highway safety administration. a reporter with thomson reuters joins the conversation. >> the question six months ago, when are they going to arrive. they are here, they are on the road. all of us need to focus on how they make sure they are as safe as possible because they offer us tremendous life-saving equipment. >> watch the commune of kate are on c-span2. : watch the communicators at eight eastern on c-span2. :

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> good morning, everyone. welcome to csis. name is kathleen hicks. i directed the international security program and want to welcome you to our maritime security dialogue on maintaining maritime security. before we begin publicatipublicati on with you are building safety precautions. although we are very secure but as a convener with a duty to prepare for an emergency situation. i will serve as a responsible safety officer so follow me should there be any firewall or something along those lines. and maritime security dialogue rings to get to csis and u.s. naval institute, to the nation's most respected nonpartisan institutions. the series is intended to highlight the particular challenges facing the navy, marine corps and coast guard from national of american policy 1080 concept evolved and program design. we are fortunate to have support from lockheed martin and huntington industries and we thank them.

who better to come because today then the chief of naval operations, admiral john richardson? we look forward to comments from admiral richardson followed by a discussion between him and the chief executive office of us and my part, peter daly. thank you all of you for your attention today and over to you, admiral. [applause] >> well, good morning, everybody, and want to also just share my thanks to both csis and the naval institute for hosting us today. admiral daly, thanks for all the work you do to increase awareness of things maritime, and this dialogue has been fantastic as a series of interchanges, exchanges. i was talking to somebody

recently just were getting some advice about okay, how you could be a lot better if you just do these sort of things. [laughter] and they said listen, in terms of the messaging, you just can't do enough. because people understand armies if they generally understand the forces that navies are just weird, right? you guys are different. so just keep on this plan. also we do not appreciate this venue. i want to just start off rather than a general overview, which i'm happy to do maybe during the q&a or something like that, i want to dive in and take a look and have a discussion about a particular issue. i've been in my position now for a little over a year, and it's been a vertical learning curve. in fact, i'm starting to wonder when that will stop. i've got to be sort of the slowest kid in the class, because i'm just when so much

every day. i also relearned a couple of important things. one of those which is the absolute critical importance of making sure your thinking as clear as it can be, and your communications follow and they are unambiguous and clear as well. today i thought i would dive into one important example, and i'll be so kind of end, i'll start it off sort of a word association game. when i say a word and you kind of give me the first word that comes to your mind, and so my word is a 280. okay? what word comes to your mind of what picture do you see, to me people 82 a.d., access at a general denial as a code word, a code word that indicates that some nation has established some kind of an impenetrable keep out zone that forces can enter onlyt

extreme peril, to their existence, nevermind their mission. to others a two a.d. brings to mind some kind of a portfolio or basket of technologies, a pretty good suite of technologies. and then others will depict a2ad as a strategic approach. regarding some employment of force or some national policy objectives or some kind of combination of the two, about the do. so in summary a2ad for me is a term that's bandied about pretty freely, and lacks the precise definition that it probably would benefit from. and that ambiguous business since of friday i think of vague or conflicting signals, depending upon the context in which the term is used, either

transmitted or received. i've had to tell you that for me my appreciate everything but the absolute crystal clear lens of enhancing the navy's ability to conduct its mission, which is lit up in title x and discussed in a design for maintaining maritime superiority, which states the u.s. navy will operate at sea and be ready to conduct prompt and sustained combat to protect america from attack, and to ensure the nation can project strategic influence around the globe wherever and whenever necessary in support of our national security objectiv objectives. and so to ensure clarity in our thinking and precision in our communications, we and the navy are going to refrain from using the term a2ad i just sort of a standalone acronym, that can mean all things to all people or

some things to some people are almost anything to anyone. i think that we just a what to ourselves, to the country to be better than that. so i'm encouraging this approach really for four reasons. let me take each one of these in order. first, the concept of a2ad is not anything new. the history of military contests is all about adversarial's seeking to one of each other by identifying their file at longer ranges and attacking them with ever more precise and destructive weapons. this is nothing new. as technologies change, tactics change to react and leverage them. it's only relatively recently in our conversation about war fighting that we discussed this trend is something new or something different. but history has much to teach us about maintaining perspective on these developments, and that will give us insight into charting a path forward to

address them. one only has to think of horatio nelson at copenhagen or the nile, admiral ferrick at mobile bay. you can think of admiral nimitz and admiral lockwood in the pacific in world war ii to see that aqap and confronting a to a to challenges and nothing new. indeed, controlling disease and projecting power, even in contested areas is exactly what our nation invest in and relies upon a naval force to begin with. that's the first reason. second reason is that the term denial, as in at the access aerial denial is too often taken as a state of complete, when, in fact, it really describes an aspiration. often i get into a2ad discussions that are supplemented by maps, charts.

these maps out these red arcs that extend off coastlines and these images can apply to any military force that crosses that redline into the ark, face the certain destruction. it's a no go zone i and we're jt going to stay out of that place. but the reality is far more complex. it's actually hard to achieve a hit. it requires the successful completion of very complex chain of events can each link in the chain is vulnerable and can be interrupted. and so these arcs represent danger to be sure, right? something to be thoroughly considered, and we're going to be thoughtful and well prepared as we address them. but the threats they are based on are not insurmountable, and can be managed. and will be managed. third reason is that a2ad in my

viewpoint is far today nearly oriented to the defense. they can contribute to a mindset that starts with, since these red arcs are so stark and impenetrable, we have to start with are going to start outside, are we going to think that our good way from the outside in. but related to my last point, the rabbit is that we can fight from within these defended areas, and if needed we will. we will fight outside, we'll fight inside out your we will fight from the top. we will fight from the bottom. starting to sound like churchill at this point. indeed, we will fight from every direction. and examples given, the historical examples show that this is nothing new and has been done before. finally, the fourth reason is that the a2/ad threat is already

actually pretty well understood whereas in my mind the real challenge, the vexing challenges that we face are right around the corner. longer range very precise and more powerful missiles, coupled with isr systems that can detect with precision for longer ranges. those of been with us for some time now. we understand that dynamic. and it's true that the systems, this system of system, it's more capable. one generation will begin at a following generation which extends the reach just a little bit further. it's also true that these systems are proliferating, spreading. the essential military problem that they represent is largely the same, and we've appreciated it and understood it for some time. it doesn't mean again that they don't present a challenge but if we fixate on a2/ad, we will miss

the boat on the next challenge. we fail to consider that thing just around the corner that will entail a fundamental shift and takes the contests and competition to the next level. just as an example, what must be done -- this is a question -- what must be done to stay ahead of our adversaries when essentially anyplace in the world can be damaged in real-time on demand with video? that world is right around the corner. so for those four reasons we are going to scale down just the independent use of a2/ad. the lack of precision has real consequences. potential adversaries actually have different geographic features like chokepoints, islands, ocean currents, mountains. different geographies dictate a

wide variety of concepts and technologies that enemies will use to fight in those different areas. this variety has a major impact on how u.s. forces best seize and maintain the initiatives. while there may be some universal elements to be technology, the concept that we might use, there are just as many differences. so have to resist the temptation to over simple by this conversation, that specific matter. so what should we say instead if we don't like a2/ad? what do we say? and i'm afraid i'm just not going to propose replacing one acronym with another. right this is going to disappoint many. [laughter] we can to try and force everything into an acronym, and no matter what i say we will eventually get to an acronym. but i will say that since different theaters present unique challenges, and once i

settle term to describe the nation and the challenges creates confusion, not clarity. instead, we will talk about the specifics. the specifics of our strategies and capabilities relative to those of our potential adversaries within a specific context of geography, concepts and technology. so our focus must always remain on maintaining maritime superiority with a deep understanding of the interplay between tactics and strategy, against specific threats, in specific locations, to achieve that end. our superior equipment, our agile operating concepts, our high performing teams, these will lead to better thinking and faster learning. they will combine to make is a more capable and adaptive force that will outpace any adversary, especially in a time of rising

