tv Public Affairs Events CSPAN December 28, 2016 3:45pm-5:46pm EST
available the most advanced new developments in advanced manufacturing and 3-d manufacturing in particular, to the private sector and in particular to the entrepreneurial sector. so i think those are some examples and in general how the laboratories have enhanced, i believe, and played a role and will continue to do so in the future. >> thank you. and i would just add that, you know, one of the things i'm committed going forward in the council is to really deepen the relationship between our labs, our companies and our universities and i know there's some congressional barriers to some of those things, how money is appropriated and things. so that's something we want to work on, but you've brought up manufacturing and of course at georgia tech and under your leadership you were one of the early universities really having major infrastructure and research on manufacturing and
nano technology and the frontiers. craig, i mean, intel has been the innovator in the electronics manufacturing and continues to do so. so let's talk a little bit, you know, from your perspective about the future of that because just looking at our time i want to talk a little bit about that advanced manufacturing enterprise and what it means for our competitiveness, given the automation and all the transformation under way, and then have you all be thinking about what we should be doing for the future, the next 30 years. so, craig, you know, you talked about the cost and the scale and scope of the infrastructure that intel has in, you know, each generation of fab. there is a concern right now that perhaps we don't have enough of the next generation in america. so tell us a little bit about, you know, how critical this manufacturing technology enterprise is to the nation's
competitiveness. >> well, it's critical. i mean, ultimately i think if the u.s. wants to have a healthy economy and growing economy and growing jobs you need manufacturing here in the u.s. i mean, the facebooks and the googles are great, but you don't employ that many people in those companies and you don't -- google is making a few things, but the companies are actually manufacturing and making things and creating jobs are critical. so i think the whole concept of advanced manufacturing -- but i do want to kind of turn the tables on you a little bit. i'd much rather see our national labs spend their moneys on what i believe is the national labs' mandate, which is big science. there's no place other than the livermores and the berkleys and the argonnes that can afford
these huge photon light sources and these things and that's a national resource that everybody can come and use and quite frankly i'd like to see it grow dramatically. today if you want to -- i happen to be on the berkley advisory board -- if you want to upgrade their photon light source, which is critical for pharmaceutical development, chemical reactions, all sorts of things, it's a ten-year plus process to say i want to do this, i want to get the approval of the doe, i want to get my $800 million, $100 million a year to do this. hell, you know, i come from a background where i want to build a $5 billion manufacturing plant it's from greenfield to output in two years and i can't stand to see a $500 million project span ten years.
it's not competitive. it's not the lab's fault, this he got hamstrung by the bureaucracy that exists here in washington, d.c. i'd love to see the labs grow. i'd love to see them grow in what i think is their great capability, which is big science, big computing, big science, stuff that georgia tech can't afford, stanford can't afford because you just can't put those facilities in individual universities. and these guys are a national resource from that standpoint. >> i think you just gave us a great topic for a senate competitiveness caucus session next year to look at that challenge of how to reduce the time to get these large scale big facilities going and implemented in the country. wayne -- >> well, i think one of the examples -- >> you guys just jump? >> -- as it relates to bill's work and others in this room was a high performance computing initiative that was done in
conjunction with the doe and the council, it was a hugely successful endeavor, it created an infrastructure which, in fact, universities can use relatively easily and access the tremendous capability. they really tremendous capabili. they can't afford the systems and all the things that are necessary. it came back to me when i was at the smithsonian. they have 500 ph.d. scientists. people forget about that. they do i'm of work in genomics. i said you are only worried about one. t the smithsonian has direct access to the competing capability and the talent toe help the smithsonian get into and use the facilities it needs
to do this. and you think, well, that's pure science. it's not. 70% of the diseases are coming from nature. zika and all of these diseases. so understanding the genomes of all these other species is critical to the health of these species. it is is insightful for the council and de on o and the national labs to set up a system that works. there is a missing components. i grew up in douglas, georgia. they fortunately have a very public school system because they are committed to it. they win science competitions in the state of georgia. we try to get as many as they can. but there's a gap. there's a gap between all the things as these big organizations and i think universities have lapsed the
responsibility to reach out to help youngsters in the small communities get the education that they need. but the great opportunity with digital printing, for all of this to happen back there in those schools. we're missing a link there, exciting part to reach a part of the population we're not reaching. >> so maybe i'll disappoint you, but you're not going to get an argument from me, anything that you gentlemen have brought up. one of the issues that stands in the way of a better utilizing laboratories and making them more of an engine for innovation and for growth frankly is thehas to do with the regulatory environment that we all live in but that the laboratories as an element of the federal system has to deal with. and i would be interested in the
possibility of that kind of a dialogue going on. i did want to just pick up on when something you talked about this idea of reaching out more and bringing in schools and education. because i think education was a major theme early this morning. it was one that really struck a chord. it is one i think the laboratories can do more of, play more of a role with the council, the other components of the council. we started the last two years hosting, under a presidential initiati initiative, my brothers keepers at the laboratory where the first year we brought in 70 middle school students and over 150 middle school students just last year from the surrounding school districts from san joaquin valley reaching all the way to oakland and san francisco. and watching these students,
many of whom -- well, almost all of whom had never experience the kind of on big science that we could show them. watching them react to that and i have to say the inspiration that just spending a single day at the laboratory watching that sort of thing and becoming aware of it gave me tremendous feeling of hope and the idea that many of these junior high school students who maybe never would have thought of becoming quantitatively adept and going into s.t.e.m. fields, just doing that could have a tremendous impact. think about how much more we could do, how much more of anim pact by coordinating amongst the parts of the council is and i think it would work tremendous things for the laboratories and the missions here. >> from a retiree who raises
cattle and bison in montana coming to talk about innovation is interesting. but i would like for you to take one thing to heart, and that was with what michael crowe said this morning, you have to bring even in the system along. until the average education system in the u.s. is world class, you've got a hell of a job in front of you. and we dance around that. you know, these results showing mediocre results are in the headlines for one day and then they disappear. and nobody picks that up. nobody takes responsibility for it. it is the achilles' heel of this country. we're not going to increase the number of workers of post secondary schooling until we fix the primary and secondary in the u.s. k-12.
it's broken today. they're bright examples, but it's broken. until you get that one fixed, the job of the council is going to be increasingly difficult. >> thank you. you know, our last few minutes here, and of course we heard this morning from jim clifton at gallup the drag on productivity from our education system apart from the social issues and economic issues. that is clearly, one, where we need a whole new type of innovation. and really also i think new relationships between industry, academia and labor, very importantly. but a few other issues. john young last night in our video, i had the wonderful honor and pleasure to go out and interview him in august in silicon valley. one of the things we said, i was sort of laughing, you know, we create the council on competitiveness. we thought it was just going to be around a couple years.
now it's 30 years and obviously sustainable and contributing. what is the next 30 years? is it innovation, sustainability, beyond phaors law. you're moving into 4d printing, genomics. lots of things we could do. at the end of the day, you three leaders have contributed so much. craig, you have talked about our k-12 education. wayne and then i want to ask bill and we'll wrap this up. >> oh. >> now, remember you're king for a day here. positive future. >> i found the discussion about the gdp to be fascinating. it's also in line with an argument in a recent book that argues that, you know, the age of innovation was really basically the same period talked about this morning. over the last 70 years or so,
the u.s. gdp has been -- productivity growth has been stagnant. that's really because the kinds of revolutionary changes like electrification, the automobile, the things that have had incredible impact on people's lives, despite the digitization revolution, the question is what is that thing that is going to have that incredible impact? we've talked about 3d printing, beyond phaors law, all of these innovations that will be important and have impact. what's the next elec tri fication? solving world hunger. moving off the earth. colonizing the moon.
