proverb that reads when fighters tonight they can take out a line. i don't think about government don't think about governor would trickle down. i think about how we as individuals can use our power to make real change. my thing is a literacy. i work with reading programs. i help other writers get book deals. i've help a whole lot of other writers get some of the work published in different places. that's what i do. i have another friend to does the same thing with financial literacy and another friend who does the same thing with nutrition. we all our figure out what our passion is and we're workingng really, really, really hard tog achieve mastery and the wish of the skills with other people. i want people to read this book and understand how strong we are as individuals in the things we can do. all of us have been waiting for politicians forever. when people ask me like what you think about the election, what do you think about thisls and t president, this candidate or

that candidate, you know, i'm not jaded and understand the importance of all these things but i know that any and every change that i wanted to see came from grassroots work. so i put my time and energy there. i don't need to donate campaigns and wear t-shirt with someone's name on a. i don't need to buy into slogan. i don't need to wait for you to come to my city and call it a third-world country and leave. that doesn't come with a soccer and help people make money. that's not going to keep people out of prison. that's not going to do any of these things. i want people who read this book to understand how powerful we are as individuals and how we can do more for our communities than just marching and protesting. marching and protesting is great. unique marchers and protestersro but we need lawyers. we need teachers, educators who

believe in these issues. we need people to run for office who believe in these issues to keep them once they get elected and then we also need people to do all these other things, too. i was on this television show not too long ago. this guy, chris hayes, we've been talking about these issues. i said it's very simple. we need a guy with the does she keep to work with the guy in the '90s to work with a guy in the suit to work with a white guy in the birkenstocks. we need all these different people have to get together and work if we want to get to these issues are now fully this book gives enough examples on how we can unite as one to get through some of these issues that plagued our country today. >> you see the history, and in knowing the history, how do we move forward?

are we able to move forward with the history and the scars that it inflicted on the african-american community? >> i'll take your sort of second question first. take and that is the answer is yes. i think black people have suffered them quite a bit of trauma as a result of many of the things we can to talk about. but at the same time i don't think that history of oppression has made the black people in theory or in any way. it's reduced their opportuniti opportunities, but the people themselves, just like any other group of people throughout world history who suffered oppression, the people were sort of able to strike through. i think we should first recognize that black people, all racial groups, are equal despite

their differences. i think that's the first major think i hope people recognize. e clearly i'm pretty clear that i take a very antiracist position which is the racial groups areih equal. when you believe the racial groups are equal, when you believe that antiracist ideas and you look out at racial disparities and in that, you are going to see discrimination. understand? so we could leave the racial groups are equal and you look out at disparities you are not going to see, okay, the black unemployment rate is twice as high as the white unemployment because black people are lazy, because black people are quote unqualified. you were going to see discrimination. because you didn't believe the racial groups are equal. i'm hoping that people really understand the differences

between antiracist and racist ideas. it's the simple difference. antiracist really the racial groups are equal. racist ideas connote in some ways a certain group is inferior or superior. and i was a very quick also that as i stated in my opening talk, when we are trying to sort of confront these producers of racist ideas, again differentiating been taken from you and i, the consumer, when we are trying to confront them and their ideas, education and persuasion is not going to work. and so again it could work with us but if you are creating ideas to justify existing policy, right, so you're not grading those against future somehow ignorant and hateful. you mechanize the ways in which those ideas benefit, enrich you, manipulate others.

you recognize that. you and i when we go to those people and we try to persuade them and convince them otherwise, that's not going to work. that's like trying to convince an executive of a company that sells harmful products that his products are harmful.ar they already know and don't care, right? they already know and don't care. so we need to recognize the difference between producers of these ideas and consumers of those ideas. and those producers of those ideas are simply manipulating those ideas, producing those ideas to enrich their policy. to enrich, to rationalize and normalized those disparities. from the beginning to see that over and over and over again. we understand that in slavery. we understand how slaveholders would create ideas that blackk people were stupid and then turn around and when they're skilled workers would run what they

would put out advertisements saying my smart black worker needs to be recovered. like, we knoww these contradictions. and so that's one of the things i sort of hope our strategies have to change. in order to truly undermine racist ideas went to undermine the policies that gave birth to them. >> professor watkins, we understand where we have been, but how do we make the change? lets it had a look the education system of baltimore city which you are a product incidental to the education here. you bring up a novel education.a these children are already on the path to success. how do we get our children in baltimore city to eventually also be on the path for success? what are the things that we need to do? >> there's a lot of things we can do we talk about resources, >> there are a about finding qualified teacherh in getting what they need to stay. all of these things that will