complexity. this is where our advantages really start to open us up on the competition. but it must go beyond words. we must act, and we are acting. we will continue to up our game through training, experiment station, wargames and introducing new technology. our scientists, sailors and strategies, strategists, are doing remarkable things to push today's boundaries and develop new ways to maintain our edge. we are forging deeper partnerships in the private sector and reaching more deeply into the world of academia and industry to bring the best ideas to the table, and do that faster than we are now. similarly we are forging deeper partnerships with like-minded naval forces around the world. just about a week ago we hosted the international sea power's symposium in newport, rhode

island, gathering of 85 chiefs of the the, over 100 navy's represent with senior leadership. these sorts of efforts matter. the pace of change is accelerating almost everywhere we look, and the margins of the jury will be thin. more than ever before, maintaining a page depends on clear thinking, coupled with decisive action that is focused on executing our mission against today's threats against those in the future. so have no doubt, the united states navy is prepared to go where ever it needs to go at any time, and stay there for as long as necessary in response to our leadership call to protect america strategic influence in a wide range of operational scenarios around the globe. so thank you very much. i look forward to the discussion. [applause]

>> admiral, thanks for those remarks. you alluded to the fact you've been on station at cno just about a year and a couple weeks, and it's worth asking one time, you know, when you took command of different submarines and different boats and different commands, you always subject to conditions as class. you change your ideas, and is there something you can point to after this first year there was either a surprise, or just something that's changed that has caused you to either reevaluate or modify your design? >> the design was issued sort of version one point i'll come and this is sort of come it's like when you watch the end of the movie and you can sort of see, they're setting up for a sequel. you can just kind of see the x-men, the next was good to come down the road. rebuild the design with that

type of iteration in mind. and so as we look for next steps i think, one, we are going to say some things i think more specifically about acquisition, okay, we just need to focus on the a little bit more clearly in terms of executing a set of authorities and certainly expectations in terms of the service chiefs role in acquisition. and also as i've had a chance to go out and meet with industry leaders, interfaces and maybe just outside our business, we found i a great desire on both sides of that relationship to speed things up, to clean out the bureaucracy and those sorts of steps to mitigate new techno- juice into the system faster. i think we're going to be a little more focus on that. with respect to the other lines of efforts, we sort of build the

whole design on the presumption that the pace is quickening. pace is a consistent theme, and so anticipated this case would be quick. but i would have to say development, even in the past year, are probably quicker than even we anticipated. so just highlight that sense of urgency to get going. >> thanks. there's been at least one study recently that suggests the u.s., over all, this doesn't exactly point to just the navy by any means, but suggests that the u.s. over all is being outplayed in the gray zone, the area between peace and war here and i wanted to ask you, has not caused you to take any additional action? you came on board obviously

strong for the nuclear deterrent, they need to regain proficiency at the high end of the war-fight, which i think is rightful and just, but now we increasingly find ourselves in this gray zone area as another term, where unconventional, unconventional means may be required earlier as a response. i just wanted to catch her ideas on that. >> that's just a terrific question. if you think about certainly the entire spectrum of conflict or competition is really i think what we're talking about. and so just like much of my opening statement really highlighted some of the classics, the fundamental nature of conflict and competition. we've got competitors who are thinking, they are studying us,

and they are looking for anyway they can to sort of exploit areas in our capabilities, technology, doctrine, what have you, that they can use to advantage their end of the competition. and this is one area where it's been described the chairman, the joint chiefs of staff has been terrific in terms of highlighting this new form of competition, which at any scale of competition in conflict is no longer regional. it's very difficult to point to any kind of a situation right now and say hey, that's purely a regional matter. everything is transregional, if not global, by virtue of the new war fighting techniques, the new war fighting domains that are not only on us but people are becoming more skilled in practicing and competing in those than ever before. it's multi-domain.

it's transregional if not global. and that gives rise to all sorts of different place in the playbook that we need to confront. so that's what we're doing. we are sort of developing those place in our playbook that something, options for leadership that are short of what we would call classical phase three conflict. so we've got some options for our policymakers and decisions to exercise in that gray zone type of competition. >> i'll ask just one more question and then we will open it up to the audience. >> i'm sorry, before we go on. a big part of that is that this is not a u.s. only thing, and so i think part of the solution must include regional security architecture in strengthening building capacity, like-minded

teens in different parts of the world. and so as a work with our allies and partners come enhancing h.r. this capability, we can help them in some way, they can help us in many ways but overall strengthening the regional strength, the city to architecture in these regions i think is another big way forward to try and be more resilient. >> thank you. just this last question before we open it up. so you're working on obviously high-end capability come a choir in the navy at the future, and yet you still have this relentless drumbeat of deployments and the deployment cycle that have to be met, the near-term execution. and i daresay that the navy did not get the luxury of a timeout of a recess or a reset. it had to continue with heel to

toe deployment that the navy has been doing for 40 some years. so could you talk about that, about the concurrency of focusing on the future, new capabilities, new plays for the playbook, and at the same time having to meet the demands of 1500 today and how that's going? >> you just outlined the job description for the chief of naval operations. how are you going to balance the need to modernize for the future versus the urgent needs that are pressing us today, readiness, throw the manpower peace in the end you've got it all, pete. it is a constant dialogue that we have. part of the solution ibm is working with industry in as collaborative away as possible to make sure we're not missing any opportunities, to bring that modernization to the navy and the joint force as quickly and

at the best price possible. as i said before, i just think there's a lot of opportunities. and many of those opportunities are being suggested to me by our industry partners in terms of pay, we could go faster and we could get it cheaper to you than the current system allows. we are exploring those areas. part of it is looking at new operational concepts. how to improve capability beyond just technologies? we are not going to be able to buy our way out of this thing no matter what approach we take, and so as you think of new combinations, any other revolutions in military affairs were not dependent upon a new technology. they were dependent upon new combinations of current technologies, and so we are working particularly closely with the marine corps in this area to make sure our naval war fighting operations and concepts are as creative as we can be,

that we are not trapping ourselves with intellectual structure whose time may be passed. the air force and us are starting to talk about these larger networks, and as you stitch things together you allow more combinations of our current capabilities. those combinations can be very agile, very capable, very hard to contend with. and so from a mathematical standpoint, everybody talks about moore's law and that's an exponential curve. but as you start to look at different combinations, you start approaching factorial types of curves, and those can be exponential possibilities. and so i think that this operational concept area is one we've got to continue to be exploring. edges as i said it's got to go beyond just ideas. you've got to get out there at sea. you've got to connect to these things physically, operate them together, and i think that the

what we are doing. >> okay. well, great. i would like to take a few questions if i could. that gentlemen right there with the blue tie. >> thank you, admiral howe and thank you for bring us all together today. admiral kime award asks in jamaica and the navy changed to a more region specific playbook. does the navy at this time have any plans for the arctic region? and any future thoughts on how naval affairs are going to be changing up there? thank you. >> that's a great question, when the council. so clever changes will focus a lot of attention on the arctic. the arctic ice cap is a small as it's ever been in my time of service speed is we will leave this discussion briefly for a quick pro forma session of the u.s. senate. we will return immediately after they gavel out.

the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c., monday, october 3, 2016. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable bill cassidy, a senator from the state of louisiana, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: orrin g. hatch, president pro tempore. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate stands adjourned the senate stands adjourned

