that cheaper satellite. you're not going to launch a $500,000 satellite on a $100 million launcher. that does not make any sense. so there's an interesting feedback that will, that we're

seeing on both ends of that spectrum that the government will take advantage of on both ends of that spectrum. >> i'm toby harshaw from bloomberg view. this is for doug initially and then for anyone else who wants to dive in. a number of the people in this room were at an event this morning with the three service secretaries, and they were, unsurprisingly, asked what is the most pressing military issue for the next president. but i was surprised when air force secretary james said space policy. she said that over the next four years there are a monumental decisions that need to be made. she did not get into any details. do you want to say, without reading her mind, what she had in mind? and particularly, things that may have involve industry just as well as the government. >> sure, thanks.

let's see, that's the second time in about four days that i've been asked to read a secretary's mind. [laughter] secretary james, obviously, is the principal dod space adviser. certainly, space is on her mind. i have not talked to her about what are the most pressing policy issues that she sees, and thank you for advising. i probably will go talk to her about that. [laughter] but i do, i do think, you know, if i look at them from my perspective -- and i haven't spoken much about policy here today, i've spoken more about capability be, so let me talk a little bit about policy -- we talk about them somewhat already. regulatory reform or regulatory relaxation is clearly something we need to deal with. and i say regulatory relaxation when i'm only looking at one portion of the regulatory environment which is how we regulate currently remote sensing capabilities.

we also need new regulations in areas we don't have any regulation today. as rich talked about, for space traffic management. so i think there's a regulatory agenda about how will the government regulate space capabilities for the good of all, not just for the good of all america, but for the good of all world, of all nations as scott talked about. how will we go ahead and regulate that to advantage, how will we make sure that regulation doesn't disadvantage either our companies or our activities? i think that's a key question. i don't believe anybody knows the answer to that question, but i think that's a key question. so is that's number one. number two is really the ability of -- ask this is now a defense department question -- how do we go ahead and integrate non-u.s. government owned and controlled space services into our u.s. government missions? let me give you an example. if we drop a gps-guided bomb but we guide it from a galileo system and it hits the wrong

target, what does that -- who, whose liability is that? how have we gone ahead and accepted reliability for a galileo signal versus gps signal? we can bring lethal force to bear today on a target because we can trust gps guidance to the extent that we own it. can we trust non-u.s. government regulated and owned systems to go ahead and bring lethal force to bear? by the way, we do that in telecommunications, we do that in shipping, we do that in a whole bunch of other areas, but we've never done it in space, and we have to go ahead and think about how do we do that kind of activity. and the third policy issue that i would talk about just to complete the triplet is indemnification. how do we -- if we're going to use commercial capabilities and foreign capabilities, how do we go ahead and indemnify and/or extend it to protect those capabilities? what is the u.s. government role in indemnifying that use and

protecting that use? we have no policy on that today. we can extend policy we have in the terrestrial realm to that, but that has not been done yet. and so we would need to think about that. some of that is statutory in nature, some of that is simply policy in nature, and i think we've got to go ahead and attack those things. those are three things that i would throw out this, and i will go talk to secretary james and find out what was in her mind. thank you. >> yeah. i'm not going to attempt to read the secretary's mind on this, and so doug will report back as to what was there. but i find some of the comments a little mysterious because i think we have plenty of policy. there may be questions about how to apply it, and so i don't see a large vacuum certainly at a national policy level. so i'm not sure exactly what she's talking about. the things that i would see as being important is really all about execution and implement tax. implementation.

things that are really tough, the gps-ocx, security breach, you know, kind of things. how one goes about affording some of the space launch recapitalization of the space act techtures, how do we move toward more of a war-fighting operation the way general hayden has talked about to deal with these real threats, putting that culture in there. every time that dod or, to be fair, the scientific community has been asked to sacrifice performance for cost, they've gone for performance. okay? on the commercial side, you can see people maybe going for saving costs, but the military and scientific community's history has always been to go for that extra performance. so managing implementation is probably the most driving issue, i think, for the national security community. areas where there might be some overlap or areas that maybe would come up as policy, first of all, regulations for new and emerging innovative activities. i think that's certainly true.

and what i find striking is that we don't hear the phrase department of commerce mentioned very much. finish now, i'm an ex-member of the department of commerce. my old office is there. i have warm feelings for it. but in all these sorts of discussions, we haven't regularized commercial space. we don't see that. noaa plays its role in commercial remote sensing, but a lot of these commercial issues, strangely enough, are being dealt with by the state department or by the transportation department or being asked about with dod. maybe that's just an accident, but it seems to me that more hands could be put on the oars. the other area that i think dod does need to think about more along with state and others is the application of law of armed conflict as applies to space. i went through a bit of an exercise over the last few years along with this long-term sustainability stuff with a international space code of conduct. and the russians were largely to opposed to such a code in part because sections of it dealt

with use of force in space. i didn't agree with the russian positions and obstruction arism, but i think -- obstruction arism, but i think they had a point in working through some of the sometimes very complex scenarios that arise in the use of force in space. fortunately, we don't have a lot of experience with the use of force in space. that's a good thing. but it also means there's a lot of uncertainties there. from an academic standpoint, international hue handtarian law, indemnification questions that doug was mentioning, those are things that i think actually the am deckic community should be -- academic community should be paying more attention to so they could get into a policy choice for somebody at secretary james' level. >> and so i wanted to go down the row to the industry folks. from your perspective especially picking up on doug's comments on changing the licensing process or potentially changing the

licensing process for a commercial remote sensing, but also this issue of use of force in space and indemnification of commercial operators. you know, if your systems are being used by dod for war-fighting purposes even if it's indirectly, you know, how is the industry viewing this? how are are your insurers viewing this? and, you know, picking up on the licensing part, what specifically could be changed with the current licensing process for commercial remote sensing? >> so here i will speak specifically for digital globe. we are proud of our partnership with the u.s. government, and we understand that, you know, we'll see what happens down the road. it's not something we take lightly and it's, obviously, a point of discussion. but that's a partnership that the company clearly wants to continue and is proud of. so it's part of the mix, and i'll leave it there.

