account, is that future all that bleak or is there any ray of hope given the successes that you have had with agencies developing this sharing plan? >> i think what we've been trying to do for the past couple years, i don't know when the work was completed but it was really to try to put ourselves in the shoes of the people and federal agencies that are trying to make these decisions about how spectrum is used. spectrum for them is just a tool to perform a mission. their mission is too keep soldiers safe on the battlefield or their mission is to determine if what the weather's going to be tomorrow or next week. for them, spectrum is just a tool. what's important important to them is that they perform their mission and in these life or death situation that they perform the mission in a way

that meets the critical needs that they have. having said that, i think agencies generally like to know that they are using the most modern and the best technologies. there certainly upgrades but then you're up against the budget challenges that they have and are they going to be given the resources they need to make the upgrade. that's balanced against the fact that when you're performing a mission there's always going to be a tendency to rely on what's been tried out. there isn't a lot of reward for being experimental, particularly particularly when you're talking about protecting lives and property. the question, i do think the spectrum relocation fund, by providing the resources that can allow for the kinds of upgrades that agencies would have the tendency to make offers the best long-term hope in the future. some of these other ideas like giving agencies some ownership interest in spectrum to allow them to in effect get paid to give up spectrum, i just don't see them fundamentally dealing

with the spectrum choices when they are making them in the context of performing mission. plus they will lead to perverse results in the sense that today federal agencies have no ownership or proprietary interest in the spectrum they use. they are assigned a right to use it : >> i could go on all afternoon. let me open it up to the audience for questions. we will have a microphone going around the room and please identify yourself before asking the questions.

a show of hands for questions. >> thank you, larry, for your wonderful presentation. jonathan from charter communications. i have a question about spectrum utilization efficiency, and what, have you looked at the upper layer protocols such as ipv6 versus ib before, in terms of improving efficiency usage as we go to internet of things, improving the utilization of the available spectrum? >> so that's the question for the panel. [laughter] we are all in favor of greater utilization of ipv6. frankly i wasn't aware of the spectrum implications of that but we absolutely just because of the internet numbering resources we need greater

adoption of ipv6. >> the gentleman here in blue. >> dug with i.t. i have. thanks again. a great speech. i was just wondering if you could expand obit on your thinking of the enforcement issue? do you see that as how significant of a problem do you think that is? pc a sort of technical solution to enforcement as a solutions are more policy issues needed, or more resources for the enforcement. >> i mean, i think the threshold question which is probably presented -- preventing this meat which is been identified for years. i mean, i think dale hatfield when he was a teenager was talking about the need for stronger enforcement in this area. part of it is what has been up to now the difficulty and great

on what actually is harmful interference that would justify enforcement action. that's something that's got to be wrestled with end up with as kind of a precursor, as a necessary condition to do this. we talked about the receiver issue. again that eventually leads to it being implicated in enforcement issue. but i think it's just become clear that putting more and more systems next to each other, that with cow to have a process by which, if you have rights of use in a particular band that you know they will be protected and guaranteed him so we now got to really bite the bullet and find a way to develop an effective enforcement mechanism. i think for the details, again that's a question for the next panel. i don't want to take all their thunder. >> great. next question. the gentleman in the back.

>> on more or less evaluated my treasured records, 100 years old and you look at all their important communications. the most important ones are always in code. recently like this morning we heard that the joint chiefs e-mails abundant in some university of west, 30,000 e-mails and opened a few emails. they couldn't believe what was in them. so plain english. the president said they will be a reprisal for this to russian hackers i think are responsible for it. i wonder, is there any way to improve communication for certain e-mails? a lot of it seems harmless enough. if they do crack they can see it. maybe they can crack the code but it gives them another thing to worry about. isn't there a way for those modern communication methods to have a rotating system of codes that only a few people would be able to handle, and reduce the

problem that apparently exists? >> you are into an area which they will have a separate program in a few weeks, right? the whole issue of cybersecurity and encryption and the balancing of factors on that is a huge, huge set of issues. and how every institution, not just the federal government but every business we heard yesterday of 1 billion accounts a got hacked at yahoo!. and so it's not just a question of encrypting communications. that's an important piece of this bite into and you've got questions of data being kept in storage facilities. data as it is cap and the devices you are using. data as it is being transmitted, and all of his present very significant cybersecurity challenges for all of us, not just the government. and i think you may have seen

the prejudice commission on cybersecurity issued a set of recommendations a week or two ago. there been other parties that look at these issues. there will be a full plate i think for the next administration in terms of working its way through these issues and determining the right response for all of these. it's a very, very large and complicated issue. >> if i may just follow up on that a bit, this goes to the role of ntia within the federal government. new agencies -- do agencies ever come to ntia and ask for advice on best practices, on really anything? is that a roll that it performs, or is the coordinating federal users not get into that? >> i think you have other parts of the federal government such as the federal chief information officer, federal chief technology officer. there may be other places that

people would go for that. we are there in terms of policy issues. one of the things they've done in terms of people coming to us or in terms of work we've done is over the next, and i mention in opening remarks but over the last several years we've been running these multi-stakeholder processes to develop codes of conduct and best practices in some of these nascent fields where it's way too early to be thinking about regulation or legislation. but we're trying to get foothold such as we did on best practices related to drone privacy. brought all stakeholders together, invited all stakeholders to participate to help develop kind of the first got about people selling drones and people with operating drones to respect privacy of citizens. so i think we've made a lot of progress in the last several

years in privacy cybersecurity is another area. yesterday we just released the output of a separate multi-stakeholder process on the issue of how software and hardware manufacturers can work better with that unity of people who go out and find vulnerabilities in software, vulnerabilities and devices, to try to bring them together so that their work in a more cooperative fashion again, three very important pieces of work that we are -- there were just released yesterday. we have put a lot of emphasis on bringing stakeholders together to see if we can advance some of these policy areas where in the absence of that probably nothing would be happening because the issues are just too new, to undefined to lead to a satisfactory regulatory or legislative solution. >> the lady in the back.

>> thank you. i'm with digital liberty and americans for tax reform. i just wanted to kind of go back and see if you could elaborate a little bit more on your skepticism of market-based incentive for agencies and spectrum. sort of, what are the ideas that's kicked around is putting a market value on the spectrum and having that accounting form budgets or worked on it that way and that seems like that would be more of a market-based incentive for agencies. your thoughts on that? >> the problem is that agencies performing missions while we going to put a market value on a mission there performing? and then how are you going, if that again becomes a particular issue when you're looking at omissions to protect human life and protect property, where there will be a natural reluctance to take a lot of risk in terms of bringing in new systems or new technologies before they've really been tested and thoroughly understood. and so how do you overcome that

reluctance went if you know there's a product that works and uses a particular band of spectrumspectrum, i think theses have every incentive to continue to use a system like that and not just say with spectrum values becoming greater to commercial people, so we should abandon the system and go buy something you in some other band. the people making these decisions are being made, or are being paid to protect human life, protect property. they're not being paid to make more spectrum available to commercial sector so you've got to get into their process and understand their decision-making if you're really going to influence them and give them a reason to use a different approach or different technology than perhaps they were using before. >> let's do one more question. >> i will take the last question then. and this is on international

coordination for 5g. still i think that's a question for the next panel. >> all right. no, i wish is going going to ask about, because it's an evolving technology and it is usually the u.s. technology leaders in one of these areas, but these technologies ultimately have global standards and any comment you can share with us about the international coordination process? >> i'll make a general one but as a relates to spectrum use, really it would be better put to the panel. i think with 5g general, we're already starting to see some difference in approach between the united states and perhaps other countries, particularly some countries in europe. i think there's a viewpoint held among some european countries that they need to get out and get the standards done right now. because that will then encourage

the deployment of the technologies. i think the viewpoint in the u.s. among most of u.s. companies is hey, not so fast. we really ought to have an opportunity for more extreme edition, more trial, and really give people a chance to explore how to use these technologies before we locked into standard that might actually stunt innovation and chill growth. it will be interesting to watch how that debate unfolds in terms of the difference in views that exist now. i think eventually everybody, we want to have standards into it's a question of is now the right time and what's the trajectory by which you get to them. >> with that, thank you so much. [applause] >> okay. i think we're going to go straight to our next panel.

