and all you have to do is look at read prices to test that idea, and the data go very much in the opposite direction. so i think if you want to make that argument, you at least need some explanation for what's happened to the price of existing assets. >> so do you have a story about why elevated commercial real estate prices would go along with weak private investment? >> yeah. i think, i think that there are a set of issues around regulation and zoning, rules on, rules on land use, difficulty in permitting that would operate in exactly that direction. it would make it harder to build new structures, and that would tend to raise the value of existing structures. i think that line of thought is a much more plausible one than

the one that emphasizes some new, generalized unis earnty. >> so i think we have time for, like, one more question. yes, you at the very back. >> greetings, i'm thomas ward. last week there was a program on innovation, what plays into the growth aspect, and one on infrastructure that i'd recommend everyone to look at. but my big question goes backing to the issue of underring lying growth. how do we get growth when we've got third quarter growth that just came out at 2.9%, i think it is, overall we may not have, you know, 1% -- >> time is short. so ask the question quickly. >> two things would come into play. one, we've got9 to look back at 2013 -- >> yes. >> -- that changed down 3%. the price, so was the gross really that numbersome but also in the question of the pricing, if we have these taxes and everything else taking money

out, how do we ever get growth if we're only going to be looking at taking money out of the economy -- >> will higher taxes hurt the long-term growth outlook? >> you know, i'm general -- i'm sympathetic to the idea that marginal tax rates, applying to individuals or businesses matter for things like investment and economic growth, so i'm very sympathetic to the idea that the kinds of tax cuts that particularly were in place in the 1980s actually worked and did encourage economic growth. that's not to say that that's all that matters, and you certainly had growth in the 1990s without having those kinds of cuts in tax rates. but i think it's certainly a part of the picture if you're thinking about growth and investment. >> look, you're going to have a little bit of a tough time here, because you're basically making robert's -- you're basically reaching robert's kind of conclusion with my kind of argument, because -- >> sounds perfect. [laughter]

>> you're basically making an argument in keynesian terms about the impact of tax increases. i don't think the imperative right now should be -- i think the imperative should be raising the growth rate. i do not think that fiscal restraint is plausibly a major growth promotion strategy at a moment when interest rates are effectively zero. and it was reasonable to think of fiscal restraint as a central growth strategy in 1993 when capital costs were high and plausibly were what was holding back investment. i think you can -- i think there's a very good debate to be had about the respective role of public investment and reduction of barriers to private investment.

i think that, obviously, one has to pay attention to long run fiscal sustainability. but i would tell you that i think if we are successful as a country in raising the growth rate to anything like 3%, there will be a strong tendency for these fiscal problems to melt away as the economy grows out of them. almost regardless of what we do in terms of fiscal packages. and if we are not successful and and the underlying growth rate of the economy remains in the 1, 1.5 to 2% range, i think we're likely to be preoccupied with questions of long-run fiscal health almost no heart what fiscal packages -- no matter what fiscal packages we are able to adopt. and so i think there's a need in

washington -- which i think is substantially happening -- for the frame of big picture economic debate which has been about, has been for 15 or 20 years been framed in terms of long-term budget plans to be reframed in terms of growth acceleration. and i think that reframing from the long run budget issues to the question of growth ought to be something that people can agree on whether they come at it from from a more progressive and keynesian perspective or from a more conservative and incentive-oriented perspective. >> well, thanks. we as a country -- and i personally -- tend to obsess way too much over the short term and never more so than four days before a presidential election. so i am very grateful to both of you for this wonderful interlude

where we actually thought a lot about the long term. thank you both, robert and larry, and thank you. [applause] [inaudible conversations] ♪ ♪ >> c-span's "washington journal" live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up saturday morning, we'll take a look at the recently-released jobs numbers and what they mean ahead of tuesday's election with the street.com's economics columnist, also james arkansas kin with real clear politics looks at senate toss-up races heading into election day. c-span's "washington journal" live beginning 7 eastern saturday morning. join the discussion. >> election night on c-span.

watch the results and be part of a national conversation about the outcome. be on location at the hillary clinton and donald trump election night headquarters and watch victory and concession speeches in key senate, house and governors' races starting live at 8 p.m. eastern and throughout the following 24 hours. watch live on c-span, on demand at c-span.org or listen to our live coverage using the free c-span radio app. >> last month colombian voters narrowly rejected a peace greerkt negotiated between the government and farc rebels that would have ended a war that's been fought for over 50 years. at the council of americas in washington, d.c., a colombian senator discussed the issues that still need to be resolved to reach a peace deal. [inaudible conversations]