work in a perfect will come as we know we don't live in a perfect world. in all fairness i give a full disclaimer, that type of work that i participate in and what e believe in is not a 30 year battle.ti it's not a 45 year battle. when i die i will not see the change data want to see in these schools or in this country or i5 general. these issues took hundreds of years to create, and they're noe going to be affected by policy, a few good teachers are not going to change if we were fighting against a culture come a culture, culture of people who have been forced to go to school when there was nothing, nothing on the other side of success for them. 97% of the people in baltimore, pull your pants up and get a good great as i can see you will not get a bullet in your head. it is identity that you will not get a -- especially if it is a bond. so i'm not fighting some simple ideas.

these same things, the otheraga day, maybe like a few months ago, i was watching a television show that came out of long ago like back in the '90s called aha different world. it's about these kids inin college, like a black college. there was a woman and her name was whitley and she was a substitute teacher and she camec she was was frustrated. she had a long been shed this in the name dwayne wade and h he ws like him he said what's wrong? what's going on? she said they want these kids to fail. these textbooks are older. my class is crowded. they are seeing these kids have some type of learning disability but they are only behave issued if the system for these kids is the detail.m i said this is crazy. look at the clothes and the quality of the show. i knew, remember when a different world without so i knew it was anything do but the history was the same. i hit the little button to check

of the year, make sure i wasn't hallucinating. it felt like 1991. 2016. the same thing. in the school of education, i attend these conferences where they fly people in from all over the globe and dissidents i the data has said this and that and the data said that. give me my honorary in check and leave me alone. that's it. but if everybody is so smart and with all this research, how come it's not making it into the classroom. that's why put so much on, so much of these things on community-based work. every change i've seen has beene from the groundwork the social fabric, strong neighborhoods. the cliché is all but it works. it takes a village. it really takes a village. so my job like i said, my commitment and a focused literacy. i try my best to continuously create the content or content they get young people excited about reading or excited about

doing their own stories. if my doesn't resonate, maybe someone else will trying to create a culture of thinkers and a culture of readers and a culture of communicators. you can't create a culture in one's lifetime. not the way that i want to see it in the type of ideas i would like to see go by road. these things take time. i always have liked much love and respect to others, the dynamic, administrators and the great teachers and all theseec people want to change these things budget in a society, this is capitalism. do you social reproduction is? to sustain capitalism you must create a prominent underclass. you do that with your food deserts, two police forces, right? you do it through education and it's right in front of our faces. when i say these things, oh, my god, this guy, he's a conspiracy theory guy. drug testing. call him crazy. it's the same issues have been

going on year in and year out. at what point do we stop saying it's a mistake. and start saying these things are put in place for a reason and it's up to us to change them because the system is working really, really great for the people that created it. [applause] >> i guess the last question i like to ask is a very hot button issue that we see right now in the country which deals with the criminal justice system. my question to you, dr. kendi, is how has racism impacted the criminal justice system?th you touched base with that through your book and also to you, or press a watkins, how does the criminal justice system impacted the life of the the cri african-american male in east baltimore? so i will first go at it and ask dr. kendi to talk about that,

and then you, professor watkins. >> we have spoken a lot about many different things so i want to give sort of a brief history lesson on the relationship between blackness in time. and so does anybody read shakespeare? read sh so i'm sure, i don't know how many of his plays you've readay but there are certain plays in which the black characters are connoted as devils or demons. all right, so i see some people shaking their head.. this literature came about as a result of these connections that were made between blackness and the devil. and those deep connections were already being made in the early 1600s, and those connections settled into america.on we first saw those connectionsin

made in a very dramatic way during the salem witch trials are those of you who are familiar with the salem witch trials, the people were constantly saying that the devis black man was speaking to thee which agenda which was of course bringing harm to me. that was a constant refrain during the salem witch trials. so of course the notion of devil and blackness and, of course, the devil is the ultimate criminal, right? in christian nation. and so that emerged very early on in american history. we also know of course that would black people resisted enslavement in maryland, in florida, that was illegal. they were considered criminals.m when they resisted enslavement. right, when they fled to the north they were considered, what?or fugitives of the law. right? and so when black people, of

course black people were enslaved in this country forn ts roughly about over 200 years. so over 200 years when they were resisting slavery, when they were doing what many people in this room were doing, that led to the classification ase criminals. and roughly by the 1890s, you had more and more reports of crime data, specifically from census data. and that census data started showing that they were, black people were more likely to be arrested. black people were more likely to be imprisoned.ke and, of course, those racial disparities have continued tope this day. and, of course, the scholars in the 1890s took that data and stated, you know what, this means that black people are by nature criminals. now, of course, so most scholars then took his crime data as fact.

