a look at some political cartoons but they donald trump oval office and another told new york city mayor that there is a real-life homeless family living. next we will take a look at a discussion about what inspires political cartoonists and how technology has changed their profession. this is an hour and a half. >> welcome to the above and annual william mcgowan communications technology and

government. with presidential elections forever percolating and candidates juxtaposition, this is an appropriate time to discuss freedom of speech, communications and political cartoons. how do political cartoons make a difference? we can probably agree a picture is worth a thousand words and the pen is mightier than the sword. political cartoons by articulating a memorable, visual image was scanned or zero words powerfully advance the argument and expand the conversation. as far back as 1754, ben franklin published his timeless political cartoons, join or die. it was a sneak cut into segments representing the divided british colonies. franklin's metaphor became a rallying point for unity initially and at the french indian the french indian war ended than during the american revolution.

today's brilliant political cartoonists can take advantage of a myriad of print and web-based communications portals. but freedom of expression must never be taken for granted. we recall 12 people including four prominent cartoonists murdered in the paris offices off the weekly as retribution for published images of a religious figure. we wonder our cartoon artists intimidated or energized by such a violent responses. tonight's program will explore the challenges and opportunities inherent in the artform today and for the future. it is presented in partnership with the national archives supported by the william mcgowan charitable fund. i got the privilege of being a member of the board in 2008. the mcgowan fund was established in 1993 to preserve the legacy of global communications legend

and my uncle, william mcgowan. mci communications founder who died previous year. through grant programs, the fund helps protect society's most vulnerable members. the support programs ranging from food banks to clinics, college programs and health promotion initiatives. since its inception the fund has provided over $130 million to a effective guarantees in the areas of healthcare and medical research, human services and education. at the william mcgowan theater reflects the priority of the charismatic and charitable type of industry. uncle bill -left-brace to read, movies and debating the great ideas of the day. in 2003 the fund honor his marine men by partnering with the national archives to develop this public theater. here outstanding films and documentaries are screened and important ideas are explored. this annual forum falls on the

program at the theater. in 2008 the fund added an annual spotlight for women in leadership and it focuses on women in business, journalism, academia, the arts, sciences and public service. bill mcgowan believed in a frank and open exchange of ideas and he loved to debate and argue with his nieces and nephews which we were tested on on a regular basis. he believes in american democratic society backed by a democratic independent judiciary. only in such a democracy could bill have let mci come his upstart provider to victory over corporate giant at&t which had a virtual lock on u.s. phone service. in 1982 capping a ten year battle into a strict court affirmed the right to compete in an open marketplace ending 18 t.

telecommunications monopoly history is repeating itself, that lead to healthy competition and innovation paving the way for today's global advances in communications technology. the distinguished panelists and moderators will take advantage of the open forum at the national archives to share perspectives on the vibrant passage of creating political cartoons. i'm looking forward to the conversation and your questions and comments to follow. thank you very much. [applause] >> good evening. i am the archivist of the united states and it is a pusher to welcome you officially to the national archives tonight and a special welcome to those of you that are joining us on c-span and on our national archives youtube channel. since this year's topic for the mcgowan is political cartoons i thought i would mention some of the archives are in the form of cartoons.

or holding station wide contains thousands of examples of editorial cartoons related to political events and personalities throughout our history. some of the oldest political cartoons in the holdings of the national archives are in our presidential libraries and we had a have a series of dutch cartoons from 1719 i-india fdr library and the collection of thomas smacked cartoons from the 1870s at the eisenhower and florida presidential libraries but most of the political cartoons in the 13 presidential libraries deal with the actual presidents. these examples serve as proof that even and especially the leader of the free world is not immune from being obscured each morning by a newspaper editorial cartoonist. it comes with the job and as we see dalia it goes for those who want the job also. probably the most extensive single collection we have is a 2400 original pain and aimed

cartoonist clifford case berryman from the collection maintained for the center for you archives. he was one of washington's best-known and most admired graphic political commentators in the first half of the 20th century. he drew for the "washington post" for 1890 until 1907 and then the evening star from 1907 until his death in 1949. his cartoons touched on a variety of subjects including politics, presidential and congressional elections coming both world wars and even washington weather and this entitled the season. from 1915 to highlight the departure of the lame-duck members of congress. those departing capitol hill after losing the bid for the election and in this cartoon they are defeated democrats headed to the white house hoping to secure woodrow wilson. [laughter] our panel of distinguished

cartoonists tonight will be moderated by david sipress history major williams college, david went on to harvard for a masters program in soviet history and after two years dropped out to pursue a career as a cartoonist. in david's words, this may seem like a strange position but to me it has been perfect sense. since i was a kid i knew that being an artist specifically that works with humor was what i really wanted to do with my life. after six months after dropping out he published his first cartoon in the boston phoenix area david's first cartoon appeared in 1998 and he was the new yorker.com first dalia cartoonist during the 2012 presidential election. his work has also appeared in playboy, the "washington post" and harper said he's also lectured on the art of the cartoon and he was the writer and host of conversations with cartoonists the series of

onstage interviews with many artists that work on the new yorker magazine. he's also published fiction and nonfiction on the narrative.com and on the new yorker's website including how it changed my life a tribute to the great italian chef and my november 221963 account of his family's experience of kennedy's assassination and now i will turn the program over to the moderator who will introduce our panel. [applause] >> we salute the audience. [laughter] good evening i'm david sipress

i'm moderating tonight and i want to introduce keith knight, signe wilkinson and jen sorensen. [applause] i asked them to put up this drawing that unfortunately got cut off at the bottom. to get a little context of history of this kind of cartooning. [laughter] just a few words about what i doing here. i am a new yorker cartoonist. doing political cartoons for the new yorker is a tricky business because of the sort of limitations that come down from up above. we can't advocate directly for anything. we can't point fingers at any particular politician or policy. basically we just sort of go like this to the reader in and to say isn't at all ridiculous.

also part of those rules are we are not unlike the covers of caricatures in the new yorker cartoons, no text to explain anything. so i developed some strategies to deal with that and one is that i used the archetypes to kind of funnel my point of view. one of them for example is the figure of the king that i used for representing the government itself were particular positions. and i chosen one to show you tonight. it's one i did right after the 2012 election when there was a lot of chatter about what the president had to accomplish in order to affect the way future generations would view the presidency. i also chose it because i think it's appropriate for the venue tonight at the national archives. i am concerned about my legacy said the historian. [laughter]

by -- vias guys work on a different schedule than i do. i had a little taste of it as was mentioned, i was a dalia cartoonist on the new yorker website during the election cycle topical cartoon every day for two months, and one thing i came to appreciate is what it's like to deal with the enormous amount of information you have to take him in order to come up with your ideas into this cartoon was kind of a result of that. my desire to be well informed is currently at odds with my desire to remain. [laughter] what peace guys do is cut through all that noise and information and if the the tools and words and pictures together get us to some simple and concise truths that help us all figure out what's going on. and i'm going to start out

before i show any slides and you are probably going to kill me for going but i going to ask the only question that is going to probably been asked a million times and will bore you to death. it's not where do you get your ideas; i will get to that later. i wonder if anybody would like to see a little bit about how you view your role as a political cartoonist. is your role to explain, make people laugh, as if to change peoples people's minds or any combination of those? anybody have anything to say about that? laughter cow okay. well that was one idea gone. >> anybody? >> that's the answer you'll get to every question by the way. [laughter] >> i don't think we are going to talk about it when we get to a particular topic because some things -- every cartoon is different. you do different things in different cartoons to make different points.