>> well, ladies and gentlemen, good morning. welcome to the council of the americas. we have a great group for a really interesting presentation this morning, so we're very pleased and honored all of you could join us today. for more than 50 years, colombia has suffered from a violent and multi-pronged guerrilla conflict. despite numerous efforts over the years, the conflict repeatedly ebbed and flared. some questioned whether peace might ever come to the country. after more than four years of negotiations in havana, the government and farc negotiators or reached agreement. the text was intended to be comprehensive and conclusive. it was put to the colombian people on october 2nd who narrowly rejected it. afterward, as a mark of the strength of colombia's democracy, the president immediately accepted the result. both the government and the farc have vowed to continue seeking

peace, but the path forward is suddenly unclear. meanwhile, the government has begun peace talks with the second main guerrilla group in colombia, the eln. and the president, as all of you know, has just been awarded the nobel peace prize for his efforts at peace. with all the breaking news of the past month, our program this morning is a timely opportunity to help sort out the path ahead, continuing our multifaceted public discussion since early october on colombia's prospects for peace. and to help us and to, indeed, support our efforts i do want to thank our sponsor of the colombia activities here at the council, the chubb insurance company. we thank you for your support. my name is eric farnsworth, i'm the vice president of the american society in the council of the americas, and i head the washington office. since 1965 the council has been the top forum for the public and private sectors to meet on issues concerning the americas.

we welcome all of you, including those of you watching on c-span from wherever you may be. our speaker is a top opposition senator from colombia's center democratic movement. importantly, he was an ad visor to the former colombian president, and he maintains close ties with the former president. senator duke has a long partnership with the development bank, and i've followed his career for some time, and he is a good friend. he also has had experience as an adviser to colombia's finance minister. he's a lawyer, and since 2003 has been a columnist for colombia's largest business newspaper. he maintains a large national follow anything colombia. senator, it is a real pleasure to have you with us at the council of americas to discuss colombia today and the path ahead. ladies and gentlemen, would you please join me in welcoming to the council of the americas

senator iban duke. [applause] >> eric, thank you so much. for me it's a great pleasure to be at the council of the americas. i am very happy to see longtime friends, people that i have enjoyed throughout my life with magnificence conversations and advices. and let me make some brief comments on what's going on in colombia and what happened with the plebe side and afterwards. the way i want to begin this short and brief comments before we open the floor for questions and answers is that i think the peace process that we have seen with farc was based on what i call an original sin. jfk used to say that you can win elections with 50% of the vote,

but you can't govern with 50% of the vote. so for me, it's kind of an intriguing why we never had the opportunity oz a nation -- as a nation to gather around the right peace process that we should have done with farc. and i think president santos decided to move forward with the process without having the possibility to consult, to evaluate, to discuss the opinions from different sectors of society. and basically, i could say that maybe president santos thought when he decided to move forward with this process that people that might have concerns about it were a minority. but it happened in october the 2nd that people that had concerns and that wanted to introduce substantial changes to the agreements were a minority.

and the only great mistake that was committed is that the peace process with farc was used in some way more political purposes as well. that's why when president santos decided to run for re-election in 2014, he tried to differentiate people within their approach to the process as friends or enemies of peace. i think that was another sin. and the reason why i call this a sin is because maybe after his re-election he had a second opportunity to call all the other political forces to know their opinions about peace process and the things that they wanted to see inside any agreement. now, the third thing that i want to say is that basing the colombian constitution, the colombian president has the

possibility to sign peace agreements. but what kind of agreement? this, we didn't know. unless we started seeing the evolution of the process, we saw that there were many complex elements because they involved a substantial change in the colombian institutional framework. now, what kind of changes? and this is interesting. the agreement basically changed the colombian judiciary structure. we were seeing a new -- justice mechanism that never -- [inaudible] whether the colombian legislation was going to be applied. it never defined the term of the transition of justice that has been the international standard. it was going to have international judges

administering justice in colombia against what the colombian constitution prescribes. we were also seen in -- seeing n the agreement that there was going to be basically a new constitution because the agreements were going to be part of the colombian constitution as an interpretation instrument. and inside the agreements farc, as a new party after demobilization, were going to be in a commission that had the same amount of members as the government being able to prescribe new legislation or to veto legislation. that was another dramatic institutional change. we also saw that the sanctions for people that had committed

