tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN October 21, 2014 3:00pm-5:01pm EDT
corruption and the babylonians and the greeks had arguments about the use of it in some forms. i think this will continue to be a policy tension that we have to navigate. you will have love to talk about getting some better hackers. i think we have questions from the audience. if anyone has anything. >> [inaudible] >> david from politico. can you elaborate a little bit more on white house observation of what was going on at the jp morgan and the other financial institutions and in what context? was at stand-alone briefings or briefings in the context of just randomly suggested something russia sanctions? >> so, the way to think about
this, part of our job on the national security council is to make sure the president and his advisers remain informed about the wide array of national security threats that come from the country. so that is the context we were treating this particular issue. sure it is part of an ongoing law enforcement investigation with the fbi and secret service so there is a limit to how much i can comment on the ongoing investigation in that area. i think it's something that i didn't we pay attention to in the sense that we are mindful whether we are talking about the financial sector, the electric sector, the telecommunications sector and so it's put into the broader context and any time we see specific targeting in those kind of companies it is
something we are going to engage on. >> in the back. >> sorry to hold the microphone but i don't think anybody else had their hand up. thank you so much. maybe it's a difficult question and i don't want to feel like i am contemplating things but abruptly broadly when of the things that you focused on is the extent to which the executive and the legislature legislature should be potentially pressuring private companies to adhere to certain cyber security standards. on the one hand you said that the position is the government should not be pushing the private sector harder because market forces can be trusted to take care of such but on the other hand expediency will trump security every time so at the week in which the attack might
have been adversative certain standards were in place which is it? >> there is a difference between making something like the cyber security framework mandatory and saying that the government doesn't have any role in pressuring the private sector to continue focusing on and doing a better job in cybersecurity and i'm always concerned about a regulatory framework that is the speed of regulation doesn't move with the speed of technology so we want to be very mindful of the fact and that's why we tried to make the framework technology agnostic and neutral. that is different than saying the government doesn't want to be involved with and work with the sector to improve
cybersecurity across-the-board. in fact i firmly believe that one of the key challenges we face a is figuring out how to government should interact with respect to cybersecurity and it won't be a traditional regulatory framework and also won't be a contractual framework where we are just buying goods and services. it's going to be some kind of a new partnership and that in fact is what kind of one of the defining policy challenges we will be working on in the next i would argue five to ten years really is. how is that the government at all levels is going to interact on this issue that cuts across so many different boundaries and jurisdictions both in the united states and internationally as the.
>> when you spoken to people in the industry for years they say some of the problems working in the federal government have been the salary job structure into the issue can be a bit of a pain. those are three areas that we haven't seen much movement on and i'm wondering if there is any push or progress. >> we are pushing on the various avenues trying to address some of the problems you're talking about trying to get the broad hiring authorities in cybersecurity for cyber security professionals to make it easier to move among the agencies when you're in the federal government to address some of those problems. it's unrealistic to expect it would compete with the private sector on salary directly.
so i think we can do a better job in that space but we are going to completely in the forms you have to have to defend a government that you're not able to do in the private sector. and focus on those aspects of the job. it's a complicated area and it's one we are trying to dedicate some resources to addressing. i think that overall we still have to grow the workforce as a whole because everybody is poaching of their videos from their videos from the limited talent pool that's out there. >> what's happening in regards of recruitment are you going to college campuses, are you shoving about mit and carnegie mellon to try to get the smartest kids to work for the government and how is the nsa revelation in that effort to
make certain that we are trying to recruitment and the recruitment and expand our efforts in there and clearly the fiscal challenges that have faced overall have not made that any easier to do. i would say that we continue to focus on recruiting the best, and that we can. and there's certainly the nsa has faced some challenges in the resolution to the revelation as go revelation as you say but it's easy of a wide variety of places in the federal government including the law-enforcement agencies which more and more crime has moved on winds of of a heavy greater need for that. the dhs has a new need for the cyber security experts and protecting the critical infrastructure. places that actually develop a framework of a the framework of a need for cyber security workforce. so, i think that it's also
something we are having to address holistic lee across the federal government. >> anybody else quick >> i'm josh higgins from cybersecurity. i'm wondering what the framework workshop coming up, what is the administration hoping to see come out of that and moving forward in the framework? >> what we are hoping for in the workshop is starting to get feedback about how they have actually been and bullying the framework and what has been their experience. what has been the strength and the weaknesses and where does it need some refinement and clarification expansion. we know one of the areas that was less developed in the work that we did is in the metrics for how you measure employment and the effect of the framework
on your organization and we still need more development in that area. so, those are the kind of things we are hoping to get out of the workshop as a sort of a lot of a lot of the experience is how the framework has been and void. >> just to follow-up on that i was wondering if you could talk about what you're seeing in turn it for the adoption of the framework, how you're measuring that especially when it comes to the government agencies that are involved. >> there are a couple different aspects to your question. certainly, from our perspective, we've we've got a lot of feedback from a whole bunch of different sources including the sector coordinating council's but the dhs works with and the different agencies that have connections in different
industries in the treasury in the financial services industry in the department with the energy providers and in general the feedback has been very positive for the framework and even companies that often times will tell us the alley are not going to completely come out publicly and completely embraced the framework, but we are using it internally. and we are using it even if we aren't efficiently using it we are using it to benchmark against ourselves again. so, i think that in general we are seeing more and more different uses for the framework and different sectors come up with their own sort of overtly for the framework. in my own mind i actually view the success one measure will be things never anticipated in the first place that will be a really good sign.
internationally, we've gotten a lot of feedback from the government that they are looking at how to use the framework in their own context which is important and you also use the federal government is solved and the guidance that came out from the office of management and budget on the federal information security management act implementation is fighting ever tidying ever closer to the framework and so i think the agency cios are getting tired of me talking about how they use the framework in their own agency that it but that is a direction that we are moving in and that we are bringing those principles and how we manage the federal government's own cybersecurity, and we are developing an overlay for the federal government that's related to the framework. >> what's safer and stand jpmorgan had you been following
the framework could that have have been prevented or others like it? >> the framework isn't a particular cookbook for a particular set of security controls so without having the detailed knowledge, it is difficult for me to say that what i can say is what the framework enables you to do is think about how you manage your cybersecurity from the risk perspective and so what this enables the organization to do is have a way of contracting what is sometimes otherwise seen as an intractable problem. >> i think we've got time for one more question. from the university of washington. >> all the way in from washington. and from washington. >> courtesy of the policy lab. my question is we talk about the breach and so on and so forth
and these are just flowing in the media. the operational reality is you assume you've been breached and you do something about that and there is a distance between that and that i feel like may not better informed the general public. what are your views on how to bridge that gap? >> when you look at the framework the first thing has nothing to do with security at all which is identified, but what it is really saying is you have to find what information you have that you cared about and why do you care about it, what do you want to protect it from? is the exposure or do you want to protect it from manipulation? experts to define how you think about it and protect it but also
it goes on to say you've got to be able to detect when the bad guys are almost inevitably passed the defenses and then what do you do to respond quickly and to recover from that and so part of the way that you have to start to address that as an organization you have to be clear that the holistic approach to handling the breaches all the way from the beginning this is how we've identified the information we care about and here is what we are trying to protect it from. and if something happens here is how we are going to respond to it and here's the measurements for how fast we are going to respond and how we are going to recover from it and the organizations have to learn how to treat that whole process from beginning to end as part of the cybersecurity problem and not just to protect part is easy to get focused on. i would argue that one of the things we've been working very hard on in the federal context are those back and pieces, the
response and recovery part starting to build the machinery in the federal government to not just do the protection mission but also the response and recovery mission. >> there's been a lot of talk recently from mike rogers the congressman about developing authentic measures. a lot of what we are talking about our defense its operations preparing ourselves to sort of goes out and go out and confront these issues where they arise. any thoughts on that aspect of this? >> there are a couple of different aspects to that issue one of which there are many different tools you have to think about in that context. there are a couple of different ways i think about it. it is very rare that a cyber issue is purely going to necessitate a cyber response. in fact the proper response might be a diplomatic response
and it might be a law-enforcement response. it might be one that occurs in cyberspace and it might be one that we do through the network defense and primarily through law enforcement authority. it's nevertheless true that cyber operations are going to become a much greater part of statecraft. they have become that over the last 20 years and that trend is going to continue. and so i think that as a government, one of our challenges is to begin to figure out how we talk about the policy development and how we talk about what the rules are for the road, though the rules of the road that we want to be in the international environment. we want to i think starts talking about how we establish the norms of behavior in cyberspace, things like you don't target critical infrastructure in peace time and you don't harm critical
infrastructure in peace time, you don't steal for the benefit of your domestic company, that you don't -- may be that you treat them like hospitals that they are off limits so that they can continue to do their network function. those are the kind of norms we want to promote in that space. so i think that it's another area that's going to involve a lot of policy work and development. >> we could spend the whole day talking about that. but for the truman defense counsel my question is truman did a lot of work for the passenger cyber legislation and i think on the macro level it appears the president stepped forward on the position of the executive order and pushed the framework. but it seems like there's a
limit how for the to where the government can go in implementing the need of the reform for the private sector without some sort of a manner or stick to drive them. so looking at things like the bill what do you think the prospects are the passage of the comprehensive cyber legislation and what are the ramifications if it doesn't pass? >> i've been in washington for a while now and i've realized there are a few things you don't bet on. one is the weather and the other is congress. and the -- i think it is difficult to project on that score. i know there are a lot of people on the hill like the representative and the chairman mcauliffe on the house side and the senate side and you have a number like senator white house and the senator carper and others that have been incredibly involved in the cyber issues. senator rockefeller and the
commerce committee. so there is a lot of interest in cybersecurity legislation. i do think from the administration standpoint, one thing that has evil thing for thinking it will get easier to solve the legislation rather than one giant comprehensive bill. a lot of your efforts are involved in getting whatever we can pass and on whatever vehicle they can manage to get it attached to as long as the policy and the legislation is acceptable. so that's one thing i would say we are trying as a different way to go about it. i do think we will continue to press forward to doing everything we can and there is a lot we can do under existing authorities. if we do need to eventually get to legislation and we will eventually have to get there but i think that we will and we will
continue pressing forward with the policies we can under the authorities that we have. >> thanks for coming and taking the time to talk to us. >> thanks for having me. i really and joy that -- enjoyed it. >> thank you very much. now we are actually at the best part of today so i'm glad all of you stayed here. once again i'm president of the center for national policy. welcome to the home the truman project. we have a great panel today. we've heard the view from 1600 pennsylvania ave. but we also wanted to provide you with a take away from the private sector and from some of the leading thinkers in cybersecurity in cyberspace that this nation has to offer.
