tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN January 24, 2014 8:00am-9:31am EST
and join the conversation on social media sites. >> new technology will allow people to talk to each other, automotive and technology executives discuss the new vehicles that will change transportation and require a changes in regulations. .. he's being sort of driving shotgun over things for about four years now, and the couple
weeks left. it's been a very interesting four years, kind of a revolution in what's going on in the automobile interest. i like to please welcome david strickland. [applause] >> thank you so much. this is a superstar panel. i need to stay longer and learn something here. as a number of you will be aware i will be stepping down from my post as a minister in a couple of weeks. but i wanted sure a couple of perspectives are equipped. i've been told five minutes and i will keep the five. we first began our work during my tenure on destruction, starting really in earnest in 2009, 2010. i remembered my decision to make sure that it came to cbs as part of the regular auto show tour.
it has become the fourth major auto show in america. shapiro and the team at cea and manufactures a recognize the car companies are no longer just car companies do your technology companies. it is a convergence. as possibilities, opportunities, also greater risk. as my valedictory if you will in terms of where we are and what we've seen and where we will go, i'm incredibly happy to see that so many partners are not talking to each other which wasn't the case not that long ago, where you have wireless providers and handheld manufacturers and automakers and system platform providers like androids, the windows, actually now in
strategic partnership in figuring out ways forward. and speaking of which -- (202) 585-388i wishi could said. that's all good things. but i will tell you that from the part of the agency nhtsa as a safety regular and there are other regulatory bodies that are going to be part of this space in partnership with nhtsa, fcc, ftc. we have only one chance to get this right. so i implore all of you to continue on your path of not only communicating at the level you are talking right now but, frankly, building a broader basis of how we attack the problems we see in the future of connectivity, and its connectivity writ large,
vehicle-to-vehicle that we're working on at the agency level, connecting the driver to the vehicle, connecting the driver to the outside world, if you can integrate all these things safe bet but i will take the thing that will disrupt all of us, our hope in vehicle-to-vehicle communications, our push for technology at nhtsa through significant seems initiative where we are focusing on increasing don't use looking at trying to eliminate drunk driving by having to the correctness whether you're over the limit. and reducing human error which is part of 90% of all traffic crashes. the hope of reducing traffic fatalities to 10,000 people, 5000 people is all based on this technological hope, but we won't attain if we don't address privacy and data and all those components which people hold do. we are in a sensitive time in america with regard to these
issues. the power of everything we are relying on and safety systems and connections will not be attained if consumers don't trust the work of the regulators or the work of industry. so my last official request as nhtsa administrator at the consumer electronics show is we have to do more. we have to be better, and we have to do it faster. the agency is in a position right now where i've always said we sort of all the notion of what wayne gretzky's dad said to him and years of being a young hockey player. don't go to where the puck is. you got to go with the puck is going. nhtsa has to do that, and we will. and i have a very strong team that will continue that work. but everybody in this room has a responsibility. we are going to hold these goals. we have to make sure we have the trust of the american people for all these wonderful innovations that you see on the floor. that is my hope and that is my
wish but i want to thank everybody that is in this room and all the partners over the past four years that are frankly made this the most dynamic time that probably any nhtsa administrator has ever had in office, and i want to say that you guys are truly have the ability to do god's work. to keep talking, keep playing, keep innovating, keep growing and please keep safety as the number one priority. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you very much. that was very interesting. so we're going to talk about privacy only today. i've been coming to this show out of las vegas for almost 25 years now, technology shows. i've heard innovation revolution until i was deaf from hearing it. but honestly, this year we are really seeing the start of something that will revolutionize travel, safety. david alluded to the idea of
zero fatalities that people realistically talk about now. but there's a long road to get there. so that is sort of what are starting what is going to be. i'm just going to very quickly run through our folks on the panel here and then get off because we don't have a lot of time and i'm not going to be able to do it. we have hilary cain from toyota, kevin link from verizon. fila kozlowski from gartner group and mike stanton for some association of global automakers. andrew brown, delphi. and mitch bainwol from the alliance of automobile manufacturers. seth davis first in talking about it is, and it's a policy kind of discussion, is how can anybody in the legislature come in a, government, keep up with the changes we see? we've already seen many of us got brand-new things, how can you legislate and protect the
public, help manufacturers, et cetera, and can we do that? we'll start off, if you want to start right off. or weekend -- >> that's fine. so the question is how can we keep up or how can the administration keep up with what's changing in the telematic world or the automotive world. have to have a lot of people i guess. full employment act for the government because its changing dramatically. and i think a lot of the change is good and there's lot of innovation. the cars are getting smarter. yes, the cars are connected. i think to his last point about safety, it's at the core of the connected vehicle is safety. the technology that's been around for 18 years that will notify in case of an accident. if you think about how many accidents are reported from the vehicle, from the technology, it's out there. so how do they keep up? i think it's things like this but i think there's initiatives
where we as an industry need to start coming together. i'm not a believer that we need to throw policy at everything that happens in the car because policy often will stymie innovation. and i think the technology that got us to these safer cars, these connected cars, the technology that allows us to have hands-free calling in cars, technology that connects you to your dealer or the diagnostic, that same technology can be used to solve some of these things that are think nhtsa is worth about. i agree with him 100% we need to come together as an industry and we need all the players at the table to figure out how to use the same technology. >> andrew, you. >> yes. first of all want to conflict administrator strickland, because i think he, he like no other administrator before him actually reached out to the industry to try to understand the nature of the technology, to try to understand what could be
possible. not that it needed to be in regulation but to stretch your thinking about the possibility. and i think he was are receptive to that. from that point going forward, i think not just nhtsa but all government administrations or government agencies that work in this space need to reach out to industry, reach out to the consumer electronics sector, reach out to academia, because there's a lot of players in this space. all of us have a piece of the equation and it needs to be more collaborative. it's not like the old days where we are all in our separate corners and then we came out fighting. what must happen is that we work together to achieve the best solution for everyone concerned,
industry, government and ultimately the consumer. >> i would like to echo what andrew is said about david. he was an incredibly accessible guy who, and is, -- it's not his obituary here. [laughter] but kind, thoughtful and a real love with technology that came through his work. david, when he spoke, said the problem of connectivity, and i might quibble with him a little bit. i think the issue here is the opportunity. we have this dawn of great new age in safety that connectivity is going to usher in. the question is, is the pace of change consistent with the nature of government in the modern world? i think the answer is, unfortunately maybe not. the regulatory process takes two to three years to implement. every show at ces you see
dramatic new innovation so yeah, we always talk about innovation but the innovation is finding its way into it marketplace now and quickly and it's really profound. i was just at a show a bit ago and i went to the mercedes display, and there's the wearable watch that commands the interface. the integrated system. that's pretty striking. as a metaphor and a don't say this too big a nhtsa because i think nhtsa does the best it can do with really dedicated public servants, but the destruction guidelines that came out earlier this year were visual manual dealing with 2% of the distraction problem. didn't deal with the cell phone. didn't deal with wearable watches or voice or gesture. i think that is a perfect metaphor for the challenger because it's not relevant to the problem that is today.