crime against humanity were going to be substantially changed. and if we read what is said in article 60 of the justice agreement inside the peace agreements, if somebody that has committed crimes against humanity presents to the transitional justice and, quote-unquote, tells the truth, he will never face imprisonment sentence. and that creates an environment of impunity. and then the other issue is political eligibility. those members of farc that could have had committed or that already have sanctions for crimes against humanity could be eligible for public office automatically. it is never said in the agreement that they have to face a punishment before they run for

office, but they just can run for office. and that's against the colombian constitution, article 179 of the colombian constitution forbids anybody that has committed severe crimes or crime against humanity to be eligible for public office. even president santos' administration in 2013 approved in congress a new constitutional reform to allow him to move forward with demobilization processes in a faster way than it usually was. and in winning that bill, it is said that people who have committed crime against humanity are not going to be eligible for public office. to there was another institutional change. victim reparation. it was sold by the government that victims were the centerpiece of the peace agreements with farc.

but we don't see a single paragraph where there's an explicit mention that farc will give their resources, their illegal or legal resources or personal resources from the king pins for victim reparation. it is true that that it is said there will be material reparation, but that's theoretical. how is it that farc that is considered one of the top drug cartels in the region is going to economically repair their victims? so that was another important gap or loophole in the agreement. and another major element is that there's no assumption, clear assumption by farc that in

terms of the fight against narco-traffic, they're going to give all the information about the routes, about their money-laundering structures, about the laboratories they use in the colombian jungle to produce cocaine. who are the people that provide all the precursors for the production of cocaine? and something that it's very interesting, who are the members of their logistical apparatus? and the agreement as well opened the door for naco-traffic to be treated as a political crime in order to be eligible for amnesty. if you read article 39 of the justice agreement with farc, it is said that all the crimes to finance, to sponsor or to occult

the resources, to finance rebellion can be considered political crimes in order to seek amnesty. if you look at page 91 of the agreement, it is said that farc are going to contribute in the fight against drugs and maybe put an end to any, any relationing that they could have had -- relation that they could have had with narco-traffic in the development of their rebellion. and it's very interesting that in the annexes of the agreement there is a bill that in article 7 provides full amnesty to all criminal conducts that finance or promote rebellion. so it's another important loophole in the fight against narco-trafficking. and then the other element that

was part of the agreement -- maybe not express sitly in the text -- explicitly in the text, but it was a legal development in congress for the implementations of the agreement, it was a constitutional reform that was approved by the santos administration with minority be leaders in congress from the coalition, the government coalition -- opened the door for us to modify the colombian constitution within three weeks. we can approve legislation changes basically in two weeks. and also the president is being granted with powers or with special powers or with a special tribute so that he can promote or sign decrees to implement the peace agreement be, and there's no precision on which subjects. so this allows him to anything

that he considers or interprets as a development of the agreements to be signed on his own. and there are two additional elements that are critical. one, that all the texts that were signed with farc will be incorporated to the colombian constitution. and all the national development plans for the future should appropriate resources for the implementations of the agreement without specifying how much would they cost. or if they are linked to the accomplishment of the fiscal rule that is basically the umbrella that we have so that the public finances are protected for the future without creating additional expenses that are not really discussed in congress. so why colombian people voted no? we were not against peace. we're not against peace. but we just believe that those

texts that we had in the agreements were very demoralizing for our institutions. and they could turn into principles that we want to have in the colombian institutional framework and in our constitution. we didn't want to open the door for them to be weakened. so we decided to engage in a campaign to defend those principles and basically say that we do not reject the possibility of an agreement with farc, but that we really wanted to introduce substantial changes to the text that we already saw. now, let me talk a little bit about the campaign. the president decided to present those texts for plebecide, and i've never seen such an uneven

campaign in my life. why? basically because we have in colombia a threshold for -- [inaudible] that required the participation of 50% of the people allowed to vote. why is it that we have such a big threshold for one simple reason? it is public participation what grants legitimacy. it is the popular participation, the substantial popular participation that grants stability and credibility, and we don't want presidents to start using pub lis tear democracy as a way to handle all their discussions with the colombian people. that's why the member seitz sides have such a big threshold -- member sides have such a big threshold. the threshold was reduced from

