all. it is a wonderful things that we have to practice as you please but it is not guaranteed. you have to protect and defend it to prepare your right to practice means defending the other person's right to defend there's. so the only way to go forward congress shall pass notes law establishing a state religion. . . washington for 45

minutes. [applause] >> thank you all. thank you for coming. i appreciated, especially on

this taken a terrible weather. i woke up this morning. i expected to be a lot worse. it was not that bad. the 130 wake-up call which is really the not going asleep golf. but it was not too bad out there, thank god. i think you for coming. thank you to heritage. special thank-you to my friend for really providing some stage in the eyes of the last couple of years in a number of different aspects of my life. thank you for having me. constantly being available even though i probably in are you and your cellphone, merit -- more than you care to. thank you. i appreciate it off. i want to talk for 15 or 20 minutes, and our right to start with my job with the nypd, the police department, and have it changed my internal compass. and it was -- it was a strange occurrence i had as a young man. it is in the book. then i would like to delve into some of the secret service years and some of the people i met with. i found it to be an incredible experience and want to leave it

with my sense of, i guess we could college frustration. the reason i left end this kind of battle, the friction i have it in my experiences with really good people and what i saw as an institutional problem with the government and its failure to do even the easy things well. the reason i walked away. but starting out with my experience, never want to be a police officer. yes, i wanted to get a medical school and be a doctor. i took the and can not too long ago actually. i was watching gray's anatomy. i said to my thinking going to take the end cat. and she said, well, nobody thinks they're going to. i said, no, i am going to. unfortunately added not get in check. that is a whole other story. never wants to be a police officer. i talk about in the opening of the book as i live, and that don't mean this to be a side story. i think if our's dollars -- it is our stars that make us to we

are. i worshipped every lump in those cars. made me land today and enable me to see that there is real evil in the world. think that is sometimes a perspective on the liberal left. if you don't understand that, it is very difficult to define the policy prescription for word, but we had a household that had been ravaged by a bad divorce, and some problems. a family member who thought that, you know, child abuse, physical abuse was inappropriate owlet for is internal rage. when you're a and kate witnessing that it is tough. feel about as helpless as he has ever felt in your life. when you're nine year-old and watching this happen in another is nothing you can do, it is disturbing. and i found peace and just serenity only in the police

officers when they would show up it seems to be the only thing that could cause all this pain. nothing else. there was really no man or woman as scared him except for the blue uniform. and i remember thinking that one night i documented in the buck. it was chaotic and out of control. i remember seeing a police officer show up and saying, wow, what a job. you are meeting people. worlds are colliding at their absolute lowest. that, for me, was the lowest it had gotten. the pain and fear was incredible and you have the ability to turn around like that. and that's not to my have got to at least try. so that is what led me to the new york city police department. of course started as an idealist i think we all do. and that tell the story in a book about being on the street one night.

and i am doing as 6:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. shift. it is quite busy. the 75%. we had t-shirts made up. the radio station in new york. 1010 wind, it is kind of a new station. they have an expression, you give us ten minutes and we will give you the world. east new york, brooklyn. very busy. there was a drug war going on, a lot of the different rival projects in the neighborhood. it was kind of like a chair for. there was something like 300 homicides the year before i had gone there. put that in perspective. the entire city of baltimore last year had 200. this was one of 78 precincts. it was an extremely tough area, and it really was a rude awakening, you know, for young 20-year-old, especially a young 20-year-old idealist a study to change the world in one fell swoop. it's tough.

i was standing in the corner and saw this young kid you might seem quite a bit. i don't baldy was. may have been sent, 11. should not have been out on the street. i was out on the street from a preliminary 1:00 a.m. for some reason i struck about conversation with them. i remember saying to him, what you want to do when you grow? and elected me quizzically as if the question and really baffle them. he never thought about what to do, what that really meant. he clearly did not have an answer. i said, to you want to be a doctor, engineer, lawyer. what is your job, how you want to make money? and he said to me, i want to be like a easy. and i thought jay-z. at the time he was an up-and-coming rapper, not as fantasy yesterday. i thought, okay.

and he said to me, no, 8-c. in for a second, i had to think about it. it was one of these local drug dealer kids who was a real pot, but once a wiley put on a performance, a little atrium the open area in the middle of the housing project. and it occurred to me, it was really, such as affirmative moment that is america was not ours. he did not only not want to be the rapper, he wanted to be a-z. that to me, was staggering. when i was almost okay with. i could not get this get out of my mind. i live in a bordering neighbors would ride over they'll. and i could not get him out of my head thinking, how was it that this part of new york,

centrally located, it was probably no more than 20 minutes from manhattan right off the ballpark, right off the jackie robinson parkway, you know the area i'm talking about. it could not be more geographically suited to economic growth. what is wrong? i mean, the big question, not why are there pot holes in the street, why is there an elevated grand larceny auto number in this precinct, what is wrong with this particular area? it seems to me that no one could answer the big question. did a nuclear bomb go off? did not make any sense. this kid was no different. it did not seem when you get in a conversation that i was when i was nine attend to yet is america was not my. the idea of being a doctor writing a book, an engineer, had never even occurred to him. i thought, there's something

going on here that i have to have some role in changing it. it really sparked an interest, not particularly in politics as we would think, political races, but it sparked an interest in me in ideology, liberal versus conservative, libertarian verses green, economic ideology, austrian school versus chicago school, but there has got to be an answer here. never answer there is clearly was not implemented year. and i would dig in that would take. i started out command that is eventually how i found the secret service. i was reading a book called mine hunter. was going to go into the fbi after that. there profiling program. i was in graduate school of the time studying narrow psychology and really found that fascinating. but i was explaining to this woman was running next to on a treadmill who happens to be a police up as a one day who had worked with the secret service. i was fascinated by the politics

of it and ideology. she says to my thinking need to check out the secret service. looking back, to be fair and self critical, which, i think, is important, it was probably the wrong call. i should not have immersed myself in the political process that i knew was watering is see that was only going to grow and eventually spread tree that was going to rush of a concrete. i just did not expect it to really become part of me as it did. i thought politics, economic and dlj would be a secondary interest, and it was not. i found the secret service and i loved the job. i say to people all the time, it's the closest thing to being famous without anybody knowing her you are. none of the downside, but you get to live this life and be part of government. the absolute highest levels. it was an incredible experience. as a matter of fact, he and to my work with the in quite a bit at the provincial center. that was fun.