if i can have the panelists, up. [inaudible conversations] >> we have a distinguished panel of experts to discuss both administrator strickling is comics today as well as discuss the future of 5g, and let me just briefly introduce our panelists today. to my far left, on your right is jon wilkins, chief of the

wireless telecommunications bureau at the federal communications commission. during his tenure at the bureaus activities that focus on a range of 5g deployment activities including the development of commercial licensing rules for the worlds first use of millimeterwave spectrum for terrestrial global services and close engagement with industry and local government stakeholders on small cell infrastructure science. in the middle we have page akin, the associate administrator office of spectrum management, ntia. paige leads at the spectrum management effort for the executive branch agencies who manages internet, frequency assignment and certification, national and international spectrum policy and strategic planning functions. and fred campbell is at the director of tech knowledge, senior policy advisor with

wireless 2020 and a professor in space, cyber and telecommunications law program at the university of nebraska college of law. he has served in the 100 first airborne division of the u.s. army as an arabic linguist. very impressive. i would like to ask each of you to give your thoughts and reactions to larry's talk. i'm going to go, let's start with fred and then jon and then trantwo, if we can go in that order. fred, do you want to go first? >> thank you. thank you for having us at this event, hudson institute. it's a nice, new facility. i will echo mr. strickland was thoughts are that.

the one thing that stuck out to me was the answer that mr. strickland gave you on the question, that being incentives for agencies. he made the point that how can you put a value on their missions? and my first thought of that was that government does it on a routine basis, in virtually all areas not involving spectrum. so you take real property, military facilities. they need to land. you know, the fcc leases its building from a commercial entity. so those things have prices put on them. i decision was made back in the '30s that spectrum wasn't going to be owned by anyone but the u.s. government, and, in fact, that's also largely true of land west of the mississippi for whatever reason.

but to posit something truly different from what we have now, it could be the opposite. it could mean ther there's no fl allocated spectrum per se. it's all commercial, and different agencies mission requires access to spectrum, they lease or buy the same way they deal with real property. by the way, i'm not suggesting that's going to happen anytime soon if nothing else, because there are decades of institutional history around this and it's not done that way now. i'm dissing as a matter of economics i don't see any reason why it couldn't work in the abstract. again, the sort of historical structure place makes that a little difficult to transition to at this point. but spectrum rights come like any other right, they can be negotiated and have a value put on them. >> jon? >> thanks for having us here.

it's a really important topic for the fcc. the last eight years and it will be going forward. i have three reactions to what larry went through. and just wanted to echo we talk about what's happened over the last eight years on spectrum. and it is a pretty impressive record just on the numbers. larry mentioned that 245 megahertz cleared and 2017 will have a successful conclusion of the broadcast auction that will bring us over 300 megahertz put that in context, just that is about a 50% increase over the total amount of spectrum available for commercial mobile data uses or even for the such a thing as mobile data for commercial mobile uses over the last 20 or so that's a big increase. that's before we talked about spectrum frontiers, millimeterwave which is somewhat apples to oranges but larry did

give the number. just the first wrote a spectrum front to work we did this past summer was 11 gigahertz so you can do the math. that's hundreds percent waited that what's been done so far. so really it is striking that we do think it's a big deal. you talk to folks that event in the commission for a long time, worked on these issues. striking how big a change and how much has been done there. i will also echo what larry said about the goalposts are moving. he mentioned the context of mobile now and congress adding an additional megahertz. i think i would add to that the goalposts is also moving in terms of the needs needs, sort t collectively industry needs, the demands of the networks and i would add one other element which is even the uncertainty as to what the commercial deployment models will be. so obviously the traditional large nationwide carriers that over cellular networks will be doing a time into space but i

think it would be the first to say we will, will it be in its current form exactly the same model to serve internet of things applications for the automotive sector? i don't think anybody really knows. it's identical post also have to include more flexibility for innovation in the way networks are built and used to capture the valley of technology is part of that moving goalposts. so that's the second they want to comment. larry talked about sharing and that's been a big theme. i think the starting point which is there's less and less truly greenfield, their spectrum you can realistically say we are going to clear that banned entirely and just make it available. so there's that reality of it's hard to keep doing traditional full-spectrum clearing. again, back to the last two decades i think it is to the u.s. in terms of public policy for spectrum has really been innovative and really led the world.

you go back 20 years ago. things like spectrum auctions were unlicensed spectrum, when they were introduced were viewed as what are you guys doing? i did a panel last week on 5g and there was a representative from a scandinavian country that they're still doing beauty contest to award spectrum. auctions now come whatever else you think about this, auctions as an efficient way to do business or sacrosanct. if we look ahead there are these new tools. and check a think is the biggest category of them. so sharing in the way networks now because they're much more intelligent and you can embed software capabilities into the networks the that can actually p manage sharing. this is just one example. i thin think the movie lots of debates about the details of the deals were matter but 10 years from now we'll look back in the idea of the sharing techniques that are so controversial or highly debated will be queued as sacrosanct as we do auctions today. maintaining that openness innovation on the policy side

that massive innovation on the industry site is important. by the way, the other big toll beside sharing, instead of auctions we talked about so much, but statutory authority for incentive auctions of birth and just 600 megahertz. that's an interesting question what other band of spectrum, this will be more commercial to commercial, but what else can incentive auctions be a good tool? if the fcc has a lot of momentum that by the weights only really the result of a downstream of what ntia and the administration has done to help federal spectrum be more available for us, getting commercial use possible and how will the new tools developed going forward? >> federal collaboration, larry talked about it a lot and paige has been living this, i think it's impossible to understand how effective and how important that true collaboration has been on these issues.

my reference point, again that affect them testing for spectrum frontier was all about federal collaboration and coordination. and he was it happened quickly. if any of you have heard whether its chairman when you are in via other commission at the fcc right now, their goal has been for the is to lead the world in making spectrum available. actually the last question that harold asked larry about other parts of the world focusing on standards and that's the way to get going. u.s. policy is we will make spectrum available. a few technical roles as possible and industry go out and figure it out. the key do that is you have to make the spectrum of available. when we made a couple of the five frequency this past summer, 220 gigahertz, 37, 39, 64, we ae the first in the world to do that. i think fcc and others in the administration interact with international counterparts were stunned at how quickly we got that done.