how do we handle the emerging threats that we see in cyberspace and can we increase our economic competitiveness, national security while keeping the privacy protections and being able to be innovative leaders. is that possible to do, and if so, what are the trade-offs that inevitably must take place? we have with us. people that are well qualified to take them on. i've known the first guest for over a decade. frank was present at the creation of the homeland security architecture of the nation that arose in response of the attacks of september 11. during that time he was appointed by george w. bush to serve in the office of homeland security. he served as a principal advisor for the first secretary homeland security tom ridge and protected
the security advisory council. after some years in government, frank joined george washington university where he established the homeland security policy institute and frank is an associate vice president at gw where he leads a number of national security and policy security initiatives. he is the codirector of the cyber center for the national and economic security and directs the strategic effort along with michael chertoff, the former dea just secretary. thank you for being with us today. peter singer is the author of multiple award-winning books. i have a few of them in my office so feel free to come and take a look. you may have read his work before. he is a leading expert on what we would call 21st century national security challenges. the smithsonian institution peter is humble having to do research to find out about this, the smithsonian is ten as one of the leading innovators in the
nation. he is listed as one of the 100 leading thinkers in the defense policy defense policy and by foreign-policy magazine as one of the 100 global thinkers who were most advanced on all these issues as well. his most recent book is cybersecurity and cyber war. are you able to see the title of your next book? stay tuned for that one. his last book was named on the reading list or the u.s. army and the navy as well so the thinking is very present in the armed forces today. he's a contributing editor and founder of the technology advisory firm and a consultant to the military and fbi as well. many years he was at the brookings institute of america foundation. to my right is my new friend.
he's one of the most sought after voices in information security. he spent the last 17 years as the founder and director two of the most important security conferences in the world. he has the ability to bridge the gap between the underground research community and law-enforcement which isn't easy to do. he bridges the gap between pure research and responsible application in information systems. jeff was appointed the homeland security advisory council for many years as the chief security officer. he's been a keynote speaker on these topics and he was also the rector at secure corporation where he hoped to establish professional so thanks for being with us. the way we will do this if i will ask a couple of questions.
we were in my office and i wish we had a hidden camera because it is a fantastic conversation. you can interrupt each other or whatever you want to say and then we will go to you, the audience, for your thoughts and. the first thing i would say from 1996 the character had to keep stopping at pay phones and think about how the world has changed but this is a unique moment in history where we are able to access the information of power and the individuals and the power had the power to the degree that they never have been ever. what does this mean for national power? the nation is able to use these technologies and adapt to them to society is going to have the edge in securing its national
security and its prosperity. so i suppose my question is how are we doing on that and where are the biggest failures and in particular about the workforce where are we right now and preparing through education and training american workers and also those who need to serve in government to understand information networks and i will throw out a few can focus a bit on government needs, and peter generali on the society right now where we are and then jeff you will get to interrupt. >> your example that example that the pay phone and now there is no anonymity like you have a potato. it's >> i tried to tell my eq role to sun about prank calls and what a loss it has been to society. i know exactly what you're
talking about. they were the biggest networks to explore. >> thank you scott. we appreciate all your issues at the get go that one of the national security establishment after 9/11. very briefly in terms of the workforce needs and gaps, deficits and also looking forward obviously it is a standard issue at its very root. we need more technical skills that can address some of these problems including the design and engineering where we can discuss the banking security to the design of systems, components and unlike and i've actually seen my friend mike is doing some good work at northrop grumman. stay tuned, we have a paper coming out from some of those
issues but in addition to the technical needs of everyone more or less recognizes and understands there is also the need to get a cyber into every other discipline so we have to look at it from across the disciplinary perspectives. there is a cyber component international affairs where you have obviously health and it that brings about new folder abilities and susceptible systems. as one of the things we are trying to do do with the university is how do you integrate all of these pieces and get the diplomats i call it talk and a squawk. you have one policy that understands the technology and what you haven't seen in that integration just as yet and i think that is the greatest deficit in terms of workforce needs going forward.
more stem, women in particular i would like to see more women involved in the research which can get to the cybersecurity jobs and not as a footnote. i might note that i think that may be does this the best. midshipmen are required to take a cybersecurity course and i think that we can all learn from that and universities can learn from that so it's not an an either/or because if you think about cyber strategically it is its own domain but it also touches every other whether it is air, land, sea or space we need to think from the education perspective in the same way it is its own domain we need cyber security experts but we also need others, boards of directors. the they need to start asking. i had a op-ed with tim pawlenty on what questions should the board members be asking management to fulfill their oversight responsibility so it is a workforce issue.