>> back alive to the discussion on maritime superiority with the chief of naval operations admiral john richardson. >> we would get up there as we can to make sure that we remain capable of operating up there. we remain aware of how things are changing, and are ready to appropriately. >> i have to ask, the word icebreaker come up in -- >> yes, it did, of course. we are working very closely with the coast guard to move forward on that. >> okay. this gentleman right here on the aisle. >> in your design, you talk about achieving learning at every level. nine months and i'm wondering how do you think the state of

that is going for every level? do you have mile markers of success to know the navy is on a trajectory that you wanted to have? >> of all of the lines of effort into design for maintaining maritime superiority, that green light of effort that talks about high velocity learning is probably the newest thing, the strangest thing, and the least understood -- understood thing to be honest. as with so many other in a lot of effort into design we've taken this year to sort of talk a lot about it, right? it's like putting commanders guidance at when you put a document out like the design. while there was a tremendous amount of thinking into this amount of collaboration to bring it together and issued it, there was a great ownership, certainly no surprises as we find out, as the navy's design for maritime security.

now it hits the fleet at large if you will. the words are as clear as they can be, but there still a lot of questions in people's mind. so just like you would with any other example of commanders guidance, you start to talk to people and they start asking him what does this mean in this situation? how does this go? what are your expectations? we've been doing that in all the lines of effort, but because this one is the newest and people are most curious about it, that conversation, kicking everybody's real deep understanding has been going on, probably the most rich conversation in terms of actually forging a way forward. and so i would say that overall i would have to get us maybe a seat in that area. one, the navy, no doubt about is committed to getting after this. and so there's that.

just like with all of the other lines of effort, they don't exist as independent variables. there's a lot of overlap and influence of one on the other. the green light of effort, this morning permeates into everything but probably most into the line of effort in particular how do we train leaders to go out and and still this fast learning? and then loading a sort of the division workcenter level is a lot different than working at the fleet level. and so how about that? we were supporting all those questioned by the enthusiasm instrument is out there. people are really attaching themselves to it. i've got this effort, in this area would have to give myself and ask, okay? >> you really are a nuke. [laughter]

>> -- an f. we've been unable to get our minds around that. and offer up some programs to kill. i started this when i was at submarine forces and then the navy reacted and not cno. i hesitation of reluctance to identify those things will go after that more aggressively but i think that also is essentially intertwined with this fast learning thing. we've got to create space for people to go out and do these sorts of fascinating types of things which involves a lot more doing than computing a writing or reading, that sort of thing. i think our thinking as much cleared out after discussing this around the force for a while. we recently, in fact, just last week i had a discussion about the naval war college, who's going to take the lead for this one of effort for us going forward?

they had so many other tools at their disposal up there. first, the faculty is just world-class in this area. second, they run so many of our other leadership programs, and the senior enlisted academy. i just spoke at the 200 graduation of the senior enlisted academy, and to bring it is altogether, injecting this, how do we learn into leadership development i think we'll start to make some progress very quickly send. >> thanks. >> admiral, thank you very much. thank you for your comments -- >> distinguished. it almost goes without saying, right? >> thank you, sir. thank you for your optimism regarding, no use in lebanon, thank you very optimism regarding dealing for overcoming thank you. we do much about optimism to be candid with you.

>> i have been annually defensive as i say. >> here's the question for you, so you know. appreciating your optimism what is that optimism, is not justified, assuming that the budget control act continues? and assuming that we have a navy somewhere between 270, and maybe 300 ships? >> okay. so let's talk about the budget control act first and foremost. i think all assumptions and optimism are off the table when we start with budget levels, sort of sequestration types of levels. so that would make things extremely difficult to execute any of this balance that admiral daly talked about between maintaining a ready force for today while modernizing the future are also taking care of our people. that all gets into the mix when

we start to talk about that. with respect to the force level, we are doing an awful lot of thinking this summer. in fact, it's all coming to a closure now and we're sort of digesting it and marinating it, what do we do with all of this data, that will get that exactly sort of the balance that admiral daly described. some of it i is talking about future to decide the fleet architectures to meet the challenges of the future. some of it is sort of hate, we have a lot of the fleet that will be around for a while, how do we make best use of that? what is our force structure that required to? both in the near-term and in the four term, dovetailing in those technologies as they become available. so the force size, your question about two under 75 ships moving up to 300, we are on a growth path as you point out. but more to follow in the near future in terms of how we are going to see our future and what that may entail for force size

and composition. >> if i could jump in. you talk about the level of the budget, and that is in itself an issue, especially when you have caps like the bca. but how about just the fact that, can you talk a minute, i know you testified to this, but how about what it does to you as the navy leader when you can't get and enacted an appropriate budget? >> so these are two of the three whammies i described when we started, just describe the challenge we face. the first one is the matter that you pointed out, which is that the fleet is running very hard. it has been running very hard for 15 years, and that as a consequence. that has a consequence on our people who are, they've been at sea about the the event deploying a lot. coming off a 10 month deployments in some cases.

and then when you bring those systems back, the people are worn out. the systems are worn out. the material, our ships and aircraft can you bring them in for maintenance and you find that a, that job that used to be predicted to kind of it would be this size is now bigger because we been going longer and harder than we thought. and so that throws off some of your assumptions. you spend more time in maintenance and that cascades down. so one whammy is the fleet has been run hard for 15 years and that has affected that has consequences. number two is the budget levels. it got to be adequate. resource start our conversations with the bca and work her way up, and that's work we have to do every single year. and inviolate i think your point about the predictability of the budget, we just went into you number nine of containing

resolution, and that also has consequences that it checks the status to into a system that really thrives by predictability and competence. so one can't we talk about delivering things on time. when we talk about delivering things at the lowest possible cost to the taxpayer, which i am completely committed to doing. all of that gets perturbed in the wrong direction by the starter steps and predictability, these budget, you know, continuing resolutions. if you think about that how even as modified over the course of now nine years, nobody puts anything at risk in the first quarter. nothing important happened in the first fiscal quarter because it's just so vulnerable. and so try and be a fortune 10 company trying to compete out there against your peers or near

peers, throw on top of that whicwould like to national secuy and give back in three out of four fiscal quarters, very difficult. >> especially for those big capital projects. >> of course there's nothing new start under containing resolution so there's no authority to do that. but i'll tell you also, even things, our facilities, those have a lot of contracts associate with just manning those facilities. off a nifty double the contracting load because you have to write a brand-new contract just to cover that, period, of the continued resolution and then you come in with another contract to finish out the rest of the year. as we are all committed to reducing headquarters numbers and overhead, if you will, everybody is in awe that but these sorts of things, they make it hard. i just sort of, i am writing to

contract in many instances when one should have done. >> right behind you. >> it's wonderful to see you again, admiral. i'm with the navy postgraduate school. i'm a social anthropologist by training and was lucky enough to come to the navy 40 years ago. is a little hard to believe that, but boy, have things changed i think this is what we do the emergency exit. social anthropologist comes to the mic. [laughter] >> a word that struck me that is now in the conversation that i just heard from the first time this year is called relationships. and hurt both the vice president of the sect of defense is when speaking this spring. what strikes me is when it came to the navy it was always a competition between the services, now you recognize you need to work together. the word complexity is not very much a part of the way you think.

this is also much harder. and i've said this to you before, the want of accelerate learning? i think you need to take the term from the most successful corporation in the world, apple computer. which is if you don't know, ask. we all learn together. i've been to so many meetings with the military where they use your a2/ad terms, not everybody knows what it is, and they walked out not knowing what they heard. and so i think your whole idea of explaining in a way that not experts can understand will accelerate the learning for your entire team and the fact that you working collaboratively really thrills me. >> mitzi, i have to ask you. because of our rules, which asked a question? [laughter] >> how will you do this?