as far as the regulatory licensing, i hope that the next secretary of commerce -- and it's a good point -- follows in the footsteps of secretary pritzker and really embraces that leadership position that they have. they are the lead for the decisions with inputs from others, and so hopefully there'll be a real understanding that, you know, pushing the time frames that stay somewhere near the regulatory time frames and those kinds of things, i hope there's a greater, a great embrace of that. >> is it time that we move to a regulatory licensing process that, where there's a presumption of, yes, that you will be approved if you've been -- if a license has been granted for something similar in the past, should it be a presumption that within 90 days you're approved? >> i feel like i just handed you this question. we actually have been pushing for a real change on the whole

mantra of yes on less. right now it's incumbent upon industry to actually prove why we should be able to do something. there are a lot of times when we are pointing out to folks that, you know, it actually is happening in this country on their web site. so why are are you restricting us from it? and, you know, it needs to be a conversation as we go forward and we understand that. but it, in the shift of things going from completely classified and a very aerospace-centric concept to where we are now where there are so many commercial implications and the world is a different place than it was when these regulations were put into place, it's time for that shift, we wholeheartedly agree. >> i think it's, les a fundamental concern there's a fundamental assumption that's made in the question of should you move to the assumption of a yes subject to some compelling reason to say no which is that there ought to be, or there

ought to remain in place the kind of process associated with doing licensing that exists now. and what i would say is it's worth challenging the assumption. so i'm going to bring this back to the original question to get to this point which is i certainly don't know what was in the secretary's mind, and there are ways in which policy have been frack till, so there might be a series of specific dod kinds of questions that they need to get to along the lines of what doug was talking about even if at the national level the framework is roughly correct and there's a couple of big picture questions that you need to take some swing withs at and the regulatory environment might be one of them, space situational awareness might be one of them, but overall the framework is still right. the other question though is to take a pause and to say, okay, the framework is still right because we think certain sorts of fundamental assumptions we've made are still true. and in the case of the specific application of that assumption with respect to commercial

remote sensing, there is a fundamental assumption that there should be this interagency review process for national security concerns and everything else. it's worth in a discussion environment like this to ask the fundamental question, well, what if there was simply a regulatory regime that verified that practices were not incompatible with our international obligations and then otherwise license this activity in a way to allow it to be free market based and commerce based in the same way that lots of other digital information markets are. whether they're internet-based, social media-based, etc., there are digital information markets and services that have no or little to no regulatory touch because they never came from space, they never came from this government-only environment. space sort of stays there because of this historical precedence that it came from the government, but maybe the time for that assumption has come for a review and, therefore, the regulatory environment should change as well. >> that's a good point you raise.

full disclosure, several of us are on this noaa advisory committee so we have, in fact, discussed this before. so i am pointedly asking questions. but you raise a great point, rich. if twitter and facebook have been subject to interagency review, would they have ever within approved? -- been approved? probably not, i would guess, or at least delayed by many years. so, doug, i'm going to throw this back to you and put you on the spot here. what do you think, would you be okay with a licensing regime where there's not necessarily an interagency review process? >> so in the best, in the best resemblance of a political candidate, let me skirt your issue. [laughter] and answer with a theoretical problem, and then you may be able to figure out where i stand on this. it struck me, it struck me when dawn was speaking that she

talked about satellite launched in 1963. you know, we didn't have, we didn't have are a regulatory review process for that satellite, and as a result, no satellite communications service is subject to a national security review. it's summit to a frequency review, but not a national security review, and i would posit that as great a threat as remote sensing might be to u.s. forces or to u.s. national security, people have used satellite communications, even u.s.-supplied satellite communications for means, for capabilities nefarious to the u.s. national interests. and yet we don't subject communications to national security review because we're not used to doing that. we never did it, it's not how it developed. we developed remote sensing law and licensing practice because it was sprang from a government-own capability really that became a commercial capability following the land sat act.

so we viewed it through a different lens. and i have to wonder if that lens is the correct lens, because as rich says, we don't apply that lens to any other kind of commercial activities in general. there are some structures of itar and missile technology control regulations, those kind of things, which we do have, and some of those work well and some of those less well. .. every other domain in terms of how we allow commercial activity to proceed, and should we, therefore, change how we view space.