using large scale computing for the biodiversity we're losing every day. these are the kinds of ideas, really big problems that we should be thinking of the next 30 years. this is a real futures looking agenda. and it seems to me that as important as what the council does in looking at what's evolving today, it would be interesting to take a 30-year view of what the impactful things could be. doubling the life expectancy of everybody on earth. >> thank you, bill. >> i think a big challenge certainly for our education in this discussion is access. and we all appreciate those of us on the set here, had we went in, school tuition was low i could go to georgia tech, very small tuition to get my student and be a coop student and pay my
way through. that's not true anymore. there is this great fear of leaving people behind. georgia tech is going to get good students because there are so many applying. but down in another core who are fundamentally just as good as the students up here but can't financially afford their education today. is and that accentuates the problem of people getting left behind and being frustrated about our society. i teach part-time, again, and i'm stunned by how great the students are, how excited they are. they want to be motivated. they want to provide them with the kind of education that gets them excited. and in the technological fields is to help these students broaden their view. i love the bill gates history. and i think as you get into history you learn an awful lot about becoming something bigger for yourself. i think new approaches to education. georgia tech, to its credit,
started the first degree program and master's degree in computer engineering online. the whole degree program. not a course but a whole degree program. and it is enormously successful. 4,000 or 5,000 students are taking this course at half the cost what they would have to pay if they came to georgia tech. i think we have to look at these models and find the best practices and make sure we marry them in a way that inspires and reaches down to the second and third graders so they get inspired and want to learn. it's there, but we really have mismatched ourselves in terms of being able to do that. >> well, i want to thank you all for coming and helping us celebrate our 30th anniversary. but very importantly, sharing your story. these three gentlemen have had, and bill continues in his current leadership role to have tremendous impact on our country. i will just close by saying in the beginning of the council there used to be, say, what's
good for america is good for all americans. and i think going forward we need to he reverse this and really think of what's good for all americans is good for america. with that, i want to thank you all for being with us. >> thank you. [ applause ]. >> ladies and gentlemen, please welcome the assistant secretary for energy efficiency and renewable energy, dr. david freeman. >> hi, everybody. thank you very much for that introduction. first off, thank you very much for the council competitiveness, and especially to deborah wynn-smith in particular.
under your leadership, we have been an incredible competitor. the regional dialogues we held across the country were a truly rich way to directly engage with stakeholders, including i think many of the folks i think here in this room. this was a great way to talk about how we can tackle our challenges and unlock our country's leadership in innovation, science, and technology. especially when it comes to manufacturing. nations around the world have their own ways of working towards their competitiveness in manufacturing. of course given the great nation we are, we have our own way, which is using public-private partnerships to expand manufacturing and jobs great
here at home. so on on behalf of the department of energy, i'm really excited that i have the opportunity today to announce the selection is of the lead for our latest manufacturing institute. in fact, the 10th institute in the manufacturing usa initiative. but i'm not going to tell you quite yet. i'm going to leave you in suspense for just a little while longer because i want to talk to you about the natural outcome of innovation. and that is revolution. innovation is at the heart of everything we do in my office at doe. in fact, when it comes to making america more competitive with nations like china, germany, and japan on clean energy, we at the office of energy efficiency and renewable energy, we are the solutions people. our mission is as simple as it
is ambitious, to create and sustain american leadership in the transition to a global, clean energy economy. and really this is a transition that's already under way. as we save money and as we create jobs while changing how we generate and use energy across the country. just think, technology iies lik solar and wind power are rapidly spreading as costs drop 40% to 90% thanks to innovation. and around the world, global investments in clean energy have quadrupled between 2005 and 2015. and i would energy that within the next decade, those investments are going on to reach the trillions when it can comes to the opportunity before us. so to paraphrase the beatles, you you want a revolution, we
are changing the world. it is incredible the pace of change. we face a fundamental question, wh who is going to make them? we have two options. we can see the mantle of manufacturing, to germany, japan, china and others around the world. or we can step up and lead. now, i guess looking around the room you all probably have the exact same answer that president obama has had. step up and lead. and that's exactly what he's done. i think that choice is pretty clear. after all, manufacturing, it plays such a critical role when you play across our economy. this sector supports over 12 million u.s. jobs across the country and contribute the to more than $2 trillion when it
can comes to our gdp. these are well-paying jobs with an average manufacturing worker earning over $80,000 a year. and these jobs, they create incredible domino effects, and the economic policy dispute found for every person employed in manufacturing, another one and a half jobs is created elsewhere across our economy. and that's exactly why we have been working hard for these many, many years to create a lot more of them. because as i have gone around the country and talked to leader after leader in industry and government and around communities, i've seen a growing awareness that if we're going play to win on the global stage, many, many more clean energy technologies need to be made in the usa. and the entire manufacturing
process needs to be here. and whether it's clean energy or not, all of our manufacturing facilities need to get a lot more efficient so they can become a lot more competitive. now, other countries are also making significant investments in the world of clean energy and manufacturing and innovation. germany, japan, singapore, the uk, these are just a few examples of the folks who are working hard to challenge us and to challenge our leadership every single day. we need to do the same. in fact, we need to do more and we need to do it better. that's why president obama launched the manufacturing usa initiative. this effort has been a great partnership. it's brought together industry, academia, other federal agencies including commerce and defense in order to create a growing network of advanced manufacturing institutes.
each one bringing in different technology focus, different ideas, different innovations to enhance our competitiveness and revolutionize manufacturing. now, at the department of energy we have played a key role by standing up institutes and emerging fields in power electronics and advance composites. the goal at the department of energy here is to help manufacturers of all sizes, large and small, to save money, to save energy by adopting new technologies and by providing workers with the skills they need for the manufacturing jobs not just of today but of tomorrow. >> if you look back the four years since this effort has begun, the administration has already committed over $700 million in investments and we have already gotten so much for that investment.
in fact, we have already leveraged more than double that, more than $1.4 billion in private and other nongovernment investments from our partners. because that's what we can do. we can leverage our work into much greater product around the country. in a nation we have grown from 65 members to an entire network that now includes 10 institutes and over 1,300 participants. >> so on that note, i'm going to end the suspense. so today i'm incredibly pleased to make the announcement of our nation's 10th manufacturing usa institute. it's called rapid which stands for the rapid advancement in process intense fiction deployment. i'm happy to announce that the new institute will be led by the
american institute of chemical engineers. they will be serving as key drivers behind the institute's cutting-edge work in modular chemical process intense fiction. common household word. everybody is familiar with that. karen, are you out there somewhere? there she is. all right. so karen is now -- has anim pressive career. she's now moving from industry to tackle this great new challenge to serve as co of the institute and lead this coordinated effort. i would love for you to the stand. i would love for everyone to give them a loud plaza for their great work. [ applause ]. >> that's a lot of folks and
that's just the beginning. because there's over 130 partners across industries that are part of the rapid usa institute. congratulations. incident was a great proposal. i look forward to the amazing work that you're going to do. when we look at this new phfrgz u manufacturing institute, it will have $70 million from partners already in hand. and in just five years, in five years, the institute will be standing on its own, driven by industry and other stakeholders to be completely self sustaining. it's going to focus on new technologies that add up to big savings on the manufacturing floor. from improving energy efficiency and cutting operating costs to reducing waste is and cutting the amount of commitment that's needed.
