attack someone else's network, may be unwise. and there may be some space for the private sector to conduct what in the physical domain i would call counter battery fire, under very strict and limited circumstances, because it is difficult. what i would say, what people begin to get forceful in response, but i am willing to entertain the idea, and if you think it is really crazy, we talk about domain, in one of these other domains, the maritime domain, the government was also late to lead, and the constitution allows the congress to issue letters of marque and reprisal, which is the private sector doing what we consider to be a governmental function in this domain when the government was inadequate to lead. i do not dismiss it

philosophically, but i trend back toward the chairman here, there are a lot of practical issues that could turn this into a free fire zone which is not beneficial to anyone. >> when you are shooting, they may not shoot back to you. that is the problem. and i am not necessarily opposed to offense -- the government has a very good offensive capability. we have not decided as a country how to use it or has a government policy body, no one has decided to use it, so we do not. the problem -- you are asking a corporation where you will get these mixed capabilities, and i cannot tell you how many cio's i have met who say this is not a problem. you are going to have somebody come in and say i can figure this out. i have never seen such

confidence as i have people in cyberspace. somebody is going to misfire and it will not be that particular company that pays the price. it will be a swath of people who pay the price. a foreign nation state like iran or russia or china or north korea will not say it is from company a. they will say it is coming from the united states of america and let's pay them back. now you have the problem of an escalation of which you did not start and you are not sure how you are going to stop it. i think we are not mature enough to have any private sector offensive capability. they can do things now that are offensively defensive, if you know what i mean. >> let's talk about that and another potentially crazy idea rather than capturing the arrows, kill the archer, right? there are opportunities it appears there is an imminent

attack on the united states, on its critical infrastructure on its national security network, to preemptively attack before we suffer the attack. this is riddled with problems because we can get into a situation of great instability. that there is an enormous advantage to go first in cyber realm, we begin to build doctrine to take us in that direction, you can imagine how ultimately you could end up in a situation of strategic instability that would lead all of our nations, including the united states, to be in a more precarious position. >> i am trying to figure out exactly the red line that was crossed that made the white house response in the case of sony, and chairman rogers said it is the cause it was destructive and other people said that the manual makes the decision between destroying data

and machines. the state department had a hearing earlier this week and described it as a freedom of speech issue and did not mention the destructiveness of the attack, and there are other issues, attribution is good in this case, it is big. hitting north korea is not the worst thing in the world compared to china. what is the red line, because this is going to set precedent in the future, domestically and internationally? quest for me, it was the coercion it was to change behavior, and i think that sets in motion an awful lot of concerns inside our broader society. >> again, if there had been no coercion, just a distraction perhaps no response, no real response. wouldn't that cross the threshold? >> if that were to happen in a financial institution and the bank does not know how much money you have in it and you do not know how much money you

have, you have a problem. they have stolen my money, and the damage will have a magnitude larger impact on the economy. it had an economic impact for the company itself, sony, so i look at it differently. i thought that data destruction in and of itself is the first sign of trouble that to me was a game changer because we're not seen that before. we've seen countries or nation-states or international criminal organizations with the capability to do that, poking around a little bit, which takes you nervous, then it they took it one step farther. then they threatened violence. as if you show this movie at these theaters, there will be violence. that it is a another magnitude of problem that they introduced into a cyber threat. >> they are trying to get us to adopt their version of the first amendment, which is no first amendment. political coercion, that is why it crosses a red line.

>> i think the other mike rogers, the nsa director, said publicly last week that this is not the first destructive cyber attack on u.s. soil. there is another issue about was it really truly destructive, destructive in the sense of international law where you physically destroy something, a computer or building, or destructive in a more general sense, destructive of data disrupted business operations. i'm not sure, was it really destructive? were computers -- do they have to be replaced? >> absolutely. i am positive. and the fact that -- imagine if i walk into your server farm where you put your most sensitive data and i put the pin on a grenade and rolled in and

walked out. nobody is killed, it blows up, and i have destroyed a lot of valuable data. that is not coming back. this is the problem here, that they had data destructive -- that is the phrase -- to the point that they are were operations that cannot function, and is not easily replaced. not they went in and unplugged it and plugged it back in. that did not happen. that in my mind is destruction and destructiveness of the prime, willing to do it for the finances of a company like sony, get another company that is part of some place in our logistics chain of our critical infrastructure, which is a lot. either defense, finance, electric grid, food, water distribution, all that -- airlines. now you think, if they did that same attack somewhere else, and

again it lulled us in because it was a stupid idea. what if they still wanted to make a point and just down the electric grid in every theater that showed the movie? let's do it that way. now we would be having a very different conversation, but that destructive data meant their business was economically impacted and can be physically impacted. think again about people who have to go back to writing checks to pay your bills. >> so that is the red line for you, is data destruction? >> absolutely, because you can extrapolate that to any other sector that would cause more significant economic disruption. i argue it disrupted that company economically. i would be interested to see the tally of loss when it is done, i understand their p.r. circle in that.

the p.r. circle is writing, go rent "the interview." that is the smart thing to do, but the real damage him now you will have another series of events where you will have consumer suits and shareholder suits. fun and games for sony is just about to begin. i think it is going to have a tremendously bad economic impact on that company. >> the next time there is a cyber attack on a company that destroys data, do you think the u.s. should come out and name the country that is behind it and post some sort of sanctions? >> i would hope so. otherwise you invite further attacks. it is such an important step that the president and the administration have taken.

>> we speak about the capability of a big corporation to deal with that issue, but what about federal government and state governments, because the last government report by government accountability office showed that up to 9000 federal government facilities were honorable to cyber threats. do you think that it is now the federal government and the state level federal government had good strategies? and a second question -- we are speaking about russia, iran, north korea, but do you think a group like isis can use this cyber weapon against the united states like north korea did?

>> i will start on the second one. maybe you can answer this, and i will go with the government side, which i do not think is prepared way they should be. late adopter for everything. other than raising taxes, or -- we are good and bad. on the isis problem, what we saw developing. we saw al qaeda groups were advertising for people with capability, which told us they had the aspirations to do it. even when i left a couple weeks ago have the capability to do it. you saw a lot of in france, a lot of it was too softer targets that they were shutting down. isis capability in social media is shockingly good.

they are on the cutting edge of using social media to promote their goals, aims, and objectives. it would land one to believe that it is easier given the level of people interested in participating, i would worry and i will try to monitor their ability to get from -- and they have the same aspiration -- can they get from that aspirational stage to an operational stage? in north korea, they took things that were in the open and used it. they did not create anything new. they just took what was out on the internet. i do not think they are there yet. i know they have the aspiration. i worry, what is their learning curve? if it takes getting three or four people of the right capability in the room dedicated to this cause, to

cause somebody harm and i do not think it would be significantly sophisticated, but you see them do it. you see these other jihadist organizations, including those supported by iran, out there. you can make this leap pretty easily. i am not going to lose sleep tonight about it i would begin to worry about it in the weeks and months ahead in their level of recruitment in places like syria to their cause. >> i have been surprised it has not happened yet. it would seem to be an easy approach. the cost of entry is low. the ability to disrupt his high. why not? they are good on the net recruiting, training proselytizing, raising funds but we have not seen destructive attacks of networks or data or physical destruction.