in the government it's not so much a recruitment problem as a retention issue. >> is is at the it the personalities that are drawn to this work. >> they are still fuzzy because we don't have a clear discipline but i think the bigger part of it is once they get good, they can get two and a half times their salary in the private sector. >> thanks very much. you seemed like he wanted to say something. >> nothing. [laughter] >> until that moment i was going to say the problem on the panel is we are going to agree a loss but maybe we will see in a second. this topic is often framed as a technology issue and we forget
that it's a human issue. it's a human issue whether you're trying to understand the threat is threats that's coming after you were understand george response to the threat and now definitely a human capital issue. you can think of it as a human capital issue in a number of ways to frame what frank was saying that there is both the cyber workforce issue and then there's the broad aspect so i think it is best illustrated by the fact that in 2008 the department of homeland security had roughly 40 people working full-time on cyber security issues. that number has been of that number has been multiplied by over 50 cents then and of course they are not stopping. it takes what happened take would have been that the dhs and repeat at every single government agency whether it's
the pentagon to health and human services to the la city government to new york state level government to take that and added on the private sector side the same kind of gap is played out in the large technology companies to the carmakers and small furniture companies and you quickly see we have a classic supply demand issue when it comes to cyber talent. the key here is a good time to be someone with with skill and competing over the skill and competing over it. that is the story of retention indexing to be an interesting retention problem for the u.s. military because of the same time that you're forcing out captain so and so who was the best commander in afghanistan that we've ever seen, you're going to be doing bonuses in a cyber and that will be an interesting debate in the
military but the other part frank said and draw the training issue across every single field you will be dealing with cyber issues yet there is an equal training gap so 70% of the business executives have made some kind of a cyber decision for the company despite no program teaches as a part of the normal management responsibilities. let me be clear there is a cyber mba. the person that goes into human resources and operations, the person that goes into the legal and becomes a board member. to train our lawyers and journalists dealing with cyber issues on the beat but on all these other beats if you're a sports reporter in houston one of the sports teams got hacked and you have to cover the story
so you don't adjust to think about it as training the eggheads and folks it's for all of us. i would add its part the need to teach the kids basic cyber hygiene. >> that is a loss to follow-up on. one thing i would say is i want to declare victory hopefully in ten years because we need to get to the point where it is risk management and when you tell the board members that they say what are the risks and rewards trade-off and a lot of times we treat it like some magic fang. >> there was an authentic couple days ago that said why can't the wizards hold this for us. >> is it being repaired right now at hogwarts but the other
thing is i think the problem on the core root of a lot of it i hate to say none of it seems like rocket science. there is bad code being written and exported. how do we get the code better return? we can never fix all all the problems that would fix the easy ones we can and you start looking into it and there is no good textbook to teach people how to program securely. there are plenty to teach how to program and a fearful of programming errors so from the very beginning from junior high school, college, all these examples everybody learning how to use than older security problem at a fundamental level suite were starting on the wrong foot. you go to google and want to learn algorithms you fast-forward over them. the examples are full of security problems to the search engines are full of bad codes and text books are full of bad code. how about somebody gets
publishing with good examples? there are steps we can take but instead we will pontificate about super advanced fast moving algorithms but what's covered the bases and teach people how to program. he it gets a little frustrating. >> there is what is the role of the government and the private sector and the individual. obviously it's a shared responsibility. washing your hands saves more lives than actual surgery in some countries but obviously that isn't going to help so what we need is a sort of tiered approach selected to the baseline. in the ideal world ticketed 80% solution where the government can focus its limited resources on the high-end threat actor. the government should be focusing on what's new about
cyber is even the biggest of companies that didn't expect to defend against the foreign service nor should they that they should be able to focus on the high-end threat actor and anything below that so that they are not getting involved in things that the private sector is better positioned socially from a privacy standpoint and technically in the van a few get the equipment in the cyber hygiene you can get to the point where we can actually prioritize limited resources and -- >> i think that's lowering the noise threshold. >> and where they are best positioned. >> it's go there for a moment before we go to out to the audience for questions. >> let's say that you're advising the president that we were busy talking out there and we didn't hear what he had to
say. what is the largest threat in the cyber domain or for american prosperity and security knowing that you have limited resources to handle these threats? is a theft of intellectual property or some kind of malicious attack from the state actors or nonstate actors and where should we be putting our resources right now? >> i think there is far too much discussion and focus on the sexiest narrative of cyber terrorism -- the cyber world harbor has been used over half a million times in the government documents and government
documents and they are repeated back in the media. >> there's been over 31,000 magazine newspaper and academic journal articles on the phenomena of cyber terrorism. there've been zero incidences of the fbi definition. let me be clear before it is misinterpreted. i'm not saying that there isn't a risk in our own weaponry that you can do things with the visual attack and we also know that there is a potential that there is a difference between putting out warnings of a cyber caliphate and yet adding in the fine print that says they don't have any capability or proven interest. >> that is a real threat that but you mentioned another that is definitively real and
arguably bigger which is the massive campaign of intellectual property theft that arguably we are the victims right now is the largest theft in all of human history when we bundle together everything from joint strike fighter design the most expensive weapons project in human history to wheel company negotiating strategy to small furniture makers to pretty much everything think in the university in town and that has both a definite economic security consequences and economic security is national security that i would also argue that it might have real consequences on a future battlefield ten to 20 years from now so i don't think that we do enough on that compared to the easier discourse. >> let me interject for a second because my hearing shades of what we face and when we started up the homeland architecture which was guards, gates and guns and list every threat. there lot of risk and ... and we
are saying that we need to apply to more rigorously in the cyber domain which i fundamentally agree with it is an issue of risk management in secure coding let me do a little shade of difference. not all hackers are the same, not all intentions of the same and not all capabilities. computer network exploit the theft of data and individuals. it's obvious that the top of the list anyone that has a capability has to have it in the exploited capability and if they can exploit and have the intent to do so they can also attack so you have to start getting to the point that you can start peeling back with that threat is so at the top of the list are the nations in the united states like russia and china.
they are investing in the capabilities and they're also increasingly in the computer network attack. after russia and china and the world, you have to countries that with the lack of capability they make up for an intent. this is iran, north korea. they are investing very heavily into computer network attack capabilities. don't underestimate that. i think any form of future conflict will have a cyber component down to the attack perspective so when you are looking at who is most likely to turn to the attack of the way iran and north korea because they are less than russia and china. under that he has you have the criminal enterprises notably the russian speaking criminal enterprises but now have the cyber capabilities that used to
be in the domain of the countries among them so they can do the equivalent of those drive-by shooting that can have major economic consequences and kinetic consequences and under that you have the foreign terrorist organizations for the most part they are in the business of propaganda. if you look at isis propaganda machine is sophisticated of kids with iphone's three don't forget they took over tv stations. they have the same production capabilities that major networks have global lisa bloom may turn to computer network attacks but they don't have the capability yet. they are increasingly building it up and then you have whatever the flavor of the ideologies of the week that's what you're going to see so we have to get a little bit more concise when we start talking about what the threat is that i do not disagree
that coming soon is the issue that i think we also want to mirror and when we know our own capabilities are and expect it's not five years out it's not like nuclear capabilities to take millions and that take millions and billions of dollars of research and development. >> jeff, your thoughts? >> i agree that's got the big dollar tag. me too, plus one, whatever it is, like. but i will also say that permeates working on military non- governmental perspective, it is we enter the realm where the small to medium businesses are defenseless, just screwed because if you look at the economics of the situation it is basic economics if you have skills and you want to get a better paying job who is better paying google, microsoft,
whatever and they try to protect their intellectual property said the best to seize a pill to the biggest company and that leads to small to medium businesses with kind of the middle team and then they can get hired if they are out of it. we are in a situation where the companies in the middle are defenseless, they are buying store-bought solutions and whatever they said goodbye. we are also moving into a situation i worry about service attacks just because pr well understood, there's been best practices help to attack for 20 years and we don't do them. the government doesn't mandate it, very few do. there is a very few. so i hear stories about these great new technologies or the
next internet and i'm thinking to myself we can't deploy well understood denial of service prevention for 20 years what makes us think we are going to solve this next generation and take the challenge head on and we can't even cover the bases so that led me to if you look at the trajectory of his complexity from here all the way down and the complexity is only going to accelerate so we will never go back and fix things we just seem to run faster and faster leaving the board ability behind us and i don't like predicting doom and gloom but you say when is this going to end? it's going to take a cyber event and then we can fix everything but i don't think it's going to work that way. the minute something gets cyber we get the funding.
i think it is up to us but we also have to realize we are overreaching thinking we are going to solve all these problems when it's a lot of really basic stuff. i love having consultative discussions but at the end of the day i go back to if you can't defend against the denial of service attacks like wall street that's wall street and as a lot of money and even they have problems that send to beat the defending three did you see the capacity organized crime groups have. it's pretty frightening and my fear and my doomsday scenario is a couple small to medium businesses get bumped off and put out of business because they can't respond into the small to medium small businesses that go out of business because of this government is going to let them go out of business? the government is going to act and do something to save the day and now they are regulating
because the industry hasn't handled it, technology providers haven't handled it so at some point the government will say enough is enough i can't have my companies going out of business and now that will be the forcing function they say you had your chance and that is a frightening scenario to be. >> there is some positive news playing out from the bad things that happened in the last year i-india mentioned it india mentioned in the article that you are working on. the target breach was bad for target, but because there was punishment in terms of the marketplace and in terms of people losing jobs, punishment in terms of the board threatening their recall it to send shockwaves and it's bringing attention to this end
we are seeing action have been in a way that wasn't before. so we are getting the cyber insecurity that surrounds us right now we are seeing a lot of the needed actions that have been put off for a long time moving forward into the building up of the awareness of these called for and the change and clearly it isn't fast enough or good enough but we were not where we were two or three years ago and again i hope we can change the mentality from thinking we have to defend against everything to become resilient and power our way through. i joke about it squirrels have taken down more power grids down hackers. you have the wall street scenario wall street trading three times.
you will never be toured that we found out how to be resilient against rocky and bullwinkle but we will never defeat or the two are all cyber threats, but we can become more resilient against them. a sustainable war on squirrels. [laughter] >> please anybody that has a question that you would like to share in the back. >> at the center for naval analysis and over here at truman. the question on the earlier panel was established.
is there a way to get china to the table to talk constructively about this type of issue when in reality it supports the main drive which is economic development. how do you go about doing it without the more coercive means against companies that do engage in this because naming and shaming isn't really working for the most part. thank you. >> that's a great question and the way to think about it is that deterrence we don't be toured things or cyber. we can build up capabilities and make yourself more resilient and add more secure designs etc. etc.. but when you are really looking at the intellectual property theft and looking at role that china is playing right now, they have at the best of both ways.