when john karzai was trying to get reelected and losses guy you may have heard of, chris christie. i knew he was going to lose that day. we tried to fill the stadium. i think they thought they would get 20,000 people. what did they get, about eight? now was right. he lost by a few points. i found it incredible in the secret service. i kept thinking, what is wrong here. what happened in that precinct? and i kept thinking, is it government? and i was always fascinated in the secret service seven were people from the chilly the white house on down to an administrative assistant in hhs somewhere. the secret service is an interesting job, traveling around to different agencies. but everybody was so terrific to work with. so i thought, it cannot be a matter of personal and competence. the men and women of the service, the staff by worked with, they would work age in the morning to midnight every night.

and no one ever complained about it. it just was the job. the mission was clear. i went to afghanistan with president obama, and remember looking in the face of the delta force operator who was going to go meet the president. and my one knock. so this delta force committee as a thousand lost there. you know what on talking about. you can tell, you could tap into and out of his brain committee and some stories, some probably would not tell you, but it would have been fascinating. the staffer was staked to are slightly out of touch. he came over to me. our member am saying -- we are at bagram airbase in the middle of a war zone. you think you can ask that guy to leave his weapon outside? and i'm like, u.s. team. he didn't ask in. he wound up going in, but remember meeting the delta force guy talking to him. these men and women, the

government military command administrative people, special agents of just such fascinating folks. what is going wrong? so time when on. i just got more and more disconnected from what i felt in my case was a parasitic lifestyle, and that don't mean that in any qualitative way as a reflection on government work. it is strictly personal. i looked around my neighbors. we were in -- believe you still are, but we are in a real -- or in a really bad recession at the time, and i was suffering no ill consequences of all, not a bit. gas prices went up, i have a government-card, a government car. my salary went every year. there were no inflation adjustments. i felt like i had no standing in. i thought, in a country like we have it, is in did not that when you see our arab population mile west of of this gentlemen i met

you had known of the subway store. i came here from pakistan with nothing and was now making six figures just randomly assigned to open up the subway restaurant we are not risk takers and more. we have almost fallen into a middle-class apathy, and we have let the country just kind of slowly disappear around this. and not only do we not do -- people ask me all the time of politics, you know, what can we do. i said, you're asking the wrong question. the right question is not can we do, the question is, what are we doing now. they're people who ask me that question as a composer congressman and they have no idea. think about the apathy that spreads in the country. in a midterm election that is not uncommon for up to 50 percent of the people not to even though. in that thought, i can't. i can't do that. i'm sorry. i would rather die poor. and my wife and i had a prolonged conversation because i

do have -- i had one daughter at the time, to now, but there were very real consequences to me leaving. after about fivers six months of having this conversation i remember my wife -- we are going down to a cinco de my party and my cul-de-sac. she turned to me and said to my not try to talk you out of this mmi? ends i said, no. i drove in at monday. on the way and she told me, by the way, the novice a class nine she said no. and it's because i'm pregnant. i thought that is to have a way of putting a price on things. i walked upstairs until the boss my wife was pregnant, i was resigning. he does not. i walked out and they have a blast door in the sixth service to keep a list grounds. in ways slams it really rocks the whole building. and when i walked out the door

slammed, i tell you if cannot to be melodramatic, but is still kind of act as because i knew was the last time that door whenever shut. and i walked away and jump and the longest of long shot united states senate race is potentially in american history. i did it starting with two donors, me and my father. it worked out kind of well. i don't want to get into the politics of the waste. he eventually lost, but it was an incredible experience, but a lot of character in me and taught me a lot about the system that i thought i had already seen being a secret service agent. i thought this was all old hat, but i learned a lot about the process. folks, it is the process that is broken. and when i say the process, i don't only mean what traditionally i think the general public sees when i say you have been sold out. all of you, you know that. you have been sold out unless

you have the money for a block of voters to you can influence that you can move a representative in your direction. they have no interest in you. yet been sold out internally, by internal interests that have taken precedence over taxpayer interest. allegheny unexampled. he may say to yourself -- i know i did. and if you don't, you should. why do we have all these different law enforcement agencies? why? does anyone have a common-sense answer to that? i have never heard one. i would think about over and over again. what we have the secret service and fbi? a cia but then the dna. here is how the system works. here is where the siren needs to be sounded. as the bureaucracy grows what happens is when everybody is responsible for something the tragedy is nobody is, and that is how you get a situation like benghazi where they ultimately

admit openly the accountability review board that it went through the bureaucracy, as if that is just some viewed stage, not real people. here is the way it works. the reason people in specific factions don't want to give up responsibility for whenever it may become a let's say bank fraud or credit card fraud is because there is no power nes in the government. there's only power and no. when i can sit there as a federal agent and i have jurisdiction over a crime you investigated in the private sector, you need to come to me. i have monopoly power. there is no private police force. it is in my best interest to maintain a relationship is you have the private money. when i leave, believe me, i will ask you for repayment. if i give up, whether the baby, bank fraud, money and interest and everything to my knowledge

mangle retire. is not during your time and the government were you making money but when you leave. and if it is this dreaded carrousel it is causing the problem. it is the same problem when it comes to love the sun, the moneyed interests that can buy out specific aspects of our government that if control of everything, including policy. very rarely does you're representative actually represent you. the process is simple. you get a pack. done is to me, you get access and yet to make your case. about think it will be catastrophic for me and put up a smokescreen i will go out and vote for that piece of legislation, assuming you continue to support me later on and find my campaign. is not only about my preservation of contacts in the private sector internally by maintaining access to the private sector later on when i there i leave congress sort of read maybe and maintaining access to the money pool. it is an extremely pernicious problem because at this bureaucracy of.