the day after somebody blows up paris, a sympathy cartoon is a good idea and get your not giving sympathy cartoons all week long. you move on to other things. >> why don't we dive right into the images. i'm going to show one cartoon by each of you. the first one is tom. >> t. want me to talk about that? [laughter] because the answer is no. >> i have a question. do you have a television where you work in your office clacks >> i do but i don't watch it. >> so you didn't sit there all day and watch the hillary clinton hearings? >> i absorbed enough of them through various channels to have a pretty good idea of what was going on. this cartoon i focused on for the reason that -- initially what people look to a cartoon to

do to a certain extent is to simplify a complicated situation and i wanted in this one to simplify a complication in a complicated way. [laughter] that's all i have to say the obvious idea is that the benghazi hearings were not going according to the political but the republicans had set out for them to be in other words a big takedown of hillary so the simple shortest version of that is that it backfired on them. but there are simpler ways to do it then i chose to do. and this was a cartoon that some people said they had to look at it for a while. [laughter] because of several things going on and sometimes complicated and simple is better than the simple

simple but i think within the complexity is that i got it all in there and that kind of engaging way and as you look at it it is a static image but it's potentially alive with all kinds of emotion and intend reactions and consequences of as an example of simplicity rendered complexly. >> it is a marvelous composition. [laughter] i have a couple of questions for you generally. i've made a joke about elephants before but i'm always struck in your work about how cuddly all of your characters are, and i wonder actually if that is a kind of strategy that you used to soften. it's the one strategy the fishermen use. they don't just make it look

sharp. political cartooning is often very harsh, very pointed. i certainly enjoy and feel strongly about putting that element into my cartoons. but i don't know. you have to make choices as to how you present what you have to say. i mean, that is really have the job and for me, it's -- i design my cartoons to reflect my personal way of being without information and opinions and i just feel that if you make it look sweet and nonthreatening doesn't invite un rather than push you away and all of a sudden you find yourself enmeshed in my world where eventually you find out that there is a bug in there and --

[laughter] let me ask you this i've always been interested in your little autobiographical in the bottom right-hand corner. i wonder when you started doing that and what your thinking is about it. >> its initial thought was the arrived from panels who made the watershed cartoonists in american political cartooning and he hates me to this day for adopting that. when i would look at it i would think that's brilliant, perfect, can't touch it because he interested in it and it was so personal it would seem like that was off-limits and it was for me but i was in a library which was sort of like an archive monday looking through early 20th century american public will cartooning and i found this kind of marginal commentary was very

much part of the field and it wasn't at all that fiction so i thought i will give it a try. the readers loved it right away. i put myself personally in it at the drawing board and so -- >> does it have the effect of distancing yourself from the main cartoon in a way and kind of getting it off to the side second opinion? >> it's just another dimension. when i draw the cartoon sketches to see how they are working i always draw them with that in mind. if you take that away the cartoon is designed to work without it and a lot of times i will get to the end of the day and i will have that part and it often turns out to be the hardest part of the cartoon but it's just another thing. it's another way to personalize it and to add another thought. sometimes it reinforces the main plot and cuts the other way.

but again, i want to -- political cartoons are very much the opinion of the cartoonist himself or herself and i just wanted to make it clear that there is a person. it's not just a cartoon. there's somebody behind drawing and that person has their own thoughts, their own take is and it's me. and i'm not ashamed or especially proud of it, but that's the way it is. and that's why i'm there. >> okay. i'm going to show one of yours now. when you send it to me you said i think this will be obvious if a cartoon only a woman could do. >> i have to preface by saying that it was done many years ago he for the recent discussion had come back.

>> get ready everybody. [laughter] >> i was going to read it for you. [laughter] >> i don't think that is necessary. [laughter] >> you're speechless. [laughter] >> i do feel a certain -- >> do you feel that way? [laughter] >> there was an article about prostate exams today but i wasn't going to bring that up. i did want to ask you we agree that in this particular field of there are only a few of you when in cartoonists and i wonder do you feel a particular obligation or calling to make cartoons about these kind of issues? >> no. >> if you look at the number of cartoons that have been drawn

over the course of 35 years of cartooning, i've drawn a lot about women so have men. all the political issues for equal rights and the various you know, he will pay and actually one of the reasons i wanted to get into cartooning was i was sick of having all the men drawing the cartoons. this was back when thou women's movement was just getting started. maybe when men could draw a few of those cartoons so it's like this men's club that you could leave the ideas at the door and they would show the cartoon for you so at any rate, it's been a privilege to be able to do it. when i got started at my first full-time job having health benefits, there were about five other women cartoonists in full-time jobs and today there's no one in a full-time paid

position and very few men so yes when the women's issues, i want to talk about them, definitely. but it's not the thing that i draw about most. i don't draw exclusively about gender. but i do feel that it's something i'm constantly aware of and possibly more aware of them some people have been in the field and there are many male feminist cartoons out there that you know, i think in the life experience there are some to bring to the table. there is no one monolithic female perspective of course.

in the life experience that you were just going to bring to the cartoon. so i do a fair number of cartoons about gender and women's issues at the same time i don't mind being identified as find being identified as a woman cartoonist because i feel like if we are going to get more women in the media you have to be conscious of that. you can't just sweep it under the table and say we are going to ignore that. but again i do view myself as a generalist and it's not my exclusive niche. >> it's amazing the number of people that think i am a dude. [laughter] >> now i'm going to show one of keith.

>> how did the innocent gesture from a gang sign is subtle listen carefully. piece by city vagrants. 3.6 oh, tri-city blood. okey-dokey, overcome cramps. rock on, westside brawlers, [inaudible] [laughter] you originally come at a sort of comic strip background. did you always do political content or is this something that something that kind of developed over time lex >> i think it's developed over time that it was always a part of my repertoire. it started in college. my first professor that i had was in college and he was an english american literature professor and his name was

professor gerald. he was amazing. for a reading assignment he gave us james baldwin, my angelou, martin luther king, all these different writers and when someone brought it up to him they were all black writers he said they are all american writers and that was cool hearing was making statements about making statements and just really made me rethink it went from comics about parties to comics that meant something and so when i got the opportunity i had always been influenced by

stuff like joel pfeiffer. i always found it fun to look and find these extra cartoons of the comics page and on the editorial page and i loved the way he sometimes had panels and didn't have panels and would just do comics about a lot of different things so when i started the comic was, not only was it something i wanted to do but it also came at a time i wanted to do one that represented me. as a hip-hop fan the only time i saw people who were into hip-hop were gang members and hoodlums and stuff.

most people i know are smart and into nerdy stuff so it was important to bring that into the comics page. >> you seem to almost have a direct conversation with the reader like you address directly in your work. is that something you think about and you -- >> totally conscious. never a big they were a big influence on my dads side of the family and every holiday we did end up down in the cellar of my great uncles house at the bar and everybody would be spinning these stories. i always have that in mind i'm telling the stories.

i can't trick them as easily as everybody else. >> she's going to go one panel at a time. we will help the health-care reform and that the support of the iraq war looming countless lives. now flying the rainbow flag sponsored a bill to ban burning the u.s. flag. vowed to fight economic inequality caused by her husband did the regulating.

[laughter] friends with bono. friends with kissinger. what prevents total destruction of the supreme court. can't do much about scalia. [laughter] was be the first woman president. hard sell on a country that can't even put a woman host on a late night tv late-night tv show. [laughter] she's the only realistic choice. she is the only realistic choice. [laughter] so, the first thing that strikes me in the new yorker when i write a caption, captions are always the sort of filaments that everything has to be in exactly the right place and there's always the kicker at the end you try to nail it with the

last word. and i -- you seem to have a lot of comedy chops in your work. is that something you think about, do you think about making it as funny as you can, is that important to you? >> that's the goal. the primary goal is to create something that has a point in the first place and, you know, whether i can make that funny or not sort of depends on how the process goes. in this case, one thing i found interesting is the most controversial aspect of the cartoon by far was that she's friends with bono, because a lot of people didn't want to see that in the pro- column. i got so much flak about bono. but yes, for me either to say it's about making a first but also capturing it in a very digestible and hopefully amusing way.

