>> host: a lot of new technology is shown every year, and telecommunications are also presented. joining us we're going to take a tour with tim moynihan of "wired" magazine. tim, we're in the lg booth here. what's in here that made you want to see this booth? >> guest: you name it. lg makes a lot of things. my primary area of coverage is television. hg is a very unique -- lg is a very unique company because they make olb sets, people see it as the future of picture quality. lg right now is the only ones really making that in scale. >> host: is it considered high

technology anymore to make a television? >> guest: yes. well, most televisions right now are computers. i mean, there are tvs in this booth that are ten cores processers, and all the integrated functionality for the web, streaming stuff. 4k is a huge thing, so those are the big buzzword 4g and old sets. >> host: i see behind us it says 8k. >> guest: yeah, we're already beyond 4k now. these are basically, prototypes. there's one sharp tv of that's coming out that's going to be simulated 8k, but what we're talking about is stepped up in resolution. you think about it as the jump from standard testify in addition to high definition this is four times the resolution of high definition. so it's crystal clear, it's sort of the next wave, and this is the first year more and more people might start buying 4k tvs.

>> host: mr. moynihan, a couple of years ago 3-d tv was the big talk. >> guest: yeah. >> host: but that doesn't seem to have gone anywhere. >> guest: it did not. a lot of 3-d tvs were sold because most tvs have 3-d features built in. you saw a lot of market research everybody's buying 3-d tvs they didn't have a choice. this is a little bit different. people want a crystal clear picture, and this is just bringing it to another level really. >> host: are people still buying tvs? we hear so much about people cutting the cord and watching on their mobile devices. >> guest: yeah. this is sort of the first moment where people have an excuse to spend a lot of money to buy a new tv. hd has gone from, what, ten years ago or so it took off there was a boom in hd-tvs. this is the year for 4k, what we're seeing this year is a lot more content services that'll be

delivered in 4k, and when we're talking about more affordable, we're still talking a few thousand dollars in most cases, there are a few that are around a thousand, $2,000. so the longer you wait with cheaper they're going to get. >> host: tim moynihan, what did you come here to lg to see? let's see it. >> guest: great. oled is right hover here. they have a -- over here. they have a shape-shifting -- >> host: shape-shifting, what does that mean? >> guest: it goes from a curved display to a flat display by remote control, and that's one right here. this is their top of the line tv. it's a 77-inch set and you'll see it's beautiful. if you see on the side here it'll start curving in, and it'll curve back out. you can do that with a remote control. i think she's operating it. how are you doing? >> good, how are you? >> host: so she's making it curve right now. what exactly are you doing to this tv?

[laughter] >> well, i'm pressing the remote control, and i'm changing it right now that's a curved screen. hit it again, and it'll go back to being a flat screen. >> host: what does the curve do? how does that affect the picture? >> guest: basically, your -- [inaudible] when you're looking at a curved screen from the center of your eye to the screen, you get a more -- [inaudible] >> host: when will this be on the market? >> we have no idea. [laughter] we don't know. >> guest: it'll be like $200, right? a little bit more? >> host: so this is a prototype at this point? >> guest: well, no, this is scheduled to be released. a lot of the prototypes you'll see back there they're not coming to market just yet. this is planned for their market this year. oled, the been fits of it with the normal tv which is led back-litt lc dtv, there's always a source of light coming

through. so when you look at the picture is black on an led-tv, there'll be a little gray. this is the pure absence of light, and what that does it makes the contrast -- you see the bright colors. the colors pop off of that. it's just beautiful. these are still prohibitively expensive. >> host: what do you mean? >> guest: yeah. well lg's the only one making oled sets right now. the ones last year, i think now you can get them in the mid 3,000 to 4000, but that's a price cut when they were launched i think they were around 15 grand. so the prices are coming down quickly. >> host: tim moynihan what does oled stand for? >> guest: organic light-emitting diode. so it's similar to led. people think led and oled are the same but they're very, very different technologies. led and an oled set refers to the back light system. so it uses led back light to

color liquid crystal display, and then this one is using the individual o to led particles to as a source of light. so they can be turned on and turned off independently. with an led set, you're always going to see some sort of right sweeping through there. so, i mean, to my eyes this is pretty amazing right? i mean, this is 4k and oled which is sort of the two big buzzwords at this year's show and have been for a few years and this is sort of the holy grail of tvs, i think. >> host: what else did you want to see? >> guest: oh. we'll go over -- let's see. there's so many to pick from. let's go to 8k i guess. i mean, this one's going to be a prototype. >> host: what does 8k stand for? >> guest: it's basically 8000 lines of resolution. you know 4k is 4,000 lines of resolution on the, let's see, on the vertical axis, right?

so this is four times as sharp as 4k. >> host: today. when we go to the store and buy a tv, how many lines of resolution are there? >> guest: that's 108 to 0. people are calling it 2k because it's 1920 by -- 1920 by 1080. >> host: so and the 4ks are on the market, they're everywhere. the price is starting to come down correct? >> guest: yes. the price is starting to come down, but it's still a little bit expensive. i know lg in particular is coming out with more 4k sets than 1080b sets so this is sort of a breaking point. >> host: in your view is lg one of the leaders in television technology? >> guest: yeah. it's lg, samsung, sony. i mean p all the big players sharp, you know, there's a couple of chinese companies that are coming out tcl and titan

which are sort of huge chinese television manufacturers that are just starting to come to the u.s. they're starting to break into it because they're offering similar technology like really good high-end technology at lower prices and they've also done some smart things like build roku into their tvs a streaming platform. they have sets with that integrated, so they're making a really smart push into the u.s. market. they might not be household names like an lg sony or samsung, but they're coming up. >> host: all right. 8k. >> guest: 8k, it looks like paper, right? i mean, you can't, you can't see individual pixels. it's -- you can get really chose to that, and you won't see any pixels. >> host: it's hard to -- that's pretty amazing. >> guest: it's hard to, i mean, it's so sharp. >> host: now, is this -- it's probably hard to seavey ya the camera but are we looking at a

3-d screen rear at all? >> guest: no. you're just not looking to a televised picture looking that sharp. it looks like moving photographs. it's incredible. >> host: what struck me about all these tvs is how thin they are. >> guest: yeah. oled that's supposed to be capable of being the thinnest. it's also flexible as you saw there, where it was -- you could curve it and go back to flat, go back to curved. they're doing a lot of things, you'll see i think at the sony booth, super thin tvs that are actually le dtvs with quantum dot television -- >> host: proprietary technology for sony? >> guest: quantum -- it's not proprietary to sony. what's happening, and i just learned this yesterday actually there are a lot of companies that are coming out with things that are either quantum dot or their own proprietary names for

it. there's a layer of nanoparticles is what they're calling them. they're very easily controlled by light right? so they can, they can glow a certain shade of red or green, and what that does is it improves the overall picture quality because leds by nature kind of have a harsh form of light. so this is, basically, a tuning mechanic nhl between the leds -- mechanism between the leds and the panel that makes the colors very vibrant and active. that's not this set. this is a different technology. but you'll see quantum dot. lg has a quantum dot set over here. >> host: let's go look at it i. >> guest: and why quantum dot exists is because oled is very expensive to make and to buy. so this is cheaper. it's based on an led/lcd set but with an extra layer.