50% to 30% in favor of the agreements. that means that 4.4 million colombians will be the ones in a country of 48 million will allow all these reforms that i just mentioned to be applied. and it's also interesting that in the beginning, in september 2012, president santos announced that he was going to call for the colombian people to say yes or no to the agreement that he first referred to our referendum. and what's the difference? in the referendum you can, basically, deaggregate the agreements in four or five questions. so you can say what do you like and what do you dislike. and you have a better informed mechanism. and the threshold for the referendum cans are 25% of the people -- referendums are 25% of the people allowed to vote. the reason why president santos decided to move forward is he could reform the threshold in an

easier way. he would put one single question all the agreement, and then people will vote. the second thing that happened is that public financing of the yes and no campaign was not allowed to happen. in the senate me and my and the isn't democrat members presented an amendment so that we could have public financing for both campaigns. and it was approved in the senate, but then the government in the lower chamber basically moved all, pulled autostrings so that -- all the strings so that that couldn't happen. so we had a reduction in the threshold, and then we didn't have access to public resources. but we had a just campaign that could call in the name of the government for private sector financing. then tv advertisement or political ads in tv, what we said is that we should have a

ban on all the government agencies to use publicity to basically put more pressure on the electorate. we got it approved in the senate, but we lost it in the lower chamber. with the government pulling the strings. and then the additional thing that happened is that the government allowed all public servants to campaign in favor of the yes vote. so inside our party imagining all these things that were happening, there was a big discussion whether we should abstain or vote no. and i was one of the members of my party that we said, well, this is a matter of courage. this is a matter of defending the institutions that we have. this is defending the constitutional framework, so we should vote no. and we know that this was going to be an uneven campaign.

well, we started doing pedagogical work throughout colombia. we made hundreds of events regionally where we talked about all these issues referring to the texts of the agreements. many people said why, what are you talking about, all the tax? you know, this is kind of boring. maybe you should revert to something more simple. but it was the right way of campaigning. showing the people what was explicitly on the agreements so the people could know why is it that we're not against peace as the government was trying to put it, but to call for substantial amendments to the text so that we could have demobilization and reintegration framework that we all support. and, you know, and this is a little bit anecdotal, some friends used to call me and say

how are you doing in the campaign? are you going to win? and i had this feeling inside my heart that i was looking at a silent majority when i was, you know, walking throughout colombia. there were many people that were saying we're going to vote no. [laughter] ..

>> >> because the way the government put that to the international crowd but you understand there was a discussion so that is the lesson we need today that is why when we won with a coalition of the election was for a national agreement. and should get together not to make substantial changes.

to make the revision to present the documents bedside just mentioned me just finish just today with comments and amendments that we would like to see now have the expectation. now what is going to happen grex is a 100% of london to percent of documents? proposed things require precision, minor amendments

or because they have big margins of interpretation but those that our substantial? and development has said this is not a mathematical discussion. for the issues that require more substantial changes or maybe we do have big disagreements to help us introduce those changes. so mentioning six more

critical points, political eligibility. ladies eligible for office automatically? we said they never should be but maybe we have to bridge those precision's within the transitional justice system. but it is very confusing for the colombian people were those of guns against to many -- humanity.

but not the ones that have committed the crimes against humanity. new with the crimes against humanity. and with those and the way is written with those agreements. to have the restriction of movement so they keep that monetary mechanism but what we have proposed before they demobilized, those days can even be considered that it

could be the transitional justice. so the time with the transitional justice system there must be some proportional after they pass through the system. but we're all trying to find options. misses the structure of the transitional justice system. did we want to see this transitional justice system as a judiciary? the coalition has said it is sad of mechanism for the colombian judiciary you

don't allow the international judges you can have a international appraisers but not those unauthorized by the constitution. and then their margins of responsibility for revising the decisions. so to provide to repair the victim's if they find out

they are a hidden asset with the transitional justice. to keep those assets hidden. to the colombian constitution the way they are. one inside the constitution so that basic elements to this piece of legislation

and that nobody would derail. but not as a second volume and a final point has to do with the implementation. so what we said what we need to find right now widely have to build a national agreement? because of the implementation if you don't have a broad consensus right now to weaken the sustainability of the future.

without having to use the fast-track mechanism and we also said to make this implementation in the next presidential campaign and with the next presidential campaign but having said that and october 2nd davis

a new opportunity. they you could be elected with 50 percent of the vote. this cannot be built with 50 percent of the vote in requires a national consensus so those are my introductory remarks. >> really you have just given us a tutorial with that comprehensive overview. i think it have reported did sense of the questions the to ask the questions it

otherwise would come up. there are two in particular in with the time remaining maybe we can offer that opportunity and with that no coalition and terms of the agreement. when will the colombian people themselves know when enough is enough? into was making that decision? legislators?

we have to have been sent guinness ends from the government and guidance say of a we had in the last week with these negotiators and the negotiations that there were very positive. and methodology was good. so those matters with them as the substantial disagreement.