and how other countries then set their own policies will evolving but i think we have clearly spent a huge forward momentum. the strategy is what used to be first in deployment because we think that actually is huge economic advantages for the u.s. that's only possible because the federal collaboration that really has been built. those of you have have been in on these issues, department of defense spectrum involved. the genuine collaboration with which a dod all because of the collaboration we did that let us do that quickly really was extraordinary and, indeed, this is important going forward. >> first, even though larry will only be my boss for another few weeks, i want to say publicly that wholeheartedly agree with everything he said. and i'll just elaborate on a couple points. as larry said, there are a few easy choices when we're balancing the vital government

missions against commercial band. the whole point here is to look at it and understand what those requirements are and to create a balanced approach to how we satisfy both. thi.this fundamental shift that larry talked about is a key component to that because traditionally we've always thought of this as a zero-sum game. somebody one and somebody lost. but we don't have that choice anymore. so the sharing mechanism, when it is appropriate, allows us to create a win-win scenario instead of by the requirements and optimize our use of this precious resource. i will echo that we have two remain agile because we don't know what's next. and i will use an example that technology business models can change dramatically. and as an example, within the

last four years since of the cast report was published, the report cited the internet of things as a novel wireless market, and that was part of our daily vernacular. and at that time 5 5g was still evolving and wasn't even mentioned in that report. that was four years ago. so you can see how quickly and dramatically things can change in a very short period of time. i wanted to add a little bit on enforcement. when i talk enforcement i talk to it in quotes. so i don't tend to think of it in its form and legal sense, which is typically reactive. something happens and we need to take action to fix it. in the future i think we need to think of enforcement and a much broader context. and as we develop these new and innovative sharing approaches, we need to figure out how to integrate enforcement

capabilities into the technologies, the process, the policies and the architectures like 5g 5g that we wore implemented it's not just where we are at today where it's very reactive and static but we have to move to something that's much more proactive and automated. so preventing the interference from occurring in the first place. so i broaden the definition of enforcement as i talk about it. that also creates some cyber privacy concerns that need to be addressed in the process. i want to also address a little bit on the incentive part of whether you can come up with a value like real estate, one element. the other development is than tn what incentive does that tried to a decision-maker to do something different? and the way the budgetary process works and the statutory requirements that many of these

agencies are under, we are not convinced it will actually create the incentive in the long run because how decisions are made, and whether that dollar figure would create influence on that decision-maker to make a difference than they would have otherwise. we can get into more detail later but we are peeling the back and will be able to define what that looks like so everyone can better understand the situation. and the last thing i'll say really is that we've come a long way, and have to echo what everybody has said. when you look back at the last eight years we have made such tremendous progress. and again, collaboration has been key. collaboration among the agencies, with industry, between ntia and the commission, and foundational to our success. and it will continue to be even more important as we move forward.

so we need to continue to expand and strengthen that collaboration has we go into the next four or eight years, debating what the case may be. and i am convinced, as larry articulated, that we've got the right team team, the right founn in place to be successful. >> thank you. i do want to mention that we extend a great welcome to our c-span audience, and our audience can submit questions via twitter to at hudson events, trying to get those questions appear as well. next question i want to ask is jon mentioned that the u.s. has come and i think an entirely appropriate sort of hands-off approach towards setting standards at this point.

but there are lots of folks in industry whether in silicon valley or wireless carriers or elsewhere that are working on 5g technologies for the future. and in an ideal world they wouldn't have to come back to washington for anything. they just go off and develop these technologies and everything would be in place. i assume that's not the case. i assume that, in fact, some of these new technologies will require some coordination, some special dispensation from federal government. whether that's in terms of specific standards for use of spectrum on price bands, whether it's enforcement issues, whether its receiver issues that larry discussed, whether it's

international issues. i was one if each of you could just take a few moments to describe what you see as critical next steps for the development of 5g from sort of her washington perspective, as what is it that the new technologists are likely or have come to washington asking for some help with. fred? >> i think that's right. i think there will be questions brought to washington. i think a good starting point is the high frequencies that jon alluded to, critical component. and then the question becomes sort of how does that, can we harmonize that internationally? jon talked about the fact the u.s. is going first and that also involves trade-offs. you go first, sometimes you don't address, the world goes in a different direction if you don't do it at the same type that's always been a challenge with the spectrum.

but that is economic consequences. be nice if it could be harmonized. and there's also this question that the u.s. is never really resolved about licensed hybrid licensed, unlicensed and licensed. and what do i mean by that? we kind of have three different spectrum systems now, in my view. they are short of what you might think of as the traditional license, the command and control some might call it. and there is what you might call traditional and license which are very limited set of technical standards and that's it. then you have sort of this new hybrid approach like we have, three dot five or three dot six internationally where you have a band of database in some sort of form of centralized control.

so one question for 5g is, are wewe come is the united states going to settle on a model for how they want to handle the spectrum in the 5g environment? or the going to just do it on a little bit of this, although bit of that experiment a basis which i think is is kind of how the fcc sort of has gone so far in what they call their spectrum front years preceding. and by little bit of this, little bit of that, i need it's been a long wait for this at the agency. the fcc has never really articulated a decisional basis for deciding how much spectrum michael into a particular model. it's just sort of hashed out i guess through negotiations, you know, without any real, you know, stringent qualification justification for the disease.

will there be a quantitative justification for a decision made in that respect? and the last time i would leave you with is how, do those decisions play out with the fcc's public interest standard? what do i mean by that? it's interesting to me that the way it works today, if you have a license spectrum, you're subject to a whole host of additional fcc obligations like merger reviews and the like because you have licensed spectrum. if you use unlicensed spectrum but use it not as an individual consumer but on a very commercialized basis and even potentially, potentially on a competitive basis with other licensees, you don't have any of those obligations. and so when does, the question of spectrum allocation/service

rules movie on just a question of which model do we like the spectrum purposes? that actually plays into the larger debate about the role and how it administers its regulations. because, frankly, right now that dichotomy arguably is nonsensical. >> two things. first i think on the court fcc side there is incredible amount behind, minimizing to the way you phrased it, minimize the touch points between industry figure out how best to use the technology and the fcc. there is it the question of just making the license is available. so the most recent spectrum front tier actually has, you get into the technicalities of the commissions licensing approach but we have to do work on the licenses themselves. more importantly the auction, what is the plan and that has to be decided.

everyone agrees it should go as quickly as possible, but that's going to be the last big step. i will also pass it off on -- a part of my answer. in a lot of these new 5g cases, you really get into these adjacent areas, so automated cars, for example. it has a 5g future use that people talk about the low latency value of 5g spectrum only bein been useful for automd vehicles because the car will stop much more quickly when there is more latency. whatever the fcc does, the national -- safety miss a chance to make sure it is being done in a way that assay for the operation of the vehicles and they just put out their version of an early rulemaking on a piece of that this week. drones, even a better example. as one agrees the economic potential value of drones is huge but boy, they will make real sure before we start letting drones fly commercial

payloads over, they understand the safety rules of that. whatever the spectrum, that's probably the easy part actually. that's the other piece of this, these new use cases that 5g rapidly get beyond the traditional wire carries building mobile services, 5g is probably bigger and broader than that. not having a five-year process to figure out those rules is probably important. >> i'll build on what jon was saying. we talked about 5g as it is one thing, and it's not. the penny on who you talk to, it could be many different things to many different folks. and it is really an echo system of capabilities that are going to satisfy a very diverse set of requirements, whether it be a type of iot to the very high-capacity services that we see in the future.