it may not be the kind of heroic destruction that fits the model. they criticize us as being unheroic and unmanly. this would be the ultimate in remote creation and destruction, and maybe it just does not fit the style, and that is why they are late to it. i am with the chairman, they are late to it, but i expect they will get there. >> i'm with the chairman, too. that is why we need to focus on deterrence by denial. threats of retaliation against al qaeda in the arabian peninsula, we cannot hold things hostage, certainly for cyber retaliation. that's why we need to be able to strengthen our networks so they do not have the incentive to attack us.

so our networks do not present the lucrative target that they might today. >> did you want to address -- >> [indiscernible] >> the federal government is working very hard in order to strengthen the resilience of government networks against attack. important steps are being taken by dhs and defense to harden networks. state governments and governors across the nation, the national governors association, are beginning to take this seriously, because if there is a successful attack on lifeline infrastructure, not only do we have to restore the functionality, we have to deal with the physical consequences of large-scale threats to public health and what could occur if water and wastewater systems are destroyed. governors are taking this very seriously.

it is a great opportunity for progress and partnership of government and industry. >> there are a lot of interesting happening at the state level, and louisiana has a very aggressive dynamic, original kind of program. what a lot of states are doing the governors in the role of commander in chief, are reproducing national guard units and using them in a militia status to protect state networks. that is a nice thing that will create ideas to be disseminated. >> those national guard units are the most effective on the cyber security front, to take a sampling of our cyber defenses

and the reason they have all the benefits of the private sector real time, and weekends and two weeks of the year. it has been very effective. >> a couple more. how about you? >> [indiscernible] one of the cornerstones of the proposal unveiled on tuesday liability protection of shared data, and most people know that the job of identifying the guy that does insider threat detection. i wonder, general hayden somebody who is familiar with insider threat detection, can it be applied to cyber security more generally? anomaly detection seems broad and no one knows what it is, but it seems that is what we are going to be talking about more. in a post-snowden environment,

does everyone agree that is what we are in, and what are the indicators of that besides just more enthusiasm on the white house for better cyber security legislation like we saw this week? >> one of the things i have seen in the shift in the fight, and a lot of ways they are doing this, the history of cyber defense has been defending at the perimeter wall, the firewall, and that prevents penetration. the three of us have made the case that determine actors are getting in. now defense has got to be thinking about how do i manage

consequences and by people who know this for better than i can everybody gets penetrated, the difference is between flash and bang, the difference between the penetration and the discovery of the penetration. and here, unlike traditional firewalls where you are trying to guess the next zero day come here the focus is not out, but in. you are looking at the behavior of your own network and looking anomalies using one of those powerful algorithms that somebody else develops to learn. you become your own big data and suddenly goes you never saw that over there. no indication of a zero day or penetration. it is just anomalous behavior. that is where the current technological and entrepreneurial energy is. that is a very good thing. >> we can do and are going to do

a lot better on security clearance management and making sure people, including systems administrators who have the keys, are affected in a more -- are embedded in a more appropriate way. instead of having periodic waves of userability, to have a security clearance every 5 or 10 years, there will be continuous evaluation to make sure you are suitable to hold these clearances. that is one of the changes that came out of the washington navy yard shooting, and that addresses the broader context of insider threats, including the cyber realm. >> the post-snowden comment? >> wishful thinking on my part. >> i think he is waning. >> not snowden, but the snowden phenomenon raises serious questions. this is not a battle between the forces of light and the forces

of darkness. this is a question of a free people trying to balance their privacy and liberty with security and safety. one of the byproducts was freezing the debate, not advancing it. >> on the insider threat, before this happened, we put money in and, as chairman, we understand -- and i worry about counterintelligence issues first. one of the things we realize upfront was our audit capability was very inconsistent beyond certain places. there was a whole host of reasons for that, and most of them you would come to the conclusion they made the right decision at the right time. we added more money to push out this notion of auditability, makes it more difficult for someone to do what the nsa contractor did, break in, steal stuff, and run out the door. one problem we had was the

slowdown in the program, and one of the areas that did not get the audit capability was hawaii. you look at it and we thought, we had it right, we resourced it right, and the capability was growing, somebody got one step ahead of the system. that person would have known that because he did some time back here where that audit capability was. i found that fairly interesting. >> last question, anyone? there is a microphone. >> thank you very much. much discussion about the coercive destructive nature of the attack, but was vandalism the right categorization of the attack? >> no. >> no, and i would not have even asked what you would call it. i am not sure. vandalism sounds like somebody

spray-painted a subway car, and this was more serious. i have had some exposure to the real effects. just on a human level, this was really traumatic for an awful lot of people. not an act of war, i am ok of that, but i would have to search for a good word that has higher torque than vandalism. >> it was beyond the glue in the lock. i do not know what i would've called it, but it gave them a pass for doing something dangerous, destructive, and remember they were threatening people who were going to the movie theater and thought they were doing it through some cutout, which i feel very confident in the fbi's public statement that it was north korea. i feel very confident in that piece of information.

so that was such a big game changer when you diminish what they actually did. i think that is not helpful to the cause. >> it was called cyber terrorism. is it? >> it was an attack on innocent to create a political effect. >> that political effect is important, but not an act of war. what we need going forward is a spectrum of responses that we think about fairly in advance that are tailored to the kind of attack that adversaries infant upon us. >> ok, thank you very much. thank you, all, for coming. >> hi. one of the great perks of my job is to thank terrific people for coming century their thoughts with us. before i do just one reflection we do this a lot. we have a lot of meetings, so you have come to them before. in my mind there is one thing that marks a great discussion

and it is constructive disagreement. this town is full of a lot of disagreement, and we hear a lot very thoughtful, insightful agreement today. it is full of destructive disagreement, and the ability to bring these kinds of people in a public space where they share different views is what makes me proud of our activity. i would like to thank general hayden and all of you for joining us, and it is now dark outside. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> on the next washington journal, the former head of the

visa waiver program. then, to former congressman on gridlock in washington. they are co-authors of the book "the partisan divide." we will take your calls and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. on washington journal, live every morning on seas -- on c-span. british prime minister david cameron is in washington dc for meetings with president obama. one of the items on the agenda is last week's terrorist attacks in paris. we will have live coverage at 12:20 p.m. eastern. here are some of our featured programs for this weekend on the c-span network. on c-span2, saturday night at 10, bret stephens argues that

our enemies and competitors are taking advantage of the situation abroad. sunday night at 10 democratic representative from new york steve israel on his latest novel on a government surveillance program. on lectures in history, george mason university professor john turner on the early mormons in their attempt to create a new zion in the 1830's. and sunday afternoon at four, the 1964 academy award-winning film about the desegregation of an all-white high school. call us at 202-06-400.

like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. up next, international monetary run director talks about the global economy, oil prices, and world debt. this event is from the council on or in relation -- >> good morning, and welcome. i have the distinct honor of presenting to you christine lagarde. clearly, she need no introduction, but i do want to highlight what i think is a very place that she holds an world history, and i mean that. she was the first female chair of baker mckenzie, an

international law firm. she was the first finance minister of a g8 country, and of course now, she is the first head of the imf, but maybe more importantly in the context of that, right in the worst part of 2009, the worst crisis, she was ranked as the best minister of finance in the row zone. -- the eurozone . and of course, we all know here in d.c. she enjoys that kind of reputation. it is my distinct pleasure and honor to present you may download guard who will share -- madame lagarde. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you very much. and good morning to all of you and happy new year to all of you.