>> you said something interesting about humor that you think it's a much more effective persuasive and intellectually challenging way to make a point as opposed to anger. >> absolutely. >> i -- one reason i went into cartooning is academia. i just -- if you can count something in an appealing and amusing message, people who might be predisposed to side with you, but there might be a little opening where you can reach them once in a while. >> okay. i didn't actually plan this but since signe mentioned this, a man can make an interesting cartoon about women's issues. tom. >> this is -- >> you have to read everything in this cartoon. [laughter] [applause]

editorial cartoons are always coming since i do six of the coming right off the news come and the news this week was they are starting to talk about putting a woman on the 10-dollar bill. so the obvious thing is okay first of all, who should be, but that's obvious. i mean, the thing i didn't comment on or i didn't think i did, yeah i didn't was first of all why not the 20? i think we could probably boldly agree. [laughter] there is no justification for him being on any currency. but i think it's like well, 20

is the currency that people actually have because that's what comes out of the wall. [laughter] so immediately they are talking about a 10-dollar bill and you can see where i went with this and it just some cartoons once you get where you're going with it, they all do it essentially write this stuff but some of the things they added in you are way ahead of me now. but federal geezer was a good touch. [laughter] close enough -- [laughter] another cartoon of yours is next i asked these guys to each give

me a cartoon or one particular subject, a difficult subject, the subject of guns, and i wanted to sort of get a sense of each of them held his cartoon ideas have been, what is the sort of moment where you get the information and then you have a little flash of insight into the cartoon happens. and the story of the cartoons i thought it would be interesting to do than all about the same topic. so, i am going to start with tom again. this one again why don't you tell us how this happened. >> i don't remember. i just remember you said this is the one i want to put up of gun control and i had one that i was going to substitute. it was somebody putting up a second amendment board and on the one side was the remarks of

the number of tyrants overthrown because the big argument on the second amendment is that no, we need to buy firearms to overthrow tyrants. the number of tyrants overthrown and there are no marks on them in a number of innocent people shot, so just thousands. but this one is interesting at least in one way and in that it is an avid version of the expected imagery. it tends to directly reinforce. this has the argument sort of backwards and the arguments against guns are coming out and it's just a matter of a number of bullets asked you could imagine are being fired and the weapons are often misused for graphic violence. that's about all i can say for this cartoonist.

>> okay. i've got the campus carry cartoon next. >> it's the hot new trend sweeping the colleges campuses. because no college student has ever depressed. they can only be used for depression. [laughter] >> enjoy the enhanced theme parties. the great defense relish the surprise of finding the gun in the dorm room. there is. this would be the real campus carry. kind of a downer. again you heard about this trend

did this idea just popped into your head? >> i live in austin texas. the university of texas they are going to -- the state of texas just has a law allowing concealed weapons on campus is and to some capacity they can ban them in certain places but they can conceal weapons for the permit holders as the law of the land. it would be as of august 1 of next year. so there are lots of protests in the university of texas at auschwitz. the chancellor of the school, william mcgowan who was in charge of the hunt for bin laden, that's what he did before he was the chancellor at qt.

he was opposed to it, and all kinds of people were saying you do not want more guns on campus. so there's a big movement happening for when it happens next year. that was the thing that really inspired this. >> okay. i am going to put up one specifically about guns that you gave me and a second one of yours you can talk about either of them or both of them in terms of how they work for you and i'm going to show them both. the first one is this one. remember how does an extra tight before going to sleep at night. you never know when they will be taken from you. and this one coming very serious and moving cartoon. why don't you tell me a little bit about this one. it's interesting about this one

because if you are not a nerd then you probably don't get it but basically i did this just after the shooting of north carolina, and a week before, which gave me the idea is the week before in south carolina, the kids who played anakin skywalker was pulled over by the chief in the south carolina police but the kid is such, ties being in that movie that he is a mess now so what happened is they posted some of the pictures on facebook or whatever and he had the same sort of cold cut at the that the kid had from phantom menace. the connection was like that and i just drew him with a cut and

had those two little flags and the gun and it made sense with the shadow and everything. >> it was just one of those a lot of people sit there and go wow. it's like one of your best. one guy put it very well. i have to take his quote and put it on the website. i can't remember now but it was like yeah that's what i want to hear and it went over well but now people see it and say what does that mean. so sometimes when you do stuff at the moment it doesn't really last. but the trip before, you always hear how them while you can do here that over and over and over

and i just automatically i thought of guns. >> humor is always about the juxtaposition putting things together and then you all have shown aspects of that in your work. you gave me also to cartoons and specific reason did he want you want me to show them both right away? signe, sorry the other woman. [laughter] at the new yorker there was a scandalous survey taken recently where somebody told you the number of that the number of women and people of color in the cartoons themselves, and it was an unbelievably tiny number and we all had been rushing to draw women of color in our cartoons.

>> appreciate that. [laughter] >> let's keep it among ourselves. the last convention i was out i was approached by somebody saying you should submit this to the new yorker and i said how come and he said they are actively seeking people. i got a the secret e-mail. [laughter] if anybody wants it. i can actually tell you what it is. but okay. >> is a lot of spec work but we are not here to talk about me. [laughter] >> but that's the great thing about being a cartoonist is you come up with all these cartoons

and just because they don't run in the new yorker doesn't mean that you can't use them. >> yes it does. [laughter] >> one of my favorite exhibits that i ever saw was a cartoon from san francisco and there was something there that was so funny and i could see it being inappropriate for the new yorker but it was so hilarious and funny. nowadays with self-publishing and having your own website and all this kind of stuff like even if you do attend a week and all that kind of stuff, that is ten but you could put in the next book. [laughter] >> signe come i'm going to move onto yours.

>> he asked us to do them on the gun issue. we live in philadelphia and we have the competition with baltimore to see how many more people. and we were ahead until this last year i am so proud to say. but i was looking over my cartoons on how i would choose and i was roughly counting them up and just since the year 2000 i've got approximately 160 cartoons on guns. and i hate it when there is another shooting in fact i think i've already done all i can possibly say on this and get that come it's still shocking to everybody again what happened. so i'm going to show one to show you how pointless it really is

in the scheme of things. one is a cartoon i did after a particular round of shootings in philadelphia. it's the kind of cartoon that i've done off the 160 or 70 like this one. my opinion is that the program still needs work. [laughter] and it's mostly kids come it's not mostly kids come it's mostly poor people in the poorest part of the city who are getting killed and it's mostly african-americans. and a cartoonist, a white cartoonist ware race is a super touchy issue but if i didn't draw the character placket wouldn't be the reality of what we are experiencing in the city.

but i got tired of drawing these cartoons and people asking him to him using our newsletter or church bulletin or whatnot and then two days later, there would be another bunch of killings. that it just seemed was pretty pointless. i felt like people were really talking around the issue. now this is many years before black lives matter. so this is going to be even worse for all of you to see. but it was one of the most controversial pieces that i did. if you want great views of young black men killing each other than it is to travel from philadelphia. you're not laughing. [laughter] >> a lot of people did not laugh and a lot of them particularly african-american activists really went after me in a fairly

major and direct way. we were inundated with whether some calls and tickets and whatnot and i show this because then what happens when you draw the controversial cartoons that gets at something pretty fundamental that a lot of people are thinking about but don't have a way of discussing is that we put all of those letters in the newspaper, we wrote about this to people that objected to it and then after they were in the paper, then we got the second wave which is quite a minute, that's what's happening in our city. she's right even though she is a weird white woman. this is what was happening in the city. and then the discussion takes on a life of its own and has nothing to do with the cartoon.

