federal laws and physician assisted suicide. foreign policy analysts discuss security in latin america, including human rights in cuba after the death of fidel castro and the future of venezuela. from the potomac institute for policy studies, this is two hours. >> okay, well, i think we ought to get started here. looks like the weather perhaps

has held a few people back, but we have, 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 regional security concerns and out of that, one of the big studies was on latin america. and if you read through that report and the like 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 columbia

and the like. in some ways, the situation in venezuela is not even as good as it was then. so many of the -- 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 guest program. you ready? make it quick now. we're going to finish on time. >> can i have three minutes? >> you can have as much as you want. >> okay. well, it's taking me more than three minutes to introduce our distinguished panel, 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. well known, but i just would mention one or two highlights. she's a 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 a very distinguished academic.

experienced as a fellow 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 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 the educated at indiana university with a ph.d. at northwestern. great institutions. next to her, i will call her dr.

diana negroponte. who was also educated at -- school and elsewhere at the london school of economics, et cetera. as i said, they can read your background at their leisure, but what is really important, she works on many of these issues. she lived in mexico, central america and so forth and i understand maybe it's a secret, she's writing a book on jim baker. the cold war. i think there are many important lessons to learn. we look forward to reading the book. next to her is bruce zagaris.

we have three lawyers here so we have to be very careful what we're saying, but in the interest of transparency, also diana say lawyer, bruce is a lawyer, distinguished lawyer. he's a partner at a law firm. and specializing in international criminal law enforcement aspects. actually discussed topics today, and i think it would help us more on international cooperation with law enforcement and so forth. so he has a wide experience practice in latin america with individuals, entities and governments and around the world. is very distinguished scholar. very prolific and currently is also the editor of international

enforcement law reporter. next to him is another lawyer, but a friend. fernando jimenez from spain with whom we had the honor to work on some of these issues related to the challenges in spain but also the relations, latin america and he was the governor in the country, but also, he's involved in some activities related to latin america first at the inter-american bank, development bank and currently 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. but at any rate, the chairman of the international law institute. professor at georgetown law school and so on and our colleague for many years. very distinguished background. you can read 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 are also appreciative to c-span for recording this

broadcasting our discussion because the key really is 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-called information or propaganda, whatever one wants to call it. so we're grateful for c-span for bringing this event to the attention of a broader audience of the united states and abroad. now the purpose of this seminar again is to deal with multiple challenges, security challenges. depends on definition. what does it mean security? all the way l gray referred to

from organized crime to terrorism. again, all the way from [ inaudible ] 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 migration is more appropriate. economic development, human internment issues. the rights of women. and also the original link between latin america to africa in terms of narcotrafficking. or volunteers, so-called volunteers of quote/unquote fighters of terrorists for joining the islamic state, the

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, particular ly as an 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 klein, was deputy kcia director. he 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, the roots of which go back to the 1930s. and the 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, particular ly s a result of the new administration that will 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. for young students here, who 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 the so-called rebels of terrorist, dissidents that were conducted by the government forces at the time. the disappearances, the torture and other practices and massive violations of human civil rights. and so forth. so i think one is 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. 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, when the prosecutor, for example, a few years ago, three years ago, or a few years ago, was assassinated. so that particular event is not concluded. 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 a battle for about half a century. the good news is, of course, the president santos just a few days ago received the nobel peace prize. the conclusion of that terrible war in colombia. so we would 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 is brazil. in terms of the zika ecdemic ecepidemices and why had the opportunity to work with the brazilians on some of it 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 ask professor margaret hayes to provide some general overview and then we'll deal with some specific case studies. would you like to come here? or whatever is more convenient for you. >> this works. this microphone is not working. >> 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 underforming 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 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, 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 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, countriy ies didn't develop. and they came out with a very good document -- this was a long time ago, 1992 -- called "governance in development." 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 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 country. the central bank of el salvador several years ago did a survey and found that young people, teenager 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 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 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. and 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. >> "new york times."

>> in t"the new york times"? 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 the governments themselves, because they are largely ineffective, are not necessarily adopting some of the suggestions that usaid, that the interamerican development bank and others are suggesting. there have been some good stories. juarez on the u.s. border of

mexico has had a resurgence, 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 there are far too few of this kind of activity. because of the violence, the -- neither the local elite, nor the international community is investing in the region. and 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 time that i served in the -- on the foreign relations community -- 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. and the -- 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 among each other.

central americans have signed the alliance for prosperity in the northern triangle, which is hopefully going to promote the coordination of efforts, particularly economic efforts, but border control efforts, law enforcement efforts, amongst the three countries. and begin to put down this -- the level of violence, the volume of drugs that move through the region and so forth. i'm reminded that general keen who was the deputy commander of u.s. southern command and the u.s. representative in haiti after the earthquake, as a result of his experience as the new c2 is coordination, collaboration. and i think that's a good --

it's a good way to think about what these generally poor, 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 is quite a bit of positive collaboration. as we saw in 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's very positive. but where the militaries are cooperate i cooperating much more, other elements of government, the police, the courts, the border control and so forth are not doing nearly enough.

and we need to see more of that. i think we also need to look at what's going on that's bad and good. already mentioned venezuela. that's bad. how is venezuela, after this current crisis passes, if it ever does, going to put the country back together again? how do you put humpty-dumpty back together when a government has totally undermined the legal tradition, changed all of the laws and so forth. brazil is mentioned. i have special interest in what's 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. i.e., the legislatures. the politicians and so forth. this is going to be hard. central america is, obviously, a problem. weak government. corruption. impunity and so forth. the colombian peace process is a positive. colombia has one of the strongest governments. that government doesn't do very well getting out of bogota and the main 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 were the highest. but they were also the areas of the country where the government reached less well or not at all. you mentioned argentina and its dirty war. but i think that is something that is passed in argentina. argentina, chile, both countries with dictator leadership that were pretty nasty probably have some of the best chances to re-establish good and effective government. it won't be easy to do. there's a lot of work to be

done. but there is positive movement, and there is some foundation on which to build in these countries. with respect to argentina specifically, i'll tell a funny story, and that is i once asked a -- an argentine economist working at the world bank, what do you learn in primary and secondary school about how democracy, how your government ought to work. what are the responsibilities? what are the kind of rules of the game? and this individual kind of chuckled and said, you know, i think we shot all those professors. but it's -- 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 or bad schools, learn about how government should perform. what the responsibilities of government are, and what the responsibilities of citizens are. so i think without that glue of faith in your government and good performance on the part of your government, it's going to be very hard to deal with the questions of transnational organized crime, of gang violence, and et cetera. and i think we also need to be quite aware that an awful lot of the money-making traffic is moving toward the united states.

and in the form of marijuana, cocaine, increasingly from mexico, heroin and the arms trade goes the opposite direction. so we are contributing part to this. we have, for that region, an obligation to participate and to do what we can to help resolve some of these problems. but they are problems that don't just deal with controlling gang violence or transnational organized crime. they're problems that most profoundly are related to the poor, the ineffective government and rule of law that exists in many of thoue countries. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. [ applause ]

providing a broad, i think, perspective. trying to focus on the children, the developed education, because in the final analysis, the so-called security challenges, they are really the outcome of how the children receive a role and we can see what's happening now with the terrible tragedies elsewhere, such as in syria. so the children in the refugee camps today, tomorrow perhaps they will turn to the gun simply because of these experiences. >> no other skill. >> so i'm delighted that you tried to focus on the educational effort.

we're going to move on. it brings up a lot of issues, but we'll come back to the discussion. i think we move on. next speaker right here, diana negroponte, perhaps focus on a case study but you can speak about any other related issue. >> thank you very much, professor alexander and thank you for inviting me to participate in the panel here today. i am going to return to your theme -- challenges and opportunities in the post-castro era. i'm going to raise this in the context of venezuela because venezuela has become a cuban security state. with cuban provided military intelligence, doctors, nurses, in exchange for venezuelan oil.

and the existence of the state and the problems that it caused principally for the venezuelan people are a concern not only for the hemisphere but also for us in the united states. so there are four issues i want to raise this afternoon. how does cuba/zuela -- cuba/venezuela, cubazuela, the so-called single government, single country separate? secondly, what was cuba's role in the creation of this security state in venezuela, and how is it unraveling today? third, what options are there for the venezuelan people themselves to undo, repair the

political and most of all economic situation? and finally, what's the role of the international community, including the united states? so i must give you some background and allow me to be very brief because i only have ten minutes, and i really want to focus on the issues. when chavez was elected, this is hugo chavez, a colonel in the venezuelan army, is elected into office in 1999, he introduces bolivarian socialism. that is that the state is dedicated to bring about greater equality to transfer wealth from the richest to the poor in housing, in transportation, in medical health, in education so that those who were deprived in previous decades will be able to assert their rights as venezuelan people.

he dies in 2014? 2013? 2013. and is succeeded by the cuban-selected heir, nicholas maduro, a former union leader in the bus company. but a man who had been trained politically in havana. maduro 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 imf at 180%. the imf anticipates that with inflation in november last month at 50%, the inflation rate for

next year will be over 600%. and all of us can recall from our history the impact that had in germany and the republic and the lack of support of ordinary venezuelan citizens or 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 legislature and with that control, stack the supreme court and the electoral tribunal. the result is that central control created by chavez, inherited by maduro and now faced with both political and economic crisis. political crisis is that the

opposition, exactly a year ago, december 15th, 2015, won a two-thirds majority in the national assembly enabling these diverse opposition parties to unite. unusual, but they did with a demand for a recall referendum or what we would call impeachment of the president. the president resisted. the president used the supreme court to deny that recall referendum on grounds of fraud. and despite the fact the opposition succeeded in gaining 1.8 million votes in favor of this recall referendum, the supreme court has denied it. the electoral tribunal has not only denied that referendum but has denied the elections this

month for mayors and state government. in other words, legislative participation and electoral democracy is dead at the moment in venezuela. at the same time, food is very short. medicines are not to be found. the police stack the hospitals, guard the hospitals so that any new medication, 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. and it compares with 25 years ago when it was only 8 to 10 people per 100,000. in other words, the venezuelan state has collapsed. so what does the cuban leadership, the cuban leadership who in 2007 proclaimed we are a single government. we are a single country. what do they do? if favored them back in 2007 because subsidized oil enabled the cuban economy to be able to run. the subsidized oil no longer arrives in the quantity it was used to, in 2008, it was 115,000

barrels per day. today, it is 55,000 barrels per day. the last venezuelan tanker to dock at the port and unload venezuelan oil was august. and the cuban leadership has recognized venezuela can no longer be helpful to us. so it is demanding that its doctors and its nurses return. and 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, we, the venezuelan people, will continue on fidel's work. the bolivarian socialist revolution will continue. i wonder what way? 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? and here is a big question. there are those who believe that once again, the students should go back into the street to demonstrate venezuelan workers should go back to demonstrate. and there is this more violent wing 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 collectivos. these are young men and women who put on a uniform for the occasion, take out their motorbike and slash and murder and -- violence is widespread. and it's always deniable because they're not part of the state. there is a hope, but it's only based on a 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 the

collectivos, they will restrain the police, they will put themselves between the demonstrators and the state to achieve some calm. but the leadership of the military have been co-opted by participation in drug trade. so they are now participants in the transfer of cocaine and heroin and marijuana and meth through venezuelan ports to africa and up to europe and to a degree lesser to us in the united states. so there's no reliability that the senior levels of the military will actually act as that restraining force. there are those on the opposite side in venezuela who believe that discussion, the dialogue is the only way forward. and they have been helped by the vatican who in october asked maduro to enter into negotiations with the opposition to seek a solution.