button in renegotiating the had to concede not just the message to the covenant -- to the government so expect them to go to havana peddled think that is the right way to approach. soleil need to understand this is not a discussion about the red line. selects and becomes the way

the evidence to make some minor changes. i really do think so. basis as a great opportunity to preserve with the colombian people want. and a half to go see them in 2018 because we don't want to seek in colombia that was the to grounds for democracy and and 20 years afterwards

and they came to power this and we need to adjust this or that to have the justice that was in there in the past. sorry now this is opportunity for the future. that is all that matters and isn't a matter of redlines the way that you punish mechanisms that you might receive that can be to reduce that amount the penalty time an investigative. and economic corporations is

very interesting. with the weeks before it the election but we said explicitly with the jobs coming back to make a statement that was wrong. today's before the election to say we're recalling to get some of our assets to say that we would give those assets on the justice system. there is a big discussion. and the colombian supreme

court system said that. to really want to see this and said the judiciary umbrella? solidifying tune that to agreement so we will sit down again and received the response with the methodology that has been working. who will make that decision? the national agreement with a yes or a no and the judiciary needs to be a part of it. so with the implementation

because with the destitution all chickens as with reform. the lead is present in the agreement cost a lot of money. how much? but the colombian government three years ago had a steady -- a steady that states we had a big gap in the countryside to provide more public goods with housing.

and is close to $4 billion per year for the next four years. the this new money. had to implement that? because that budget today for the agricultural sector is $1 billion per year. that will not have been easy. in terms of money has to be done within columbia so with a national fiscal deficit to extend that period of implementation.

that is very important because 10 years from now that you cannot accomplish what you said you were supposed to do. and to exacerbate problems throughout the country it is very important to explicitly say that accomplishment but something that worries me of a of complexity of the pledge of any agricultural sector. the year 2017 the investment budget is agreed to be reduced 50% in comparison with 2015. because many to adjust the

budget on the ground because the oil would be $100 per barrel. and is wanted to mention that the if they really know the underground's for achieving a colombian resolution -- revolution. >> challenging. [laughter] this is why consolidated the questions. live a couple former assistant secretaries of state, ambassadors, high-lev el business leaders the this will be difficult for the

moderator but we will start with the assistant secretary. i doubt know if we have a microphone so speak loudly. >> we will consolidate the questions. >> absolutely and out -- no doubt negotiated military victory. you can negotiate that settlement to keep tabs on people and hold them accountable.

but that the end of the day most of us have negotiating settlements with that being said there is the emotional part of this. to negotiate to have some credit to begin with because of the implementation and instead of disgracing someone. for good or bad.

with the court taking individual positions in the interest of justice? >> i promised the former ambassador to colombia and we don't have time for answers to these questions. >> and struck by the deadline on december 31st.

[laughter] and diane wonder what happens? so looking for real progress? >> you have banc quite specific. but.

[inaudible] >> it is always a pleasure for my country now there was never a sense of that perspective that should have been a military victory. we can build peace based on the armament and it is interesting to see those numbers have been given that

were presented by the colombian military to the international community's. it is interesting to see where 18,000 members demobilized during did ministrations. this is just to say we have had a policy. could we have negotiated better? that there is an opportunity. but now they do have a better opportunity. so we all need to make concessions defending the principles.

for me it is the future really want to build a the result take three years for ms. rations. and to put together the nation for this historic implications for the future over the last three weeks it has been very well managed. so if we work hard and december 31st.

but it makes it harder. and expect them very clear that to and for the and it will complicate. >> this cease-fire is holding. and we are very conscious on national security. so that is why we also

propose with the time that they spend of what they could receive and we know that we need to move fast and decide to go back to those illegal activities and now to mention that constitutional accord and help me to explain in english so as an ambassador in colombia said it is the right way to escape the responsibility i attend

tried to put a rabbi in the constitutional accord. or something with that fast-track mechanisms because actually they were rejected. so what is my expectation as a citizen that it should abstain that will allow this to happen is because it was rejected to say even though it was rejected it is unconstitutional with the

society deliberating and to specify. and i were able find no way even though it happened and he doing this respectfully i hope with that derails. >> >> and to feel so comfortable using it. and i said that i don't use that term one of the sins

committed in venezuela with cuba chavez he was dismissive of the bar had usa he never thought that ideology could reach power in venezuela. and i think in colombia we need to be very clear with the social despair or lack of confidence that can happen. we cannot be naive.