this is my first public appearance. i am delighted to be here at the council on foreign relations to speak about the world economy as we see it from the perspective of the imf. i think the council -- i was checking just before i came in. the council and the imf has something in common. they were both created after world war conflict. the council after the first world war, and the imf after the second world war. our genesis certainly has something in common. and you are clearly focusing on peace and stability, and a mission, as embedded in the articles of the imf, founded in 1944, precisely stability and prosperity. there is no better moment and the beginning of 2015 to talk about prosperity and certainly to talk about peace. i think it is particularly important in 2015 because from a

personal perspective, i can assure you that teamwork, team spirit, and a collective approach will be not only expected, but required. i was not watching the streets of paris on saturday. i was watching the streets of washington. and it was incredibly comforting to see the number of not just french ex-pats, but the american french marching down the street of washington in support with that collective spirit that unites many of us around key values. that collective approach and a team spirit was also clearly demonstrated with the line of leaders and all those who participate in the same objectives on this occasion.

many of you expect numbers, and many of you will be disappointed. [laughter] because we are publishing our world economic outlook update in a weeks time. and out of respect for the team and the department of particular, i will not mention numbers. i will leave that to them. i can already say this. despite the boost from oil prices and despite a stronger u.s. growth, we see the global economic recovery continuing to face a very strong headwind. and that is what i'm going to discuss with you this morning. but i would like to first of all kick off with a little story.

two months ago on november 12, 2014, a little spacecraft operated by the european space agency made the first ever landing on a comment -- comet after a 10 year journey, covering half of billion miles. and like millions of other people not necessarily into astronomy and the studies of the cosmos, i was just engulfed by what they did. the touchdown on the comment c --omet was a mission led by multinational team of scientists. and together, they have expanded humanity's reach into the cosmos, and by doing so, they have enhanced our understanding of our own planet.

rosetta, that will ring a bell with some of you -- rosetta embodies the spirit of the 19th century scientists, who in their own time used the rosetta stone to decode the ancient egyptian hieroglyphs. why is this story relevant today, other than to demonstrate that europe can do really impressive things? [laughter] because i think that this year the global economy will face what we might call three rosetta moments. if they want to accomplish the international mission that i will talk about. those major policy challenges, think about what is coming our way.

they will acquire decisions -- require decisions based on political courage, international banking, cooperation, a bit like those fine demonstrators. the first rosetta moment is about boosting growth and creating employment. the second rosetta moment is about achieving not any growth but more inclusive and better shared growth. and the third rosetta moment is about making sure that growth is sustainable and balance. -- balanced. the three of them are clearly interconnected. all are important and all demand strong leadership. they all require cooperation. if we can catch a comment -- comet out in space with a 10

year flight and cover the space in between, surely we can address the challenges right here on planet earth. i will start with the first rosetta, the immediate challenge of how to inject greater momentum into the recovery. like i said, not releasing numbers, but i would like to give you at least an understanding of trends and policy recommendations. and the obvious questions that we have at the moment, should lower oil prices and a stronger recovery in the united states make us more upbeat about the prospect of global economy? and unfortunately, most likely the answer is no. no, why?

because there are powerful factors, legacies of the crisis that are still with us, and that are weakening our economies. clearly, the drop in oil price is, as we say, a shot, and a welcome shot in the arm for the global economy. but to pursue the physical analogy, a shot in the arm is good. but if the global economy is weak and on his knees, it will not help. we need strong arms and legs as well. cheaper oil increases consumer purchasing, increases private demand in oil importing countries. and depending on how long oil prices remain low, this could provide positive contribution to global growth for some time. as for the u.s. economy, it performed well in 2014, and in our view, it should strengthen

even more in 2015, largely due to more robust household spending -- i'm not paying too much attention to the latest number published this morning. to be checked, but it does not change our perspective. u.s. unemployment continues to decline. cheaper oil is boosting real incomes and consumer sentiment. and there is continued support for monetary policy. what is the catch? oil price and u.s. growth are not a cure to deep-seated weaknesses elsewhere. too many countries are way down by at least two factors, legacies of the financial crisis, high debt and high unemployment. too many companies and

households keep cutting back on investment and consumption today because they are concerned about the growth tomorrow. in fact, to look at the overall map, the united states is probably the only major economy that is likely to book a trend this year. -- bucks the trend this year when others are being held back. there are some promising recoveries in some places, and certainly a promising recoveries taken hold and continuing in the united kingdom, for instance while growth remains very low in the euro area and japan, and emerging economies that were the drivers couple of years ago are slowing down. in relative terms, granted, but slowing down, as is china, for instance. that is the overall situation. the low price of oil, while probably a net positive at the end of the day, depending on supply and demand driving it and the strong you could -- the strong u.s. economy will not

suffice to accelerate growth other potential for growth in the rest of the world. i mentioned the strong headwinds. what do i mean by that? and what risks are we facing? first risk, the asynchronous normalization of monetary policies in advanced economies. for many of those of you that have studied ancient greek, you will remember that the "a" before anything means exactly the opposite of what the word means. it means there is no synchronicity. and for the secret us from earth was, a synchronicity is to be watched. -- and for the synchronized swimmer that i was asynchronicity is to be watched. will watch to see the changes

monetary policy to moving to interest rate variation, while at the same time exit unconventional monetary policy by the fed. while at the same time very likely a slow, although not yet granted, other central banks including the ecb, will move into more conventional monetary costly -- policy. you have the combination of one major entry, and continuation of, for instance, the bank of japan. there has been a lot of talk about it. and certainly, what we can expect from the talented chairmanship of the fed is continuous good communication, and that would be very important going forward. we should certainly expect as

well volatility of capital flows as a result of the asynchronous monetary policies around the world. and who says volatility of capital flows is also likely to expect potential negative effects for emerging markets and global stability? among the emerging markets, they are very likely to face trouble risks. first of all, the strengthening of the u.s. dollar. i'm talking emerging markets here. strengthening of the dollar, and second, higher global interest rates, and third, more volatile capital flows. that will have a significant impact on financial systems in emerging markets, because many large corporates have actually borrowed in u.s. dollars, and have increased their borrowing in the last five years.

the oil price drop and weaker commodity prices more generally have added to these risks, with some countries such as nigeria russia, venezuela, facing huge currency pressures. and given -- there are other countries, but these are the three major ones. and given the size and risk of development in those countries it could have ramifications on a regional basis, what we call a spillover consequence. the third area of risk is that the euro area and japan could remain stuck in a world that i would call low, low. low growth, low inflation. that would make it even harder for many euro area countries to reduce very high unemployment and excessive public and private debt, and would have the result of raising the potential risk of

inflation and -- inflation and inflation. potential risk of inflation and recession. the fourth risk that we hear about watching television on a regular basis are the geopolitical risks. take, for example, ukraine which we are doing a lot of work on will stop -- a lot of work on. increase international support to complement the imf support is crucial. at the same time, while you have those spots of geopolitical tension which can be identified, with which you can talk -- we can talk -- there is also this palpable sense that the forces of intolerance and fragmentation are gaining strength, and sometimes competing with each other.