they have all of the luxuries of being an emerging economy and none of the responsibilities of power. the reality is they are a power and the reality is it is from their view why spend billions of dollars if you can steal it and put that money into market share. they have an overheating economy so i'm not sure that it's very easy for them to stop or to be able to address in the full and transparent kind of way. i am somewhat more optimistic though that at some point they have as much to lose because they have investments spread out including in the united states and in our debt so if at some point it has hit back tipping point i don't think that it's hit just yet but i do think that naming and shaming is significant at the fact the report can get down to individuals i think was a significant. of this.
this is not a smokescreen discussion. they were able to show specifically who's behind the keyboard doing what. i think the department of justice indictment is also a powerful statement. that said, that's all it not going to be the end state solution. once you start looking at how you make the cyber security into the trade discussions, you are starting to see what starts out by airing the problem. and the real place you can have the greatest traction is going to be through the economic discussions. >> i would build on that. it's a classic cost benefit and right now they are seeing extreme benefits and almost no cost. that report was powerful but roughly 90 days until they started up again. so that kind of 90 days of rest.
part of how to get to this is not only making it harder on the attacker. it shouldn't be just picking the right fruit and we talk a little about that the other aspect is to build on what frank was saying tickets to the venues that they actually care about. so, a pennsylvania court room is a wonderful place for a lot of reasons but it's not going to be visited by the five chinese individuals who are invited, and it was a warning shot that may have been a powerful statement, that it actually had no impact except on some of the american businesses that lost business because of it. i would argue a better venue is to figure out to those that they care about and not merely the bilateral trade talks but more specifically the wto which has been crucial to their economic rise and it offers you a setting
to play on these issues that they would start to pay a little more attention to. but again the key to this is don't think of this as just purely this space for talk. we have to move to the action and the cost-benefit analysis and the other part of his frankly recognize that some of it is never going to stop. this is the game of definitions play. my friends find it funny that we talk about intellectual property theft given that we, our economic rise was based on the international property theft in the industrial age and steam engines to during the cold war we were able to come to agreement in the kgb. neither side like to be other stealing information that we were able to set the rule between this is the kind of info
that you can do that these are the but these are the kind of actions that move us into more potential conflict. so this behavior we don't like it but it's acceptable, versus this behavior could cause a shooting war. so to give an example, it may greatly disturbs me that you are stealing from a defense contractor. i don't like it. i'm going to do everything to stop it. on the other hand when you start monday in around on the control networks where the power grids you are doing something that is raising a different kind of alarm. >> not to go for the civil society side of it, which is why don't you just sue everybody? if you look at these discussions how many american companies are they suing anybody in china?
it would act as a forcing function in china or other countries to get them to actually have to have the court system respond and then the whole world can watch the court system play games and the whole world could say that's transparent or whichever country it is. and if you look at who is doing that it comes back to basically microsoft and sometimes they spoke. so microsoft is pursuing the organizers and trying to sue them. why is it just microsoft? why is there not a huge association? i can donate money to save cats but where do i donate $10 to sue the civil cyber thieves? there is none to say go get it. instead of the conversations that organize its like no i won't civil society to go to people left and right.
>> i think we created a new nonprofit. >> as soon as you start that i want to be the first. but i plan the conversation kind of always two-dimensional. >> because we don't want cyber security to become a cigarette a cigarette wrapped in asbestos super vet wrapped in asbestos to find that the requirements and the needs are. >> they want the government to do that? stomach now, i want a free market driven. we've got to get to the point that i think peter b-bravo but the very end which is the difference between life safety systems and critical infrastructure where even what would be defined as less than root cause or whatever terminology that you want to use is a serious set of issues that should ring a bell. but i think what you want to be able to get to is where does the market fall short from there and how do you bridge that gap
between where we are to where we need to be, and i think that's where you have to mix of carrots and sticks. .. some bloggers might have gotten nervous but home depot didn't get nervous enough to take action. so how do you improve the process? some of the worst case and his people were talking a three to four years ago i happening up.
>> it's not the solution but other criminal justice major, criminal justice majors, we love they. you can actually try to make an informed policy decision. there is not good data on any of this. there are what, 48 different breach notification laws in this country. every state is something different. target come you going to spend the next nine was trying to get you have to do what and when as opposed to taking it energy, resources and fixing the problem. i'm an advocate of natural -- national breach law. it will have all kinds of problems and special interest but we did uniform sets of data we can now start collating and finding trends. i was a big believer that the market was going to solve this problem. i can look at speeches from 15 years ago where the market is going to save the day. what it turns out his people by product based on futures. it's impossible to look it to pieces and say this is more
secure and that's less secure. you can see this as twice as many feature. probably think it's twice as many bugs. people don't buy unless features. thereby i'm more features. we were thinking interest companies will come and save the day. just like it forces us to build better automobiles to get lower rates. insurance companies would get a low rate to the web, microsoft or somebody. that doesn't happen because you can't build actuarial tables because there's not good data to the next thing is we are now, don't think left we have is regulation. that's a really scary roll the dice proposition. i wish the market did in which insurance did it. we are running out of options. >> this actually connects back to the last side. there has been some great things that the executive branch has done, but it can only go so far. it can't write or, -- write and
pass laws. we have kind of an argument but roughly we've not had major cybersecurity legislation since the iphone came out. iphone 1. that's a gap, and so i'm a fan of what played out with creating standards. i would argue they did a good job of reaching out to private industry, collaborative, but at the end of the day standards is something that the best companies will surpass. the average company will meet and the bad company or unable company will not meet. i look at this room right now. there are these things that are kind of paint exit signs over all the doorways, and they are there not because the builder here was exceptionally nice. it was because at the end of the day, there was loftier.
this is not just in terms of things like notification but you've mentioned in the question, he made the parallel between target and goodness, home depot was recently hit. there's a fascinating illustration of the power of the law, which is how you were effected by the home depot hit depended on your nationality. same company, same breach, your experience depended on whether you shop at the home depot in buffalo, new york, versus home depot in toronto. because intended to the have chip and p.i.n. and pretty much none of the canadian customers were effected by it were as the american customers were affected by. what i'm getting at is kind of an agreement, or some so much the marketplace can do on its own. at some point government, legislation has to play a role. that's been absent. >> when the biggest gap in legislation, multiple bills out
there is to facilitate the sharing of information to you have public public to ensure information be shared across and between all our 9/11 issues. you've got public-private, you've got private private. i lean a little more in the role of more active defense where companies can take a little more proactive steps, not taking down servers in beijing or wherever else but to collect forensics information that can be shared. right now that is the big impediment to what you get to the facilitation of information sharing, once you get to some of the liability exemption, only if they're doing what they need to be doing to they need to meet that bar. the tread to framework i'm a big supporter of but it is really a plan to plan. eisenhower said in preparation for battle i have found plans to be useless but plans to be indispensable. it's not going to be the instead. but if you do get to that point then you can have other levers
that i think ultimately it is to the point we are getting at. >> we have time for one last question. does anybody have a question that can be answered in two minutes? you don't? that figures. i have one, which is, this is maybe in a lightning round, 30-second response. >> the mclaughlin group. go, go. >> don't know what we're talking about. >> here it is. in the lame-duck session coming up, is there opportunity for some kind of cybersecurity legislation to go forward? what have you been hearing? do you think that might actually happen? and failing that, how does it look next year? >> i'll go first. i'm happy that finally the executive branch gave authority to teach us to actually scan of the executive government facilities for vulnerability.
dhs is going to have authority for.gov, and they can even scan and their little more about what's going on in the government from reading private sector researchers scanning the government. there such a big disconnect on authorities and capabilities. so i'm happy that we don't need legislation for that. let's get dhs in some of these other federal agencies taking care of their own business, and they don't need their own legislation for the. i think we can stomach lots of progress like the continuous diagnostic monitoring. on a big fan of the because that will force changes down the road. i think there's a lot of good things happening, but i don't think we can sit back and say without legislation, at least in legislation. >> three quick things. one, because it's been delayed so long, it's become almost like a logjam. second, you've got snowed in
effect -- snowden affected the issues of that are connecting over and i believe unless that will slow down. and 30 more broadly, while i which was the other way, it's always a safe bet to bet against congressional action and energy. >> right. fairpoint. >> a pessimist is an optimist with experience. i'm somewhat optimistic. i wouldn't hold my breath because with all been rendered this road a number of times but at least you have bicameral he similar bills your so feinstein, chambliss, gillibrand with her bill to incent information sharing. they're not trying to boil the ocean and cover everything anymore. they do have discrete bills. on the house side aligns with the rogers, ruppersberger bill.