of guy who was granted amnesty completely he had this way to govern the that have been on a large scale? we don't know yet. but we need to have that right political mechanisms to happen in colombia. and i respect them. >> and is very meaningful

this is a tremendous session. [inaudible conversations]

>> keep out yourself, millennia to between about the conversation and with that general alexander is atlantic contributor who covers national security. and the staging is yours.

cement good evening it is a pleasure to be here so i have to open in by a saying is a real challenge to prepare to interview you because i got word if you weeks ago and some new event would have been -- have been if it was a hack organdy nsa that crippled with those

mysterious communications with the big russian bank which is to say i interview you 17 times i did realize and needed to protect my coffee maker and a toaster. [laughter] before last week are to have that conversation also government and convert - - the government to protect our data online and a question that has hung in the air sunday that happened

with the election and let those government statements it is mostly accurate it. that is hard to disrupt the electoral process but that doesn't mean i think it is all very difficult but it's simply does hackett that it would be sen sensationalized is what escapes many of us

so much misinformation with to add a 300 million i did think that will be fine if think it will be fine. we should look for process and with all that digital capabilities you can imagine have been a device that is represented to you and as we felt as a nation between 7:00 and 8:00 if you don't have a phone.

>> we have to get there. attendees opportunities are great to do things like that and represents the best of what we could be designation. with health care and other things. with the answer to that question overall it is analog. it is just a dot but the duty of of that is it is

hard to have. and being able to vote with your phone. and there are many they're looking at these big problems that you are protecting to the next up in these areas. pdf this is converging. >> em with that virtual

toaster so how quickly did somebody had that? forty-one minutes first attempt now they're hundreds of attempts. >> opposes an even greater problem as a country so outside of the purview to say there really isn't part of the network so those devices greatly increases

the cybersecurity risk we don't want to slow that down and f-16 grandchildren so one of my granddaughter's coup gets the most deaths and? so really have to go out and what? she is 300 miles away. and with tremendous vulnerability but they lived

on the attack that was posted on the web. >> with the assessment but it is hard to and no given that the attacker with doesn't mean for the future the estimates are 620 it could be terabytes of what would that do to the nation of a structure hattis stop

the and what type of tools that has to be debated or discussed. and the government passed to the that. so how are dealing explain that such talk about that common defense and in this area we don't have a common defense but with the nation was built on everybody working together for the common defense hired we get

that back in somebody wants to do us harm when alone have that privilege milliseconds from and attack and you can see people disagree can use cyberto do that. >> to figure out to keep this from happening again is

not have an attack in tel after the effect but that means i national transportation safety board that we tell you how bad it was. if we were on the plane the answer is yes so that means we have to have a way for the government to work together and i put on the table to make it completely

transparent but we have to practice at and set that standard what about our allies? byte think anybody would agree with that. for those that want to change that fabric that would be harder so how do we work with the allies to like-minded clerics. >> what does that mean specifically? >> what do you mean? >> but the government has a

nation state known accompany house to meet a certain standard so to have the ability to be probed the company could not stop a nation so that is read the government has to come in and by setting up the of protocols that is what we need to move forward we do

that with planes or missiles and that is eminently doable >> companies are being attacked regularly you don't want them crawling around your servers. >> it is a way to say so the government can respond but if someone had was being here and the government never sees that and tell this to late. so let's share that information what type are we talking about sharing? we talk about amanda bad guy tries to infiltrate but

could help stop either by giving her the advice and what will the government to? to go step further to do the country real harm to take down big portions of that with the defense of ferment that don't have the authorities there are not trained and to allow industry and government to work together. but the first thing that people will want the

government going around so we need to come up with the way that every betty can agreed that should be shared that they put it into the legislation i will send that to look government so everybody sees that that way they know they're doing right job so if you don't then you are the alternative so wait for something bad to happen then emotionally dictate how you will stop that. >> i imagine i and a ceo

everybody is alerted because it looks like security is weak. >> had you address that? >> the intention is to do just the opposite so they have to meet the standard but there are secret things don't have the ability to go against and the hacker's always win. into sets of companies those that know and those that don't so you need a way to say if you are sealer will meet the standards of built

alert the appropriate authorities and forgets to four. we start off with a toaster's but it is so much more complex to take that on . and not advocating that is not what i am saying but companies already do when awful lot. they spend a lot of money on cyprus security and the question most board rooms are a spending all this money in a tommy i can still be hacked.

why? because they can only get to a certain level so i think this is a national problem and there are solutions out there pet it comes back to the earlier statement if we don't fix this now something bad will happen then and a solution that none of us will be happy with. >> with us idiocy hack all of us imagine all of your e-mail's and recipes make their way into the of world's suicide from never reading e-mail again ever so what can private institutions do pdf.