but the other writers kept going back and forth among themselves. this is a key internet chat room and the real discussion in the city was about what we ought to be doing about violence. and i ended up some months later on a panel and he sat down next to me with one of my big accusers but we were on the panel in something different but we both agreed on and we got to talking about it and he said while my opinion is really actually changed after the whole discussion that we went through. and again even having gone through all that, it became more of an issue as talked about gun

violence in the african-american community as one of the real issues that he wanted to deal with. but still, we have a 250 so far this year so cartoons, while they can draw people's attention to things they cannot in and that they cannot in and of themselves solve anything. >> just i also have one of mine on this issue. this one for me happened after the new town shootings and i was kind of squeezing my brain all day trying to think what can i do about something so painful, how can i make a joke but i felt the need to say something and finally i gave up and i turned on the radio and they were interviewing some gun owners in the midwest and one of them said the exact words in this caption.

and the image just popped into my head fully formed. the people not from here don't understand it's not a weapon, it's a way of life. so, next i'm going to show a few cartoons and i was wondering about is in my memory i don't remember the country being quite as divided as it is now on every level and how the discourse is. so i'm going to show a few of your cartoons in a row and then maybe we will talk a little bit about how that affects your work. first one is by tom and it's just a really interesting cartoon. >> t. want me to say anything about it? >> if you want to say a couple of words about it, that would be great. [laughter]

again, this is a simple and complete it at the same time. i mean, it's sometimes you read the situation for the national geographic and start thinking about it and sometimes the imagery as tall as the as a line and falls right into place and this is one of them. i don't really need to add much to it. [laughter] >> i actually do talk about gun issues. i've been doing police brutality cartoons for 20 plus years and last year as i was doing one about ferguson, every time i do this i feel like is this the last one that i have to do, i felt like i was the case but it ever is the case.

and so i put together my slides, my cartoons into a slideshow and started touring the slideshow, so now i present 20 years of my police brutality concerns and try to talk about the sort of modern era of police brutality starting and until now i am constantly adding to it but this is one of the most interesting pieces that came to words the end of the slideshow and the great thing about social media is someone always says the right thing about this stuff. when i talk about all the lives matter and the black lives matter movement among someone put it on twitter and i always remember this. when i have a bumper sticker that says save the rainforest, it doesn't mean f all the other

forests. it means the rain forests are getting cut down afghan afghan exported into great and we should do something about it. [laughter] said yes, that is what we mean by black lives matter. this doesn't mean that nobody else's lives matter. it means that stuff is happening in a very bad way. and something needs to be done about it. anybody that sits there and get sent out of shape, you honestly have to think about what is making you get bent out of shape one that i did super recently in chapel hill north carolina i've always been hesitant to write about this because i never lived there but now that i that i'm in the south i can write about it now. [laughter] and my local newspaper has this guy write to the op-ed. he was very angry writing in

saying that the black community is making white people feel guilty because of this police brutality. so i did a comic saying it's not the black community that's making you feel guilty, it is her eyes come it is your heart and it is your brain. and it's telling you as you are seeing all this stuff happening your brain and your eyes and your heart is telling you to feel bad because it is bull what's going on if you are just being human. it's a human reaction to feel bad when you see this. the question is what you do you do with those bad feelings. would you write a silly op-ed? [applause] you mentioned social media.

i wonder do you obsessively follow comment you all moved from print to digital in a couple of different ways. do you search for that reactions, does that bother you were -- a >> you will learn early on that he will get clobbered. it's gotten worse but luckily by the time it's gotten worse, this game have already gotten had already gotten pretty thick. i look at them just to educate myself to the range of opinions and intensity of opinion. you cannot take it personally. and you have to understand you have to picture this person sitting at a keyboard trying to think of the words that he can find that will hurt the most. you can feel the sweat beading

on the floor. what can i say. i've heard it all now. >> have any of you regretted something that you published afterwards thinking maybe you've gone too far? seem to be correct is when the cartoon cartoonist fred opposite of the intent and it makes you question your delivery. sometimes somebody will on purpose misread it. they know what you're about what they will say that there's enough information that it's something i'm going to say that you are doing it to say the other thing. those are just communications and criticisms which make you question exactly the method of presentation. ..

i sure wish i had not published the cartoon. >> one of the things in "the new yorker" cartoon would be interesting to comment is, made in the last 10 years joke items in the cartoon imagery.

>> i'm prepared for this because i thought about when you mentioned it to me. >> i would just like to say, i've never found one of them funny. it's so heavy. >> not to be defensive but when you watch tv and you see csi or whatever, there's guns in the movies, comes on television. what is it about cartoons that make that an issue for you because i don't know. it's just visceral. >> okay. [laughter] i'm just going to show one of mine. and then i'm going to ask you to take us to another one. >> this one is called advice conservatives never gives himself. you need to cut out the victim mentality. obama ruined my life.

obama ruined my life. save the whites. stay you people are too angry. lighten up. [laughter] when are you going to stop living in the past? get over it. >> and i did this right after the sandra bland incident, a woman who was stopped by police in texas and who died in her jail cell just a couple days later. and you know, there was just so much reaction coming from people, she shouldn't have spat on that count. if you compare that to the right wing response to the rancher who was grazing his cattle on federal land and it had an armed

standoff come unipolar people thought he was a hero for standing up to authority. so the scenes to be a bit of a double standard there. this is also around the time with a confederate flag was being highly debated. that was the impetus behind this cartoon. >> we are going to move to questions from the audience in one second. i want to show one more cartoon. it's not by any of us, and it's by someone who is very published anywhere. you might notice that there are no conservatives on this panel. i just wonder what your reaction is. do you think this cartoon is funny? >> i don't think anybody here is finding it particularly funny. so what does that say about the issue of maybe preaching to the choir, that your work is always directed towards people, you know, liberal persuasion, and is

that something you think about at all? >> first of all, i would say that fox news and rush limbaugh, they don't really worry about preaching to the choir very much, so i don't really worry about it. [laughter] [applause] >> and secondly, one philosophy of cartooning that i try to fall is do no harm, just like a doctor. i feel like it's my responsibility to enlighten and do not add to the suffering and misrepresentation in the world. so why would say that this cartoon fails. >> i couldn't agree more. and just one more quick question. you guys been watching the debates? >> it's funny. i sort of missed the last two. even though i wanted to see them, but i forgot they were on. just shows you how boring they have become.

