tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN August 11, 2016 10:00am-12:01pm EDT
what these officers should remember is what i was told when i went through the academy. the head person at the academy told us, the firstthe head persy told us the first day remember, what you are looking for his compliance. you are not looking to hassle and harass, it is serve and protect. you are there to serve and protect the people. of course there are different circumstances. your bit target on your back for everyone who doesn't like a police officer. internal, external, they have a tough job every day. the thing is that it is all about attitude. instead of escalating situations, we are taught to deescalate and only use profit -- proper course -- force. they get really stressed when poor black person
gets a shot anywhere from seven to 15 times. these guys are under so much stress, they just lose it. they don't even know what they are doing. host: i have to leave it there. thank you for all the calls this morning. that does it for today's washington journal, we will be back for more conversations tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m.. ♪ >> hillary clinton back on the campaign trail today. she will be discussing her
economic plan in warring, michigan. we will have that live at 1:15 eastern. the head of the national institute of allergy and infectious diseases will update us on the zika virus in the u.s.. he is part of a broader discussion looking at the health response to seek up. zika. you've andn.org, watch our political programming any time at your convenience. page and go to the video library. name of ape in the speaker, sponsor of a bill, or read -- even an event topic. or refine your search with our many search tools. if you're looking for a most current programs, our homepage has many current programs, such as today's washington journal.
is a public service of your cable or satellite provider. -- c-span a seat span watcher, check it out at c-span.org. >> the white house transition project kick off a series of events about presidential and executive branch transitions at the george w. bush library in dallas in mid july. participants include officials who helped plan the last you federal agency and presidential transitions including former white house chiefs of staff. this is one hour and 20 minutes. one of the most striking features of presidential transitions today is the bipartisanship that prevails among government officials. the president and the white house staff who set the direction of planning and department and agencies that carry out the policies. it was not always the case.
-- in 1952,h of president truman want to bring in both the republican and democratic presidential nominees to meet with his cabinet and white house staff members, he met with the part of them divide. he had wanted them to come in because he found when he came into office, he was unprepared. of 1945,n in january roosevelt died in april. truman knew nothing of the atomic bomb. he feared by that experience he wanted to bring people in so that they would understand what was ahead of them. excepted thison but general eisenhower turned down his invitation. in large part because he was running against the administration's program and he thought that the public would not understand why he would be coming into the white house when he was running against it.
and hewas very upset sent a handwritten note which he would sometimes do because he could slip by staff and they would not see it and stop him. he had a handwritten note to eisenhower commenting on his own way of looking at the turned down by the general. he wrote, i am extremely starry the -- sorry the job a lot of bunch of screwballs to come between us. a bad mistake and i am hoping it won't injure this great republic. the strong partisan nature of that transition no longer distinguishes the handoff of power from one president to his successor. our five panelists today are in a position to discuss the shape of transition as each of our officials have gone through one or more of them at a senior planning level.
additionally, they are all involved in current efforts to fortify the transition process and find areas of agreement that will ensure presidential transitions in a bipartisan setting which is the theme of our conference. our conference is one of three that we will hold at texas presidential library. the other two will be at the lbj september -- on september 22 and 23rd dealing national security and then october 18 at the george h. w. bush library on crisis ofagement with two scenarios financial and national security crises. theme -- all around the of the importance of bipartisanship in transition. we will begin with two chiefs of staff who know the beginnings and ends of administrations. matt mclarty came in at the end
-- beginning of the clinton administration as chief of staff and josh bolten was at the end of the bush administration as chief of staff. the september 11 attack and the transition out of office of george w. bush changed the tone and actions undertaken during the transition. bush led theident most determined transition out of office that we have ever experienced. he began the transition cycle in 2007 in discussions with his chief of staff josh bolten who led the effort. he closed the circle to truman proposed to structure by having representatives of the incoming and outgoing chief executives meet well before the election. he brought together representatives of the two candidates in the white house in july, almost two months prior to
the 2008 party convention. , who led the transition as executive director for president bush into office 2001, he wasne -- the deputy of management at the office of management and budget, let the department and agency planning work gathering information for a new team. he will be on our second panel. equally important in the 2008 transition was interest in making use of those administration preparations by those leading the transition efforts for senator and then president-elect obama. the executive director of the early transition effort for senator obama was in those july meetings and work with bolten and his deputy. deputy secretary in the department of labor.
and involved in the transition out of office for president obama. lisa brown was the codirector of agency review for obama, also began work on july assembling the teams to go into the departments and agencies to collect information on programs, staff positions and upcoming schedules and budgets. president bush and his team willingly led a transition senator and then president-elect -- elect obama was excited to use. hoping to solidify the gains in transition planning and expand the areas of agreement. such as the presidential appointment process. matt mclarty and clay johnson have been heading for reforming the appointment process.
group,e a knowledgeable well versed to talk about the transition. aboutogram today comes through the work of many institutions and individuals. ar panelists have come from distance to speak about presidential transitions and we mclarty,h bolton, matt lisa brown, chris lu and clay johnson for coming here to talk about this subject. thank you alan for the support of the moody foundation and for your and jamie williams's interest in our project. we also appreciate the work you are doing in a presidential leadership program that you support. next, the george w. bush presidential center has provided our space as well as significant logistical support. we thank you holly and your brian and his
director of operations justine. finally we thank the staff of the white house transition project who have worked for our conference often on our political program. let's begin with josh bolten and matt mclarty. this will be followed by a on the presidential appointments process in a discussion of the administration .ransition out of office o thank you. [applause]
>> you can tell who is in charge. [laughter] >> the 2008 transition was by all sides viewed as the best that we have had. i wonder if you could talk about the elements that you see that were important in that transition. why was it so good? >> thank you. for the recognition of the work that the bush administration did and that the president did himself. that is my answer to your question.
it comes from the president. mac knows this better than anyone that so much in a theidential term as in executive comes from what the what he or she is interested in. that was certainly true of the 2008 trent -- presidential transition. president bush directed me more than a year before the transition. he mentioned late 2007 is when the president first spoke to me as his chief of staff. about how important he thought this residential transition would be. because it was the first presidential transition in our modern history during which our
homeland was actually under threat. 9/11 changed everything. not just the bush presidency, but about our country. he was determined that we not ofe an unnecessary amount vulnerability during the early months of the incoming president 's administration, regardless of party. that was irrelevant to the presidents consideration when he said he wanted -- when he gave me the direction to run the most effective, most complete transition in american history. that was a pretty low bar to beat. [laughter] , i have been on both ann's of a transition
already, both going out of bush o the bushn coming int 43 administration. it is a low bar in a bipartisan way which is not something that attracted a lot of attention. it was not a question of ill will, not a question of partisanship. mac, i think you will agree. >> i do agree. >> historically, in america it was a question of we don't need to do that, they will learn on the job. they've got time to get their feet on the ground and run the place the way they want to run it. we don't need to spend a lot of time doing preparatory work for the next gang and that probably isn't welcome in the first place. it was definitely a change of psychology.