so -- >> host: tim moynihan, even the glass you saw on the tv has become pretty high-tech. >> guest: yeah right. i don't know much about the glass, but, yeah, it seems like in the past few years they've done some amazing things with like anti-glare technology. you can see here -- >> host: here's the quantum dot. >> guest: yeah. well no -- yeah, these are quantum dot. >> host: ultra hd color prime. all sorts of words hoar. [laughter] what are the words that we should pay attention to? >> guest: well, every country -- >> host: quantum dot in. >> guest: quantum dot is the panel technology. so that was the nano crystal thing i was talking about, nano particle. that is a color-tuning technology, and the reason it exists is because everybody wants to make an ole dtv, but they're prohibitively expensive to make and to buy. so this is based on led or lcd

technology, and it's much cheaper to make. lcd is very, you know, it's a mature platform. people can sort of churn out lcd tvs, that's why you can find them so cheaply. this is going to be more than an lc dtv but the picture quality is pretty amazing. what's hard here is walking through these crowds because nobody's really looking straight ahead, everybody's looking at tvs and stuff. >> host: yeah. >> guest: increasingly people are on their p phones all the time especially me and my team at "wired" because we're trying to cover in this whole show using cell phones for the second year in a row. >> host: right. >> guest: this year we're not allowed to recharge our phone using wall sockets. >> host: what's the philosophy? why is that? >> guest: the philosophy is last year it was sort of an example of like, hey, things that fit in your pocket are in some ways better than, like, previous technology and being able to cover a show like this. you can do everything you need

to on a pocketable device, and it's wider. you can do things like take pictures and video while you're doing and post it immediately. so that's, you know, that's an advantage that actual mobile devices have over laptops. >> host: okay. >> guest: those are a struggle to bring around the show, you know? everything weighs you down a little bit. >> host: all right. we are at samsung with this wall of amazing tvs. what are we looking at? >> guest: this is samsung's spin on quantum dot which they don't call quantam dot, it's their own proprietary spin on it. the most someone at samsung would say to me is it's similar, but it's different because they did a lot more things. but it's a very similar technology. and what you'll see is the colors are crazy, vibrant. they really pop off the screen and that's what, you know, the quantum dot technology is supposed to do. so this is sort of a proof piece that these are stunning sets that can sort of rival the image

quality of oled. >> host: okay. if you want to get pictures like this at home -- >> guest: yeah. >> host: -- you connect it, and you just plug in your tv and you don't have cable or sate lite or anything, because it work as well -- does it work as well that way or work better when you can connect it through cable? >> guest: yes. everything you are seeing here is a demo right? so what makes the 4k thing very, very very different from any other resolution thing that's happened in the past is the primary form of delivery this year for 4k sets will be over the internet. and we're talking about very very very big, beefy files, and think only 17% of u.s. households have an internet connect that's rated to be able to handle that sort of data regularly without stuttering. if you've ever watched netflix at home even in 1080p, sometimes it'll buffer or stop.

i think washington, d.c. where you live has some of the best internet service in the country so maybe not. but it's sort of different. broadcast, i talked to someone who works in the industry they're estimating broadcast 4k is five, six years away. so this is a new resolution where streaming is going to be the main source of content. now, later this year there will be blu-ray discs for 4k. that's slated for later this year, but we're not there yet. i know directv and i think dish network are going to have satellite services for 4k but for now you need to stream your stuff, and you're going to need like a pretty hefty internet connection to do that. the booths we've gone to have been companies that make a lot of different things. sony makes everything samsung makes everything lg makes everything. so they sort of have the biggest presence at these shows. >> host: all right. what are you going to show us here at sony? >> guest: this is the thinnest

tv i've ever seen in my life. >> host: okay, step up. i think we want a demonstration. >> guest: so this is a penny right? and it's like, it's what, a fifth of a penny wide? it's crazy. it seems like a piece of plywood, but it's a 4k technology. it has quantum dot, but they're not calling it that. it has the highest quality picture. this is thinner than ab iphone -- an iphone it's thinner than most cell phones out there. >> host: is this on the market? >> guest: it's coming out. usually the tvs that are announced at the show come out in either the spring for the fall. but this is a big showpiece -- >> host: you see something this thin and the picture again, as clear as it is, is this a 4k?

>> guest: it's 4k, yes. >> host: 4k. what was that cell phone? >> guest: this they haven't announced producing, but i'm assuming this is going -- pricing, i don't know, but probable $5-$6,000 i would assume. probably. but you can see it's just -- this is, like, impossibly thin. it doesn't look like it's possible right? >> host: right. >> guest: what i'm worried about with them is like a stiff breeze. it does have a little bit of a bump out there. they're saying that you can mount this from the bottom on a wall pretty easily just because -- >> host: so what's the technology in this tv? i mean, what are we talking about? what's contained in this back side? >> guest: well, this has an led back light system, and then it has a layer of there's, you know the quantum dots that they're not calling quantum dots. i think they call it triluminous

display, that's their name for it. and quantum dot, i'm not sure why people are calling it different things, i think it's because they put their own proprietary spin on technology, or they developed it in outward directions. so, you know, this is a next generation lcd/led panel. it's not oled. oled lg is the only one really making them right now. so what all these companies are trying to do is make something that a's like oled, that's like oled but is cheaper to make and cheaper to buy. people see that set, i want that and, oh it's $10,000, and they can't afford that. so these are sort of technologies that are meant to, over time, get cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper until this just becomes your standard set. >> host: all right. so we've toured different televisions -- >> guest: yeah. >> host: some of the bigger companies. what are you going to write about tonight in "wired"? >> guest: well, i have to use my

cell phone to do it. >> host: right. you have to use your cell phone to do it, but what's going to be your lead? >> guest: well, the way we're covering the story is traditional stories. the the big story is the deep dive the analysis comes after the show because i till haven't seen everything here. of it's impossible to see everything here. but, you know i'll be here til thursday doing meetings and going around to booths and by that time i'll know what the mayor trends are. there's already some obvious ones quantum dot is one of them, you know, the curved displays that transform from curved to flat that's a new one. so, you know things like that just keeping track of what's going on and taking stock of it and then following up with all these companies and interviewing people that were involved in the process of developing it. like i i love ces, but it's exhausting. i mean, i love the actual fact that you come to this, and it's just everything in one building. if you like technology at all it's just a dream world. a lot of people knock it because

it's so chaotic, and it's hard but you just have to run around and look at things and, you know ask questions and, you know, follow what's going on from year to year, and it becomes really interesting. >> host: while we have you here is there anything that we're missing that we haven't seen that you want to show us? >> guest: wow. sure yeah. sharp. sharp has -- >> host: sharp. >> guest: sharp has the first 4k tv that upscales to something that looks like 8k. so it's -- >> host: and that's their own technology? >> guest: yeah. this is the first step they are putting out that does that. that'll be out by the end of the year, and if you want to see it -- >> host: let's go. >> guest: this is another case where it's going to be expensive, but it's a first step right? that a to me, is a takeaway from ces. you see things that in two years might end up in your house. >> host: tim moynihan, a lot of smaller manufacturers that are

integral to the tv business, right? >> guest: yeah, yeah. well a mix, it's a mix of things right? like these are, i believe these are action -- that's another growing trend is these action cameras. we're going this way. >> host: okay. >> guest: these action cameras that are super rugged. >> host: like gopros. >> guest: yeah. most famous one. sony announced one that does 4k video. sony and panasonic are really the only two that have been active in making camcorders, consumer camcorders that shoot 4k and that's the other side of what's going on, right? you're going to, you know record your child's soccer game or baseball game, eventually your eyes are just going to get used to 4k, and you're just going to want everything in 4k. sort of like what happened with standard definition and hi-definition. so sharp is famous for making

very big tvs. they, they have concentrated on 60 inches and up for the past few years, and what goes hand in hand with that is the upgrade in resolution. you want, you want a bigger screen to be able to see the difference in a bigger resolution. the bigger you make a 1080-p set, the more you're going to maybe see pixels in that lookless sharp. it's like taking a two megapixel image and stretching it as far as it goes. so sharp has been making big tvs. last year they introduced their first 4k tv and now they have one that's a 4k tv that can upscale to something more like 8k. and they to this with subpixel technology. they introduced manager called quatron a few years ago.