[laughter] >> thank you, pete. >> the endorsement. >> it didn't work. >> in many areas in this learning line of effort, as we think about those things that we can do to stimulate the right type of mindset and behaviors in the fleet, a lot of it, particularly for senior leaders, tom stanton going to the right places and asking the right questions. we are not going to be a solutions, and so how do we get at that? oftentimes, and i know this will shock many of you, but when i go visit a particular command, the commander or maybe three echelons above the commander will take me to the most bright and shiny area of that command and then we will talk about all the success that that space or

that kerry entails. and that's fine. that's a part of the program, for sure, but it's much more useful to me if that commander takes me to the area where he's having actually the hardest challenge. this is the area where i'm struggling the most. and then we can have a conversation, why is it so hard to? let's talk about that, let's explore that. what are you doing about it? what's your first try? how was i going? and when will you know that you're making some progress, and how can they help you? if we all get comfortable going to those hard areas and having those conversations in an area that's not a climate that is not oppressive, let's just focus on solutions, and deleting get all of our senior leadership to do that, then we start to stimulate this conversation and set of behaviors that really gets that, let's just go talk about the hard things rather than gloss

over the hard things by taking us into the easy solutions, the successful things. [inaudible] >> some do, you're right. many do. so it's not a new idea. you know me well enough to know i'm not smart enough to have a new idea. i can find others with great ideas. then in terms of being clear thinking, we hope we set a good example with the design. we had many languages to choose from to publish that, and we chose english. [laughter] so as you read it, i hope that it speaks in clear terms. there are very few if any acronyms in that. you don't have to be 10 years inside the beltway to get a sense of what it is saying. and then your point of asking questions here again i think example is very powerful thing. i rarely understand what acronym is. in fact, you get, sort of do,

the days i have you'll see the same acronym come through four times annual meeting for completely different things. so i'm always stopping and asking. i don't want to making that assumption that i know what you're talking about. could you explain that a little more thoroughly? and again i think senior leadership, just like with the questions, go to the hard places, ask the right questions, we can start to maybe turn this corner. [inaudible] >> yeah, i go to all hands calls, and my first one when i was a rookie at cno, i thought, cheeses, team is just going to be riveted by every word, and what i got instead was a lesson about how fast the united states sailor could fall asleep. [laughter] when they are not interesting. it was not, 90 seconds is about

the average. [laughter] so what we do now is really just highlight how much respect i have for that team, because they have so many choices to be. they are so talented. and then i'll open it up to questions. just like today they're sort of a microphone, usually they have standing mic's. in no time at all every standing mic in the room, there's a line 10 deep, so they start asking questions. it's not just that. it's the tone of the question and the sophistication of the questions and the whole thing is just absolutely uplifting in terms of what your sailors are concerned with, what is on their mind, how much they want to just get to a better place. and so i think they are empowered to ask questions. and we want to make sure just as their 10 deep at every mic at

all hands calls, they are to speak up at every level gentlemen. >> okay. spread it around. >> admiral, my question, i'm talking a little bit about information warfare and so my question is how would you define the capacity to engage when you are talking about the future family of chips? each ships different capacity to engage. >> you mean -- how do you define engagement? spirit the kinetic effect. how does that work? >> i mean, what you want, like a jane's fighting ships? >> no, separate i'm coming from the same school. the issue is in order to get an effective weapon on target you need to have -- that comes with a lot of resources that are all tied together. >> okay. we obviously exercise that a

lot, right? we do that at every level of evaluation. so some of these are just sort of tabletop. to the systems talk to one another? is it physically possible? and, of course, as you know what might be theoretically physically possible in a classroom or a boardroom or some tabletop or a lab, they've got to get that out and get some salt water mixed in, the whole nine yards. so it's got to translate if you fleet experimentation, fleet exercises. what we are finding is that we are able to do more and more synthetically in a virtual environment, the model are much more so this getting out and they were. we are valid in this model is real-world performance and so that part of her education and that part of our achieving that

is success on tape and everything is involved with it. more and more of that can be done in a synthetically virtual environment. that includes multiparty. so we can stitch together different elements of that system. even though their geographically dispersed and a very realistic scenario. that even with all of that there are some things that can't be done except by going out and doing them. sort of my community, the submarine community learned a valid lesson at the start of what would you wear it took us a good half, two years to get confidence in our torpedoes that they would actually home and detonate as they were designed to do. so we want to make sure we never get into that place again, so we do enough of that type of testing to ensure that we've got the requisite competence. so that in the system we have, and then there are those new possibilities. as we mentioned, and we can now look at new connections, new

connectivity, new possibilities in terms of sensor platform weapon combinations. and so that's kind of the horizon on which we are exploring. and we are doing every practically as well. so this is not just something that's in a powerpoint or something that's on a computer screen. we are actually at sea doing those things. if you can start to think about that type of an approach proliferating, and you get to make sure you got the requisite security, the requisite reliability and all those connections, all of that kind of comes with it. i'm optimistic. and then, of course, you start with information warfare i think and a big and growing part of this is sort of information warfare, whether that be cyber, spectrum type exit business early have to be kinetic in the traditional sense. all of that is being explored.

i remain optimistic. >> okay. the far side here. >> chris, defense news. just as a community i think anybody who wants to drop jargon is doing a great job. sabonis to you. now, for all the reasons you just said, a2/ad is a confusing term. people spend time trying to figure out what it is, come up with all different answers. what can you do about the third offset? >> well, just like everything else, you just continue to ask questions. and so i encourage everybody to continue to ask challenging questions about what exactly is meant by the third offset? it includes elements of a lot of different things. it includes, and you've heard secretary work speak about this as much as anybody, chris, the

fact that some of the new capabilities slotnick technote around the corner, but over the horizon or maybe even here amongst us. think artificial intelligence, new ways of man machine teen. all of those things will be part of that. but to me and secretary work and i discussed this and i think where in agreement that we are in a period of time where no one ideas going to be king for very long, right? so we may achieve an advantage, but if are not thinking about the next three, four steps down the road to maintain that advantage, it's almost like you catch up or surpasses are quickly. it's just the nature of environment right now. technology delivers very fast. information even faster, and so if we're not thinking about pace, it's not only the idea of the next three moves, then we're

going, will be caught out of position. we will just be caught behind. and so i think that this idea of pace of innovation, getting speedy to the fleet is as much a part of the third offset as any single technology that's going to be part of that solution. >> we have time for one more question. >> is the our over already, pete? >> yes, it is. that lady on my far right. >> thank you very much, admiral richardson, thank you for giving me the last question. i'm from brookings institution. i was wondering if i could turn your attention to the south china sea. could you give me a better understanding of what sort of pressure the navy can bring to bear on activities which are problematic but not necessarily unlawful such as ivan building and construction activities, oversees is on which -- [inaudible] thank you very much.

>> and that's a terrific geographical area, very interesting. it brings a lot of what we talked about two very clear focus. i've had a chance to discuss the situation of the south china sea with my counterpart, admiral lee of the people's liberation army navy, as well as with other regional my counterparts in that region. and so one thing i think is important to appreciate is it's not just a bilateral u.s.-china thing down there. there's an awful lot of nations with huge states and how this comes out. so watching that secure economic play out with everybody participating is one thing that we must keep in mind. with respect to what options the united states navy can bring, with all the partners in the region come including china, there are many areas in which

we've got common interests, even today. often those are glossed over but there's an awful lot of carriers when we give, interest, and went to make sure that we pile in and reinforce those areas where our interests align. there are areas where certainly we have, we don't agree. and as we work through those disagreements towards a compromise, i think everybody's desire in the region, all naval leaders especially, would want to do so in a way that mitigates the risk of some kind of a miscalculation or escalation that would just send us in the wrong direction. so the hope is that we will reach an agreement that's acceptable to all players in the region, including the tiny, including china and everybody else, in a way that does not involve conflict, so certainly

we would not want to do any deliver to the public the but also want to make sure we don't do any kind of calculation, conflict the results are make miscalculation or a mistake. so one good thing that all the navies have adopted in that area is this idea of cues. i talk about these quite a bit. because it's such a great example of how we can manage our way towards dispute resolution without creating problems, particularly conflict. it's a code for behavior when we encounter each other in an unplanned encounter at sea. all the navies down there have adopted it. it's been very successful. i was on the john c. stennis as the strike group was deployed in the south china sea, and we were there and we were there with a lot of ships from other navies, particularly the chinese navy. and there were many, many encounters between u.s. navy

ships and others. and every one of those encounters, by and large, not 100%, but the vast majority were conducted quite in accordance with these accused that allow us to use all the tools that the nation has in, all the dimensions of our influence and power to come to conflict resolution. and so our job as they need is to just make sure that one, we are there, we are president, don't have many options if we're not there so we are there and we are going to stay there. we've made that very clear. ..