hadhe 2008 transition, we ultimately a terrific partnership with a very well that willobama team be represented on your next panel by chris lu. >> what directions did he give you? >> the truth is i don't really remember. [laughter] >> i do recall that it was not detailed instructions. that wasn't george w. bush's style to say i want to make sure that they have got all their appointments in place, the day -- that the briefing books are here, there's the diagram in the west wing.
anybody who knows george w. bush and athat he is a leader man of principle. he empowers people to do their the job of considers me and my staff to figure up with the details work. him sayingecall explicitly if that he wants these people to be as prepared with aible to deal crisis should one happen on the first day of the next administration. that is both a tall order and a major undertaking in any administration. >> in fact there was a threat on the in operation. >> there was. we were particularly concerned attackhe -- a terrorist
during the actual inauguration. it is a moment of extraordinary peril in this country if you think about it. governmentthe actually moves. systems, a few people at the top move around. most of the government remains in place. , the top few thousand leaders in government are actually replaced in a transition. especially in a transition between parties where basically everybody who used to be there is out all at the same moment. one not a slow process of month a few people come in and in the next month, more people and so on. it is noon on january 20 every four years that the people who have been in charge suddenly
have no authority anymore. they are done, you are out, your bad does not work. you can't get back into your office. nobody either expects to or should follow your instructions. it is a very abrupt change. houserwalk into the white -- i remember walking into the white house on january 20, 2001. office, into a blank there's nothing on the walls, this just a few supplies on the desk area there are computers. there is nothing in the memory banks. you might know some phone numbers of the few people you it is a to reach, but very complete and abrupt transition.
for the country, that is a time of vulnerability. it doesn't last all that long in the stark sense that i'm talking about, but for those few -- first few days in a crisis, the people need to make decisions might not even know how to reach the other people that they need to reach to take action. transition in the 2009 was we08 to did our best to prepare the to work with each and also to pair up the outgoing people with the incoming people. for example, we held a tabletop exercise in early january in which we assembled cabinet
offers who were relevant to a national security crisis. executiveed in the office building and we had all the outgoing officials from the bush administration who would be involved in a national security crisis. secretary of homeland security, national security advisor, the secretary of health. what we postulated was a chemical bio attack. we had all of the right in the outgoing administration knew each other and their roles, new who did what in case of a crisis and we brought in their incoming counterparts and we went through the tabletop exercise with the old people sitting next to the incoming people. how much you can
learn in a three-hour tabletop exercise about how to act in a crisis, but the main thing was that they laid eyes on. the otherlaid eyes on people with whom they would need to communicate. thell bet for most of people in the incoming obama cabinet, that was the first time that they had met fbi director mueller who was a key official because of the nature of his position, transitioned across administrations. person tobe a key know and communicate with in the event of a crisis. mentionr thing i will that we did is that we asked to the homeland security secretary who had planned a vacation with his wife beginning at 1:00 p.m. on january 20, we asked him to stick around for a day and
during the inauguration day, he was in an off-site with the incoming secretary of homeland in a control center with they could monitor all the threat information and so on area we asked him even though that his authority would be eliminated as of noon, we asked him to stick around and be there , be there for advice and so on for secretary napolitano as she takes the reins. it turned out to be important because there was a threat on inauguration day. it turned out to be a credible threat, it turned out not to be an actual threat. -- actual incident. but there was credible intelligence suggesting an attack at the inauguration itself on the mall.
we were not perfectly prepared, inmagine if that happens 2017, folks will be a lot better prepared than we were in 2009. but we at least had thought about it as -- and talked about and had our people as well-positioned as we could under the circumstances to have a smooth handoff. >> both had worked as prosecutors and new each other very well. it was an easy discussion between the two of them. mack, can you tell us about the discussions about transition into office that you had with president clinton? mack: i would be glad to. it is good to be with you.
it is always good to be with chief bolton will which i was look forward to. our transition was quite different. it is a different time and place and i think josh makes a very key point about 9/11 really changing the fundamental psyche in many ways of our country. i think it affected transition. and was a much earlier time i think it's that point, terry and i talked about this, governor clinton, like most as educated before him was very --cerned if you got serious that it would be easy for the press to say such a show of arrogance measuring the proverbial drapes in the oval office. president --with
senator obama when he ran, there was a little talk about that with his transition effort even after 9/11. that is part of it for sure. case as lisa remembers, unlike josh, i came into the trenches and directly -- transition directly from the private sector. you were coming in knowing some of the people, but not all. clinton, like most presidential candidates, had laid out a clear agenda of what he wanted to accomplish in his first 100 days and his first two years in office. that in and of itself laid out a roadmap in terms of policy in the administration. i think secondly during the transition, a high priority was placed on selection of the
cabinet. we spent a lot of time there and i think our work reflected that. the loyalty and competency and engagement of the cabinet of the clinton administration was talked about. integrate lot of time -- -- we spent a lot of time integrating the vice president's office. the vice president not been fully integrated into the presidency as we had seen in modern times. when we got behind the curve was the selection of white house staff and i think that was a setback for us. on the policy side, we were able to move forward with the economic plan, we were able to move forward with the cabinet and i liked so much the spirit
or theme of bipartisanship. good cooperation for their public and members of the senate getting a cabinet members placed. as clay johnson knows so well, that is only a start. you have got to get the deputy and assistant secretaries in place. that was our experience. on the national security front, it was before 9/11, before terrorist events we had seen and been so troubled about. it was a different landscape. you hadnk the fact that a very experienced team in national security that it worked during the campaign, they were able to make that transition. ,n a final point i would say and joss has alluded to it -- josh has alluded to it, the two
landmarks of a transition other than start early with have become much better understood and accepted. i've recently spoken with a business roundtable. i think it's just much better understood how critical transitions are. it is that moment in a 77 day period where there is so much to be done, so many various stakeholders to respond to and it is a moment where it is essential to have it from campaigning to governing, that is really what -- that is the hallmark of any successful transition.