>> as one of the people as guilty for writing this section and 92, i couldn't get away with centcom, back in the day. so it was necessary. but you're absolutely right. the things which are different today is globalization, i'm and air vehicles, the blending of the gis and other information technologies. all these things which we didn't have in mind in the early '90s. in the early '90s when we first constructed this licensing regime i would've been thrilled if they were to competitive commercial companies in the market. that would've been great but a whole bunch of other things have happened since then and you're right we subject to these past historical images and photos which we don't do the other things. the police to fix that i would argue is actually in legislation. we could work around the regulations. we could work around a national policy directives and so forth

the right thing in different ways but a fundamental foundation of a licensing regime is in law. you need to be careful with messing with law because you're not sure that anakin consequences. the point about consulting your this is one of those areas where we make you what the next diminish it has to do with. this is something the next congress needs to deal with. consult with and talk with the administration and industry and so forth but more and more in these areas i think the congress is going to put a larger, more important role in the next decade than it has in the past. this is odd for a space policy person because a normal to executive branch. since eisenhower and kennedy as driving that. but i look at things that happened in space exploration, the debates over satellite systems, remote sensing, really the congress believe were not is probably going to play this larger bowl.

it's somewhat like the jokes congressional leadership is like military intelligence. it's one of those -- but it's not a joke. i think remote sensing which was an area congress led on in 1992 isn't very i think congress can and should lead on because this is not fixable solely within the prerogative administration. >> unfortunately we have run out of time. we have many other questions in the audience. i suppose we'll have to do this again. i want to thank all of the panels for joining us today, and thank all of you for participating in this discussion. [applause] >> [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> if you missed any of this event you can watch it anytime at our c-span video library at our website c-span.org. join us again later this afternoon with journalist, pollsters and political advisers talk about the 2016 presidential race scheduled to participate, hart research associates and joseph kellogg, one of donald trump's foreign policy advisers. we have that live at 7 p.m. eastern right here on c-span2. speaking of the road to the white house can earlier today massachusetts democratic senator elizabeth warren campaign with hillary clinton in new hampshire. senator warner reacted to some recent comments by republican

donald trump. here's what she had to say. >> and donald trump disrespects, aggressively disrespects, more than half the human beings in this country. he thinks that because he has money, that he can call women fat pigs and bimbos. he thinks because he is a celebrity that he can rate women's body -- rate women's body for marketing. he thinks because he is a mouthful of take tax that he can force himself on any woman within groping distance. [booing] well, i've got news for you, donald trump. women have had it with guys like you. [cheers and applause] >> and nasty women have really had it with guys like you. [cheers and applause]

yeah. get this, donald. nasty women are tough. nasty women are smart. and nasty women vote. [cheers and applause] >> and on november 8, we nasty women are going to march our nasty feet to test our nasty votes to get you out of our lives for ever. [cheers and applause] and you can see this entire event tonight at 8 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> tonight on "the communicators," james lewis, senior vice president of the center senior vice president of the center for strategic and international studies let's say alleged russian cyber hacking of u.s. election system and

potential u.s. retaliatory cyber strike against russia. he's interviewed by reuters investigative reporter mark hosenball. >> the russians packed into both -- hacked into both campaigns in both 2012 and 2008. what's different this time is the release of the data. before they took the male donor lists, campaign strategy up on research, this is the third time they've done that. what's different now is the overt political use. >> watch "the communicators" tonight at 8:30 p.m. eastern on c-span2 or. >> c-span brings you more debates this week from two u.s. senate races.

>> james lewis is a former state department official and cybersecurity expert who now serves as the senior vice president of the center for strategic and international studies. he's our guest this week on "the communicators." the topic, cyber attacks and cybersecurity. mr. lewis, what proof did any is there and what is it that the russians are behind the recent cyber attacks in the united states? >> guest: at this point there's three kinds of proof. the first is forensic evidence found by our commercial company. when you hack into the computer, but often something will be left behind that points to the

perpetrator. not intentionally but it's like a footprint. in this case the footprints lead back to moscow. the second source of evidence is her own intelligence agencies, which now are fully confident that it was the russian government behind these attacks, using their own sources and technologies. and the third with his the smirk on vladimir putin's face. he has not denied this. he seems to be enjoying it. so the evidence is pretty solid. it was the russian government. >> host: how did they get this information? how did the attack happened? >> guest: well, it's pretty straightforward. most people still suffer from the allusion that e-mail to someone private, when it's actually like a postcard. most people don't secure the data that they keep on the own networks. that's largely what happened.

russians got into one of the traditional techniques, probably a phishing e-mail, and then were able to get control of the network, sit there for curtatone and extract data, including e-mails. >> host: join our conversation today is mark hosenball who was with reuters, investigative reporter. >> thank you. my understanding is that, we reported this a while ago, that the u.s. government, the intelligence agency briefed congress, or the candidate i guess, the leaders of both houses of congress and leaders of intelligence community last summer. not this past summer, a year ago this summer that this was going on. the u.s. government has known about this for quite sometime but oddly enough, i spoken to people in the democratic party and they said they were approached by the fbi someone's after, congress was briefed like maybe a year ago.

then the fbi were kind of very opaque in the way that they broached this to the people in the democratic party. they were asking questions. they didn't tell the democratic party we know you've been that -- hacked. they didn't realize til march or april. finally, they called consultants now that they've been hacked. as you maybe not now, the clinton campaign as an organization still denies that as an organization that it's been hot, although i had heard and reported that leading figures in that campaign had the personal e-mails act. we now know clearly that the case given my understanding is literally the russians got 50,000 of john podesta's, the campaign chairman i guess he is, e-mails. they were dribbling about which gives him a nazi dribble out every day, two or 3000 even a day between now and election