so that we get to an end state that is acceptable by all in a way that doesn't involve conflicts. >> thank you, our time is up but on behalf of csi us, we thank you of your time and we know it is precious. we want to acknowledge our sponsors for sponsoring this entire series this year. we think you and we appreciate your time. >> i'm grateful for the chance to be here. thank you for your insightful questions. i like events like this because our thinking gets sharper by virtue of you challenging it. >> thank you. [applause]

[inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation] >> live coverage will continue

at 1145 eastern as army secretary and army chief of staff will address the association of u.s. army, and we will have live coverage at 1145 eastern. hillary clinton will outline her economic plan during a speech in toledo i held this afternoon. her speech starts at 330 eastern on our companion network sees them. donald trump is holding a rally in colorado. cspan will be live from the convention center with the rally. it is scheduled to start at three eastern. ahead of tuesday's vice presidential debate, we will take a look back at the candidates, virginia senator tim kaine and indiana governor mike pence using the c-span video library. >> i have seen a story before and turned on the television and seen the bad news of the

shooting. whether emergency or famine, i have seen seen these stories and there will be more stories. there was something in the store yesterday that was different and it was you. your spirit of optimism and community and hope. >> the presidency is the most visible thread that runs through the tapestry of the government. more often for good or ill that sets the tone for the other branches. it spurs the expectation of the people. it's powers are vast inconsequential. from the outset and by definition, it's impossible for mortals to fulfill without humility and attention to the purposes as set forth in the restitution of the united states >> a look at tim kaine and mike pence ahead of the debate at eight eastern on c-span. watch anytime on c-span.org and listen at eight pm eastern on the c-span radio app.

>> the nation's highest court began a new new term today and they have issued a number of decisions. they rejected an appeal to reopen an investigation into whether scott walker's campaign legally coordinated with outside conservative group. they are leaving in place the ncaa amateur rules for athletes who violated federal antitrust law. >> this week on the communicators, a discussion discussion about the guidelines and rules proposed for self driving cars. our guest mark rose kind who is the administrator of the national highway transportation safety administration. which of the public know about self driving cars? >> they are here.

the question, not even a year ago, six months, when are they going to arrive. they are here. they are on the road. all of us need to focus on how to we make sure they are as safe as possible because they offer us tremendous lifesaving potential. >> your agency just put out guidelines or proposed rules for self driving cars. what was your focus. >> the policy focused in four areas and to make it quick, the vehicle performance guidance was for people who manufacture these. if you are going to design, test, deploy, there deploy, there is a 15-point assessment that you have to make sure it is safe before it gets on the road. we can talk about this more, but it's a total reversal. right now we are trying to look at how do we build safety into a vehicle beforehand because for 50 years we have only been reactive. we had a weight tells somebody got injured or killed. how do we change.

we also want to establish a model state policy. we wanted to be as specific as we could for the potential to have a uniform consistent framework of policies throughout the country. the last two fell into the area of which tools do we have to get these things safely on the road and what would the future need to help us expedite that safety. >> could you speak a little bit more about that premarket approval process. that is a big change as you noted. >> thanks for bringing that up. i think the sec. has talked about that a lot because he is really trying to emphasize that for 50 years, it's all been reactive. basically we put out a regulation and we wait to see if people comply with that or we wait until someone gets hurt or killed and then we penalize it. let's just heart with the

regulatory side. there a lot of people for 50 years who say you have to regulate and not the only way to get your safety. the last big technologies we've had, visibility cameras for the rear, electronic stability control, advanced airbags, it took ten years to get those rulemaking's done. with this technology, it's changing so fast, it would be outdated before you ever got your regulation out. we need new tools because that kind of timeline, were never never going to get the safety we want. what you highlighted with the first part of that, there are a lot of unknowns. come out and say the regulations , what's the test, what's what's the data, usually there's a penetration in the market, we don't have all of that. we have to figure it out. let me finish by saying we need to find out how to provide a safety framework that nurtures and supports innovation.

both of you could come meet those priority performance items and prove that you've come up with the safeway. then we are to pick whoever does it best with the data to support it. let's start filling in those unknowns with knowns. >> what should the early reaction, are they receptive to the voluntary requirements and you think congress would agree to preapproval authority for the agency? >> the initial has been fairly positive. i take that as ironically, people don't think it's, i try to position this as were trying to be as innovative as what were trying to nurture and support on the technology and manufacturing side. at the little different. some of it is slipping on its head, but were trying to meet that. i think the folks in this area

appreciate that were not trying to jam up in a box with regulation to see what they can do. those discussions are for the future. each of them requires a group to look at what would you do. that's the biggest one that everyone is focused on. the secretary highlights that because it's an example of flipping it on its head from being reactive to proactive. there needs to be a lot of discussing before there's any action. >> to think california is going to drop its plans to go ahead with its own rules that require the driver in the driver seat? >> fisher you can ask california that because i won't speak for them, but what i do want to highlight as we have the american association of motor vehicle and we've had a lot of interaction with california and

other states and they actually participated in helping us understand what the state issues were. i think california has been extremely collaborative in telling us what the challenges are but has also been very patient. i think probably pretty soon we will hear about their next step but at least the indicators they've given us. >> were there any guidelines prior to your announcement? >> thank you, we actually did our own analysis. if you look at the current standards, how are automotive vehicles handled in this current standard? they're addressed. if you think about it, if you

manifest your car that complies with all the standards and you self certify that you've complied, you can put any automation you want on the road. that's why this was so significant because this policy says if you want to do that, here's how you have to address safety before you ever put that on the road. >> why choose self driving cars for the change in how you approach policy. >> that's another critical element which is, this is a number, i'm, i'm surprised they didn't start with this but i'll do it now, 32000 are the number of lives that have been lost on our road. that was a seven-point to percent increase from 2014. over a decade we saw 25% drop in lives lost. last year we lost a third of that progress in one year. people will say, keep doing stuff so we can save those lives keep doing the same thing and expect a different outcome, it's not can happen. we need to find new solutions. technology innovations that were looking at in vehicles represent the transformative opportunity to save those lives.

everyone has a potential to be saved. >> given that this is technology , will there other government agencies involved in setting rules and regulations about this? >> that's a great question because i think we keep trying to highlight, everybody keeps talking about their vision for the space and i think were watching it be created. that future is being created right in front of us. that's a great question because right now we are smack in the middle of this. part of that is the secretary's decision that we need to play a role but when you look at all the other areas, they deal with trucks and they will have a role in this. we are looking at potentially spectrum and how that shares vehicle to vehicle communication and that's what were looking at.

yes, dot is right in the middle of it. >> the push on self driving cars say there's not enough miles, google has driven 2 million miles and in fact one of the witnesses testified that we need hundreds of millions of miles of testing and is too early to have these vehicles on the road now. what do you say to that and you think more testing needs to be done before we can be assured these vehicles are safe. >> i hope as people start reading the policy they understand how thoughtful it is because i wasn't at that senate hearing and i'm saying that because i think one of the questions that i have been asking is one of the new safety metrics that we need run a transformative space and we can't just keep counting lives lost. we need new safety measures. what are those. counting miles travel it, is that the metric we need? if you read the policy, i hope people will see how thoughtful it is.