meaning, they took it as actual crime rates. meaning they stated that since black people are more likely to be arrested and imprisoned, there are more likely to commit crime. and so in be more likely to commit crimes, they are more criminal like. that criminality emerges from there either nature or the culture. those are the fears that scholars of course put forth over the course of the 20th century. those other theories that are put forth by police officers, o prosecutors, politicians, by many of the people today to justify why 40% of the incarcerated population in this country is black even the blackn people represent about 13% of the prison population. when we talk about the reason that black people were 22 times more likely to be killed by police from roughly 2010-2012, people to black people are recklessly violent and criminal. that's the reason why. again, these racist ideas, blaming black people to justify

racial disparity, which essentially is the history of racist ideas. when you see the shootings, typically three responses. there's a response that states that the individual, whether trayvon martin or jordan davis in florida, was acting some are recklessly, or you have people who state that the police officer was acting recklessly, and video people who state both. those three positions have been three positions people have utilized to explain racial disparities over the course of american history. there was something wrong with black people, there's something wrong with discrimination or racial profiling, or both.h. we see that constantly playing out. even though, even the racial groups are equal, which means there are some black people who act recklessly before the police and to some black people who don't.be

there some white people who recklessly before the police and some white people who don't. either the racial groups are equal or they are not a. when they are not, there so many people to believe that they are not that black people actually t commit more crimes when the statistics say otherwise. we know that the racial groups, d. and i were talking about this. we know why people are more likely to sell and consume drugs in this country. we know there's a direct link between unemployment and violence. meaning there's no such thing as a by the black david but there's no such thing as a violent unemployed neighborhood but, of course, will not think about in that way because that would call for a war against unemployment as opposed to a war against f drugs and criminals. i'll stop there. [applause] >> professor watkins, before we turn it open, we open the floor to ask a couple questions them the mind answering that very

quickly come in terms of the role you've seen in terms of incarceration in your neighborhood, east baltimore? >> i studied present theory at tufts university. i [laughter] i was making sure everybody would still awoke. i know where to leave a little time for questions, and i think doctor kinsey summed it up beautifully but i would just like to add it the biggest employer in the united states of american. it worked. o at&t employs more black people in prison than 80 outside a prison. we don't really produce any products in this country them unless they are coming out of jails. everything is going. i was forcing all -- outsourcing all these things to different country and then we're wondering why things are the way they are. it's the biggest employer, and you know, they are sucking young people up. it used to be, there's a joke going around amongst the elite that you're not really borrowing

in less you own a prison the u.n. not really making money unless you own a prison.u you've got the judges, the one guy forgot his name, i think he got convicted not too long ago, he was selling young people to his friends. prison is actually to think about it, it's better than slavery. if you have a plantation and if you have a plantation and you own slaves, you have to make sure they're healthy, sure they're healthy, you defeat them and house them and clothing tola make sure you are making money. prison is just a slavery except for the taxpayers are paying for health care and housing and clothing. it's like how to take a system that helps account to become a superpower and make the poor people pay for it, right? mitterrand it doesn't pay any tax. -- mitt romney doesn't pay any tax.x.>> at >> thank you, thank you. at this point in time we would like to open the floor for questions.

[inaudible] >> this is me on the back when i quit smoking cigarettes. [laughter] i started again. >> if you like to ask a question we would ask you line up right behind the microphone. yes, ma'am. >> thank you all for being here. this is such an enlightening panel and very happy to be here. one of the questions that i have is about the power of social media and race relations and sort of broadening what we are generally, you know, situations that occurred in neighbors and taking it national. the power of the hashtag like black lives matter. how do you see that sort of shaping the movement?w how do you all see that? >> i would ask professor watkins because in his book he talks of, social media.