and then you've got the house homeland committee bill which also is not a separate bill altogether. so your staff and members of chile working across jurisdictions. that rarely happens in congress. i always say there are three parties, republicans, democrats, and appropriators. the reality is now you're starting to see their work across the chambers and across parties. so would i bet on it? absolute and not what i'm not a gambler but at least there is some momentum. >> thank you very much, frank. i'd like to thank all of you for attending this conference today, talking about one of the most challenging policy areas facing our nation. central door security and prosperity in the 21st century. and i'm optimistic after hearing what i've heard today that we're moving in the right direction. i would like to also thank our partner, "christian science monitor," and northrop grumman for making this possible. please join me in thanking this
>> and tonight live on c-span at eight eastern in new hampshire's senate debate between scott brown an independent democrat jeanne shaheen. it's hosted by the new england cable network. here's some of the ads running in that race. >> i'm jeanne shaheen and i approve this message. >> scott brown says, i'm pro-choice. but that's not have the votes. scott brown sponsored a bill so employers could deny women insurance coverage for birth control. >> i can't believe scott brown supports limit access to birth control. >> no wonder antichoice groups in massachusetts endorsed scott brown. brown. >> i don't trust scott brown. >> give me some dignity me say
that senator sheen is running an ad calling into support. i believe women should have access to contraception. after six years of voting with president obama, senator sheen has resorted to a smear campaign. senator shaheen knows better. the people of new hampshire deserve better. i'm scott brown and i approve this message. >> i jeanne sheehan and i approve this message. >> to big oil companies are the most profitable on the planet. scott brown voted to give them more than 20 billion in taxpayer subsidies. >> this guy is not for us. >> i don't trust scott brown for all minute. >> big oil gave scott brown thousands of dollars within days of his boat. >> and no big oil is spending millions to getting back to washington. scott brown is in a for scott brown. nobody else. and not a new hampshire. no way.
>> oh, a. i know what you're thinking to another and. hear me out. senator jean sheen says she put you first, but she votes with obama 99% of the time. 99%. that's for more spending, more debt. obamacare? come on. we had to put up with a bum for two more years but we can fire change enough. let's fire jean sheen, okay? here's your video. >> anand a descendent of georgia governor debate between nathan deal who is seeking his fourth term, democratic charter jason carter an independent challenger andrew hunt. "the cook political report" list this race as leans republican. jason carter is the grandson of former president jimmy carter. this was held in atlanta, georgia, and is about one hour. ♪
♪ >> the 2014 atlanta press club loudermilk young debate series brought to you live from georgia public broadcasting. the race for governor. try for giving everyone. i'm brenda wood, anchor for 11 alive news and linda. would like to welcome you and our live studio audience to the atlantic press club, loudermilk young debate series a raging from the status of georgia public broadcasting in atlanta. this is the debate between the candidates for georgia's governor. let's meet the candidates. they are in alphabetical order jason carter who is represented to the 42nd senate district in the georgia state legislature since 2010. incumbent nathan deal has been the governor of georgia since 2011. and andrew hunt is the founder and former ceo of a nanotechnology company. let's meet our panel as. jim galloway writes political insider, a political column for
the editor will constitution. christopher king is a reporter with cbs 46 and 11. and sandra parrish is a reporter for dubya x. be a radio covering political and legislative days. this debate will consist of three rounds and for more information on the rules please visit atlanta press club.org. let's get started. in the first round each panelist will pose a question to one candidate. sandra parrish commuted the first question for nathan deal. >> mr. deal, with cdc putting george in the spotlight and the outbreak with ebola, today you sign an executive order to great and ebola response team. tell us exactly what that will entail that it doesn't georgia have a sufficiently funded public and private health care network in place to handle and ebola outbreak? deal: yes. i did issue an executive order and we will be having the first meeting of an ebola response team. it will consist of both public
and private individuals, including emory university, their staff that has expertise in dealing with it. it will involve all of those agencies of our state. it will involve rural hospitals and others who may be first responders that might be associated with responding and identifying so it is potentially infected with the virus. i believe we do have the resources that are available in that we need additional resources we will try to make sure that those are available. we take this seriously. it is something that we want to be prepared for big we don't have control over travel restrictions. we have identified the counties in our state were individuals from the three primary countries are located that have come here. we are making arrangements for the travel season during the christmas holidays to identify people such as students who may be going on to their home countries. we believe we will be prepared for customer king, it is your turn now to ask a question of
mr. hunt. carter: you said you don't want to increase the minimum wage but you don't want to encourage the grace of more low-paying jobs. you want to establish a plan for the state to reverse employers for a federal payroll tax on every higher paid more than $11 an hour. will that end up costing more money? one which is raise the minimum wage. hunt: weld unit have a system of freedom where there's a maximum liberty and that so many to have is a free enterprise system where the ways that people do business are regulated and directed towards the way of maximum productivity. but we need to have more jobs that bring people out of poverty. we have one of the highest poverty rates in the nation. we need high-paying jobs and full-time jobs. to be people having to work part-time jobs. and are not making ends meet. we have had a decrease of $1500 in the last four years of the minimum, of the average middle-class citizen in our state. we need to stop that and have
higher paying jobs. in my program will bring the. we will go to less than 5% on the planet from one of the highest unemployment states in the nation. we have to stop this. we have to correct it and we need a strong plan that will do. mine is an aggressive and strong plan that will get the job done. >> moderator: jim galloway, you ask jason carter a question. >> mr. carper, we first arrived in the state senate to champion the idea of a 140,000-dollar family eligibility cap for the hope scholarship last january. you don't let the vexing that you are backing away from that idea, that an income tax was too blunt an instrument. you said the same thing earlier this month of taken a few hits for it. my question simply is, should any kind of means testing be applied to the hope scholarship? if so, how would it work? if i thank you for your question, jim. before we begin, i just want to take one moment to say that anyone is have worked on the
campaign those are quickly the campaign becomes a family. and i recognize that the deal campaign suffered a great loss this weekend just want to take a moment to acknowledge matt burgess and send condolences to his family and my prayers are with both his family and governor deal's team. with respect to the hope scholarship, jim, i have on everyday of my time against the state senate against the governor's cut. those cuts were deep. the impact of the middle-class. today there are 80,000 fewer hope recipients than they were when the governor started. i believe those cuts were wrong. i thought against an entity believe we must make sure that we are maximizing the number of students who were able to afford college. that's a we get the kind of economy that we want and that's how we get the kind of people that are prosperous and moving forward that we want. >> moderator: that concludes the first round of this debate. the candidates will not ask one question to each of their
opponents. each will have 30 seconds to ask the question, 60 seconds to respond come and 30 seconds for a rebuttal. so we begin with andrew hunt. your question for jason carter. hunt: no, i get to choose white house, right? cut for you to ask a question of jason carter. all right, i'm told in later you do in fact get to choose. hunt: thank you. mr. deal, sadly a bottom 10 list. what we have is the highest unemployment rate, the high poverty in the nation, poor education, expensive health care, nightlights income tax. you promise to cut the income tax. the most corrupt the state, high incarceration rates, $1500 decrease in the income. terrible atlanta traffic. you promise limited government that tax revenues have actually increased by $2 billion during your term. you beautifully gloss over this,
but can you acknowledge these facts? deal: i reject your facts but i think they're factually incorrect. first of all family income, household income has increased in this state every year since i've been governor. we have been in the top 10 states in terms of job creation for the last two years. last year we were number six in the nation in terms of total new jobs. about 88,000 new jobs. we are seeing our state grow. we have grown in population by about 180,000 people. we've gone from the 10th largest state to the the 10th largest eighth two the eighth largest state since i've been governor. we have been recognized for the first time in history as the best in the nation in which to do business. we are coming out of this great recession. we have seen revenue drop but we are receiving revenues grow. we are almost back to pre-recession levels. they have grown every year under my administration. we believe we set the course in the right direction. we have emphasized education, made reforms they're both in the k-12 system level as well as in
our technical schools and our colleges and universities. we played with set a pattern that is important for the future of our state. >> moderator: mr. hunt, your rebuttal. hunt: that was a very, very smooth and that's the way you would expect a lower to be able to answer a question. we need to take georgia out of these ashes of destruction of that policy and build them back up again. we need to end the reign of attorney and career politicians and our government offices. because this is what we did. we get the smooth over, the paperthin veneer. we need to and we have to make a change this year. we need to do it. you can do it. tell other people. hunt for hunt on the ballot. >> moderator: you don't get a pass because you still have to have a question for jason carter. hunt: okay. well, mr. carter, once again i will come to the education policy and back to the realm of where we have the issue that you want to bring back our
employment and our state to education. it takes many, many years of people to graduate, and many years to change of the teachers and the quality of the teachers like you propose. i like some of the things that is not going to get back to the job creation that we need to represent our state. we are the highest unemployment and we have to turn this around. and five thank you, dr. hunt. i do believe that to build a foundation for an economy and for a vibrant jobs grading system, we do have to begin with education as the foundation. it allows us to prosperous people. our state has every ingredient that it needs to be an absolute powerhouse. we've got the educational institutions. we've got global access and/or r airport. we're going to have seen the biggest port on the east coast. with all of those dynamic innovative people in the state, according not just atlanta but a rural georgia, columbus and a gust of throughout the agricultural economy we have
every ingredient that we need to be a powerhouse. there is no excuse for us given those ingredients to be at the bottom as you point out. we are dead last in unemployment, dead last in how fast recovery from the recession. if we've invest in our people, create jobs to small businesses, innovative and dynamic entrepreneur's, and ensuring we can build durable jobs in rural georgia including in agricultural economy we will drive this state forward. >> moderator: mr. hunt, 30 seconds for your rebuttal. hunt: i heard you address the overall state of georgia that we need to turn things around, and i agree with you wholeheartedly there, but you didn't point out in anyway how you're going to create jobs through better education in the near term. i really would like to see this plan put out that is so key and important that we must must turn this around. get rid of the poverty cycle that we have in the state it is so ingrained. education is one of the ways to do that, i great. >> moderator: mr. deal, you and ask your question of andrew
hunt. deal: all right. dr. hunt, libertarians are fierce proponents of government spending. in our last major indicated that you would expand medicaid in the state of georgia under obamacare. i understand you've taken some $37 million in private sector grants that are funded by the taxpayers of this country to make sure your business is not going to bankruptcy. how do you reconcile those positions with your libertarian party's position lacks. hunt: thank you. we do need a clear by this make sure everyone understands these very well. first of all, the georgians have paid into the federal system and we're not getting that money back. it's hurting our economy and one of the reasons why we are hurting it's only different ways. two i agree with obama to? know. do i want of state rights in the tenth amendment be the rules? yes. we need to get back to that. that is how and where we need to run our country. but as a republic the each state have these programs themselves.