the opposition demanded two things. one was the constitutional right for a recall referendum. the second was the release of political prisoners. and those numbers of political prisoners are now in the hundreds. 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 retreat into the family, they retreat into their homes fearful of being exposed once again to that brutality. so while you have this moderation wing which have, since october 20th, been participating in negotiations brokered by former presidents of spain, the dominican republic

and panama, those negotiations have gone nowhere. maduro has stalled at each point. such that earlier this week, the opposition said, it's not worth us remaining at the table. we will not participate in next tuesday's meeting. maduro has agreed to keep the table open, the negotiating table open until january 17th, 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 not presidential election. in other words, maduro has a way of protecting his regime, even if has a way of it is the

regime clinging to power because once it loses the immunity of prosecution as government officials, they are exposed to cases, criminal cases for drug trafficking, abuse of human rights. what is the international community doing. the argentineans have taken the lead. they said to venezuela, you're no longer within the regional groupings. your presidency is suspended and we're assuming that. and when the foreign minister appeared this week to assume her chair she was not allowed in the room. she was then subjected to a

little jostling outside of the room which maduro said to her it was her, there was pressure on her to move away from the room where they were meeting and she was rejected. nicaragua remains a friend, but neither is in a capacity to support the economy as it goes through this spiraling downturn. so what should we in the united states, what could president-elect trump do? i would suggest in the same way he had a telephone call to the president of taiwan, this is a time for a calling other

leaders, noing moduro will use it to say that united states is in works and the humanitarian crisis is not what we have been talking. our secretary of state elect heads still of exxon mobile knows the situation since they have had their assets re-negged. and exxon mobile won for the amount of $1.4 billion in damages. so we have a secretary of state elect who knows the situation in venezuela and a president-elect who is prepared to change

traditional positions on u.s. foreign policy and make telephone calls that wake people up. that is my words and i look forward to questions later. >> i thank you for the very important case study. obviously, again, the questions and not only visibly situation in the country itself, or the inter-american relationships, but particularly iran that developed the base in venezuela for many years. during the time of savage.

we're going to move on, do you have good news for us or -- >> i have mixed news, first, thank you for the invitation. it's an honor and pleasure to be here. what i want to do is talk about several issues. i want to talk about some of the issues of transnational organized crime arms drugs and migration. touching on some of the geographical issues, and i want to focus on the need to build a better frame work for international enforcement cooperation. it is challenging for the new administration because of the campaign discussion of walls,

derogatory marks about mexicans, and the need to renegotiate nafta in some of the discussion against free trade. i think at the beginning of the administration, it would be good for the new administration to call the leaders together and sit down and listen to them and have a dialogue about what is needed in terms of hemisphereic and global issues. we heard about the arms problems, and the u.s. is clearly the leading source of arms not only in the hemisphere, but in the world.

there have been two important treaties. the inter-american convention. explosives and other related materials. and 22 caribbean and latin american countries have ratified the u.s. sign in 1997 that was sent to the senate and it has been sitting there. you also have the u.n. arm's trade treaty. 20 hemisphereic countries have signed that. and that treaty pertains to trade in conventional arms. that includes warships, and the

u.s. signed and the senate has done nothing. drugs are a problem an in one initiative and one method is to find ways for nonincarceration stream of people who use drugs. the oas itself. more needs to be done in terms of exploring those -- that initiative, and the u.s. needs to do more with respect to the demand side of drugs. in terms of migration, there has been some good initiatives already. there is a reference to the alliance for prosperity.

the u.s. and the countries in central america have had a very broad public education campaign, and also there have been some changes in the laws, so now if you want to apply for asylum, you don't have to come here to do that, you can do it from those countries. you reduce the amount of migration because that is where a lot of people are kidnapped and killed. there is also a lot of now inner play between the cartels, first it was drugs, but now there is a lot of trafficking of persons and all kinds of other crimes. one of the initiatives that was, i think useful, that was done in the clinton administration, was the use of sanctions against

both organized crime and against narco kingpins. one thing that could be tried is more effort to get other countries to go along with those sanctions so it's not just june lateral. okay. let me now quickly, well, one other -- one thing i want to say about migration, first of all, it is a problem in the hemisphere, the fact that the u.s. has not had comprehensive immigration policy for a long time. another problem with respect to security has been that there has been a lot of deportation of

hardened criminals. and it happened in most cases without any notice. and without any planning. and when you dump 200 or 1,000 hardened criminals on fragile states that have no capacity to deal with them, what happens is these criminals who have not even been in these countries for most of their lives, they end up doing more violence and then they transfer their know how to their friends. and not only does it destabilize those countries, but because they know the u.s., they target their criminality. whether it is trafficking humans, stolen cars and

aircraft, drug trafficking, et cetera. so the u.s. needs to do more of what it has done with haiti. with haty it notifies them and helps them to mitigate and plan for the persons it deports. looking at a couple of the countries -- because this panel is entitled "challenges and opportunities in a post castro era" i feel i need to say a few things about the relationship with cuba. some of the problems has been that at every regional meeting, the number one question has to do with cuba, and the fact that cuba has been isolated.

that has changed since december 17th. and there has been 11 agreements that have been done between the u.s. and cuba. dealing with everything from na narcotics enforcement to migration, to the environment. an even before the new initiative, historically, relations between cuba and the u.s., when they have improved or sometimes are presaging improvement, they have to do with different issues. they have the exchange of hijackers, exchange of size and exchange of -- between the u.s.

and cuba, cuba has been in the forefront of dealing with perimeter security in that cuba sponsored the talks in columbia. in addition, cuba has been very helpful with respect to haiti and the earthquakes and forth. cuba used their doctors to give a lot of assistance. with respect to -- well, i think because of the shortage of time, let me turn now to the need for better himse better hemispheric frame work. there has been a group called the inter-american economy that

hau laws and policies. there has been a new group called renja. they the ministers of justice, they meet every other year, and they make recommendations for new agreements in policies, and they have done a lot of work. but it's not an organic organization. it depends on the permanent council for their marching orders. so it really can't do much.

some of the other entities having to do with enforcement are more organic. or the organization for counter terrorism. this would be a committee that would have it's own institution and would be composed of criminologists. and it would consider all of the threats and solutions. uniform laws, treaties, different organizations, but this is not something out of

marchs. there has been something like this since 1958. the county till of europe. and that's what it does, it meets every day and it focuses on the enforcement, and many of witch the u.s. has become part of it so to be successful, the enforcement agencies have to be -- have to network as well as the criminals. and in order to have success fu regimes and networks, we need to do more in terms of hemispheric

cooperation. >> thank you. in after 1994 interview with fidel castro, he expressed that nothing will happen. the country, the party, the government will quickly adapt to the situation. they will confront the situation when it arises. the life of the country will not stop for a single minute. there is no man in this world and even less in this country. for many of us, the castro revolution has been a permanent

flaet threat to the country. also, a permanent failure that castro wanted to export to the majority of countries. fidel castro to chile only accelerated the coup de gras. contributing to a operation that for many years created a repression in the hands of the militaries of chile and argentina. only furthering spain relations with spain being a country that

maintained good relations with cuba. more political than practical, also beneficial. and his e veventuals. castro managed to succeed because of the help from the soviet union and a policy that managed to connect with the left. and maintaining relations for support in the change for the concentrations. the last two, generally, is

characterized by the left and the right of african-america. it is against the governed of spain. the alliances with states as well as with terrorist groups including hezbollah. due to these reasons, the death of fidel castro will not create any significant political turbulence. he was seen just six days ago and no one is talking about fidel any more. cuba today has limited influence with the united states. the rest of the states, leading themselves to purely maintaining

the rhetoric. i would like to repeat a willful violation of human rights. they have power and control of the three branchs of governments whose purposes are to -- the minister of the supreme court, and judges of the constitution of god, and also a collection against those who defended the defendants. sidenly the, the planneds against the commission of human rights are rarely studied and many times not even processed through their democracy. the evolution have been consolidated before the dictator's passing. in regards to the security, we find ourselves with countries

with a level of security that is very low. i'm referring to cases in salvador and frankly it has not improved their qualification and security, and many in argentina also suffered from a lack of security and pure police protection. despite the peace agreements, security in this country cannot be qualifiequalified. but to come on criminally without knowing for certain if the companies the case in mexico is not by and large. organized crime funded by

markets, has defeated society. the international community must follow through with effective coordinations. it is imperative to use the countries that have -- the united states and the european union. the social and political countries, with immediate consequences, and maintaining a level of well-being are factors that are taken into account with security mechanisms. this can be found and guarantee not only the security of investments, but sections

through royalties, and also by at least a meaning of security for the citizens that are leaving and subsistence. let us now consider the specific countries. it is changing, it's political spectrum. they have governments of the center right and columbia. china, china who became a member of the american development bank, and the american development corporation with full support of the united states and the european union has increased their economic and aesthetic presence in the region. the investments in structure --

projects to boost the countries will mean business of nearly 27 million according to the chamber of commerce. also the second highest number, however, this economic situation but they remain a work ally. they are the reason the government decided to enhance their forces and border security, and the resont, and to continue front the internal threats. and they are mentioned by 2030.

mexico, the weeks of protectionism and ice lace are brewing, but i don't think they know what has been happening to this day with the declaration of it's economies and the commercial relations and investments of european countries. like wise and in relation to mexico we expect a pragmatic position. it will be challenging, the relationship between mexico and the u.s. they can detect a political and diplomatic proximity between the two countries that it is not fully. what happens in latin america affects the stability of the united states and spain giving it's investment in the region. latin america goods make up 40% of the united states exports.

with the u.s. spending 65% of their exports. 17% of the u.s. population. there are not many opportunities in columbia, but without the ensourge of our greater legal security. . the european union have just signed an agreement with the republic of cue pa that substitutes the common position. this is the remove -- the political relationships through dialogue, corporation and commerce, and they have a common interest and the respect of the states. their rips will be able to sustain the process.

and society through elected corporation and with the office of human rights and democracy, and achieving the expectative. it is to be expected that cuba and the united states continues to advance and all of the serious -- that we have for a specific position on the island as well as the cuban society be part of the political and multilateral institutions. it is possible that new forms may appear, and not new to a difference, but we must be sure that the only thing is the diligence in accordance with a

rule of law. and reported that at the beginning of my speak, concluding an interview with castro asking him if he knew what was populating the streets of cue pa at the time, and ask that she -- what are they trying for the revolution? education, sports, and health. and breakfast, lunch, and dinner, and he said you see what happens when you too many breakfasts, lunches, and dinners, it's bad for your health. >> thank you, i think the last

three speakers are lawyers. of course i would have to call now on our fourth colleague, obviously, a lawyer and a professor of law. would you like to say something about your colleagues or anything else? >> i'm not going to say anything about my colleagues, but i will say something about what they said. once again, we have gotten an extraordinarily rich variety of speakers. there have is also an enormous variety of conditions. every country is different with different prospects. a other countries have not had

such leaders. one thing that was not mentioned was the growing minority of the united states. the latins, but i'm sure it is really vant for how the united states will people in the future. the title relates to challenges, and we tend to think of challenges at the national security level, fidel's hope for an export of revolution. but i think it was brought home by professor hays, the issues that strike me are the other ones, human security, i'm involved with the conference of peace. and we run for what is human

security. general gray, probably thinks about. but it is really the conditions in the countries, and it seems really clear to me that so much of the difficulties in latin america and elsewhere are the failures of countries to get a grip on themselves. another person i know, the general council of the world bank, and it is crucial. lawyers certainly know that. and this is a problem of varying degree in latin countries that i think makes it difficult for an american, we're really quite ignorant of latin america. cuba, mexico, but not too much else, brazil because it is so big, but it doesn't speak spanish. so i think this is a real

problem. bruce mentioned international -- i think you put your finger, in a way, on what is the problem. latin america is not europe. there is no organization come rabble to the eu. but it is in trouble. so i think this is a real challenge and this has always been a problem. if you knew the number of regional agreements, it is dizzying and most of them come to nothing. it is abiding, they're all spanish speakers. tom dewey used to say i want to introduce the leader of our great spanish speaking neighbor to the south.

finally a word about the incoming administration. donald trump is putting the cat among the pigeons. it will be interesting to see which cat he selects. they always think of latin america, democracy and dictatorship, for example. and this will continue, not only the question of venezuela.