>> social media is like a gun.e if somebody comes in here threatens this group, then you take that gun and shoot that person and you see everybody, you already know. but if you take a pistol and you start aiming at this people who might be buying my book, then you're a horrible person. it can go both ways. you get a lot, when you get qualities like people, they do great on the ground reporting and help spread these causes and spread these issues which is great but then a lot of times people think they are really, really making a difference just by re-tweeting something that you get caught up in the whole illusion of doing the actual work when you're not. they can go either way. there's some very, very great communities that when i took office great things, but at the same time give a lot of trolls and people who don't care who want to infiltrate these movements. i think it can go both ways. what i would like to see social media do is i would like to see

it be used as a tool to best educate our children on all of these issues that they need to know that. this is the one time in history where we know everybody's going to be in the same place at the same time. we have access to everybody that when we use it in a positive way? >> i agree. thank you.ss >> yes, sir spirit thank both of you for your work. dr. kendi, professor watkins. i work as a surgeon in baltimore city, and whether i am at home were i grew up in rural north carolina or whether i am in baltimore seeing the folks from 33rd and green out for liberty heights avenue, what i was wondering, dr. kendi, is where have you seen in your research that racist ideas with regard to health have been implanted bucks because i see evidence of it but i don't read much about it. >> sure.n't read i think i'm sure you probably

saw the recent study of medical students that found you have white medical students who believe that black people are more susceptible or less susceptible to being. >> yes. >> actually that theory was a theory that was used by benjamin rush.by benjamin rush was one of the founders of you pinned medical school. a very famous doctrine philadelphia. -- country. in one of his books he cited another doctor stated that this doctor was able to abdicate a black person's leg while the black person held their leghi because a black person did not feel pain.

later the father of gynecology, last name is sam's -- simms, who of course has a statue and there's a statue this man in front of come in new york city in front of the american medical -- >> right in central park. i stood on it. [laughter] >> so this guy, simms, who is a practicing doctor in the south, decided there was a gynecological, major gynecological problem affecting women in media studies going to experiment on the vagina of enslaved black women. and the irony of this, and this speaks to sort of my point that i was making earlier is he enslaved, or he experimented on these women and did not give m

them anesthesia. and argued that they did need anesthesia because they were black. but in other writings he talked about how these women were writhing in pain. so we clearly saw women writhing in pain but then in his literature winners trying to justify why didn't his anesthesia he said, what, they are black so it demonstrates that he probably knew, he knew that black people are equal in the sense that we feel pain, too, right? but he had to take out a way to justify why he did not use anesthesia. i also will say that the first scholars in the united states were typically medical doctors, the ph.d's really did not emerge as a degree until the latter part of the 19th p century.

these medical doctors with the very people who are creating these racist ideas, not onlyer about medicine, but about all different types of things. and these were the very people who are creating notions that the races are biologically distinct and so black people in specific diseases that need to be treated differently and always other different ideas that evidence have never shown themselves to be true. >> thank you. >> real quick. i don't know if you ever read this book, medical apartheid. medical apartheid as a great job, the same kind is talking the. these african babies being born in stables and they're catching something from -- i forgot what ththe sickest was pretty of the bright idea of taking like a l nail and drove the nail right into the school of these babies to give it a distinctive. he had a 100% infant mortality rate. so medical apartheid is a great book that talks about that guy,

sims. i was just reading that book and it was making myself upset. >> there's an instrument we use in surgery called a sims retracted. and i will not call it by that name. spent yes, sir. we only have time for a few more questions. >> when the humanist dick gregory one time said that whorehouses were desegregated before churches. when jimmy carter was governoror of georgia, he went to church one sunday morning and took several african-americans with them, and they were admitted. but had he not been there, they would not have been admitted into the church, which is also known as a house of god.

my question to the panel is,us does the history of racism in the united states represent a failure of christianity, a failure of the message of christianity as described in the new testament, in the gospels? over 1 million people in the world consider themselves in christians, and yet we have this history that the panel has beene talking about occurring in a christian country. so my question to you is, do you agree that the history of racism in the united states, which you have documented, represents the failure of the ethics of christianity? >> yes, i agree.>> [laughter] [applause] >> this is the last question.