it really is many things combined into a concept at this point in time, in my personal opinion. and part of what we need to do is continue to better characterize what it is, how it will be deployed, how it's going to be used. that will help drive, continue to drive the standard developments, how it will be shared, spectrum that it needs, how it will be shared again to help drive what the standards should be internationally to enable the kinds of services, the kinds of sharing, the kinds of security that we envision in the future. so i think a key component is to better characterize what it is and how we will be used, how it would be poised. that's an ongoing process now. are a lot of folks addressing that. and then to ensure that those characteristics and requirements are adequately addressed within

the standards, community. and that will help us understand from expectant standpoint what does that mean in terms of potential demands, the types of spectrum that's needed for the various use cases or applications that it will serve and help others make more prudent decisions in terms of what spectrum may need to be made available, additional spectrum, or or how it will be shared between federal and nonfederal users. and i would say that spectrum is a pillar but it's only one component but an important component but there are a lot of other issues that needs to be addressed for successful 5g deployment whether it be infrastructure or other issues that are critical to the success of 5g. >> i have lots of other questions. i want to open it up to the audience. if you have extraordinarily

knowledgeable experts here on a wide range of issues. i have a question here. >> as fred pointed out that are different models we could adopt for 5g and the model you would want we depend on the technology and application and paige, there are a lot of possibilities. we may have the standard bodies waiting for regulators to tell us what the need to develop and regulators waiting for standard bodies to pick models. who should be driving this process or how do we coordinate across all these players? >> coordination is a challenge. i agree with both panelists earlier that i do think, you know, the ntia and federal agencies have gotten much better, much more open collaboration. i think i've seen that.

we have seen that, not just on panels like this but i've seen, you know, senior military officials talk about the need to think about how they can open the spectrum of even for their own reasons that's good for them. it's not much of an attribute i guess i would say yes, there's got to be collaboration. policymakers should, if they are not now, be more involved potentially in somebody's discussions earlier on. not be necessary as passive. those trade-offs and risks looking like it's getting too involved in the standards making process. do that in a way that, you know, i guess advisory committees are one way to do it. they are not as international fellow because standards bodies,

ieee, international model so it's a difficult question. i think collaboration is good. spirit i would give a slight different answer. i think competition is good. i think it's great to have competition standards. europeans are very, they gravitate towards a single answer and i think the u.s. tries different standards of it. that's happened with every technology standard from wireless services. if -- go back 25 years ago on advanced television standards. and again, the japanese had a very advanced, but it wasn't a digital standard. so i think there's a lot of value in having competition of standards.

at some point there has to be coordination to some sort of mass-market attraction, but i do think the u.s. has been more on the side of angels that not on delaying standards until you are further along in the process. >> i am biased because we've been doing this on u.s. policy side but i think the approach of focus on making, the terms of access commercial use of the spectrum and fred's point, there's a different version but please clarify what it is. have them create incentives for frankly the commercial players who have got, maybe cap different versions of what they think is going to work. it would differ on the details but when they know they get spectrum to you, that then starts generate the real engagement in the standard bodies.

the standard bodies are pretty good forums for different economic interest but maybe that will bit but it is all grounded in technical reality. and i think even very recently industry, i think what we've seen is the fcc at least clarified what the rules are going to be for using the spectrum. we've seen a lot more activity are clarifying standards downstream of that. i think that's the use approach and i would agree with harold, i think we serve long ago in the u.s. agreed we don't want, there's too much collaboration of running kevin on his with the standards really should be, and it's better to let the market find out in a policy support that. >> we learn as we go. and so it's not want absolutely driving the other. it's learning and adjusting to optimize 5g or whatever the technology and business market

spirit let me clarify my answer. to be clear i actually wholeheartedly agree with all the panelists and harold to the extent i am not a fan of government mandated standards, which was a difference difference between the u.s. and europe and 2g, for example. i think more of what, i think what i understood john's to be, one thing that seems to be somewhat of a consensus, although i agree with you, you, 5g is her influx, is that to the extent it's about having multipurpose networks that can handle verticals, and maybe i'm getting too complex. i expected to have multiple, potentially multiple interfaces and the like. and then the question becomes some of which may have different spectrum needs potential release

different interference concerns and displeasure with the federal government at the like. i understood john's question to be how do you resolve all those issues? i generally for market-based approaches wherever possible but given the potential complexity, some interaction as bing felt seems like it might be a good idea. i definitely wasn't advocating for an adopted approach, if you will speak i think we were answering different parts of jon's question. >> i think 5g is an amazing opportunity to do things right from the start in many areas pick it includes looking at enforcement and what we may need to integrate into the standards in collaboration with industry. that would make sense. and how we can integrate, again sharing mechanisms into the standard that allow us to use it in a much more effective and efficient way. i think it gives us an opportunity to inject things that we know we need in the future that we may not have known as we were developing other standards along the way.

>> next question here gentlemen over here. >> thank you. i was wondering as frequencies get higher, the effective usable range gets a lot shorter. and i'm wondering if it's going to be feasible, technically, economically and especially administratively to license exclusive spectrum used over very small areas? for example, a farmer wants exclusive use to do precision farming over his farm only. is it going to be something he would be able to do and afford and be able to get, not have to hire a bunch of people to go through the paperwork? >> that's a great question. first, i want to parse one part of it. absolutely, the distances are much shorter, the cell size will be much smaller. that's a different question of how -- a bigger license than a

commercial owner could build a very dense -- but the question you're racing action is one that has been teed up as questions in proceedings. the way to get to the question of, let me change your analogy or your example slightly. let's say it's the interior space of a commercial building where you may have a broad commercial owner that holds a geographic license but includes a bunch of buildings that because at 20 gigahertz you are not going to the building, no matter how hard you try. you had this interesting inside the building, whoever owns the license because you can't really get in there and let's work with the building owner, so what's the policy mechanisms to do that efficiently? i think we're still struggling but i think it's a good example as the technology improves we use more and more spectrum in different ways. a more creative approach. if all you did was say

traditional license is one entity owned all of an area areu probably do have some inefficiencies because even if that owner wanted it inside, just the building, how to get rights to go to the building? how do you manage that? it's been teed up. not an answer but a great question. and by the way, that's an issue, much smaller propagation but all kinds of other interesting issues about from a regular toy standpoint do we make deployment happen just a bit of a broader question that just make the spectrum of available. so as simple as local processes used to improve cell towers where he might have one in a five square mile radius. suddenly there folks who work in industry or talk about this lately. that same five-mile radius you might have 1000 small sales of another local processes are sort of the same and that doesn't

scale. these are the kinds of things are out on the front lines being deployed, working through as we speak spirit i would just provide a little layer of that, which is a model that doesn't fit within the current spectrum management framework. that's my opinion. so, for example, people posited a nuisance approach, if if you will based on real property to spectrum management situations like this. then i would say okay, one difference with real property is your local zoning and access to local courts. but, so when i hear of a nuisance type model i think of one federal court, if you will, the fcc was a total of two admission law judges. i don't see how it fits the model. i would have to go into a lot more detail. my initial reaction is you can't do it that way, and less you want to rethink how we can only do things on a more fundamental

basis. largely where we've gotten, we are today where i think we have three models, none of which to have a coherent theory to describe another fit and work together, because we have done things layer by layer. but when you start to get back, you start to worry the whole thing is going to break spirit i would make a couple for the point. one is we already have a lot of licenses in the millimeter band, 24 or the 40 gigahertz area, 37 gigahertz. what a lot of what the spectrum frontier order does is provide flexibility use instead of limiting these point to point or point to multipoint purposes. the size of a geographic license is something that has been of interest in all spectrum bands and in every single commission

order on allocating new spectrum. the issues come up but once the right size of the spectrum, other geographic area license? and the commission struggled with this, everything from nationwide licenses to really fairly small geographic areas, smaller than the city. i don't think there's a single right answer but it also again, as jon said i don't think it really depends really on the frequency, the issue of what the right geographic areas. something the commission has always struggled with and, frankly, i think will continue to struggle with. >> yes. >> thank you, everyone. so the pcast report, in it it's a summer along the lines that the invasion of world showing of

unlicensed two licensed akin to the tdy spaces proceeding. and that's a littl a little cong to me. tdy spaces have not performed as well as people were hoping. that was a couple years ago a device maker predicted they would have 100,000,000 devices within three years. i think they sold 100. so modeling it that way is concerning. what lessons cap policymakers taken from that to make sure that three point five and the other sharing mechanisms work better than tdy spaces? >> well, i'll take the first shot at it. i think there's various unique aspects with tdy spaces context but i don't know that sort of disproves the possibility of having a system like that working effectively.