in the can chemical industry alone, these technologies have the potential to save more than $9 billion in costs every single year. and on on top of that, they can be huge benefits for ava right of other industries, including oil and gas and the pulp and paper industry. what's our end goal with all of this? it's to see the growth of more customized factories. more and more local manufacturing across every corner of of our country. and to make greater use of u.s. feed stocks while training workers in advanced field in the next generation of manufacturing. now, this institute is just the latest example of how the department of energy continues to invest in the manufacturing technologies on of tomorrow. but high performance computing and the next generation machines, 3d printing just to name a few. and we've also seen exciting
steps forward with major new usa manufacturing plants in the works supported by the department of energy, including tesla, who has been doing great work in batteries. and solar city and solar modules. 1366 technologies in solar wafers. i love that there is no debate over l.e.d. and incandescent. l.e.d. is better and cheaper. is and we're making them all across the usa. the u.s. manufacturing sector as a whole has added over 800,000 new jobs since february on of 2010. now, of course that doesn't change the reality that manufacturing has faced challenges and will continue to do so. the of number of our successes
aren't comforting to those who are still hurting. to those folks who have been left behind. yes, we've created many more jobs, for example, in the energy sector than we have lost in recent years. but they aren't the same jobs. they aren't in the same place or employing the same people. so we know that the clean energy revolution, while real and while revving up, still hasn't been felt in every region. at least not yet. and that's why we at the department of energy must continue to act is accelerate our efforts to invest in innovation. innovation that will continue to enhance america's manufacturing competitiveness. innovation that will bring more good jobs. and innovation that will strengthen our economy as the clean energy revolution expands around the u.s. and around the world. and that's why every single one
of us in the room need to help. because this challenge of of ensuring that that revolution is spread across our great nation is way too big for any one person any one sector to do alone. one last quote from the beatles, we all need to come together right now. i know if we work together across industries, across sectors we can create more prosperity ask and many, many more jobs in a much stronger economy. but to do that, we need to face reality of the market where the trends in clean energy are crystal clear. the choice is not whether there will be a clean energy revolution. it's happening. the choice is whether we as nation will continue to lead it.
i encourage all of you to take the opportunities as leaders to keep focused on progress. because i have no doubt in my mind that we can boost u.s. competitiveness across the board in our manufacturing sector and beyond. and we can ensure that the united states leads in the global manufacturing marketplace if, if we continue to innovate and fight to win. thank you. [ applause ]. >> ladies and gentlemen, please welcome chris sweeney and moderating the conversation for mr. steve on the future competitiveness of advanced infrastructure.
>> good morning. in a time of great change in the world in the united states, in the word, it says that the transformation that is going on in electrification, in electricity, in transportation, and in our grid is bigger and more profound than any. and today we're going to try to take that apart. i want to open up right away when we're talk building a transformation of the grid at the grid of the 21st century, which is the mantra that we hear is going to be much different from now, what are we talking about? what is the problem? and what kind of a solution are
we looking for? >> sure. let me tell you where we come from in a very short period. technology is more offing and changing and becoming available faster than it ever has in our industry. up to a couple years ago, we didn't know if your power was on unless you called us. monitoring was very limited. it was based on engineering calculations, line size, load, what the demand would be at peaks. so it was not a very intelligent system. we have put over 7.5 million smart meters on. now we're starting to see how the system operates, the demands of the system, what our customers are looking for. there's a lot more intelligence that we can put on fault detection, fault isolation. but the customers now are
becoming much more engaged in what they want -- how they want to control their energy consumption and how they want to manage the costs. so as the technology becomes available, the customer gets more control, how do we integrate that in maintaining the premise that it has to be reliable, it has to be clean, but it has to be affordable? as we look towards the future, a is significant amount of distributed generation, how do you control the grid with that? there's a potential desire that one neighbor will want to sell solar power to the other. and how do you manage that? energy storage, intelligent operating systems and trades businesses are going to be a big part of the future going forward. >> and we need more electricity, right? 27% more electricity forecast by 2040. >> that's the estimate.
>> peter, do you want to unpack that too? >> yeah. so it is very interesting to see this transformation from the outside. i thought i might warm people up by putting up a slide. if you go back a century, we had a discussion early orrier about, gee, is the disappearance of productivity growth due to the fact that all the big things that were already invented. and it's all being done. beginning with this, what you are looking at is telecommunications and the electric grid in 1915. if you look at the two pictures, one is in new york and the other is in california. it is snowing in new york, and there are horses in california. it looks like they had a vehicle accident. you weren't able to tell which was electric power. if you look forward and click on the slide, you see where that's
gone. in 1915, they were in many ways very similar. you are doing is pushing electrons out in one direction, in one case producing power and in the other, telecommunications. at least for telecommunications everything has changed. there aren't any wires. the information is going around through photons rather than electrons. and there has been an amazing change of that. on the electric grid, it's got bigger. and there have been many changes in that. fundamentally, the mechanism of what we are trying to do has been until recently the same. so a bit of my own history, i used to work for the phone company when it was bell, at&t. the model for telephony, it was
universal service at the lowest possible price. and the assumption was you had a regulated monopoly to deliver just that. it was delivered by cost, by price. whereas everything changed after that. one of the effects is my phone bill is higher than the old model. i get more stuff is the reason i'm happy with that. and the question is that going the same way with energy? and i think it is. and chris has already pointed out that you begin by having smarts on the grid. we're no longer in this central push out where you're regulated by price. you know, there's real value. if you ask is how much are people prepared for energy. six cents a kilowatt hour.
if you two to a rock concert, even's phone is run down. and then there are a business model that people will go out and pay 10 bucks to charge it up. it is a very different model that may emerge with that. >> so, chris, just playing directly off of that, you've established what the problem is in the system and how in some ways it sounds primitive when peter describes it. you have, as a bridge to getting there, you formed a relationship with m.i.t., northwestern, and with argonne deciding you didn't have internally whatever means of intellectually bridging that gap. can you describe what are you lack and what is the relationship all about? >> as a publicly traded company
that provides energy delivery services and energy, there's not a lot of capability or balance sheet space for r&d. so the jewel of our competitiveness going forward is the work that's being done at the national labs and the work that's being done at the universities and how we can support the labs and the universities is a much more efficient model than us being a utility company or a competitive generating company trying to come up with our own bell labs type design. the work that we're trying to do to do, the partnership that we're trying to do, we know the practical on how the system operates. we have some insight into what customers want and what customers at this point are willing to pay. we have a practical knowledge where the deep, three tet ral
knowledge in the labs and universities and how we can help commercialize that in a very affordable way but more expeditious way is what we're looking for with partnerships with the labs and universities. >> the labs are research facilities. it is a think tank operation. formulating what the future looks like. >> that's what we're trying to do. we have to see how this works. so it is certainly not a model where i have this problem, i need a widget, would you please design it and go back. we are really trying to get into a piece of white space and say what actually are the problems. how can you think them through? we can do the that from a theoretical perspective but it wouldn't be very useful if we didn't have a partner to be able
to do that. we don't understand the constraints. we certainly don't understand. indeed, we are a research lab. it's not appropriate of course for us to be doing certain classes of things. but it is is really appropriate for us as part of a national endeavor to bring out competitiveness in the assistant to have very forward thinking companies like excelon to be able to do this. it is more than let's design better widgets. >> let's have a mini think tank here now. of course you only just started. is and so what the future looks like is vague to say the least. but you must have had already some brainstorming. can both of you give some possible scenarios what the world looks like in 2040?