i just liked it when they were crazy, like just saying crazy stuff. i called at that because of the want to leave this as the last image up there so i'm going to do one of my mouth. this is the point when i stopped watching the debates. on the other hand, we could join forces and attack the media. [laughter] >> all right. i'm going to take questions from the audience. the microphones are on either side. so anybody have any questions, go to the microphones. why don't you go to the microphone to ask your question. [inaudible] >> apparently not. okay. we used some bad language. >> sorry, thanks. i was hoping you could just take your last question and take it

on a little bit more seriously. because the absence of a conservative on the panel is not a problem, but the absence of conservative viewpoints into the political cartooning, particularly in america, seems to me is very noticeable. i would love to hear a serious consideration of what is that? i take your point that fox and rush limbaugh don't apologize, but i'd like to know why in political cartooning as important as it is, where are they? >> there are a lot of really good conservative cartoonists, including glenn mccoy whose image, david showed come and to think he chose it because it was one of glenn's not a great cartoons. wanted to show how bad conservatism is. [laughter] and if you look at people, always will come at me and say, well, there aren't any

cartoonists and they never give prizes to the conservative cartoonist. of the pulitzer prize has gone, in the last 10 or 15 years, to several very conservative cartoonists. so it isn't just, they don't appear in the "washington post." i don't know. you guys have a deficit situation, but they are out there, and they do their work just like we do ours. >> i remember someone saying, defeated conservative cartoons you would make so much money. [laughter] -- if you were to give conservative cartoons -- i didn't know that. [laughter] >> i'm a librarian site i have kind of a dorky librarians questioned him which is how do you all, i'm thinking especially the three of you who are not,

tom, i know you're at the posts on guessing there's some preservation, archival stuff happening with the work but i'm curious how you keep track of your stuff and organize your stuff? ike when you're asked to give david a cartoon about guns, do you tag them? how did you find the ones about guns, or you just know? so anyone who wants to answer, that would be great spirit no one is interested in that question, i can guarantee. [laughter] >> no what else is standing ask questions so i am here. [laughter] [applause] >> fair enough. mine just go into boxes. the archival sophistication that you imagine that the washington post company fixes, they haven't told me about it last night i feel bad about the situation. they are one match strike away from oblivion.

but at least they haven't, like, they are not water damaged yet. >> i think that's an interesting question because i've never been asked it before. i tag my blog post on my own website with different tags for each cartoon and did a search on my own website if someone asked me for a cartoon about guns. that's the only way i can remember. >> but if they sit on your hard drive and there are surtitles and everything, it's easy to remember. my originals are displayed across like boxes. again, i just moved, but it's a mess. like it's all over the place. but i do have a few pieces i in the library of congress, so those will forever be protected. so at least three or four of them. >> yes, you have a question over there. >> could you talk about striking

a balance between an ambiguity that provokes and having a crystal clear message? how much do you want, how oblique you want to be? what do you want readers have to figure out for themselves and what do you want to tell them directly? >> that's a great question for which there is not a good answer. but it's exactly what everybody on this stage deals with every single day, is how to find that balance point between obvious and clever. because the humor, the humor in a cartoon is right there. that's where it is, where it's not so obvious that it's, you know, hit them over the head, but it's not so obscure that the only people scratching their heads. it's just a matter of steel.

-- a matter of feel. that's like what is, doing this and trying to define what the point is. the arm always missing some people because not everybody, that every reader is in the exact same place. some readers will find it too obvious, some will find it to puzzling. i bet nobody is going to argue with me about that. or maybe yes, no? >> it's an interesting, since a two different ones. i do a daily comic strip called the nightlife in the "washington post" on sundays. but as a daily cartoonist the one thing when i started it was like it similar to the back that there is fictional characters doing, mixing in with real stuff, à la doonesbury. the one thing i took from doonesbury was, like it's hard to look at stuff from the '80s or 90s because it's very about that time.

so when i went had to do with the dailies, i make references to stuff in obscure ways. so you know i'm talking about the president like now, but i very rarely named the president. so that will always stay fresh because hopefully they will always be a president. i try not to get too specific, or when i make reference to certain things, it's always, there's never anything specific because some will open it and go, this is from at least 20 years ago, like blah, blah, blah. i tried to be as sort of obscure with the daily. but you can't do that a lot with a lot of editorial cartoons because there are certain things that sometimes you've got to draw. that's why i self publish most of my books, and the ones that have the shortest shelf life or

the editorial cartoons. so i print the fewest of those. >> i think what tom said is also, i mean, i think that striking about this i get into peoples heads with your work. if you get into hard over the head, it doesn't have the same impact as the kind of, the subtlety can get people to think almost like they came up with the idea themselves in a way which i think is a crucial way to communicate. >> the temptation to be didactic, to just be an op-ed columnist is very strong. like it would be so nice sometimes to just be able to say what you mean. but that's the game is you have to make it a little more complicated. you have to bring concept into the fold. and so, so that is the challenge of cartooning basically, the extra step. >> the other thing, a cartoon depends on a lot of people

knowing exactly what you're talking about and have the same information that you do. so if you saw a lot of my cartoons on philadelphia would have really no idea what they were about if you didn't happen to live there. but also the difficulty now is that people get their news in so many different places. it's really hard to say what everybody knows. because a lot of people just don't read the same way that they used to in the good old days when i was growing up. >> i was wondering how much work goes into a cartoon from the idea, you know, i saw the debate last night, i want to draw a cartoon about it and kind of like doing the sketching, playing around with the caption and, you know, how long does it take to get to the aha moment, this is what the cartoon is going to be?

>> david was saying that he heard that line, and an image popped right into his it. for me, often each meeting, and reading good, vivid writing is really helpful because that phrase, you just come across the phrase and the image is right there. those are the great days when it just comes up like that. >> there must be some days though when you decide you need to make cartoon about something and had to sit there and really figure it out. >> it's not as complicated as tom's cartoon appeared that takes you all the way into the afternoon. >> becomes altered the ways. sometimes they can be a sketch, sometimes you can hear something, sometimes it's, it's just all different ways. i think the toughest part is to kind of train yourself to be

open all of the time, constantly open all the time and taking in information and just sort of had a sketchbook better or having, you know, typing in information so you just remember it. if you put it down on paper it makes, in your head, for more stuff to come in. >> one other thing is if you feel really good about the subject, it's often easier to do a cartoon. i really admire cartoonist who have that, that, it's like a direct pipeline to their viewpoint, and they make it clear. okay, now i'm going to have to give tom a compliment, but when they were opposing the iraq war, tom is drawn into the vortex of the discussion, and he was one of the really consistent voices

saying the iraq war is going to be a nightmare, don't do it. and nobody listened to them. i can come back to my point about cartooning could have saved the world. [laughter] >> okay. >> something kind of stood out to me in the opening when the description about the "charlie hebdo" attacks in that they were a response to a religious figure without naming the religious figure, and so i just wandered if there's anything that is off limits when you're drawing cartoons, or how do you kind of added your work given certain sensitivities of your readers? >> that's another great question. not that all the questions have been so perfect in any way. but this one is actually, there's lively debate and sometimes very heated debate amongst cartoonist on this very

subject. i would say the spectrum runs from first amendment purists, which is the obvious and easiest, most shallow. [laughter] i mean, it's the place that cartoon is off to start any journalist ought to start with okay, my natural ground zero is first amendment absolutely. and in a way i'm there, but as a functioning cartoonist i am not there. i feel like i to have and you have and would claim to have the right to say any damn thing i want to, but for me, it's what do i want to say? and there are things that i do not want to say. and if i see another cartoonist saying them, i'm often extremely conflicted in my support for the right to say it.

and my vigorous disagreement with the judgment that was shown in their saying it, and then i left in a bad position, which we got into, all of us, with the "charlie hebdo" cartoons was, do you have, is it desirable for you to come in some way, reprint or support the reprinting of an image that you personally thought was very ill advised for a variety of reasons? and i found myself in a real quagmire of trying to explain the subtleties of my position on that. those cartoons in particular, i, you know, you say okay, if you support free speech you have to support those cartoons and you

have to support the reprinting of those cartoons. and my answer to that is this. the history of political cartooning contains many, many very shameful, shameful chapters. and no, i don't support with a broad brush every single thing that is transpired under the rubric of political cartooning. just the two obvious examples is there have been viciously anti-semitic cartoons drawn that had real consequences, some extravagantly racist cartoons that had real consequences, back once is -- consequences for will people in the real world. who and i can't just say anything goes. and i support anything that any cartoonist does. i support the right to do it, but honest to god, i mean, there are things i wouldn't do and i'm

upset when some cartoonists have done things that i think were showing very bad judgment spent i think you state the dilemma we all struggle with really, really well. >> the are two separate moral questions. there's the question of free speech which is actually, very simple and straightforward obviously. we should all be free to express an opinion no matter how vile, with a repercussion, such as been killed, without being persecuted by the government. there's also the question of representation which is an important moral question and it does have real world consequences as well. i think a lot of people are getting confused on this issue because they are mixing these two separate moral questions and they are saying you can't have one without the other. we all have to do things exclusively through the lens of free speech advocacy. i don't think that you are necessarily mutually exclusive.