the way you do with that is by government serving a very different role. instead of government being a regulator or government i think should be a facilitator of conversations between authors players on the spam and in this room. so the carriers and the manufactures and the software guys, and auto manufacturer. we've got to find way to pull together so we can produce a product in a car that is safer everybody. we are used to dealing with nhtsa. these other elements of this new ecosystem we are not and we have to deal with them. >> i would also like to add, the point that there needs to be more collaboration, cooperation among the first players in the field is right. i also think we need to emphasize there needs to be collaboration and cooperation among those that are doing the regulating. i think we see that more pronounced perhaps in the last few months, last year or so where we are talking about privacy, but by the federal trade commission.
we are talking of spectrum policy can talk about the federal king occasions commission and batangas with nhtsa and its traditional area. i'm not sure there's -- i would argue perhaps there's not enough cooperation and collaboration among those regulars as well. i think we've seen it play out most profound perhaps in the vehicle-to-vehicle communications space of late. >> that is certainly my questions, does the fcc work with nhtsa, because we are integrating all these different services. coming back to your original idea was, so would it help with studies like the 3000 vehicles in ann arbor and doing that the to the study? does that help the government understand what's going on? is a summit like that or she would be doing something like in cap in europe where we don't force the standard but we put out a star rating for your car and so if you don't have coalition of one's own that car that gets a one star rather than five. are thos the different kinds of approaches to the?
>> i definitely think that's a big piece of it and i would like to introduce another level of this which is ultimately the consumer. every turn if something does work or doesn't work because all of you might reject some of the stuff if it doesn't do what it's supposed to do. i believe the government plays a huge role in really facilitating innovation. not necessary stifling. while maybe everybody in the room knows how to do it right and not that anybody in danger, there are other approaches, ma particular from tech companies, not automotive conference that certainly would put you at risk. i think that's what government has to play a role but old billy it's the market force that will determine what sticks and what doesn't. i believe this will notion of driver distraction which has been huge topic and continues to be one actually will force the automotive industry to become so much more innovative and have you serve up information and
enable consumers to consume the content, share it with other people. that this will help to bring innovation to the market place but it wouldn't any of these guidelines in place, none of that would happen. i think you will see the industry shifting their mindset. if you plant the right seeds and create a structure for people to think of what needs to happen in order t to excite consumers stil allows and of the digital lifestyle in the vehicle being represented, that's when it gets interesting. that has to be the role of the government. that includes doing some of these demonstrations and testing. >> you mentioned the safety launched in ann arbor which i think is a great example of how government should engage. it's a great demonstration. i think it's an excellent model in terms of engaging or facilitating the oems, the tier one's, the academics, other players who have technologies
that telecommunications communities, because its intent to try to understand the technology. not only what's possible but what's doable and what's affordable. and to understand some of the flaws, some of the benefits, and to try to understand that in the context of data. data that will help us assess what's truly feasible and how workable are those solutions. i mean, if you just about for a moment and think about this, i mean, any new technology for connected vehicle that you put into the marketplace at best it's going to go on 15, 16 million vehicles here in the united states and maybe 70 million vehicles globally. but here in the united states you have, what, 330 million vehicles already and yet you're
only producing 15 points six or 16 new vehicles -- 15 points 6 million new vehicles feature. so regulators need to understand that legislating something instantaneously doesn't mean you fix the problem. in fact, you may cause a bigger problem and you may increase the cost of the technology. so it's much better, ma in my mind, to try to work through and facilitate with the players to understand really what is possible. >> could you do that with vehicle-to-vehicle? i start looking at this and thinking well, if i'm a major automaker could introduce it in my vehicles by myself? it wouldn't work across the board, but it might be the tip of the iceberg to start to get that technology out there, or is it something that this just a way, it's too dangerous, i could
come up to an intersection and get a false alert, so you can't do it on your own? >> it's also a very lonely discussion you would have. only your car has a nobody else's. that's where the government has to regulate. but again, consumers will determine if this technology will work or not because if they find value in it in the car manufacturers will put the technology into their cars. is to left of regulation but i always come back to these aspects, the consumer side, market side, plus technology. the government can create innovation by mandating some of those aspects until it's proven that it can improve life our productivity. that's going to be the main motivation for a lot of these technologies. those two aspects are benefits that we can realize. considering all of us don't -- any country in the world wants road infrastructure means where to get smarter by using the existing infrastructure. that alone i think will motivate these technologies. >> i think you need to
distinguish dtv from driver assist or self-driving cars. because in one case shoving infrastructure component that is a real role in government. we alluded to, but did not get this question a discussion with the fcc. this is a tricky proposition. on the one hand, we are faced with an opportunity to have massive gains in fatality rate's that connectivity would usher in. it requires a major investment a part of government, in major part on manufacturers. major embrace on the part of consumers but it also requires a certain spectrum potentially. and this is where the organization of government in the modern world doesn't fit. the dna of the fcc is not necessarily auto safety. it's a wi-fi. it's the internet dna. it's a very, very different perspective on life and so this is a bit of a challenge for us.