which they seem to be doing via wikileaks. >> wikileaks has become the favorite tool for the russians. there some questions about the relationship between the russian government and julian assange. i don't think he can be called an unwitting agent anymore. he knows what he's doing. he knows where the stuff is coming from. it took a while for use to decide whether to go public with this because they did want a confrontation with russia. >> they also did want to compromise intelligence but they had a pious hope that maybe they could get some sort of you on syria. and that i think was one of the big stumbling blocks trend what it sounds from your conversation that the fbi knew prior to the dnc knowing that they had been hacked. had to the fbi know that ahead of time? what's the route? >> guest: fbi and other agencies knew well before they

told the dnc, because they had intelligence. >> that's a little different from my expense because the fbi has come to csis and told us we been hacked by the russians and they're usually pretty forthright about who was responsible for it. they have their own sources. they monitor russian activity. when they see it coming in, usually i'm a little surprised that that. i think the victim not know them for months, that's, place. normally the got is pretty straightforward. i know that they were very explicit in briefings to the hill some months ago. so why the delay, they may not have known. >> it's good to me what i told is too big reason behind it has to do with sources. it's clear to me. i spoken to the democratic people who directed up with them and they said they did not tell us. in fact, they said we were very confused for several months as to what this is all about.

>> guest: it's not that unusual because the russians that into both campaigns in both 2012 and 2008. what's different this time is the release of the data. before they took e-mail, donor lists, campaign strategy, a point research. this is the third time they've done that. what's different now is the overt political use. >> host: i don't mean to be this but you said the fbi has come to csis and said hey, you have been hacked. wasn't csis surprised to learn this? >> guest: may be the first time posting that you didn't cae any knowledge that was happening, correct? >> guest: now. this is one of the interesting things about this incident is that russians are coming out the best in the world, they are at least tied for being best in the world. in the past prior to these incidents, they were very, very discreet, very, very determined

not to be caught. one of the things that was a hallmark of russian activity was not seeing them doing things for months as it turns out. and in this case they were very over. they're seen as a signal and it's not a very polite one. >> host: vice president biden brought up the potential of a cyber attack back on russia. and you laugh but what would that entail? >> guest: they've gone through a lot of scenarios. almost all of them are silly. one was weekly records of vladimir putin's botox treatments, and it's like pictures of his girlfriend or his bank account. it's not like you're not going to embarrass a blow to putin. and there's this, well, we should unplug your network that will probably not work. that looks like it will be sanctions that have some sort of covert activity against the attacking infrastructure.

>> my sense was also that the white house, which has a city think about this, they lifted up to the intelligence community although they are as involved as anybody, that obama is not interested in the stuff and, in fact, any such retaliation may have to await the swearing in of presumably, or anticipate swearing in of president hillary clinton desperate although i would like to see the botox pictures. i think it would be great. >> host: is that he is conducting on a regular basis cyber warfare, for lack of a better word, against other countries? >> guest: currently the only place we could call a cyber warfare is the decision to use cyber command against isis or daesh because only place where you could see the military is engaged, that we publicly admitted. the intelligence community, both cia and nsa, are routinely

engaged largely in espionage efforts. it would be unusual and perhaps unwise to start a cyber war with russia. >> interesting enough, i've looked at this little bit, the real power of islamic state, daesh, what if you want to call it, in cyberspace is not so much their hacking or whatever because their hacking is going to be pretty pathetic. but it's the use of social media for recruitment purposes. the state department and the british government as well have set up fairly extensive efforts to try and counter that messaging. generally the western efforts, the american efforts are just terrible. they are pathetic, in fact arguably there. insurance of social media use, that bad guys in this case from what i've seen are way, way, way ahead of the government, which is a little disturbing.

>> guest: traditional, we've always been bad at other candidate it's just not our thing. >> host: can you put a dollar figure on how much of the u.s. government spends on cybersecurity our intelligence? >> guest: allows him i saw was 14 billion i think -- the last number of -- that includes both network defense and it probably underestimates the intelligence spending because that would be part of other intelligence budgets. >> host: is a well allocated? >> guest: i think so. the problem is largely political which is how much can become unlike the uk, for example, how much can we tell critical infrastructure companies that they must do something. that, of course, leads to and amongst those who like reading ayn rand. we have a hard time with that. but on the intelligence side, military side we've done quite well. >> host: mark hosenball commuted one of your e-mails involved in the john podesta

lake. >> one of my e-mails turned up and is now bent, become the subject of trolls attacking me on the internet. apparently, i did remember the e-mail until i saw it, they can totally genuine enos i don't suggest it was forged or anything. i sit john podesta an e-mail, i guess it was in the winter of 2015, saying i've run across some documents related to the benghazi committee which seemed to suggest that the committee was not operating necessarily honestly. i wanted to ask him, i wanted to show the document and asking what he thought of it. again, i'm almost positive i never showed it to them. i'm not even sure what the document is. it's not a document of consequence, although some of the trolls accuse me of getting a secret document from the benghazi committee and feeding it to the clinton campaign. i didn't do that. i did write a story about, a few

days later at this e-mail about how the benghazi committee was getting some e-mails from the state department. they didn't prove that hillary clinton new owner was making huge decisions about the situation in benghazi right around the time of the attack there. in so far as i could tell the public record and history has vindicated that story. there's still no evidence of that. i wrote a lot of tough stuff about benghazi. i reported literally within hours of the attack that it was a terrorist attack, not that is a protest against the film that went out. i stuck with that story even though the administration tried to tell a different story. these things are taken out of context just that it would be a badge of honor to russian and trolls go after you. i don't think that's necessarily a bad thing.