we can completely support the freedom of cartoonists to draw whatever they want. at the same time we can have a conversation about representation, what those cartoons mean because that's a part of free speech. >> okay, we have time for two more questions. which side? i'll go to that site and then you. >> thank you. in a society now we communicate more with text and tweet and what people have i guess lower attention span now, how do you think political cartoonists, how have the political cartoonists changed in ways of informing the public where people just don't have the attention span to read 5000 were explicit in the "new york times," for example? >> -- exposé. >> social media is the best and

worst thing that is happened to cartoons get our stuff is being seen by more people than ever and wer are getting paid less ft than ever. [laughter] so it's sort of the accommodation of the two, where it's like, yeah, it's great. like i'm getting e-mails from people all over the world saying, i saw this and blah, blah, blah, and all the stuff. but what's nice is we are starting to catch up in the sense that there were so many more ways never cartoonists to make up the lost revenue from all the print media that's gone away. i lost like probably 75% of my newspapers and stuff like that, but i have made it up through the art page websites. i make it up through selling prints in common, i do a lot of

shows where i go to schools and present by police brutality slideshow. so those types of things are totally enhanced by social media. again, it's the greatest thing that ever happened and the worst thing that ever happened at the same time. >> i would say back to like the community and people knowing about something. newspapers traditionally were, editorial cartoons were traditionally newspaper based, and people just are not reading newspapers the way they used to. i mean, look at this audience. most of the people here who know and like cartoons are of a certain age will you still might even think about subscribing to a newspaper. [laughter] where my children would not. they know that's how they got through college, but they

wouldn't even buy my newspaper. [laughter] any rate, the downside of it, yes, you get your stuff out to a lot of different places, let it go to places where people already agree with you or that like a subject. whereas a broad-based newspaper got the people who did and didn't like your point of view. i mean, again, how do we get a conversation started, you know, how do they go back and forth on issues if people are in their silos and not even seeing the same material? i think yes, we get out a lot, but we get out a much narrow, narrow were bandwidth a lot of times. that i think that that's not a great thing. >> okay, we have time for one

more question. >> crossed out all my stuff because you covered most of it. where do you get your ideas? [laughter] [applause] i get mine on ebay. i don't know where the rest of -- [laughter] >> i don't think there's been a line an answer to that that hasn't already been said. stick to a certain extent, i want to touch on one last little point. the speculative nature of cartoon, keith mentioned it at all if you touched on it, do you thinthink that's driving the cot that is being created now more or less? how to think that is affecting new cartoonists coming into the field? if i draw a cartoon and i'm not syndicated, i have to try to sell to somebody, especially if it is a political cartoon it's got a very short shelf life. so am i going to try to build an audience by drawing things i think people want to see so that i can get my voice heard?

or do you think, and i'm talking, they i'm talking, thinking of th it joe cartooniss to the other kind of find a voice. is the audience going to find them through the internet and eventually they will find funding? or is this something where the marketplace is now moving in this direction, so people are going to start drawing cartoons and say things they think they can so? >> i don't think cartoonist think that way. i think cartoonists think about being artists and creating what the voice inside them those intimate. i don't know about everyone else, but i don't think too much about my audience. and i think that's a dangerous way to go in terms of developing your own voice. >> i think it would be very hard to get started today your i started in the late 90s when alternative newspapers were a growing industry, and it seemed like there was some real potential there. and so i started doing and all

weekly strip, and very, very slowly bandaged it to get in enough papers as a for myself, along with freelance work on the site. anadequate recession was very scary. fortunately, there are some websites that have begun paying for cartoons, like daily kos and truth out, alternate. so this kind of stepped into the void but that have come that it seemed, well, it never releasing all that clear but it seemed like it was a path at least in the late '90s. now i don't know what i would say, except to be very highly diversified. like in addition to do my weekly strip i also added a comment section for the website fusion.net. and i do freelance work for a demographic journalism work. it really is about being, itself like a cliché but it's about being extremely entrepreneurial

and having lots of balls in the air basically. >> very similar with me, too. i think we started around the same time and it really is about diversifying. i actually have more hope for anybody starting out now. i think as long as you're doing a strip that you would like to see, that you want to read, the art seven, how many people have? 7 billion? >> a lot. >> yeah, there are a lot of people in this world last night and all you need to do is find the 1000. you of 1000 has been everybody here has 1000 hard-core fans. you just have to create what you, you know, create your work and you will find those 1000 fans. you just have to convince those 1000 fans to give you $75 a year of.

[laughter] , and to do that by providing them an opportunity to give you money, by creating books or having a site for them to support, or just different ways in different things. in addition to those thousand, there will be peripheral folks who buy a book at once in while we support you every once in a while. you just have to continually sort of, yet, it really is a hustle, a constant hustle. i've never had a steady, like, i've never had like a salaried gig yet. i've been in industry for 20 years, and have, you know, i'm raising two kids on this wacky cartooning thing that my dad is like, where are you making money? [laughter] but it's there in people, when people see that you are doing something that you're passionate

about and they see some sort of truth or sincerity in it, they are willing to support you. and so i say you go for it. one great example is there's a young lady who, all she does is review sex toys with her husband, and she has gained this crazy following of people that come and she makes tons of money for her strip. and she gets free sex toys in the end. [laughter] and uses them and makes comics out of them. i mean, seriously, like that's, it's amazing. >> seriously the? [laughter] >> seriously? >> i will show you. >> no. i believe you. [laughter] >> o. joy sex toy.

>> right. >> on that note i think we've reached the end of the program. thank you all. [applause] >> tonight on c-span, foreign correspondents talk about the dangers of reporting from the middle east including "vanity fair" contribute editor sebastian younger. here he talks but returning from afghanistan. >> the first time that i really was sort of a little deranged by, was in 2000. i've been in northern afghanistan with my forces at that point the taliban had air force. they had tanks. artillery and we really got pretty pounded a few times. and saw some pretty ugly things. but this was before 9/11, and the country wasn't at war and no one will talk about ptsd. liability what it was.