usually red green and blue colors and that creates what you see with your eyes. they've added a yellow subpixel to that set, so they have four subpixels for color, and we're going this way. >> host: all right. >> guest: even i get lost here. [laughter] i've been here -- but so they started off with having, they claim, a wider color gamut than other tv makers because they added this new subpixel technology. now what they've done is cut those subpixels in half horizontally and made them individually addressable by the set. so what it does is it actually increases what they're claiming the resolution of the panel because it can, it can create, you know, they're saying it's like 42 million more subpixels than other tvs. all that is probably mumbo jumbo

to you. [laughter] it's pretty technical. >> host: we've got a pretty advanced audience on in this show. >> guest: okay good. >> host: they followed you. all right. we're on our way to sharp. tim moynihan we're coming up on sharp. we've got toshiba here. all the companies that we've been touring today should we consider them high-end companies? >> guest: yeah. i would say, well obviously toshiba's pretty high end if they've got a robot lady. >> hello. >> host: communication android. that's disturbing? >> guest: a little bit disturbing. there's the uncanny valley. it's a robot but it looked a little bit too much like a human. >> host: okay. that does have a creep factor, doesn't it? [laughter] so back to the tv industry. >> guest: yeah. moving right along. well what -- >> host: are these -- how much

r&d is going into these products that we see? >> guest: well, that's the thing, the companies that, you know, the lgs the samsungs, the sonys and sharps i would say a lot of other companies are doing out too but in the past few years i've kind of seen them come up with more leaps and bounds in the tv realm. another company we were talking about, vizio they've been great. i think they're number one brand in the u.s. or were number one brand in the u.s., and they came out last year with a 4k tv that cost $1,000. so i don't know what's going on. that's weird. you see some weird things here. >> host: you do. [laughter] >> guest: so sharp sharp's -- >> host: sharp's out of japan isn't it? >> guest: yes. and they have huge, huge tvs and what goes hand in hand with huge tvs is the increases in

resolution. you'll see here we saw at the lg booth the 8k tv? i think this one's even better. i believe it is over here. >> host: most life like? >> guest: yeah. >> host: all right. [inaudible conversations] >> guest: excuse me. >> host: all right. now, these seem to be a little thicker than the tvs we've been looking at. old style. >> guest: yeah. these i believe the reason for that this is a full array which is the back light system for led sets. they're basically -- oh. >> host: and it says android tv on top of that. >> guest: yeah. that's a new thing that's coming out. i'll talk about it. the back light system, the reason it's thicker is it's a full array back light which

means the entire panel is addressed by led back lights. so in a lot of them they'll be edge lit where there's just rows that are directed by things inside the tv to face forward. android tv is a big thing that's going to happen this year also that google developed tv platforms. what i've played around with it on one device which is the nexus player that was sort of google's little settop device the first one was android tv. it's interesting because what it really does is it makes youtube content really t friendly. i don't think -- tv friendly. people don't think of youtube as watching it on tv, but it has voice controls where you can just say a a keyword and you get a bunch of videos to watch based upon that keyword. that is a platform that a lot of companies are building in, sharp is another one. there'll probably be more vendors coming out with it. so that's an exciting thing to

watch here. and as streaming becomes more and more mainstream -- and it's going to have to because that's the only way to watch 4k right now -- that's going to be a really important component of tvs, what they're running under the hood. >> host: all right. you wanted to show us a sharp tv over here. >> guest: yes. sharp in two ways. so this is a 4k tv that's -- >> host: 4k ultra hd. >> guest: yeah. you can see how sharp that is. 4k's already sharp, but this is sort of taking it to another level and upscaling content to 8k. i believe what they're showing here is actual 8k footage on a 4k tv. so, you know 4k is probably future proof, but if you want to buy a tv that's probably 20 years' future proof, there you go. it looks 3-d, right? >> host: yeah. >> guest: it looks 3-d and it's not a 3-d tv it's just so sharp. the contrast is so realistic that it looks real, you know?

>> host: is that on the market todaysome. >> guest: this is coming out this year, i think it's second half of this year, and it's going to be expensive. i know their top of the line 4k set that doesn't have that 8k upscaling is around $6,000, so this is going to be more than $6,000 for sure probably around the $10,000 or more range. so here's the thing, you know ces is a look at sort of two years down the line what's going to be mainstream. so that's what i find exciting about it. it's like looking into the future, if you will. so it's nice. >> host: tim moynihan "wired" magazine. >> guest: yeah. >> host: thanks for your time here at ces. >> guest: thank you. do you want the penny back? [laughter] >> host: yes. >> guest: okay. [laughter] >> host: and "the communicators" is on location in las vegas for the annual ces international consumer technology she, largest trade -- show, largest trade show in the world. if you're interested in seeing more of our programming, you can go to c-span.org/communicators.

>> c-span, created by america's cable companies 35 years ago and brought to you as a mr. speaker service by your local -- public service by your local cable or satellite provider. >> starting in about half an hour remarks from house armed services committee chair thornberry. he'll speak at the center for strategic and international studies. you can see it live at 9 a.m. eastern here on c-span2. also today hillary clinton speaks about ways to improve urban development. she'll be joined by several panelists including housing and urban development can secretary julian castro at this event held at the center for american progress. it starts live at ten the a.m. eastern on c-span. and after that arkansas republican senator tom cotton

speaks about national security priorities and the role of congress. senator cotton is a freshman who serves on both the armed services committee and the intelligence committee. the event is hosted by the american action forum. you can see it live at 11 eastern on c-span3. >> c-span2, providing live coverage of the u.s. senate floor proceedings and key public policy events. and every weekend booktv. now for 15 years the only television network devoted to nonfiction books and authors. c-span2, created by the cable tv industry and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. watch us in hd, like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. >> last week prince charles visited the u.s. and delivered remarks at the international information caucus foundation's awards gala.

he spoke about the importance of preserving the environment. the prince of wales was honored with the teddy roosevelt international conservation award for his work in environmental conservation. this is half an hour. [applause] >> let me just bin by thanking -- begin by thanking all of you for being here. my wife marie and i must say it's an honor to be with you today and especially an honor to be here with his royal highness and to acknowledge the great contributions that he has made. as a matter of fact, he was with the members of the united states senate today pressing them on this issue at a time when every

hour three elephants are slaughtered on this planet. just as he presses heads of state around the world. and so we congratulate him on receiving the teddy roosevelt award. as theodore roosevelt would say, cherish these natural wonders, cherish the natural resources, cherish the history and romance as a sacred heritage, a heritage for your chirp and your children's -- for your children and your children's children and his royal highness takes this to heart and carries this message around the world. the highest levels of governments must be invested, must be engaged if we wish to see the drastic trends of poaching and wildlife trafficking reversed. the united kingdom put their commitment on display, hosting the london conference on the illegal wildlife trade.

conservation is not solely an african issue, and reducing the demand of these wildlife products isn't solely an asian issue. the irreversible damage of poaching is a global issue. what troubles me most as chairman of the foreign affairs committee is the transnational aspect t of in this illegal trade. they use the same sophisticated and dangerous networks as drug runners and arms traffickers. as his royal highness explains, we need to focus on breaking down these networks. if we break down the networks these poachers won't have a means to get the wildlife products to market. and the iccf and other ngos in this room today are on the front lines confronting this crisis. they have done an excellent job in exposing the severity of the problem. and for conservation to be impactful, we need all

stakeholders -- governments, private sectors, ngos -- working together. our world depends upon it, and so we congratulate those who are leading, such as his royal highness, and we congratulate him on this award tonight. [applause] >> good evening. my wife jill and i are thrilled to be here with you this evening. let's hear a round of applause for everybody here, ed, who has helped this foundation grow and do the good work that it does. thank you for being here. thank you. [applause] your royal highness, the prince of wales, your royal highness, the duchess of cornwall, welcome this evening to the united states of america. [applause] it's an honor to be here to present this award to a true champion of the environment.

you know in new mexico the navajo, the nation's largest native american tribe have a saying: when the land is sick the people are sick. we rely on our natural systems for food water and shelter, for the very air we breathe. when we protect our environment, we protect ourselves. the need has never been more urgent. the world's poplation is approaching -- populationing is approaching nine billion people. every night one billion go to bed hungry. all life is connected. we are all connected. conservation is not just a personal virtue, it is essential to our prosperity, to our security and to our planet. his royal highness understands this and we honor him for that here tonight. he is a bright light in what the other things that we have seen.

he stands out for what he has done. and, your royal highness, i think you said it best in a speech earlier this year and you said this is a battle about how we survive as a species on our one and only planet. it is therefore, a battle we have to win, but it cannot be won by just some of us. it requires a united international effort. that is the prince of wales. that is a champion. you have fought that battle for over four decades. your commitment has been on the world stage with the prince's rain forest project, with addressing the great threat of climate change and also closer to home with the duchy home farm, a model of sustainable agriculture through organic farming. the duchy originals brand is

well known, raising $5 million annually for charity. tastes good, is good, does good. i recommend their dark chocolate ginger biscuits. [laughter] sir, in america that is known as a plug. and i'm happy to give it to you. [laughter] your royal highness, thank you for your dedication to a sustainable future for your commitment that is lasting, that is steadfast and that is an inspiration to all of us. it is my great privilege with my fellow co-chair and friend that we started this caucus together in a kitchen in clay shaw's house with john tanner to present the most prestigious award of this organization. we present the iccf teddy roosevelt international conservation award to his royal

highness the prince of wales. [applause] >> i'd like to thank -- like to bring the other co-chairs of the caucus on stage we have with us tonight. [applause]