>> well, that's a risky prop decision. the one thing we know is to stay on path. we have to stay educated. we have to stay informed. in relationships like we have at the labs and universities, help inform us. we're trying to define what is the utility of the future. it's another overused phrase. but as i said earlier, the customer desire the, the technology advancements, the capability of our grid getting smarter, the data that we're going to get off the tpwreugrid to get smarter using that. the big picture, there will be much more distributed generation on the system so you will have more solar panels on individual houses and how we operate the system and what the customers want to do with that is something we have to be forward thinking about.
we have to ensure that it is is an equitable process that we go through. we don't see distributed generations serving the industrial load. so if we overcompensate an individual at a house with a solar panel at the cost of the grid to the industrial customer, the commercial customer, or metropolitan area, it would be difficult the. we have to keep a balance on what we think the future can look like, what the technology evolution is and how we are able to keep that affordable energy component going so we can continue to drive competitiveness. >> it's never a good idea to try to predict the future. but there's a few things that may be out there. there are relatively conservative projections of energy use. let me offer a noncorn r
conservative one. while we're getting more efficient at using industry, i.t. is running at 6% of global energy consumption. now, if moores law were to continue, and this is one of the arguments that explains that it won't continue, running with current technology at 10 minus 14 jules per bit, it goes on. by 2040, the whole of the world's energy consumption will be for i.t. that probably won't happen. but it means that, for example, and i think this was referred to the in an earlier point, when we think of high performance computing and the direction that will go and the way it will permeate everything, there will be a model for computing which will change. one possibility is there will be much more computing on the edge of things. so rather than the current model we have where the data is
centralized, you take it here, you put it in the clouds. as i'm pointing out, the cloud is really somewhere. it is in northern finland melting the permafrost. we will have much more intelligent agents doing modeling periphery. so what does that mean for us and how does that connect with the kind of stuff that is happening in this space? in chicago, we're just putting out 500 census called the array of things. these are things which is sit out in the environment. they have cameras on them. they measure gases, whether it's raining, whether there's a dog crossing the street and things like this. but it has a lot of sports at the end of this.
it will call up city hall, there is a flood in the street. you have to pump out the drains. that requires a lot of power. all of this is sitting on light poles. so you begin to see how the need to put in power is not just going to be associated with people or with factories. it's actually going to be associated with autonomous stuff, which is all over the place. and that's one piece of the scenario that we are going through. along with the other things that chris is thinking about, which is how do you integrate renewable onto the grid. how do you balance having wind and solar. and what other technologies do you need in order to get that happen, including electrical storage, which you know about. >> just throwing in exactly where you've left off, let's talk a little bit about politics. in january, we have a very
different administration coming in in the united states with a very different idea about energy, about the environment. and i'm wondering until now, for the last eight years the themes have been sustainable and green and renewable. your decisions are 30 and 40 years in the making. to what degree what we're going to possibly have or the next four and possibly eight years does that change what you're going to do? >> the last over decade has been a frustrating period for our industry. we have environmental policies that are set at a desire to have
a reduction in greenhouse gases and low carbon future. but that targets specific technologies. it doesn't design an outcome. the low carbon future is the dream of the current policies. the energy policy over on the other side does not incorporate the desire or the outcome of the environmental policies. so the way the markets are designed, it's around reliability and it's around affordability. it's not around low carbon. so we have had an issue on predictability on making investments. if you were to go out and build a new nuclear plant today, it would cost you $16 billion. it would have a 60-year life. the dill illusion period during construction is about seven years. it's a huge investment.
it's not something even with our large balance sheet, we could do. and there isn't an energy policy that says go do that. so what we're looking for with whatever administration is a recognition. if you're trying to get to a low carbon future, it can't just be on the back of renewables. you have to come up with in market design that says energy, transportation, agriculture. what is the most economical way to get to that low carbon future. if the new administration changes their mind or changes. policy and the positions at the federal level and leave it to the state level, we'll work it with the states. but our customers in the majority of the states that we operate in have a desire for a low carbon future. the confusion over federal
policy and the confusion of the state policy has got to be what we work out. >> okay. just trying to bring some clarity to what you said. shale gas has been a big driver in the production of co2. this has happened irrespective of anyone's policy. and it has resulted in utilities taking coal-fired plants and often putting gas-fired plants on. so that's a piece of the landscape. are you speaking of nuclear policies that encourage nuclear and the other thing i wanted to ask is low carbon, are you saying that irrespective of on whether the new administration has a goal of an objective of low carbon, that is going to go on anyway? because the states favor it? >> a couple bites there.
the current economics of electric prices -- prices of electricity aren't set by the marginal producer which is a natural gas plant. shale gas revolution that has come on to our industry has greatly reduced the prices of energy. it has made it more competitive in many plants that were the eisenhower era, inefficient or less efficient, thermal transfer and heat rates, can't compete with these low natural gas prices. so there are some environmental rules that took coal plants off and economics that have taken coal plants off. that's good for carbon reduction. gas is 60% of the emissions of a coal plant. it has been good for economic
growth in industry. so there's a positive portion of that in any plant that is in a can competitive market needs to compete against the marginal producer. and if you can't compete against that marginal producer, then you need to be shut down or make the prudent business decision. there's a lot said in that. just having everything on one fuel source is probably not the smartest way to go. so you have to design markets and evolve markets that have fuel diversity. this is not an environmental policy. this is just sound, resilient, to make sure you have a reliable system. a couple years ago, our gas plants, natural gas plants couldn't get gas until 10:00 or 11:00 in the morning because priority for natural gas is hole heating. if you let the pressures go too
low and you allow the pilot lights to go out in the city of new york, it could take a year to relight those things. so there's dynamics around the way the current system works that, yes, natural gas is g. yes, natural gas is competitive. but you need diversion fiction for reliability. that's one thing. on the other side, if you're looking at environmental, we don't know where this administration is going to come down. we have heard some commentary and some retraction or just stated they will be looking at it. the supreme court mandated that the epa is to regulate carbon. now, how that manifests itself, we don't know. but there is a court mandate to do it. we can invest in our systems. we can work within the business models as long as we know there's predictability. like you said, our investments in our utilities are our
investments are 30 to 60-year investments. and understanding you're going to be able to get a return on that investment is very critical. of the next five years, we will invest $25 billion into our six outs. that is a significant investment. half of it is dead on the books is and half of it is shareholder equity that you have to be able to pay the debt and give a return to the equity. with a level of uncertain that we have, that's a hard investment. the one thing i'll tell you, if we're looking at a low carbon future, we have to balance the technologies and the capability of the technologies. we think the future, there's a very bright future for energy storage and energy management systems. and that's our -- that was the cornerstone of our new partnership with the national labs. that's got to be advanced. and we have to help
commercialize that technology. to maintain that in a low carbon environment, you have to have an all of the above strategy. when california shut down two nuclear plants with all the investments made in california, the carbon footprint went up 35%. germany invested millions of dollars. they determined they were going to shut their nuclear fleet down and now they are burning. lignite. there is some of the highest energy costs in the european union based off that design. what we are saying is give us an outcome. where do you want to go? then let the market design how to get there in the most economic way. or give us predictability. if that's not what the nation's policy is about, then we know
how to make investments. we know how to support the long lead investments going forward. >> i'm sorry. >> let me jump in there. the first thing i should point out from the perspective of the labs, we work for the federal government, and therefore the federal government sets the agenda. and we deliver on that. but, you know, you should understand that the balance between sustainability and manufacturing has actually tilted over the past few years. i would argue that what's actually happening in parts of the market now particularly around electrical storage with electric vehicles is that is fast moving into a situation where people choose this because they want. and because they want one of those, the technology need to be there. it isn't just driven i think by regulation or by a view is of the market. you know, another point, to come back to the a historical
public/private partnership goes back to the founding of argonne. it was founded to produce nuclear power, to create all the first generation nuclear reactors, several of which are now operating. and there was a very clear set of public agenda which involved this new technologies in the private industry for the benefit of the country. so when you do have that purposeful policy which sticks for a while, then in fact, it turns out we can work together very well. we didn't of course put nuclear power there because we felt it was low carbon. that wasn't the reason. >> too cheap to meter. >> apparently. >> i wanted to pose the other big thing that is going on, cyber attacks, cyber war. the german intelligence, british intelligence, and u.s. all are
describing cyber attacks as a threat to democracy, to our systems. so what degree is protection against these attacks one of the aspects of this research? >> so partnership between the industry, the national labs, the department of homeland security and the doe is very collaborative right now. very structured. there is a significant focus on what we can do and have to do going forward. it is really one of the best
public/private partnerships we have. >> peter? >> i think i agree. that's a very important link. it is doable. at the moment there's all kind of stuff which is connected to the grid is and to the internet that doesn't have any stewart on it at all. so that's really vulnerable. there is a real i think as you go to more distributed systems to build in a level of resilience which is very different from being complete thely fail safe. but undoubtedly there are threats. there are people going to take advantage of our vulnerability. we are there for the nation's security. that's our job. and that's something we take very seriously. and there is a great partnership with the electrical power. >> we'll have to stop right there. thanks very much to both of you. >> thank you. >> thank you. appreciate it. [ applause ].