the recent atrocities in france, mike home country -- my home country, but also in nigeria, or in pakistan, are only the latest actions of forces that are fundamentally opposed to what we here in this room believe in. you take all of these risks of different natures, apply it to the current economic situation and i would say this calls for a powerful policy mix that can strengthen the recovery and provide better employment perspectives for the citizens of the world. that is the first rosetta moment. better recovery, more employment. how can policymakers deliver? to show solidarity, to express common interest is good. but there is more to be done as well. i look at the policies available.

first, economic policies remain essential, given the numbers we have. second, fiscal adjustments must be as growth and as employment friendly as possible. and above all, the policymakers have to step up structural reforms. there is a lot of talk about it. some are doing it, but there has to be real implementation. all of that is not new, but it takes a sense of increased urgency and it requires increased political leadership. for example, and i will take an example that is only -- on our daily radar screen, the price of oil. it will have an impact, but it will be a test for many policymakers. not so much for the oil

importers, for whom the windfall provides an opportunity to strengthen their economic framework, and help alleviate inflation pressures. but oil exporters need to cushion the shock on their economies. some are using their rainy day funds that they were wise enough to set up in the first place. and countries like saudi arabia, for instance, and a few others in the middle east will actually for the first time in many, many years have actually fiscal deficits. others will resort to allowing some central exchange rate depreciation, which will certainly raise inflation and require tighter monetary policies. in the euro area, cheaper oil should be a positive, right? most of them are importers, and

not all of them have 80% of what they need supplied by nuclear power energy. but it could also contribute to a further decline in inflation expectations, which increases the risk of deflation that, as you will remember, i have mentioned in both the euro area and japan. this bolsters the case for additional monetary stimulus. which i'm very pleased to see the european central bank is considering, january 22 or thereafter. most importantly, and we at the imf are very pleased to have obtained this development lately, the drop in oil prices provides a golden opportunity for those countries that have subsidized the use of fuel energy, to reduce the subsidies. and if the price of oil declines, they can take out

portions of all of the subsidies that were given to all consumers in many instances to consume at decent prices. we were very pleased to see that many countries have actually embarked on that project that we have been advocating. and the list is -- well, i will mention a few countries. jordan, tunisia, cameroon, egypt, indonesia, malaysia. all of these countries have embarked on that journey. and that bodes very well for my third rosetta that i will mention in a little while. does that concern only those countries that have subsidized energy? no, it could also include some advanced economies, for what it -- for which it might time to consider seriously what you

sometimes call a gas tax, or carbon tax -- more sophisticated, but same approach. in order to do what? to finance needed infrastructure projects, maintenance of roads for instance. i happen to cycle around washington, d.c. [laughter] and to reduce other taxes, such as taxes on labor in those countries were unemployment is high. it does not have to be an increase of tax. it can be tax neutral, but better thought through with a better basis. but it will require a little courage. -- political courage. now, my second rosetta. we look at the situation as it

is. we have looked at the risks and identify policies. my second rosetta is about the more intrusive and better shared growth. -- more inclusive and better shared growth. let me be blunt. for more than six years after the start of the great recession, too many -- and despite growth, except for one year. i am talking global numbers here. many people do not feel that we are out of the crisis. and into many countries -- in too many countries, unemployment remains high and inequality has increased. this is why we need a decided push for structural reforms, to boost current and potential growth. 2015 must therefore be a year of action. it means removing deep-seated distortions in labor and product markets. it means revamping crumbling infrastructures, and building new ones. it means trade liberalization and pressing ahead with reform on education, health, and social

safety net. it also needs -- means unleashing the economic power of an underdeveloped segment of our societies when it comes to the creation of value, and i am talking about winning -- when in. --women. we talk about two areas, infrastructure and women. infrastructure investment, and my talking about the bridge to nowhere? -- infrastructure investment am i talking about the bridge to nowhere? note. --no. we want infrastructure that is carefully chosen and is carefully chosen and does two things, increases the output in short-term, whether publicly induced or publicly funded, or partly public and private.

the investment in infrastructure actually contributes in boosting the output for the short term. and in the long-term, that is where you have the double when -- double whammy as a result of infrastructure. it improves the productivity and capacity in cities and regions where infrastructure is being developed. the g 20 has identified major infrastructure investments as one of its leed projects going forward. the whole growth agenda, by the way, of the g-20 in the next several years is forecasted to increase gdp by 2 trillion u.s. dollars. it will do what it has committed to do.

the scope of such investment will vary from country to country. if you sit in india, or brazil you will want to invest in removing bottlenecks, and focusing probably on transportation and coordinated transportation and energy. if you look at the u.s. and germany, it is not going to be the same approach. but it is certainly going to involve financing the maintenance of existing infrastructure, and possibly looking at creating a new infrastructure. why is that? because if you look at numbers for decades in both of those countries, the united states and germany, there is very little ants on the maintenance of infrastructure -- very little spent on the maintenance of infrastructure, and of new ones. a very similar plan created by

the new president of the european commission, the setting up of the $350 billion is also to be encouraged particularly to attract private money together with it. so much for infrastructure. gender policies. that is a major potential game changer. we have millions of women who are locked out of the labor market, locked out of the economy as we measure it. and excluding these women is not just morally wrong, but it is an economic mistake. gender gaps and labor force participation are everywhere in the world. they vary from an average of about 12% in the oecd countries to about 30% in the middle east and north africa.

things can be done about it. if you look at the cases of chile, for instance, or sweden or the netherlands, using small lessees -- policies to structurally reduce that gap and get better access to women, poor women to the labor market, whether it is investment of childcare, or putting in place the legal framework that encourages out -- encourages without this incentivizing financially the system participation, these policies demonstrate that they work. and that is another goal of the g-20. i find it a little ambitious personally, but at least it is on the map now, and the goal is to close the gender gap by 25%. we could have dreamed more, but 25% by 2025. be it as it may, if that was to happen, it would bring to the

labor market 100 million more women, and that means obviously a blister the economy, global -- a boost to the economy global growth, and the reduction of inequality. how do we leverage them? where will growth come from? how will infrastructure be used? where will these women be employed? there is at least one area that we are not yet leveraging accordingly, and that is, the area of trade and trade liberalization. that might very well provide the right answer. if you look at the number of global trade, they go like that, in decline over time. and it's really about that, that the numbers be moving in the right direction.

and there are ways to do that. and there ways are just -- the ways are just around the corner and available. one is certainly one that you know, the transpacific agreement, tpa, and the other is the ttip, the transatlantic agreement, which is more based on compliance, standards compatibility, rather than reduction of high risk between -- reduction of tarrifs between those two zones, because that has already been done. and it is based on cooperation between new congress and the president will stop so there is hope, we hope. for the european union, progress on trade would be immensely helpful in lifting growth and

confidence. the japanese government is very keen to reach closure and to use ttp in order to inject growth into the three arrows of economic. an emerging economic development would breathe life into the global economic recovery. a political will, a collective approach will be necessary to get to the finish line. and i come to my third and last rosetta moment. hard to achieve -- how to achieve creative employment, and doing it on a more inclusive basis, how to achieve it in a way that is more sustainable more balanced. three proposals that we will be working on or supporting this year.