you have a policy agenda that is limited that you are talking about. when you come in to govern you need people that are less partisan in a sense and once -- ones with experience in the washington community. you will move from one issue to another where you may have coalitions of supporters and then your enemies are your friends in the ones afterwards. when you have campaign people, you know their mindset. how do you make that transition of personnel, of bringing in people who are appropriate for governing who may not have been on your campaign and what do you do with the campaign people that you want to reward and how does
the president deal with that? >> i'm getting a headache just remembering or trying to think about this. [laughter] you make the right point. you have had people in the campaign that have truly worked their hearts out for the candidate and the campaign and in many cases, made tremendous sacrifices, whether they've taken a leave of absence to the -- a leave of absence from their job or moved to little rock, , arkansas in our case or texas to spend a year plus of their lives trying to get george w. bush or bill clinton elected, there is a feeling of loyalty. by the same token, you do have to be pretty steely eyed and not in separate -- insensitive and
empathetic, but you are moving into a different passage and a different requirement. you have to have a blend of people that were in the campaign you are naturally and hopefully well-suited to make the transition to governing and there's usually a good number of people in the policy realm and the press realm. people, broader people, governor clinton knew a lot of other fellow governors that were natural cabinet selections. he had worked with a number of people in education so that was a natural area. a number of people in the national security area. that is how you make the transition. you have to achieve that balance. there is one other major factor that is different, and that is the members of the congress and the house and senate. you are not going to get your first hundred days moving in the right direction with your
legislation as josh knows so well, and is so skilled and handling members of the house and senate, without establishing immediate rapport with leadership there. i think the other part of that is to reach out early and carefully and appropriately, he -- because you can't get ahead of yourself or that will create itself. in in our case, i don't think we did as good a job reaching out to the republican side as we could have in retrospect. i think we caught up with that on welfare to work in other legislation later, but that is absolutely key and very different thing campaigns. thanry different campaigns. i think finally, in our case, you will talk about this a little later or plant to talk about it, -- plan to talk about it, we had 12 years of
republicans in the white house. that is quite a big change when you have a different administration and different party come into the white house. in our case, i think it is worth noting, governor clinton only got 43% of the vote. that had a difference in our dynamic. >> josh, how did you all establish your legislative relationship? you had less? >> first of all, toward dubya -- first of all, george w. bush came in with a landslide by comparison. [laughter] >> we both had our respective challenges. >> don't underestimate 571 votes in florida. [laughter] >> now you tell us. >> that made it challenging. that gave the start of the
theevidence -- administration a pretty rough start because of the substantial portion of the country was pretty raw and felt that president bush had not been legitimately elected. it had been decided by the supreme court and so on. we were keenly aware of that. the president was aware of that. that he needed to reach out at the beginning of his administration and make sure that everybody understood that he intended to be the president of all the people, not just the that -- not just the folks had voted for him. there were a number of outreach efforts at the start of the administration. governor bush, bush 43 when he was governor here in texas, as clay can describe well, had
governed as a real uniter and he had hoped to be able to do the same in washington. he had been intending to go to washington as the education president and do that on a bipartisan basis and so the administration started out with an agenda that included tax cuts and education reform as the top priorities, and the education reforms, his partners were democratic chairman ted kennedy democratice -- chairman ted kennedy in the senate and they were his close , working partners on what eventually became the no child left behind act. sadly for the country, that kind of momentum was very hard to maintain even after the aftermath of 9/11.
>> why do you think it was? >> that is the $64 trillion question. why have we not been able to stitch together some substantial element of bipartisan cooperation in the last 20 or 30 years. it seems to have degraded through each presidency and there are a lot of things to point to. gerrymandering in the house. it makes the vast majority of house members safe in their seats, except for the challenge from the fringe of their own party. it tends to make house members much more responsive to the
right, the extreme right in the republican party, extreme left in the democratic party and make them less inclined to be receptive to compromise. there is the influence, the dramatic change in how and where people get their news that the explosion of media outlets from which we all benefit, and which has been a tremendous and it -- in most respects positive , change in our society. also means that people take the bias in the news and aren't operating off of a common set of facts. that used to have a unifying effect in the country.
there are so many factors involved. i don't think you can identify one but you can't say that i think the biggest challenge for the coming generation of government leaders is to try to bridge the divide. >> certainly the transition has proved to be an area that democrats and republicans can work together whether it is in , congress or in an administration. at least we have one area and i guess there are a few others, but it is certainly hard to put that together. for both of you all, what is the advantage of a fast start? and if you have trouble at the beginning of the administration, lose the way on the fast start,
how can you get it back together? >> first impressions are important. all of us have heard the phrase in presidential history and campaigns, the first 100 days, that is the goodwell coming off -- the good will coming off the election. it is also the same time as you pointed out, you are trying to get your team in place, and may ways toerience in some implement that. i think in our case, the economic plan was crucial because the campaign had largely been about domestic issues and the economy. had we not been able from a policy standpoint to develop an economic plan and to move that to the congress and get it passed in the beginning of the
administration, i'm not going to go as far to say that you might have had a failed presidency, but i certainly think that would have been written about had you not been able to follow with that economic plan, and much like josh is limited to in the election we passed that by one , vote in the house and vice tie innt gore broke the the senate. so, that was crucial and that was essential to the start. you are also going to have, in most cases, we certainly did, some bumps, some unexpected unforeseen occurrences that are going to come in and you had to are with, whether they micro or unsettling problems or major unforeseen occurrences. you can have all of your plans
and agendas laid out as perfectly as you would like, but you are inevitably going to have to deal with the unexpected events. it is essential that you left -- you lift off. i think a real crucial element comes into place, many of you in the business world here and it is what clay and i have been so adamant about and committed to, you got to get your team in place to deal with all of that and it starts at the cabinet level in the white house senior level. you have to fill out the remainder of the administration. >> you all had some bumps at the beginning as well. the economic part, that was part of your transition that was well formed when you came in. you created the national economic council, which continues today. i think the president's management council was created early, too, and the economic
program, but there was trouble with appointment. and i thinkeresting it would be interesting to get your perspective on this. i think most administrations have had some issues on appointments and on confirmations. we certainly had it on the attorney general. on the other hand, as i had noted earlier, and i get the republican leadership and the senate a lot of credit for this, we got our cabinet in place say -- in place, save the attorney general office. i believe more properly than any other administration i got in there can in place because we had cooperation from the senate and getting those approved. we got those in place, but we also had some other issues, some military issues that came out that were distracting for a central messaging and central efforts to that things in place.