it expedites the exemption process to get more on the road for better data. i think we need better data through different means and different mechanisms than some of them we outlined and we will have more data in different ways. i still think the bottom line are what are the safety metrics. california has to report, what about a hard break-in breaking. what about if someone stepped in front of the car and they had to heartbreak. we don't collect the difference between bad heartbreaking and good heartbreaking. those of the safety metrics we have to figure out and it's going to be on how many miles traveled. >> you mentioned the current rules, they can put anything out they want as long as it meets those guidelines. google this year had a crash where it admitted that some responsibility for hitting a bus and tesla has an autopilot crash where it acknowledged the system did not work as intended.

should these systems be on the road without some preapproval or insight into these near fully automated vehicles. >> what you just highlighted is how fast this is moving. in january, secretary announced both the president's proposal for 3.9 billion within six months we would come out. what's interesting is how much has happened in that time. if you think about it it has accelerated so fast. trying to get in front of it is a guest for anybody. i think one of our challenges was to put a stake in the ground that basically says here's what we expected there's also a section that says if you're already on the road we will give you a little bit of a grace. but in this amount of time we want you to fill in the same safety requirements. that's how you tried to get to the future and with what's out

there now. >> if a company reports to you, you don't agree, what's the records at that point? >> this is why it's so critical and i try to emphasize this with you. this is a policy but we have high expectations that people will follow them. one of the things that also came out when this policy was issued is said that basically all of this is current authorities and that applies to new vehicle technology as well. there are more that would help us be more effective in the 12 tools for the future but our current policies apply to what's going on here. we have investigations that we can start and all sorts of things that are still bailable. >> who can comment in the 60 day comment.

time. that were on. >> everybody. that's really important. i hope you send something in. learn about it because we want the public, potential drivers in the future, passengers, drivers, there's a 60 day time. with the docket the docket that's open and you can find it there and anyone can submit any kind of comment. i . out that in the policy we actually identify steps beyond the comment time period. we will have workshops and an expert review of the policy, we will start working groups to look at some of the legislative issues, we specifically recommend a commission that the state put together. there's a whole set of steps that will go forward. there are many things that we expect everyone, manufactures, media, truly everybody should be making comments so we should be taking those into consideration. we made a commitment to annually review and update this policy.

>> on your checklist, the first one is data recording and sharing. is this a sharing of technology or sharing of data mark. >> it's data sharing and i would just say well the response has generally been positive, the one caution is what about data sharing because in business realms, people people worry in this data era, there's money there. i think what i like to highlight is the aviation industry where safety is not just a high standard but they've done so well, there's a lot of sharing of safety data. what we are focused on is how do you share safety data. i will just give you two examples. there are corner edge pieces,

the google makes bus and things like that happen but that may not ever happen again to anybody else. everyone who is trying to program their vehicles should know about doing that. the other part about sharing, you only know you're driving can sort of approved because of the expense you get on the road. think of the millions of vehicles that could be adding to a driverless car. that's an opportunity you don't get with humans right now. >> another one of those on that checklist is vehicle cyber security. we recently visited with roche at the university who is working on driverless cars. here's a little bit about what they had to say. >> these cars are driven by computers, we have to be cautious about possible threats to this technology.

this would include cyber security and i can send information out and receive information back here. [inaudible] we need to be up careful that attack doesn't come from across the state or the continent or globally. cyber security threats need to be examined to see what can be done in the physical context. you can use devices that you can buy cheaply that continues to light up sensors so that cyber security threats. [inaudible] >> doctor rose kind.

>> i think we have to look at both the positive and the negative. let me start with the positive. that's one example of how all this technology could be tremendous with over the air updates. you can now update software over the air. you can have a brand-new car with all sorts of safety features when you wake up in the morning. another one which is, let's say there's a recall or defect that has to be fixed. everybody everybody wakes up and there's 100% recall completion when everyone wakes up to their car. what's being pointed out is a portal or vulnerability and that opens up as well. that's why there will be coming out with some cyber security best practices. we identified a whole list of them in the vehicle guidance. we have pushed them to begin the

ability to report and share data it's acknowledged. i think the challenge is making sure the backs practices are in place to protect people. >> some say there's too many complexities, companies like toyota say it's a little further away and when i went to see the level five vehicles, the deployment, is it 2025 and beyond or before then? >> let me go at that by saying i think one of the challenges everyone has is trying to send me these a little more clearly than the way we talked about. you talk about levels, only the three of us know what you're talking about. everyone else is like what is that. there is full self driving and that's when we expect. [inaudible] then there's other levels where

it's responsible for monitoring the environment and the reason i say that is fully self driving in all environments, that's probably 2020 or beyond. it's on the road already and we make it specialized versions of these. what does that mean? where should the car operate. if you have a pizza delivery that's only during the day on these three blocks, that's a very specific application. it could be self driving but it's a very specific place with low risk. i think it depends what you're looking at. these things are already on the street and full self driving in all environment, i think that's at least 2020 and beyond before we get there. >> go-ahead. >> one of the guidelines they may be intuitively that they

should follow the law. google for example reports that these crashes are getting rear-ended quite a bit because it's driving very safely. it's falling the law and coming to a stop at stop signs. should they be allowed to drive more like human beings do which is going beyond the speed limits and maybe not coming to a complete spot and how do we have that interaction with self driving cars. >> it points out how complicated this can be. besides that 32900 lives lost, many of those are due to human choice or air. that's what were trying to eliminate. the irony of that, i think what's interesting in the policy is we address that. now were talking about speed laws and there's times you cross the double yellow line.

there is an emergency vehicle on the side and pedestrians that come out and there's times where you have to break the law. those are things that these vehicles have to be programmed for as well. what we list and there are a number of scenarios and you program the vehicle to deal with that specifically. >> doctor rose kind, is self driving and automated cars and connected cars, are they a step in that direction or is that a separate issue? >> the department of transportation listed them as connected. in fact, a lot of people like to think it's one of the other. what that means is your car is talking to the car or an infrastructure. cars can start seeing around corners and across the intersection somebody is heartbreaking before they even get to the intersection.

people think it's that or let the vehicle stand on its own. self driving and fully independent. it really gives us a system that is sacred than either one of those separately. at dot, the policy just came out. at the same time we hope to put out a rule on vehicle to vehicle communication. the accommodation of those offers greater safety for all of us. >> what is the role going to be in helping to decide these ethical dilemmas that the self driving cars are going to face. if a pedestrian walks in front of the car should avoid the pedestrian or protect the occupants, what's your role in this issue? >> that is a great question that we have decided to highlight because no one has an answer. i would like to get credit for not stepping in when we shouldn't and i'm saying that because we believe one of the biggest most important things going forward is consumers, drivers, passengers expecting

these vehicles. of my car can get hacked and i'm in danger, i'm not getting into it. what about the ethics. that's a really nice ethical dilemma. as a going to protect me or these. people started raising their questions but there's not a lot of information. in the policy, we identify that as one of the concerns and we discussed how companies need to address those and provide us with what issues they address and how they resolve them pretty was i was talking about innovation, people think that's technology, this means innovation too. how are we going to handle those types of dilemmas in this technology revolution that's going on. we will look to see what people bring forward to us and those of the ones we will support in the future. >> are we entering into a time. much like hundred and some years ago where horse and buggies lived on the same street as

carriages. >> i'm not blowing's smoke here, that's a great question because we don't talk about that enough. i actually think there are two transitions that don't get discussed. one is in the vehicle. if you're human, you still have to know what's going on. if there's something going on you may have to take over the driving. there's a transition from the automation to the human. there's a lot of questions about how that's gonna go. the other three are what you just highlighted. the average age of cars right now 11 and a half years. if you had a perfect self driving car tomorrow, it can take 20 or 30 years to have that new technology penetrate. if you had a perfect one tomorrow, it's still going to take 20 or 30 years. then of course, they said i really like having a top-down highway in california, don't

take my drivers license away, i think for one, two plus decades we are going to have human drivers and automation on the same roads. there is a transition of the mixed fleet that we have almost no data on. >> after those decades, do you see when self driving cars become more reliable that the pressure on the government or individuals to not drive will be there west market will be to big of a risk to allow human beings to drink and drive or don't pay attention to driving, can you imagine 20, 30, 40 years from now the government saying human beings, you're just not careful enough to drive. >> this is why i love these questions. you see the irony of these, right? over here were going to get into comments lake we can think as

good as we think and prevent these lives and if we get 20 why would would we let the risk of human take over the wheel. i don't know if that will ever get to that point. we need to see the date of how far we can come. i hate to say it but it will probably be my kids that are figuring out are we going to ever figure out if that's a question that has to be answered. >> why is this coming at us so fast right now. >> i say that because for me, technology is, what phone version do you have an while were talking phone, let's let's talk about all the rest of it. i literally stood in line for the first iphone. i say that because the worse were getting is the weight technology happens. silicon valley is what's the surprise here people.