[background sounds] >> ladies and gentlemen it's been a great pleasure for both my wife and mousse to join you this evening -- and mousse to join you this evening, albeit briefly. and i must say coming back to the united states is always an enormous pleasure and certainly to be met by such kindness, hospitality and friendship is always wonderfully encouraging. i suddenly realized the other day that, in fact, i've been coming to the united states for 45 years now and look what it's done to me. [laughter] but i must admit that my only

anxiety about this evening is that i might just possibly send my wife to sleep during my speech -- [laughter] which as i'm sure you all know would be a fate worse than death. but whatever the case, we could not be more touched and flattered that such an important and bipartisan group as the international conservation caucus and its supporting foundationing should have decided to give me -- foundation should have decided to give me so special an accolade awarded in the name of one of the greatest and most farsighted of conservationists president theodore roosevelt. and if i may say so, i'm even more touched that you should have even noted some of -- noticed some of of the things i've been trying to do over years. in the beginning of the 20th century as frontier of the

america's west was disappearing once-common wildlife was disappearing with it. president roosevelt intervened to halt this trend and in the process created what has become known as the conservation movement in the united states. the action he took laid firm foundations for conservation action over subsequent decades. and in many other countries around the world. the national parks and other protected areas that he had the foresight to establish have been replicated worldwide, leading to perhaps the greatest conservation success that the world has yet seen. nearly 15% of the earth's land area is now under some form of protection which has helped to

stem the loss of me cosystems and species. of many ecosystems and specieses. while in the early 20th century many americans saw nature as limitless and ripe for exploitationing, roosevelt -- exploitation, roosevelt understood and described a different reality. he famously cede the nation behaves well if it treats the natural resources as assets which it must turn over to the next generation's generation increases and not impaired in value. during his presidency roosevelt created five national parks, four game reserves -- refuges, 51 national bird reservations and 150 national forests, protecting in total approximately 230 million acres of of public land.

he set in motion a positive worldwide trend of enormous importance, wet we see all too clearly now -- yet we see all too clearly now that in the 21st century nature is, nonetheless, in a serious state of decline. now, a question that has exorcised me for many more years than i care to remember is why this might be the case. one conclusion i have reached is that a large part of the challenge relates not so much to whether we sufficiently appreciate the beauties and wonders of nature but whether we regard nature as essential for human well being. i repeatedly hear it said, as i'm sure you do, ladies and gentlemen, that looking out for nature is too costly a barrier

to growth and a danger to economic competitiveness. so long as this perspective prevails, then i fear the destruction of natural systems will be seen as in some way rational and an unavoidable price of progress. as president roosevelt himself put it the conservation of natural resources is the fundamental problem. unless we solve that problem it will avail us little to solve all others. ..

sometimes realize so it is essential to our wellbeing, and ultimately to our survival, that we address them together. this connection is something that i have sought to advance through my own modest efforts, including the work of my international sustainability unit. by curious coincidence, the director of my i.s.u., justin mundy, is the great great nephew of gifford pinchot, the governor of pennsylvania who also, under the leadership of president roosevelt, established the u.s. forest service.

i sought then to advance this connection because i believe the primary challenge of our times is to find ways in which the natural systems and resources on which we depend can be sustained to support our needs indefinitely into the future while maintaining the incredible diversity of life on earth. despite the evident challenges there are nevertheless signs that the seemingly insoluble conundrums can be effectively addressed in a number of areas. one of the greatest challenges, and priorities, of course, is the establishment of genuinely sustainable fisheries at a time when so many fish stocks are in serious long-term decline. since 2010 my i.s.u. has been working to establish consensus on how best to rebuild stocks so as, among other things, to

protect the livelihoods of coastal communities and to enhance food security. the potential to do this is underlined through many examples where it is already happening including here in the united states, such as the recovery and sustainable use of the morro bay fishery, gulf of mexico red snapper and pacific halibut stocks. so much can be achieved through taking an approach that goes beyond trading economic and ecological goals against one another and, instead find a way to integrate them. as i see it, these and other breakthroughs, such as the u.s. magnuson stevens act, are not a

barrier to economic and social aspirations, but rather a means of achieving them. and, in this regard, i was particularly delighted to learn of the recent announcement by the u.s. government that it would require all u.s. agencies to track all fish and seafood imports, and establish a system for american consensus to determine where fish and seafood have been caught, by whom and how. this is as i may say so, ladies and gentlemen, a tremendous step forward in the fight against illegal phishing and i very much hope will be copied by other countries. i need hardly say that collective action by governments is absolutely crucial when natural and marine ecosystems are under such pressure globally, including through treaties such as the law of the sea and the agreement on the

conservation of albatrosses and petrels. whilst i am well aware that the united states has not yet ratified these important measures, i suspect that with the help of the international conservation caucus the kind of leadership you have shown at home in protecting the marine environment would be a welcome inspiration towards making these international agreements more effective. [applause] president roosevelt was very much ahead of his time in saying that, conservation means development as much as it does protection. in some quarters i am led to believe that these words would still be somewhat controversial but one has to be encouraged by

the way that many people working to end deforestation, in particular, now seek to embed economically rational strategies so as simultaneously to achieve good development and conservation outcomes. my i.s.u. through what became known as the prince's rainforests project, sought positive action in this arena through the aim of making the forests worth more alive than dead. again, progress in different parts of the world shows what is possible through good leadership and in this regard i am particularly sorry that jens stoltenberg, the former prime minister of norway, who achieved so much on this agenda, was not able to be here this evening. his work helped to establish the

fundamental economic connections between forest conservation and human wellbeing and he is, if i may say so a far more worthy recipient of the award you have so kindly just bestowed on me. his current role, as secretary general of nato, is one of supreme importance and we are all incredibly fortunate to have someone of his stature and wisdom in such a position at this time. in the last year my i.s.u. has helped to convene a series of international conferences that for the first time addressed the linkages between the illegal trade in wildlife and both economic stability and national security. if i may say so, it is enormously heartening that the

united states is providing such great leadership in this area, through addressing the threat of skyrocketing demand, facilitated by organized criminals and in some cases terrorist groups, for elephant tusks, rhino horn and tiger parts by creating a presidential task force and a national strategy on wildlife trafficking. it is clear that both parties are working well together to develop solutions to this most dire of problems and i can only hope that the international conservation caucus will build on this very important work at home and overseas, while continuing to integrate it into international assistance, defense and security programs. as a complementary effort, my i.s.u., together with eight of the world's largest multinational financial institutions, the u.n. office on drugs and crime and interpol,

has recently issued a report containing recommendations for governments, financial institutions and others that will allow the financial system to use all available tools against money laundering and other financial crime related to the illegal wildlife trade. in response to these recommendations, key governments participating next week in the botswana conference on the illegal wildlife trade will pledge for the first time to follow aggressively the money from wildlife crime. in addition, i am proud to say that these issues are becoming an hereditary feature in my family and my eldest son, who is working very hard in this area, recently formed a task force, chaired by the former british foreign secretary, william hague, to examine the transport industry's role in the illegal

wildlife trade and identify ways that the sector can break the chain between suppliers and consumers. [applause] he will be very pleased to know you all agreed. [laughter] i am also pleased to be able to tell you that after an abortive attempt in the past years to gain enough support to tackle this issue, my international sustainability unit has embarked on a new work stream to look at solutions to the problem of plastic waste in the marine environment. [applause] just yesterday, here in washington i attended a meeting the i.s.u. co-hosted with the global oceans commission to discuss this enormous challenge.

the participants, representing private companies, ngo's and governments, expressed their willingness to work together to scale up both the immediate actions to stop the flow of waste into the oceans and those longer term actions needed to begin the transition across the plastics value chain to a more circular and less wasteful system. my i.s.u. has equally embraced activities that at first sight might seem a little remote from traditional conservation concerns. this has involved joining with my foundation for building community in looking at the case of cities and the worldwide problems caused by ever-greater urbanization. by addressing the question of how towns and cities might be developed in harmonious coexistence with their rural hinterlands, we are finding ways

to reach more resilient and sustainable outcomes, while at the same time more effectively conserving nature. in this case, part of the positive synergy arises from how city regions can gain a better understanding of the role of healthy ecosystems in the supply of their food and water. and ladies and gentlemen, while questions linked with fishing, deforestation declining wildlife and sustainable cities might seem like a disparate hodge-podge of environmental concerns, the common factor is that they can only be resolved through the kind of integrated thinking and planning that includes genuine community participation, aided by the realization that at the end of the day these issues are also, at heart, security, social and economic matters.