>> am i still on? it's a huge problem. i thought i was cut off. [laughter] it is a huge problem, and i quite honest, we expected that david maybe would make some kind of announcement on spectrum and making sure that the spectrum is available. but the payoff if you look at it the in reducing fatalities and injuries by 80%. just a little what you just is force reducing gasoline, as far as reducing time that is wasted. it's incredible. the challenge is great. you look at it and we talk to all of our members about it, and the question is are you ready to make investment? what is that investment? is that stand behind your product for 20 years on v2v and what does that mean? was liability. that's where to go back to the original question and it was first raised me in the '90s with the nets administrator who
said that the technology is moving so fast we can't keep up with it. and the problem that the manufacturer has is they run with the technology and to the regulation is something that is different than what they have invested in. that's exposure that they have. so the way we been dealing with this issue is by having very good communications with not only the nets administrators and others, we are regulated bumper-to-bumper. with seven or eight agencies at all regulating how we build our product. we need to have that collaboration. and i think i forgot who said early on but back when nixon was greater in the '60s it was like, hell no, we don't want to go as automakers. that's changed dramatically and data change first to be able to come up with a more cooperative arrangement so we could solve the problem together. goes no one has all the answers. >> quick thought on the v2v and
v2i but i think the business case come the magnitude of lives that could be saved and the property damage that could be -- i think it's pretty clear. but to get to that point we've got to get the consumer and the driver base comfortable with the concept of the connected vehicle were data will be shared and vehicles are going to talk to the vehicles and that's not a small task. it's no surprise that even today with all the technology, a small, small share of cars are connected with got to get the consumer pays comfortable with the idea of the connected car, what the benefits are, what the value is a for we can jump to the v2i and v2v. so i think there's some steps we need to take before we get to the point. that is trying to get greater adoption of the connected car, trying to get the consumer pays comfortable with the benefits of the connected car and get greater adoption. that greater adoption includes addressing things like privacy but there are steps ahead of
the. >> that's one of my questions, too often during these discussions is engineers talk about there is a gaping factor and we all think we are great drivers but we are not all great drivers. so is that the dating back to? we have to retrain drivers or is it incremental? >> we have to take steps. i just got a new car. it was this big, but every page said see your dvd. i don't have it is but there is an education process. with to make these things intuitive. but i think especially with the next generation buyer they're not going to need it this day. first of all they won't read it. making it. they grew up in the connected
lifestyle. as generations go by, i think there's an expectation of connectedness. i think there's an understanding of technology that many of us didn't grow up with but we got to start, start now because we can't just go straight into v2v and hope the world is a better place. >> at the same time it's interesting, you're right, we have to educate more consumers on the benefits that these technologies represent the consumers get that fairly quickly and we just completed another study with consumers in the u.s., u.s. vehicle owners but we asked them, described to them whatever they represent. already today 25% of his consumer sector want to get that in my next vehicle because of the benefits. 25% is a huge number for technology that people haven't even experienced yet. consumers are willing to accept this because a lot of them are influenced a how to use technology and other aspects of
their life. the cell phones, tablets are influencing people with regard to what else can technology do for the we have to emphasize what that means in automotive context but at the same time consumers are opening up to this. that's one of the fundamental driving forces for the adoption and interest in these technologies because consumers are ready to embrace it. one more stuff i want to share with you. from that same study we did we asked about self-driving cars. that's a technology that most of us have not experienced. if you ever get a chance to do that, do it because it's amazing. there's a 30-second rule for myself for the first time you slip -- you step in one of those cars, it's comfortable, that's cool. i can imagine what i can do now that it dries. i had been a homeowner two years ago when i was in the google google where someone was cutting us off and the car really reacted very smoothly. i could never have done this. i love driving but that moment i
realized almost i had to do my eyes the machine can be better than me. a lot of customers that's what happens but in the study we did 38% of u.s. consumers say they want to get self driving vehicle functionality in the next vehicle. 38%. >> it's interesting, we need to realize first of all that we have the convergence of two very dynamic sets of issues. one is autonomy. the other is connectivity. the connectivity sets of issues are being driven quite a bit by the smart phone and consumer electronic devices that we all want to use and stay connected. on the other hand, we have this desire to be autonomous because what we've seen from the google
google. but quite honestly with kind of been on a path to your of automating generally mechanical functions on the vehicle for several years. but all of a sudden these two very dynamic sets of issues have accelerated the pace. the converging in the same place on the vehicle. and what is happening is you have a lot of entities now saying how do i react to that? that isn't my traditional sort of scope. and so now they are charged with how to deal with the spectrum issue, whether it's fcc and nhtsa in terms of providing the bandwidth per dsr see, et cetera. how do i deal with 4g, et cetera, et cetera. whatever we want -- they can't
help it they can go to the blue screen of death. it's got to operate seamlessly, flawlessly. yet on the other hand, we want to be responsive to our customers, the ultimate consumer that's going to purchase those features and function. all of that is possible but we need to do it in such a way that is effective and it's affordable and we truly can benefit from it. we don't want to have our technologies legislated or mandated that drives the solutions that ultimately won't and out. because we won't survive one failure. we want it to be done right. and second grade the industry needs the opportunity to continue to innovate so that we get proven solutions that work and we understand the ramifications. so we are on that pathway, but in the meantime we have got the smartphone. we've got the tablets.
now we have eye watches and wearable devices. all those things that present new challenges to us. >> one of the things i would like to offer up though is at least in the v2v and v2i space we're talking right now, i would argue a lot of the revelatory uncertainty that exists right now is actually stifling innovation. on a couple of fronts. as an automaker, probably not going to deploy this technology into vehicles right now if we don't have certain of what's going to be come the end result with the spectrum discussion that is under debate. very different if we're forced to share the spectrum. our technology might look different than it would if with certainty that we have that spectrum for our use and only are used. so there's uncertainty there. there's uncertainty about whether nhtsa is going to mandate this technology or encouraged this technology or do nothing about this technology and about this technology and
that's a very different proposition for auto manufacture based on what they decide to do. if it's mandated, all become it's mandated and we're all in. if it's not can we as a come have to make a decision are going to deploy it on our own bumper toyota vehicles will only communicate with toyota vehicles? hope that the technology stays the way i it is so in other companies come online that in our car to all talking to each other. right now i think all the other companies are frozen until we have certainly from the fcc, certainly from it's about what this landscape is going to look like going forward. >> it strikes me again in europe they are looking not vehicle-to-vehicle but getting those cells standards that you get information further down the road. what we think of as probated but they are not there yet. but also strikes me in talking with all the automakers, the our handful of major automakers that if two or three decided to do it that would sort of established a de facto standard. whatever anybody said after
that. in terms of the percentage is, i do nothing but it is going to do it but there's a lot of bartok i guess about that. at any rate that someone want to add something before i ask anything else? all right. there's been underlying talk, scuttlebutt i just before the show and during the show about sort of who controls the dashboard and what happens when you want to make those connections at the moment. a lot of rumors about what companies may try to do in terms of taking over the dashboard. whether a certain company with a certain kind of phone is going to make your dashboard look different than it did before. and whether that's really a great idea or not. there's a blackberry effect, while they do that if i don't even know that phone is going to be here in five years, it may be wickedly popular now. and i don't know how open you
want to be about the discussion on how much of that is going on a whether that's just not an issue as far as you're concerned. >> i'm not speaking from an automotive perspective, but it's interesting and your point, if you've read the steve jobs book which i encourage you to do because it's enlightened, there's a section in their about his strategy against the gates strategy of an open technology. in the book he talks about the one energy that is still ripe for an opportunity to own the entire experience is automotive. he's done in his industry, in the apple industry but the one remaining industry is automotive where you can control that experience from end to end and now you've got connected car introduced in a lot of content providers and a lot of suppliers. you start opening the door for somebody else to do exactly as john described, control the dashboard. if you believe in his velocity and look at the success of controlling the ecosystem end to
end, there's a strong argument. boat both models have been successful. to the last question i think there is going to be a point when somebody gives up the dashboard and yields to somebody that provides a great user interface. my kids ask me about all the time, why can't you just pop it in and run the vehicle? at some point there will be that base, but it think that will be a conscious strategy to move away from owning that a springs into the end. my guess is it's probably going to be somebody that needs that brand lift to do that versus somebody that's at the brand parity with one of those providers but that's just my 2 cents of crystal ball. >> i look at this slightly different because i don't think it's about control, it's about influence that you can have over the dashboard. it's really the customer. the connected driver first and then the customer.