it allows them sarah observed the blow of a bad decision by blaming it on a bureaucracy. the american people just come to accept it. imagine if we did that in the private sector, if apple knows, -- i guess everyone has an iphone. i love apple. if god forbid apple was to launch a product, the product was to fail catastrophically you would see a decision making tree where at some point i assure you everyone will be held accountable. i don't know if there would get fired, may be a pay cut, may be moved, maybe nothing, and knows? but you see, none of that is in the government commanded is just accepted. i wrote the last three chapters of the book as a forum to the earlier chapters telling about my experience with some really good people in government, i wrote about the boston bombing,

and gauzy, and fast and furious as examples of what i just told you. think about the boss in bombing. you can put yourself into will alert. you will get in a millisecond and e-mail if your name appears on the internet. amazing. but in the federal government the terrorist information database. paned the treasury enforcement system and no one thought there was anything wrong or nobody followed up and inappropriate manner. is that not strike you as odd in a government that spends trillions of dollars no one thought there was anything wrong with that.

jobs will be at stake in the cellars of the estate, promotions robbia's sake -- state, but nothing happened. i've never met one who if they saw a situation like that would not run with it if they thought they could stop a terrorist attack, but no one thinks of it. the tragedy of the comments do worse and worse and worse. in a byproduct from a lazy bureaucratic efforts to stop what they cannot stop through common sense reforms vis-a-vis the nsa. let's just do blanket surveillance rather than looking at what we have all these federal agencies. and bring in another example at the end of the book. quoting the accountability review board that reviewed the benghazi situation where they clearly state they had a manpower problem, and i contrast that with the rate on the get --

raid on a gibson guitar factory. the imported oil from indonesia or whenever it may be. think about this. u.s. government has a situation in benghazi in an active conflicts on, no question about that, documented requests for security over and over and over again. the arm comes out and says, well, you know, there's a lot of bureaucracy and a manpower problem committed does not bother anyone or strike them as odd that we have enough guys to go read a gibson guitar factory over imported would. priorities, are those really our priorities? so it is easy to complain. suggesting going toward command and out like to take your questions come if we were to streamline these federal agencies, intelligence operation, internal affairs investigation type operation and one federal law enforcement

operation segmented into different divisions can of like the nypd, you could have cross training, move people around, take advantage of economies of scale and scope, everything the private sector does, streamlined, promote faster, promotion rules, we could save tons of money and that the same time reallocate manpower to our priorities like that. we cannot do that now, even in the secret service man to put our requests to other agencies. because to these big channels, wastes all kind of money just to get a gala began to show up. it would not have to do any of that. they kissed a to prioritize. whenever it may be an reallocate manpower. not at story about six agents to bust up an imported watering well our embassy in benghazi is no security. i think in the private sector we

could fix it. we'll have that in the government. remember what i said, the economic interests as always for you to continue to retain as much power as you can because there is no power in yes, only power in me as a government official with the monopoly of the investigation to be able to tell you know. you need me. when i created a need by creating a request later on. that will be my request for new. we can fix it, though, folks. i think it will take some good compassionate people going for it. i think it's going to take more people to speak out as i think right now there is crisis of internal leaders. people during the recession are afraid to lead. i speak to people all the time on my cell phone on the inside doors just as frustrated as i am, from the military or anywhere else, and that think it is going to take a tidal wave of people -- tidal wave of people

speaking out to create effective change. i appreciate you listening and led to take your questions. if you would like to read it later on i think you'll see when talking about in those last few chapters. thank you very much. >> we will take questions. identify yourself as a courtesy to our guests. do we have a question? i knew that we would. [laughter] >> citizen at large, and to you think that part of the problem is a risk aversion in our culture that whenever there is some tragedy of a violent nature multimillion-dollar lawsuits come out of that from the victims -- the families of the victims. so everyone feels obliged to maximize security.

so if something does happen, well, i had extra mile wide, as the people watching out for it. during the civil war the enemy would cross the river. you had an open house on sunday afternoon. people standing there. during world war ii you were at war with japanese and italians and germans, yet this city function was not in a lock down anywhere near like it is now. you can walk in and out of the capital. it seems as though we have -- we are trying to prevent any sort of violence, almost like we're just afraid to take risks. i think if he think that mentality might be part of the problem? >> i do, think we're in a much different environment than back then and it is a function of technology, the ability right now the spread of dirty bond, the power of explosives grow exponentially, the access to weapons, not traditional weapons frankly, this social modeling affect. before i went into the secret

service was a graduate student fascinated by psychology. social modeling, the ability to watch what another human being does and replicate the dave yourself is almost uniquely human. what do i say that tonight because you see things like the school shooting. there is no question in my mind that the growth in this sad, tragic phenomenon is a result of press coverage of the actual event, which has created in a 24-hour news cycle with plotting , 24-hour internet, facebook, and the ability to tweet. you remember, when we hit the leader of al qaeda in pakistan there is gentleman who live there in tweeted that there were helicopters overhead before they even landed. in a 24-hour culture right now saturated with information worldwide, any tragic event has the capacity is set off almost a proliferation cascade of new, tragic events stranger replicated. so to your first point, are we

hypersensitive? yes. secondly, i would say the environment is definitely much different. and to add on to that, again, i right in the buck that the environment for terrorism and counter-terrorism specifically had become dangerous. i use the business model. the traditional model of terror was a franchise model. it was a sell, al qaeda. think about it like a mcdonald's . you buy mcdonald's as that franchisee. you are a al qaeda franchisee. you have to buy the burgers and material, take your orders from al qaeda central, but you technically operate your own story of what you really don't. you are following their -- in al qaeda we call it propaganda. in mcdonald's we college marketing. you're trying to influence behavior. that franchise model is dangerous, but it was not as dangerous as a model we are in now, the sole proprietor model. a franchise model of terror left

a lot of breadcrumbs. i worked a lot of these cases fairly as a secret service agent on long island. one of the mention in the book and i talk about -- i cannot even get information on my own case from the fbi. it was absurd. it was my investigation. i thought, this is insane. i can carry a gun on to air force want but can't get a guy -- never nation of nine investigators from another federal is a seat. you will see right there does not lead to bread crumbs. ..

