mr. chertoff? >> i agree, we have to work with all of our like-minded colleagues overseas to say that interfering with the actual infrastructure of elections is completely off limits and unacceptable. the information operations gets challenging because while we should resist them, we need to be careful how we articulate it. if you go to moscow, this he'll say, great, let's get rid of the national endowment of democracies and you know-- >> i agree, that's why i'm bringing this up, mr. chertoff, because i do not want to lose action on the first part. >> correct. >> we should be leading the charge. no government should be involved in interfering with the actual election operations, end of story. we should be leading the charge, but there are some people running around this town, basically saying, well there's other stuff and we should let this go. no, we should not let this go, so-- >> i agree with you, it's totally different. we should not blur the lines in a way that blunts our response. >> thank yo

mr. chertoff. the security elections active bill to basically streamline information sharing between federal and state agencies that was an outrage that 21 states were hacked into and did not find out for one year and then they cannot protect themselves because they don't know if it is going on in another state. my first question is do you think our states are adequately prepared? we have the 380 million out from the last budget. what else should we protect our voting equipment there is a greater understanding they have to be engaged. when i would that asked in a couple weeks ago to some degree they are engaging that this shift will take a while to turn around you have aging infrastructure in many places. in some areas not even understanding how they connect to the internet. >> 14 states have no paper ballots or partial. >> that will require a change in equipment and protocol. the short answer is we are moving in the right direction we are pressing the accelerator but i don't know if this will be f

i get this first question but others can comment as mister chertoff and mr. painter.russian malicious cyber activity remains a national security threat, no doubt about that. they attacked our election and sponsored the destructive malware. what are the most important actions our government should be taking to the tour russia from this type of malicious activity and just focus on one or two or three like that would begood . >> i think when you deal with ran somewhere, particularly ran somewhere that can affect industrial control systems and have an impact on human life, i think that deserves the kind of response that we do with respect to a physical attack that might have a threat to human life which means we have to have the ability to respond either in kind or in another way to deter that. when it comes to information operations which to be honest go back 100 years before the union existed idon't regard that as an act of war . i think it's a matter where there are things we can do in terms of calling out who's responsible for putting posts or things like the internet