>> thank you to dr. kendi and professor watkins. i just retired at, after 25 years as a library in prince george's county in the public library. most of the time i worked in district heights. it was my privilege to work there, district heights, temple help, play hard and, places like that. professor watkins, i want to add one thing to what you said about, the guy in the suit and everything. there are a lot of women who are out there and are doing that kind of thing, too. from the library is often come you know, a lot of predominantly women but we also work with sororities, with church groups. you know, the men, but also the women there with their ministries and all sorts of things. they're doing about. i also want to sa say that thers two and nablus and a bloody nose

in the one place where they come together is the and nablus a senior center where most other people seem to have gone jan a lot of stuff. thank you. [applause] spent i always acknowledged all the women i work with but all they said i should've been more clear and my leg was but i praised women around my life. i would even be here. i can't even do my own anything like -- [laughter] but thank you for that. >> i will echo that. i wouldn't be here. >> amen, amen. first of all, unfortunately that will conclude the panel. we just want to say -- i know, i know, i know. unfortunately, with timenel. constraints but i definitely wish to thank the panel is, dr. kendi, perfec professor watkins. we want to thank you for taking timtime and place a book, read their books. they are very excellent. we know you the question. we have opportunity, we will allow you to answer that question.y

just not right now, okay? thank you very much. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> sunday night on "after words," the life of the former federal reserve chair in his book the man hindu come to life and times of alan greenspan. he's any good by alice rivlin of brookings institution. >> alan greenspan had an unusual upbringing in the sense that he was raised in the 1930s. he was the child of a single mom. his father left his mother when he was only three. and then with his distant figure, unreliable he would

sometimes come and see his son and that she'll. that probably reinforce the tendency allen had to live inside his own head. >> sunday night at nine eastern. go to booktv.org for the complete weekend schedule. >> this week the supreme court heard oral argument in two consolidated cases brought on by the city of miami against bank of america and wells fargo. arguing under the fair housing act the banks were involved indiscriminate torrent mortgage practices against black and latino homebuyers which resulted in loan defaults, foreclosures and less tax revenue for the city. hear the argument in its entirety friday evening at 8 p.m. eastern on c-span2. >> now the inaugural automotive cybersecurity summit held in detroit. this panel looks at government collaboration with the our industry. as hour-long portion includes

ahead of the national highway traffic safety administration commission senator gary peters. >> welcome, everyone. i think judging by the spirit in him during the first session everybody enjoyed the conversation we look to continue that informative session and really make this into a the expense for everybody. we have an esteemed panel purchases at the state a little bit on cybersecurity, and as we wrote about say 18 months ago, cybersecurity really hit our radar when a driver going 70 miles per hour in downtown st. louis experienced what was the unexplainable despite not having touched a button on the dashboard, then started blowing colder. the radius which tracy lewis hip hop station -- radio. wiper fluid, everybody knows now about the two hackers involved

with the jeep cherokee. so all of a sudden now word such as lockout hackers, do they exploit, ransom, all of a sudden we're in our automotive vernacular. certainly have done nothing but decrease in speed so to speak in terms of cybersecurity and where we go from here. and as "wired" magazine wrote, the regulators and the industry can no longer count on the idea that exploit code will not be in the wild. they been thinking it was in imminent danger. you need to do with that assumption is now dead. that's what sets the scene for the next hour with our panel of d.c. meets detroit. ..

from their point of view, so who is allen's executive and vice president, that is a leader in the department of justice and homeland security business but he leads the development on the future direction of law enforcement and homeland security bringing together government and nongovernment entities. he completed the distinguished career in the coast guard and in 2010, he served as a national commander for the deepwater horizon oil spill in the gulf of mexico.

>> thank you very much. it is great to be here today. i had a discussion with some folks from the automotive industry last night and my comments were that this is a very important time to be talking about connected vehicles and cyber threats associated with economist vehicles. some of the events that i have worked with in my career have let me to believe there are two things that we have to address moving forward. i think what we are seeing is a conversion of operational technology, industrial control systems, internet, you can get anywhere on the internet as we know. i believe it is really important that we start to understand complexity as a risk activator. technology enables us to do a lot of things, but it creates a larger attack surfaces. we move into new areas and we have to understand that the conversions of capitation mobility access to the internet, they are providing challenges that are unique to each particular type of industry, but need to be addressed

holistically. we are going to reduce the threat from cyber attacks in the attack surface that is made available. this is not restricted to automobiles. onshore drilling units, dynamic positioning and industrial control systems like transportation systems in the interview factor. this is a very pressing time to have this conversation and i have caught everyone here for being involved back thank you. round of applause for mr. allen. [applause] >> i apologize and i have some work done on my last night. >> he has been the federal trade commission since april 2014 and has been outspoken about the importance of data security as a kid pertains to consumer protection. she served for the u.s. department of justice antitrust.