>> those sold proprietor terrorists how they do not leave the breadcrumbs what do? watch the internet traffic? that may we is silly question with the nsa. we are indeed different to the fire but but we are hypersensitive and it is a reflection unfortunately of political correctness as well. i avail libertarian at heart a and i believe every man and will bid on this earth is a child of god but if someone says you are looking for a male who is six ft. six missing his left

figure, that is why want to go after. i use these characteristics but everybody is offended. just because i baby looking for someone who does save this facility does not mean as a law-enforcement officer we are just following the trail it becomes even more dangerous because we have plank and surveillance with the nsa that i disagree with. it is silly. it is absurd. really? how much time? do you know, that economic productivity that is lost every year? how many people would not even have a nail clipper? it is no waste. you are right on both fronts

>> from this point to hear you're absolutely right because for all humidity is not dangerous for the united states. only with the united nations. i can do the cerebus. it is an open letter it is an attachment.

and with the united states and the most happiest if we live in the historical way with the help? no. >> you will not get an argument from the on that one. >> i am an avid constitutional conservative if you don't have the process but you have nothing but chaos. the dodgers first borate definitely a global flight but i could only argue from my perspective i was not subject to global rules. sundews say heavy approach that are limited by the rules that actually have a pullback defect that makes the environment even worse. i know that term has taken on a different medium but i

think some of the tactics are extremely effective and the only one that creates propaganda would it could have been handled differently sometimes funny works a lot better than vinegar in my experience. >> merry christmas. >> merry christmas. >> first of all, as an active secret service agent, i know that you are a former, but why did you not specifically a tent which is the crux of all the problems and issues that is article ii use section one to the united states constitution said deals with the qualifications to be

president that no person except a natural born citizen or a citizen of the united states or shall be president. so why did you not deal with the greatest threat with that being as an officer and a domestic candy international threat to america because right now we do have the and constitutional president and that poses the greatest threat not only in america but throughout the world. >> that is a lot to. [laughter] unfortunately it is not true. the president of united states was born in the united states.

i have nothing else to say. >> [inaudible] >> i cannot argue. >> do we have another question? >> i have another one. >> i am interested you are running for congress again? can you talk about why you want to go with such a small approval rating. [laughter] >> i cannot get too much in to whip but talking generally, the congress is study because it to ask about their individual congressman he is great. if they know who it is. is kinda funny if you ask people sometimes i actually don't with in the district i ready for but i will eventually. does that bother you?

not really. what district? i don't know. that is probably why does people talk about congress like it is a cloud or false not made of real people but then date june dirt to -- generally like their congressman. maybe the analysis is not of this year. it is largely a function of the form policy in administration decisions. when you get a letter in the mail that's what she vesica lost health care in makes it very real for a lot of people real fast. lot of policy decisions did not have that effect. if this tax is, will check bigger last year they and the sheer? to answer the larger question live issues to get involved played a said if he

refused to get involved you aren't destined to be fooled by people the survey yourself. turn the question back, what do you do? really? in this room? we're all competitors. i am. not a bad way but what are you doing? and not challenging you but what are you doing? the world is changed by action not talk. talk motivates action but the action and changes the overall. i get the question all the time what can we do? will be doing now? nothing. what do you mean? you just let this happen? if you don't get involved ian to take a risk i'd like that pakistan the odor that i met did not even have a dime or speak english to figure out the greatest country what are you doing

duces the process to make it a better tomorrow? why can the most effective politicians they did not tell you tell you how terrible yesterday was but the action plan for tomorrow. i have an obligation to people whose tax dollars support a very it's nice lifestyle i have an obligation to give something back. believes the the financial penalty for my decision was long-lasting. if you thank you make money with books i have a news. you will not. it is the ideological mission for your cause whatever it may be but if you thank you will make back that $3 million i left behind, you are out of your mind because i believe in this. we are the greatest country on earth and it takes action and not just talked to do something. >> one last question.

we'll understand a lot of washington and not just with the protection but your proposal to put those together to have a different tree of responsibility i am understand but how does that cross with your libertarian view? are you not centralizing it too much power with the check and balance that they may give us for benefit? >> the power is already centralized. to break up that power, to give you an example, i love the secret service as an example. as a bank executive utility pay millions of dollars per year especially when taxpayers do it for free to find out you have a bank

power that is monopolistic there is no power for me to say you are the company now with the n.y.p.d. was one centralized operation there are very few others sheriff steel a lot not involved with enforcement but officer jones i need you to help me into satellite do is you have zero monopoly. i just say officer jones would not help. officers and said it? there is endless avenues to go to so i would urge you strongly centralized a that bureaucratically does not centralized power it enables people different avenues within a larger bureaucracy but if you see it from the inside the redundancy is

absurd. i remember a story literally in the same building. to federal agencies one had four or five big empty offices they could not tell them another agency needed the space but they've printed out another office instead of moving upstairs. you start to scratch your head. this is insane. it is milton friedman period you spend other people's money cost or quality does not matter. it is true rather than spend the money on themselves alleys the quality matters. if you're spending your money it is the best i can find. that is how you get that

multiplied by thousands. if you don't think there is waste in the budget it is absurd. >> one more thing, on the other front lobby front that has bang going on for elands , -- aeons but it is with the tax code if i could give you a tax break because you make great suits but not give it to the blue suit company i give you a competitive a vintage in the field you don't have. you pay be back to donate to icahn paid to keep be empowered to realize the economic distortion will decline through the economy times thousands and

thousands over decades? think about how the value misjudgments were made because of pricing product is wrong because i could give you a tax break. it is no small item. why do you think the left fights so viciously against the flat tax because it is flat? no. because there is no power with yes. of everything is yes you pay 15% to does not matter. all of a sudden i am powerless. that is the best thing i could do for you is to leave the juppe -- the job much more powerless indisposed to be representative government. that is the idea. thank you. [applause] speeeight we do have a few

copies with us today "life inside the bubble" and available on amazon and at bookstores we do appreciate your attendance and we will anof

discussions on spectrum policy and spectrum management. i didn't realize the last one was so long ago but this is the field that we have been interested in, we at csis have been interested in for a while. with a great panel. our keynote speaker is general robert wheeler, who will be going through his slides and giving us some information on dod's thinking on spectrum management and reallocation. thanks for coming out on a day that the news outlets predicted would be one of unparalleled snow and blizzard, so i appreciate your heartiness, even though -- general, would you like to come up? >> so, i do know all the folks on the panel. we are usually yelling at each other so this ought to be a little bit of an interest