i think what you have to look at is at the end of the day, most presidencies will be judged by piece, which i would now say homelandcurity in the and prosperity. , that's the two goals you have to keep before you. >> getting the white house staff in place early is something that now everybody seems to recommend and clinton has talked about how that was one thing -- >> that is a lesson learned. i think we spent a lot of time on the cabinet which pays big dividends. not only did we had the collegial cooperative cabinet, they give us great advice and were able to amplify and you know this from your time and the obama administration, amplify
the president's message in a pretty impactful way both in the country, internationally and on the hill in congress. the real point about transitions center and david that you have been such a part of, heavily now gotten in a understanding way how critical it is to have early, developed, engaged transition efforts that are on a separate track from the presidential campaign and that will help and is key to getting the white house staff in place in addition to the other positions of government. >> two i underscore what he just said, because that is crucially important, that the environment that the white house transition project has created, the legislation adopted as a result
of the efforts has altered the mindset about presidential transition because it used to be that those candidates who were even focused on the importance of the transition were reluctant to admit that in any public sense because you would immediately be accused of measuring the drapes, getting ahead of yourself, being arrogant and so on. we found that even in 2008 when i reached out at the direction of the president in the summer of 2008, before the conventions, i reached out to the presumptive nominees campaigns, the obama campaign and the mccain campaign. the obama campaign got it. they were well organized and had a terrific team in place led by
john podesta and chris lu. the mccain campaign was very nervous and very reticent to be seen as having a plan, having leadership of the transition and so on precisely because they do -- did not want to be accused of measuring the drapes and getting ahead of themselves. there's been an important change in the environment, just in the last few cycles, about the propriety and necessity of making those preparations, and it's one of the ways operations like yours and terry's and others have made an important contribution to the way we run our public life. >> if i may build on what josh has said in such a thoughtful
and articulate manner, i think the environment has changed. a lot of people in this room and a lot of others have helped to move that forward. i think 9/11 has changed the psyche, too. i think administrations coming in have a bit of a different attitude how much can i learn , from this other group that either i was smarter than or better than, after all i did defeat them? you write about that in your book. there is a much better understanding that even if you have sharp differences on policy, there is a lot to learn from prior administrations who had been in that chair or seat in the white house. there has been a change in that environment and mindset as well building on the broader change , that john spoke about. >> one of the outcomes of these transitions out of office, one
has been legislation, that institutionalized many of the things that you did. you had an executive order that created a transition coordinating council. now that is in law. , you have legislation in 2010 that creates a pre-election transition effort so that after , you have the national party convention, that the transition headquarters that is opened up by the general services administration and provide support for candidates if they choose to use it. >> people should understand, this is paid for by the federal government. which is crucial, it is not just that you get some money, but it is that you have standard
operating procedure to set up an office, put people in it and let them start planning and hopefully going forward, it will be a natural thing for both candidates to engage in that important planning activity. 2016, i think it was march 28, president obama signed legislation that the presidential transition improvement act that is going to provide even more because the councilon coordinating has to meet there by law and it is created six month for the election and there is an agency transition director counsel that was created that has career civil service people running it. information has to be provided,
the kind of information that you and clay have put together in 2008, so that there was a legislative impact on the kind of work that you did. max referenced a conundrum. the conundrum i discussed here is, the transition is the time that has the maximum opportunity to change. for example, when you are coming into an office is a good time to make organizational changes, the coupling -- because the public is watching and unwilling to support and members of congress are also more willing and the public is more willing to support you. on the other hand, you are bringing in a team that is inexperienced, that really doesn't know where the levers are and how to make them work,
how do you deal with that? [laughter] >> it is a conundrum. it has not been fully resolved at this point. it goes back to what i tried to note earlier, you have to try your very best to blend the organization of the campaign staff, many of whom have been deeply ingrained in the policy development as well as the campaign on both domestic and foreign policy issues, but with new blood and implicitly experienced hands if you will , from the washington scene. case, howard pastor came in as head of legislative affairs and howard had a long-standing relationship in washington and had a partnership
there on a bipartisan basis. he was well suited on the legislative front to have a number of relationships already established. a little bit later on as you recall, we reached out to david servedd gergen, who had in a number of administrations and we specifically wanted to get someone from the republican side that could help us build those bridges. those of the types of things you do. the only other point i would make that maybe we have not emphasized enough for this group and for the c-span viewers and , so forth, just the magnitude of what is really entailed in a 77 day transition. you really have so much work to get done in such a short period of time. there are so many stakeholders, the people who voted for you, the appointment process, getting
your people in place or, in our case the governor stepping on , the world stage, meeting other international leaders. establishing relationships with members of congress, often who think they are pretty important in this process. the press, it is a different press that covers the white house that has generally covered the campaign. there is a multiplicity of stakeholders that have to be engaged in a very short period of time as you are lifting off. >> josh, how did you deal with that conundrum? >> we had a blessing in the outset of the bush 43 administration. in the campaign in which george w. bush was elected in the -- and the blessing was that a large portion of the country
thought that george w. bush was stupid. he's anity is that exceptionally bright policy person. i spent my career in government policy and george w. bush is one of the sharpest policy minds i've ever encountered in decades. that was not the reputation he had. we had a political necessity to run a campaign that was chock-full of substance. that would have been george w. bush's instinct anyway. we ran a campaign that was disciplined in setting out, in one month, it would be the health care policy in the next , month, it would be tax policy, and the next month with the energy and environmental policy. there were speeches that went
with that. fact sheets that well with that. -- that went with that. we had a 300 page book of campaign speeches and policy papers that were the governing agenda for the first hundred days that mac was talking about. so that made the conundrum period you're talking about much easier for our crowd because, we agenda in a 300 page book that people had internalized. those who had worked for the campaign. political and policy people. we had the game plan set out for us and the reason i say that is a blessing, that we were blessed in having to run the campaign is that it made the george w. bush
administration unusually well prepared to govern and the said -- the sad development in a lot campaigning now is that the policy does not seem to be that important and i think what we need to find is a way -- i don't think it particularly helps if the country thinks a candidate is not bright. a need to find a way back to mode of campaigning and politics where the candidates with the media's agendas and with the agendas that suggest to people
that what they will do with that first hundred days is what the country wants done, i think that is going to be critical for our politics, going forward. >> you could say that the most important thing you could do for the transition is to have an articulated policy agenda as you come into office, and really developing it at this point, so that you know what you are going , thatand organizationally you can put it together. >> both. >> two sides. that is a much better way of saying what i intended to say. [laughter] much longer and potentially disastrous fashion. >> you set the table very nicely for the professor. [laughter] >> there are differences in types of transitions that you have.
of same party transitions, where you are going from democrat to democrat or republican to republican, and the change of party transition. both of you were involved in change of party, but how did you -- you were in the george h.w. bush administration, and that was one from reagan to george h.w. bush, you had the same party, and what are the differences between the two and how should the two candidates, hillary clinton and donald trump think at this point about the differences in the types of transitions they're going have and what differences they should make to how they prepare? >> i will take a first stab at it. i think first of all, the fun of the point i would make, the one
that we have suggested a couple of times in our discussion thus far is that both the clinton campaign and the trunk campaign -- the trump campaign already have established transition efforts in place and i think that reflects the environment that we talked about this morning. obviously as some know, with john podesta as secretary the term people have established a credible effort, so that is number 1 -- the trump people have established a credible effort. we are not just gone through where you have a change of parties. that's a very different dynamic not a change have of parties and it's going to be very interesting and chris can speak to it probably more than
isone if secretary clinton elected how that transition takes place with the obama administration. in that case, you are clearly going to have a significant not only in terms of policy, direction and style, but in terms of personnel that was understood, agreed-upon and so forth. to the hearken back central point you have already made. this is one of the few areas that truly bipartisan cooperation, sincere, and genuine bipartisan cooperation takes place. it is when the combatants put down their swords and cooperate for the good of the country in terms of the transition. i think that happens regardless whether it's party to party -- it's a very different dynamic.