the question then ladies and gentlemen, is how can we speed up that integrated thinking, while there is still time to do so? one thing i believe to be vital is leadership. it is for this reason that so many people around the world are, for instance, waiting, with anticipation, for his holiness the pope's forthcoming encyclical letter on human ecology. i know how fostering leadership that all too rare quality, is one of the core concerns of the international conservation caucus and it seems to me that your bipartisan efforts in this arena, which are virtually unique in this day and age, could not be more important. the same thing must be said about your work to show how, in the end, conservation relates to

the fundamental concerns of societies and governments including the wellbeing of citizens their health, security nutrition and prospects for continued economic development, all of which ultimately depend on the successful functioning of nature's own unique economy and biodiversity. the world has looked to the united states for leadership in so many challenging circumstances in the past. however, today we are faced by truly exceptional challenges and threat, a veritable perfect storm which, if not met by strong, decisive and far-sighted leadership, could overwhelm our capacity to rectify the damage and thereby destroy our

grandchildren's future inheritance. america's impact is profound and it is my and many others, fervent hope that you will continue to inspire others both at home and on the global stage. thank you, ladies and gentlemen,. [applause] >> monday night on "the communicators" we met up with "wired" magazine reporter tim moynihan at the consumer electronics show in las vegas

who gave us a tour of the latest in tv technology. >> what does led stand for? >> organic light emitting diode. led and led set refers to the backlight system. it uses led backlight two color liquid crystal displays and then this one is actually using the individual oled particles as a social life. they can be turned on and turn off independently. with an led set your always going to see some sort of light through there. to my eyes this is pretty amazing, right? this is four k. and oled which are sort of the two big buzzwords at this years of show and has been for a few years and this is sort of the holy grail of tv. >> monday night at eight eastern on "the communicators" on c-span2. >> and taking live to the center

for strategic and international studies where the chair of the house armed service committee mac thornberry of texas will be talking to his plan to reform the defense department acquisition process. >> i'm pretty happy the sporting of them want to say thanks to chairman thornberry for doing this today but also for becoming such an important leader at this time. we were just chatting, waiting for everyone to gather, but probably not been a time when the country and the congress faces more complex issues, security issues, then now. and honestly the country is fatigue about the military. we've had 12 years of wars and there's an awful lot of americans who just want to forget it. they just don't want to think about it. but the point of genuine national leadership is to bring issues of long-term significance to the public debate so that we

don't ignore this. this is a very important time. we are having a huge debate in the congress right now about the budgets and how much money we should be spending on national defense. chairman thornberry, i know this is his view, that the reason he is pushing so hard on the question of acquisition reform is because if we're going to ask more money from the american public for defense they want to know that the money they already spending is being well spent. and i think we just have to on a seasonally we've got a lot of reform we need to bring to the defense department to validate our request for a stronger budget. and we do need a stronger budget. you know, i don't how many of you feel comfortable every night when you look at the daily news, but i don't. and you think that we are drifting without a strategic plan for our long-term defense

posture at a time like this is genuinely scary. that chairman has spent the last two months taking the committee down deep to understand the risks at the threats we face all over. and i think it's a tremendous allegation for the markup that is coming but also for the next two years. today he's going to spend some time talking with us about acquisition reform. it is a crucial and central part of his overall strategy and agenda. and i think we are very fortunate to have a man of his character and his leadership perspective leading the committee at this time. so would you please with your applause welcome chairman mac thornberry. [applause] him >> thank you, dr. hamre.

and i appreciate those kind words and appreciate the chance to be back at csis and also everything that you and this organization does to help inform and educate and guide many of us as we try to think our way through the national security challenges that we face. you know how when you're on it that when you're about to close the boarding door and somebody says, if you're not going to dallas, this is the time to get off? i'm kind of thinking anybody who is your thinking this is a texan about to announce something about the presidency, you're in the wrong place. [laughter] there's another speech that you have a chance to get to if you run. it's okay to slip out the back. i was here in november 2013 to launch a defense reform project that former chairman buck

mckeon had asked me to work on. so i thought it made sense to come back year to unveil the first installment of where we are. when i was here before i mentioned that nobody that i had run into thought that everything at the pentagon was going fine. what i more frequently got was a reaction that our reaction was oh yeah, y'all are going to try that again, it's not good to make much of a difference. and it's absolute true that change is hard especially for a military, which brings me to the subject of vital importance which is treasures. now come when you -- trousers. when you talk about defense reform you probably think about fighters, fabric. but in 1912 just before world war i trousers were heavy on the might of the french ministry of defense. see, the british had learned from the war that having those bright red coats on tended to

make them more of a target. so they switched to tactic. the french, by comparison, still wore blue coats and bright red trousers. the french leaders of four saw an advantage of editing slightly less visible on the battlefield and sought to institute the same reform that the british had taken on but a general way to describe the debate would be to say that the french have always held a high regard for fashion. so taking away trousers would be, as a parisian newspaper wrote, contrary to french taste and military function. and, of course they put taste before function. one former general even took to a parliamentary hearing screening that screaming to ministers that they would never eliminate our red trousers. well later on after a bloody conflict, the french minister of

war wrote that the blind and imbecile attachment to the most visible of all colors was to have rule consequences to the cruel. so far we've been fortunate enough not to have a general screen about the color of military pants in one of our committee hearings but if you think the french experience is instructive, and as we all know their reluctance to change in the next war was to add even more serious consequences for their nation. militaries are traditional by nature. it's part of the strength. it also means that change, even necessary change can be slow and hard. as dr. hamre just referenced, i think one of the reasons that military reform is necessary for us is that under any budget scenario, ma resources are tight and we have to make sure that we get more value out of the money we spend. we have to show our colleagues

on the hill and the taxpayers that we are carefully overseeing how their money is used. but i believe in even more critical reason for reform is a need for agility. as dr. hamre i can just referenced, we've had witnesses over the last two months in congress testified that we face a wider array of national security challenges now than at any point soda since world war ii, and maybe in the history of the country. we know from the headlines that the threats to our safety and well being are multiplying, and we know from the polls the public is pretty uneasy about it. just think for a second if you will about what's happened in the last 16 months since i was here to start this reform project. china is pushing out its territory, even building islands on the south china sea while our justice department has indicted pla members over there cyber activities. now, north korea has been busy inside a so but they shoot off a

few missiles from time to time to to get everybody on edge. u.s. military was sent to africa as the first response to the ebola epidemic, the national guard in texas was sent to our border to help cope with tens of thousands of unaccompanied minors that were flooding in from central america. russia invaded and annexed crimea and has pushed far into the ukraine threatening the peace of europe and post-world war ii stability while putin will not stop talking about where he wants to produce nukes. terrorists blew up shot beheaded or enslave innocent people from copenhagen, brussels and paris all the way down to nigeria, across africa into south asia in malls, museums grocery stores, and even schools. now that's not to overlook the stunning success of isis and establishing a safe haven in iraq and syria, drawing thousands of foreign fighters, humiliating the iraqi army and

spreading its poison throughout a wide region. nor the fall of the government of yemen, the source of the most serious threat to our homeland over the last few years as iran spreads its influence throughout the middle east and maybe a threshold nuclear state with the blessing of the international community setting off a nuclear arms race in the middle east. of course old problems have not gone away from afghanistan and pakistan to somalia to israel and the palestinians were there was a seven-week summer offensive in gaza. meanwhile, several airliners got shot down or disappeared with hundreds of people dying. in short it's been a difficult time over the last year or so. and the truth is nobody can foresee what's going to happen over the next 16 months, but what we do know is the velocity of change is accelerating and that the unexpected will spring out on us. the question is how will do we

or how well can we respond? so to help us be better prepared for a world of proliferating threats, including those we can't predict i think we need to have reforms in at least three areas. one is personnel to ensure we can continue to attract and keep the top quality folks who serve our country and our committee is looking at the recommendations of the commission on military retirement and compensation modernization. and i suspect we're going to try to do at least some of that this year. secondary of reform is organization and overhead. that classic detailed we all hear about. as the instinct of the services has declined, the bureaucracy and the pentagon and elsewhere have stayed, as they say robust. so we need to streamline the bureaucracy part. we need to save money but partly to streamline the process because every office has an understandable human need to be relevant and make their presence

known. and i think there's a good chance we can work with secretary carter to do some of that as well. but the third area of reform which is what i'm really here to talk about is improving the way we acquire goods and services. the definitive edge that our military enjoys comes from two sources, our people and our technology. and if we lose our technological edge, our troops will lose as well. our military has got to be both strong and agile. and people are going to get tired of me talking about the importance of agility which is as old as the calvary the army they can outmaneuver its foes wins and that's what every monocle soldier traveled with three to four horses and is why the germans so valued their panzer formations. today you see countries like russia and china trying to outflank us using technology whether it's a deploying carrier

killing missiles, or building radar that can detect stealth. the only defense is to adapt quicker than they do. i do want to see america outflanked. -- i don't want. >> several factors have contributed to the erosion including just a general pace of change, are broken budget process, and an acquisition process where we have a hard time getting modern technology fielded in a timely way. last week when secretary carter testified in front of our committee for the first time as a secretary, i pulled off my shelf a book that he had edited and partially written from 15 years before. you can imagine it can be a cruel thing to do somebody to quote their own words to them but in this case i think he was right, and i think he is still right.