>> while congress is on break this week, during primetime, we're showing american history tv programs normally only seen on the weekends. tonight, a look at world war ii. it starts at 8:00 eastern. with spice and codebreakers, followed by the fbi investigation into a nazi spy ring, and world war ii veterans on american resistance in paris and the start of what is now the cia. american history tv primetime tonight here on c-span3. sunday in depth will feature a live discussion on the president is seu of barack obama. we're taking your phone calls, tweets, and facebook questions. our panel includes april ryan, author of "presidency in black and white". up close view of three presidents and race in america. princeton university professor eddie glaude, author of
"democrat cy in black." and david maraniss. watch sunday on book tv, c-span2. >> the presidential inauguration of donald trump is friday, january 20th. c-span will have live coverage of all the day's events and ceremonies. watch live on c-span, c-span.org and listen live on the free c-span radio app. >> defense secretary ashton carter delivered keynote remarks at the center for strategic and
international studies on the future of defense innovation. secretary carter outlined the major areas where innovation is needed. he also discussed specific innovations being developed within the pentagon. this is 50 minutes. >> i'm sorry. we're a little bit delayed because of the traffic. i can give you a 30-minute introduction or 30-second introduction. i've known secretary carter now probably 30 years. i've marvelled at his abilities. there's no one that's better positioned i think to lead the department right now, especially on the question we're doing today. he just came back from a very grueling trip. i'll just tell you right now he's not going to take questions from the floor but i have questions on your behalf. if i don't cover them, yell at me later. with your warm applause, will
you please welcome secretary of defense ash carter. [ applause ]. >> thanks, john, for that introduction. and more important, where did john go? for your many years of service is, many years of friendship to me. wonderful service to our country over so many years and leadership of this great institution. i also want to thank "csi" s for hosting this conference. guys, thanks for holding the fort down last week. but their leadership and hard work in leading the technology investments for us we called the third off set strategy. i'll speak about that. but of course in this speech i also want to speak about an innovation in all of its dimensions, which technological innovation is a piece, and very
important piece. being more innovative to our military and defense department. today we have the finest fighting force the world has no. there's no other military that's stronger, now capable, more experienced and frankly, more innovative. that's why our military edge is second to none. it's a fact every american ought to be proud of. but it's also a fact that our military's excellence isn't a birth right. it's not guaranteed and we can't take it for granted in the 21st century. we have to earn it again and again that's what this is all about, innovating to stay the best. i want to talk to you today about how we're doing o that in some different areas, our technology, our operations, our organization, above all, our
people. right now it's imperative that we do so because we live in a fiercely exiti lly kpets withiv world. competition with other nags, not only with us but also with each other and competition with terrorists and other malifactors who are did group 20 beat if we can if only at one place and one time. technology is an example of such change we're fam with. when i began my own career in physical irks decades ago, most technology of consequence originated in america. and much of that was sponsored by government. especially the department of defense. today, we're still major sponsors but much more technology is commercial.
the technology base is global. other countries have been trying to catch up with the break thrust that for the last several decades have made our military more advanced than any other. much of the frontier is commercial, leading to additional sources of competitive dynamism outside our fyfe walls. against this background, your defense department is kwon fronting a world security environment that's also dramatically different from the last generation and even the generation better that. indeed, the u.s. military is addressing five major unique rammedly involving challenges at this moment. we're investigating russian immigration and coercion especially in europe. we're managing historic change in the asia-pacific.
we're strength inc. our deterrent in the face of north korea's nuclear and missile. we'ring protecting our friends and allies in the middle east. we're accelerating the certain and lasting defeat of isil, destroying it and it's apparent tumor in iraq and syria and every place else it metastasized around the world. at the same time as all this, we're preparing to contend with an uncertain future, ensuring that we continue to be ready for challenges we may not anticipate today. we don't have the luxury of choosing between these challenges. we have to do them all. as the world changes, we'll have to change, too. how to invest, how we fight, how we operate as an organization
and how we atrack and neuroish talent. as we do, we have to be able to move fast, because the advantages we expect to derive from each innovative cycle stowed will not last as plong as they used to. all the commercial global change that has occurred in technology has made repeated and rapid cycles necessary and made high-end tech a lot more successful to kpesz competitors. think about it. the nuclear arms race was theled dosh led any strength. now there are additional barriers of speed and ajiltd. it depends on who can outinnovate faster than everyone else and even change the game. in the area of investment, it's
no longer a matter of just what we buy. nor than ever, it matters how quickly we buy things, whom we buy them from and how we can adapt them and use them in different and innovative ways, all of this to stay ahead of future threats and enemies technologically. that's why i've been so intent not only to plant the seeds for a number of different technologies we think we will determinative, but also to be h more innovative of agility in all aspects of the dod. in each of four areas i along with the chairman and vice chairman of the joint chiefs, the service cheervegs all our excellent combat and commanders and the civilian leadership have
had a lot of help. we've had help from washington think tanks like csis, from our defense labs and energy partners and also from many innovative americans who understand it's imperative and who want in our community now but understand the need of our mission for national security and want to help. all of us have been pushing the pentagon to think outside of you five-sided box and invest aggressively in accuracy. the clear strategic comparative we have to innovate in each area, how we've been innovate active so far and how we need to go forward. i'll start with technology. the strategic imperative to complement technology is well known to that's who have paying attention. nations like russia and china
are trying to close the dog gap with the united states. as i noted, high-hend military technology is diffused. sometimes it becomes available to countries like north korea and iron as well as nonstate actors. our reliance on satellites and the internet has grown, at the same time, creating vuler in abilities our adversaries are eager to exploit. we're pushing the envelope with rea reach. -- robotics, undersea warfare. autonomy, artificial intelligence, machine learning and much, much more. when it comes to using ah taj mid in our weapons systemings, we will always have a human being in decision making about the use of force.