and we do with your tax dollars back. we have to bring the back into the system. these grants that my company received are the same way. these were competitive grants. not through cronyism, no lobbying but they were under scientific merit and review and are considered honor badges. my company received many honor badges of high technical capability, and i have 50 pounds and a ph.d from georgia tech, and also worked in the area antimicrobials cut for mr. deal, we bottled. deal: well, you know, dr. hunt wants to extend medicaid. he wants to expand and atomic program. it is entitlement programs that are killing our country. you are wrong. we are not paying that money. we are borrowing that money primarily from the chinese and her children and grandchildren are going to one day have to repay it. i believe have to be responsible about the way we spend taxpayer dollars, and i see that you have benefited from taxpayer-funded
grants and i understand your position on that. it just doesn't seem to me to reconcile itself with being a libertarian. >> moderator: mr. deal, your question for jason carter. deal: senator carter, you've never had a leadership position in the senate or the delegation from the counterpart of. you have never had a leadership position in private business. you have never passed a bill, never offered an amendment to many of the bills you are now criticizing. why should georgians vote for you with this absolute lack of leadership experience? carter: governor connie lund i both know what you said is not true. there are 21 bipartisan bills that have led the on them that you sign into law. at the same time the attacks on my leadership, frankly, are just an attempt i believe to pass the buck. because the bottom line, what we need in this a state as a governor who will stand up and say i take responsibility for the middle class, for the fact
that $1447 has been taken out of the average family pockets during your administration. that is a number that is real and that you disputed but the facts will show out that everyone knows when you travel the state the middle class is falling behind our education system has been undermined. we have 9000 fewer teachers than we have several years ago, and a vision for the future's most important thing that we can provide. the state has languished long enough with innovation. >> moderator: attribute, your rebuttal. deal: senator carter has been in the states and as long as i've been the governor of the state. his colleagues in the best have never given him a position of leadership. even within his own democratic caucus within the state senate or within his delegation. he has been on bills but is never been the primary author of a single piece of legislation that has ever passed. he criticizes budgets that he voted for. he has never offered an amendment to change anything
about the way we funded the operations of this state. carter: me i replied? therefore no, we must keep moving. jason carter, it is now your turn to an jason hunt the question terrified you are a scientist and yard the coverage report of appointed a new task force on ebola. what are your thoughts on the governor's comments with respect to ebola last week? hunt: that's a very good one. the governor actually quoted that water kills ebola. we cannot have our leaders making such statements and then not retracting them ever. i never saw a public retraction. that is better i actually have many years of working in antimicrobials and i find it very fact that we have a leadership that would go in that direction. he is appointing a tasking but he does have the capability or knowledge to understand which people have the right ways and the right ways of doing it. i can be here on be with the
people addressing these issues. i can talk to them and understand exactly programs they want to put forward. we will address it correctly and will put up the right warnings at the right time and the right safety measures for our state to be protected. carter: mr. carter. -- i can just put up will put the most important thing that we can do with respect to handling to ebola crisis is to each other public health system and our leaders have credibility. i have been and lived in africa at times during outbreaks and it is important more than anything else that our top leadership is communicate effectively, top leadership is spreading appropriate information added to believe that it was inappropriate last week for the company to say that water she was ebola. >> moderator: mr. carter, your question for nathan deal. carter: governor daugaard we asked hi supporters of these but with like to ask you and we got a frankly giant number of questions as you might expect.
this question comes to my friend robert who is here, and here it is. it's football season. we wouldn't stand for it if our football team was getting beaten by tennessee, florida, mississippi, louisiana, south carolina and, frankly, the entire rest of the country. and being dead last with respect to unemployment being, having -- >> you're out of time. please get your question. carter: the question is, that would certainly cost jobs. why shouldn't cost you yours? deal: first of all you don't understand unemployment numbers are outliers. the most important critical area is happened jobs have been created. we have great more jobs than all of the state you've made. and we continue to grow. last year we were six in the nation in terms of total new jobs. we are on the right track. i think that what you're subleasing is going to to six that have the relevant. even the bureau of labor
statistics hasn't indicated that gotten so much the from people all across this country that they are finally going to adjust their model. we have seen them for the last three years estimate georgia's unemployment rate on the high side for three consecutive years. the only problem is that they don't adjust it into the actual do an audit in february the following year. i have every confidence that next february and will come back and say that our unemployment rate was not the figure that they have quoted. because it doesn't reconcile it and major economist all across this country are saying it just is not a commonsense. >> moderator: mr. carter, your rebuttal. carter: i don't believe this is about statistics, governor. i think the governor cannot blame the statisticians for the fact that the middle class in the state is hurting. or the fact there are 380,000 georgians are being left behind. i believe we can't wait until next february to begin generating jobs, to begin bringing our state back to where it should be. we have every ingredient we need
to be a powerhouse in this state and this governor has led us to the bottom in so many ways that it is inappropriate, and i know with a true vision that supports the middle class, we can move our state forward. >> moderator: we will make one exception here in our rounds going to give nathan deal and opportunity for a rebuttal on the ebola question, and comment that was made. deal: we have a very confident -- operative into the, doctor brendan fitzgerald who's the head of our department of health. department of health. she admitted she misinformed as she greets me initially that she's a very competent individual, unlike what we're missing at the federal level of somebody being called an ebola czar. she has put together a comprehensive effort to fight ebola. she is talking with hospitals in making sure the first responders know exactly what they're working with and what they're going to encounter. i believe i shall responsible leadership to bring all of the
public and private sectors together to make sure our state is protected transform that is enough. we must move on. if you're just joining us now come this is a debate between the candidates for georgia's governor. we will now go to our third and final round. in this round i will ask the questions a bit of by the public and then turned to our panelists for questions to follow. we will continue this cycle into we run out of time. our first constituent question comes from allenwood. i'm going to ask all of the candidates is your take a moment to answer the question. we'll give you 60 seconds to answer each and so i will begin with mr. hunt and we can go down the line. this is a question for each of you to enter. if elected, will you fight for marriage equality and medical cannabis? or we continue to support the status quo? mr. hunt. hunt: i will be a strong
proponent of medical cannabis. they can cure so many things. it is a natural remedy. it has fewer side effects than the expensive drugs that we are putting people on that are so addictive. this is a less addictive, better cure for so many different areas including our veterans that are suffering from ptsd. we need to take care of our veterans dearly. on the same-sex marriage area, this is an area that is going to be determined by the court, happening right now, and i wouldn't want to waste taxpayer money trying to change laws and rules in this area when they're going that way. personally, i believe government should be fully out of the marriage business and each organization should decide in their own eyes who they believe is worthy of being married or not. that's the way it was in the founding of our country and that's the kind of roots we need to return back to the smaller, less rules and regulations. that when we maximize our freedoms that we should have. >> moderator: mr. deal. deal: in 2004 when the people of
this state voted for a constitutional amendment that said that marriage was between a man and a woman, i took an oath of office when i took the governorship to support and uphold the constitution and the loss of this state and that is except what i intend to do. with regard to medical cannabis, when the journalists and was unable to come to an agreement entered an executive order which has put us very far ahead of many other states. we have now cooperated to our department at the georgia regent university a custom with a private company does doing clinical trials. we're going to be approved by the food and drug administration for georgia to our university to conduct clinical trials here in her own state. i have sympathy for these families and these individuals who are seeing a children suffering with seizures, and i will work with the genoa summit as i have done to make sure we have a good a solid answer. i am not going to be in a position of seeing georgia become like colorado. >> moderator: mr. carter.