>> goes back to the statement in this case it is hard to protect against nation state hackers those have the skills. both the dnc in republican party today multi that we were hacked to with these two candidates have. the net loss for different reasons. and what was pushing for so they take and start to put together bus sector wide

security. and thought there were eight or 10. so 7,000 banks. and with those separate entities. some mention of their environment could automatically tell others of fate could be scanned or things are happening to them and then they would already know what is being prober coming at them with the defense's surface 7,000 times bigger. what we need to do it is start thinking about new ways. to extend to things like the

others. but you are right to put into the ecosystem to stop this and we should. it's not easy but we can do this. and we should commit to fixing this. and the cost is growing so much. company said about three of these zero or four of these or two of these and only about one kind. so try to ensure that is right. to cover rio good understanding.

and then united we stand by. >> to stay with this the man of government responsibility for cybersecurity with the questions of russian cyberintrusion. >> all they could piping and recently not retaliating from the cyberattacks. >> that is something the government could be doing. with a consensus of the u.s. intelligence community then up to? >> the way that i look at it that the defense department and intelligence community should provide those tools

and they should say all these ways to respond from all the different tools with they hold government approach and then i actually believe the president or the national security council has the options to say you can choose and based on your belief to be constitutionally elected. here is the options you have figured out the best way to do it. so if you do this if you attack then they attack back. so the government has to come up and decide. >> plywood say it was

slightly different that the government chooses how to respond. my experience in both administrations when the doors were closed talking about those issues everybody is looking at what's best for the country. and what i thought the rate could bring in the cameras for the american people because to decide which way they would act to say that

is to be elected and by and large to do the best that they can. especially when they made fun of me we had the committee's and at the end of the day with those agencies and departments of think anybody would say that they would debate that process to come up with a good solution.

>> gave very elegant non answer. >> i will allow myself one more. of the contractor who could steal terabytes over many years where was i? >> insider threats bar statistically the biggest problem so those that have access like the did minister or a separate network that communicates only with some

drives creates a huge problem. but nsa and the predecessor to say who did what she or when or how to make sure it doesn't happen again. but then continuing for years after? >> and what did he have access to? so now we are speaking hypothetically. i assume based on the job description and as a consequence these were thumb

drives that exposes the risk that he exploited and i don't know the answer to what they allowed him to do so i don't have those facts but as a legal investigational in. >> have living through the snowden revelation to get this part of it greg. >> there were 42 recommendations. that is something they would have to look at. i don't want to push it one

way or the other but i will tell you that what you are seeing there is a great video that says to you know the amount of unique information would be 16 bytes with 16 zeroes so with the company said dealing with it is doubling every year to create tremendous there are solutions that if

the and this they cannot protect it and now was understanding of alarm period of time. >> the one to think beyond atlantic. but the word this is between is trust. but the question that i have

with the insider topic of trust between industry and government? of the key fundamental along that we are lacking. to say that we worked together before this is a huge issue their authors and writers see so we need to do is give all of the story and give my perception that passage do with the snowden issue that the nsa is buying

a believe that is what nsa was doing. and to do a presidential commission. i got called down to the warehouse because all on one side and to have a commission to have these great ideas in the president

has approved it. and anything did is never good salaries the first one had the american civil liberties union and i say you have to be shitting me excuse me. [laughter] so i go back up there fifth unable spend a few days a week but i will start off. >> and to look at him how we

did and how we did it. so we told him. to do another 100% audit for every mistake we made. five weeks later this guy still sitting in the same chair jumps up and i can take him he says you and your people have the greatest integrity don't just tell me tell the purpose of carrying that card with me.

to say analysts skeptical is an understatement been in the year since then 11. but the high degree of integrity with the rule of law. presidential review group number in the acting dean at the diversity of chicago law school. so the president's decision was a decision almost nobody has heard that story before. kelso trust is something that is conveyed by the

media reporting it. because my experience is a dull want to spy on american people that want to stop terrorist attacks. their job is to defend our country but yet we jump to the wrong conclusion. so let's get the facts out there. those people are working very hard. and the people at cia and fbi they're just trying to do the job carnation has asked them to do. we need to step back say this is a tough job we might not agree but that is what

the nation has asked them to do. the second part if we can build the trust back then did it with the american people between government and industry because they are the same way. this is the way we have to deal. i was stunned when i have the laws and the oversight was how we found the data so i think there are ways when it comes back to not just the government. it is all of us working together and there are great writers to tell the story and tell it correctly.