we're making some serious investments here. just to remind you, the latest budget we've proposed, a budget i strongly encourage congress to pass when they return next month, we'll address in technology development in the next year alone. it's more than doubling what apple, intel, and google spent last year combined. this budget marked a strategic turning point for the department of defense. our third offset strategy will sharpen our military edge. we're making these investments because we're not season what or where this offset is going to come from. it could be one area of technology or several. remember, previous offset stroejs where are generational
successes. reflections of a security environment of their eras. were only recognized as such after the fact. today speed and agility are key. the next offset will not look like the previous ones. it may not be traditional strategy at all. that's why we're ceding these investmen -- seeding these. in addition to these critical p investments, it's important to seminoles how dod is innovating technologycally, how we're innovating technologytechnologically. different entities are focused on each. within did defense department, we have dozens of dodd labs and
engineering labs across the country, each one developing technological innovators who work closely with the very innovate difficult defense. they're continuing to do so today across a wide range of krits cal technologies. for example, our new year's eve labs were determining undersea drones in multiple sizes with diverse pay loads, which is important since among others reasons unmanned undersea can priet in mans waters. our army labs are working on gun base defenses. our air force labs are pioneering hardware, software
and systems inspired by the working mechanisms of the human brain which offers the prospect of overcoming currents competing architectures and enabling sue per ority in air, space, and cyberspace. we don't build anything in the pentagon. that's not the american way. the soviet union tried that and it didn't work out very well for them. the today with more technological invasion happening in the commercial sector we need to identify and do business with companies outside of you traditional defense orbits as well as those within and welcome them in to our community. that's why last year i created our defense invasion experimental or dix to help
develop other technologies across the united states and help us more quickly adon't technologies that can help our missions. dix opened last year and we sbe rated 2.0 in may and opened an east coast office in boston and established an outpost in austin, texas. one important area where dix does work is transforming how we use state based tools to provide critical situational awareness to forces around the world. it also adds resilience to our national space architecture. meanwhile under the guidance of the strategic capabilities office or sc orvegsco, we're wo
give new roles and game changing capabilities to confound opponents. i developed sco when i was secretary of dwenls. i lifted the vail on several projects we're investing in such as dearsenal plane, a new anti-ship capability for the sm-6 missile and swarming drones in the sea and in the air. this technology took a large step forward just this week. you'll be hearing more about that in the months to come. a prominent theme of sc o's works is creating uj expected wa ways. one example i want to highlight and something we haven't talked about publicly before today is
sc o's project to develop a cross domain camability for the army attack sjs. they're enabling it to hit moving targets at sea as well as on land. with this capability what was a surface-to-surface missile system can go 300 kilometers into a mayori time domain. going ford as these investments yield new systems, such of them sooner than you think, they'll need to be demonstrated that they're effective. it will be important to ensure that they are allowed to run their course. we have to protect the most promising and integrate those concepts and ideas into our programs rather than let them be
uprooted just because they're knew, which is always a tendency in tight bijts. of course, how we use technology is just as important as the technology itself, if not more. which is why we're already investing. itself must account for challenges but also the opportunities afford by new capabilities as they come on line so they must go hand in glover. here the zroik imperative is rooted in the fact that while we spent the last 15 years innovating expertly, and i'm very proud of it, in how we kill terrorists and countersburges. we did so at the extent of our expertise in full spectrum war fighting. other nations have gotten good at that over the years. in some cases they've been di
viesing new ways to counter us and preempt us in being able to responds. hybrid warfare techniques are one of the ways. we've been innovating to return to full spectrum healthiness and we've been rethinking changing and adapting how we fight with friends and allies. for example, in europe we've been working with our nay toe allies to adapt and write a new playbook for our strong and balanced strategic approach to russia, one that takes the history and counters new challenges like cyber and hybrid warfare, to integrate conventional and nuclear di ternts and to adjust our poz chur and presence so we can be
more agile and responsive. in the asian pacific we've been strengthening new partnerships and helping to build a n principled security network. this rubber meets the road nod how we're revising our plans. we're always updating our plans in developing new operational consents to change risk. we've also updated our contingency plans. including ways to overcome emergent threats, satellite weapons, and anti-access area denial systems. at the same time we're countering these conventional threats we're also ensuring that with almostive potential confront tagss we don't to sustain america's nuclear
deterrent as we recapitalize our infrastructure. overall we're building in mod layerity that gives our chains of demands a greater variety of chances chbl chances. don't sfwul a trap of presuming the run they're planning for would be the only thing we're doing in the world at that time. we're injecting agility and flexibility into the process because our opponents aren't monolithic. we have to be dynamic to stay ahead of them. we're prioritizing transregional and transfunctionally integration in our plans, which is imperative. the challenges we face today are less likely than ever before to combine thomas needs regional or
functional changes. its will be coordinated on my half by our chaerm of the chiefs of staff, general joe dumbford whom, by the way, we're fortunate to have him in his job. recommending him to president obama is one of the best decisions i've made as secretary of defense. the result of this is weave revised all our war plans to assure we have the ability to end the fights we're in, the twhars could happen today and the wars that could happen in the future. while i can't say more and if any audience can appreciate why, a csis family can. i'm very proud of this evolve plan mr. technology and operations are necessary but not
sufficient. at this pace we can only succeed in these by being an agile organization that nurtures invasion in all its forms. we're investing in invasional structures and practices. the strategic imperative here is that dod must better foster innovative thinking and ideas that enable to us to stay ahead of our competitors vrmt the department of defense is one of the largest organizations in the world. we can be pretty bureaucratic and slow moving. we tend to view things the way we've always done so. we can't afford that. we need to be a place where thinking is welcomed and spoernd. not why good ideas go to die. over the last years i've helped
create programs such as sco, duix. i most recently created the defense invasion board to advise me and future leadership how we can keep going more competitive. as you know, the defense invasion board is one of several advisory boards that report to me, each with a dising tingtive mission and membership chosen for a disschtickive kind of experti expertise. the science word is surprised of scientists and tolgszs request deep expertise in defense r-and-d. the defense policy board on which i already served and which by the way we're grateful that johnham bring chairs.
defense invasion board has an different membership and a different role. its mechanics were chosen for their record of invasion outside of the defense department. and for their ability to suggest innovative approaches, that it worked in their leadership experience and that might be applicable to us. the invasion board is chaired by eric schmidt and it's bhip represents a cross section of innovative organizations, and people. code for america's jennifer paul ka. neil degrasse tyson. retired admiral bill mccraven, now chancellor at the university of texas.
i've charged them and the rest of the world to hem keep dod. the people on the defense enterprise willing to try new things fail fast and innovate. make sure we're doing what we can to upset our kpet trs. at the outset i identified innovative private sector practices that might be of use to us in dod. along the lines of the hack the pentagon pilot program, which invited hackers to find vulnerabilities in our systems and report them to us. several programs some already routinely done. this crowd sourcing is widespread in the private sector. our use of it in the pentagon is the first time in the entire federal government. and it was so successful we're
now expanding each other parts of dod. this is the perfect example of the kind of recommendations i'm looking for from the invasion board, things that are out there thatand that might be useful to us. of course, not everything in the private sector will make sense for us, because we're always mindful that the military isn't a company. it's dedicated to the profession of arms. we're not always going to do things as other mississippi do. but we can learn ways we can operate more effectively. the defense invasion board held its first meeting early this many. today i wouldn't to tell you about several i've decided we're going to do. first, we're going to increase our four corners on recruiting talented computer scientists and
software snooes into our force. we'll do this through targeting initiatives ranging from our training coarse to the scholarship program. it's meant to create the next core of technology leaders. second, we're going to invest more broadly in machine learning through targeted challenges and prize competitions and not through a new brick and mortar but establish, stretch goals and insent vies researchers to achieve them. since this is an area where both academy and technological companies have been making scientific strides, i've asked them to focus on computer vision and machine learning.