significant than you would think when you have republican to democrat or democrat to republican. i think it's probably a little more complicated and tedious when you have one party transferring to the same party. we will see if that takes place depending on how the election turns out. >> i would like to take a swing at that. >> it's bound to be better than the last swing. i was a junior appointee in the incoming bush 41 administration. there were a lot of rough spots when therert because is a transition in the same party, the political appointees of the incumbent have the
tendency to think they are going to stay. so there's an important component of expectations management that needs to be done largely by the outgoing president. to let everyone know you don't automatically get to stay. maybe some of you will be invited to stay but it will be at the sufferance of the new president. reagan term. third if secretary clinton wins, it's not a third obama term. outgoingrtant for the president to set expectations everyoneand to direct send to the president their resignations now and let the
the -- letecide what the incoming president decide whether to accept them. whether an incoming president of the same party will almost certainly want to change over all or almost all of the cabinet in the senior white house staff. there are a number of cabinet positions that are tactical in nature and it will take time to get your own good people in place. keep the gears of government running much more smoothly and aggressively if you can keep a number of those people in place, but it requires expectation management and a fair amount of planning from the
incoming president of the same party. given the experienced people involved in the clinton campaign, it is well on their mind. >> you were very helpful when you sent the letter of political appointees telling them that their term was up and even provided a sample letter they could send. >> it wasn't really a suggestion. [laughter] >> there is a principle that we have of one president at a time. transition and seems to be not quite so clear because there were certain thegs that happened with
financial meltdown that the obama people had to work together. can you tell us something about that? planning all of this postulating a natural -- national security crisis. we were having a financial crisis at the time, but the same and of planning applies close interaction between the outgoing and the incoming applied. for the most part, it went .moothly not entirely smoothly. involvingan episode the bailout of the auto industry in which the bush administration
against thed of theal wisdom of most republicans in the congress that the federal government did need to do something to step in to support the auto industry. lest there be major bankruptcies there that would have a cascading effect on the economy. we had hoped with the support of the incoming clinton team to -- ort an auto czar >> the obama team. >> freudian slip. the obama team that we hoped in cooperation with them that we would name and auto czar that was acceptable to the bush
administration but was really the obama administration's autos are so we could set in motion of rescuing the auto industry but the auto industry would understand they could not game decision. ringing] is that president bush? [laughter] i'm really concerned about what i said. >> it's secretary clinton calling you to thank you for that endorsement. [laughter] the auto industry we wanted consistent policy so the auto industry would know what to expect and know they couldn't game the system and from our side, we were trying to well intoy survived
the obama administration but also wanted to be sure we put in some very's -- some very tough strictures on federal support that would require the auto industry to take some difficult steps to make itself competitive going into the future so it wasn't money down the drain. ultimately, that's basically what happened but the obama administration was reluctant to be seen to be cooperating with the bush administration. this never took us up on the strategy and we basically have to put it in place. end.rked out ok in the the's an example of where of the incoming cooperating with the outgoing
whom the incoming had run against and defeated was a bridge too far. it was not an eisenhower and truman moment of the kind you referenced in your opening remarks, but it was a clear was ator that there number of whom by yacht moments that were possible at that time. bushransition between the administration and obama administration in the midst of wasfinancial crisis absolutely critical to the financial well-being of the entire planet. steps president bush took at the end of his administration to staunch the crisis were largely picked up by the obama administration.
extended so there was not an abrupt shift in policy. the person whom president obama picked to be his first treasury secretary and therefore the navigator of the course in responding to the financial crisis was tim geithner who had been a democratic treasury appointee earlier in his career. at the time of the financial crisis during the bush administration was the president of the new york fed. so he was part of the triumvirate of hank paulson, ben bernanke and the new york fed president, tim geithner. that triumvirate is the one that really charted out the course , soresponding to the crisis
there was an unusual element of continuity in the stewardship of the response to the crisis. it has to be regarded as one of the most effective government responses in the history of economic policymaking. to underscore that, josh, in his typically modest has not stated as starkly as i think it was. i think you made a key point about one president at a time. in this case, with the economic crisis and not a security crisis, our country truly looked into the abyss of what likely hadd have been a depression
that transition not been handled inthe way it was outlined term of the bush administration and obama administration coming in. it was seamless. not have had full agreement on every issue, but it was absolutely crucial at the time to avoid, in my judgment, what likely would have been pressure to restore stability and order. for that matter, the world economy was a beneficiary of that. i do think there's a real respect between anyone who has had that sacred responsibility as president. we certainly experience that. it was not as traumatic with but i think it served
our country and our democracy well. >> thank you. what we are going to do now is go to us to does anybody have questions? raise your hand and a microphone will come to you. >> can you give us a quick discussion on what happened in 2004 and 2012 in terms of transitioning planning? as you said, it's a very vulnerable time if the other person were to win. andhat's a great question the answer is very little. against the nature of any incumbent administration even tofor reelection
contemplate the possibility they might have to transition out. as president bush's leadership was in directing the 2008 transition, i have to say there was very little done in 2004. you should oppose the same question to the cabinet secretary in 2012. my guess is you would come up with a very similar answer. it is a significant problem, but a bridge too into far category of actually doing the preparation for the person who just beat them to come in smoothly. here's where i think organizations like the partnership for public service can play a crucial role because
the are institutionalizing mechanics and wisdom of presidential transition. on the you can rely white house to be as forthcoming as you would like to be, there are these out side entities that can do precisely that. there is legislation that covers it. on 2010 legislation transition provided a president a counsel and agency transition director's counsel, nothing haven't happened in 2012 and having learned in that experience, the 2016 legislation says the president shall take action, shall create six months
beforehand transition coordinating council and its agency transition director's counsel. that mark was may eighth and may 6 of friday. the president issued an executive order that carried into effect that legislation and thatlegislation called for counsel that has to meet at least once a year. that's a continuing body for transition. the optics of running for reelection in preparing for your successor, people know they are going to lose. that was a good point. weren't measuring the
drapes, we were taking them down. [laughter] >> other questions? >> [inaudible] change what they did in those 77 days which turned out not to be that many days? >> we did not have 77 days. he remembers every minute of those 38 days. i hope you will have a chance to address this when you come up, the first 39 days of the transition, it was uncertain who was going to be the president.
clay had gone to work on preparing stuff the focus of everybody was down in florida. almost everyone involved in the bush operation, most people were down in florida trying to make sure the true president was recognized. same on the gore side. it was a difficult thing. i think you would agree it worked out ok. 77 days is a really short time. 38 days is not a whole lot shorter than 77 in this context and if you are well organized enough, it can be done. with who isto do
involved, what is their the plan andat is it has more to do with that than how many days you have. >> our last question? >> i worked in laura bush cost office and the transition theess is amazing in how administration wanted to care for the next administration coming in all the way down to the individual offices. when the first lady from another country came in and what that mrs. obama'snd team coming in and just having that open dialogue. you hear stories of coming in and it wasn't like that for us. we set the next administration
really well and i think president bush left that place better than he found it. i thought that was awesome. i wanted to say thank you for that leadership. >> i think what you are underscoring is that the tone gets set from the top. if the president and mrs. bush say this is the way we want it, that's the way it's going to be. i have a lot of confidence the president and mrs. obama have not only said the right things but will communicate the right things to their folks and however the election turns out, there will be a good experience for the administration. >> you talked about not taking .he drapes down the 92 campaign was a difficult time for president bush 41 and
while we may not have had as organize a transition effort as we would have liked, i want to underscore the cooperation we directlyfrom jim baker at the request of president bush 41 could not have been better. it allowed us to play catch-up if you will than would have been the case. than haddifficult time been anticipated, but you had an effective, smooth, positive transition of power, which is the hallmark of our democracy. what we are seeing is that you are really refining that process and moving forward in a much more serious and developed way with the funding, technology and all of those things and i give a lot of credit to people in the
room and it's becoming an integral, increasingly understood critical time in our democracy. >> thank you very much. [applause] >> what our members of congress doing on break got -- on vacation question mark senator kelly ayotte welcome to the oliver hazard parry, a 200 foot long sailboat resembling the sailboats elton 1800s. a texas house member spoke this morning about house -- about national security. bill johnson talked this morning about small business and his small business associating -- association meeting.