i think probably the biggest change and again three top-five context this is where we're seeing the current version of it. but as networks continue to evolve and basically it's digital single processes now go fast enough that you can go into the networks essentially the sharing implementation. so this is actually larry mentioned the easy example for 3.5 is make you more spectrum available. you have military radars used on the coast. when they use you better not interfere with and because it's really important because the aircraft carrier is coming through and don't mess with it. but it's not an hourly event or even a daily event. other than that one time should be available for commercial use. but if you are the navy you want to make darn sure that there's no ambiguity about when you need it, it's available. a lot of the discussion is about how do you build that into the networks themselves?

you do want to rely on a database, somebody goes out inquiries it, it has to be embedded in the networks. though citizens are being worked on at the commission has an open downstream of that order. the bureau is looking at applications to implement this system. but i think you just pointed broader technological trends. at&t is very vocal about thank you the future network much more of a network function embedded in software. i think that brought example can be applied to the sharing context of you can intimate these rules don't meet it is about more effective time space-bar\space bar nation of unused spectrum. how to best use it. i think the general approach is one that has to be tried for all the recent talk about and 3.5 is a next spot of it spit i think were talking about our transaction costs. i view it as a triangle as i try

to describe in my students were we have command and control which is somewhat there was a consensus we didn't like anymore although it is never gone away. in fact most command and control. then there was what i call pure unlicensed witches you have a very limited set of technical rules and is supposed to be due whatever you like. and then you now have a new hybrid pick the way i describe it is the new hybrid is really just a new flavor of command ad control. it's a return to my example would be the recent conflicts over wi-fi and lte and traditional pure unlicensed bands under the rules doing lte is perfectly permissible. people do analog to digital which blows that any wi-fi in that area. and nobody bats an eye. but now you're going to commercialize it on a big scale with a different technology and basic of the wi-fi industry raised at banas said you can't do that.

what is that? is a form of squatter rights. by the way i'm a fan of wi-fi. i love it. i'm just talking policy. ironically so, therefore, what i say it's a form of command control we have relive history. so prior to the radio act in 1912, but there was no regulation of the airwaves and the problem was that there were broadcasters and interference and that the complaint was there are squatters. squatter rights and we can't let that happen. so then we regulated it to eliminate the squatter rights to command and control process. so unlicensed comes along and the modern form and says technology will eliminate all problems are intended only if we all agree to the same standard. which could you back to the government dictating the standard which is what the different broadcast. they haven't done that. in other words, we have just done the 1930s all over again which is why we have the new hybrid model. the hybrid models are very much

more sophisticated and forcible form of command control hopefully, but we have just shifted the set of trade-offs again. property rights give their own trade-offs, and those who didn't like those say we need to do this other thing here now we're back to the command and control set of trade-offs which is government mandated standards potential to even the 3.5 which is very interesting and innovative but it does complicate sort of the control part of the network to be managed by someone. will it be one company? do they didn't have an monopoly? is it a form of license? it gets very complicated very quickly. i'm a fan of property rights because that just gets sort of a lobby out of it and let's people go figure it out. that's the trade-off command and control issues you have a government kind of hand involved in everything.

>> our last question is going to be from someone who has been watching through c-span, michael marcus, from the policy committee to this is for paige but i will open it up to all three of you, which is what can ndaa do to facilitate sharing of greenfield spectrum above 95 gigahertz cracks open it up to the fcc use. i think the question generally is, we've had some focus now on millimeter wave spectrum. what about even smaller spectrum, technology eventually will get there. are there plans that ntia to open some of that up? >> i would say that i don't see it any differently than the other dance we've been discussing. it's a matter of collaboration

and discussion in terms of how can we share as appropriate? when you get higher and higher in frequency, theoretically and technically it makes it easier to share among multiple users and potentially systems. i think it's a matter of discussion, collaboration and defining a path forward which we would do in collaboration with the commission, industry and the agency. ..

>> we want to make progress on these, so the administration change is happening, but this' one going to definitely keep going, would be my guess. issues like that, they are teed up in active commission proceeding, and actually to the gentleman's question from before, when you get that high, the provocation gets real small. [laughter] and what is the most sensible approach for a spectrum that whatever anybody says around the ability to use certain directional technologies, you know, you're never going to be going kilometers in distance. so what does that mean for the best way to use that. but this is open from the fcc, this is not a theoretical question. >> jon, i think you have the last word. please join me in thank our panel today. thank you so much. [applause]

[inaudible conversations] >> this week here on c-span2 it's booktv in prime time each night, and tonight biographies and autobiographies. we'll hear from authors of books on al capone and eleanor roosevelt and a former secret service agent who worked under presidents eisenhower, kennedy, johnson, nixon and ford. also autobiographies by diane guerrero and congressman darrell issa. >> sunday, january 1st, "in depth" will feature a live discussion on the presidency of barack obama. we're taking your phone calls, tweets, e-mails and facebook questions during the program. our panel includes april ryan, white house correspondent for american urban radio networks and author of "the presidency in black and white."

princeton university professor eddie glout and pulitzer prize-winning journalist and associate editor of the washington post, david maraniss, author of "barack obama: the story." watch "in depth" live from noon to 3 p.m. eastern on sunday on booktv on c-span2. >> follow the transition of government on c-span as president-elect donald trump selects his cabinet and the republicans and democrats prepare for the next congress. we'll take you to key events as they happen without interruption. watch live on c-span, watch on demand at c-span.org or listen on our free c-span radio app. >> well, coming up next here on c-span2, a conversation on the security issues facing latin america and the geopolitics of the region following the death of fidel castro. we'll also hear about how

president-elect donald trump might approach u.s. relations with latin america. [inaudible conversations] >> okay. well, i think we ought to get started here. it looks like the weather, perhaps, has held a few people back, but we have a, in my humble opinion, a superb group of people to meet with you here today and to talk and update us all on latin america and what the situation looks like and what some of the real challenges are. it's interesting when you go back, i remember about 18 years ago or so when we undertook a massive counterterrorism type effort, a big study on both the national, the international and

the regional security concerns. and out of that, one of the big studies was on latin america. and if you read through that report in 1999, while some things have changed, i was talking to some of our colleagues here earlier, some things have changed. the situation is certainly better in peru, and it has, certainly, an optimistic potential in colombia and the like. in some ways the situation in venezuela is not even as good as it was then, so many of the thoughts that came out then are applicable today. and that's sort of the way it is. so sometimes i guess it's a good idea to review our history and know where we've been so that we can talk about the future. but at any rate, enough of that. yonah, let's get started. it's your privilege to introduce our super quest program.