and third, we're going to create a dod communication officer who will serve as a spearhead for invasion activities including but not limited to those suggestedably the defense invasion board. just being -- sponsoring inswrags contests and sturmts and providing training and education that pro moegts new ideas and approaches to collaboration, creativity and critical thinking. many different organizations have recently embraced this position and also started to regularly run these kind of invasion tournaments and competitions, including tech kms like ibm, and google. and it's time we did as a well. going forward, i'm confident the
logic behind everything i'm talking about today will be self-evident to defense leadership as will the value of these efforts. they also need to have the momentum to keep going under their own steam and to continue to thrive. we must ensure that we keep leading the way and keep disrupting, challenging, and inspiring all of us to change for the better. and this brings me finally to how we're innovateding in terms of our people and the talent management of our all-volunteer force. it's the last area of invasion i'm going to discuss today. it's alsost most important. because the fact is, our people are the source of every innovative thing we've ever done, are ro doing or will deed. much more than other aspects, our people are the key to us having the finest fighting force. in the defense industry that
supports us. that means we need to compete for good people as far into the future as we can. there are lots of kpoount opportunity here as well as new techniques and technologyings and talent management which is the kind that underpin companies that link them. there are also challenges we face in terms of our current technology in the human resources area. and as generations and labor markets change, even so -- so even as our force of today is outstanding, we must ensure that we continue to attract and retain the most talented young men and women that america has to offer in future generations of defense. and that's why we've been taking step after step to build what i call the force of the future. i've been asked four different
links so far to the force to the future. the first focused on building and increasing on and offer ramps for technical talent to flow in both directions including expanding the corporate fellows program and more. this contributes to our mission on national defense even if only for a time or a projectaged it will also allow more of dod and the defense industry's personnel to engage with the innovative ecosystem. especially the parts that may have no experience with or even hesitations about working with defense. next, the force of the future's second link focuses on increasing some more to our military families. it's often said that when you
recruit a service 34eb, you remain a family. after all, it's no secret that military life is difficult and can be especially tough on our military families. i want to remind you that our force is largely a married one. 70% of officers and 50% of enlisted are married. we must increase the possibility that they'll want to stay at that critical moment when they're trying to reckon siel military life and family life. that's why we expanded maternity and paternity leave, why we extended childcare hours on bases and why we're giving more families of some geographic flexibility in return for additional service commitments. after that, the third link to the force of the future focused
on how we can make improvements to management. in some cases our system proves too rigid. it can limit our forces to achieve the right force nix they need. that's why we want to give the military services the authority to do things like expand natural entry for more speshltds and adjust lineal numbers based on superior performance. and link number four -- this is not only our military but also our civilian work force. when people talk about dod civilians, they're talking about over 700,000 talented americans sufferingworking across the country and around the world. many of h them outside the d.c.
area. they fix aircraft, they operate shipyards and ranges and more. they do criteria cal jocks. without them, dod wouldn't function. the same is the as our military personnel. in several ways, by directly mem employing civilian employees from college. by creating the new talent exchange program with the private sectoror. by expanding our program in engineering and mathematics fields and more. also in addition to each of these links, over the last year we opened up all combat positions to women and lifted dod's man on transgender community members.
focussing purely on a person's willingness and ability to serve our country and contribute to our mission and giving everyone the full and equal opportunity to do so. you'll be hearing more from me about the force of the future. these links span the spectrum of our opportunities, our challenges and the lifetime of a member of our all-volunteer force, recruitment, retention, development and transition, also our valuable civilian work force. in the -- for the first time in a long time, there's a real proactive agenda guiding its efforts so that doing more than just being reactivive. based on support for these
evidence i'm confident that this will continue moving forward and ensure that the force of the future is adds great adds the force of today. i've described ways in which the department has changed and will be changing in the future. i want to close reminding you all of dod and all of america, that as we sit here this morning our country's strengths are undenial. we have the best military, of course, spanning our people our dedication to the mission and the support we've received from the american people. our economy is growing. we have world class schools and universities. we up hold the right values which is one reason we have an unrivaled flurk of friends and allies. meanwhile, the operational experience of our force hard
earned is second to none. we have the most innovative culture in the world. it's long been america's hope and military secret and we remain dedicated to doing so and it can be so. we have a legacy of innovating, but that in and of itself is not enough. that's why we're moving aggressively toward a more innovative future and why everything i've talked about today is intended to ensure exactly that. going forbid, our success will depend on whether we can keep it up. like its predecessors, the next wave will be a generational success. this that's only just beginning. we don't yet know the names of the people who will make it a reality. more likely than not, it won't
be me or anybody else from my generation. instead it will be the general race coming afterwards. some of them are here today, perhaps, who decide to spend a year outside of the department at google or somewhere else, work with an expert in data science, it will be the software engineers who learn, then clues to do a tour of duty in working at one of our labs. it will be the enlisted soldiers, leaders, that we come up with ideas for overcoming boeshl adversaries. or defeating a terrorist group we haven't heard of. they're the ones -- they're the ones who will end up reinisn't itting how we will defer, fieshlgts and win wars in the future. our job is to give them the
foundation. the right kind of pentagon to help them success. whether it's more agile and innovative than before and as long as we do, they will ensure like those who came before them that our military remains the finest fighting force the world has ever known. thank you. [ applause ] >> thank you. >> thank you. >> first of all, my apologies. a lot of you have been standing for more than two hours. the secretary has to leave. we'll get this done quick. those who have been staying for the coffee first. secretary, thank you and thank you for your remarkable service. this has been challenging time and we're so lucky to have you
there let me ask first. i remember after 9/11 companies all over america came to town, said we want to help, how can we help? and many of them left disapointed. >> uh-huh. j why have we failed as a government bringing on innovative private astindustry ideas. >> the reality is we have to reach their way. this has to be a two-way. that's why i'm so intent upon this outreach to the technology industry. snowden made it worse and so we have to build a relationship, build a familiarity, build a trust. a lot of people have no experience of us. they didn't serve. nobody in their families served.
there's no uncle, father, coach, mom, guidance counselor no one in their lives who told them about the feeling that it gives you to be part of the noblist mission a young person can find themselves in. these are people who want to make a difference. the they're innovative and talented. they want to make a difference. whether they can match our mission to that personal aspiration, that's where the magic is made. i remember when i started ply own life as a physicist and we kind of fell this in the following way. i got an opportunity, it was supposed to be one year, and what i found was 24. i found that i actually could make a contribution. thauz i have to know what i knew. i didn't know a whole lot about defense as a whole, but i knew what i knew.