but in terms of trafficking the narcotics and arms, in terms of human trafficking in terms of women, and this is very bad news. the question is in the way of good news for women or countries like brazil, of course it is changing now, but before and also argentina and so on. can we address this issue when we talk about security? security for whom? interms of gender and so on. >> first of all, i'm not sure that the women who have become

leaders with the exception of michelle who are semiparticular ri. in their very slowly, gradually, more women are running for political office in the legislative branch. and so forth. and i think that is very positive. they are certainly in most of the university systems, there is a alarm number of women who are preparing. but there is still a barrier as there is in this country, and and there will be slow progress, but i think the women's organizations are very gradually

exerting themselves. particularly in the more developed countries in the southern cone countries and so forth. not perhaps in a central america, bolivia, et cetera, where i think the increasing rights for women is probably a sign of higher degrees of development and for the latin americans following that pattern. >> i'm not going to focus on the leadership. the leaders that you mentioned are all very unpopular in their own countries. i want to focus on -- yes, i want to focus on the younger generation. on those women who are trained in the s.t.e.m. subjects and showing their leadership in

their own companies, in joning multinational companies, and showing their skill set that will enable them to stand shoulder to shoulder with their male colleagues. that's the future. i think the statistics are one point, but reality is the other. these things, the leaders, of latin america countries, women have become president, but how many we have in europe or in this country. you know, statistics talking about men and women is not the right thing. the right thing is to see if they have the equal opportunities to go ahead. so lead universities, to lead

companies and not because of that, because they are women, but because they have opportunities to achieve these roles. and they -- this is my position. in my family, we have no distinctions. men, women, and things are coming. they have been seen in different years. >> all right, open for discussion, wait for the mic, please. >> maybe this is just a north american prejudice. i am 78. i was born before the beginning of world war ii after world war ii -- and

expand expanded. china has industrialized and it is probably freer than it was before also, i hear that are even pars of africa where middle classes are developing. but in latin america it seems like the same old mess. i heard that mexico is developing a bitter middle class, and i remember reading that argentina was one of the best countries off in the world. and since then it has been, not just downhill, but it stabilized at a low level. and they both went from spain to portugal, and they're doing reasonably well economically. and what is it about latin america that makes it different?

>> just do be fair, part of the conversation, if you see african countries and latin american countries, of course there is a difference. but the former vices of the colony, like destructicorruptio still find it, but i don't see the population being responsible for that. they have improved a lot. i visit latin american companies from 1986. the chase is astonishing. it is astonishing. i'm i'm not going to give figures now, but it is

astonishing. there is middle class, there is the government. of course there are antics, but you see this is the situation 37 that is the situation, and everybody is trying to help in the annexation. it is one of the worst, and he was not common neized -- >> chile has a good middle class, a lot of stability, even brazil, until the problems recently, was doing very well.

and i think they're a very good case right now because of the operation, i mean there have been so many prosecutions in brazil, and it continues. so i think, i mean, things are changing in terms of accountability in the government. they still have a ways to go. i don't think it is all -- >> i would say that the brazilian and prosecution of the -- they owe many thanks to harvard law school where some of the prosecutors trained and took back some of the practices of plea bargaining and others that did not exist in brazil at the

too many. but i also have come into students and others that we north americans don't appreciate how lucky we were in our founding. and that is that the traditions of democratic and parties pa tire that came particularly from great britain, but then the influence again by the french revolution, and others, those tendencies, those traditions, that history, wasn't apart of the founding of latin american states. and so for a very long -- they waited a longer time before grasping the importance of institutions, education, and so

forth, for building a democratic, parties pa tire government. and i still ask what do you learn in school about how government should perform. i have never seen anyone focus on that question and we need to understand that more. there is a kind -- we are snobs. we, i think, we tend to dismiss latin america too quickly. we were established by

anglo-saxtons. and another thing we say in america is that countries based on it, but i think it is what is touched on, it is changing not just because of harvard law school. it is changing. the latins have a system like the french where the judges control proceedings that britains don't like it, but they're slowly picking up our approach in places like chile. i feel story for them. but it is happening. diane talked about lots of men and women, and i think we could

take tret for it. they have had a powerful influence on many parts of the world. america has always been the model for the world. people take it seriously. they come to school here. and one of the things that comes across me again and again is the abiding -- two things, the enthusiasm and ignorance, and we have to get through that and see what is happening in these places. >> okay. thank you, my name is ron tailor. i'm with george washington university. i am very interested in learning

everything i don't know. you were all tremendously educational an experts in legal and kbof nagovernance manners. one thing latin america in regard to safety, security, and well-being, particularly money the population, they see a pope from latin america. they ask what is the role of faith based faith bagss organizations, and hoping for a better latin america. >> ron tailor, you raised a big question that is rarely

discussed. the traditional ideology, religion, of latin america, is catholicism. it was dominated by a church but that has faded. it is faded because the abuse of power, and i'm a practicing roman catholic, so i'm talking about my own faith. there is leadership by the catholic church for the land ownership and abuse of human beings has led to a search for alternatives. and the prodstants are making steady head way. instead of saying if you sin you're doomed to hell, they say you will be redeemed. god is loving and forgiving. and i'm bringing health care, hospitals, education, orphanes,

and old people homes to help you, so we're -- so there is a shift away from from what we talked about, the growing middle class, a middle class that is not only economically more independent, but psychologically more willing to stand up and say the old religious ways are no longer necessary for my families enjoyment. and i'm therefore repaired to be more independent thinker, and that is having an impact, also, on political thought. >> in one footnote there, where the church is having an influence now, ironically, is

cuba. the thaw between the u.s. and cuba. for instance, an organization that tries to help people be -- learn how to be proprietors. they have not had that in cuba. and because the church had been relatively diplomatic, the regime allows these programs to go on. and so they're doing all kinds of training. you know, on a very basic level. they are doing programs and outreach for the indigenous. they want people to say that the

state can't do that, but again there is a lot of people, that are in need in cuba, they're allowing the church to quietly do some of those programs. that is a very interesting development that is ongoing. >> about the questions snishlly, asking about latin america, let's look at some of the contributions of latin america so the security and the world being of -- the global interests and you know advancing because of peace and justice. and around the world, pope francis leadership that is so

limited to this, when we saw all of the atrocities around the world, and man to man. so this spiritual -- i think contribution of latin america, which is very extraordinary, should be appreciated and recognized. so questions for you next. >> a lot of us are worried about what is happening in latin america. the media doesn't cover it as much as it covers other regions of the world, conflict or not conflict, it's just not always in the headline news. do you believe that at all? what's your music about the advances in technology,

internet, facebook, whatever you want to call it. much of what you're saying will be exposed and do you see any influence in it going in any particular direction. thank you for coming. >> will you state your question one more time. >> do the advanced technological advances, the internet and so on, opening up the world more, would it affect any situations in latin america? positive or negative? >> i think latin america is very

much part of the internet revolution. for good and for bad. it has access to media here, they know what is going on in the united states, unlike the coverage in our country. that don't cover -- i have to subscribe to four newspapers to get information and the best one on latin america is the financial times which is not a north american -- or u.s. based newspaper. but i think the but i think they are very much aware of what is going on. and it -- i would say the one

thing that is not addressed in the degree that i believe it ought to be, are studies about united states studies, as we do latin america studies in our universities. it is hard to find a program in latin american universities that really focuses on the history, the politics, the functioning of institutions in the united states. and this is something that is sorely lacking. headlines, they know they are very, very slowly, programs and classes that are working on addressing this lack of understanding and following of u.s. history and function.

>> thank you very much. we have time for one more question. this young lady here. >> i'm curious, this is a loaded question, i wanted to hear your thoughts on whether or not president-elect trump will roll back any warming towards cuba, and if he does, what do you think he will do and what will the results be of that policy. >> i'm not sure that he knows yet. we don't know. >> he has made a couple comments that unless cuba gives a better deal, he is going to change things. other than that, nothing has

been said. we don't even have yet secretary of state, assistant secretary of state for inner american affairs. we really don't know. i would say that the u.s. just in, as i mentioned, in terms of latin american policy has had a much better reception from a number of governments because no longer does the u.s. have to confront the fact that they are isolating cuba. a lot of the organizations that have grown up as an alternative to the osa, like alba, have been as a result the policy of cuba and the relationship between

cuba, nicaragua, venezuela, and with normalization, that will no longer be as much of a threat. in addition. i think probably the biggest thing is mr. trump is a businessman. increasingly in this country, the agriculture group in the midwest, or the tourist industry, americans want to do business with cuba. and so, you know, there is no longer a a big political major i did in cuba. so there is no longer a political advantage that used to drive a lot of u.s. policy towards cuba.÷úzvzv

we'll talk about it a some more. i'm the internalhmoptimist, of course, and i just want to say that i've been in all of the latin american countries÷ú and

spent considerable time in a number of different capacities. the latin american people are good people. some aren't, just like in this % country. and we need to remember that and i -- number of the latin american countries stuck with us i had the dubious distinction some years ago just before the war down in camp lejeune, my division, we trained the marines and the royal marines, so we had so the point i want to make it was a comment, it was some reference here to the military side. don't these relationships are a long-standing there are many

other young officers in latin are what you would expect it's not just all military. it's a personal personal pe/páq to people kind of thing. and even in the case of the marine corps, all latin american countriesp have marine corpss ad the like, with the exception of explain it. they're there forever. and so these -- and these kind of -- the thinking thatg# goes into this is much more than just military and the like. so we have a gate opportunity to makezv things better. i think in terms of policy and the like and with the new administration, he's picking people who understand what's going on. he's picking people who are very

knowledgeable about latin america, for example, and÷ú the kind of challenges they face and so on. mzv to be -- i sent women on duty in latin america or in the mideast simply because the people there didn't treat our women the way they should be.

if you want to get in trouble with me, treat our girls with dignity. that's changingp over time thats good. >> the army begin to take women -- women into the ÷úarmy. do women are more qualified and prepared than the men. this was not just -- this waszv new opportunity they had the education and so forth. -- when you talk÷ú about women doing like and that's where i draw the line. we'll talk about that another time.

the point i want to make is that the young people, the illusion that the people are open to change, that's going on in this country and it's going on all over the world. {ñ? great opportunities here. our policy have to be consistent. cp,ui policies have not been ve consistent in the 50 or years or so, thank you y'all very much and you have a great holiday season and certainly a super new year and come back.

>> about ten years ago i got a call from a writer. he said i read about your article on your father's gas station. the very first thing he asked m me. >> specializes in civil war history. >> myzv father was a great kus stard collector. my mother loved the civil war,

but also was very enamored with the women in the west. so i'm sure they÷ú came up with >> hear about the foundmt from scottsdale a civil war hero who saw potential in the salt river valley. >> we just graduated from seminary school and been assigned to the church when civil war broke out and lincoln called for volunteer and he wanted to get into it. and lit lt tieny town and he started recruiting and raising his own company of soldiers and i think he recruited about 33 of his own cousins and his bible study class.

. news at the laboratory. wasn't working to create a new f1 o't working to create a new >> the c span city tour saturday at noon eastern on book tv and sunday afternoon at two on american history tv on cspan 3 working with our cable affiliates and visiting cities across the ÷úcountry.

>> good afternoon. my name is herald and i'm very pleased to welcome you here to the÷ú hudson institute and the center from the economics of the internet. i'm very pleased today to be discussing fine g wireless and÷ future of that we're honored to have speaking with us the honorable lawrence larry has, i thilkx anyone in the federal government. he is the assistant secretary for communication and information department of commerce and administrator national telecommunications and information administration. if anyone can say that in one ÷ú breath, they're doing well. i hope you read larry's bio that's on the back of the summary here. i'm going to give you my personalzv bio of that, larry,z

first met larry veryu! company d had some comments that had selected u!it. he looked like he was about÷ú÷ú.