carter: i have spent time with the parents of children who suffer from seizure disorders, and last year when we voted in the senate to allow those law-abiding citizens and those folks who care so much about their children to have access to that cannabis oil treatment, i was proud. i was disappointed that the gridlock and the legislature prevented it from taking place and would've liked to see better leadership at that time. i do support back and will continue to do so and would gladly signed legislation to that effect as governor. with respect to marriage, i believe in both religious liberty and in personal freedom, and i don't believe that anyone should tell a church or a religious organization who can be married. but i do believe that the government when it comes to doling out rights should do it equally. i also take an oath to the constitution of the state of georgia and the united states
and would surely continue to uphold the constitution as long as remains valid under the law. >> moderator: to our panelists, jim galloway, your turn to ask a question. >> mr. deal, mr. carter has -- personal finances three or four years as governor. specifically cited the sale of yourself which business the company that owns $73.8 million in state taxes. during the republican primary you agree to make your income tax returns available. you have yet to do so. do you still intend to do so? if so, when? let me add, i believe mr. gore has made the same commitment and has not made his income taxes available. deal: i intend to make them available as i've been previously when i ran for governor. for many years under the bill at that that time. let me just say i've seen senator carter's ad about my business. that is a typical illustration of the way that some liberals look at private enterprise. they have disdain for people like me and my partner some 25
years ago invested by borrowing against our assets to make a business start. we worked with the basis for over two decades. meeting weekly petrol, something senator carter has never done. i do not agree with the proposition that the government made our business successful. i turned it over to a blind trust when i became governor, a national company want to buy a business and we agreed to sell. now, unlike the liberal context where thousands of other georgians have built businesses from scratch just like i have compiled what to tell you, it is not a government that made us successful but it was those of us who worked to make her companies successful. >> moderator: mr. carter, rebuttal 105 this exact business is that this is the governor deal was using his position in congress to make better. he was run out of congress to avoid and ethics can put it is a pattern. it is a practice. that taxpayers have been on the hook announce for governor deals scandals repeatedly but, in
fact, there are $3 million that are coming out of our pockets to deal with this governors cover up of prior issues. i will tell you, when i think about these facts that we see, i think we did all more of a response than liberal name-calling. >> moderator: all right. sandra parrish . deal: may i respond? first of all, with regard to any taxes that may be owed by the company that bought our business, i have instructed the department of revenue to let a neutral judge make a determination of that and i pledge we will collect every cent that they go if, in fact, they do owe any taxes. the allegation allegations abous charges is something that senator carter has continued to relate to. he i do know that over two years ago the ethics commission heard the charges against me and they dismissed them as being of no merit whatsoever, just as the charge against him has been dismissed as well try for we are out of time on that question. sandra parrish to your question.
>> two years ago georgia ranked 50th in an ethics investigation by the center for public integrity. since the legislation passed the ethics reform package last year you think that ranking would be higher now? deal: i would hope that it would. we have not only reform the ethics rules, especially tightening them down and i think it is greatly improved our status and are state in terms of ratings. we have in my administration for almost $250,000 of new money into the ethics commission to be able to update their computer system, to give them the authority to promote rules and regulations. it should not take anybody two and a half years to determine that a case against a candidate has no valid merit whatsoever, as was the case with me. i want to make sure that we have reforms. that's why i've recommended that we make reforms next year to include all three branches of government, making equal appointments to an ethics commission. the debate about the miss
functioning of the commission has been primarily the inability of staff to coordinate their activities. if we have independent members of the commission who do not vote on charges that come against individuals from the government that has appointed them, we will remove any doubt about any conflict try for we are out of time on the question. another question from ashley mcdonald. in regards, and this is for all of you, we will start with jason carter and go down the line. in regards to the a formal health care, how do you plan to middle-class families -- affordable health care act, who make too much money to offer for assistance yet who struggle trying to pay for health care? mr. carter. carter: right of the federal government has $36 billion of our money, and the governor has fought for the federal government to keep that money. that doesn't make sense for our people but it does make sense
for the 600,000 georgians who have healthy but it's not for the governor's decision to it does make sense for our economy. there are 35,000 jobs that would, in our health care sector if we took the federal dollars that are ours, georgia gets its fair share, and brought here today were. that's looking for solutions looks like. the governor has played washington politics repeat alee on this issue. he has decided to bring his experience in congress here and say the most important thing is partisanship and i believe we have to solve problems. our rural hospitals are in a crisis. there are five that have closed and there are 16 more data on the verge of bankruptcy. we must charge forward on this issue, and as governor i will do that. looking for answers and ensuring that georgia gets its fair share and helps the to, and helps those middle-class families. >> moderator: mr. deal. deal: first of all i think you should know the fact that georgia taxpayers on average spend about 200 -- excuse me,
$2300 a year in supporting the current medicaid program at both the state and federal level. if we expand it it will cost about $2.5 billion over the next 10 years. isapi don't think we can afford to do that. it's not money that we have paid them. some of it may be the most of is money the federal government doesn't have and they're having to borrow it. we have paid some $351.5 million in this year's budget just to come into compliance at the state level with the affordable care act. that is $351.5 million we could've put in things like education. because we already had our people injured. it's going to cost even more in the years to come. i think we have to be responsible with taxpayers money. i think was to make sure we do what i did with an executive order with regard to rural hospitals. allow them to cut back to the services they can provide and not lose their certificate of need should they decide --
>> moderator: out of time. mr. hunt. hunt: we have a major health crisis. most people can't afford to get quality service. the problem is the rules and regulations that are there. number one, we need tort reform. we must get down the legal cost that is costing our medical providers so much, and neither of the attorneys that running against the will bring that. i will make sure that we get tort reform and reduced about 20% of our medical cost just do this one out and alone. we must also have a free enterprise system where people are forced to buy insurance but instead can go in direct relationship with doctors or medical costs and other systems that have been proven in other states to reduce the cost in half or even 60% reductions in cost, and give better service. that's what we need is free enterprise-based solutions, less regulation, and definitely tighten down on the lawyers that are actually in your insurance policy but every time you buy
health insurance, you're paying a lawyer. >> moderator: about to our panel. i believe i skipped christopher king so we will pick up there. >> my question would you jobs and unemployment. each of the candidates have mentioned, talked about it a little bit before and this question is for all of the candidates. of course, as you mentioned, georgia banks six in the nation for job growth according to the bls. on its size unemployment rate in the country. the same state labor department put the jobless rate at the 7.9%. the federal bureau of labor statistics puts it at a .1% but either way that still much higher than the national average of the 6.2%. what would you do to reduce unemployment and create not just low-paying jobs well-paying jobs? mr. hunt? hunt: i would invoke my job powerhouse program. we can drive within my term if you're like me into office unemployment rates less than 5%. that's what we need.