because what he wrote about was that can maintain a technological edge, we have to align our procurement system with market forces, and we have to be the fastest in the greater of commercial technology in the defense systems. we have, unfortunately, moved further away from those goals rather than closer to them over the last 15 years. one of the many lessons i've learned from dr. hamre is that our unique government industry partnership in the united states has been one of the key factors in our success to becoming and staying a world leader. it's a fundamental strength, but it's also been a persistent problem. so since i was last year at 16 months ago i spent the time listening and it hasn't just been me. many of our committee numbers on both sides of the aisle especially ranking member adam smith can have listened and read

and studied not only about the current system works, or doesn't work, but about past reform efforts and how well they have succeeded or not. we listen to folks in the pentagon such as undersecretary kendall and the service acquisition executives and the service chiefs. we've listened to industry including trade associations, companies and individuals. we've listened to people who have spent years studying the acquisition process, such as authors and academics and folks at the general accounting office and the congressional research service. we've listened to former military and pentagon officials and industry officials. we have listened to people working in the system now managing programs trying the best to get capability delivered on time and on budget and we have consulted with people completely removed from the defense acquisition system to learn about best practices that could be incorporated in the system. i know this is shocking but we have even listened to each other, because there are members

of congress and staff that have a tremendous wealth of experience and expertise in these areas. and we've taken all of that input, compiled a database with more than 1000 specific proposals, some of which as you can imagine are better than others, more realistic than others, but it is a database we can continue to mine for years to come. despite the fact there are a lot of smart well-intentioned people in this field i don't think anybody is smart enough to have all the answers or to understand all of the consequences to any particular change. so on wednesday of this week i'm going to introduce in the house of bill that will serve as a discussion draft for the first tranche of legislative proposals to improve our acquisition system. and i invite comments and suggestions. folks are going to have about a month to do that because our

full committee markup of the next year's national defense authorization act of the april 29. so there will be about one month to make comments. now, and offered this legislation i expect at least two reactions. what is it doesn't go far enough. and you know what? that's going to be exactly right. it's not enough. it doesn't try to be enough, but it's a start. and it's a start that tries to focus on the basics of the acquisition process our people, the strategy, and the decision-making change to buy goods and services here another reaction is well it doesn't too much. i don't think that's right but that's what i want to put out there, because my first rule is like doctors do no harm. i want to out there for several weeks and invite comment. i really think this is the best application i know of that overused metaphor of trying to

fix the airplane engine while the airplane is in flight. this plane cannot go off duty and land for several months while we fix the engine. it has to keep flying while we make improvements because we have to defend the country every day. but if we don't try to fix the engine, it's not going to be able to defend the country so we have to be able to do both. so in the proposal that i'm going to introduce i really breakdown the changes into four categories, people, acquisition strategy, streamline the chain of command and then out the regulations and paperwork. and let me just give you a brief summary of each of those. starts with people. that's the most viable resource in acquisition, just like it is in defense of general. generally. we would remove some of the obstacles that make it more difficult for top military talent to serve in acquisition, and we make permanent the defense acquisition workforce development fund to help make sure that it can be used more

effectively. we would also require training on the commercial markets including commercial market research to help close that gap between industry and government. to be the world's fastest in corporate or of commercial technology, there has to be a lot of interaction between industry and government. and so we require there to be mandatory ethics training on that acquisition related in action. so it's clear what we can and cannot do. secondly on acquisition strategy we require everybody -- every progress toward up with an acquisition strategy. it has to be in writing and has begun up front and then updated as needed. now, this strategy would end up consolidating at least six different requirements into the up front strategy. and it's got to include what is the most appropriate type of

contract for this particular acquisition. this is another area where one size clearly does not fit all. it's got to consider whether multi-year is appropriate. it's got to include risk mitigation strategies just like our combatant commanders have to include risk mitigation strategies for their war plans. we have to have risk mitigation strategies for our acquisition plan. and it's got to consider incentives. so, for example, one of the things we want to consider is shared savings on service contracts, which are not currently a loud. in the third area we want to simplify the chain of command for acquisition decisions. so a number of requirements on milestone a and milestone be are going to move from a legal certification to just a decision. and as a recovering lawyer i can attest that the fewer lawyers that are involved in the

process, the smooth it is probably going to go. one of the reasons i think we've gotten so bogged down in bureaucracy is that we've tried to paperwork our way all of us. it creates, slows everything down and creates a situation where no one is responsible and no one is accountable for the success or failure of the program. so in this draft it will raise the dollar threshold on a number of the for such a simple five acquisition to make it easier for service chiefs, these commanders and others to just get things done. we make it clear that the role of the testing community is to test enterprise, not to make decisions -- test and advice. not to make decisions but we have said that regulations and get rid of paperwork. there will be dozens of reporting requirements that will be eliminate. over and over again i hear that

program managers in industry are forced to manage the process rather than manage the program. gao just came out with a report y'all may have seen which evaluates the usefulness of the bunch of these certifications that apply to every single program. some are useful, some you won't be surprised to learn or not. so, for example, so years ago congress was concerned that several programs were not paying proper attention to corrosion resistance. so what got interpreted by the bureaucracy was that every program had to have a corrosion prevention report which had to be staffed and written before the program could proceed. even applied to computer software, not generally known as a high corrosion risk. now, the truth is dod has recently taken some steps to correct this issue in its latest guidance that this is an example

of how the system has gotten so bogged down. matter of fact the best summary of the current system that hurt over the last 16 months was but one of the leaders working in the system every day. the current system is like a bus, where the driver is the program manager and he or she is responsible for getting that bus or that program to a certain place on time and on budget. yet the bus is full of passengers, and every passenger has their own steering wheel and they'retheir own break. so that makes the drivers job pretty hard. and when the bus ends up in the ditch, as too often happens then all those passengers scattered away and climb onto another bus. meanwhile, the driver is left there to figure how to get out of the ditch and get back on the road. what we need to do is eliminate those other steering wheels and brakes so there is one

decision-maker and then we can hold that driver accountable for getting the bus what needs to be on time and on budget. that's what i hope these proposals move us toward. so finally let me just mention three other things. there's more to the proposal that i've outlined here in addition to the changes in law we are going to make public this week a separate judgment that this draft report language. that includes several studies and markers for future legislation. so, for example, one area where we need to do a lot more work is in service contracts but we're having trouble getting information we need to look at that so we are requiring the department provide us additional money, i mean additional information in that area. that will help guide our steps in the future. second point is part of improving the acquisition process involves changing the

way congress operates. we are also pretty tied to tradition, and often difficult to change. but our military cannot be angel without congress taking steps that allow and even encourage that sort of agility. third, i agree with those who argue that we have the unique opportunity now to make needed reforms. few sectors of defense no the pentagon have known the pentagon better than secretary carter the heat along with undersecretary can do, the service secretaries and the joint chiefs are all committed to reform. they understand that it is essential. that commitment is strong on the hill as well. chairman mccain and i agree that reform must be one of our top party. and we have excellent partners in the effort with senator reid and adam smith. many others on our committees are involved as well on a bipartisan basis.