>> that just had great success. we're very honored tob have you here with us today and look forward to your commentsskbl r. >> you're right. that was quite some time ago. i want to thank you for your for allowing us to use this nice ne: facility. thank you for spectrum policy.

i think you're finishing up about seven gr eight years÷ú thk you for your participation and that effort. it's been a very important one for us as we try to figure it out on going spectrum challenges more engaged on technology policy than any of its pred sorries. this is not just because president obama had personal of course, he does, but rather reflects the recognition that the competitiveness of our country depends on having sound technology policies thatssupport investment and zvinnovation.

in 2014 exported roughly $400 billion÷ú in information t financial services have benefited from the adoption of applications and services. they're linked to our country's over all economic ÷úprosperity. we've done a lot of work in the last four years under secretary's leadership on what we call digital economy work. one conclusion we'reym reachings we approach the end of our term here is thatym the.

we focused on many of the key building blocks. we've developed and managed the recovery act which added over 117,000 miles of fiber in unserved and under served areas across the÷ú ÷úcountry. board of advisers that have been examining economic growth and opportunity in the digital age. just yesterday this panel of private sect=j efforts delivered the first set of recommendation identifying key actions the department can take support of digital economy and encourage growth andu! increasing

opportunity.ym wireless connectivity. we've seen phenomenal growth in the last decades from smartphones to tablets to electronibç fitness trackers. in 2011, only 27% of americans reported using a smartphone and in just four years this number÷ has doubled is also increased dramatically. but these statistics÷ú fell par of the story of the past eight v

years. >> and this administration recognized this spectrum challenge from the start.zv we understood it to be a complicated problem because we needed to meet the growing needs, not just of the commercial sector, but also of government agency, the president passed cia in 2010 to work to federal and nonfederal spectrum from wireless broad band within ten years. while ensuring federal agencies can meet their spectrum driven missions. to meet the president's goal. we partnered with the sec and ten year plan to achieve or exceed the target. we established a fast track process to examine the most

promising band on the expedited basis. under that we identified 115 meg hertz of spectrum that could be made available for wireless broad band within five years this included bands that became part of the successful aws three auction and the sec's proceedinú to establish the citizen's broad band radio service in the three dot five gig hertz band. >> for keep moving and in 2015 congress. >> it was clear to us that the purpose of spuk trum, they're

clearing federalsusers and clearing federalsusers and making it availablea long. the industry and its customers is simply could not afford the talks and the like. moreover, over the years the critical missions performed by systems of greater and greater complexity and increased their needs for spectrum. for the opportunities to find spectrum to which toym relocate federal operations÷ú÷ú were

dwindling rapidly. spectrum if willing and is the onlyúçzvforward. sharing among all users is the key to unlocking the unlimitedu possibilities for use including 5 g. we've been assisting greatly in this effort by our inner agency policy and group, commerce spectrum advisory committee made up of industry experts and the president's council of advisers on sciencezv and technology. it included the spectrum sharing offered a vital task forward to meeting the nations growing demand of traditional spectrum

for wireless technology and building on the 2010 memorandum. president obama÷ú in 2013 recognized the spectrum sharing, not only would be necessary to achieve its original 500 meg ym hertz, it was essential to the future of spectrum htzvmanageme. around what they were being asked to do. this was particularly essential this was particularly essential in our worka in identifying the bands that will become part of aws auction which i think folks generated more than $40 billion. government and industry representatives collaborated in working groups under the leadership of our c smack to studyp and assess how commercia

systems could share spectrum with the variety of government systems in the 17th 55 to 17 meg hertz ÷ú÷úhtband. >> this would not have happened on the work on spectrum sharing and even beyond sharing will continue around key á@áes across the country. importantly, the aws process also revolted in the planned relocation of certain military

systems to the 2025/2110 band apparently used by broadcasters to share with the military zvym systems. >> we need to prioritize bands for repurposing opportunity. we needed to be more transparenm by. spectrum uses in the 5 gig hertz band.

and this tool offers stake÷ú holders a way to evaluate whether to pursue and ultimately propose sharing solutions. we're now in the process of expandinw ,! included in the -- which will be particularly used for as we considered new sharing opportunities in higher ÷úbandsú to determine which one might be good candidates for potential sharing. the analysis indicates various types of sharing may÷ú be possie in some of these bands or portions of these bands. and gives us a road map for the more detailed study thatym÷úzv e

necessaryym to provide scientifically sound data. as we examine whether a ban can be repurposed. we must first fully understand how federal agencies are using the ban to meet their missions. we also need to consider the÷ú suitability of particular bands for nonfederal use, including whether there are synergys with other current or pending allocations. and we also must evalui(2 the international consideration, such as intergovernmental agreements regarding global spectrum allocations. but in all cases our objective remains the same. we want top employ)pñ

>> but in others the science and the reality of kurns uses may lead us to a different ÷ú conclusion. the shared use of the gig hertz offers a particularly promising road map forzv future efforts. in this case, we needed to over come the challenge of introducing commercial broad band systems into a use for military radars.ym with e knew that intermittent nature of the radar use offered an opportunity for commercial operation, the challenge we faced wasym figuring out how to avoid drawing extremely large exclusion zones to protect that intermittent use by÷úpmyzv the

radars. dynamic sharing environment.s in addition, the three geared access and licensing model creates the framework that maximizes the use of the incumbent2and different classes of new nbusers.÷ú >> most recently our

collaboration with the fcc and spectrum frontiers proceeding made it available 11 gig hertz in the millimeter wave range, much of it bhtshared. >> we had to evaluate whether unlicensed devices that÷ú opera with degrading the performance of critical federal radars. unfortunately, the methodical analysis we conductedym in

collaboration with federal agencies, the fbc and the industry led us to conclude that there is no feasible pass forward today to share this band. but those who have been following our efforts this this band likely are not surprised by this development as stake holders on all só$tj have known for some time that we had high hurdles to over come. i think it shows the process is rig louse and it works. they havev: trust over the long run i'm confident that this type of process will result in increase commercial access and spectrum.÷ú the vehicle÷ú communication.

over all we have work to ensured that we're positioned to respond to thec' growing commercial demd and involving market and this should guide future activity. wrapped in advancement and technology, including quickly developing 5 g and particular and involving business model means a number of our previous assumptions havebecome out dated they called for significantly more access to spectrum in the lowerp three gi hertz. the so-called beach front was desirable to extend the coverage of their networks byym enabling wireless signals to travel long distance, building devices that become more capable, they need to evolve the support really high band width and high volume application such as next

lity and automation. the very wide blocks of spectrum required for these services and now recent improvements in technology allowing industry to make muchu! higher frequency bu only a few years agoht there ha been much discussion for agencies to make more available for commercial use. the most effective to provide them the necessary resources they need to resource alternatives for their existing uses of spectrum and then to give them the÷ú resources to upgrade to more efficient technology. a coy in this regard is the spectrum relocation fund. we've worked÷ú with the white house and congress to expand the authorized uses of this fund to

enable agencies to conduct research and related activities efficiency. the fund was first established in 2004 to reimburse federal agencies for the cost identified for auction by the fcc. congress made important and needed changes to the fund as part of the 2015 spectrum to broaden the scope of eligible expenses covered under the fund. they're÷ú beginning to bare fru as federal agencies are developing pipeline plans for submission made up ofzv representatives from fcc and the white house's office of management and budget for the approval prior to the end, i anticipate the transmittal of plans to congress to utilize this new authority for the first time giving federal agencies the opportuni+ explore new band while

protecting mission critical functions. the federal aviation administration in partnership with the defense department. department of homeland security and noah will be assessing the possibility of consolidating various radar capabilities that could result in making some porlgs of the 1350 band available for shared use. lo! the 1675 ban currently used for weatherbápáellite services. while we believe agencies are making good faith efforts to make our spectrum challenges, we know there's more we canb do to make the most effective use of federal spectrum. i do believe additional flexibility congress authorized for the spectrum d8relocation fd is single most important step that can be taken in the short term, perhaps the fund could be further strengthened in the future withzv additional fundin

and flexibilities, for example, by supporting resource and allowing use in federal bans.zv we're not convinced that others will put forward a day offer approaches that are likely to be successful. these proposals generallyym rel on market based incentives that federal agencies are simply unable to respond to market based incentive the same way as agencies are driven by mission requirements not profit and they are subject to budget and statutory requirements and in thisym mission based context, agencies do not have the tools to assess economic efficiency, moreover for an sent tif to be effective it must be appropriate decision makers at the right time. we're continuing this for americaisms that might be effective and we hopeym to make enough progress that we can bring concepts for and begin a dialogue of federal agencies and other stake÷ú holders.

connect devices. . we estimate that the numberç of connected iot devices will double from 15 billion in 2015 to more than 30 billion by 2020 and the faasestimates the sales of drones for personal and commercial use to increase from two-and-a-half million this year to as high as 7 millionp by 202. they're expected to enable broad band. if you're a precisionzv manufacturer, maybe redundancy and reliability are higher priority for you as speed. if you're a surgeon performing

operationnb on a patient in reme location, you might also need very to avoid any delay. the aim of the technology andym associated 5 g standard is to allow for that. numerous examples various smart city applications will have the latest standard ushered in advances for technologies that allow mobile operators to mixzv and match the holdings as needed while off loading some of the demand on wi-fi. this approach was supported by 1qvances and network te distributed in antenna systems and other innovations. 5 g will incorporate these and edition to current spectrum bands that will include deployments and very high bands, that have been made available for mobile broad band through

the spectrum frontier proceeding. as we prepare for the innovation growth and demand spectrum is not limited to commercial consumer use.s just as innovation and technology have driven growth in the wireless market, government agencies are finding new and federal ways to more÷ú effectivy deliver on their critical mission. spectrum makes it possible for them to communicate with their commanders on the battlefield and fromu! remote location. it ensures the nasa spacecraft can transmit important data back to earth. it enable it is to accurately track the weather so that communities can better prepare forp storms. as i conclude let me leave you with final thoughts over what we've learned over the lastnb eight years as well as media and near term if we're going to

ensure that 5 g and all spectrum base technology reach their true potential. first, there's no longer any spectrum sharing has to be a major part of the solution. the only way sharing will work is bysmaintaining and even extending collaborative and cooperative processes and relationships that bring all stake holders together. as the ware ways become more technical rolls to protect unauthorized harmful interference. automated enforcement approaches make a lot of sense that will require increased investment to develop interference. have to finally address the performance characteristics of spectrum receivers, otherwise you c!6limit the ability to effectively use all available spectrum. we must take add vand aj of new tools into the technology.