discussion. thanks for coming out. i know the snow is bad and i was a little eight. it took about 46 minute to be exact. so that was little bit of pain that i did not expect. i think this is important subject. and important subject for a nation because i think it talks to the national security issue as was the economic issue and to be frank those are intertwined. those are together. that's one of the important takeaways if you take nothing else away that national security and the economic growth and capability of strength of our nation are one. i think that's where we all need to think about this from the perspective. the other piece that i would like to make sure you walk away with is the international flavor. it's hard for people to fully understand sometimes asked to the spectrum played from a worldwide perspective. because while we can make a domestic plan, if i'll satellites over in the same spectrum that come from many countries, that's going to be a problem because of that particular point we start in either with air satellite and

that causes problems for them to help us when we need help overseas for the same exact reason. there's a very strong international flavor that doesn't always get hurt well but that is a big deal. the world has become smaller. there's no doubt with the advent of the internet and the way we are connecting together it is a much smaller world and that aspect is a critical part of spectrum. let me talk to you more about our perspective on this from a dod site and where we think we're going because a lot has changed. slide, please. >> i can do that. there we go. okay, this looks like a very complex slide but is there something to take away from it, but bottom line. spectrum is a thread that ties all of dod together. the other part of the aspect of it is if you think about, think a three dimension. think of the space dimension which is the across the top, the air dimension which is those aircraft they're going back and

forth, and the terrestrial. at that particular point of three communication layers, and all of them connect together on voice, video and data and all have to be across all three pieces. to all the way from space, all the way to the air layer and all the way down to the terrestrial later, all those connections occur and that's really what happens from a db perspective. i think you're seeing that in a domestically as well in the training and we're seeing that grow and grow. let me give you an example. i am a b-2 stealth bomber guys went flying across the world in a nation and a combat or noncombat situation, i have a connection to the satellite continuously. i have data coming in. i have a laptop that sits between me that has microsoft office on it. so i get e-mails and things of that particular nature on the at the same time i got link 16 showing all the other aircraft and all the other potential threats that are out there in my particular screen. i'm giving voice. all that is occurring at the same time so i'm receiving data, two separate screens, also

receiving voice multiple in most cases. coming from satellite, terrestrial-base base and at the time i'm also starting to get little pieces and parts of nonvoice type things, beats and squeaks and things understand that tell me where the threats are. all that's happening at the same time so you can intertwined all three of those that's an example of what we are seeing up in that particular slide. next please. one back. okay. on this particular site were talking about the data. it's a very interesting slide, takes a while to get to understand. take a look at the topline this shows the traffic growth. traffic growth in stabilizing. we will also see the per device

growth. that is at a lower level but what is clear is that traffic, the amount of traffic is growing at a clear 20%. as the bison was drop off as dumb which were growing every year, traffic is still going up at about a 20% clip every year. that means dan is going to be the future. what does that any? spectrum. we're growing at a rate that is somewhat stabilizing at this particular point but it is clear more spectrum is going to be required for more efficient use of spectrum and i will talk about both of those. right here we're seeing the whole commercial broadband peace to it is tied back to economic growth. there's no doubt about it. if you take a look at our nation the way i look at it is delightfully united states with passion can. >> is possible for a business perspective. you can imagine data to every rule air in the country. can you imagine what we can do from a business perspective? this is about america's creativity. it's about america's ability to stay competitive and keep its edge. that goes from a military perspective as well as an

economic perspective across the board. i think we are intertwined together and that's a clear message from my perspective. the president has pushed for a 500 -- 1000 megahertz or more if possible. we are definitely pushing hard towards 501,000 that we understand. what does that drive? one of them is it's driving technology, driving technology to be more efficient. how do we do this better, make it so we're not a spectral on? the pcast message was clear, it spoke to both the federal aspects of it and the commercial aspects of it. so those are intertwined. how do we get better across the board so we use the limited spectrum that we have more efficiently. that's good for all of us. slide. i love this life because we talked about what we have to do. try to we've all of the spectrum through, everything we do as a spectral impact whether it's electronic warfare, whether it's talking to a weapons in an

aircraft, whether it's moving stuff from fedex across the country, all of this touches the spectrum and its, we we this through and every time you had one more spectrum you have to be extreme be careful of what it touches. i think that's a critical part because you can start to interfere with each other, start to cause problems and you can have a real issue. example, if you're talking about missile defense and you have a specific frequency where from a commercial aspect you look and tell you to use that very often, i think yes, thank god i don't use a very often from a missile defense perspective, but i have had a frequency when i needed otherwise you could lose thousands of lives. that's a perspective that we have to understand that at the same time with the technology out there with a dynamic spectrum, we may be able to use that with a guarantee that the priority is when a missile defense, it automatically becomes clear. those are the things we're looking at. we were not able to do in the past. we were just on the frequency. in the future with technology we

may not have to do that and that's a key use of it and we'll see that in many other aspects about the spectrum management. slide. right here is what it looks like. how do i get and maximize my use of a limited resource, have i make that happen? that's where we were. think about satellites today. i have satellites today that the telecom industry needs and i will put that need. those satellites have been up for someone almost 30 just. 30 years ago we were not worried about the width of the spectrum from where we were in a particular arena. but to take a satellites down now and to replace them with a new satellite because i can't change the transmitter in orbit, would cost billions of dollars. how do i do that? how do i balance do not have to take and satellites like that and caused billions of dollars from taxpayer perspective, at the same time give a spectrum for the right people who need the right information? slide. you can see the planes. every single piece of part from cell phones to radar to weather

radars to high-frequency, the beauty, from radars from unmanned aerial vehicles all across this. how do i get the maximum amount of limited resource? what i will call the spectral reconstruction and that's exactly in a lot of ways what i see our nation right now because in some aspects were changing things around. the interesting part is the international peace. i brought that up in the beginning that we can go to domestic went all day long but just keep in mind satellites are whizzing right by getting fit which is across our nation as we speak. other ships come into our harbors, all of a sudden. think about from the military perspective. if i'm going into some particular area and i'm taking down the door i might not care what the spectrum is in that particular place but if i'm rebuilding a nation, if i'm in afghanistan or iraq or the philippines trying to take care of a-survival issues i want to be able to use spectrum that does not hinder their own efforts within the country. glad to have an international

level of spectrum i can go into and use all the time without anything with their spectrum. i think that support for everybody to realize that we are seeing a normalization of some these things across the world affords the spectrum frequency. that also is from a business perspective because if you sell products, you can also do standard cell across the world or whatever it is you're doing, whether it's a new kind of a land, or if some other type of a radio you're trying to sell. slide. here's an interesting comparative piece. this comes up a lot in discussion. i leave until i get the numbers and have these slides printed out for congressional, the first is the three gigahertz which they call the prime beach frontage. because it's something that our technology allows us to use very efficiently, if you will and it also has good distance coverage. it has good distance coverage, good penetration into buildings if you will so why your cell