our nation deserves better job and we are tearing it apart and he doesn't agree he will tell you that. >> but that was a meditative program and then he calls me up to say we should do the op-ed. i am in our meat officer you are the aclu and nobody would believe the spirit of a sexually we need to get this recertified i said why would you ever do the opposite for something like that? he said if we don't to give the government the tools with the terrorist attack we will not have civil liberties are privacy so the

aclu board member in the army general retired to do the opposite to gather for the good of the nation. for them to calm from those types of backgrounds there are opportunities for the rest of us to set this straight the handley should. this is the greatest country on earth. we have to fix this by demanding more persisted in their takeover you're getting. >> i had that exact quotation at me by your former staffers on doc record. >> he reads better spinet the message to share this with the workforce was heated although i could take issue with transparency and the media because redo try and your agency is not always exactly on that.

>> is this a big issue and one that we wrestle with. so i actually went into his office and said we know we are doing for. how much do we really feel or put forward in what do we put at risk by doing that? so what we decided to do is we would rather take a beating them put the country at risk. we can argue over what is that right peck's something should be maybe in hindsight to be more transparent but on the letter he and nobody wants to put any buddy's life at risk and if we could help the fbi stop one terrorist attack it is worth

it. they're working hard inundated with leads. if the answer is yes then it is worth it. >> to rapid-fire questions. >> david sanger from the "new york times." i want to take one more shot to get your thinking about what kind of actions the united states might take given the conditions we find ourselves with the election grex maybe the way is to ask what you think the next election cycle for years from now could look like once the world sees the foreign power has come in? even if they do nothing more between now and election day call into question some of the integrity of the election system just by a

and doing whatever they have done with of registration or e-mail's lots of government steel e-mail's but publishing was new. is not responded to what does that look like at the 20/20 election cycle? >> i may columnist on foreign policy. and write books on nsa. one to go back to the issue of accountability at nsa that while you were there edward snowden walked out with 1.7 million pages of documents. martin part of the time all you were there walked out with half a billion pages of documents so wasn't just from one little place the different locations and six

boxes of hard copy pages of documents. and then the shadow broker who came up with the actual tools and weapons but nobody is ever fired it seems in the upper ranks. where's the accountability at nsa quick. >> i think it starts at the top. truth in lending i held myself accountable for all of that and offered resignation to the president into the secretary of defense after edward snowden because i eight went to hawaii and negative a walked through without yet taken the information. that don't take lightly firing just to hold down accountable along to solve it if it is the right thing

to do so i took out the team and sat down with the fbi and others and walked through the whole thing that i asked the fbi people who among these are accountable? and they say the way it was done there would hold nobody so on the buyback i offered my resignation because i thought i was. that was turndown i think in part because they didn't think i can get a job on the onside joking but i do take it seriously and that is the approach on that case was accountable. no i did not know snowden neither did press calabash press so there are issues but now house reduce stop attacks like this? that is the real issue.

to figure out what went wrong like the atf having the fbi walk through step-by-step with me they have some great transix to see how it was done and what we need to do so i don't have the facts on martin once redo i can answer the question oh by to see what he did and how he did you have parts. i don't have all of it and that is what we need to do that. at the top is accountable. we are the ones. >> is something had gone terribly wrong? >> it is every major spy scandal you say how does it go on this long? feel the difference is now it is we still have

8 megabytes now you have terabytes so the answer is you can steal a lot of data with the devices and it seems that is a lot of data. so part of it is holding people accountable and how do be take these folks to not make them heroes? they are stealing it. if you go to industry is the biggest insider threat those are the things. >> four years from now? >> you raise some good points in the administration will look at those said

believe they will see this desolate and between this president and the next to determine what should be done i consider there's a lot more data that will have been to turn this differ about what i worry about what is going on with russia and eastern europe and ukraine and turkey and iran and the of italy's north korea and issues with china but with that said there is a lot going on internationally and those threats will manifest with regional issues and terrorism and cyber. so we need to get these right we should have discussions and get the facts out there but our nation needs to solve these problems. >> so when for years we will look back and miss the good old days?

general alexander think he. [applause] >> again thanks to our underwriters to make evening possible and also everybody is welcome to the cocktail reception back in the lounge area so please join us and had a good evening. [inaudible conversations]

. .