and it never occurred to me that you could be traumatized in any kind of enduring way. i came back from afghanistan, economic particularly neurotic person, right? i was really puzzled when i started having panic attacks in situations that ordinarily wouldn't scare me. like the new city subway at rush hour, you know? are ski gondola. all of a sudden of saturday's full-blown panic attacks and i didn't understand it. if i jumped out of love with me that would make a connection. i was panicking and small crowded places, and i was just sure a very strange feeling come everything i was looking at seemed like a threat. a crowd of people with some of turn and attack me. the trains were going to fast and are going to jump the rails and somehow plow into the people on the subway platform and kill everybody. >> more on the dangers of reporting from the middle east

hosted by the council on foreign relations tonight at eight eastern on c-span. >> now, the future of vehicles connected by the internet and possible cybersecurity and privacy concerns your to house oversight and government reform subcommittees held at this joint hearing for a little over two hours. >> good afternoon. i like to welcome everyone to the subcommittee on transportation and public assets, and also the subcommittee on information technology hearing today, and this meeting will come to order without objection that chair is authorized to declare at any time a recess. the order of business will be as follows. since we have a joint subcommittee hearing today, we will have opening statements

from myself, mr. hurt, ms. duckworth, ms. kelly. and after that we will hear from our witnesses. and then afterward heard from all the witnesses we will go to questions. so with that i look at the first opening statement, and begin welcome everyone. it's interesting the age that we live in of new technology and communications, with all of the incredible technology that we see and take for granted everyday, we are entering a new era in transportation technolo technology. and there's some of the older panelists, members in the audience will remember when you used to open the hood of a car

and you could take out the various parts, identify everything. now you need almost a ph.d degree to figure out what's in there and it's capabilities are just astounding. a lot of safety features in cars we didn't have before, but we today are going to address the issues relating to again what we call the internet of cars, and look at some of the implications of that technology. and i think some of this was highlighted just some time ago went i guess it was a cheap vehicle was hacked your and fortunately it wasn't folks who chose to do ham -- do harm but to demonstrate that vehicles with certain types of electronic capability can, in fact, be

hacked. it does pose some questions. we called it together today leaders of industry, and some others. we have nhtsa. but i didn't want to thank the private sector partners. several weeks ago we had a roundtable and an open and frank discussion of kind of where we are and where we're going and what the industry is doing to deal with some of these issues. and i think they've been most cooperative, and i appreciate that, and we learned a lot from that particular informal meeting. today it's a little bit more formal, and we do have a lot that we can come a lot of benefits. and 2010, there were 1.2 million deaths on the world's highways. the united states some 10 years ago we had 43,000 deaths.

we've taken that down to 33,000, and a lot of positive things that have been done, again through safety, technology, warning systems, a whole those of electronic devices now in our vehicles that make us safer. the positive economic benefit from connected vehicles is estimated to be 500 billion. and we want to ensure that electronic systems we have in these vehicles can't be hacked, that, in fact, that we have safety provisions put in and protections or the consumer and for the public. in 2012 when i helped author the map-21 bill, we directed national highway safety, traffic safety administration to

complete the review and ultimately determined the need for safety of vehicles into electronic systems. we will hear from some folks today where they are in the requirement that we crafted input in that bill. we are now a year and a half passed the deadline we set in law. automakers unfortunately have been setting their own cybersecurity standards, which is the good news. that bad news is that we have a lot of variety, people going in different directions. while the national highway safety, traffic safety administration continues to move forward mandating a dictated short range communication devices in cars, we must make certain that this technology hasn't been surpassed by the next best thing that's coming up, and advances in technology

are rapid. we spend over $500 million on testing just this technology that was discovered in 1999. and in 1999, the state of the art for several of argumentation is was the flip closed, and become a little bit further from that. -- flip phones. while i fully support connected vehicle technology and help with its advancement, in the future we will see vehicles that can talk to each other. we will see safety provisions in vehicles that will make cars safer and more reliable, and have a whole post of features that will benefit the consumer and the traveling public. but we must be able to of our a bridge to get to the environment as the new technologies come to life. our remaining cognizant of the need for consumer privacy.

so this afternoon i look forward to hearing testimony from our potential witnesses that i pledged to work collaboratively with everyone here on the site, both sides of the aisle, and with the industry. i think we are entering a new, exciting era of the want to be ready for it. let me know recognize ms. duckworth, the ranking member of the subcommittee on transportation public assets for her opening statement. >> ninety chairman mica, and welcome both to chairman hurd and ranking member kelly. welcome also to our witnesses. debaters as but if i don't devices that make up the ecosystem that we call the internet of things. it's not just the bits, smartphones and baby monitors that communicate over the internet. our motor vehicles, computers of those that rely on the same method to mitigation. as we have seen too many times computers and networks are a victim of hackers. we've already mentioned the july

incident issue when a vehicle was hacked. less than a month later from that incident a researcher reser demonstrated how the liberal is any different manufactures vehicle could also let hackers learn to home owners addressed to steal credit card information, and much more. so far there've been no known incidents of bush's attempts to hack vehicles. but had to ask the witnesses here today, is that because the overall security of the vehicles computers is that good? over have we simply been that lucky? congress give the national average a petition safety administration the responsibly to regulate cybersecurity in vehicles. but manufactures and suppliers in the best position to identify weaknesses in their own products. ensuring the cyber safety of cars, vans, trucks and motorcycles on the nearly 4 million miles of road that crisscross the united states requires partnership of government, industry and researchers. each has an important role to play. that's what i find it troubling

that according to bloomberg one of the auto the manufactures involved in the july attack waited 18 months, 18 months to tell federal safety regulators about the security flaw thereby the other manufactures reporting about this vulnerability for five years. both failed to report to the federal government undermine the partnership business or to protect the public safety comes cybersecurity threats. that is simply unacceptable. as transportation secretary fox said, connected automated vehicles and since in private around the banking community with the vehicles have the potential to revolutionize road safety and save thousands of lives. i agree. i look forward to examining these issues in more detail, and thank the chairman for bringing this hearing. thank you. >> i would now like to recognize mr. hurd who chairs the subcommittee on information technology for his opening statement.

>> thank you chairman mica. today's hearing is one of a series of hearings the it subcommittee intends to of emerging technologies and we're proud to join with you and the transportation subcommittee here today. my first car was a toyota four runner and i like to call her shirley marie. i got her into some of 2000 at the car up until the summer of 2013. we had a lot of adventures together but one thing that you couldn't do is connect to the internet. and flash forward to 2020. gartner forecast at about one in five vehicles on the world wide web some form of wireless network connection by 2020. amounted to more than 250 million connected vehicles. a recent study by mckinsey predicts the internet of things which includes the internet of cars could have a total potential economic impact of between four and $11 trillion by 2025. the report further states that the hype around the internet of

things that actually understate the full potential. i agree. the hype likely does understate the full potential, but only if policymakers, industry, consumers, privacy advocates and other stakeholders understand where real value can be created and focus on supporting innovation in cybersecurity and privacy best practices. i worry that over bigger regulators and congress looked

the high standard of excellence and motor vehicle and highway safety while staying strictly within the statutory authority and taking care not to hamper innovation. i yield back. >> thank you. now i'm pleased to recognize ms. kelly who is the ranking member of the subcommittee on information technology. welcome again, and you are recognized. >> i think chairman hurd and chairman mica as well as ranking member duckworth at our witnesses for today's important conversation. today's cars have been dubbed computers on four wheels. they gather and store vast array of personal information about their drivers affording greater convenience and safety but also greater erosion of privacy and security. our automakers as they long have a preventing new technologies have made the drivers experience more enjoyable and efficient over the air and vehicle-to-vehicle technologies, things that were once only science fiction can save lives and help prevent accidents. but with great innovation comes

new questions over security challenges and how data is stored and used. as the number of internet connected cars grows, so does the threat of vehicle tracking. if cars are going to store personal sensitive information about where the driver lives, the route the driver takes to get there and where the driver stops along the way, they should be assurances that information is stored securely and protects deputy of the driver. our subcommittee review previous cyber attacks on government and corporate computer networks reveals that the same volatility show up time and time again. interconnectivity of seemingly unrelated parts of the networks makes it substantially easier for a hacker to move through a network and locate sensitive, personal information. it's not just computer systems that lack segmentation. seemingly unrelated components of internet connected cars do as well. a modern cars break and dr. dre to pick the radio can tell whether the doors were locked the doors but whether the