>> nobody outside that kind of circle has attacked me. >> guest: and part of this that hasn't gotten as much attention is the russians higher hundreds if not a few thousand people to go onto western websites, the wanted newspapers and put pro-putin, and that obama comment. you can't always tell, isn't russian, is a trump supporter, who is it? they have an active disinformation campaign. >> they have used bots at least to try to swing some of these postdebate polls although as i understand it, the act of swinging showed trump winning the debate was actually done from inside the united states in terms of the majority of the bots. >> guest: it's a new kind of politics and a new kind of conflict. >> host: what is that forensic evidence you refer to look like? >> guest: we haven't seen it. it hasn't been released.

one perhaps apocryphal story was that some of the code was written in russian that was left behind and it had references that would point back to the fsb, the russian intelligence service. that's usually what it is, there's fragments or traces that point to the identity of the attacker. you can also to some extent trace back the command-and-control network to find out the computers from which the attack was launched and to which the data was sent. those also point to the fsb. so there's both remnants left behind and pathways leading back to moscow. >> also julian assange had some fairly obvious links with russia in the sense that, i know what this is for example, were involved in the original discussion with edward snowden in hong kong when he went there and then went to moscow. they said, julian assange

personally arranged for edward snowden to go to moscow, and the company of this woman named sarah harrison was, in fact, julian assange his girlfriend. julian assange also one point had a talk show on the russian international government supported propaganda station. he claims i guess he didn't give money directly from the russian government. gas but that just means it went through a middleman. >> host: let's say all this information that we are seeing, if they were in the u.s. postal service in a sealed letter, would it be illegal to publish it? >> guest: the internet has given russians and others opportunities they did not have before. if you think about pre-internet elections they would've had to send dozens or hundreds of agents with bags of money. they would've been easily detectable. they would've had to do a watergate style break-in which we now didn't work out so well. the internet makes it so much the issue. you can get data, cover your

traces to some extent. it would not have worked without the internet. >> to use the watergate analogy, what's happened here and again we haven't seen the core proof that the russians did it, but whatever happened, whoever did it, and i am frankly willing to believe the russians did it -- >> guest: there should be no doubt. >> i sort have been reporting that myself. the amount of data is much bigger than watergate. >> guest: they would have to rent a truck. >> watergate is tiny by comparison train what is illegal anyway to publish this information transferred that's a good question. it is clearly illegal to break-in and take it, and then the argument has been, wikileaks is receiving stolen goods. i don't think that would stand up. if you have a mysterious document, the times with the

trump tax returns for example, it's probably not illegal. one of the complications in trying to determine what appropriate or proportional response of the abuse once be very careful not to do anything that would appear to compromise people's first amendment rights. a complication we have and the russians don't. >> host: like it would not as you say shut down the internet? >> guest: we could shut down the internet. the questions that i think senior policymakers ask at the white house, they asked two questions. are you sure it's them on the education front? we are sure it's the russians. a second question they asked is, ma tell me how you will keep this from escalating out of control. that one is some risk. the president of russia perhaps not one of your more stable actors, although certainly better than kim of north korea, he could do something violent or unpleasant in response.

he's not bound by the same constraints we are so i think they are being very careful to do something that is both supported by fact and yet does not lead to a greater conflict. >> our concern as journalists is not so much the law, it's illegal to print this stuff. our concern much more poorly is, is a real? and again the united states government has at least tried to put out stories saying be very careful, there could be fake documents planted in the. that's partly true. insofar as i've seen in terms of this wikileaks stuff anyway, and the john podesta e-mails, it's all real. >> guest: this is a russian tactic to tweak or and then documents but as you say, they're a piece -- appears to be no evidence so far. >> maybe what we sing are just select us to understand the stuff into the summer mitigates the meaning of some of these things.

again, that could be true but i haven't seen any evidence of that. most of the stuff seems to be in contact. indicates abou a but o'neill abt to my own e-mail archive and that was the only female between the john podesta that i found. survey wasn't taken out of context. >> host: ar on any dangers to te u.s. electoral system at this point, illinois, arizona have both had experienced hacking of voter files. >> guest: probably not. one advantage of being a disorganized federal system is that you have dozens of factors at the state level. you have the 50 states plus the district and injured thousands of counties in each of which does its own thing and do different systems. it would be a very hard target to break-in and change the vote count. what you can do is you can create doubt, uncertainty. you can perhaps mess up the ability to vote on election day. but we are not going to see it's not going to come out the

winning candidate will appear with 90% of the vote. things like that are only possible in russia. our system is too complicated to be easily hacked. but our politics are such that they lend themselves to this kind of disruption. >> russia, uzbekistan, kazakhstan, whatever. be investigated literally zero evidence of any actual voter, voting systems have been compromised in any way. but as you say, in fact my understanding is that plenty state voter registration databases have been at least faced with hacking attacks. more than the two you mentioned, illinois and arizona but less than six have been actually attacked. but again it's not clear just what you can see that on election day if people show up to the polls and is difficult in verifying their legitimacy as a voter. that would add complications or delays. it could affect the vote. that's probably the most you get.