financial regulation international development, and environmental policies. the three of them are key. the first one is, again, becoming controversial. why should there be so much regulation? why don't we have just general principles and we will do the rest among ourselves? i think there is one lesson that we learn from the great recession. you cannot have sustainable economic growth without having sustainable silence, and a sustainable financial sector. -- sustainable finance, and a sustainable financial sector. there has been progress, especially on banking regulation, and to a lesser extent on addressing what i think is a key component of that regulation, which is the "two important to fail" -- "too

important to fail" framework. the global banking industry is less important than it once was, and in some countries has shrunk by half. if you take a country like ireland, for instance, it has bankrupted altogether. it has reduced its assets by half. should there be joy about it? it is just the fact that if you diagnose what has caused the collapse of ireland and required that beautiful country to actually go through a difficult program with success and courage because the banking system was largely inflated relative to the capabilities and size of the economy, not the only cause but certainly one. if that has happened and progress has been made, there are more vulnerabilities coming out of other places that we call

conveniently the shadow banking system. shadow banking is not bad in and of itself. it is fine. it can be a resilient source of finance for the economy. but it is not good if it is a mess of unpredictable hazards, and if the size of the shadow banking sector in some places or in some segment of business has exceeded the size of the sector. the challenge facing the financial sector is now to implement the regulations and to strengthen supervision. i will give you a couple of examples where there has to be more coordination, more collective approach. an implementation of the battle

-- basel 3 principles, that set the quiddity ratios, for instance, there is an interpretation and divergence of views between two critical markets, the u.s. market and the european area market. the second example where policymakers have to reform further and make more progress on the otc derivative markets, where he are still -- we are still very much in the unknown. and more important, other than focusing on those areas where there is a shortage of regulation or supervision, or progress in getting there, the ethical dimension of that sector. we will hear more this year about the behavior, the attitude, and the ethical framework within which people operate, because we will have the first jury trials related to the libor trading scandal.

and i really hope this will be an occasion for the profession itself, for the financial sector itself, to reflect on its mission, the ethical principles by which it operates, and that it will not only see it as a list of rules for which compliance is needed under the supervision of an army of lawyers and supervisors, but i hope there will be a reflection on what is ethical and what is not ethical. even if it is in compliance with the boxes and they are all checked, i kenexa do something while someone is not watching -- i can actually do something buffalo is not watching. certainly, as a mother, that is how i see the difference between what is ethical and what is not. i'm not sure i teach my kids always. but certainly, restoring trust is going to be all of our effort, not just the part of the policymakers or regulators or supervisors.

it has to include the profession itself. they have to be part and parcel of it. another example of how to engender more sustainable growth is through international development. later this year, the united nations will, i hope, complete a major effort, which has consisted in thinking through what will replace the millennial developing goals, many of which have been obtained. with a new set of goals that will be called the sustainable development goals. we played an important role in that respect. we helped with thinking through the financing that will be needed. to reach those goals. we will also, of course, make available our expertise of working and giving on a day-to-day basis with developing countries and low income countries.

2015 will also be a make or break year for the effort to strike an international agreement on climate change. if you hear about clop, that will be it. it stands for the climate change conference where people will try to agree on how much they will reduce the emissions of various things, actually, not only some. to be convinced, all you have to do is look at temperatures. they are rising. in 2014, it is the highest year in terms of temperature ever since the recording of temperature has begun. and it is also the year in which the highest number of natural catastrophes have taken place. natural disasters, more food and water scarcity, and generally fuel, conflicts, disputes, wars.

again, we need great political courage to reach that political will, to cut carbon emissions. and that rings me back to the beginning, and is -- that brings me back to the beginning, and it is my conclusion. while i was thinking, -- speaking, and thank you very much for listening, during that time, the rosetta spacecraft has continued to circle the dark icy object that is, 67 p. -- comet 67 p. and we may yet learn more of its secrets as it gets closer to the sun. look at the mission that put together that unbelievable success. they were diverse. they came from different

horizons. they did not grow up together. i think diversity had something to do with the success of that rosetta mission, and it is certainly a true testament to global cooperation. and policymakers should be inspired by that. you know, the real secret when we i found rosetta a long time ago, what can engender growth, but to deliver on the three rosetta moments as i call them policymakers need to enhance cooperation. they need to enhance a new multilateralism, and they need to put it into practice. whether it applies toclop, ttp ttip, seg -- are you with me? it also requires new institutions that are efficient and credible and working in the changing global economy.

this is why in 2010, the international community decided that the imf should be reformed, that it should better represent the global community, that it should be down -- endowed with more capital. and that some underrepresented countries, including some of the big emerging market economies, should have a bigger voice around the table. the imf membership has called on the united states to ratify the 2010 reforms by the end of last year, 2014. this was a commitment made to the g-20 at the highest level. but it hasn't happened. and i've spoken much about leadership today.

and i cannot but express some profound disappointment in the political powers who have so far failed to grasp the benefits of reform, both for their own benefit because maintaining stability around the world making sure there are firefighters when something goes really wrong in any of those geopolitical areas that i have mentioned, but also for the world at large. we have seen so much fabulous leadership out of this country. i hope, i really hope that it is going to happen. absent that, we are now working on it intro solutions to address some of the concerns that the other 187 countries have because they have ratified already.

but it cannot go unless the country who has the veto power on all major decisions actually goes along stop -- goes along. but given the challenges of 2015 and that the following years will bring, i don't think there is an alternative to completing the 2010 reform. we will be trying to find intro solutions, trying to address some of these issues. but the real thing is the 2010 reform, that was actually very much engineered and located by the united states of america. i will continue to call on congress to reprove -- to a proof that reform without -- to approve that reform without delay. and i have faith in your country. i know it will happen. i would like to end with a quote that encapsulates my goals for leadership and cooperation in service of the global public good, and that is, a quote from -- i had to move away from egypt, you see.

we have talked a lot about rosetta. i'm turning to the greek. pericles, he knew something about holding. -- building. he knew something about architecture. he said, "what you leave behind is not only engraved in stone monuments, but what is woven into the lives of others. -- of others." i think we have a lot of reading to do this year. thank you. [applause] >> thank you so much for that. a lot of food for thought. i want to come back to some of the things that you can -- that you start with. you talk about the meteor light, global economy, headwinds, deep-seated weaknesses particularly the hero and japan, -- euro and japan, and you

talked about some of the downsides, but you did not talk about the risk of stagnation. -- of secular stagnation. at the committee meetings where some were saying this was the seminal issue of the day -- of course, by that we mean the lack of demand drives the lack of supply, which creates a vicious circle that reinforces itself over time. is that one step too far in your point of view? do not believe in the stagnation story? are there real risks when you put your story together? >> what we see is so much diversity, fragmentation. at economic levels, banking levels. i don't like to use one single concept which is nice to have, but your name in the headlines.

i think it oversimplifies the matter. there are different ways to look at the world. we at the imf for trying to drill down in each and every area. at the moment, the price of oil is knocking down so many certainties and creating new categories. you have the oil importers and exporters. you have those that suffer the effect of the dollar but whether they are hedged or not hedged. if you look at the euro area and japan, we have the risk of a low low. i am using different terminology but i don't want to be bound by what has been said by many men before me. [laughter]