there's some kid in the garage of the room picking -- thinking up the next startup who will change lives. i think what's been so interesting to see is how there's been so much focus on the road space. for all the technology, we've got phones and homes in the internet and all the stuff and what's so fascinating is the focus on the vehicles. they now realize. think about all the expansions with ridesharing and all the other things. it's a no-brainer that we need to be going about this as strongly as we can. safely, but we cannot miss the opportunity. i think it's interesting to see how it's been picked up with different segments. i think the technology will not

be the issue in the end. silicon valley will figure stuff out. the issue is the kind of stuff you're bringing up about the human. will they accept it. what about the ethical issues. will you ever give up your driver's license. those will be the interesting question. >> mark rose kind with the highway traffic safety administration. over the next two weeks, the communicators will travel to both pittsburgh and ann arbor. we will take you for a ride and show you the technology in an autonomous vehicle and then we look at connected vehicles at the university of michigan in ann arbor. thanks for watching. >> we will get back to live coverage in about ten minutes as the army secretary and army

chief of staff will address the association of the u.s. army. live coverage starts at 1145 eastern. hillary clinton hillary clinton will host a get out to vote rally in akron, ohio. she is visiting that state today at the start of early voting. that coverage gets started at three pm eastern on our companion network cspan. donald trump is also holding a rally in colorado this afternoon. live coverage from the convention center is scheduled to start at five eastern. also on c-span. >> ahead of tuesday's vice presidential debate, we will take a look back at the candidates. virginia senator tim kaine and indiana governor mike pence using the c-span video library. >> i have seen the story before. i have turned on the television and seen the bad news of the shooting. weather emergency and famine,

i've seen these stories, and there will be more stories. there was something that was different yesterday. it was you. your spirit spirit in a dark day of optimism and community and hope. >> the presidency is the most visible thread that will run through the of the american government. more often than not for good or ill, it sets the tone for the other branches. it spurs the expectations of the people. its powers are vast inconsequential. its requirements from the outset and definition is impossible for mortals to fill fill without humility and the ability to follow what set forth in the constitution of the united states. >> that airs at eight eastern on c-span. watch anytime on c-span.org and listen at 8:00 p.m. eastern on the c-span radio app. >> the star tribune reports the

clean powerplant on tuesday was backlash from 28 states and industry groups that oppose the federal act that would reduce carbon monoxide emissions. the supreme court decision will likely reveal the state of the obama administration policy but the circuit court decision could offer a glimpse into the future that would put pressure on power plants. this morning on "washington journal" we spoke with a guest who looked at the recent court hearing on the power plan and they discussed the position on climate change policy. >> we want to welcome david, the director of the climate and clean air program for the national resources defense council. you can read more at nrdc.org.st thanks for being with us. >> thanks for having me. >> we want to talk about the claim powerplant. let me put up some of the highlights from the obama administration and exactly what they would do.d ou they would reduce emissions from

electrical power generation in 25 years and reduce it anden increase the use of renewable energy.ll what does that all mean? >> the electric power generatio is the biggest source, the carbon pollution that is driving dangerous climate change. if we want to get a handle on the risks of dangerous weather and he waves and all the damaging impacts of climate change, we have to reduce the pollution from these power plants as well as these vehicles. this is the two biggest things. >> this reaction from the u.s. chamber of commerce on the power plan, not only are these regulations unlawful there also bad for america. they say it will drive up

electricity cost for businesses, consumers and families, impose, impose tens of billions in annual compliance expenses and reduce our nation's global competitiveness and global greenhouse gas. >> i think that's wrong on every account.ery count. if you look at the studies of what will happen, especially if people adopt more energy efficiency and their businesses and in their homes, light bulbs that use less electricity, appliances that do all the work, people are, people are going to find their electric bill goes down. our competitiveness will go up. this has been the key, this clean powerplant, to getting alt other countries to agree that the united states is really doing its part and they will then do their part. that's why the climate agreement is likely to come into agreement this month.n to do >> is china the biggest in terms of these omissions? >> if you look at the current

annual omissions, they are the second-largest. if you look a historicalf contribution, the stuff stays ir the atmosphere for more than 100 years. united states is the most responsible overtime. >> will china comply with some of the same regulations that the white house is now talking about? >> china has its own program to cut its omission. they have actually stopped the growth of coal in their country. it is starting to go down. they have the world's biggest renewable energy in the united states and china are going to compete to see who rules the renewable power industry in the coming century. w we are want to be the winners of that race. >> this came up in hempstead new york. here is hillary clinton and donald trump. >> take clean energy. some country is going to be the clean energy superpower of the 24th century.

donald thinks that climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the chinese. i think it's real. >> i did not say that. >> i think it's important that we gripped this and deal with it both at home and abroad. >> i can't comment on the presidential race. this is a real problem. climate change is a real problem the impact is felt here in the united states. look at the terrific flood in louisiana most recently. this kind of stuff, the scientists are saying is more likely more often because we are putting too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and heating things up. my i'm not one who wants to put my head in the sandpit i want to deal with this problem and i want our country to prosper. >> we are keeping track of hurricane matthew who is expected to hit haiti in jamaica

are the storms getting more fierce and more often and is climate change a factor. >> there is scientific evidence that the storms are getting stronger. i'm not sure whether the evidence support more storms, more hurricanes, but the ones that form are stronger and pack of stronger punch. there's more heat in the ocean and that's what spikes theseat hurricane. >> this is something you have probably seen, let's share withf the audience. >> from kansas city missouri, good morning, republican line. >> good morning.o >> i want to comment on the clean powerplant. i think it is going to seriously harm our economy.

i don't think china is trustworthy. they will not do it. there people are choking to death in the streets and in the 70s when we had a big problem with smog, we cleaned the air when people were really choking in los angeles. they couldn't see on the right way to work. we know how to handle it and we know the companies can handle it when you put an act like this in yuri's directing clean coal production and we are the saudi arabia of coal. it is used throughout the world and it will hurt the american family with their electricity bills going up ten times and itr will hurt our country. the supreme court decision on this is very important. i was alive in the 70s when we were talking about global cooling and now it's changed. it's weather patterns, we deal with them, but we do not accepth the fault for that. >> regina we will get a response