indiana congressman joy nancy pelosi calling for republicans to return to session. here is what some of what nancy pelosi had to say. mrs. pelosi: we are halfway through this rate. are they going to do it in the appropriations process maybe? by the way, they have already thrown up obstacles to zika funding. if you are infected by zika, it can be sexually transmitted. yet they are saying if we have any funding, it cannot include contraception. -- i wonder this a lot -- how many families of our republican colleagues are not practicing birth control? how come they don't have many more children?
what is it with them that they don't understand sexually transmitted disease, you use contraception? i grant them their position on many issues. they have a different philosophy, but come back and do the job. anytime time i see one of our republican colleagues, i asked what was it you accomplished that was more important than health, well-being, safety and security of the american people? i'm going to florida shortly after this meeting. i'm going to orlando and have meetings related to what happened in orlando two months ago. i'm going to south florida to talk about zika. the evidence, the science and the data lead us to a place where responsible governance,
where compromises and getting the job done are readily available. but the republicans are just saying no. that will show you all of briefing coming up at 12:15. one hour after that, we will take you to michigan where hillary clinton is campaigning today, talking about her jobs creation plan. she will be speaking at a tool and engineering company. the head of the national institute of allergy and infectious diseases will up data's on the zika virus -- will up date us on the zika virus. that is live at 1:00 eastern on c-span two. , a documentary talks about his student's award-winning documentaries, some of which have been grand prize winners in our annual studentcam
competition. teacherot the kind of who will look at something that's not very good and go that's nice, you did a nice job with that. i will say what's not working and eventually, every single one of my kids makes a better piece than they did in the beginning. eventually, the kids to do really well in turn all of this stuff so i no longer have to say it to them. their own brain is saying it. >> earlier this year, defense secretary ashton carter named eric schmidt the chairman of the newly formed innovation advisory board. the former ceo of google talked about innovation and technology at the economic club of new york in june. his conversation with charlie rose is about one hour.
>> good afternoon, everybody. welcome to the 453rd economic meeting club in new york in our 109th year. i'm bill dudley, president of the federal reserve bank of new york. as you-all know the economic club of new york is the nation's leading nonpartisan form for speeches on economic, social, and political issues. more than 1,000 promised speakers have appeared before this club over the last century and we have established a strong tradition of excellence. i want to personally recognize the 232 members of the centennial society. these club members continue to make an extraordinary contribution to ensure the financial stability of the club as we go into its secretary century. their names are in your programs. i would like to welcome students here today from columbia university, hunter college, university of pennsylvania, and
southern methodist university. this afternoon we're honored to be able to have as our guest speaker eric schmidt, the exec alphabet ink -- inc. he acts as ambassador with responsibility for the external matters pertaining to all its businesses, including google. these responsibilities have taken him to all corners of the world, including visits to cuba, north korea, and saudi arabia promote open internet access. in his role, he also advises the senior leadership of alphabet on business and policy issues. joining google in 2001, eric helped grow the company from a silicon valley start-up to a global leader in technology. he served as google's chief executive officer from 2001 to 2011. and is chairman from 2011 to 2015.
prior to google he had leadership roles at novel and sun microsystems and holds a bachelor's degree of electrical engineering from princeton university, as well as a master's degree and ph.d. in computer science from the university of california, berkeley. he's a member of the president's council of advisors on science and technology. he's also a writer, co-author of the new digital age and how google works. he serves on the boards of the mayo clinic and the broad institute. he's also a pilot, gulf stream pilot, and philanthropic efforts through the schmidt family found focus on climate change. we're also fortunate today to have as our interviewer, charlie rose, anchor and executive editor of "charlie rose" the one hour nightly program. and the newly launched "charlie rose, the week." he also co-anchors cbs this morning and contributing correspondent to "60 minutes."
as a contributing correspondence is 60 minutes. so let the conversation begin. charlie and eric, the floor is yours. thank you very much. [applause] charlie rose: it's an honor to be here an be with my friend, eric schmidt, who i have known for a long, long time, back when he was a chief technology gist at sun microsystems trying to explain to me what java was about. remember those days? bill said it well about what eric represents. i just looked at the paper today. there is a story about google and others in europe. a story about the saudi's investment in uber. look at any paper today and there are three or four stories about how technology is affecting our lives. we did a program about artificial intelligence and virtual assistant. everywhere we go great companies are becoming technology companies. and eric has been central to that revolution. i don't know what google has become the sec richest company in the world.
what he has done and his partners have done is to help us understand the power of technology. he feels strongly and so do i about how central it is for this country to make sure it treats with urgency and with a sense of commitment to all that technology can do for us. and i know that's a central concern of his. but let me just begin with a couple of questions. when you went to google they said to you we need an adult in the room? because it was a good day for you. eric: it was a good day for me. it's an honor to be here. and thank you guys very much for inviting me. charlie, thank you for doing this as well.
they decided they needed someone to run things. they spent 16 months interviewing people. they need to do things. to become c.e.o. you had to go skiing with them or burning man with them. and very, very few people met the test, apparently, but i was fortunate enough. i told them i wasn't going to spend a weekend with them. we made a long list to do. charlie rose: 10 years as c.e.o. what was the most important thing that happened this those 10 years for you for the company as you see it? eric: my world is full of brilliant ideas that are not monetizeable in the sense people have amazing ideas. in order to build the company of a google, facebook, or uber, you have to have the idea but a significant change in the way the revenue will come in. in our case we invented targeted advertising. which is really much better than untargeted advertising. that's what happened. we rode that really hard. that gave us this engine, in the
same sense microsoft had the engine from dos, windows, we have had this engine that allowed us to build these systems not necessarily with a particular revenue plan. we have been able to fail at big projects without too much of an issue with our shareholders. charlie rose: you can risk much. eric: because of the underlying engine, we can take risks, invest in ideas, and do crazy ideas. things which i don't think will work but they work or don't, we cancel things. it's part of the culture. and i learned that that's not normal. most companies are locked in these quarterly cycles, debt structures. which gives them very few degrees of operating freedom. it's tough for them. charlie rose: today what is the role you have? eric: i'm mostly working on science. i spent a lot of time you know on public policy trying to understand how the world really works and make sure that, frankly, the governments
wouldn't screw this amazing thing that's happening, up. in the form of the internet. charlie rose: is there a risk of that? eric: of course. whenever you're affecting communications and information, governments have a role to play. we had this significant battle, if you will, with china. the democracies are generally ok. as long as you're on the side of informing people. and you're reasonably fair you can get through that. charlie rose: will google be back in china? eric: i hope so. we left in 2010 because they have these very, very strict rules about censorship and we were unable to operate morally from our perspective under the rules. so we keep trying. i spend a fair amount of my time trying to get it reopened. it's up to the chinese government at this point. charlie rose: i want to talk about the issue i touched on which is very strong. we want to talk a lot about the future here. the motion of the moon shot, we're looking at it in cancer as an example which joe biden is heading up by appointment of the president.