>> to blanket statement. >> for what we are seeing, more and more diverse city. in a world -- you have the connections that continue. you have more and more diverse situations locally. you have political and geopolitical tensions that are operating in a very different favor. some retreat and retired to your own turf and mind your own business, while there is the need for collective approach. >> let's turn to one area where maybe there is more commonality and that is low inflation, and in some cases, deflation. most of the concern people have with the aggressive action that the fed took, that the ecb might take, seems to be with inflation.

how well our economies equipped to deal with low inflation, many deflation? is that a real risk? the oil prices exacerbates that to some degree. >> it is exacerbated when you look at nominal inflation, if you look at core inflation and expectations of core inflation. i think it is important to understand why this might be monetary policies that we are seeing here. there is nonetheless flat or low inflation relative to the targets. i think it has a lot to do with the output. in those countries, maybe less so. that is why we might be seeing a change in monetary policy. there is still available

capacity. there are still people who are looking for jobs and the ability to join the market. because of that, we are not seeing an uptick in inflation. in nominal terms, the oil prices are still keeping that down. i am not a central banker but if i was i would look very carefully at core inflation. in the two situation of exits or entering into monetary policy. >> we have so many questions to ask you but i will not be selfish. i will turn to the audience and ask you for any questions you may have. please introduce yourself, your affiliation. >> i have my own consulting group.

my question goes back to oil and the dropping prices and the role of oil in our whole traded sector. it is the most traded commodity but is not subject to the rules. are we at a place now where oil should be more subject to the rules of the road when it comes to our trade policies? >> you are raising a really interesting question. the sleepy competition lawyer inside myself, there are the independent producers. this operates along those lines.

i am not giving you exactly the answer but i completely take your point and there's a lot to be explored, actually. their are that have disappeared because of market forces. >> always a pleasure to hear you speak. i want to thank you for always being such a strong advocate for women's empowerment. i really enjoyed your comments. i have a question for you because i think it is something

we are really struggling with. i think it is disputable that women were critical to achieve all eight of the millennium development goals. when it comes to the post 25th agenda, we are struggling with not be awareness that women are quite critical but really financing quality which we have touched upon and i wonder if you could talk about how we encourage multilateralist editions, governments to take this seriously. >> i agree with you that the awareness has largely been achieved. i am not sure that the economic opportunities have been identified sufficiently. on a very precise basis. at the end of the day, there's so much you can say about the moral imperative. some will only be interested by economic results, the bottom line, or whatever.

that is where we need to continue to document and demonstrate. we started doing some discrete work about the role of women in the japanese economy. it is an economy that combines three things. one, not particularly women friendly. it is not especially immigration prevalent and it is aging. something has got to give. we document it and i actually presented on japanese television for over an hour with other japanese academics. the value of japanese woman and how they can change the economy over time.

if you don't have people to do the work, it will not make any difference. the prime minister has completely endorsed that project. he and his wife are really taking the leadership and championing the cause. he has tasked his finance ministers to create a budget to create childcare centers. i'm hoping they will soften the regulation on private childcare facilities which are extremely rigid. those are legal things and financial support. we will be publishing the study about the legal issues that constitute obstacles to the implementation of better access, better economic contributions by

women. his amazing, actually. it goes from the tax, the design of income tax, to the inheritance laws, to the ability to put a name on a property title. there are lots of elements that contribute to that. you need a combination of good policy framework, specific labor measures intended to facilitate access and financing because childcare centers will not just mushroom like that. >> was taken of the question. -- let's take another question. back there. >> happy new year. the crisis seems to be coming to haunt greece. to what extent does this affect

the eurozone? how do you think europe and the imf and the imf program relates to what happens next. >> we're all waiting on the elections. as soon as that happens and their stability in whatever government is formed, we will pursue the discussions that we have had. in order to help the greek economy create growth, to have sustainable and inclusive growth. the relationship with europe i think has been certainly better

structured as a result of what the europeans change but the framework. the fact that there is the european stability mechanism in place in order to avoid the contagion which could result from major crisis in any country is one important factor. the current work that is being done about the interpretation of the stability and growth pact in order to allow countries to pursue fiscal adjustments but at a pace that is reasonable considering the economic circumstances is also helping in that direction. the bottom line, greece, like any other european country, is going to have to go through structural reform that is needed in order to sustain growth, it in order to create the conditions for investment and for employment creation.

>> father andrew from st. paul's. madam chairman, i will give you another brief quote, because we pray in ancient greek. "all good things flow into the city from the city's greatness." when he wrote it, he was referring to the spiritual aspect of athens. it was also referencing sparred a because of the amazing utilitarian pottery they had which was not decorated because the city had great soul. whether it is greece, portugal italy, i would like to know how you personally deal with the human cost. i have held the hand of widowers, from old pensioners who commit suicide because their savings disappeared overnight.

how much does the imf care about these things? >> a lot. i can assure you. you have to bear in mind one thing, the imf is asked to come to the country when the country has created the circumstances where it is no longer handling its financial situation. if it's not taken the policy measures that should have been taken to maintain stability. when i say that, i am not trying to point fingers at those policymakers over the course of time. i'm just trying to say that one cannot associate the difficult efforts, the huge sacrifices that have been made by people within the institutions. i wish i never had to go to greece, portugal. we don't have a program with italy.

iceland, ireland. because if we didn't have to go there, it means the policies in place, designed by policymakers, were good. and maintain stability in those economies. point number two, when we aligned the reforms for the country to restore his position, we were always mindful of the poor people, the safety nets needed. i will give you an example. the pension system in greece the average pension in greece is the same as the average pension in germany. but, when we suggested the reform of the pension system, we said, below a certain threshold, you cannot force the needle, you cannot change. you cannot put fuel in a situation where it is too hard.

so, we have that in mind. in many countries we have reinforced that point. we are doing it also, the reforms of the subsidy system. if you take a country like egypt, for instance, that is going through a reform of its subsidies, they cannot remove the subsidies just like that because a lot of poor people rely on fuel to go to work or do a little bit to get by. these people cannot suffer as a result of the reform. to have to use it to target those actually need the money. >> i'm looking at the time very sadly saying we're just a couple of minutes over.

so, i will wrap up with the final question. this has been a busy 1218 months on the scenes that are so important. if you think about the recent this has been a busy 12, 18 months of authorship on the seams that are so important to i.m.f. the book and the martin wolf book on what lessons we learned in the crisis and yet have to learn. if we think of the reeseen book youle know them all as well as i will. >> pave you have time to read them. i don't have time to read them all. i can't. >> is there one that you think is particularly important for people who care about the issues that you think has been a seminole book? >> back to the first question he is there one definition. to be well informed have to read all of the books and then pick

and choose what your natural inclination takes you to it and then the other ones because you need to have the dissenting views and different perspectives, otherwise you are sort of -- you become narrow minded. that is my sense. i wish i had time to read them all. i will one day. >> someone will brief you, i'm sure. >> thank you again very much for your thoughts. thank you all. there is launch outside which the council invites you to participate in. thank you so much. the obama administration approved 12 types of travel to cuba. family visits. official government business. public performances. education and research. authorized exports.