>> the republicans have a history openly engage in efforts to increase voter id, gore voter, you know, voter registration hurdles. the democrats say, i think there's some justification, that this is voter suppression efforts. it has nothing to do with the russians. >> guest: to be fair i don't think the russians have identified and exploited patterns in american politics. i don't think it's a one party or the other is in anyway cooperating with the russians. so the russians know how our politics work. they take advantage of it. >> host: how the republicans been hacked transferred they said ? >> guest: the chairman said they were. survey they were hacked in the two previous presidential elections. so wouldn't surprise me at all. >> we reported that multiple republican organizations and individuals have been hacked. we reported somebody in the

trump campaign got hacked. there's no evidence, in fact the only evidence that i know of offhand of hacked republican material being made public is some e-mails i believe related to lindsey graham and senator john mccain have appeared on the internet. believe it or not they are not friendly to donald trump. so that's kind of interesting aspect there does seem to be a pattern. >> on the other hand, in terms of large-scale, i do believe the republicans have been hacked into since probably for intelligence gathering purposes. there so evidence of anything like the publications of material like as is happening with the democrats tried one of want to go back to this and i don't mean to beat this, but how is it that the fbi knew before the organizations that were hacked? what's the evidence that they

saw specifically? >> guest: in some instances the fbi has got me the authority to monitor some networks, not always in the u.s. but you could monitor say a russian network and see outgoing traffic. you could monitor with the help of nsa some domestic networks to see if they were being hacked. but it's hard to explain in an open setting but if he knew what a russian attack looked like you could look for the attack on the network and can trace it back to where it it might be. >> host: there was a story about this young man up in siberia who has a set of servers in his office and that he's been kind of the source of this end-user open talking about it spent more of a switchboard. fuel cell is over to anyone.

dutch pornographers, you name it. so he's just a mailbox. >> host: is a lot of traffic to go through them, i'll love this kind of traffic we are talking of? >> guest: now. the russians are good. they use multiple individuals like that around the world. some of which is used in the past and that was one way, one thing appointed to the men responsible this time is -- now look, the fsb does not call itself fuzzy bear. something that an american pr firm made up. like it's hard to see these very thuggish guys and yeah, i'm fuzzy bear. they are not fuzzy bear. but they do have units in the collection program that has a global scope that goes after politicians, intelligence targets that emanates from the fsb. and this was part of that. and that is what is detectable. if you're going after 30

countries, you will be some kind of footprint. footprint. >> it's worth noting the government of ecuador confirmed the other day that they have cut off, largely cut off julian assange is access to the internet because we moraes been hanging out in the ecuador embassy in london. but the wikileaks twitter feed is still going and my understanding is he is the principle not sole proprietor of that. and more over wikileaks is continuing to publish these john podesta dean mills at the rate of several thousand that they would suggest one way or another he has found outside mechanisms that can do all this stuff. i think you servers in sweden but maybe other places as well, iceland. so there are ways around this for both, people like julian assange but the russian government. >> guest: within the limits of love is not a lot you can do.

so we could fry his devices, but that would probably not be legally justifiable. >> host: what a stuxnet like attack against russia be considered an act of war? >> guest: act of war is a political decision. it's not actually, the legal terms are that it's supposed to be an armed attack that triggers your inherent right to self-defense. and no one has defined what are the attack is. so it would be up to vladimir putin to decide that. stuxnet probably was the use of force come to cause destruction. he could be justified in calling it an act of war. it's a political decision when, pardon me, when they united states alleging that the iranians nuclear facility, the iranians chose not to call it an act of war. when the russians hacked a german blast furnace last year,

the germans chose not to call an act of war. it depends on how much you want to have a fight and he might be in the testified. he could benefit from that. >> it's also true the law and for that matter the u.s. constitution were not drafted to account for the issues of cyberspace. .. the intelligence authorities and

the military authorities, he has the authority to do some sort of retaliatory act but the politics of whether to do that in the wisdom of doing that -- >> i'm talking more about surveillance activities that are offense of activities. >> james lewis as our guest this week. he is the vice president for the strategic center. >> thank you. >> tonight on the committee caters, james lewis, senior vice president at the center for strategic and international study looks at the alleged russian hacking of the u.s. election and the retaliatory strike against russia. >> the russians packed into both campaigns in 2012 and 2008. what's thousand eight. what's different is the release

of the data. before they took e-mail donor list, campaign strategy, opponent research, this is the third time they've done that. what's different is the overt political use. >> watch the communicators tonight at 830 eastern on c-span2. >> join us later today when journalists, pollsters and political advisers talk about 2016 presidential race. that is live at 7:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span2. >> c-span brings you more debates this week from the u.s. senate races. this evening at seven, live on c-span the pennsylvania senate debate between pat toomey and

katie mcginty. on wednesday at ten, a debate for the florida senate between marco rubio and patrick murphy. thursday night at eight eastern, they debate for the new hampshire senate seat. now until election day, file follow q debate house, senate and governor races on c-span network. c-span were history unfolds daily. >> the candidates in washington u.s. senate race incumbent democrat patty murray and chris vance took part in a debate recently hosted by the seattle city club in washington state debate coalition. topics included how to respond to cyber attacks, budgeting, education policy and the role in syria. this is one hour.