what are the possibilities that a moon shot could do for us? eric: maybe i should say i come to a sort of obnoxious view that we're operating under this zero sum set of assumptions in our society. i'm including the western world not just u.s. we're not asking about enough what we with do and build things that are transformative. go back to the interstate highway system, which was originally justified so they could move missiles around. so the lack of the interstate highway system would cause america not to grow at all. connectedness comes from making the world closer. i mean that intellectually and informationally and physically and distribution that works and things that companies in this room do.
it also new inventions come along. and every once in a while there are things which we have a consensus. if we would just get behind it. we call these moon shots. as you know the vice president did the cancer moon shot. sean parker, $250 million to a set of doctors who have figured out a way to promote white blood cells against red blood cells that might be a major cancer breakthrough. these things come along. we don't talk about them. we spend our time arguing about political issues which are largely not that important compared to how do we solve these massive problems? and they can be solved. the two biggest things that are going on i think, i see, are this incredible revolution in medicine and incredible revolution that's going on in knowledge. and the two of them become of basis for many of the things that we can do. the cancer moon shot is powered because we have these cancer breakthroughs and they are occurring because we're able to essentially marry the an log world of cancer and biology.
charlie rose: do you think there is a consensus in the country and the problem is politics in washington? eric: the criticism as price as i can is that we have gone from an era where we thought about solving problems that were very, very big and we have now become -- we have now defined them as problems of special interest. everyone's guilty. the i'm not making a particular political point. but let's dream bigger. give you an example. 3-d printing of buildings. we now think we can start to build whole buildings with 3-d printers. dramatically lowering the cost of housing. does that matter? no, we all have houses, right. doesn't matter, huh? enormously, to all the people. synthetic food, we don't have to work on that. 10% of the global warming
contributions come essentially out of cows. nerds over cows. cattle are -- they are wonderful animals, but they are a significant source of pollution. even if you don't care about the cost of food, which many people do, it looks like we can do synthetic food generation out of plants with quite a positive -- they taste good, it works. i could go on. charlie rose: in terms of the essential philosophy is for government to provide an investment in the future by investing in the research and science? or somehow to unleash the private sector to be able to do this? are these problems too big -- eric: it's more of a consensus. the country is full of smart people. shocking. furthermore, when you care to europe and asia, which i spent lots of time in, he want to be here.
let's start with that. why i want to be here we have 18 of the top 20 research universities in the world. our demographics are such we're growing. we're relatively open to immigration, politics aside. the diversity matters. the kind of thing that american model that got us through the last 30, 40 years stronger than ever. we don't want to admit it. compared to the other models, i'll take ours. we need to focus on it. we need to agree roughly what these projects are. they need to build a consensus. i don't think it takes more money. there's lots of money. how do you apply it? charlie rose: let me talk about revolutions. there was the industrial revolution and the information revolution. where are we now and what's the next revolution? eric: i mentioned there are two phenomena that i think are going to be transformative in the next decade. the first is in health, biology, and the second is in knowledge. in health and biology there has been a breakthrough of something called cast christopher 9 which is a way of gene-netting.
the very top hammer, they use a piece of genes they didn't think were useful, turned out to be very useful, to reassemble components. the combination of that and then doing databases of genes and sequencing and so forth allows us to really probe into the molecular and biological structure of life. it's certainly true in the next 10 or 20 years you'll be able to get a body part generated out of stem cells out of your blood. this is an extraordinary achievement. one made in japan. charlie rose: removes it from the political controversies. eric: politics were a stupid argument anyway. so the core issue here is, you need a new body part, we can regenerate it from your own cells. that's lifesaving for people who need transplants. let's go through. this is the real combat. your friend is dying, this stuff fixes it, why are we not doing more of it? i'll get on cars in a second.
but the core point here is the combination of all of that is current. why is it occurring? partly because technology and science sees this but also because of motive the health care industry these new treatments as new sources of revenue and billion dollar drugs. you have a good alignment now. economic interest. stuff is risky, right. venture capital some of whom are in the room are going to -- some will make a fortune. some lose money. that's how it works. great. information, google is working very, very hard on the concept of an assistance. the way the assistant works is the assistant -- this is all opted in with your permission. it uses all of the knowledge that google has generated. we have something called the knowledge graph. we understand how language is spoken. we have 17 years of queries and those things to sort of try to help you out. one of the first versions we
built an instant messaging app which can rely for you. and it sort of learns what to say. our first foyer on this last year was an email product which would automatically rely to your email. everyone here want this is product, right? we lost the thing and its most common rely is, i love you, which turned out not to be the correct answer. we have bugs. charlie rose: let me stop you there one second. the idea of a virtual assistant coming out of artificial intelligence is -- everybody's trying to do that.
we had amazon already on the market with echo and how many people get up and say alexa, what time is it? what's the news? you have all of the major companies are there. i assume that competition will be good for the end product, but is google behind the curve on that? eric: we have -- we just announced a product. different technology. we'll see how well it does. this is how our industry works. we're far more collaborative than competitive. everyone wants to focus on apple versus google. the fact of the matter is the whole ecosystem moves forward. it is building those platforms and that knowledge. i think it's reasonable to expect that in a decade the vast majority of your computer interaction will be by voice. shocking. i, by the way, 10 years ago i predicted this would never happen. shows you how right i am. you look at the technology and alexa, now common, you see it. i'm not particularly in the voice recognition part, i'm very interested in the voice recognition with knowledge understanding. charlie rose: and tap into the data that already google has. eric: or the underlying algorithms. you can use going, we have a product you can get on your phone, speak in your language, comes out on another phone in another language.
oh, my god of does this really work? yes. is it as good as a human translator? not yet. is it good enough to have a casual conversation? yes. how does it work? turns out it takes your voice, it digitizes it, puts it into text, that's done using a neural network, an a. t. concept, it then uses a different translation neural network which learned how to translate looking at good language pairs, and translates it back into voice. you have three different translations to go from voice to voice. charlie rose: is there a name for industrial to information to the age that we're looking at now? the transformative age of all of the technology and what it's doing for us? is there a consensus name? eric: i can define it a little bit.
another example, we -- there's a game called go, which americans typically don't know anything about. and it's infinitely harder than chess. and a group, a subsidiary of google, called deep mind, have been working for a long time to develop the concept of intuition. and they developed an ability to take a game in the form of bits, really they can watch the bits on the screen with enough work they can, playing enough games, they can figure out what the objects of the game are, how to win t. and then beat all the humans. that's pretty interesting. now, what's interesting technologically you don't have to tell it what the game is. so how does it do this? well, it sort of watches for a while and sees common patterns and begins to develop a base of knowledge. then it learns against that base of knowledge.