so several longtime observers have pointed out to me that never before have all the stars been so favorably aligned where we have the necessity of reform, key people in positions at a commitment to make it happen. so the point is we can't waste this opportunity. as long as i am privileged to hold his job, defense reform is going to be a priority. not for its own sake but for the sake of ensuring that our military is as prepared as possible for the wide array of threats we face today and for the unknown security challenges which confront us to more. we will never get all the way there, but we have to move steadily closer to a department of defense that is efficient, effective and accountable with military capability that is both strong and agile. in the guns of august, barbara tuchman writes that the impetus of existing plans is always stronger than the impulse to

change. we have to overcome that impetus and we have to set aside our skepticism. we cannot allow blind attachments or inertia to cause our men and women to suffer cruel consequences such as has beset the french and other militaries in history. if we are smart and persistent, we can stay on top. for there is much in our country and around the world that depends on whether we are successful. thanks. [applause] >> well, chairman thornberry thanks so much coming back to csis. it's a great privilege for us to be able to host you and to listen to this preview of a soon-to-be, rollout and it's very exciting. i like a lot of what i heard.

i think others did, too. for the benefit of the audience colleges introduced myself. i am andrew hunter, director of the defense international initiative here at csis and have had the privilege of working in the past for the house armed services committee on acquisition reform. be back we shouldn't have let you get away. >> i didn't go too far. and, obviously this is still an issue that we are tracking closely. i wanted to start a by asking you a few questions and then once you've had the opportunity to respond to that, we will open it up to the group. we have folks with microphones who will come around when that portion of the session comes up with those who have questions. so let me start out by start if you will at the end. i'm curious as to what you see as sort of your ideal or successful outcome for this effort, both in terms of this

year's activity and then i think it also indicated in the past that this is not maybe a one and done exercise. so he'd be a little bit about what a success look like for this year and then what might success look like over a five to 10 your type of a time span for this? >> you are absolutely right. as they say this about and when you're effort. nobody is that smart to fix acquisition in a single school. and if you try you probably make our mistakes and you going to help. this is just beginning. what we are trying to do at the beginning is deal with some of the fundamentals. that's why i talk about the essential nature of the acquisition workforce and some tools to help improve that. the acquisition strategy and the chain of command in making decisions about acquisitions, which is i think is fundamental. that's where restore. so what i hope if all of this is connected and all of this works out perfectly, what i hope

is that we have a more streamlined chain of command and more accountability that goes with that chain of command. but again this is never a destination that you reach. this is just trying to swing back the other way from that pendulum that has gone so far that software has to have a collusion report staffed and written for. >> you mentioned senator mccain and his support for this, and that also matches obviously my understanding and his reputation. but, of course, the senate doesn't always follow the will always of one person, and not good that follows the will of the the the senator is at most points in time. but how do you see this playing out in the senate? how does the picture look to you on that side? >> well, i think the key place to start is i think senator mccain is just as committed to this as we are in the house.

and so it's going to be a major part of his efforts. we have talked about this from day one when each of us were chosen for these positions. and we are coordinating closely every step of the way. now, you're right. it does mean the student committee is going going to have exactly the same i would as a house committee. -- senate committee. both of us will go respected floors, there is amendments come into a so we will have to rectify all of that. but i think there is a tremendous amount of common perspective here and that's part of the reason i'm persuaded that those people who say this is fairly rare especially all those skeptics who say i've heard all this stuff before. it is fairly rare to have that commitment on the senate, the house, and also in the department. and you really do have it is time. i think it takes that in order to really make the changes not

just at a superficial level, but in a deeper cultural level. but i also think the people who work in the system are hungry for the. that's only came across to me in the meetings i had with program managers inside government industry people. people want to do things. they don't want to just fill out useless report. and so much of their time effort and money is spent on paperwork these days. >> you mentioned, and i like the way you framed it, the importance of agility in the system. and certainly a lot of folks have commented and we've been looking at it here on how defense technology and commercial technology and into play between the two is undergoing significant change. like you mentioned the pace of change and just sort of the nature of what technology development is happening both in terms of commercial versus defense, and in terms of

globally, been a much more global exercise. so as you look down the road a little bit, how do you see that changing the way that the acquisition system operate, both in terms of the laws that you're working on but then also you also mentioned the regulations. >> well, i think it is just fundamental because we cannot take 20 years to build a new airplane with technology moving at the speed. and so that's why streamlining the system is absolutely essential. and the point about commercial technology being where much of the innovation happens also means we can't or in two instances can we start from scratch with the military developing the requirements and doing all of the work. there has to be that much greater cooperation and integration of commercial with

military, and so that's part as i mentioned, that's part of the reasons we have the proposals that we did. but i think your point gets to what i think maybe even, part of what you've got to change is the culture and the incentives. and a lot of people who work in the system has been criticized in the past say for being too close to industry, so not have this standoffish sort of attitude. too often the current system rewards people just take the lowest bidder no matter what and figure we will work out the rest of the stuff later. so that's part of what i think it's important for us to start with these fundamentals. the acquisition strategy where you do the work up front in thinking through what the need to have a successful acquisition, and then streamline

that chain of command so you can hold accountable the people who actually make the decisions without all those other people having their own steering wheels and brakes. i think we're going to have to do that or else we really will be left behind in not having a technological edge that has been key to our success at least since the end of world war ii. >> you mentioned industry and how to focus their on the criticality of a partnership between government and industry to industry of course filled with their patriotic individual to work hard on these problems because of a sense of mission but also they are responding to shareholders who have expectations as is reasonable. so how do you see that dynamic in terms of incentives for not just the folks in industry but their shareholders to make sure that their incentives are fully

aligned with what we are trying to give? >> that goes back to the point i quoted from ash carter 15 years ago. we have to align our procurement process with market incentives. because if you're going crossways, it's not going to work. and too often our incentives may not be crossways right now but they're not going the same direction. so what that requires i think is that streamline the process so you can have more accountability your but it also means more innovative sort of contract types. like i mentioned shared savings on service contracts where if you win the contract and you can do a little cheaper you can keep part of the savings and the government keeps part of the savings, versus the way to much of the time it is now and that is spent all the money in your account because if you don't you'll get less next time. so it is the spend it or lose it. that's going in the wrong direction. so part of the reason i am

insistent this has to be a multi-year effort is that in order to really understand the incentives now and to begin to change them, because that's really what's going to change behavior, it's going to take time. and a more streamlined accountable system is a key first step but there are many more steps to go in order to have that align a going in the right direction, in order to be the world's fastest integrated of commercial technology. it's just a collocated it's going to take time but this is hopefully a positive step. >> well at this point i would like to open it up to audience questions. i had for on my watch so it's about time for someone else to get a chance. we will start up your but if you could say your name and where you're from and the microphone is headed your way. >> professor scooter from the george washington university. first let me offer you some kudos but it's wonderful to talk

about things like incentives and it's good to hear you acknowledge some of the cynicism and some of difficulties for change. i just want to say before i get to my question that i think that when you talk about reducing bureaucracy any focus you on reducing the cost drivers, those with a permanent changes that have direct effect on the bottom line. as you do the big things don't lose sight of the fact that everyone of those you eliminate has direct benefit to the government. my question i think is straightforward. one of the last things they did before he left csis and his big number crunch report talked about the fact since the economy tightened up, the single biggest change in defense acquisition has been the reduction in money spent on research and develop it or the most dramatic reduction has been an independent research and develop. you talk about maintaining tactical superiority. any thoughts on addressing that gap? >> i share that concern completely as budgets are tight you have to pay the fuel bills

and just got to send the pay checks out so what gets cut? it's the r&d. that's true from the government side. and then with our broken budget process what does industry seek? basie dysfunction and so they tend to but less of their own money into it. so as we evaluate the president's budget proposal and move toward our own defense authorization bill i think we will look at some key technologies that are going to be important for our future and seeing if we could do a little better on them. because if you think that is their import. i hope we can get is a more stability in our budget process so that enters he says yeah, i think there's a future there and we will put more -- but i have to say one of the things that concerns me the most getting back to our discussion you lockheed and northrop are always going to do with the department of defense. a lot of other firms that are

key innovators can take it or leave it. if it's too much hassle to do business with the department of defense they can leave it. and so part of the reason to improve the way we contract for goods and services is to make the department of defense a little friendlier to do business with so that we can take better advantage of martial innovation and some of the other companies -- commercial innovation. and some of the of the companies who are on the fence about whether they want to deal with it or not. >> in the back. [inaudible]

[inaudible] >> we will put on our radar screen. don't expect however, for all problems to be solved in a single swoop.