>> the overwhelming view in the scientific community is that this is a real problem. driven by carbon emissions and just wishing it away will not make it go away. they understand they have terrible pollution problems. they are turning their energy economy around. they have built the biggest industry in the world. why would we want to be second to that. >> this issue before the district court of appeals, what's the status? >> the clean powerplant was challenged by states being defended by almost as many states, 18 states. my organization and other environmental organizations are defending it and it would be the justice department and some

power companies that support the plan. the court held a seven hour argument last tuesday in front of ten judges and they asked extremely perspective deep questions. >> one question that stood out c in the courtroom, what was it. >> my biggest impression was that it's very hard the challengers to get six out of ten votes to not this thing down the judges really understood that the power system is already changing. it's changing mostly because of natural gas and clean energy like renewables and wind and solar and becoming cheaper than coal. it's also beating them in the market marketplace. what they do with this plan is push it faster because the whole

point of the clean air act is to curb the pollution of the marketplace as nobody pays to them stuff in the atmosphere. it hurts our health and a hertz our commerce. >> let's go back to the spot by the american coalition clean electricity. >> the responsibility to upholds the tenth amendment is about more than preserving states right. it's about protecting the american people. that's why the circuit court of appeals has such an important decision to make on the power plan. it's a decision that affectsparz americans to have equal access to affordable energy and jeopardizes every state's ability to make their own energy policies. if this powerful is taken awayte the impact will be felt by state legislators who lack the powers to stand up for their constituents. it will be affecting the economy where jobs will falter. it will be felt by low income

families who choose between paying their electric bill and putting food on the table. onset of the 27th it was our duty to uphold the constitution and the people it is designed to protect. >> as you see this spot in reference to what happened atci the circuit court.ha >> the argument that had the least impact claim that were burning the constitution. that's nonsense. federal government regulates pollution. they say healthcare requirements, they set americans with disability act requirements and states sometimes have to do something along the way like issue permits or building busins permits and this is normal business.urt wa the court was unimpressed. >> nrdc.org is the website.

our guest is david, the director of the climate and clean air program for the national resources defense council. a graduate of yellen earned his law degree from berkeley. he is joining us from pittsburg, mine, good monday morning. thank thanks for being with us. >> good morning, just a short question. how do we address the situation completely when we have airplanes flying in the sky? >> airplanes are a growing concern because they burn a lot of fuel and the exhaust goes into the atmosphere and there are things that the airlines can do. there is a negotiation in montréal that will probably finish today or tomorrow on thet international agreement that will cap and level off climatets pollution from the airline industry. we are making progress on all these different fronts.

>> here's a tweet, can the u.s. president deny disaster relief, federal funds to states that oppose climate change initiatives. i >> i don't think he can do that, i don't think he will do that or would do that. there's a lot of assistance in louisiana right now, there's disaster relief that's given to the places that get hit with a disaster. of >> another tweet, did congress approve this climate change treaty. >> first of all, congress wrote the clean air act which is the law under which the clean power plan is issued. it has to be defended. the treaty was approved in 1982 by george herbert walker bush after the senate ratified it in this agreement that's just about

to go in effect executes that treaty. everything is being done according to the law and the constitution. >> our next call is from michigan. good morning, independent linen morning, i don't don't think anybody disagrees that we need e clean climate, we need better air, management and better energy management and things like that. we are being charged more to use less energy and there are carbon credits and things like this. who is making the money on these carbon credits. it's not going directly back to clean energy. people are obviously making huge profits by charging more money for less energy, so i see thison being rivaled. >> can we take a step back and describe what is a carbon credit

and how that works. >> there are nine states in the northeast from maine down to maryland i have set up aiv greenhouse gas and what they did is they put a cap on the total amount of carbon dioxide that come from the power plant in those states. they auctioned off what are called allowances or credits so. in order to put a ton of co2, power company has to buy one of these allowances from the states. what does the state do with the money? the money is gone into funding for renewable energy and energy efficiency and it's actuallytu building up the clean industry that the caller was talking about. the studies show that the impact

on the new england and atlantic state economy is totally positive. also, people's bills go down. it doesn't matter, what matters is your bill. the rate times the amount you use. if you can invest and help from the state fund to put energy efficiency appliance in your home and lightbulbs and so on, you use less electricity and you will go out better off. this is the experience of the people in the mid-atlantic region. >> let's go to steven florida on the republican line. thank you for waiting, good morning. >> good morning. i had a question. in watching the history channelt it was showing tesla's work which is become machines that are microwaving the atmosphere. what is that doing to the climate? >> i'm not familiar with what you're talking about.

i don't know of any climate affect from microwaves. >> let me ask about vehicles in general. are we becoming better producers of clean energy vehicles? cars, trucks? >> the obama administration, inb the first, establish clean car standards and higher fuel economy standards. it's one package jointly administered by the environmental protection agency and the transportation department. goe mileage on cars has been going up and the savings are, ev huge for people. even at the current price of gasoline, you pay less to own a car because it uses less gas then you would have in the old technology. we are on our way to doubling the fuel economy by 2025 and cutting the carbon emissions and have to to these standards. it's a great deal for the consumer.ing

>> from texas, amanda is next on the independent line. >> good morning, hi. thank you. i am just wondering about theseu hybrid cars and the fact that we have been stripmining for the component for these batteries and the batteries in all these components go around the globe two or three times before they're put together into the car and how is that contributing because i look at these hybrids and i think that battery has to go somewhere in that battery has a component that has got to be a really toxic layer of treating nickel or lithium and creating math habit so i'm just curious about that and i'm curious about

the solar panels. i have wonderful exposure on my home. i could put up 42 solar solar panels on my house if i wanted to, but it would cost me so much money that it would take 19 years for me to see the positive effects from the bill that i pay now. >> i don't food to think those economics are right anymore. i live in the district and in many other state there are very attractive packages to get solar panels put on your home and you start paying it back within five years and years saving money after that. the batteries in hybrid carss have to be made the right way, and there are some companies who make those batteries in source

those materials in a responsible way and there are others who don't. we have to work on the supply chain to make sure everybody does it in the clean and responsible way. >> this is a tweet from james. he says, what is the nrdc defending.gu basically, what is your argument? than >> well it's a membership organization. we have more than 2 million members and supporters. we have been around for 46 years, and we exist to represent the voice of people concerned about public health and the environment to counterweight the pressure that big companies have on the government. people say, the government gets lobbied by industry and it falls into their pocket. nrdc is one of the reasons the government doesn't fall into thg pocket of the big polluters. on the clean power plan, our role has been to push the epa, push the obama administration to issue this thing to support them

once they get it, because it is a smart use of the clean air act to curb pollution that endangers our kids and our future. >> obviously you are coming at it from a different vantage point that you were in the courtroom. what is the biggest concern by this administration? what are they worried about? >> the coal industry is getting outcompeted. they are selling a product that can't compete with gas and renewable power, wind and solar, they are losing their market looking for someone to blame. who do they blame? they blame the federal government so anybody can be mad at them instead of the market and competitors are competing their pants off. the american council for the coalition closed up most of it shot because they don't have funders in the coal industry to pay for their office space.

they used to be one floor above us around 15th st. and they left. >> this is from stella. what is the exact amount of co2 that there should be in the atmosphere and why was it higher in preindustrial periods? >> it wasn't. if you go back to about the middle of the 1700s when we start to mine and burn coal and use them, it's at that point and after a long period, about 350 g parts. million of co2, it started to climb. it's going higher and higher. if you go way back into the it dinosaur you could find periods where it was higher and it goes up and down. i wouldn't be living in the 500 times when it was 500 or 600 or

700 ppm parts. million because the world was different then. the world is different now. the seas will rise in the ice will melt and raise the seas, the weather patterns will change, the west will dry out, the mean belt will dry, these are the things we have to pay attention to. >> david is with the national reef source and defense counsel. derek is joining us from holaware, immigrants line, good morning. >> good morning. >> yes, i have a question. i heard you mention that china is investing very heavily in clean energy. would it not be a grand example of american exceptionalism if

america led the world to save the planet climate. which candidate is best positioned to address climate change. >> thank you for the call. >> it is in our national interest in our global interest to be the clean energy leader and the leader in solution. i can't comment on the candidate. >> let me ask about countries. as their leader out there that f we can follow or emulate and learn from. >> some countries in western europe have been investing heavily like germany, in clean energy technologies.s. japan has a much more energy-efficient economy than we do. the chinese are investing heavily in this. the united states is a power in these technologies. we need to stay there and get better and stronger at this. there are more people employed in clean energy than there are

in mining fossil fuels. : this is the future and that's the past :. guest: steve, you and i live in