this is not a human intelligence yet. so it's not -- we're not making - charlie rose: yet. eric: we don't know how hard it will be to get there. but what we do know this is something that's never been done before. then we apply this to the game of go, which is thought to be incomputable, and what it did is it learned how to only look at certain positions. by the same rough training mechanism. and we decided to have a game against the best player in the world in korea, a nice human being, and we beat him four to one. which was historic. charlie rose: it was historic and huge. help us understand, we're not talking about artificial intelligence, all these things you talked about is artificial intelligence. and some -- a friend said to me recently, eric is thinking a lot about artificial intelligence. on the one hand you have deep mind, which is able to beat go. that's a huge thing. on the other hand, you have watson which began with chess and won jeopardy and they are working.
explain artificial intelligence for most of us here because in this audience and elsewhere everybody hears about it, some people are making deep investments in it. hedge funds and others. eric: remember what i said about the biological work. it's happening because there's a confluence of a platform, a set of ideas, and a large amount of money and live investing, a lot of people coming out of school they are working on it. and the sense it's transformative to everyone's thoughts. the same thing -- the two are symmetric. the current a.i. uses -- i'll give you a couple that are simple. if you're familiar with the disease called diabetic retinopathy. diabetes revolution -- tragedy is taking over the world, it causes your eyes to go bad. you become blind. it can be detected by a good ophthalmologist. we take pictures of your eye and we can do it better. turns out we see more eyes.
we saw a million. very hard for the ophthalmologist to see a million eyes. so in -- there's large number of cases where if you just let the computer with technology see more examples, they can come up with better decisions. another example, we believe that you can apply this to oil and gas distribution networks. a great deal of leakage and decisions made about flow and storage and so forth and so on. by using that data we think we can reduce the emissions from that. it's a good -- by the way the emissions is costly to the industry. a good goal line. the real question is how far does this go. we think we can develop enough intuition carefully that a physicist or a chemist could say, you know how they work, they say i want to combine this chemical with that other chemical.
and have the following reaction. it's not going to blow up. i will produce a new substance that will get me a nobel prize and a promotion at work. so they do that, right. by 9:00 in the morning they say that. by 3:00 in the afternoon it fails. they come up with another one. that's how it really works. these are incredibly intelligent people. but that process can be automated. we can ask the computer to go through all the combinations. give you a probability. does that matter? these are trillion dollar industries globally. drugs and chemicals. charlie rose: deep mind has a different kind of ideas from ibm's watson. explain how they are different and what they are trying to accomplish each in their own. eric: watson, facebook, and deep mind are doing -- have completely different problems. in the case of watson, they use a particular kind of inference
model that worked particularly well for jeopardy and complicated problem solving. they are having a lot of success applying this to systems and explaining them. so they can read a complicated system and tell you what is in it. you take all the contracts and read them. give an answer and that's a generalizeable result. facebook just announced this week that they have a breakthrough in language understanding around communication. they have said that they've made significant progress in detecting hate speech. in our case we took a position we wanted to build an underlying platform that allows you to do all this stuff. we built a network describing it technically, it's an ma tricks and the underlying system i'm describing are algorithms and we have given this framework to all
our competitors. it's so strategy for us to build the community. that we literally took this amazing intellectual property. charlie rose: some will say that what they're trying to do with deep mind is understand how people think. the ibm people are saying it is man plus machine. eric: the deep mind people are interesting because the founders came out of neuroscience. they imagine that we would build computer systems the same way people do learning.
i don't do a good job of this, but think about it when you came into this room, how much cognitive time did you spend figuring out that the floor was where your feet went, the lights were up there, the table was there? you have a knife and fork. everyone is dressed properly. zero time. you had already learned that. you had chunked that, if you will. there's evidence the way our brains work is we study a scene and we subset the things that are really important. and we then put them into the brain. this is called reinforcement learning. we believe that reinforcement learning to be a core part of this next ai algorithm. charlie rose: take these five companies, apple amazon google facebook microsoft. is there a race to do any one thing, are they all the same business? apple made a fortune on
smartphones. google has made a fortune on search. microsoft made a fortune on software. amazon made a fortune on a range of different things. in these companies are they in pursuit of a holy grail? eric: the tech companies as a group are highly competitive, seeking new -- i want to say it right, think of each of these as a platform company driven by innovation that solve the problem that's global. in some cases a problem you didn't think you had but they solve it well. microsoft is the eldest of them. it solved the problem of interoperable workstation platforms. amazon started as a virtual bookstore. i didn't realize i wanted such a large bookstore but now i'm happy i have it.
each of these has had that. apple's transformation is legendary with steve's resuscitation of the company. when steve took over the second time he clearly wanted to do phones. we have never had that many companies fighting so brutally against each other and yet also collaborating. in our industry we always have i.b.m. and microsoft. a few others. charlie rose: where is the collaboration? you are also suing each other. eric: that's normal. there's lots of collaboration. our apps all run on microsoft.
they run on apple. charlie rose: last year they announced a partnership with microsoft. eric: a traditional model would say we won't put anything on that platform. it turns out that apple is a customer in our case. we are also a customer of apple. everyone argues with each other but we benefit from open markets and globalization. a sense the technology is transformative. charlie rose: should we insist on open sources? in terms of all this being discovered or are we looking at a world where each organization is going to be jealously guarding not only what it knows and it's learning but also trying to hire away and protect itself from losing the most talented human beings? eric: this is the genius of competition. this is evidence of real competition.
we fight brutally to hire the top people. think about the android phone or the iphone that you use today. about how powerful it is. it is a hundred million times more powerful than the computer i used in college. there was only one of them in college. i stayed up all night to use it. it was the only time i could get access to it. real consumer benefit. the competitive structure, the architecture you describe will continue for a while until another one joins us. the current and next one is uber. as a disclosure, google is a large investor in uber. charlie rose: so is saudi arabia. eric: i didn't do that fund. they have done incredibly well. i wish i had invented uber. at the same time travis and his
partner were standing --it was invented at the base of the eiffel tower. i was giving a speech about how there will be amazing companies founded based on smartphones google maps and gps. but i didn't figure out what the app was. the next one will be built on a machine intelligence platform. it will use very rapid iterations. i don't know what the app is. charlie rose: in terms of how smart machines are becoming, we express fears about people like elon musk and larry and bill gates, the idea is there is some danger from machines becoming so smart and so human and uncontrollable that they provide a threat to the planet.
eric: these people have been watching a lot of movies. elon backed up his concern charlie rose: that's steven hawking, too. eric: elon backed up his concern over this very important issue by investing $1 billion in a competitor to piedmont. you never say never. but let's go through what is needed to make that scenario happen. we are still learning how to do
basic intuition. there will be breakthroughs and we'll get excited about it. we hope to be able to assist there will be breakthroughs, and it,ill get excited about and be able to answer your e-mail and make suggestions for what movie theater you should go tonight. that is not intelligence. we may be able to we hope to assist humans in their daily jobs. who does not want help? there is really speculation to get to the kind of human level intelligence then everyone has , let alone going past. , which is justn guess, thatust a