phone works in certain buildings of why certain congress to work as well. it might be frequency. has to do with the spectrum. but we hear a lot about what the federal owned. the federal side to it, 14.1% is allocated to the federal government on an exclusive basis at this particular point. twiki uses half of that. it's less than half of that. -- dod uses half of that. 54% issued between federal and nonfederal uses. we share today. we are pretty good at it so we are sharing is something that is happening today, the way we do sharing today i would argue in the way we do tomorrow is two different things. much more efficient ways of doing it and much more automated ways of doing this that allow us to use that frequency even tighter. when you combine more efficient spectral capabilities of just the technology, and the ability to use any more efficient manner from a shared perspective, you can open up a lot of that beachfront property very quickly. on the second part we talk about the three to six gigahertz which

is felt less second best beachfront property. second most desirable. 8% is allocated on a federal exclusive basis. 18% is allocated for nonfederal. 74% issued between federal and nonfederal uses. this is important from a lot of perspective. back one slide, if you would. to do this, forward slash, please, correctly, i've to take this into account and how i'm going to do. i have to take technology and how we will do the sharing in the future to make sure we get this right for all, federal agencies, not federal agencies in the government and for all commercial aspects. to get this right we can make this a win-win situation for all. slide. here's what we're going with an individual effort that's happening right now. it's been an actual were the interesting one for my perspective. the original plan if you look up at the top, 1755-1850 was

primarily military and federal assistance across the board. the plan was to go into the band to the right which is part of the broadcasting been. we took a look, spent a year going up and because that's normal way. we vacate spectrum and we move to new spectrum. spectrum that is also vacated at that particular point. so the bill from dod perspective was about $13 billion. if you look at all the federal agencies across the board, it was somewhere around 17-$18 million, all validated and verified numbers with multiple looks from different aspects. you have to think about this but if you're taking than satellites and truly vacating and putting of new satellite you're talking lots and lots of money. so from an auction perspective that wasn't going to be most likely to be in the best use of the money in that particular aspect and we would not get the. the auction requirements are 110% when you do an option. we would not have got to 20 plus. that was not accredited although

an interesting piece of the puzzle, 1755-1850 this telecom broadband for other parts of the world. it is just not for the u.s. right now. interesting part of it from a dod perspective is deity just got finished leading 1710 to 1755. the interesting perspective of this is kind of a chapter my brother in over here, or that we're supposed to just gather that been and will be no more moves for 10 years at that particular point. so we finished a march a year now but if you are now we are back doing this again. it's the right thing to do but the point is, it's a never ending move. 1710-1755 which is finished and that was less costly because most of the equipment that we had in a lower ban we were able to reach him into the 1755 you're seeing to the 1780. so bottom line to the whole piece there, the 1755-1850 i make you sick. the bottom line was it was as causticostly to move as we expe. however, now we are in having to

move again. it is more costly but we found some interesting ways to do. take a look at the bottom. what we realize in the commercial industry came back and said hey, we don't want that all been right now. what we want is 25 megahertz of it, 1755-1780. how do we do this? we looked at compression was the first one. cannot compress to the other part? we just cannot compress and out of 1710-1755. we realized after multiple simulations, a lot of engineers doing that, compression was not possible without large impacts. we didn't have the technology to do it right now. the second part of it was okay, what if we move part of our system and shared it with a broadband? i talked about vacating the broadcasters don't want to vacate that and have some open spectrum. so if we share in the particular then we can do this as a partnership, move ours out to 20 wen2110 and getting to that of e band per se, of the telecom industry, broadband people to

get into the 1755-1850 can leave a couple systems are such as are satellites and other geographical sharing, if you will, a geographical shame because many are satellites are locations where frankly industry doesn't have a need for a lot of of broadband because there in the middle of nowhere, frankly. from that perspective it's a win-win situation. by taking our highest priced systems completing them, small chunks of it, compressing parts of them into the upper part of the band and then moving the ones we can to the 2025, 2110, allows us to do a very good marriage of interesting needs and dod federal users needs and have a balance across the border this was a plan we came up with, never been done before. it is more risk, very different than vacating but from a dod perspective we realized that true beginning of spectrum, if you look at the spectrum reconstruction, it's probably not going to be possible this year. we have to think about this in anyway from an industry

perspective, they can provide the best profit, no doubt. at this particular time a combination of the fact we could move off a 25 and technology wasn't really ready for us to be comfortable from a risk perspective to like to do dynamic sharing on a large bases as well as some of the other more spectrally efficient systems, this was the right plan at this particular time. i believe in the future will have to go to a different approach and i think that technology is going to push back here and i think we are about five years off and we see on a large-scale basis some capabilities to do this that will allow us to get more capability out of let's spectrum and lowest have a different approach to this in years two, when they come back for the next share of our particular spectrum. which is already occurring in the five gigahertz band which i can talk to at the end. new spectrum strategy is necessary. so bottom line is we will have to do that in the future, no doubt about it. slide. so what do we see? this is the strategy development. from our perspective we been too

reactive, dignity. one of the first things i came in, i said we are just too dang reactive. we need to be proactive i in th. destiny from an industry perspective for this particular spectrum, a need for dod. we need to work as a team and be more proactive versus reactive. these other pieces of the puzzle. technology and driven by technology. technology has got to be proven not just at the one, two basis but on a large scale. ..