third as a nation and really as a global spectrum community we continue to invest in÷ú researc and development technology that will help us make the most effective and fromsexpanded use of the fund to r&d to the national advanced wireless research initiative. do more to ensure we keep up with these changes we must focus on actual need. they appear to be concentrating localized fashion to address the most part of their network. how will we collect tefly ensure that more areaszv get covered b

the latest technology and dead zones are u!minimized. these are all questions that will need to be considered and answered in ways i am proud o#h the collaborative effort cia has done and creating and enduring -- in creating spectrum that is going to support the evolution to 5 g. and÷ú innovating with our technology and policy tools ncia is well positioned to meet the increasing and involving spectrum demands of nonfederal users. so while my time is coming to close in a few weeks, i am confident that we have the structure and team in place to

builv on our success and ensure that the united states remain a global leader in wireless innovation. thank you for listening.zv ú i think aboutzv what is the -- when i think about the factors that strikes me as the÷ú most improbable that you would ask me eight years ago and told me how technology was going to play out

and how politics was going tox play out. one thing that they have done has been to forget other federal ä spectrums, not just with the bands but lots of spectrums. could you tell us a little bit about that and how you approach that. >> i think something misconception people have the idea that federal are unwilling to cooperate. it hopes that you have a president i[sting a directivezv

they want to make sure their needs are addressed and i think in the last eight years they've done a good job at making sure the agency needs are brought into the construction and i think they respectsound neutral, in fact, and i think in thatzv environment where we kno all the issues are going to be exposed and evaluated and where decisions are going to be made based on the facts. i have found theym federal agencies to be very cooperative partners in this effort. you're÷ú talking about the need for additional technical standards and focused on receiver standards. continue to elaborate more on that.÷ú let's emerge in large matters in

the last eight years where the impact receivers are having what would be authorized licensep uss by the people the peck trum to them. i think that given the fact that we are having to putp more services next to each other. we're having to put services in adjacent to each other that at some point we're going to havey this question of making sure that receivers aren't calling spill over where they don't have any legal authorizedht right toe as a way to make sure that to take full advantage of the take full advantage of the spectrum we have availablea us. you talk about what a great success that was and you also

suggested that incentives probably don't work too well with federal÷ú agencies to encourage them to forego use of spectrum. one of thev: limitations it captures what i would call the opportunity cause that the agency spectrum maybe not as efficiently asu! it ever was. the future is so bleak in terms of getting governmentp agencies to take into account incentive that future -- all that, is thereany way of hope given the successes÷ú we'll get the work

completed, really put ourselves in the shoes of people federal agencies that are[ trying to me these decisions about how spectrums use. first off, spectrum for them is the tool of performance. their mission is to keep÷ú soldiers straight on the battlefield. and their mission is to determine what the weather is going to be tomorrow or next week. for them÷ú spectrums just a too that they perform the mission in hat, you know, meet the critical needs that they have. >> having said that i think agencies generally like to know they're using the most modern and best technology. they're amenable to upgrades. but then you're up against the

budget challenges that they have they're going to give the le sources to make that and that's balance against the fact when you're talking about protectingbvájutj and property. the question, i do think the spectrum relocation fund by providing the resources that could allow for the upgrade tendency to make offers the best long term hope in the future. some of these other ideas like giving agenciesp ownership interest in spectrum to allow them to in effect to give up. i don't see them deai'g with the spectrum choices when they're making them in their context of performing a mission. plus they will leave the preverse result inzv the sense today, they'll have no ownership or proprietary interest they are

assigned right to use it, which assigned right to use it, which can bk they're no longer using it. if all of a sudden you're created a propertyzv right -- t most modern technology they can and have the resources that's available to them. >> that will not be fair. )q'ce of questions, we have a microphone going around the room and please identify yourself before asking the question. >> show of hands for question gentleman here. >> thank you larry, wonderful

presentation, john for all of these charterzv communications, have a question about spectrum utilization efficiency. and what -- have you looked at the upper levelv: protocols, su as ipb six versus ipb four in terms of improving efficiency, usage as we go to internet things improving the utilization '"ti áz that's panel. well, in favor of greater app utilization of ipb 6. i wasn't aware of that, but we've absolutely just because of the internet numbering resources we need greaterym adoptions of b six. >> gentleman here in zvblue. >> you know, thanks again, this

is trickling as great speech. i was just wondering if you could expand a little bit on your thinking of enforcement, do you see that how significant of a problem do you think that is, do you see sort of technical solutions to enforcement as solutions are more policy issues needed or the resources for the enforcement period as well. >> and i think the threshold question, which is probably prevented meeting this need, which has been identified for years, i mean, i think when he was a teenager was talking about the need for stronger enforcement in this area. part of it it's been up until now agreeing on what actually is harmful interference and will justify enforcement action. so that's something that's got to be wrestled with and dealt to be wrestled with and dealt with as kind ofa

necessary tradition to do this, we talked about the receiver issue, implicated in enforcement issue. i think it's become clear that putting more and more systems next to each other÷ú that we've got to have a process by which if you have ranks of use in a particular band that you know that they will be protected and guaranteed. we've got to bite the bullet and find a way to develop an effective enforcement mechanism. i think for the details,ko agai that's a great question for the next panel. i don't want to take all their thunder. >> next question. gentleman in the back. >> more or less evaluating my treasury korecords.

we hear that the joint chiefs e-mails, 30,000 e-mails and they opened a fewse-mails an couldn't believe what was in them in plain english. the president says it's going to be reprisal of this to the russian hackers they think are responsible for it. and i wondered if there's any way to improve communication for certain e-mails, a lot of it seemed harmless enough how are they going to know how to crack it. if they crack it. they can see it. maybe they can crack the code. isn't therezv a way for most modern communication methods to have a rotating system of codes that only a few people will be problem that apparently -- you're into an area -- that i have a separate program on in a few weeks. the whole issue of cyber

security and encryption balancing factors on that is a huge set of issues andu! how ev institution, not just the federal government, but every business we read yesterday is yahoo. and so it's not just a question of encrypting communication, that's important piece of this, and end to end,v: you've got questions that data are being kept in storage facilities, data as it's kept in the device that isu! you're using cyber÷ú securi think for the next administration in terms of working its way through the

issues and determining thezv rit responses to all of these, but it's a very large and complicated ymymp÷úissue. >> we have other parts of the federal government, such as the federal chief information officer, so there may be other÷ partisans to go for that. we're there in terms of policy issues, one of the things we have done in terms of peoplenb coming to us are in terms of work we've done over the -- and i mention this in the opening remarks, but over the last

several years we've been running processes to develop codes of conduct and best practices in some of these way too early to think about regulation or legislation. we're trying to get foothold, such as we did on best practice: related to drone privacy. but all stake holders together invited all stake holders to participate to help develop kind of the first cut of how people selling drones and people with operating drones out of respect privacy of citizens and so i think we've made a lot of progress in the last several years in privacy, cyber securito is another area yesterday we just released the out put of the separate stake holder process on the÷ú issue, how software and hardware manufacturers can work

better with the community of people who go out and find vulnerabilities inzv software, vuner acts in devices to try to bring them together so that they're working in a more÷ú cooperative fashion to see if we can advance some of the policy areas in the absence of that probably nothing would< happ happeningzv legislative solutio. >> with digital liberty in and i just wanted to kind of go back and see if you can elaborate a little more in your skepticism of market based spectrum.

i've been one of the ideas that's kicked around putting in market value on the spectrumnb d that, worked on it and it seems like that would be a more of a t+y >> the problem is that the federal agency performing emission how you're going to put market value on emission they're performing. if that becomes a particular issue when you are looking at the missions to protect property where therezv will be a natural reluctants to take a lot of risks in materials of bringing in new systems or new technologies before they've be) tested and understood, and so how do you over come that reluctan reluctance when you know there's a product that works and÷ú uses particularly ban, i think these agencies have every incentive to continue to use the system like that and not just well, you know what,ym spectrum values becomin

greater to commercial people so we -- we should abandon this system you know, the people making these decisions are being made or being paid to protect human life, protect property, they're not being paid to make more spectrum available to commercial spectrum, you've got to get in their process and undezsuand their decision making if you're going to influence them and give them a reason use a different approach or different technology before. >> still one more question. i will take the last question and this is on international coordination for 5 nbg.

>> i'm ghoing to to ask you about involving technology and usual u.s.s and leaders in this area, but these technologies ultimately have global standards and any comments you can share with us about international correlation. >> i'll bring it general. as it relates to spectrum use, it will be put to the panel. ithink with 5 g, generally, we're starting the to see difference in approach between the united states and perhaps ountries, particularly from countries in europe. i think there's a few points among some european countries they need to get out and get these standards done right now. that will then encourage the technology. i think the viewpoint in the u.s. among most of the u.s. ÷ú companies, hey, not so fast, we ally ought to have an opportunity for more experimentation, more trial and

really get people aym chance to explore how to use these technologies before we lock in the standards that might actually spunk innovation and grow$hctr(t&háhp &hc% it will be interesting to watch how that debate unfolds in terms of the difference in views that exist now. acknowledges we want to have standards in this space i.'s a question time and what's the trajectory by which you get to them. >> with that, thank you so much. [ applause ]nbym >> i think we're going to go to our

we have a distinguished panel of experts to discuss both administrator's strick ling's comments today as well as discuss the future of 5g. and let me just briefly introduce our panelists today. on my far left, on your right is john wilkins, chief of the wireless telecommunication bureau at the fcc. during his tenure the bureau's actives have focused on 5g deployment activities, including the development of commercial licensing rules for the first

use of millimeter of spectrum terrestrial services in close industry on small cell infrastructure size. in the middle, we have page atkins, the associate administrator office of spectrum management ntia. page leads the spectrum management for the engineering, frequency assignment and certification, and national and international spectrum policy and strategic planning functions. and fred campbell is the director of technology -- a senior policy adviser with wireless 2020 and a professor in the space cyber and telecommunication law program at the university of nebraska, college of law, he served as chief of the wireless

communication bureau at the fcc in the mid 2000s and served in the 101st 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. let's start with fred and then j jon and then page if we could go in that order. >> thank you for having us at this event. hudson institute, it is a nice, new facility. so i guess i'll echo mr. strickling's thoughts on that. one thing that stuck out to me was the answer that mr. strickland gave to one of the questions, that being incentives for agencies. and he made the point that, well

how could you put a value on their missions. and my first thought to that was that government does that on a routine basis in virtually all areas not involving spectrum. so you take real property, military facilities, they need land, you know, the fcc leases his building from a commercial entity. so those things have prices put on them. and a 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 is also largely true of land west of the mississippi for whatever reason. but to pause at something truly different than what we have now, it could be the opposite. it could be that there is no federally allocated spectrum per se. it is all commercial and if an

agency's mission requires access to spectrum, they lease or buy it the same way they do with real property. now, by the way, i'm not suggesting that is going to happen any time soon. if nothing else because there are decades of institutional history around this and it is not done that way now. i'm saying as a matter of economics i don't see why it couldn't work in the abstract. again, the sort of historical structure in place makes that difficult to transition to at this point. but spectrum writes like any other -- rights like any right that could be negotiated can have a value put on it. >> jon? >> well, i'm echo the thanks, for having us here. it is a real important topic for the fcc, for the last eight years and it is going forward. i actually had three reactions to what larry went through i did just want to echo, he talked

about what happened over the last eight years on spectrum. and it is pretty impressive record just on the numbers, larry mentioned the 245 magahertz cleared and then in 2017 we have a successful conclusion of the broadcast option and brigging us over 300 megahertz and that is about a 15% increase over the total amount of spectrum made available for commercial mobile data uses or even before there was such a thing as mobile data for commercial mobile uses over the last 20 years. so that is a big increase. and that is before we talk about spectrum frontier and the millimeter wave, which in some ways is apples to oranges but larry did give the number, just the first round of spectrum front ear work we -- frontier wrk we did this last summer was magahertz and that is greater than what has been done so far. it is striking and we think it

is a big deal. and when you talk to folks in the commission for a long time and worked on these issues, it is striking how big of a change and how much has been done there. i'll also echo what larry said about the goalposts are moving. so he mentioned the context of mobile now and congress adding additional magahertz, and i would add the goalpost is also moving in terms of the needs, sort of what -- what 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 lars nationwide carriers that build the cellular networks will be doing a ton in this space but they are the first to say will t-mobile's network be in the current form exactly the same model to internet applications for the automobile sector. i don't think anybody knows.

but the goalposts include more flexibility for innovation in the way that the networks are built and used to capture the value of the technology is also part of the moving goalpost. so to the second thing i want to talk about and larry talked about sharing and that is a big theme and the starting point is there is less and less spectrum that you could realistically say we're going to clear that band entirely and just make it available. so there is that reality of it is hard to keep doing traditional full spectrum clearing. but again, pointing back to the last two decades, i think it is true that the u.s. in terms of public policy for spectrum has been innovative and led the world. and you go back 20 years ago, things like spectrum auctions were unlicensed spectrum, when they were introduced, were viewed as, what are you going doing? i did a panel last week on 5g

and there was a representative from a scandinavian country where they are still doing a beauty contest to award spectrum rights. and whatever else you think about this, auctions is a market efficient way to do this is sacrosanct and looking ahead there are new tools and sharing is a big category of them. and sharing in the way the networks now because they are much more intelligent and you can em bed software that could help manage sharing, which is one example, i think there will be debates about the details and that will matter and ten years from now we'll look back and look at the sharing techniques that are highly debated will be about as view as sack rrosanct we view that today and to match what is clearly massive innovation on the industry side. it is porn. and by the way the other big tool is incentive auctions, we talked about it in the current