i can see that without that bees, the right decision woochbtd have been made or the program wouldn't have moved forward. secondly, i had the great thrill of going home every night knowing that i've been part of something bigger than myself and making this part -- a small part of this ma jeszic mission. taking those two things that you can make a difference and it's a huge thing. that's magic for any american. that allows us to tap in farther. we need to reach their way. >> when ceos come to town and bheet you, officers of mutual respect and a desire to have impact and a real commitment. people really want to do it. then they bump up against the bureaucracy. >> they do indeed. >> how do we get at that
problem? seems to me that they were making people work on our terms. >> that's exactly right. we got to work systematically to lower those barriers so is that people who win are not only the people who know how to play the game, but they're the best us. it's the taxpayers' money. we'll never make decision quite like people spending their own money. it is the tack pair's money and the taxpayer expects everything to be done to their standards and they deserve but at the same time that's not an excuse. i've got to give it to our leadership. we have worked very samaticly, looking at our problems, rapidity of decision, volume of paperwork, willingness to take
risk. all these things that are fundamental to being innovative and finding ways that we can reduce that. the way you do it, you start out -- we have up next a new contracting through diux, which manage manages. it's possible if you hide behind the legendary far and say that's why i can't address, that is no excuse. people be creative. i don't want to hear from innovators that they really wanted to. they thought they could make a contribution and they were frustrated. we can't have -- so i need -- that's one of the reasons why
i'm driving us, pick your head up out of the fox hole. there's a lot we can adopt. >> if i might, we've had companies that were asked to design a product, use their own technology, then the government says we're going to test two years from now. we'll take your data and compete it. >> yeah. this is the intellectual property twachltz under -- >> that's fine. a lot of people worked on this. you're right, paem want protection for their intellectual property. who we want is not to own their intellectual property but what we do want is to keep a competitive door open for the future. one of the ways you use intellectual property, i don't blame anybody, is to lock yourself in as vendor and that's good in if long run. we're trying to balance our need
to keep competition going wave after wave and the innovator's right not to have their stuff stolen and spread around. that's a balancing act. when i started out as atl, i worked hard in the time i was there. frank kendall's been working hard ever since. bob helps him. and it's doable. but there are competing interests. but they have the same problem when they're selling to other people as well. other people don't want to get locked in, either. the more you can have open systems where they continue to keep the ip on the part that they plug in but the system's open enough so that others can plug their own ip in. we can have our cake and eat it, too. >> your staff said they're going to shoot you if i keep you longer. >> they wouldn't do that.
>> you want to bring in talent from the private sector and i do, too. it's hard for us with our several service rules to bring in talent that can work in the government. what can we do? >> i described today something that happened recently. let me give you this example. that is to use direct hiring off college campuses. you talk to kids and they say i wanted to apply. i went to the website and i filed my work around then, you know, final did time came, no word back. graduation time came. nobody -- this was where i wanted to work. my parents are saying you got to get a job, don't come home. i didn't have a job so i took the job from someone who could
offer me one. then i was six months into the job and lo and behold the government says how would you like an interview. that doesn't work for a kid. today's kids especially, because they don't want to live life on -- the way i like to put it is they don't live a career that's an escalator. you wait and it takes you to the top. they want a jungle gaym. they need to be able to to see us in that context. and so opn to the contrary notwithstanding, again i think that's -- we can't use that as an excuse, opm, the far. come on. work around it. where we need to change the law,
i proposed a number of changes. >> yes, you did. >> and i think that our committees are receptive to change. we're trying to give them the right ideas so they can write them into law, but there's a lot we can do. so just don't take no forfor an answer. you can't expect this kid to put up with it. we've got to change. >> you know, we're at the hour. i have to let the secretary go. i happen to know the deputy secretary has to brief you on the meeting you're attending coming up. we're coming up on a transition of government. things fall through the cracks. i think it's up to all of us to sustain momentum on this agenda. this is really the purpose of this conference. we cannot afford to let this agenda fall slap off. secretary, we want to thank you for your leadership. >> thank you. >> thank the deputy for his
leadership. >> thank you. [ applause ] >> just stay where -- they're breaking into two parallel sessions and we're having a coffee break. get some coffee. . while congress is on break this week, during prime-time we're showing american history tv programs normally seen only on the kweekds. tonight a look at world war ii. it starts at 8:00 eastern with spies and code breakers, followed by the fbi investigation into a nazi spy ring. and world war ii veterans on american resistance in paris and start of what is now the cia.
american history tv, prime-time tomorrow here on c-span 3. >> this week on c-span prime-time, tonight at 8:00 eastern, a review of house and senate hearings in 2016 on topics including if flint, michigan water crisis. >> seriously? you found out that one of your divisions had created two mmm fake accounts, had filed thousands -- fired thousands of employees and had cheated thousands of your own customers and you didn't once consider firing her before her retirement? >> we remember some of the political figures that passed away in effect, including former first lady nancy reagan and antonin scalia. then we continue with shimon
peres, muhammad ali. this week in prime-time on c-span. >> join us on tuesday for live coverage of the opening day of the new congress. watch the official swearing in of the new and re-electsed members of the house and senate and the election of the speaker of the house. our all day live coverage of the events at capitol hill begins at 7:00 a.m. on serviceman and c-span.org or you can listen to it on the free c-span radio app. >> new york's. his comments at the wall street jury room's ceo council miegt in washington, d.c. are about 20 minutes.
>> good afternoon. thank you for joining us. >> thank you. >> so preet, part of your job involves prosecuting companiesaged sometimes ceos. what are you doing? >> over time, i have come to really love the sound of nervous laughter. thank you. >> so you talk a lot about the importance of culture in companies and that's something that you consider in charging decisions. why is it so important? it feels like a rather amorphous phase. >> people should understand that in addition to being the chief federal law enforcement officer in manhattan in my office, mor than a lawyer, i'm ceo of my substitution with more than 50 employees. have to understand what our priorities are which are more in line being 2 led of an
organization rather than just a lawyer. to success, not to make wij its, but to make sure justice is done, i have to care about culture a lot. i don't think any ceo worth their salt would think otherwise. for us it's applied by policy to take into account, things like the pervasiveness of criminal conduct at a company, before you decide to charge a company, to take into account recidivism, all those are things that make up the culture of a company. some companies have a lot of bad an lsz and some have fewer and so my armchair judgment has been after doing this for seven years, there's something about the culture of some places that keeps corruption and misconduct more in check than at other places and the difference is not
necessarily what people get paid. it has to do with something in the ether of the place and the leadership that cares about integrity. >> every company has h compliance rules, all zorts of best practices. what is the specific roll of the ceo. what do they need to be telling to the organization? >> it's cliche. i'm sure everyone to talk about tone at the top. there's a reason some things will cliches because they matter. it's incredibly important that compliance policy is important. you need to have a compliance department in the same way that the country has title 18 which is basically the criminal code and lots of rules and regulations and they're important and you need them, depending on your per secretaryive. but we call our guiding docum t
document -- you have your compliance policy. in some cases they run a hundred pages or longer. you also need i think a charter for the place so people understand not just that you follow the particular rules because whoever cares about them, but there's a general principle that has to come in the top and that is -- i'm very impressed when people tell me as they do at forums like this, when a new employee comes into a hedge funneled, a joint counsel said, does someone say to those people, like the ceo, you should understand separate and apart from the regulations we haveaged the compliance policy, in this place we don't lie, we don't cheat, we don't steel.
and if you do, those things make a difference. i asked at a meeting whether a company that you may have heard of was pleading for leniency. as part of the -- we asked the question, could you give me an example. person after person had been indicted and convicted. i said can you give me an example of one time a ceo of the company in an e-mail, in a speechl, in a talk, in a phone conference said i care that people do their jobs honestly and with integrity and there was deafening sound. it's not a shock to me that the culture at that place was terrible. >> was this assisi capital? >> could be. >> i want to ask the yad a question before i ask you about the importance of general counsels if we could call it up here. how worried a