that's the last remaining puzzle that would allow them to interact, how to ecosystem interact with every argument mobile sitting in your car. i think going forward, relates to what kevin said, maybe not just auto image will come to the same level like smart phones and other devices, baby the car will become the coolest device out there. think about this, at the end of the day a car does more than just provide you with information. it has a physical mission to a teaching from point a to point b. my smartphone cannot do that. that's the beauty that the vehicle has that no other device platform can match. that's what i believe the automotive industry, that's what the discussion is so important that the automotive industry in two to three product generation will create cars that are so much more innovative, more exciting and involving and cooler than anything else that consumers have seen that eventually this whole idea of
having these tech companies on top and the car compass had to get out of work with them might be turned ran. i believe that you can do this because the car have so much more real estate we can put technology in the much more of a controlled environment. you know exactly someone is driving or sitting in the car. i can get out with my cell phone and you don't know what i'm going to do next. you have a much more captive audience and that's more captivating. i believe the car will become the ultimate mobile device. >> if i can continue dashboard professionals here -- [laughter] nine of the top 20 companies in a recent study, bcg did an analysis and nine of the top 20 were autos. the autos are spending about $100 billion a year on r&d. overwhelming private investment, not public investment. that is producing cool cars. so i think thilo has a right on.
i think this is kind of an undervalue, understanding in our society that the pace of change really is rapid. at the same time there was a study out last week i think it came out where they were talking about the pace of -- this goes to what andrew said about the fleet turnover. they talk about self-driving cars in 2025. we talk about self-driving cars like their here tomorrow at its 220,000 in a marketplace with about 100,000,010 years from now. and 20 are somehow they said 11 or 12 million units sold in a larger base. and roughly a quarter of those in the u.s., roughly a quarter of all cars in the u.s. sold in 20 years.
so on one level this pace of change is slow and gradual because of fleet turnover. on another level it's immediate, and this is the coolness factor where, in today's cars and you can buy a car that is kind of like -- ya adjust will cruise control and functionally and scc which is better than an std. [laughter] i think i will leave it there. [laughter] >> good call i think. i would like to make one comment because i think first of all that is way too conservative. i think you see these technologies being deployed much, much faster. secondly, i think we will see steps of progression to get there. for example, i believe in three years from now, four years from now you'll have cars that are self aware as a first that before they are truly a ton of us are self driving. that means they can interpret what you do as a driver and what
state you're in and look at the surroundings of what happens. and put that all together, analyzed ensure that information can do things automatically for you. that will make it easy for you to go through life. so i think the progression will happen more faster than many of us realize the does that mean all of us finished in about self-driving cars or even driverless cars that i can send off to do my shopping at a donut to go to the grocery store anymore? notebooks that will not happen but you see steps in between the coming very close. it goes back to policy. it's not so much policy, it's much more question about culturally and from a legal perspective we allow these things to happen. there was an interesting discussion today from audi. the question came up as responsible and right away, the edge was the driver which shows you that those legal aspects are publicly the biggest hurdle, not the technology.
>> just make a point on that and i would recommend everybody if i can do go see what bosch is doing a. the dilemmas of how much control the driver will see to the technology is totally unknown. i mean, it sounds great but the number of our members including delphi here, has also been doing a lot of work on this. the question is, is where is joe sixpack? is he willing to pay for it and then the liability issues that associate with? i think technology will happen very quickly but i think consumer acceptance to it is still a very big issue that has to be dealt with. >> as mitch pointed out, if you look at some of these cars now, i have to admit, it's got lanes entering. i know what does. it's got adaptive cruise control. i know does. i take my hands off of it and it follows the highway. i'm not doing anything.
of course if i hit the nick skaar it is of course my fault, but i think that's what i wonder how much of this will come in those incremental steps and then it would just be kind of a natural thing for people to move to the. but actually what you just said reminds me of something else, and that question is, there is some backlash to this whole movement. that backlash looks at airline pilots and says wait a second, when we switched all these systems to automatic systems, look what's starting to happen. pilot falls asleep or something happens in the airplane and all of the sudden we have problems. like, i don't how to teach somebody to drive if the car basically had all these things in it. would we have to retrain them every week? is that something that people are looking at now speak with go back and look at where we started with the regulatory side of things. the industry has a tremendous amount of experience with being regulated on the product.
when it comes to regulate and behavior am a it's another whole ballgame. i spent like six years on mandatory safety belt use laws and it took hundreds of millions of dollars and a concentrated effort for education plus enforcement. today, i'm not sure where that's going to come from. you are going to have to go through the consumer side of it. with a big risk for the manufacture is you do something or by regulation you do something the customer doesn't want to back to the interlock on safety belts in the '70s for those who remember people were cutting their safety belts out because the government mandated we had to put them in and you couldn't start a car unless the actor safety belt on. this is all the other chartered ferry with all the financial risk that is associated with that, that argues for a more gradual rollout. although i think the problem will be the technology is coming so fast the companies have a great deal of risk, and this is what the supplies and regulators to try to get it right the first time with no guarantee.