thank you for joining us. >> thank you for having me. at such honor to be on this incredible panel to discuss such an important issue. i really thank them for pulling together the cyber security summit. it's a very timely conversation as the admiral just alluded to. i am from the federal trade commission and i am here to help you. i'm going to start with the usual disclaimer, today i'm speaking my own views, not their views and they're not the official views of the federal trade commission, but i will say the following we are primarily a consumer protection enforcer generally we look at advertising claims in marketing to consumers and wanting weren't he claims, etc. cetera but over the past 25 years as consumers have moved

from a brick-and-mortar community to a highly connected one, we've actually become the state of protection privacy and security enforcer as well. i'm here on behalf of consumers who say look, the security of these vehicles is going to be a very serious security issue. i think we have an opportunity here, the automobile industry has to catch up very quickly to some of the lessons that have been learned about cyber security in the information technology industry, but i think it's in incredibly well positioned to do so. we just need to avoid some of the pitfalls that we've learned in other industries. we need to avoid things like criminalizing hacking. we need to work with security researchers and think about what some of the best practices are that are associated with good cyber security hygiene. we talk about starting security

by divine because it's a process. as we think about how to take our lessons learned from over 500 security and privacy cases and apply them as guidance, we generated a document for the auto industry but also for the internet and that mobile and app space that really articulate a set of ten relatively easy that of principles. i'm looking forward to this discussion today. [applause] >> gary peters was first elected to the house of representatives in 2008. he worked in the auto industry during one of its darkest economic days. he was elected to the u.s. senate in 2014 and among his many duties in the 114 congress he serves on the transportation committee as well as the homeland security and governmental affairs committee. detroit michigan is a backyard.

>> thank you and thank you for the kind invitation to be here and be with this panel. detroit is my backyard. you mentioned bringing d.c. to detroit. let me be very clear. i'm a michigander and i'm on the life system, the last plane and in the last holdout. i do my job during the week and taken very seriously, but i'm, but i'm home every weekend and very excited about what's happening in the auto industry being through a lot of changes in these past few years, but the fact that we are on the cusp of incredible new technologies from vehicle to vehicle and a time as vehicles that will transform how we get from point a to point b, and i tell folks, this is the most disruptive technologies at henry henry ford had the first car, off the assembly line. this is a really big deal. i'll be focused on making sure most all of that stays here in michigan. for those of you from around the country, we want you all to be part of what's happening here.

as we work through this, and from the senate and as we work with the regulators, this is very disruptive technology but we have a big serious policy issues that we need to think about. as i've avers myself and what's happening in the industry, it's clear that technology is moving at an unprecedented rate. the excitement that i get from engineers, software engineers and others working on this, they see the self driving cars coming out in just a matter of a few years. certainly we are seeing incredible advances. this is happening a lot quicker than i can tell you the public really appreciate what's happening. that's why it is so important that we do this right. i am a believer and what's going to happen here. i think it's going to be incredible for safety where we can eliminate, perhaps up to 80% of all crashes in this country and with autonomous we may be

able to get to 100%. it will be incredible to see that happen, but if we don't get it right, there will there will be a big setback. i think about cyber security in particular and how really, failure is not an option. the auto industry will have the highest part of anybody in cyber. i was in hearing the year-earlier panel and they talked about breaches and how every financial company has agreed even though they adopt best practices, they all all have a reach. when i talked to the public, i get that. if someone takes your money out of your bank account, that's really a bad thing. if someone drives a car into the wall when you car, that's catastrophic. if that happens, all of the incredible things that are happening with this industry and the technology will come to a halt pretty quick. you can imagine congress would get involved and you don't want that modestly, that's not something anybody in this room once, to have hearings on what's happening with that, the technology will go backwards, will not realize as quick as we

should or need to in order to see the benefits happen. so we are expecting big things from all of you in this room. we are expecting really big things that we have got to be able to deal with the cyber attack and, at a time where the technology is growing so rapidly, particularly in the area of artificial intelligence and deep machine learning which is why is a policymaker, i'm glad we are setting standards because i think they will be exceeded as soon as we set them out and accelerated rate. how do we keep up with that? is a just a best practices and how to make sure that everybody in the system is doing that. it's been clear from what i've seen in the financial sector, i do a lot of work on the financial side as well, we know the bad guys take the path of least resistance. some of the financial breaches have been subcontractors and air conditioning contractors that get through to the financial