religious activities and human tehranhumanitarian projects. the changes go into effect friday. read about the changes at our website, cspan.org. >> david cameron is in washington, d.c. for meetings with president obama. one of the items on the agenda, last week's terror attack in paris. tomorrow the president will hold a joint news conference with the prime minister at the white house. we will have live coverage at 12:20 eastern. >> the cities tour takes book tv and american history tv on the road traveling to u.s. cities to learn about history and lit rarery life. this weekend we partnered with comcast for a visit to wheeling, west virginia. >> i wrote these books the wholing family, there are two volumes. the reason i thought it was important to collect the histories is that wheeling

transformed into an industrial city in the latter part of the 19th century and early part of the 20th century and it is kind of uncommon in west virginia in that it drew a lot of immigrants from various parts of europe here in search of jobs and opportunity. so, that generation that immigrant generation is pretty much gone. i thought it was important to record their stories to get the memories of the immigrant generation and the ethnic neighborhoods they formed. it is an important part of of our history, most people tend to focus on the frontier history the civil war history, those periods are important but of equal importance in my mind is this industrial period and the immigration that wheeling had. >> wheeling starts as an outpost on frontier. that river was the western

extent of the united states in the 1770's. the first project funded by the federal government for road production was the national road that extended from cumberland, maryland, to wheeling, virginia. and when it comes here to wheeling, that will give this community which about that time is about 50 years old, the real spurt that it needs for growth. and over the next 20-25 years the population of wheeling will almost triple. >> watch all of our events from wheeling saturday at noon eastern from c-span 2 book tv and on american history tv on c-span3. >> house speaker john boehner and mitch mcconnell a40sd mcconnell

nounsd that joni ernst will deliver the response to the state of the union speech on tuesday. from the roux treat in hershey pennsylvania this is 15 minutes. >> good afternoon. republicans continue to make the american people's priorities our priority. we have had a great opportunity this year to make progress for families and small businesses, and we look forward to continuing to make progress. we have gotten off to a great start by passing a number of common sense jobs bills to help grow our economy. the president's focus is on the past on the old politics of getting one set of americans against the other, on the outdated ways of bureaucratic control.

all top-down washington solutions. what has that produced? record debt and a shaky economy. the country is ready to move on. we need to start growing american economy, not washington's. our challenge and our opportunity is to pass common-sense solutions that will help expand opportunities for middle-class families and businesses solutions that simplify our tax code, solutions that address the true drivers of our debt and begin to balance the budget, solutions that repeal obamacare and replace it patient-centered reform that will help constituents have better access to high-quality health care in america. our job is to push for conservative reforms, show the people we can make progress, and show the people our vision for the future that will help

improve their lives. that is exactly what we plan to do, and i am particularly happy that the light went out. [laughter] very happy today to have the senate majority leader mitch mcconnell, my friend, with us here. >> thank you. we are pleased to be here today. the announcement i want to make is senator ernst will be delivering the response to the state of the union for our side this year. she is a perfect choice. americans voted for change, and the senator will explain what the new congress plans to do and what it is already doing to return focus to the concerns of the middle class and away from demands of the political class. ernst has dedicated her life to iowa and to her country, serving in the military, the national guard, for more than 20 years, and has deployed overseas.

she is focused on growing an economy and expanding the middle class. >> thank you. thank you so much. thank you, speaker, and leader also. i am truly humbled and honored to have this opportunity to deliver the republican address. and it is a long way from red oak to washington, d.c. and growing up on a southwest iowa farm years ago, i never never would have imagined that i would have this opportunity. so thank you. like so many of my colleagues, our folks back home sent us to washington, d.c., with a clear mission, and that mission is to get to work. that mission is to craft and

implement good policies, good solutions which will enable us to get america on a better path. and we are anxious to do that. we are very anxious to get to work and implement these good policies. so i look forward to that very much because we want to ensure that the america we are building leaves a stronger economy and more opportunity for our children and our grandchildren. again, i want to thank you very much, and i look forward to sharing more about our collective agenda this next tuesday evening. thank you, all, so much. >> we will take a couple of questions. >> you started the year saying tax reform was something you could work with the president to use that to boost the economy.

what is the process, and what kind of timeline are you looking at? >> there are things we need to find out if we agree on if we go forward. divided government is a perfect time to do tax reform. it was done in 1986 with tip o'neill and ronald reagan. they had an understanding that it was to be revenue neutral to the government. it was about making america more competitive and growing the economy, not making the government larger. the president at least that this point has said he is willing to do corporate tax reform only revenue neutral. the problem with that is you leave out most of american business, which pays taxes. as s opinion-corpses and llc's, in

other words, pass throughs. if we can agree why we are doing this, than it would be the perfect time to tackle it, and those discussions are underway between the speaker and the president and myself to see if we can come to a common agreement about what we're doing this. if we can do that, it is worth pursuing. >> on immigration reform, what does your senate intend to do with it, and are the 60 votes there? if not, do you have another plan? >> we are going to try to pass it, will be our first choice. and if we are unable to do it, we will see what happens. we will let you know what comes next. >> whoa, whoa. everybody knows what the rules are >> speaker boehner, the threat on your life -- by a bartender at your country club. how are you feeling about that number one, and in light of the foiled attack on the capitol how do you feel about your personal security and the security of the building itself? >> we live in a dangerous country and we get reminded of

the dangers that are out there. we saw what happened in paris a week ago. my personal situation, i will not get into it, but it is one thing to get a threat from far away. it is another when it is three doors away from where you live. obviously, this young man has some health issues, mental health issues, that need to be addressed, and i hope you get the help he needs, but i want to thank the fbi and capitol police and westchester police to -- who result --resolved this issue. with regard to the threat to the capitol, coming not far from where i live, the first thing that strikes me is we would have never known about this had it not been for the fisa program and our ability to collect information on people who pose an imminent threat.

i'm going to say this one more time because you will hear about it as we attempt to reauthorize the fisa program. our government does not spy on americans unless they are americans who are doing things that frankly tipped off our law enforcement officials to an imminent threat. it was our law enforcement officials and those programs that helped us stop this person before he committed a heinous crime in our nation's capitol. >> do you know something we do not, because he was on social media talking about this? is there more that we do not know? >> we will let the whole story roll out there, but it is far more than just that. >> back in 2011, in new york you told billionaire pete peterson that you do not think that americans should help

subsidize wealthy persons such as himself. looking at the medicare premium structure, it came up in discussion in the reconciliation process. >> the process is underway. as you are well aware, senator mcconnell and i were in on conversations with the president about addressing our long-term spending problems which are centered around entitlement programs. clearly, when it comes to strengthening medicare, it was one of the issues that was discussed. but i think -- i will speak for myself -- the president was never serious about doing the kind of reforms that would put america's fiscal health in proper shape. i am a hopeful person, but i have my doubts about the

president will be seriously give in to this. >> can i just add -- >> do you have a candidate for reconciliation? >> can i just add, the only way to do entitlement eligibility changes is on a bipartisan basis. in terms of the senate, we do not intend to be offering unilateral one-party- only entitlement eligibility changes. we know the entitlement programs are in serious trouble, some sooner than others, but it is a perfect candidate for agreement when you have divided government. but once again, like on tax reform, there is only one of us of the 330 million can sign into law needs to be part of the discussion. and needs to agree to the outcome. >> will you point to one specific positive thing that has come out of your day and a half here in hershey? >> i think the most positive thing is you have a group of new

republican members in the senate, a group of new republican members in the house, and we have had an opportunity to get to know each other. we want house and senate republicans working together and democrat colleagues to advance good solutions, and is hard to do that when you do not have a good feel for who these people are. it has been the best part so far. >> thank you. senator mcconnell, early today you and the speaker were addressing members, reminding them to be realistic -- about the differences. have the two of you figured out how to address issues like of dhs funding bills where there is disagreement between the chambers and what can actually happen? how are you going to do that -- >> i will just go first. the house will work its will.