>> good evening. i am austin jenkins from public radio northwest news network and host of inside olympia. welcome to the kodiak auditorium on the east campus of microsoft headquarters in redmond washington. tonight is the final debate between patty murray and republican chris vance for u.s. senate. the debate was organized by the washington state coalition to increase access to nonpartisan debate. we encourage you to participate tonight on twitter with #w a dle x. thank you to our sponsors and microsoft for lending at support to host this event. now let's begin other opening

statements. we had a coin toss part of the debate to determine that senator murray would go first. >> thank you and thank you to the state coalition for putting this together and microsoft were hosting this and all of you who are here and listening in. like many i am often frustrated by the gridlock and dysfunction of washington d.c. here is how i give things done. i start with my washington state ethics that were instilled in me a very young age. you work hard, you do do not complain and you persevere until you get it done. i come home every weekend and talk to people from communities around the state and hear their stories of their hopes of their dreams and i take us back me to washington d.c. every monday morning to try to solve the problems that people face here. here's a good example. a few years ago, i was hearing from so many parents and teachers and students that the

federal education law, no child left behind wasn't working for anyone. i talked to one parent, duncan taylor told me she has a son who had a good teacher, did well well but he got one of those letters home has said his school was failing. he said he knew the education his son was getting wasn't a failure and he felt the loss of education dollars meant that many of the students who needed it the most would really lose out. i took his story and that a many parents of students back to me to washington d.c. i found a republican to work with, we wrote a plan and we worked through that gridlock and dysfunction to pass a law that now means it will work better for washington state families, parents and families. i hear people talk to me about how the economy is not yet

working well enough for them. they are worried about college affordability or paying back their student loans. they talk to me about the crisis in their neighborhood of gun violence and they want us to get something done there. they tell me what they want to make sure medicare and social security is there for them. i take that washington state worth ethic, i listen to their stories and i make sure that the policies we pass and the investments we make work for the people i represent. that is why i ask for your vote so i can continue to be your voice and fight for you in the united states senate. finally, let me say this. i am tired of the hateful divisive rhetoric that we are hearing at the federal level. i think it's time for leaders in our communities to stand up and say enough. again, i hope we can listen to each other, be respectful and have a good discussion and begin with our example of how to lead our country to a different place

thank you. >> thank you and now your opening statement. >> thank you microsoft, thank you to the beat commission for making these debates possible and i'm looking forward to another thoughtful adult discussion. we got great reviews for our last debate so we will do it again. i've been lucky enough to live in our beautiful state. i went to elementary school not far from here. my wife and i met in college at washington university and have been married 28 years. we have been blessed with two great kids. anna and adam are here today with a long with half our family. our daughter natalie is in poland and she should be studying right now. i've been proud to represent our community in washington state representatives in olympia. as a member of the council and the statewide leader of my party. now i am running for the united states senate because perhaps, like you, i am fed up with washington d.c.

there was a moment in our last debate that i think sums up everything that's wrong with washington d.c. senator murray said she would be willing to work with anyone, to bring down our debt and save social security and medicare but then ruled out any option other than raising taxes and blamed it all on the republicans. we are never going to get an agreement that way. compromise happens when politicians have the guts to set aside their talking points and come to the center. in washington d.c., that never happens on the biggest issues that happen the most. america faces real challenges and demand real solutions. social security and medicare are going broke. we are $10 trillion in debt. washington d.c. is broken and after 24 years in in the senate, patty murray is part of the problem.

i think after this election we need new independent voices in the senate, people who have worked to bring republicans and democrats together to solve the biggest problem rather than be rubberstamps to their party's leadership this is about a lot of things but it really comes down to just one things. it is time for a big change. that's what i look forward to talking to you about tonight. >> thank you. before we begin our formal questioning, there is a way for all of you here at microsoft and those watching and listening on are many platforms to participate in shaping tonight bait. this is in thanks to our friends at microsoft. you can see on the screen, you can help decide the subject matter we will discuss later in the hour. we can discuss from four topics, healthcare, mental health, paid parental leave. we will check in on the results and that will determine some of the questions in this debate. i am joined by some of my colleagues in the news coverage field.

our first question comes from dave. >> the debate coalition has received hundreds of audience questions especially as it affects people who are invited here on employment -based visas. this is a question. i've been in the usa for ten years now on a visa. my application for green card is still pending and there's no hope of getting one in the near future. every time i go out of the country to visit my family back home, i run the risk of getting stuck outside. have to put my job, my house, my kids education at risk to go on vacation. what are being done to help legal immigrants get their green card and not. >> thank you so much for that question.

i think it's safe to say the absolutely no one in our country thinks that our current immigration system is working today. we aren't microsoft microsoft this evening and i know for them , it isn't working the state of washington. they can have a secure workforce. critically it is not working for people who live in the shadows. i was very proud to be part of a bipartisan group of senators who pass strong immigration reform. it secured our borders, i'd make sure we brought some certainty. i am determined to work to get this done. one of the stories is a girl who

grew up here, worked hard and she tells me she wants to get her business degree but she's living in this shadows. she wants to be known. we should want her to be known and we need to fix our immigration system so that can happen. >> would you allow more people in under these visas. >> the way this has to work. many people are concerned about the system that we have that brings people and mostly because they want to make sure people in the united states have access to jobs. we need that workforce to be educated and trained but it can be done in conjunction with the h1b program. >> do you support raising the

limitation on the visas. >> this program, we are at microsoft for this has been utilized for longtime ticket workers who supposedly have special skills. i've heard from a lot of workers here in washington state that they think the h1 b progress is being used to bring in workers and lower the salaries and they very concerned. i am pro- immigration reform. we have to protect the jobs of people who are already here. we've been talking about immigration but just about everybody understands what has to happen. then we need a guest worker program for the 11 or 12 people who are already here. we need a better guest worker program for otherwise.