windshield wipers on. one of the key topics of today's hearing for me is whether the auto industry is designing cars with operating systems that securely store personal information. as we enter this great age of tremendous technological innovation i will be focusing on our automakers, congress and regulators can work together to secure our vehicles from malicious attacks to protect americans and their data. i think our witnesses for their participation to date and look forward to hearing your thoughts on how we can achieve this goal. chairman hurd, chairman mica, i would like to you would like to yield remained of my time to the gentlemen from california. >> thank you, ranking member kelly, for yielding the time, and thank you chairman mica and chairman hurd and ranking member duckworth for calling this important hearing. the edit of things brings technology and connectivity into every corner of our lives including our cars. with the pervasiveness of technology, sadr city standards

and privacy protections become more important than ever. unlike other sectors, security and privacy by design are not yet fully ingrained in our automotive an infection caused as evidenced by the news regarding cars, service could issues with wireless entities and packs of cars. however, regulation can be slow, rigid and discourage innovation is done wrong. rushing to regulation is not in my opinion the answer but need is a lack of accountability for standards. defenses against has made in the past year such as setting up an information sharing and analysis center and a set of enforceable privacy principles have been done in part because of public and government pressure. the security and privacy in your car sped act also not car sped act also not as spike our study out a bipartisan bill cosponsored by congressman joe wilson and myself is a step in bringing industry advocates to come together to strike a balance between innovation and consumer protection. i served on active duty in the military. i'm still in the reserves, and

in training, thinking about worst-case scenario. there are three overarching scenarios and questions i'd like to post to the panel hopefully during the time to you may be able to answer it. the first is is it possible now or in the future for a hacker to remotely take control of a car and use it as a weapon or calling it an accident? second, is it possible now or in the future for a hacker to take control of a fleet of cars and use them as weapons or cause accident? and then third come is it possible for a hacker now or in the future to take partial control of cars come with you going down the highway 60 miles per hour and suddenly the brakes go out without your knowledge, thereby causing an accident. on trees to know if one knows those theoretical possibility and second, if so, what can be done to mitigate that aspect? americans have a right to drive cars that are safe and keep information private. i look forward hearing a testament to look forward to

asking additional questions on the issue of importance. thank you and i yield back. >> thank the gentleman. since there are no other statements, any other members have any other quick statements? okay. been the chair will hold the record open for five legislative days for any member who would like to submit a written statement. let's turn now to recognizing our panel of witnesses. i'm pleased to welcome first nat beuse who is the associate administrator vehicle safety research at the national highway traffic safety administration that attorney department of transportation. mr. harry lightsey who is the executive director of global connected consumer experience and global public policy at general motors company. mr. sandy lobenstein, and he is

the vice president of connected services and product planning at toyota motor north america. and mr. diarmuid o'connell, and he is vice president of corporate and business development at tesla motors. >> mr. dean garfield is the president and ceo of information technology industry council. and, finally, ms. khaliah barnes, and she is the associate director and administrative law counsel at the electronic privacy information center. so welcome all of our witnesses. i might tell you in advance that we do, i will swear you in just a second, and would also try to get you to limit your statement, your verbal statement before the

committee to five minutes. you can ask through the chair to have additional information or data put into the record. so with that we are in investigative and oversight committee and subcommittees of congress. and if you would please didn't and i will swear you in. -- please stand. brazier righthanded. [witnesses were sworn in] >> let the record reflect that all the wind is answered in the affirmative. thank you, be seated. okay. we will go right to our witnesses, let me start first with mr. beuse. welcome him back, can come and all of you and thank you for your cooperation today and he is the administrator of the vehicle

safety national highway traffic safety administration. welcome, and your recognized. bring the mic up as close as you can so we can you. >> good afternoon, chairman mica, chairman hurd, ranking member duckworth ranking member kelly, members of the subcommittees. i appreciate this opportunity to testify about how the national i would traffic safety administration, or nhtsa, is addressing emerging challenges associate with new connected vehicle technologies. in 2013 there were over 5.7 million vehicle crashes in the united states a result in 32719 deaths. the consequences of these pressures range from personal tragedies that will impact individual families for ever, to the billions in economic dollars that we can actually mentored. nixes mission is to address a crush an increasing use of connected and automated vehicle technologies we believe can help us do that. when combined together, new

technologies such as vehicle-to-vehicle communications, or the to communications, or pdb, and automated technologies have the potential to dramatically change the safety picture in the united states. however, as a to point out these two technologies also bring new and different challenges. for example, consumers are a lot about cybersecurity as it is related to banks and personal information. indeed, it seemed like every day or every other day there's a reach report in the media. now when the outerspace i i was good is taking on new visibility that even showing up in tv shows as recently as this past weekend. nhtsa understands these dynamics but believes the challenges of associate with connected vehicles are addressable and they should not keep us from pursuing the innovation that can save lives. testing and analysis indicates v2v can address up to approximate 80% of crashes involving two or more motor vehicles. this technology promises to be transformative and could even enable a new safety that no one saves lives of things other benefits as well.

when fully realized, this communication technology is extendable it and beyond vehicles and infrastructure but it can be deployed to other devices would be carried by questions and cycles thereby addressing those types of crashes as well. however, for v2v to be effective or less on a robust security system and for the vehicles themselves to be secure. and explore the potential of connected vehicles and other advanceadvanced technologies, na understood about cybersecurity would be essential to the public acceptance of new vehicle systems and to fulfill the state to fulfill the safety promise they hold. to develop a robust cybersecurity environment, nhtsa modified its organizational structure, develop vital partnerships, adopted a layered approach, considered legislative action and encourage members of the industry to date independent steps to help improve the posture of vehicles. nixes the goal is to be ahead of potential vehicle cybersecurity challenges and seek ways to address them. nhtsa consulted other government

agencies, vehicle manufacturers, suppliers and the public to develop its cyber program. the approach covers various applications deployed on current vehicles as well as those in vision for future vehicles that may feature more advanced forms of communications and automation. however, we believe there are tremendous opportunities in this realm for proactive steps to get back such steps are essential. regulation and enforcement alone will not be sufficient to address these risks. cybersecurity threats seem to go too fast and are two very regulation to be the only answer. the auto industry cannot play an essential role by cooperate bestow the rigors best practices that address the broad range of cyber threats by reacting quickly and are probably when such threats emerge and are working closer with the government and independent security analyst identified and defeat attacks. nhtsa and beauty have given special consideration to the security system that enabled bt technology. usdot and many, many partners

have spent some time developing the network and distrusted architecture that goes along with the system. while we have made significant progress we believe more testing is necessary and we plan to undertake that work. the trust aspect of the system is based on pki. extensive use leapt to the nhtsa at its research partners tweaked the design about security and privacy. we take consumer privacy seriously and in the context of our notice of proposed rulemaking on vehicle-to-vehicle communication to address privacy as relates to that system. effectiveness of v2v technology relies on an allocated portion of spectrum. in light of growing demand for spectrum, spectrum sharing has been a topic of much discussion the dot is not opposed to sharing the specter. toward that in dot is working closer with ftc ntia, members of the industry and other stakeholders on an expedited basis to test and evaluate potential sharing solutions for the 5.9 gigahertz spectrum.

we are waiting for devices. .. let me introduce the executive director of global

connected customer experience in global public policy at general motors. welcome. you are recognized. >> thank you very much, chairman mike, ranking member kelly. thank you for the opportunity to testify before the subcommittee's. in the roughly 100 years of success turns, the automobile has impacted american life in ways unique to any other machine. it's impacted how we live and work, how our cities have grown and how our country has grown at the machine itself remains basically what it was in the time of its inception. a gasoline combustion engine connected by a drivetrain to wheels on the road driven by a human being. but we are now entering the era where all of the basic tenants will change radically. carswell more andor