the senate will work its will. then we will get in conference and we will find some way to resolve the differences. that is what we call regular order. that is the legislative process. there are 535 of us on capitol hill, and to try to get all of us to agree is not an easy job. the founders never envisioned it to be easy, and it is certainly anything but. however, each of the chambers has to do what they are capable of doing and then we resolve the differences. >> the president has plans to passed. what do you think could be the first piece of legislation you pass that the president will sign, and do you believe that climate change is real? >> well, on the areas of potential agreement, cyber security, trade promotion authority are two things that i think you are likely to end up in the same place.

the president does not set the agenda in the senate, but we are anxious to make progress for the american people in areas we can find agreement. we earlier discussed the potential for tax reform. there is a potential for infrastructure, and i think a high likelihood we will get there on trade promotion and cyber security. >> and climate change? >> clearly, we have had changes in our climate. i will let the scientists debate the sources in their opinion of that change. but i think the real question is that every proposal we see out of the administration's regard to climate change means killing american jobs. the american people are still asking the question, where are the jobs? the jobs and the economy are still the number one issue in the country, and i do not understand why every proposal that comes of the administration

is just going to kill thousands and thousands of more american jobs. >> do you feel like the president is more of a willing participant? does he show signs to you that things have changed? >> we had a nice conversation, very polite, clear, but i do not know if we learned a whole lot. >> you talked about the stalled negotiations over a big deal -- so is it your estimation that things have not changed? >> i think it is too early to tell. i only see the glass as half full, and i believe hope springs eternal. the american people want us to find a way to address their concerns. that was the big message out of the election. you hear from our members on both sides of the capitol. i hope the president heard the same message. thanks.

>> [indiscernible] >> no. [laughter] >> did you enjoy the chocolate? have you had any? president obama delivers the state of the union address to a joint session of congress on tuesday. we will have president's speech and republican response and get reaction from members of congress. live coverage starting tuesday night at 8:00 eastern. senator earn the was' electricked to the senate in

november and also the first woman to represent her state in congress. we will have that live on tuesday night. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> the deadline for the student cam video competition is tuesday. get yourentries completed now. produce a five to seven minute documentary on the theme the three branches and you for your chance to win the grand prize of $5,000. for a list of the rules go to studentcam.org. >> here are some of the featured programs for the weekend on the c-span networks.

find our complete schedule at c-span.org and let us know what you think about the programs you are watching. call us. e-mail us. or send us a tweet. join the c-span conversation. like us on facebook. follow us on twitter. former intelligence officials talked about cyber security and the cyber attack against sony and north korea's possible role. we will hear from former c.i.a. director and former house intelligence committee chair

mike rodgers. the bipartisan policy center hosted event. it is about an hour and a half. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] good afternoon, everybody. >> thank you for coming this afternoon to our event on the sony cyber attack and its strategic implications. he run the national security work at the bipartisan policy center. almost four years ago, i had the pleasure to work with general hayden and some others to put on cyber shockwave, which i don't know if any of you remember. you can get a dvd or buy it on youtube. the idea was to simulate a cyber attack at the national security council cabinet level and see how the united states would react, and see if we had the policies in place to actually be

able to, if not prevent, than to react in a reasonable way to a cyber attack. one particular exchange that stuck in my mind when we did the simulation, the person playing the attorney general at the time said mr. president, we don't have the authority to do what you're looking to do, which at the time was to turn off people's cell phones that had been infected with malware. and stewart baker, who is always selling his book, which is a great book if you haven't read it, who was playing the white house cyber czar, founded the desk and said if the attorney general doesn't have the authority he should actually go and find the authority. i am not sure we have found the authority. but something has changed in the conversation we have been having this last week. the president pushing.

new proposals suggest that perhaps we have turned a corner and are finally going to see some policy and legal changes when it comes to cyber security. it's interesting. i know that in trying to move the needle, we put a show on about a cyber attack but it took a cyber attack on a show to get things to start changing. to figure out how they are going to change and what the up playcations are and -- implications and look at the controversy around how the u.s. government has reacted. whether it is the question attribute ision or severity or what the role of the u.s. government in retaliating or responding to the cyber attack is. to -lead that discussion -- if you follow cyber security, you have surely read her articles, as i have. she is the lead national security reporter at the post and knows more on cyber issues than probably 95% of the policy makers in washington.

new congressman rogers left the hill probably 96%. with that, let me turn it over to ellen. >> thank you very much, and thanks to the bipartisan policy center for putting on a very timely panel. the panelists don't need much introduction and you all have their bios, so i will keep it brief. to my left is chairman milwaukee mike rogers. he was the chairman of the house intelligence committee. former f.b.i. special agent now turned raid radio talk show host. just started on monday doing commentary. his own sort of commentary on important issues of the day called "something to think about with mike rogers." general mike hayden. a retired air force general,

former cia director, and as a director, director of national intelligence, history major and pittsburgh steelers fan, sorry. a and now principal at the group who is also writing a book about his career which you will find a way to right about too, i think. >> sure. >> and then dr. paul stockton. the former assistant secretary of homeland defense at the pentagon. helped lead department's response to superstorm sandy and the deep water horizon crisis. he guided the critical infrastructure protection program and is a managing director at an llc. i want to open by saying that we at the "washington post" have a cyber security summit every year. for a couple of years, we created our own war games which

we came up with fictitious oil and gas companies and banking firms that were attacked by fictitious middle eastern and asian countries sending viruses oil production in the markets and created chaos in the economy. but never did it cross our minds to have north korea target a movie studio for a film about a c.i.a. plot to assassinate kim jong un. did the koreans want brad pitt to play kim? what were they angry about? >> i thought it was funny. >> thank you. seriously, we have had countless intrusions into the u.s. critical infrastructure and companies stealing so much

intellectual property you have heard us say this is the biggest transfer of wealth in history. we have seen penetrations into the white house and pentagon but it took a hack into sony for the government to come up with a firm response, unprecedented really. and to actually name north korea. obama named north korea, and vowed to punish the country. so, we are going to go over the attack and the implications. for deterrences and strategy and cyber security. briefly, what happened at sony. you are all familiar with this. sony discovered attack on november 24 before thanksgiving. the virus wiped thousands of hard drives and putting the computers out of commission for weeks. about a week after that the hackers guardians of peace they

are called began posting embarrassing e-mails online with big headlines about studio that started to get a lot of attention and become a problem for sony. about mid december, the hackers ratcheted up and put a threatening message online threatening violence against theaters that showed the film and alluded to 9/11. at that point, theaters get nervous. they talk about not wanting to show the film. sony decides they have to cancel the planned release for christmas day, and that leads to a huge controversy. the very next day, president obama convenes a meeting in the situation room with his national security council. they decide, based on unanimous recommendations, that they are going to publicly name north