if i take technology and all my technology is working and it is a specific level and ready to deploy if i don't have that it is going to be years ago the must go together in conjunction with each other because a lot of stakeholders in the regulatory piece, that is something i did not understand, being on the field and making things happen we don't have as much regulatory -- when we are doing large-scale fighting for the nation and internationally changing frequency band could take ten years so thinking about the regulatory piece that could be a driver more than the technology can. stakeholders tie all of this together and the economics. the best way for us would be to move from a band a from the 1755 to 1850, economics said that is not going to be good for the nation as a whole. we tried to come of the more

complex solution but at the same time it will benefit us and make us think about how to do this better and is already making us more efficient from the new acquisitions we are doing a new particular system we are buying. then take a look at requirements the drive that and how we will change those requirements in the future. how do we get more spec relief kitchens while taking care of taxpayers' bottom-line, how do we do this and how we work hand-in-hand with industry to make sure the systems we are developing are as useful for them as they are for us and vice versa. that is the key so how do we use those systems together knowing on the battlefields with receiving people in a situation like a typhoon in the philippines or whether it is a true battlefield or high-intensity conflict, broadband data matters, it is important to understand this goes back and forth between history and the federal agencies. here is our perspective how we will do this. from our side of the ballpark we

do a spectrum strategy rollout on the 20th, the 20th of this month will come out talking about how we are going to approach this in the future so the first part is to have flexible spectrum assets. we see that as the future when we watch how technology is moving. we are getting there quickly, we are not their regulatorywise, everybody agrees that is the wave of the future and right now it is clear to us after this last spectrum discussion that is the way into the future. regulatory adaptability goes hand-in-hand with flexible spectrum access. we are going to think about how we do business in the future if we are going to use every single piece of that spectrum correctly. operational edge nobody is key to us so for example i have a system out there that is only tunable to the set when we talk about that one frequency i can't replace an audit. that can't be in the future. i have to put something in orbit with multiple capabilities and

frequencies or software defined where i can switch to a different band and not have to change it out on orbit. that is an example but there's a lot more examples of a you ave which can save thousands of lives in some places such as the philippines or what we saw when we talk about it in japan with the way of coming through. the bottom line is depending on the spectrum, we have to switch to a different band immediately so we can control that and have added a different band. two receivers or transmitters, where we are going is a software defined radio where we say we are in this band today and going to disband and work and in country x that is open and we can use that to save lives. this is where we are going, why it is important to be proactive. release scared of domino's

delivery to my house. driverless vehicle, they really are, they talk to the safety of life, peace of spectrum whether you are the flying airplanes spectral peace, the google call our or looking at the flying car in the upper right-hand corner. honestly i thought as a kid, i am dating myself, i thought for sure i would be flying with those things when i was a little earlier. the bottom, my middle daughter wants to be the first person on mars and she is adamant about it. she is 15 years old and pushing hard for that. so i see where our capabilities are going as far as the amount of data we again and the ability of you will to do things fur a theoretical perspective, it is important to take that data and manufacturing and build those things, that is the next great step we will see, that change in the whole fabric of our nation and the world and one of them

right there. here's where the tenets of that are. we have to do more sharing in the future. we got to do it right. that will require technology and regulatory piece and policy and we're working hard to make that happen. technological innovation is the key to that piece, culture change with everybody, all federal agencies and industry. we have to wonder stand from our perspective, from a d o d perspective this is harder, more problematic and when you are focused on ten things all over the world things are happening every single day from a d o d perspective and worried about the next threat to the nation, sometimes this doesn't have the same priority but it does matter from a lot of perspectives and it does make us more capable if we do it right. that makes us more capable if we do it right. partnerships in the collaboration we are not doing this without partnerships in collaboration. there is a person in the audience to talk about the public/private partnerships.

that we have discussed because i think that is a key to the future out there. proactive versus reactive. i can't even jump on that. proactive has to occur on both sides versus reactive. there's a global context to this, i am not sure i understood this but some parts of industry don't fully understand the impact of that particular piece to it but it also gives them a market too. roadmap was near midterm, far term goals deliverable. what can we do today? what midterm and what far term? dynamic sharing in the last spectrum change wasn't available to us from a technological side as well as the regulatory side. in exchange will be and that is a critical point. government's oversight accountability, this has to be a team effort and we have to get rid of old think as to everyone stating their position and staking a line in the sand and we have to stretch all of our

thought processes. the last part is the cooperative test bed, it will be the national advanced spectrum and communication test network. one of the things we learned from recent issue we had on the spectrum is how to test something. we have someone from industry saying this particular thing and someone from dod saying this and other experts, how about we have a clearing house of test beds that we can actually work through and have an environment where we have -- the test environment available to us, we can do a paper fee where they can come through and validate all the particular requirements that they have, validate all the capabilities to rule these things out and we can all agree that this test result is actually the rest -- the test results the week and make decisions based on that is that is one of the perspectives we had out there. that is the final piece of that slide. i will throw one slide up there at the end that i have up there because we will see this, one more slide, that is going to be

our strategy, call to action, in an evolutionary way. i would like to change that to spectrum evolution in a revolutionary way. it is revolutionary way to think of it slivers is the way we're going. it is the perspective on that and that will be later this week. that is part 1. that is a visionary peace. we are looking at implementation of that so that will be electromagnetic spectrum, integrated process, a lot of dod speed, bottom line is this makes implementable action. there is vision and implementa black man that will done with all our services and departments, how would we be proactive versus reactive in the future? that is the key that we are trying to do. i can give you example after example and that is all. i am open for questions however you want to do it. >> the strategies that have been

rolled out. that is the cover. >> let's go back one flight. >> you had one of your slides which is why i am asking it and implementation of the strategy. >> our plan is to finish up on a 6 month time line and say okay, what we do, i will back up a little bit, we build out something when there is something new. we go to all the services and the department and this is the strategy and where we're going. does this make sense to you? we walk right through this spectrum. once we adjudicate fat that could take months. and we have a common agreement, that comes out. second part is the implementation plan where the

rubber meets the road. where d division that came out? you into it out and figure out exactly how you are going to do it? the example we did was vote secure commercial mobile cost area secure mobile columns and strategy first and implementation of how we're going to walk through the services. what did we look at here? acquisition differently. doing operations differently, you can walk through this and that is where the rubber meets the road and we have to work through individual pieces on what makes sense and what is good for the department. >> the implementation, you talked-about near, mid and long term? >> that would be near to midterm and once that is done, what you think of as part b to a vision or strategy. does that make sense?