>> mr. chairman, over the years many have criticized the military industrial complex starting with president eisenhower, the iron triangle and there's been great efforts to try to insulate the government from the impact of industry leading to the current administration an almost complete absence of senior executives from there is defense and defense-related firms being able to serve in policymaking decisions. while there's some benefit others have said this removal of expertise, this boring of people, with the kind of expertise in areas such as procurement of -- means a lot expertise is never able to be used by the government. what are your views on the ability of potential senior executives from our military industrial firms being able to go back into government? >> this is the reason i mentioned, i think this is one of the areas where the pendulum has swung too far. and this is not because of some law that congress has passed.

this is more regulatory and it's gotten worse certainly with this administration but, so part of what i think we have to have is this close cooperation of industry and government and that is going to include inevitably people who move back and forth. because if you think about it if you don't let people move back and forth, then who do you end up with? people who haven't had expansion what you're dealing with. so part of the reason i think it's essential to simplify that chain of command is so that there can be more transparency and you can hold people accountable for the decisions they make. and then as a mentioned we have a requirement for people who are part of the acquisition process to also have ethics training that is targeted to these sorts of situations. the our ethics classes that are

at defense acquisition university, all government employees have some but my thought is targeted for these sorts of interactions, make it more transparent, but understand that that sort of operation is just essential and it includes able who will move to different jobs. ..

i think all that does fit together with the reforms that we are talking about. but i do think part of the reason these reforms are so easily joe is that a routing technological superiority that i mentioned that is taking away one of the key strengths that we have had over time. and if we sit here and put all our phones and fill out a bunch of paperwork and it goes it's going to be freely hard to recover. i'm with northwestern university

national security journalism initiative. my question pertains to the priority that you mentioned in the proposed legislation about cutting down the paperwork. your goal as i interpreted it was to keep one program manager accountable instead of having very confusing amount of dust strikers. but if i could indulge your metaphor for a moment, my concern is say you have this bus and the driver is more used to be administrative role and if they have the equivalent of being a carpool captain, whereas the people with the steering wheels might have a commercial drivers license and would be better suited to run a metro bus. so to bring it back to the current situation my question is if the program managers were in charge, how are we going to ensure that by decreasing the people that are subject matter

experts in the different acquisition process, how are we not setting the program managers up to fail and how can we keep those accountability measures in check if they don't require a rubber stamp so that we can be both efficient and effective? >> you start out with the assumption that somebody is going to mess up and it's going to happen. these are human beings, complex decisions. somebody is going to not be motivated for the right reasons. somebody is going to make a mistake and somebody might be corrupt. that is what happens when you get humans involved in decision-making. the question is how do you design your system. do you design it to eliminate any chance of that happening, or do you design your system to be as transparent as possible to make sure to have the best chance of finding it if someone is incompetent or corrupt?

there is a difference here. to me, wal-mart could eliminate shoplifting basically down to zero if they frisk anybody coming in and out of their stores, but obviously that's not in wal-mart's best interest neither is it in our best interests to have my my laughter might look paperwork and reports in requirements and second guessing, which had the overall effect on the system of preventing us from the your big modern technology in a timely way just to try to prevent somebody from the singapore having the wrong motivation or something. and so here is the author. we other. we are partly responsible for this and congress. if something goes wrong and we have people up there in front of the tv lights and say you really messed up and pass the league could shake your finger.

everybody has to have a corrosion report. >> we overreact. we've got to be sure not to overreact. i firmly believe that the simpler the system that a better chance for accountability and a better chance to find instances where it hasn't gone as well as we wanted. the more complicated your system medicare is so complicated that it has flawed because there are so many ways to manipulate the system because nobody understands it all. so the more transparent you make it the less of that you're going to have that you cannot paperwork or regulate your way out of human frailties. >> i just want to follow-up on that follow up on that briefly because the acquisition report came out with their version of the system about a month ago and i got a really interesting

e-mail from someone on the committee. one of the findings was that a little over half of the major weapon systems have experienced cost growth in the preceding year and the note said if you are a cost estimator, you do a 50/50 estimates so half the time you expect to be overrun and the longer run so he was delighted. it's about hitting the nail on the head but that isn't how it played out in the press. >> good morning. it's refreshing. at the brookings institution i was wondering if you could talk going back to the first how you laid out the reform in the three areas of military personnel, overhead and acquisition.

the inertia against change is very powerful as you said and secretary carter has a shelf life as you know. the inertia is so powerful in the bureaucracy so i was pleased to see the acquisition reform and i wondered if you could provide a little more detail. you mentioned removing barriers to get into acquisition reform assuming you're talking about on the uniform side are there any reforms on the civilian side as well. >> primarily what i was referring to was on that uniform side so there's a situation if you want to go in acquisition and stay in acquisition rather than moving to the operational community in the back so it limits the pool of people who

want to get into acquisition. there are arguments on both sides of the debate and i want to put this out there and get feedback from it. i think we are making it worse or it's a better? i understand there are arguments on both sides. making sure people get credit for being in the acquisition and a variety of things like that to increase the pool and also support the people that come into the acquisition system. when you start changes on the civilian side, you get a different set of laws and so forth and we are looking at how some of those. it is the key and as i was referencing what do people get rewarded for or punished for in the system when it comes to

their careers and upward progression those are the things you need to understand whether the changes you think you're making are really going to take place because that is what affects people's day-to-day decision-making. and so as i say i am not pretending that i understand all of that but i hope that beginning with opening the pool and using the workforce development fund on a personal basis developing these kind of increased trainings for commercial and ethics get us on a good start for further improving which has already been improved from what it was a few years ago. >> [inaudible] >> we may. that overruns the second area of reform which is overhead

civilian and military. we may be taking some steps in that area. but today what i was trying to focus on is the way that we contract for the goods and services that they are interrelated and just as the military compensation stuff is related to this if you want somebody that can be competitive with google and understands what they are offering the technology then you have to be competitive for that top talent which gets us back to the personnel recommendations. as the government competitive for the top and into the recommendations make it more or less likely to complete the software engineers in the past. so the things i do intertwine is

absolutely valid. >> congressman thank you for your efforts on behalf of this important activity. the change needs to happen. your comments earlier regarding the barriers that exist in the department regarding the insertion of the commercially derived technologies clearly the secretary understands the value of the commercial technology as does the deputy but all of those individuals are going to be out of the department in a couple of years. what can the house house do and can congress do over the course of the next two years to reinforce an orientation towards

leveraging outside innovations and outside technologies. >> i think we can get it get a call to a good start. and second, we can help educate and leave the discussion. i think one of the major roles congress can play in the national security writ large is to help shape the national discussion of what's good for the country especially going into the presidential election year especially at the time when, according to the polls, national security is the number one or the number two concern of most people this is a real opportunity for us is this enough to elevate the discussion and to focus on where we are and the trend so that's part of the reason as mentioned we spent the

last two months in the committee focusing on the security environment and technological trends and where things stand before we start looking at specific budget proposals. and i think that has made a big difference and including me opening the eyes of all committee members and understanding where the trend is and where we stand and where it's headed. nobody can get anti-anything so i don't know how the future elections were going to go. as long as i am privileged to have this job this is great to be a major focus for me because if you look back in history it has been congress that has been the key to major reforms at the department. goldwater nichols of course is the most famous example but there are a number of times in

the first speech i gave since i was the chairman and i talked about the former chairman vincent requiring that some big holes be laid down if it became the key aircraft carriers at the battle of midway. congress has been the ones that have made a key difference. if we don't come it's not going to happen. i guarantee that. for all the skeptics out there saying this is just going to be come and go it's not going to last come it's not going to really matter we are going to do our best to make it better. the last point is one of my favorite sayings these days and i am sorry i can't remember where it came from is the pessimists are usually right, but it's the optimists that changed the world. >> if your most important thing is to be negative and a skeptical about it but if you want to make a difference and

think about what can happen that's what we are trying to do. with the association might question to you is about our international allies and partners as we all know the military is not the only user of the defense acquisition system and i'm curious about how you see our international allies and partners in the role to make it easy for them to access the industrial stuff going overseas. >> i will say over and over again there's lots of issues that we don't fix with what i'm going to release this week. one of the issues is the slowness of the pure rocker c. to deal with foreign