>> you also have -- talking to earlier you have this regulatory uncertainty out there as well. i would argue over last couple of years we'll talk to those blue in the face but all that there is policy obstacles and challenges that exist. we know what they are. we know there's the liability question. we know what these look like. i think now it's time to turn the conversation to what are the answers to these obstacles and get the ball rolling so that we can start to deploy these technologies. until these questions get answered and we know what the framework looks like that we're going to be living under in the future, we're not going to do anything. >> john, i just want to interject a couple of points but most of our discussions or comments have been around passenger vehicles. i would just like to remind all of us, let's not forget about commercial vehicles. some of those applications may
be more straightforward in the sense that commercial vehicles have professional drivers. they have a very defined route, beginning to end, and it may be a better platform for initially establishing not only connectivity more broadly but also automotive operations. so let's not forget about that opportunity. and then the second comment i would like to make is the fact that we are looking at was immediately in front of us and saying, all right, how are we going to control this invasion of the center stack in the vehicle? i think we need to step back and think about the broader issue. and the broader issue is one of mobility. in in the sense of being connecd to things but more broadly as our society becomes more urbanized, it changes the
context by which we transported cells, we transport goods and it may mean different types of vehicles and platforms which could become a great opportunity for connectivity and autonomy as we move forward in time. if you look at what some of the prognosticators are saying relative to where the future of mobility is headed, we're going to be more urbanized. certainly there are sectors on the east coast and the west coast, even in the midwest, where the expectation is that by 2025 for example, the band between cleveland, detroit and chicago as an example would be more and more urbanized than it is today.
in that context if you take the blinders off and think about in the future what does connectivity mean, what does automation in? >> to my we thinking, i can't imagine letting my vehicle do that. but is that the kind of thing you're thinking of? >> certainly on commercial vehicles. in europe, they have demonstrated road trains. they conclude that project last year, and it was successful. but with respect to our own personal transportation, i mean, we may be willing to accept a transport pod that comes your home, us up at some stage time, takes us to our appointments and comes back and picks us up and then goes off whatever it needs to go. that's a different mode of mobility of transportation. certainly our young people,
given their decline proclivity to want to drive would be more receptive to those kinds of things. we need to think about what the future might mean in terms of what we regard today as transportation. it may be entirely different. so why we are focused on dealing with the issues of connectivity, and i'm not trying to minimize them, we still have big issues there, as well as on autonomy we need to look, keep looking to the future to say all right, how is this going to move from where we are to where we want to be into that future of tomorrow? >> i only have a couple more minutes so you can catch people right after. we can catch some of us right after. [inaudible] >> i would like to let them keep going. in terms of that conductivity, too, part of the expense, the
investment, not all cars have what is an embed modem now. looking for it looks looks like that is exactly what's going to happen. is that part of the waiting to see whether there's a regulation in not wanting to stretch margins, et cetera, or is it just going to happen very quickly the next couple of years anyway and get that kind of connectivity? >> i definitely don't get the connectivity because consumers are asking for. actually one of the very few things how car manufacturer different shooting these days because most consumers differentiate on classic engineering-based features isn't that easy to do anymore. if you're an atheist you can tell the difference between different suspensions and maybe the engine and the responsiveness of acceleration but for the average consumer it doesn't matter. we talked about the younger generation. this is the opportune for the automotive industry to reignite the fascination that comes along with an automobile.
mobility and the mobile used to being -- used to being one thing for most of us here in the august that next-generation it's a different definition of mobility that the car has to fulfill that need as well when forward. the our bigger implications as andrew pointed out. take it further whic which you d about, this whole idea of urbanization that people come to the cities because that's what they were and play and going to have fun, might be influenced by mobility as well buy the car that drives itself. it doesn't matter if i live that close to the city. i could live further away. there are some really big implications of this but the connected vehicle is here to stay. there's no question about this. i anticipate that by the end of this decade, 70-80% of all new vehicles would give the option of being connected in the car because everybody wants to continue their digital lifestyle as soon as you get in the vehicle and not stop it because
it's part of our lives. >> just coming back to this apple question but it's also a question about standards. every manufacturer has a different interface in the carpet you can touch him, and you can't touch of us. some work well with voice commands. some our table with voice commands. there's a lot of noise over the last five years about some kind of standard. is that a nonstarter still in the automotive business, or will that be some coalescing around some kind of, like the guidelines that could become mandatory in 2016? >> can i jump on that one since i was chairman of the technical standard board for the society of automotive engineers? i think the key is that any standard, any guideline, you don't want to legislate the technology. you don't want to say this is the way to do it. i think what we have learned that the industry knows how to
work towards the key standards that are necessary to enable the introduction of innovation in our industry. i think what we need to do is what we've always done and that is to collaborate, work together, find out what the real issues are, established with industry standards and guidelines that allowed to drive the cost down but at the same time to facilitate innovation. because you get the best solutions when we are able to compete against one another. it also allows us to differentiate ourselves based on our brains. and do what's necessary for the area of connectivity is a yes, we need some guidelines, ultimately some standards but that's not something you did it. that's something that he thinks we can work towards, we need to work towards and get some of those fundamental foundational elements established. and that will help us move
forward a bit more faster. >> i think of to differentiate between safety applications and connectivity that are just for fun. so if you talking about where the screen is how long are you going to a just about or how you work voice gestures, i think guidelines make a lot of sense. performance guidelines is the way to go. >> suppose all the navigation systems had to react within two seconds. is somebody going to happen? >> is as reminder for those of you who don't follow the inch as close as we do, is that all of our lobbying we say, tell us what it is you want us to do. don't give us a design standard. don't tell us how to do it. tell us what you want to get accomplished. that then creates that flexibility in competition that become so important to the other thing is that the planning process on your new vehicle,
runs in the good your three years, four years out into the future. the other thing as we talk about this, we always like to see, if it's a regular we know what the regulation requires us to do. it gives us the lead time that we can phase it in over product cycles and over production cycles. and then finally that we have the flexibility to compete with each other to accomplish the objective. >> can i just add to that? regs when it predictable and stable they serve a purpose. i wouldn't want anything we say to be interpreted as anti-regulation. all that said, regulations to take two to three years to produce and the rate of innovation is faster than that. if we want nimble parent policy that makes sense, it does need to be guideline-based and it does need to be multi-sector-based to get out to be the carriers and the software designers and everybody else
together with the automotive is to do stuff. that makes sense for consumers. [inaudible] >> by the time, mike was around when it happened, but by the time they encourage regulation it was basically done in a marketplace. >> so it was already accomplished spin but remember the creation of the technology started years before. and so there was a lot of learning that occurred before you got to that regulation, got to that standard. and so you still need to anticipate that. there's one other factor, and that is we are no longer just a nationally based industry. we are an international global industry. all of the oems and suppliers are global organizations. and to the one thing we cannot afford and the consumer cannot
afford is having different standards, different guidelines in different regions of the world. that only serves to add cost. we want this to be affordable. we also -- it also will add complexity which means you have to have more complex designs which can add some challenging issues. and so while we are focused towards north america, we need to do the same thing on a global basis to assure that we have a set of guidelines and standards that work consistently across the globe. >> to want to add something on top of that? >> i'm fine. >> there are two other issues and with a few more minutes. our member seat belts and i still private people who do not want to put them on, believe it or not. so that still happens.