congress failed to get this done it's one of the best examples of gridlock that's going on. i think we need more republicans were going to work across the aisle to make sure the next congress passes comprehensive immigration reform. >> did i hear correctly you would not raise the number? >> i'm pretty decisive about a lot of things. on this, i need to to study it. i've heard a lot of concerns that we are allowing too many people in on each one be. this is where i'm going to go to congress with an open mind. >> this is question for both of you. a wave of cyber attacks disrupted major websites this week. we've been hearing a lot during the campaign cycle about hackers gaining access. what can and should the united states do to better safe are public and are private networks

and systems. how do we balance the need for cyber security with the right to privacy. i'll let you respond first. >> the right to privacy is to not have your system hats. i don't understand it. i don't understand when i read headlines that foreign governments are, according to our services participating in this sort of activity and we tolerate it. as i understand, it is the world's best that cyber security and also cyber warfare. this is pretty simple to me. if other countries are going to purposely launch attacks against us there will be swift retaliation. countries cannot just be allowed to do these kind of things that are practically of form of warfare. we have the technology to strike back if necessary. i'm not sure why were not using it. just about every country wants to have good relations with the united states. we need to make it clear if

you're going to engage in cyber warfare, you're not going to have good relations with the united states. >> thank you very much. having our information hacked by anyone is really disturbing. in this election cycle, we have heard about russia and cyber attacks to influence our election. we cannot allow that to happen. how we deal with cyber attacks, whether it's it's our electric grid our e-mail, we have to make sure we are protecting the privacy. we have to be prepared for every cyber attack we have. we have to have strong policies and do one other thing and we are doing it in the state of washington. that is training people in the area, making sure we have educators who have professionals

that are trained for cyber education. it is a very complex field. we have to work together for our businesses and our government to do this in the right way. again, that protects our individual privacy but make sure we can share information and note those attacks. i know that my fishing license was hacked. some people's healthcare was attacked. these kinds of attacks are very complex and we need to work together to address them. >> do you mean a declared war, non-declared war, what are the rules of the road? >> again, there have been instances where countries have gone too far. i believe iran went too far at one point. they have an entire branch called cyber command which are

being launched against us. if you are going to attack our grid, you you are going to face the same sort of response for us and my responses were better at it. we just cannot passively sit by and allow countries to launch attacks against us. it just makes no sense to me. >> the question is you launch a cyber attack? do you declare it or not declare it? do you do in a stealthy way. >> we have to be very sure about if it occurred and where it came from. this is a very wise about our resources and what we need to do in response. we know if someone launched a cyber attack against us and if we have the information we need to stand up and have a strong response and i am for that. we had to be very careful in this arena and that's why we

need to make sure we have the right investment in our nation, within our budget to make sure we are not cutting back on this critical infrastructure. >> thank you. now to another journalist, melissa santos at the tribune. >> our question for senator murray. they directed schools across the nation to provide transgender students with access to suitable facilities including bathroom and locker rooms that match their identity. several sued and won temporarily allowing schools to block trans- students from the bathroom of their choice. on thursday the department of education announced it would appeal that decision. what is your position? to believe states have the right to decide about transgender access to locker rooms are bathroom. >> i'm very proud of my state. it is very forward leaning and a

great example to people across the country that we respect individuals know matter who they are where they come from. we have said no to the transgender bathroom issue. i support the department of education challenging that in the courts because i want to make sure that any young person in this country has the ability to know they are secure in who they are and are not discriminated against. we have come a long ways but we have a long way to go. we need to use all of our resources to make sure our young people feel comfortable with who they are another not discriminated against. this is why it is so important that we have a supreme court that has a full court. these are decisions that affect all of us. the republicans have prevented a nominee from sitting on that court for the last nine months.

we need a full court because these kinds of decisions impact all of us and our family. >> we are seeing conservative lawmakers try to pass legislation that would ban transgendered people being able to access restrooms, locker rooms and changing rooms consistent with their identity. would you vote in favor of these bands. >> no. let's be clear about this. i want to enact policies to protect the rights and safety and dignity of all americans including transgender individuals. in america we believe in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. liberty means every american has the right to live their lives as they see fit. to live out their identity. i understand this makes people uncomfortable but we need to enact policies that you respect everyone's rights and dignity and we can do that. is it happening in washington state where we enacted policies

in our schools several years ago and they do respect the privacy and the situations for all students. what they did in north carolina for instance where even people who had gone through the entire process and were now anatomically of one sex, they had to go back and use the bathroom that corresponded to their birth certificate, that's just wrong and cruel. we don't need to do that. i agree with senator murray. this is an issue that's going to be decided in the courtroom. the supreme court interprets the 14th amendment to the constitution which that all people have equal protection under the law. i agree with that and i believe the leadership was wrong to rule out the consideration of any nominee that obama would send them. i figure was equally wrong when editor murray, both parties have locked supreme authority nominations and it's wrong.

>> this is a question for both of you. if you had the power, and i know you don't, but if you had the power to wave a magic wand over the federal budget and put any amount of money into a program but you had a take an equal amount out of a program, what would those be. >> i know where i would put more money. we need to roughly triple the clean energy research. we need to do much more to address climate change. that's how we will address climate change. not by raising senator murray's but by developing clean technology. yes wind and solar and cleaner cars but especially carbon capture and sequestration to virtually eliminate the amount of carbon being put into the atmosphere.

we are never going to solve this problem by buying a few paperclips. the only way we are going to. [inaudible] those are the cost. rather than having the small debates over funding in small areas, with the debt of $20 trillion, it's not going to bring anything down. that's why i support a grand bargain. >> thanks for the question because i've always said budgets are more than numbers on a page. they are what sets the policies and priorities. the investments that i think are