guest program. you ready? >> thank you. >> make it quick now. we're going to finish on time today. >> i have three minutes? >> yeah. you can have as much as you want. >> okay. >> [inaudible] >> well, it's going to take me more than three minutes to introduce, but the good news is that we've distributed the bios, so you can look at these for some details. first of all, i will follow what the general said. i will introduce, first, the panel. then i will follow with a few footnotes. after all, i'm trying to be an academic. but, so next to the general we have professor margaret hayes

who is well known, but i just will mention one or two highlights. she's the former director of the center for hemispheric defense studies at the national defense university, very distinguished institution. also she was a staff member the u.s. senate foreign relations committee and had a very distinguished academic experience at the center of naval analysis and also a professor now at georgetown. and she also served at the johns hopkins university and so forth. and she has a wide range, i think, of issues that she's dealt with over the years all

the way from the security sector reform, military-civilian relations, the peace processes, humanitarian issues. these are some of the issues that, obviously, will come up today. she was educated at indiana university for the ph.d. and north westernment great -- northwestern. great institutions. next to her, i will call her dr. diana negroponte who was alsoing educated -- also educated at iu law school and also georgetown and elsewhere, at the london school of economics, etc. as i said, they can read your background at their leisure. but what is really important,

she worked on many of these issues. she lived in mexico, central america and so forth. and i understand maybe it's a secret, but she is writing a book on jim baker and the cold war. i think there are many important lessons to learn. we look toward to reading the book -- forward to reading the book. next to her is our colleague, bruce zagaris. incidentally, we have three lawyers here, so we have to be very careful what we are saying. new the interest of transparency, also diana is a lawyer. bruce is a lawyer. a distinguished lawyer. he is a partner at a law firm -- [inaudible] cochran and roe and specializing in international criminal law enforcement. actually, we discuss his topic today, and i think he will focus

more on international cooperation in law enforcement and so forth. so he has a wide experience, practice in latin america with individuals, entities and governments around the world with. very distinguished, i think, scholar. very prolific and currently he's also the editor of international enforcement law reporter. next to him is another lawyer but a friend, a true friend -- [laughter] fernando jimenez from spain, with whom we had the honor to work on some of these issues related to the challenges of -- [inaudible] in spain but also the interregional, i think, issues of latin america.

he was a governor of the basque country, etc., but also he's involved in some legal activities related to latin america first at the inter-american bank, development bank and currently is providing consulting services. so these are the four speakers, but we do have, of course, general gray who made very brief opening remarks, but wait for his closing remarks. at any rate, our colleague, don wallace, is a professor at georgetown law school and so on and our colleague for many, many years, very distinguished background.

you can read it, all about that. so i think we have a terrific panel. we have also a very knowledgeable audience of scholars, academics, government officials who will contribute to our dialogue today, and we're very grateful to them. we're also appreciative to c-span for recording this, broadcasting our discussion because the key is really education and to make sure that we're dealing with credible information at a time when journalists and the media are struggling with fake information or so so-called information of propaganda, whatever one wants to call it. so we're grateful again for c-span for bringing this event

to the attention of a broader audience in the united states and abroad. now, the purpose of this seminar again is to deal with multiple challenges, security challenges. depends on the definition, what does it mean, "security"? again, general gray referred to some, but it goes all the way from organized crime to terrorism. again, all the way from lone wolf to organized groups like the farc and so on. and, obviously, state-sponsored terrorism, terrorism that we're going to deal with and so on. and besides that, obviously you have the question of

immigration, sometimes called refugees, but immigration, i think, is more appropriate. economic development, i humanitarian issues, the rights of women and also the interregional link between latin america to africa in terms of, f narco-trafficking. all of the volunteers, so-called volunteers of quote-unquote fighters or terrorists are joining the islamic state or al-qaeda. and, obviously, we can go into some of these details. if i may, general, just for transparency and to provide a general context, i would like to mention very humbly that since the 1950s particularly as a outcome of the so-called cuban

revolution under the leadership of castro, at that time i was a graduate student for the ph.d. at columbia university. and then through the cuban missile crisis, one of our distinguished colleagues, dr. ray kline who was deputy cia director, he actually briefed president john kennedy to show the evidence, the photos of the russians' involvement at that time in cuba. and subsequently, i was fortunate to work with him on the involvement of the soviet union in latin america, roots of which go back to the 1930s and activities of the cubans, for

example, in africa and elsewhere. so this was one experience in regard to cuba, and i'm sure that the issue of cuba is going to be discussed, particularly as a result of the new administration that would have to deal with the cuban relations, american relations. the second experience i would like to mention is argentina very briefly. all the way from the dirty war between 1976 to 1983, about seven years, i think -- [inaudible] may not be familiar about that. and i think it's important to look at that background in terms of the lessons learned. in other words, the program at that time was repression of the

rebel or the so-called rebels or terrorists, dissidents that were conducted by the government forces of the time, the disappearances, the torture and other practices and massive violations of human civil rights. and so forth. so i think one has to look at that particular lesson. and then on a personal level or professional-academic, i had the opportunity to be involved in the investigation of the attack on the jewish center in buenos aires in 1994, the so-called -- [inaudible] attack. 85 people were killed, more than 100 people were injured. but the point is that both the

hezbollah and iran were involved, and the story is not over even two decades later on. when the prosecutor, for example, a few years ago, three years ago or so, two years ago was assassinated, alberto -- [inaudible] so this particular event is not concluded. the other, the other experience that i think we would have to deal with and, of course, the general mentioned is colombia. the bad news is that it was actually -- [inaudible] half a century. the good news is, of course, that president santos just a few days ago received the nobel peace prize. the conclusion of that terrible war in colombia. so we will have to look at this as well. and finally, one more, i think,

experience that we would have to look at in terms of the relevant implications for security, let's say our security, is brazil. in terms of the zika epidemics. and we had opportunity to work with the brazilians on some of the olympics as well. so with that broad, i think, outline, i would like to begin to discuss the challenges, the security challenges in latin america, and we ask professor margaret hayes to provide some general overview, and then we'll deal with some specifics of this. would you like to come here or -- whatever is more convenient for you. >> [inaudible] >> okay. >> this works. is this microphone on?