the texting one is the most obvious one. there's a $150 fine if i'm walking down the street in manhattan and i can count the people driving by of every age. it's not a generational at all. is that something is ever going to help us because it doesn't matter what we do enforcement wise, control the driver? >> this is a perfect example of what people want to get in a car. they want to still be able to communicate with other people. in my eyes lifted to get a solution that would allow you to do something like this in a safe manner, saying you can't do it. it isn't going to cut it for most consumers. unfortunately they have to violate the laws of other people into danger. when we do studies of consumers to help us reject what's going to happen in the future, we know in the u.s. 89% of all vehicle owners are concerned about distracted drivers from using the internet in the car or being on the phone. yet 47% want to use mobile applications while they're
driving on the phone. as long as it's safe to but everybody has a different definition. that's again where technology plays a big role. the law says you have to do what you can typically do when you're inside the vehicle. how we get there, that came up earlier, that is were innovation system. i want the car to be smart enough to differentiate between the driving on the highway and texting persisting at a stoplight or it can do all kinds of other things but the law says no, it's either or. that black and white mentality doesn't work in this context and i think that's were innovation is to set him. maybe the car can send ou text messages automatically or tweet, machine tweets i don't have to do anything like this. >> anybody else? >> i think this goes back to the behavior issue we talked about earlier and i think technology is going to have to solve the issue. look at the young people today and they're constantly in connection. they want to be connected. they're not going to draw the
differentiate and between top and down highway at 60 miles per hour or stopped at a light. then you get to the whole enforcement issue. many of the laws are secondary enforcement which means the police can't stop you for texting even if a policeman pulls up the side by side and you're looking over and sure enough the texting, he can't do anything. that's a real enforcement issue and it also says where is it on the criterion of importance to the policeman? it is really down their little. so i think technology will solve it, i think it's wonderful that the technology is moving so quickly and we have all the connectivity and everybody really enjoys it, but now we have to make sure that the technology takes care of it, plus education and responsibility for individual users. but i don't think that's what the solution is going to be in the long run. >> i close where i kind of started. texting as a perfect metaphor
for the failure of government, not because they are not trying but the rate of innovation. so the nhtsa guidelines don't deal with texting. but the real issue here is texting which is not addressed. the second point that relates to that is how do you do with it. you get the stakeholders in the room. like david suggested, instead of talking about it we go into it and we find ways to use technology to combat a problem. but we can't go through an exercise in prohibition that will fill. we have to find a way to channel it in a safeway. >> that would be getting everybody and all these different halls together to coordinate tablets, iphones, cars, everything. but it's gradually sort of coming together. ..
>> fbi director james comey wildlife deliver the keynote speech for the national sheriff's association. director comey is expected to deliver remarks on the relationship between local law enforcement and federal agencies. this is live coverage on c-span2 this is expected to get underway in just a moment.
>> and we're live this morning here in washington, d.c. for remarks from fbi director james comey. he is the keynote speaker at the national sheriffs association and major county sheriffs association winter conference. director comey is expected to talk about the relationship between local law enforcement and federal agencies. should again get underway in just a moment here. this is live on c-span2.
thank you. please be seated, h. welcome back to our second plenary session. i understand that the committees are working hard and i know they're getting a lot done. thank you and keep up the good work. please note that at the end of this day's session there will be several prizes given away. you must be present to win. i would like to remind everyone that tomorrow evening we'll beholding our closing president's reception to celebrate a successful winter conference. the reception will begin at 6:00 p.m. in the penn avenue terrace on the lobby level. we'll have plenty of good food and refreshments. it's a great way to end your stay here at the nation's capitol and we look forward to seeing you there. now i'm pleased to welcome michael mryon senior public markets verizon solutions. verizon is graciously sponsoring
our conference this beak. thank you, mike. mike manages team of sales, engineering and sales support personnel and is responsible for sales and customer satisfaction for federal, state and local governments. as well as education and public safety customers across the u.s. previously mike was president of the washington-baltimore washington-baltimore-virginia region for verizon wireless. ladies and gentlemen, mike myron [applause] >> thank you, sheriff. what i realized you were from south dakota i knew where the weather had come from this past week. i hope you file right at home. >> i will take the blame. >> as first-responders you understand that close collaboration is critical success and that no single person or organization can meet its mission alone. first-responders rely on resources and actionable information from a variety of sources to meet the challenges that you face on a daily basis.
over the past decade verizon has expanded its footprint both nationally and globally through a series of stratquick invests resulting in unsurpassed collection of technology assets that are helping solve society's biggest challenges and meeting the needs of our customers every day. the verizon 4-g lte network is available in 500 markets covering nearly 305 million people including those served by the lte and rural america partners. verizon and owns and operates one of the world's most connected public internet backbone networks linking communities we serve across the country and around the globe. our acquisitions of terra mark and used tell matics provide a world class cloud data centers and vast portfolio of machine and machine capabilities. so what does that mean to you? verizon is making investment today to create stronger safety
communities. safer communities, excuse me. the creation of a national public safety broadband network is closer to reality than ever before and verizon continues to work with the public safety community, government agencies and our industry pierce to encourage -- peers to encourage development of robust ecosystem of devices and application that is win inner operate on dedicated public safety network and existing commercial verizon lte networks. by 2017 there will be nearly three met work devices for every person on earth. much of this is due to the growing field of machine to machine communications called the internet of things which embeds wireless internet connections into electronics, machine, buildings and transportation systems. from sensors to monitor border control to smart parking meters to fleet and asset management, connected machine capabilities will transform the business of public safety by improving response times and enhancing
situational awareness and thus saving lives. cloud and mobility are ushering in a new era defined by big data and predictive analytic is. today's cloud technologies offer the ability to secure and manage immense troves of data which can be analyzed to identify trends and create actionable data for first-responders. adding mobility to that equation and we can overcome the challenge of getting the right tools and the right information in the hands of the right people like you, reliably, securely, and effectively. during times of crisis the flow of actionable information is paramount and collaboration is critical to success especially in the response to national disasters and other events that impact your local communities. verizon maintains its commitment to ensuring that our communication networks operate reliably when disasters strike. our business continuity and emergency management teams developed longstanding relationships with many of you in the audience.