600 megahertz context, but it is broader than just 600 megahertz and what other bands of spectrum and this is commercial to commercial and not commercial to federal, but where else could auctions be a good tool. the fcc has a lot of momentum that is only the result of the downstream of what ntia and the administration has done to help federal spectrum be more available to us for them and work getting commercial use possible and how will the new tools continue to develop going forward. and then the third point, federal collaboration and larry talked about it a lot and page has been living this at the ntia, too, i think it is import to understate how important the true federal collaboration has been on these issues. my reference point, again the spectrum frontier order that the fcc came out with this past summer was all about federal collaboration and coordination and the key was it happened quickly. so if any of you have heard

whether it is chairman wheeler or the other commissioners at the fcc right now, the goal has been for the u.s. to lead the world in making millimeter wave spectrum available. actually it goes -- the last question that herald asked larry about, other parts of the world, they are focusing on standards and that is the way they get going and the u.s. policy is we're going to make spectrum available and as few technology rules as possible and the industry could figure it out and the key is you have to make the spectrum available. when we made the high frequency bands available this past summer, 20 gigahertz, 37, 29, 64 and focusing on 28, we were the first in the world to do that. and fcc and others, internet counterparties were stunned how quickly we got that done. and how other countries set their own policies will be evolving but i think we are clearly set a huge forward momentum. and the strategy is we want the u.s. to be first for deployment because we think that there is

huge economic advantages for the u.s. but that is only possible because of the federal collaboration that have been built. and those of you that have done these issues there was a lot of department of defense spectrum involved there. the genuine collaboration with which the dod and the coordination they did that let us do that quickly was extraordinary and it is important going forward that that continue. >> so first, even though larry will only be my boss for another few weeks, i want to say publicly that i wholeheartedly agree with everything that he said. and i'll just elaborate on a couple of points. as larry said, there are few easy choices when we're balancing the vital government missions against commercial demand. but 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.

and this fundamental shift that larry talked about to spectrum sharing is a key component to that. because traditionally we've always thought of this as a zero-sum game. somebody won an somebody lost. but we don't have that choice any more. so the sharing mechanism, when it is appropriate, allows us to create a win-win scenario and satisfy the requirements and optimize our use of this precious resource. i will echo that we have to remain agile, because we don't know what's next. and i'll use an example that technology and business models can change dramatically and as an example, within the last four years since the p-cast report was published, the report cited the internet of things as a novel wireless market and now it is part of our daily vernacular. and at that time, 5g was still

evolving and wasn't even mentioned in the p-cast report. that was four years ago. so you could see how quickly and dramatically things can change in a very short period of time. i wanted to add a little about the on enforcement. when i talk enforcement, i talk to it in quotes. i don't tend to think of it in its formal and legal sense which is typically react if something happens and we need to take action to fix it. so in the future, i think we need to think of enforcement in a much broader context. and as we develop these new innovative sharing approaches, we need to figure out how to integrate enforcement capabilities into the technology and process and the policies an the architectures like 5g that we're going to implement. and it is not just where we are today, where it is very reactive and static, but we have to move to something that is 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. and that also creates some cyber and privacy concerns that need to be addressed in the process. i want to also address a little bit on the incentives. part of whether you can come up with a value like real estate to charge is one element. the other element is then what incentive does that drive 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 aren't convinced it will create the incentive in the long run because of how decisions are made and whether that dollar figure would create influence on

that decision-maker to make a different decision than they would have otherwise. and we could get into more detail later, but we're peeling that back and we'll be able to better 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 i 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 that has been foundational to our success and it will continue to be even more important as we move forward. so we need to continue to extend and strengthen that collaboration as we go into the next four or eight years, depending on what the case may be. and i am convinced, as larry

articulated, that we have the right team, we have the right foundation 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@hudson events. and we'll try to get those questions up here as well. next question i want to ask is john mentioned that the u.s. has -- and i think entirely appropriately -- sort of a 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 technology for the future.

and in an ideal world they wouldn't need to 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 is not the case. i assume that, in fact, the -- some of the new technologies will require some coordination and some special dispensation from the federal government, whether that's in it terms of specific standards for use of spectrum in various bands, whether it's enforcement issues, whether it is receiver issues that larry discussed, whether it is international issues. i was wondering if each of you could just take a few moments to describe what you see as the critical next steps for the development of 5g from sort of a washington perspective.

that is, what is it that the new technology likely or have come to washington asking for help with. fred, do you want to start it off? >> i think that's right. i think there will be questions brought to washington. i think a good starting point is the high freak wednesdayy spectrum that john alluded to. it is a critical component. and the question becomes how does that -- can we harmonize that internationally. john talked about the fact that the u.s. is going first and that involves tradeoffs. some you go first, sometimes the rest of the world goes in a different direction if you don't do it at the same type and that is a challenge with spectrum. but that has economic consequences. it would be nice if it could be harmonized. and there is also this question that the u.s. is never really

resolved about licensed hybrid licensed, unlicensed and uplicensed and what do i mean by that. we've kind of got three different spectrum systems now in my view. they are sort of what you might think of the traditional license to demand and control some might call it. and there is what i -- you might call traditional unlicensed, which is a very limited set of technical standards and that's it. and then you have sort of this new hybrid approach like we have at the 3.5 gigahertz or 3.6 international band where you have data base and some sort of form of centralized control. so one question for 5g is, are we -- is the united states going to settle on a model for how they want to handle the spectrum and the 5g environment, or are

they going to just do it on a -- on a little bit of this and little bit of that experiment basis which is how the fcc has gone so far in what they call their spectrum frontiers proceeding. and by little, little bit of this and little bit of that. even -- it has been this way for a very long time at the agency, the fcc never really articulated a decisional basis for deciding how much spectrum might go into a particular model. it's just sort of hashed out i guess through negotiation with -- without any real stringent justification. so will there be a quantityive justification for the decision made in that respect. and the last thought i would leave you with is how do those decisions play out with the

fcc's public interest standard. and what do i mean by that? it is interesting to me that the way it works today, if you have licensed spectrum, you are subject to a whole host of additional fcc obligations like merger reviews because you have licensed spectrum but if you use unlicensed spectrum but not as a commercial but on a commercialized basis and potentially competitive basis with other licensees, you don't have any of those obligations. and so when does the question of spectrum allocation/service rules move beyond just a question of which model do we like for spectrum purposes and actually play into the larger debate about the fcc's role in how it administers the regulations.

frankly right now that dichotomy arguably is nonsensical. >> john? >> two things. first, i think on the core fcc side, there is incredible moment behind minimizing the touch to the way you phrased it, minimize the touch points between industry figuring out how best to use the technology and the fcc and frontier actually has -- i mean you get into the technicalities of the commission's licensing approach but we have to do work on the licenses themselves and more importantly, they have to be auctioned and what is the plan and that has to be decided. i think everyone agrees it should go as quickly as possible but that is the last big step. perhaps in good washington tradition, i will pass the buck to other agencies on the second part of my answer.

in a lot of these new 5g use cases, you really get into these adjacent areas, so automated cars, for example, that is a 5g future use and people talk about the low latency value of 5g spectrum low meter wave being useful for automated vehicles because the vehicles will stop quickly when there is latency, but whatever the fcc does, the national highway safety administration has to make sure it is safe and they put out a version of early rule making on that this week. drones is a better example. i think everyone agrees the potential for drones is huge but the faa will make sure before we see drones over the line of sight they understand the safety rules of that, but the spectrum is the easy part. so i think that is the other piece of that. the new he's cases that 5g is going to get beyond the

traditional wireless carriers building mobile services, as huge as that is, 5g is bigger and broader than on to start introducing other areas of washington regulation from those two exam peoples from a safety perspective is necessary. not having that be a five-year process to figure out some of those rules is probably pretty important. >> well i'll build on what john was saying. we talk about 5g as if it is one thing. and it's not. and depending on who you talk to, it could be different things to many different folks. and it is really an eco-system of capabilities that will satisfy diverse set of requirements, whether it be a type of iot to the very high capacity services that we see in the future. so 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 to continue to better

characterize what it is, how it will be deployed, how it is going to be used. and that will help drive -- continue to drive the standards development, how it will be shared, the spectrum that it uses, 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 it will be used how it will be deployed and that is an ongoing process now. there is a lot of folks addressing that. and then to ensure that those characteristics and requirements are adequately addressed within the standards community. and then that will help us understand from a spectrum standpoint what does that mean in terms of potential demand, the types of spectrum that is needed for the various use cases

or applications that it will serve and help us make more prudent decisions in terms of what spectrum may need to be made available, additional spectrum or how it will be shared between federal and nonfederal users. and i would say that spectrum is a pillar, but it is only one component, it is an important component but there are other issues that need 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'm going to open it up to the audience. you have extraordinarily knowledgeable experts here on a wide range of issues. i have a question here from john. please. >> john pea, carnegie mellon

university. and there are different models to adopt for 5g and the model you would want would depend on the technology and the application and page atkins reminds us there are a lot of possibilities so we may have standards bodies waiting for regulators to tell us what they need to develop and regulators waiting for standard bodies to pick models, where -- who should be driving this process or how do we coordinate across all of these players? >> coordination is a challenge. and i agree with both panelists earlier, that i do think the ntia and federal agencies have gotten much better, much more open in collaboration. i think i've seen that -- we've seen that, not just on panels like this, but i've seen senior military officials talk about the need to think about how they could open the spectrum up for

even for those own reasons that it is good for them. that is not much of an answer. i guess i would say, yeah, there has to be collaboration and policymakers should -- if they are not now, be more involved potentially in some of the discussions earlier on and not be necessarily as passive. there are tradeoffs with that, too and ricks of looking like -- risks of looking like, getting too involved in the standard-making process. i would have to give that more thought, how you might do that coordination in a way that is -- i guess the c past is an example, advisory committees are one way to do it but they are not international because the standard body is 3g, pp or the like and it is a difficult question. i think collaboration is good. how to do it -- >> i would give a slightly different answer. i think competition is good. i think it is great to have

competition standards. europeans are very -- they gravitate toward a single answer and i think the u.s. market tends to try different standards, that has happened with every -- every technology standard for wireless services, if it were up to the europeans, we would have started with gsm and ended with gsm. go back 25 years ago on advanced television standards and again say the japanese had a very advanced -- but it wasn't a digital standard. and so i think there is a lot of value in having competition of standards. at some point there does have to be coordination to have some sort of mass market attraction. but i do think the u.s. has been more on the side of angels than

not on delaying standards until you are further along in the process. but i don't know if you all have a different view? >> i -- i'm bias because we've been doing this from the u.s. policy side but i think the approach of -- focus on making the -- the terms of access commercial use of the spectrum and to fred's point, there is different versions of that but at least clarify what it is and that would create the incentives for frankly the commercial players, who have got maybe got different versions of what they think is going to work. they will differ on the technical details. but when they know they have spectrum to use, what we've seen is that starts to generate the real engagement in the standards bodies and they are good forums for -- you have different economic interests that battle a little bit but it is all grounded in technical reality. and so i think even very recently, this 3.5 band we talked about a lot, we're seeing

the fcc clarified what the rules are for using that spectrum and we've seen activity on clarifying 3.5 downstream of that. so i think that is the u.s. approach and would agree with herald, that long ago in the u.s. we don't want too much collaboration on the government of here is what the standars should be and it is better to have the nurse fight it out. >> and i think it is an approach of we learn as we go. so it is not one absolutely driving the other, it is learning and adjusting to optimize 5g or whatever the technology and business market is. >> could i clarify my answer. >> absolutely. >> i wholeheartedly agree with herald and the panelists, i'm not a fan of government mandated standards which is a difference between the u.s. and europe and -- in 2-g for example.