yes? okay. well, first of all, thank you very much for the invitation to participate in this discussion because i sometimes fear that the kind of attention, the quality of attention that is given to the latin american region by our government and by our population is way below what needs to be paid. and certainly fear that that may be the case in the incoming administration. i would take a point of difference with you, professor alexander, and perhaps with the title of this seminar. i'm not sure that the passing of

fidel is going to have much difference, make much difference in the region. cuba has its own problems. it's going to have to deal very definitely with an underperforming economy, with a new government, and the question comes not right now, but once raul castro passes from the scene. what happens to the internal politics within, within cuba. but the rest of the hemisphere does suffer from some profound insecurities. many of which were listed, itemized in the 2003 oas multidimensional security declaration which sought to bring attention to the human

security side of the security equation. the rights of personnel, the need for safety in your community and so forth. and so i think the insecurity or what i call the insecurities of the region are the ones that are going to be of concern in the region and to which we need to pay attention. obviously, drug trafficking is one. transnational organized crime that facilitates drug trafficking, but also the profound -- and we're seeing more and more -- profound corruption in many of the governments, the failure of their legal institutions really to function efficiently, effect effectively well, the failure of governments to exercise the

basic tasks of managing financial sector, providing education, providing health, providing transportation, encouraging good jobs and so forth are the things that are in, that really are going to plague the region. and i think this, the place we need to put a lot of attention is the focus on governance. the world bank many years ago undertook to try to understand why with all the money that the bank was putting into africa, countries didn't develop. and they came out with a very good document. this was a long time ago, 1992 -- [laughter] called governance and development. but we haven't gone very much

beyond the document there. what is government? what is governance? the procedures, the organization, the rules, regulation, laws that yield good results in the execution of tasks of government. and the economic efficient, effective employment of national resources. and governance, management in the public sector. rules that people follow and that effectively limit or promote activities. and the services that the state requires. one of the problems of the latin american region is that the crime and violence, the corruption, the impunity is

contributing to what i'll call community decay. separation of families. one of the reasons there are so many gangs and gangs are the family for young people in central america or in the slums of rio, is because their parents, their aunts and uncles have left for the united states to get a job when jobs are not available in their, in their country. the central bank of el salvador several years ago did a survey and found that young people, teenagers' main goal as they looked forward was to leave el salvador and go to another country, go to the united states especially in order to get a job, get away from whatever their environment was, was

providing. but this community decay, the fact that the people don't trust the police, the fact that the police are so ill-prepared even resourced and trained that countries are calling in their military without training them in urban operations as we had to learn -- [laughter] in the united states. so this trust -- community decay, family decay contributes to lack of trust in the state, lack of trust in your neighbors and so forth. it is leading to the formation of substitute families, gangs in many of these cities in particular.

the availability of the gang organization is leading to, contributing to drug trafficking, to profound extortion across particularly central america. many of you may have seen the two penny gang story in "the new york times," i believe, or the washington post recently on the -- >> new york times. >> it was in "the new york times", yeah. the, describing the activities of, the extortion activities of gangs in central america. what governments are not providing, donor institutions are seeking to provide. community activities that will provide an alternative life for some of these youth.

but you can't, but the governments themselves -- because they are largely ineffective -- are not necessarily adopting some of the suggestions that usaid, that the inter-american development bank and others are suggesting. there have been some good stories. ciudad juarez on the u.s. border of mexico has had a kind of a resurgent, a mayor who took it upon himself to really address the problems of local community coordination and looking out for activities in the different parts of the community. and resolved a good bit of the gang violence in that community. but they're far -- there are far

too few of this kind of activity. because of the violence, neither the local elite nor the international community is investing in the region. and you don't have jobs -- if you don't have jobs to look for, the family doesn't have jobs, the parents leave, the kids want to leave in order to join their families. this, i don't know, many of you may think back to the tyke that i served in the -- to the time that i served in the foreign relations committee. we had the caribbean basin initiative which was intended to stimulate international investment in central america, the caribbean and so forth. there was a time that all your t-shirts were made in haiti, and -- but it was a brief time. [laughter]

and because of violence, because of lack of good government, the industries have left. and they're not going to go back unless countries are going to be able to resolve some of their problems. now, there are some good things that we need to talk about. first of all, the countries are beginning to cooperate amongst each other. central americans have signed the alliance for prosperity in the northern triangle which is, hopefully, going to promote the coordination of efforts -- particular my economic efforts, but border control efforts, law enforcement efforts -- amongst the three countries. ..

>> general king who is the deputy commander of the u.s. southern command in the u.s. representative in haiti after the earthquake. as a result of his experience as the new c-2 is coordination collaboration. i think that is a good way to think about what these generally poorly integrated countries are beginning to do and beginning to see that they need to do. they are also working on the military side. there's quite a bit of positive collaboration as we saw on the response to the haiti

earthquake, all of a sudden peru and chile are holding long-term enemies are holding disaster response exercises jointly. that is very positive. where the militaries are cooperating much more, other elements of government, the police, the courts, the border, the border control and so forth are not doing nearly enough. we need to see more of that. i think we also need to look at what is going on that is bad and that is good. already mentioned venezuela. that is bad. how is venezuela after this current crisis passes, if it ever does, how are they going to put the country back together

again. how do you put humpty dumpty back together when the government has totally undermined the legal tradition, changed all of the loss and so forth. brazil is mentioned. i am a member of -- so i have special interest of what is going on in brazil. but the endemic corruption that has occurred in the brazilian government needs to be ended by the very people who are profiting and taking advantage of opportunities for corruption, for example the legislatures, the politicians politicians and so forth. this is going to be hard. central america is obviously a problem. we government, corruption and impunity and so forth.

the columbia peace process is a positive. columbia has one of the stronger governments, unfortunately that government doesn't do very well getting out of bogota and maine cities. it has to extend the capacity of the state to remote areas. it was fascinating that the referendum in support of the peace accord was defeated by low turnout in precisely the areas of the country where support for peace and an end to violence for the highest. but they were also the areas of the country where the government reached less well or not at all.

you mentioned argentina at its dirty war but i think that is something that has passed in argentina. argentina, chile, both countries with military dictatorships that were particularly nasty, probably have some of the best chances to reestablish good and effective government. it will not be easy to do. there is a lot of work to be done. but there is positive movement and there some foundation on which to build in these countries with respect to argentina specifically i will tell a funny story. i once asked an argentinian economist working at the world bank, what you learn in primary

and secondary school about how democracy, how your government ought to work? what are the responsibilities, what responsibilities, what are the rules of the game? and this individual kind of chuckled and said, you know i think think we's shot all of those professors. but i think the question is something we all ought to ask as we deal with the region. what do young people, whether they're in good schools are bad schools learn about how government should perform. what the responsibilities of government are and what the responsibilities of citizens are. i think without that glue of

faith in your government and good performance on the part of your government, is going to be very hard to deal with the questions of transnational organized crime, of gang violence, et cetera. i think we also need to be quite aware that an awful lot of the moneymaking traffic is moving toward the united states. in the form of marijuana, cocaine, increasingly from mexico heroine, and the arms trade goes the opposite direction. so we are contributing to part of this. we have an obligation to participate and do it we can to help resolve some of these problems.

there problems that do not just deal with controlling gang violence. or transnational organized organized crime. they are problems that most profoundly related to poor, the effective government and rule of law that exists in many of the countries. >> thank you very much. [applause] >> i think we are going to focus on the children and the role of education because of the so-called challenges there really the outcome of all the

children. we can talk about all the tragedies elsewhere such as in syria so the children in the refugee camps today or tomorrow perhaps they will turn to the gun. >> they have no other skill. >> i am delighted that you tried to focus on the education effort. we're going to move on. there are a lot of issues but will come back to a discussion. i think we move on to the next speaker right here you can speak about any other related issue. >> thank you very much professor and thank you for inviting me to

participate in the panel. i am going to return to your theme, challenges and opportunities in the post-castro era and i'm going to raise it in the context of venezuela. because venezuela has become a cuban security. with cuban provided military intelligence, dr., nurses, in exchange for venezuelan oil. in the existence of the state and the problems that a cost principally for the venezuela people are a concern not only for the hemisphere but also for us in the united states. so there are issues i want to raise this afternoon. how does cuba and venezuela, the