verizon leverages many of the same tools that your organizations do effectively and efficiently to coordinate emergency response. as we're seeing first-hand the threats facing our communities and nations are increasingly virtual with the perpetrators often far from the shores. on a daily basis the very network that is power our society are subject to attacks. thankfully most of the attacks are stopped before the result of disruption or damage. verizon has a unique vantage point when it comes to analyzing and preventing security breaches in cyberspace, a significant percentage of public internet traffic goes over our networks and we have successfully been able to detect and prevent attempted attacks for those of our customers every day. ultimately the protection of our nation's critical infrastructure everything from our communications networks, power grids, water, and sewer supplies, transportation systems and financial networks will require the collective effort of
public and private sectors. thank you again for the opportunity to address the national sheriffs' association. on behalf of verizon and all of its employees i extend our appreciation for the work that you do every day. through close collaboration we can collectively address the public safety challenges of today by applying the power of technology to create a more secure future. this morning i have the distinct privilege to introduce james b. comey, the recently appointed director of the federal bureau of investigation. on september 4th, 2013, jim comey was sworn in as the 7th director of the fbi. a youngers, new york, native jim attended college of william and mary and university of chicago law school. after law school he returned to new york and joined the u.s. attorney's office for the southern district of new york as an assistant u.s. attorney. there he took on numerous crimes, most notably organized
crime and served as the lead prosecutor in the case of united states versus john gambino. afterward comey became an assistant u.s. attorney in the eastern district of virginia where he prosecuted the high-profile case that followed the 1996 terrorist attack on the u.s. military's khobar towers in saudi arabia. comey returned to new york after 9/11 to become the u.s. attorney for the southern district of new york. at the end of 2003 he was tapped to be the deputy director attorney of the department of justice under the u.s. attorney general john ashcroft. jim left the department of justice in 2005 to serve as general counsel and senior vice president at the defense contractor lockheed martin. five years later he joined bridgewater associates, a connecticut-based investment fund as general counsel and in 2013, became elector in law as senior research scholar and
hearting to fellow and national security law of columbia law school. ladies and gentlemen, it is my honor to present director, james b. comey. [applause] >> thank you so much for that introduction and thank you folks for giving me a chance to visit with you. you're stuck with me. i'm just beginning a 10-year term. so you're going to hear nine more of these talks and i will try to keep them fresh each time but i thought it would make sense for me to talk about three things this morning to introduce myself a bit to you and share with you what i expect from the fbi, what the fbi should expect from me and then last, what you should expect from the fbi. but let me start by telling you how exciting it is to be back among law enforcement. the most rewarding parts of my career have always been when i'm working cases with federal, state or local enforcers. i grew up in a law enforcement
family. one of my heroes is my grandfather, william j. comey. was a young kid, literally kid in sixth grade when his dad was killed in an industrial accident in new york and he was the oldest in his family. so he dropped out of the school in the sixth grade to support his siblings and his mom and he never got to go back to school but what he was old enough he became a patrolman in the youngers, new york, police department and rose over 40 years to lead that department. i have on my wall at fbi headquarters an old newspaper photo of pop, as he was known to me, was going to say perp-walking, but i'm not sure he called it that in 1929, escorting a guy to jail who had been in a shootout with the police. i leave it there was a reminder to me of the legacy that i have inherited. my grandfather was the strong, silent type. tall, quiet, dignified and passionate about the rule of law.
one of the stories i grew up with was from him and my dad telling me about the time that his officers discovered during prohibition the bootleggers were running beer in fire hoses through the sewers of youngkers and into the bronx and my grandfather, at least when i knew him after prohibition enjoyed the occasional beer and he ordered his men to cut the hoses with fire axes because it was the law. right? as much as he might like beer, this is the law. we'll enforce the law. that led to protective detail being around his moment when my father was a kid because the bootleggers were shocked that someone in law enforcement would do that. you're not shocked by that i'm not shocked by that. that is the kind of people we want in law enforcement. that is the kind of person i grew up admiring. that is the person who stares down at me every single day at my desk at fbi headquarters. it is great to be back among you. so what us did the fbi, what are my expectations for the fbi?
i actually spoke to all employees, all 37,000 employees by video on my first morning because i always liked it when a new boss said, here is what my expectations are and i said i'm going to tell them. i spoke to everybody and i said i have five expectations for you and i want to be clear about them. the first is, i expect you will find joy in your work. you do good for a living. no matter what you do in this organization you're part of protecting the innocent, rescuing the most vulnerable. making sure predators don't continue to harm. that is good. you get to do good for a living. if you can't find joy in that and there is something wrong and you need to find a way to get to a place where you can get joy for doing good for a living. surely you're not here for the money. surely you want to be part of work with moral content that should give you great joy. it is something we don't talk about law enough in law enforcement. i want you to find joy in your
work. second, i told them i expect you will work hard. the taxpayers of the united states pay you to protect them and they expect that you will work hard in doing that. now that's easy because you do good for a living and if that doesn't fire you up nothing will but i expect you to work hard as you do that good. third, i said, because you are going to find joy in your work and you're going to work really hard i need you to do a third thing. so my expectation is that you will keep a life. keep that balance, that distance that keeps you healthy in both body and spirit. one of the challenges of law enforcement is, we kind of laugh off or even don't talk about stress and what seeing so much pain does to us and what working so hard does to us and to our relationships. i don't want you to neglect that i need to you look after your bodies. i need you to look after your relationships, for a couple of reasons. it is the right thing to do and second, because i need you. i need you for the fight that we're in.
it is a long, unending fight. i need you hello any in mind, body and spirit to help us protect the innocent and do that good. i said a little part of the speech and i'm sure they teased about behind my back. i have said, look, there are people in your lives called loved ones because somebody is supposed to love them. that is you, right? there is a tendency, especially for those of us who are passionate about the work we do, to think, i got to do this case. i will get back to my mom, my dad, my girlfriend, my boyfriend, my children. i will find time pour them later. there is no later. everybody in this room knows, everybody in the fbi knows, life is short and often very cruel and bad things happen to good people. there is no getting back, right? i have five children and i have known more than most people the joy of feeling, hearing and watching a 2-year-old run across the floor when you come home at the end of the day.