but i think more of what i was -- i think and what i understand john's question to be, one thing that seems to be somewhat of a consensus, while i agree 5g is very influx, is that to the extent it is about having multi purpose networks that could handle verticals and maybe i'm getting too complex, i expect it to have potentially multiple interfaces and the like and the question becomes do you -- some of which may have different spectrum needs, potential or at least different interference concerns and especially with the federal government and the like. so i understand john's question to be how do you resolve all of those issues. and i generally prefer market based approaches wherever possible. but given the potential complexity, some interaction seems to develop seems like it might be a good idea. but i definitely wasn't advocating for an adopted approach, if you will. >> i think we were answering

different parts of john's question. >> could i just add one thing. i think 5g gives us an amazing opportunity to do things right from the start in many areas. it includes looking at enforcement and what we may need to integrate into the standards in collaboration obviously with an industry that would make sense. and how we can integrate, again the sharing mechanisms into the standard that allow us to use it in a much more efficient and effective way, federal or nonfederal and 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. gentleman in the blue here. >> thank you, david rabbino witz. i was wondering, as frequencies

get higher, the range gets shorter. and i wonder if it is going to be feasible technically and economically and especially administratively to license exclusive spectrum use over very small areas? for example, a farmer wants exclusive use to do precision farming over his farm only. is that going to be something he would be able to do and afford and be able to get and not have to hire a bunch of people to go through the paperwork? >> that is a great question. so first let me, i just want to pars one part of it. absolutely, the propagation distances are much shorter. the cell size, for a lack of a better term, will be much smaller. and that is a different question than how much a license could be. and you could give a license and a commercial owner could build a dense -- and the question you are raising is one that is -- it has been teed up as questions in some fcc proceedings and in gets to the question of -- let me

change your analogy slightly. let's say it is the interior space of a commercial building where you may have a broad commercial owner that holds a geographic license that includes a bunch of buildings but at 20 gigahertz you are not going through the building wall, no matter how hard you try. and whoever owns the license it will fallow because you can't get into there unless you work with the building owner to site your facilities in there. what is the policy mechanisms to do that effectively, i think we're still struggling with that. but it is a good example of as the technology improves we use more spectrum different ways an the need for creative uses is important and if all you did was say, well, traditional license, there is one entity owns all of an area, you probably do have some inefficiencies because even if the owner wanted it inside and if the provider wanted to, the building, the third party,

how do you get rights to go through the building and mappna that. it is teed up and it is a good question. and as a side note, the smaller propagation bring up other interesting issues from a regulatory standpoint how do we make deployment happen, which is a bit of a broader question than just make the spectrum available. so something as simple as local processes used to approve cell towers, right, where you might have one in a five square mile radius, all of a sudden there are folks here and in the industry, i've talked with fcc about this lately, you might have a thousand small cells an the local processes are the same and that doesn't scale. and these are the kind of things that are out there on the front line of the networks being deployed and worked there as we speak. >> i just provided a little layer on that which is the model that you pause don't fit within

the spectrum management framework. that is my opinion. so for example, people have a nuisance approach based on real property to spectrum management for situations like this and i would say, well, okay, one difference with real property is you have local zoning and access to local cords. but when i hear of a nuance type model, i think of one federal court, if you will, the fcc with a total of two administrative law judges and it doesn't fit, i don't see how it fits the model. and i would have to go into more detail that i -- my initial reaction is you can't do it that way. unless you want to rethink how we currently do things on a more fundamental basis. and largely where we've gotten to where we are today where i say we kind of have free models, none of which -- do we have a coherent theory to describe how they fit and work together is because we have done things layer by layer and accretion by

accretion and when you get to start that, i worry that the whole thing will break. >> i would make a couple of further points. one is we actually already have a lot of licenses in the millimeter band. 24 gigahertz in the 40 gigahertz, 37 gigahertz area. what the -- a lot of what the spectrum frontier order does is provide flexibility of use instead of limiting these to just point to point or point to multi-point purposes. the size of the 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, what is the right size of the spectrum -- of the geographic area license. and the commission has struggled with this.

everything from nationwide licenses to really fairly small geographic areas, smaller than a city. i don't think there is a single right answer to it. but i also don't -- as john said, i don't think it really depends on frequency. the issue of what the right geographic area is something that the commission has always struggled with and frankly i think will continue to struggle with. yes. >> hi, thank you everyone. press corp, george mason's university. so the p cast report, in it it says somewhere along the lines that they envision a world of sharing of unlicensed and licensed, akin to the tv white spaces proceeding. and it is a little concerning to me. tv white space has not performed as well as people were hoping. a couple of years ago a device maker predicted they would have

a hundred million devices within three years. i think they've sold a hundred. so modeling it that way, it is concerning. what lessons have policymakers taken from that, to make sure that 3.5 and these other sharing mechanisms work better than tv white spaces? >> i can -- >> well, i'll take the first shot at it. so i think, there is various unique aspects of the tv white spaces context that i don't know that that sort of disproves the possibility of having a system like that working effectively. i think probably the biggest change, and again in the 3.5 context this is where we're seeing the current version of it. as the networks continue to evolve and basically it is --

digital signal processing is fast enough that could you build into the networks essentially the sharing implementation. so this is actually how larry mentioned the easy example for how 3.5 is making more spectrum available is you have military radar used on the coast and when they are used, you better not interfere with them and you better not mess with it because the aircraft carrier is coming through but it is not an hourly or even a daily event. so other than that one time, it should be available for commercial use. but if you are the navy, you want to make darn sure there is no ambiguity when you need it. and how do you build that into the network itself. you don't want to rely on a daae base and somebody goes out and queries it, it has to be available in the network. those have been available to work on. the wireless bureau is looking at applications to implement

those systems. but i think you would point at broughter technology trends. so at&t is very vocal about they view their future network as the network functions are embedded in software and that kind of broad example could be applied to the sharing context of implementing rules. and white space is unused spectrum and how do you use it and the general approach is one that has to be tried, for all of the reasons that we've talked about. and 3.5 is the next shot of it. >> i'd say i think we're talking about our transaction costs. and i view it as a triangle is how i try to describe it to my students, at the top you have command and control, which at some point there was a consensus that we didn't like anymore. although it's never gone away and in fact most of it is still command and control. and then there was pure

unlicensed which is you've got a limited set of technical rules and then it's suppose to be do whatever you like. and then you've got the new hybrid. and the way i describe it is the hybrid is a new flavor of command and control. it's a return to command and control. and my example would be the recent conflicts over wi-fi and lte and the traditional pure unlicensed bans. under the rules, doing lte is permissible and people do analog video in those bands which blows out any wi-fi. but now you're going to commercialize it on a big scale with a different technology and the wi-fi industry raised its hand saying no, you can't do that. what is that? it's a form of squatter rights. i'm a fan of wi-fi. i love it. i'm just talking policy. ironically, therefore when i say it's a form of command and control, we've relived history.

well, radio act of 1912. there was no regulation of the air waves and the problem was there were broadcasters and interference and the big complaint was the squatter rights, we can't let that happen. so we reregulated it to eliminate the squatter contracts. and then unlicensed comes along in the modern form saying technology will eliminate all problems. well it turns out only if we all agree to the same standard, which gets you back to the government dictating the stand ard. which is what they did for broadcast, potentially. in other words, we've done the 1930s all other. the hybrid models are much for sophisticated and flexible command of control and form, hopefully, but you've just shifted the set of trade-offs to, again, the property rights have their own trade-offs and

those who don't like those say no, we need to do this other thing. now we're back to the command and control which is government-mandated standards. potentially -- and even the 3.5 is interested but it does contemplate the control part of the network would be managed by someone. will it be one company? do they have a monopoly over that? is it a form of license? it's very complicated very quickly. i'm a fan of property rights because that gets sort of the lobbying out of it and lets people go figure it out. and that's the trade off to command and control is you have to have a government kind of hand involved in everything. >> our last question is going to be someone who has been watching through c-span, michael marcus well-known in the spectrum policy community.

this is from paige but i'll open it up. what can ntia do to facilitate above 95 gig hertz and open it up to the fcc use. i think the question generally is we've had focus on millimeter wave spectrum. what about even smaller spectrum that technology will eventually get there. are there plans at ntia to put some of that out? >> well i would say that i don't see it any differently than the other bands that 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 spectrum among multiple users and potentially the systems. so 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. >> actually let me use that question to make one point that i meant to make earlier, which we talked a lot about spectrum frontiers, that was a set of rules done this summer. the fcc now has spectrum frontiers part two that's teed up an additional number of these millimeter wave bands going up pretty high. so this is an active ongoing fcc proceeding. just as a side note, this is about as bipartisan as things get i think on these issues where everyone is in agreement we want to make progress on these. there's an administration happening but that one is going to keep going, be my guess. issues like that are teed up and active commission proceeding.

as paige said -- to the gentleman's question from before, when you get that high, the provocation gets real small and the most sensible licensing approach for spectrum, whatever anybody else around the ability of someone to use directional technologies. you're never going to be kilometers in distance. what does that mean for the best way to use that. this is not a theoretical question. >> john, i think you have the last word. please join me in thanking your panel today. thank you so much. [ applause ] [ proceeding concluded ] this weekend on american history tv on c-span. saturday evening, just before 7:00 eastern, providence college

history professor patrick breen and youthor of the boog the land shall be deluged in blood exam pinned the life of nat turner and the confusion and uncertainty among blacks and whites in the revolt aftermath. >> the clash between the slave and the artist embodied the dramatic differences that existed in the black community as some, including artist, decided to support the revolt, while others elected to support the whites. >> then at 8:00 on lectures in history, the university of maryland's katarina keen on advertising and markets as a profession in the early 20th century and how consumer experiences changed during this time. >> instead of selling an automobile as a means of transportation, to get from point a. to point b., you could sell a car as prestige. >> and just before 9:00, historian discussed the post

world war ii career of pulitzer prize winning cartoonist sergeant bill muldin who was a cartoonist for the stars an stripes magazine. >> while overseas, he had avoided outbursts and he never allowed partisan politic news his cartoons. back home, however, he jumped into the political fray with both feet. >> and sunday at 6:00 p.m. on american artifacts -- >> one of my favorite documents in the gallery, it is a draft version of what became the bill of rights. and we usually refer to this as the senate mark-up. the senate took the 17 amendments that were passed by the house and changed them into 12 amendments that after a conference committee it was 12 amendments that were sent to the states for ratification. and ten of those 12 were ratified by the states. >> christine blacker bee and jennifer johnson tour the exhibit marking the 225th anniversary of the ratification of the bill of rights on

december 15th, 1791. for a complete american history tv schedule, go to c-span.org. next week is authors week on washington journal featuring a new author each day beginning at 8:30 a.m. beginning sunday december 18th, j.d. advance on a memmor of a family and culture in crisis. charles murray will join us to talk about his book in our hands, a plan to replace the welfare state. on tuesday, december 20th, author mark levinson will discuss his book an extra neri time, the end of the post war boom. and then on wednesday, december 21st, author carol anderson will talk about her book, white rage, the unspoken truth of our racial divide. and james kitfield with try light warriors, the soldiers and

spies and special agents revolutionizing the american way of war. on friday december 23k, kathy kramer with the book the policy of resentment, and the rise of scott walker. then on saturday, december 24th, two authors will join us, tom jeldin with a nation of nations, the great american immigration story, and robert jones with his book, the end of white christian america. and finally on sunday, december 25th, author tabby troy with shall we wake the president. two centuries of disaster management from the oval office. be sure to watch authors week on washington journal beginning on sunday december 18th at 8:30 a.m. eastern. at an american bar association conference, four past administrators of the centers for medicare and medicaid talked about the challenges in implementing new federal health care laws, including obama care. they also talked about how the incoming trump administration will effect federal health care policy. this part of the conference is