a better job environment, a higher debate. there's work of addition. also it would be done in such a way that only full-time jobs paying $11 an hour or more are reported. what is it? it for every town, every city. we have to of the highest poverty cities in all nation in our state. they don't get any of the current programs to go to these major multibillion dollar corporations that could force lobbying and to pay for the tens of millions of ads that you see my opponents running. you can make a choice on what you want. do you want to get into this or do you want a real system that is going to address jobs quickly and vastly? a free enterprise-based system where the government doesn't choose the winners and losers any longer. you get to buy do you get your services from and we will create jobs. >> moderator: jim galloway. >> this question is for all three gentlemen and we will start with mr. hunt because he's a georgia tech man here in 20033
legislature passed a measure permitting public universities to pursue civil damages against individual and ties amateur athletes to violate ncaa rules. should the state of georgia take the next step and criminalize this activity? hunt: that's an excellent question i guess what to look at his make we're doing too many regulations in here. maybe you should all the money to come to these impoverished players that are suffering so much under the current way. let's rethink the whole thing. let's make it that we have the maximum liberty and opportunity for people. let's have it that they can make a reasonable amount of money where their not having to do things that would violate it because they can't even get by. we need to have a that all the people have the right way forward. we need to cleanup our sports but we need to have a system that is fair to the player as well as it is to the college. the colleges are getting all the money. the glory of stating that everything else. the donors are pouring a lot of money into the football
programs. i'd like to see them put it into education. i would like to inspire that because that's what and put our money is in education. inhabit that the players can get the money and then we will have a much better system. >> moderator: mr. deal. deal: perhaps we should see more enforcement of the law we currently have. that appears not to be effective. i think more importantly than anything else of note is we need to see some fairness in the ncaa. we need to see players being treated equally for the same kinds of accusations. the state of georgia at the university of georgia i think is trying to play by the rules but we are seeing other stadiums across the country playing individuals who may be have done the very same thing that one of our players is alleged to do. it is a series problem. i think it requires everybody be treated fairly and equitably, including the players and the families as well as the schools. this is certainly something to think we ar have to be very cautious about legislating on. this has always been within the
province of the private sector, those who regulate athletic activities in our colleges and universities. but i do believe with enough public pressure we can change their attitude to make sure that our people, including todd gurley, our trade with the same degree of fairness that other athletes are being treated. >> moderator: mr. carper. carter: i think of a lot of georgia fans up here, at least to. the short answer to the question is yes. i think that the folks that are out there preying on these athletes and making money off of them should be punished. but i will do what i think about when we look at and consider what's happening at university of georgia. it's that with a divide our public institutions of higher education so much over the last soviet it's unbelievable. if the cost of college in the state is rising faster than in any other state but one. in fact, that's just another way which georgia has reached the bottom. i believe we have to ensure
we're making education our first priority every single year, not just in an election year. i believe if we do that we can't control the cost of college, expand the hope scholarship to ensure that middle-class families are able to maximize their access to college. right now i think we will look at university of georgia and how excited we are about our football team, we also want to be excited about the dynamic nature of a institution of higher education and the ability and a for to go spent this question is for mr. carter. the mayor of houston asked pastors to turn over sermons in light of an advantage commission policy passed by this is government. that's been amended to all speeches rather than sermons but do you support at the discrimination laws over the right of free speech? carter: oddly free speech is important or ugly the government cannot legislate within that spectrum. i do believe that there are certain types of hate crimes that rise to the level of being more than just speech. as a general matter know, i
would not support that type of legislation that would restrict people's rights to freedom of speech. it's one of the fundamental core values we have and i believe we can strike the appropriate balance with respect to hate crimes. otherwise i think we have to allow people to move forward and to be free to speak as they wish. >> moderator: would you want your response from the other candidates? >> sure. governor deal. deal: i think that's one thing senator carter and i can probably agree on. i think it to be very, very careful when you start intruding in first amendment free speech rights. to try to legislate in that arena is awfully dangerous because you never know what the unintended consequences might be. i don't support anyone using the right of free speech to do damage or harm to any individual. but it is not the products of government to try to regulate and contain that, except when you cry fire in a crowded theater, which our courts have said that's when you've crossed the line.
those kinds of extreme situations that jeopardize the health and safety of other individuals, those have generally been the guidelines within which we have allowed statutory intervention to occur. and i believe that it's a pretty good example of where we need to draw the line. line. we don't sell the need to react to every particular popular opinion that comes along and try to embody it in legislation. >> moderator: mr. hunt. hunt: i will have to say we had two excellent answers so far. but what i'm going to address that is that i am a strong constitutionalist, the way it was written and not the way the living document that they reinterpret over the years. so i am very strong on the first amendment, but all of the amendments. we are having our liberties and rights taken from us. every law that is passed is taking more of our freedoms away from us. we have too many lawmakers and we need more law erasers. that's law erasers. that so many dead in our country and that's when the debt in our state. if i am governor what i would
like to see is if you are going to pass a new law like to see where you sit down enacted scratch off three over all the books the same time that new one comes on. that's the way will have the maximum freedom and liberty. yes, we don't want to hurt other people and that's the edge of liberty. when you are inflicting danger or harm on other people. so that is a line we have to maintain. >> moderator: thank you. christopher king spin this is for all the candidates on k-12 education. the state budget for k-12 education is about $8 billion, an increase of about half a billion but according to the georgia budget and policy institute, the state would need at least another $700 million to fully fund the school to account or increase welcome teacher raises and beat the states on education standards. would you increase funding for the schools, and by how much? start with mr. deal. deal: first of all let me point out that the quality basic education formula that's been in place since 1985 has never been fully funded.
now, what i've done in my for budgets is to appropriate a greater percentage of general state revenue for k-12 education than any governor since karl sanders was governor back in the early 60s. that is in 50 years. this year, the largest single appropriation, a as our economy would rebound, was in this years budget, some five and 35 million additional dollars. my colleague, senator carter, saw fit to vote against that. i have also indicated that i will put in place individuals who will come together and study our fun as well as our delivery mechanisms. it is time we revisited qbe and make it more appropriate allocated to the needs of today's education system. we have already brought on board one of the best local school superintendents. he is working in the office of planning and budget under my office and that is his primary function. we will continue that. >> moderator: mr. carter.
carter: cover deal has to look back to the 1960s to justify his education policy. we need to fund our education system for this century, not last century. what you have seen in our state is the worst underfunding and the worst contraction of public education in the history of our state. teachers are suffering and students are suffering, and our state economy, the very foundation of it which is built on the education system is crumbling. that's how we end up with the kind of skill gaps we have now. there are 9000 fewer teachers today than there were when the governor took over. two-thirds of her school districts have had to cut instructional days. we are not doing the job at the state level that we need to be. and not only that but when the governors budgets have passed, because of his cuts, 91 school districts have raised their property taxes under his government to we are getting less education and more taxes, and nobody wants that. i have a plan to change the way we did education budget but it would create a separate budget
for the politician in the lead to try for mr. deal, 30 seconds. deal: first of all, if you really do support public education you should've voted for the largest increase in k-12 funding in seven years. this years budget which he voted against. the statistic that you cite are enacted. i'm not reaching back to the '60s. i'm saying that as a proportion of state revenue we have had the four highest years of the percentage since any governor some 50 years ago. you say you support education but your votes don't support that the you were in a distinct minority in voting against this budget. every democrat in the house voted for it. you were one of only five in the senate, two-thirds of the on democrat colleagues in the senate voted for this budget. >> moderator: mr. carter, this is the last rebuttal. carter: governor deal, you know and i know that my record in the senate is clear on public education funding.
you have decided this year by $750 million. i could not vote for the. the budgeting process is utterly broken and i'm the only candidate in this race who has a plan to fix it. the bottom line is this. you can so statistics out over and over again, but walk into local schools at home, walked to the schools at 26 kids in the kindergarten class. ask a teacher. no one in this state believes we are properly fund education. but i don't think governor deal believes it. >> moderator: mr. hunt. hunt: our education system is completely broken. the u.s. spends more per student on education than any other nation in the world, yet we rank 25th. we need to look at how these better judges are doing get less expensively than us. we don't have increase the budget. we have to do better. we have to redo it. we need school choice. we need educational savings accounts where the money follows the child. take the state and settlement of the parents choose what's best
for the education of the child. let's have it out with a variety of school types. let's have it that we blended in schools, stem, science, technology, engineering and mathematical schools, vocational schools. let's bring it into early childhood education and let's support hope all the way through the end. if there's one way to end the cycle of poverty we have, it's education. we are not taking a series we. some people said about more charter schools but ambitious budget bill and put 250,000 increase in the budget versus hundreds of millions for the other schools. >> moderator: a question from the public again, and this is picking up on the question previous asked by our panelist christopher king on implement. this is directed specifically to mr. deal. this is from mrs. haywood. in the previous debate i was taken aback by your comment, people who work are better than people who don't work. because there are so many in our
state still looking for jobs. as a student at the university of georgia, i worry about a job after graduation. while your ads parade of georgia being the number one state to do business, it is hard to ignore georgia also leads the nation in its rate of unemployment. it is safe to say you inherited a failing economy, and so did the president and 49 other governors. why isn't georgia under your leadership lacking behind -- lagging behind the rest of the nation in its rate of unemployment? ..