i told my people, do not miss that and so many other great experiences in life. find a way to achieve that balance. love somebody. i said, okay. joy, hard work, find distance in your life, find some way to stay healthy and balanced. fourth, i said i expect that every human being in this organization from the intern to the director will be treated with the exact same amount of dignity and respect. they're all god's creatures and from this distance or up close there is no difference. i will not tolerate people being treated differently by some perception of their station in life. drives me crazy. that doesn't mean you don't accord respect to position. please don't ask me to go out for coffee. please don't listen to the intern if he tries to deploy the hostage rescue team. [laughing] but in terms of our intrinsic worth there is no difference between us and a knowledge of
that should be reflected in the way you deal with every human being in this organization. that is non-negotiatable. it is one of the reasons that i love the organization because that's part of our culture but i insist that it continue. and i said last is, in some ways the hardest expectation because i expect you will protect a great gift you've been given and all of you know this gift. i said that gift is manifested when you stand up for the first time and show your credentials and speak. whether it is in a courtroom or a conference room or a cookout, when you identify yourself as part of this organization and speak, total strangers will believe what you say next and i don't want to burst your bubble but that's not because of you, all right? because they're total strangers to you. that is because of what went before you. that is because of people who over generations built this culture so that you would be believed. they built it by telling the
truth, they built it by making mistakes and admitting them and fixing them. they built it by listening to the voice inside themselves when they felt something wasn't quite right. they built it by honoring the reputation of this great organization. now i think of that as a reservoir, a reservoir of trust and credibility. the challenge of reservoirs is, they take forever to fill and to build but one hole in the dam is going to drain the whole thing. you are a custodian of that reservoir. don't you ever do anything that jeopardize that is gift. you must patrol that reservoir, you must watch that dam, you must constantly ask yourself, am i honoring the gift i've been given? i would love it, i have a son who wants to be an fbi agents who thinks i have ruined it for him now but i would love it if one of my children or their children or their children joins this organization and when they
stand up and identify themselves, they are believed because you protected the gift. all right? because being believed is at the core of everything we do in law enforcement, right? we say what we saw, where we found something, what we heard. we must be believed by people of all stripes else we can't accomplish the good we signed up to do. so i say to these folks, i know that seems easy but that is the most important charge i give you, the most important expectation i have for you because it's all gone unless you protect that reservoir. so i said those are my expectations for all 37,000 employees of the fbi. now what should you expect of me? you should expect the humility to listen. i have known the fbi my whole adult life. done a ton of work with the fbi but i don't know it well enough and i especially don't know the way it has changed in the eight years i've been out of the government to be effective as
your director. you will see me a whole lot, i told my folks, coming around, to ask you, what do you think i should focus on? what are you worried about? what do you think my priorities should be? one thing i learned from a lot of reading especially when i was in the private sector, the best teaching for leaders is, don't roll into an organization asking the question, so what do i want to do? because you whiffle end up doing things that are fun for you or that you get a kick out of or that are consistent with your past experience and you may not do what the organization needs you to do. so the question you should ask i've learned is, what does this place need from me? one of the things the fbi needed from me the moment i walked in the door was for me to focus on the budget, all right? i had no plan to focus on the budget. i get no joy from focusing on the budget but i heard from my folk the moment i walked in, mr. director, you will not believe the impact this is having on us. we are rationing gas.
we're trying to decide whether to go do interview because we may need a interview on thursday and don't want to spend gas money on doing the interview today. so that's crazy. so i focused on the budget right away. we've gotten to a place with congress with grate support adequately funded fbi for this year and i'm hoping next year but more about that later. you should see me coming around with my mouth closed and my ears open asking you, so what would you tell a brand new director the director of fbi at beginning of a 10-year term? what should he worry about? i've been doing that. i've been traveling a ton. i walk around. i'm a fan of snap inpeck shuns and going to see my folks and talking to them. i'm starting to develop, not ready to tell you yet, but developing a picture what are the things i should focus on because i believe as a leader i have only small slice of discretionary time. so i have to take that and focus on a few priorities and be a maniac about being disciplined and revisit that every six
months to make sure i'm using my time not for what i want to do but what the folks need to me to do. i said, that's what you should expect from me as a leader. of course you should expect that i will hold myself accountable to those same five expectations. okay, so that's what you should expect from the fbi. that's what you should expect from me. you should expect the humility to listen from the fbi. you should expect conversation conversations with your sacs wherever you are in the united states where you are asked questions about what do you need from the fbi? because my vision of the fbi, i'm a bit after basketball person for reasons that may be hard to figure out. [laughing] my high school football career lasted three weeks. i got injured three times, this skinny body got injured three times in three weeks. one day i come home from school, my mother drove me home from the doctor and then she disappeared and came back. you quit football.
and i said, no i didn't? as soon as knee is better i go back in there, mom. you quit. i just went and saw the coach. the coach lived in my neighborhood. my mother quit for me. don't say i'm a quitter. my mother is a quitter. [laughing] my football career was very brief but i'm quite a fan of the, i can't find them on tv this time of year, the new york football giants, they are not on tv anymore but i know football pretty well and my vision of the fbi is like a free safety in football. right? we have certain assigned coverages, assigned responsibilities. but most of what we do is try and look forward to the line and see where the primary defense needs us, right? do you need us to come up to play run support? do you need to us drop back? do you need us to cover over the middle? where is the primary defense sitting in front of me need the free safety? because we only have a few
assigned coverages, we have the freedom to roam that field. sometimes we can actually see plays developing that are hard for the line to see. like a reverse. we may see it from our position and help you respond to that. so what i've told my sacs, that is my vision for the fbi. so i want you to have conversations with state, local, tribal law enforcement in your jurisdictions and say, so you have got the primary defensive responsibility. where do you need us? that may be different in new york city and omaha. that may be different all over the country. that is the conversation i expect that you will be having. now you're assigned coverages should be obvious to you. we made a promise to the american people we will do everything in our power to the terrorist attack. that is our priority. i wake up every morning worrying about it. i go to bed every night worrying about it. that is the assigned coverage of this free safety.
nothing is boeing to change that. similarly we're responsible for protecting the nation's secrets. counter intelligence is as assigned coverage of ours and will remain an assigned coverage >> that we use to respond to terrorism, to violent crime, to protect children, all the things that we do, we do best together. one thing i learned traveling around the country, to my troops, something i hadn't expected. you send people to our task forces but you send us your