an hour and 15 minutes. well good morning. why don't we go ahead and get started. i'm sure we'll have some folks trickling in, but i'm sure the organizers would like for us to try to stay on time. first let me thank you for joining us this morning for the panel. what is in store for government health care, a discussion of the post election future of medicare, medicaid and obama care with former cms leaders. let me give you a little bit of introduction and tell you how the program is going to work. first of all, let me tell you who i am. my name is mark pollston, i'm a partner of king and spaulding. before joining king and spaulding, i actually worked in the council office for cms for several years, i was a chief litigation counsel and i had the pleasure of working with the panel members her in that

capacity. so i'm going to be the moderator of the program. and what i would like to do is -- this is intended to be both a moderated discussion between me and the panel but we really do want to hear questions from the audience. because i will tell you that when we first set up this panel, it was about two months ago. so it is prior to the results of the election. so we had a certain concept of how it was going to go. and now it is going to be a completely different concept. so we're all very interesting to hear what everybody has to say about the potential for the new administration and the transition. let me spend a little bit of time explaining who is on the panel. and i think you have collectively here in front of you three individuals who have presided over some of the biggest changes in government-funded health care in the last ten to 15 years. there is the medicare modernization act which brought in the prescription drug

benefit, part d. to the medicare program which tom skully and leslie norwalk presided over. and then there is the affordable care act, known as obama care, and john blum, one of our distinguished panelists was a major contributor to the implementation of the affordable care act at cms. let me give you background on each of the individuals and i'll start going kind of down from i guess left to right. start off with tom. tom skully is a senior counsel at austin and bird. his practice is focused on health care regulatory and legislative matter as b a general partner in a private equity firm in new york city. he was the administrator for cms from 2001 to 2004 and he was instrumental as i just mentioned in the designing and passing medicare reform and medicare part d. legislation. one of his achievements at cms in addition to the implementation of the part d. drug benefit was initiating the

first public reporting and disclosures of comparative quality among hospitals, nursing homes and home health agencies and dialysis centers and he served as president and ceo of presidential american hospitals which represents hospitals in the united states, the members of the federation do. next is leslie norwalk. leslie currently is a strategic counsel to epstein becker and green, ebg and national health advisers where she represents private equity firms. she served in the bush administration as the acting administrator for the centers for medicare and medicaid services. after tom's departure. she managed the date to day operations of the medicare and the s chip program which is just now called chip. and four years prior to becoming the acting administrator, she served as deputy administrator

to tom and deeply involved in the medicare modification act which includes many things in addition to the medicare prescription drug benefit program. and the last but not least we have john blum. john is currently an executive vice president for medical affairs at blue cross blue shield. he is responsible for overseeing care first patient center medical home program and works on care coordination policies and pharmacy policies and provider networks. before he joins care first, john served in several different senior leadership positions at cms. he served most recently as the agency deputy administrator and spent most of his time at cms basically being the chief of operations for the medicare program which of course regulates not only the fee for service provisions in the medicare program, it regulates the medicare advantage provisions as well as of course the prescription drug benefit program so he inherited that from tom and from leslie.

prior to cms, he served on the staff of the senate finance committee working for senator backus and served as a vice president at afa lear health immediately before joining cms. so thank you to the distinguish panels for joining us. so again, this is intended to be a dialogue. we have approximately an hour and 15 minutes, probably less at this stage. and many what i would like to do is start off with a few questions. i think there is going to be a lot of people who are interested in what is really happening right now with the transition between the obama administration and the soon to take over trump administration in terms of transition policies. we have somebody who is a nominee for hhs secretary, top price and we also have a nominee for cms administrator, seema verna. and so i would like to start off the questions, a little bit looking at transition policies and what we could expect during

the transition. and then i think we would like to move into more substance. but if at any point in time you feel inspired to ask a question, raise your hand and get to the microphone and we'll handle it that way. and let me kick out the first question and hand it off to john. john, you were probably the most recent member of the panel to experience a transition to go through a transition from -- from a republican administration to a democratic administration. give us a sense for what is really happening now within the transition that from your perspective, do you think they're doing. some of the things i'm interested in learning is do people come in with a through print as to what is supposed to happen in terms of health care policy and to what extent is it being created now and to the extent you have any insight about the current transition, the trump administration wants -- to give us your thoughts about that. >> sure. i served on the transition team during 2008 and 2009 and i'm

sure that every transition team works differently and they are driven by the people who are running the transition, their priority and their policy goals. but i think the one observation that i had is that the transition teams tend to spend a lot of time thinking about how to fulfill campaign promises and implement the promises made by their candidate. and i think the reality is, particularly coming into health care, particularly coming into cms, is there is a mix of discretionary decisions that a policy leadership team wants to do and things they have to do. and medicare for example has very firm statutory deadlines, there are things that have to be decided upon on january 22nd, whenever the new team comes in. so a transition team has to think about two things at the same time. number one is how to fulfill the campaign pledges. and i think health care really wasn't part of the national conversation other than to

repeal the affordable care act or to preserve it. there was not a -- a real rich debate about the future of medicare. there was not a real rich debate about how fraud and abuse and core cms programs should operate. so the transition teams need to think about two things. number one, to fulfill the kaix promises and -- campaign promise and how to fulfill the the promise and two, how to get ready nor nuts and bolts decisions. and you may have a well thought out plan an how to implement the zegsary systems but you are going to get hit with crisis from day one. for example, from my time coming into cms in 2009, there were public health crisis that cms had to respond to. there were medicare regulation that had statory deadlines and pent up decisions from the previous team that had still had

to be decided and they need to be staffed and prepare to function and prepare how to make day-one decisions and a team will come into cms on january 22nd or so, and they're going to be faced with decisions that first day they come in. and some words of advice to pass on to the current transition team is absolutely think through how to fulfill campaign pledges and campaign promises, but get ready from the first day that you are in the agency to start making decisions. and get ready to deal with things that you hadn't planned to deal with, public health crisis, hospitals going bankrupt, things will just pop up on a day to day basis and teams have to be ready from day one to react and to handle those things that just pop up. >> so tom, john talked a lot about campaign promises and campaign pledges. what -- when you transitioned into -- in the bush administration, i guess i have a two-part question.

what were your sort -- did you guys have pledges and promises that you thought you had to keep. and then secondly, what do you see as the current pledges and promises that the current administration has made in terms of, i guess we'll limited it it to medicare because of course there is an enormous number of other promises that have been made about affordable care act changes. >> i think it is totally different. so two transitions, i was in the '88 transition because i was involved in the '88 campaign and i think we pailed gale lynnski to be the administrator, in march or eaapril, it was late. there were issues but they were in the health care world. i was not involved in the 2000 campaign. i served president bush senior and i guess i got called out of the bull pen as an old bush flunky to do the cms job. but i was -- i got picked, the first time i talked to tommy thompson was in late january, i think i got nominated the last

week of january and got confirmed in may. so just moved much slower. so the fact that there is a cms director nominated before the secretary of state, it shows that health care -- we have big health care issues back then but it is one of the top two or three national issues. so you can't escape it. i think john is totally correct, once they walk in the door, you find out you are drinking from a fire hose and whether you are a democrat or a republican, it doesn't matter. it is a $1.5 trillion agency to run and there is a lot going on. but the big national issue of repeal and replace, and what do you do, and there was nothing like that that i saw that it was one of the two or three top national issues. i'm not sure where they're going with it, but secretary price, who i've known for years, these guys probably have to, and a new administrator, it will be -- they're way ahead of the game. so what are they talking about now. my experience, i worked on the '88 transition, it shows -- it is a long time ago.

it shows i'm 106 years old. we got people confirmed. and nobody sat around and talked about health care policy. i talked to tommy thompson about medicare part d. and president bush who thank god wanted to do it and revitalizing private medicare and managed care and maybe in april or may and just to make people mad and really maybe in may and then just so you think what -- in december, what are they talking about? i've never seen anything like this. this is way out of the normal time schedule in my experience. >> so i want to go to leslie. but tom you reminded me, you were responsible for changing hick ma to cms so maybe you could answer the question that everybody has which is why is this the center for medicare and medicaid services just cms? what is going on with that? >> i really changed the name largely because leslie -- i was hope field goal i change the name on the building, leslie

would get confused and couldn't find her way to work. >> at one point in time, i had an explanation for it too. >> i love nancy and -- and an old friend and in the cms world, everybody -- pretty small world, we all know each other and are pretty friendly in my opinion and we all get along great. and knew nancy and she replaced in the white house when bush lost to president clinton. so when she came in, they had been through a rough year with y2k and i was running a big hospital association and medicare was pef seared to be big and -- perceived to be big and bureaucratic and people didn't like the agency and i just -- i said to tommy thompson, let's change the name. and he said, you're nuts, you're going to get killed, why do you want to do that. if you want to hear the real story, i'll tell you. but let me ask, what do you think about sven core, he said i

hate those guys, they threw a bunch of people out on the street. i said you are right. they are terrible people. and what about kindred. and i like them. the ceo was in here last week. it is the same company and they changed their name. and he said, okay, you could change the name. so we said there is nothing in the statue, the name was made up by the secretary of health and from baltimore, a nice guy. and so we're just trying to get a little fresh perspective and change the name. >> the yes is why one m. >> oh, i'm sorry. >> why one m. >> because i already mumble aniy, as you could tell. and the cdc has numerous names. it starts out as cmms and i argu argued, and i think it was me and secretary thompson and the one he liked to begin with was mma and i did a poll on that and decided that momma was not going

to be popular with half of the population. so we came up with cms and it didn't sound right. and i said cdc, just drop the m and macit cms and that is -- i apologize. that is not the question you asked. >> so leslie, let me turn back to you. in terms of transition, maybe i'll alter the question a little bit because in my experience, i think both of you and tom and in terms of really implementing medicare and being responsible for prescription drug implementation, and i think there are going to be -- obviously some sort of change that will come about. could you describe sort of your experience in sort of leading the -- a transition in the standing of a new benefit, what that involved and what that might look like in terms of some sort of significant change that mrs. verma is going to have to deal with when she takes over. >> if i were to give her advice, it would be several fold. first of all, in as much as it

involved the exchanges, the critical component to make them successful would be health insurers. and making sure that those companies are on board, appreciate the changes, can appreciate what that -- if cms does something, it will have a reaction externally and that could set up success or failure of whatever the change may be going forward and i know it is a lot of what -- i suspect we are reading now in the press, is making sure that whether it is companies like care first or humana, etna, anthem, all of them, can really focus on, if we are going to have an exchange, how is it successful. are you changing medicaid in a way you could participate successfully. and to have a market place, whether it be medicaid or medicare or the insurance -- individual insurance market work, it means that health care providers could also get paid. so it is -- if health care

providers are getting paid you have networks and individuals and beneficiaries are able to participate in those programs as well. so at the very least, if you are looking at changing medicaid and obama care, which i think most people see as the -- the exchange, if you are looking at making fairly significant changes to those programs, really involving industry, whether guenin surers or providers and how the changes will impact those --

...

>> i do think you can learn from failure. i think the next president wants to aspire to be somebody, they probably want to be washington or lincoln, but you cannot re-create the country. what do you do next? you can aspire not to be james buchanan. >> sunday night, robert strauss talks about james buchanan's presidency in his book, "worst president ever." differentiation

of good and bad presidents, washington and fdr are at the top of the surveys, they were decisive. you cannot come to the top of the latter and -- ladder and not be a decisive person. buchanan was back and forth on decisions. you are my advisor, you need to tell me what to do. that is how he was. .> sunday night on "q&a" in-depth, january 1, will feature a discussion on the presidency of barack obama. we will be taking your questions during the program. ryan, al includes april white house correspondent, and she also has written "presidency in black and white." and the author of "democracy in

black." and associate editor of the washington post, david maraniss. p.m. from noon until 3:00 eastern on book tv on c-span2. >> author and journalist max hastings talks about his book, "the secret war, spies, ciphers, and geurillas." he argues that the rise of electronic radio communication made codebreakers as important as spies on the ground. this is part of a multi-day conference in the world war ii museum in new orleans. keith: good morning, everyone. it's a great pleasure and honor to be here amongst all of our attendees and speakers for this wonderful day. and the whole weekend we have lined up for you.