>> go back the slide. >> general, what international partners are you guys working on when you are reallocating and these new bands you want to move into, i you protected or anti jam resistant in any way? i am not a spectrum expert. the perspective, one of them is working with the international partners we do that with the international telecommunication union and the state department primarily. and all those folks go forward and you have the dod position and i should say -- u.s. position that feeds into the u.s. position. from a partnership, when you go

into some place in afghanistan iraq or working overseas in the philippines, you go to those countries you work with the country's government and they will be a partner for the local area forcing kinds of communications that don't interfere with the satellite part. the second part of the question was the anti jam. the frequencies going into some times are for example we go from 1755 to 1850 to 2025 to 2110. what you are talking about is not a grand jump in frequency so the same capabilities apply from an anti jam. it does take technological change but you do have the same capabilities. we are required to certify that through technology the same capabilities and the same operational allowances in the new spectrum and that is the certification. to answer your question, yes. please. >> the european space agency,

generally you said you would say a few words, i would be interested to know what dot's position is on the discussions going on to open it up to more and more ground-based users. >> the d o d position is a simple position. the u.s. position is not the dod positions so my comment would be premature from that aspect but we are working through it and we are working through it from the perspective of how do we do this from a proactive perspective on this? how do we make sure we have the right technology and the safety systems if you well-managed at that particular point. how do we take care of our partners and that includes partners in europe as well. so that is the perspective at it and at the same time how do we get technology to move faster to allow us to do these things? that band is a difficult one. no doubt about it no matter where you are on the globe from that perspective and that is an important part of it.

going back to a comment, 2025-2110 ban, one of the reasons why we like that bent is because of the fact that overseas it is not a broad band band so from that perspective it mary's of very well with other systems that if we went into other countries we would be able to use that frequency without interference from host country systems. that is why it is a useful ban from our perspective and better than the 1755-1850 band which goes back to 5 gigahertz. by virtue of the interference you're talking about because of some of the things. and i can guarantee you on that. i would be premature to comment on it even though i probably worked on it for two days of my weekend this weekend. some guys are chuckling because they were with me on that.

>> so cyberspace wires and routers are basically flashes of light and spectrum. how does your spectrum merge with the department's cyber way ahead? >> the electra magnetic spectrum is all a piece of the par. they go hand-in-hand together. when you talk about white, optical. and cyber electronic warfare, all of that together are one part of it. it weaves everything through, that is the critical point. if we don't get it right. cyberradio, optical. that will cause some kind of incompatibility issue or safety of life issue. all of those are connected to include cyber aspects.

okay. >> a special breed, i am not -- >> i won't comment on that. it has probably been the spectrum, the radio part, the communication part is a fascinating part. to be honest if you think about it from the communication pieces the most important part one flight across the world so after 9/11 when we flew across the world one of the number one limitations was the communication peace to make sure the right people we were going against and not doing the wrong thing so it indicates the weak point and the strength, so that is the aspect of where i got connected to this and on the right ever since. >> thank you so much for coming out. [applause]

>> thank you. that was a lot of data and that was good stuff here. that was good. what we are going to do now is turn to our panel of experts to go through this. i will introduce them briefly. we will have additional information on our web site. i will probably do this in the wrong order. juliet snap is chief of the fcc office of engineering and technology, one of the nation's leading experts on the technology part which we heard about. we have peter tenhula, senior advisor at in t i a, we go back in crime for a long time, probably getting involved again in this effort. we have stacey black, vp for federal external and legislative affairs. between federal and legislative that is enough to keep anybody busy but we appreciate your taking time to talk and finally we have john hunter from t

mobile, director for spectrum policy. what i would like to do is ask each of our panelists to give some brief remarks. we start with stacy and go down a row and take questions from the audience. stacey black, please. >> good morning. i would like to limit my remarks to the role procurement will take in what the general talked about, procurement will be a big deal. technology is rolling along as the pointed out in his keynote. for example i noticed in one of his wise he had an acronym, emanual radio, it is actually an application for push to talk. in the old days technology has been around for 70 years, it has gone from two radios to talks, released to listen, all the way now to where we have an actual device that is a broad band radio that happens to have a

push to talk application over it so it could be an iphone. exactly the same thing, this radio required its dedicated frequency and is used in theater, and we see as a company that push to talk is what i call a low hanging fruit in terms of being moved to a broad band type of network, based communications, mobile to mobile, machine to machine types of communication, great applications where they are not mission critical but their logistical in nature and a great opportunity to move them to a more broadband environment. in some cases it could be commercial broadband network and in some cases a private broadband network. such as new york city police department did recently. another application that was recently announced an army magazine last month is what was

called the combat training center upgrade for the range communications system, installed in fort irwin and fort polk. what the system does is it is like a laser tag system where they have rifles and pistols and tanks and things like that. they actually install the 4 g lc e network on this basis to communicate and put all of this telemetry and voice communication in a coordinated effort and as i said this is all explained in the u.s. army magazine. to give you some of ideas about it replaced two legacy land mobile radio types systems for range data management, range communications, and they built powers in these two areas covering 90% of the training area and now they are starting to use 4 gee devices so as i

mentioned before, and i phone has 6 bands, wi-fi, gps, bluetooth, this 5 and the dollar device could be used in place of $1,000 device that was application specific for these combat training systems. as a result of that they doubled the number of instrumented entities in the combat training center battlefield. 6,000 dismounted entities, 5,000 vehicle entities, 5,000 voice communications systems, 350 observer coach training devices and 1600 target in viand engagement system is. here is a great example of where dod has embraced commercial technology. actually started working in a public/private environment with a commercial broadband provider. to be able to accomplish their combat training mission. this is a great start but it takes a new way of thinking in

terms of procurement because you are going from the application specific building an expensive, one of the kind device to now using a commercial off-the-shelf system that may have more of an operational expenses opposed to a onetime very expensive capital expense but it is going to right way in my opinion. thanks. >> i will focus my comments on what the general talk about specifically around cooperation and partnerships. that is so critical. we have learned a lot over the years. personally i have been involved in the a w s clearing effort for 7 years now and i can tell you we learned a lot through a w s 1 working with the dod and other federal agencies trying to assess their needs and balance their priorities with market realities we are trying to roll out. through that effort, we continue that and as many of you know we

have the working group process that put forward unprecedented level of cooperation you are seeing. we learned a lot from that, that narrative system. you will find we talked about 1755 to 1780, some sharing, in the end we go pre auction, making sure everything gets set up but then operational lives the use of the spectrum. as we saw, we had some challenges but you got to work through those challenges, requirements on both sides and even today we deal with those issues. in the end it will be a collaboration, working with the agencies that will make this whole thing works. >>