so-called single government single country separate. secondly, what was cuba's role in the creation of the security states in venezuela, and how is it unraveling today? third, what options are there for the venezuela people themselves to undo, repair, their political and most economic situation. and and finally, what is the role of the international community, including the united states. i will give you some background allow me to be very brief. only have ten minutes i really, really want to focus on the issues. when -- was elected, he he was a colonel in the venezuelan office

in 1999 he introduces bulgarian socialism. that is that the state is dedicated to bring about greater equality to have the farewell from the richest to the poor and housing, transportation, medical health, education, so that education, so that those who are deprived in previous decades would be able to assert the rights of venezuelan people. he dies in 2014 no, 2013. he is succeeded by the cuban selected air a former union leader but a man who had been trained politically in havana. he had neither the charisma nor the smarts, nor any economic

basis on which to lead the venezuelan people. so today, we have inflation according to the ims, at 180%. they anticipate that within inflation in november, last last month at 58%, inflation rate for next year will be over 600 percent. in all of us can recall from our history in fact that it had in germany and the lack of support of ordinary venezuelan citizens were trust in their government. in the political realm, a divided opposition decided not to participate in legislative

elections which meant that the chavez party could take control of the legislator and with that control stack the supreme court in the electoral tribunal. the result is that central control created by chavez and inherited by maduro and now faced with both political and economic crisis. political crisis is that the opposition exactly one year ago, december 15, 15, 2151 of two thirds majority in the national assembly enabling these diverse opposition parties to unite, unusual but they did with the demand for a recall referendum or what we would call it impeachment of the president.

the president resisted, the president use the supreme court to deny the recall referendum on grounds of fraud and despite the fact that the opposition succeeded in gaining 1.8 million votes in favor of the recall referendum this appearing court has denied it. the electoral tribunal has not only denied that referendum but has denied the elections this month for mayors and state governor. in in other words, legislative participation and electoral democracy is dead at the moment and venezuela. at the same time, food is very short. medicines medicines are not to be found. the police stack the hospitals, guard the hospital so that any

new medications, antibiotics, anesthesia, bandages, can be stolen and resold outside. the venezuelan people are suffering to a degree different from syria but equivalent in terms of human suffering. violence now has an intentional homicide rate of 90 per 100,000, that is the worst in the world except for syria. it compares with 25 years ago when it was only 8 - 10 people per 100,000. in other words, the venezuelan state has collapsed. so what does the cuban

leadership in 2007 proclaimed it we are single government. it stayed with them because subsidize oil enabled the cuban economy to run area but that subsidize oil no longer arrives in the quantity it used too. in 2008 it was 115,000 barrels per day. today, it is 55000 barrels today. the last venezuelan tanker to dock at the port and unload venezuelan oil was august. in the cumin leadership has recognized. venezuela can no longer be helpful to us.

so it is demanding that it's doctors and nurses return. it is separating itself from the doomed venezuelan economy and state. when fidel died, raul attended the funeral and he sat on raul's left and cried. he then said, read, the the venezuelan people will continue on fidel's work. the bola variance socialist revolution will continue. i wonder what with? so as we see cuba separate itself from venezuela and shift towards the reliance on american tourism and international

investment, we ask, what can and what are the venezuelan people doing to resolve the situation? here's a big question, there are those who believe that once again the student should go back into the street to demonstrate, venezuelan workers should go back to demonstrate and there is this more violent wing around among the opposition who would like to bring down the maduro regime. through public demonstration. but it risks violence on a huge scale. because the state not only has the national guard, the military and the police but it also has what they call collectives. these are young men and women who put on a uniform for the occasion, take out their motor right bike and/and murder and

violence is widespread and is always deniable because they are not part of the state. there is a hope but it is only based on the hope that the venezuelan military who have a tradition of upholding constitutional law will not allow this violence to take place. that they will stop and restrain the place. they will put themselves between the demonstrators in the state to achieve so-called. but the leadership of the military have been corrupted by participation in drug trade. so they are now participants in the transfer of cocaine, heroin, and meth.

and to africa and to a lesser degree, to to us in the united states. there's no promise that they will act as a restraining force. those on the opposite side of venezuela believe that discussion and dialogue is the only way forward. they have been helped by the vatican who, in october as maduro to enter into negotiations with the opposition to seek a solution. the opposition demanded two things. one was the constitutional right for recall referendum. the second was the release of political prisoners. those numbers of political prisoners are now in the hundred. many of them are hauled into jail for only a matter of three or four days. but they are treated in such

inhumane ways during those days that when released they will retreat to the family and their homes, fearful of of being exposed once again to that brutality. so while you have this moderation weighing which has, since october 20 them participating in negotiations brokered by the former president of spain, the dominican republic in panama, those negotiations have gone nowhere. maduro has stole it each point. such that earlier this week the opposition said it is not worth us remaining at the table, we will not participate in next tuesday's meeting. maduro has agreed to keep the table open until january 17 which conveniently is seven days

after the constitutional deadline for a recall referendum. after that date, the vice president will take leadership and they will move towards the next presidential election. in other words, words, maduro has a way of protecting his regime even if he has to step aside which suggest that it is the regime clinging to power because once it loses the immunity from prosecution as government officials they are exposed to cases, criminal cases for drug trafficking and abuse of human rights and for other international crime. what is the international community doing? the urgent indians have taken the lead. they have said to venezuela, you

are no longer acceptable within the regional grouping of south american countries, your presidency of it is suspended and we are assuming that when the venezuelan foreign minister appeared this weekend and bonus entries to assume her chair she was not allowed in the room. she was then subjected to jostling outside of the room which maduro said was abuse to her since she ended up on the floor. nobody can quite see the floor or her on the floor, but there's no doubt there is pressure on her to move away from the room where they were meeting and she was rejected. nicaragua remains a friend. bolivia remains a friend, but

neither country is in a capacity to really support the economy as it goes through the spiraling downturn. so finally what should we, what could president-elect trump too? i would suggest that in the same way that he had a telephone call to doctor dashmac, the president of taiwan, this is the time for a telephone call to the leadership of venezuelan opposition. it is the time for stating u.s. support for the opposition. knowing that maduro will use it to say that the united states is in connivance with the opposition. but but to state that we stand for something and that the maltreatment of citizens and humanitarian crisis is not something we can tolerate. our secretary of state a elect

the head of exxon mobil knows the situation since mobil has had it assets a x appropriated and a 2014 exxon mobil won a suit for damages to the amount to the amount of 41,400,000,000 dollars. so we have a. so we have a secretary of state elect to gnosis situation ends venezuela and we have a president-elect who is prepared to change some of the traditional positions of u.s. foreign policy and make telephone calls which wake people up. that is my words and i look forward to questions later. [applause] >> i think you have touched some very important case. obviously again like margaret it

triggers a lot of questions not only the situation itself or that american relationships but globally in a particularly [inaudible] during the final but will come back to it now and we will move on and we have good news force. >> i have mixed news. first thank you for the invitation. it is an honor and pleasure to be here. so what i want to do is talk about several issues. want want to talk about some of the issues of transnational organized crime, arms, drugs, migration, touch on a couple of the

geographical issues and then i want to focus on the need to build a better hemispheric framework for international enforcement cooperation. it is challenging for the new administration because of the campaign discussion of tougher border walls, some of the derogatory remarks about mexicans it also about the need to renegotiate nafta and some of the discussion against free trade. at the beginning of the administration i think it would be good for the new administration to call the leaders together and to sit down tote