system and the credit cards, you have to see all of that at the same thing is going to occur through the auto industry. i look forward to being your partner, together we will be in a position to see this technology move forward and help this country grow and transform society as we know it in very positive ways, but failure is not an option. there has to be zero tolerance for any type of failure and i look forward to working closely with you. >> a warm welcome for michigan senator gary peters. >> finally, comes as the 50th administrator, a passionate safety performance in dedicated to enhancing transportation safety. he's been a member of the ntsb and found a solution in a scientific consulting firm that specialized in fatigue management. he was also 2015 automated will start, it's the first time we have picked a regulator as the

industry leader of the year. >> thank you. thank you for the invitation to be here but i think i'll step right into my role which is the larger context and it's always in the contract with 30,000. that will be the number of lives we lost our roadways and .5094% for due to a human place or air. the context for all of this discussion. that is why dot admits it is so forward leaning on automated and connected vehicles. with all that great technology comes the vulnerability. we know there are bad actors were looking for ways to compromise the life-saving financial that of the with automated connected vehicles. that focused on for the moment. i would also would also think i might just shoot for government and industry are lined up 100% the place where there are no complex recipe complement three and everything that we are doing because this is one where the traveling is central to everything we are focused on. we have to find ways to make

sure that in january, the safety fence poles that are identified, we've seen all kinds of actions of where to start. i think this is one of those areas where we are on the same time and we have to find ways to complement each other's strengths. we are to be cooperative and collaborative because to us it's all about the safety. >> okay, thank you. [applause] >> so i thought mary bauer really set the tone for this discussion by saying this is one of the most serious challenges that we face. maybe you can elaborate a little bit more on that. when we looked at 50 billion devices by 2020, seven. household, the conductivity of the vehicle, mark what you feel is the biggest obstacle that needs to be addressed going

forward? >> the first thing is just the volume. i think that's the biggest challenge. it was just about this time last year when we were talking private security and the wired article. i got that give us a couple of lessons. one was that within days we had a recall. everybody that was asking for regulations, we already had to go after it gets what everybody if you put regulations in place, how do you go after it? were making a comment about the volume of what we are trying. given the pace of change that will add to the complexity. i think it's ready come up, to be the big harden, it's the this large volume and the vulnerabilities that we are dealing with.

>> senator peter, you mentioned the government and speed and that issue. often times we don't associate government with speed. i don't think anything anything. >> that's the first time i've heard that. [laughter] >> the other thing i've heard is that government and industry lineup 100%. as we address that challenge of volume, how does that work? how do those two things, lining up government and industry, as well as the speed factor related to regulations, how do you equalize those two? >> i think it picks up on what they talked about, this collaboration to come together as a little bit of a different paradigm than when you look at general regulations. when i think of the auto industry, certainly fuel economy standards are different than what you will have in cyberspace. you can set the bar and ask her and however they do it, the technology to get there, that's great, but just hit that bar. aware that bar is that on cyber because it is constantly

changing with cyber ai and deep learning and all the things that are coming forward, but we need to collaborate with regulators. i think there's also tremendous opportunities, one but i will explore. we are on committees and we recognize that cyber threat is something that we have to take place seriously and there are resources within the federal government. we have that affirmative defense is doing a great deal of work. my concern that i worry about things that i not as much a hacker in the basement, hello and concerned about them and the impact they may have on the and i'm also concerned about state actors arrogation highly sophisticated on us that we have

to defend against them when you consider a connective plea of vehicles on the highway, this is a true vulnerability that we need to lose some sleep over and we have to work collaboratively together. the federal government's and work in a collaborative way, working with regulators and regulators and the expertise that we have from national defense to work with our partners in private industry. >> mr., your view is that best practices also need to be sent out. have your address access rights to one of the things we after a decade's worth of cases involving all different kinds of industries is that it is safe just like we process -based approach to what is reasonable security. starting the building from the beginning with carry values in mind. it is a highly they dynamic by y

hasn't been adopting this. this is changing very rapidly. i think now, especially with the work that has been done over the last year, one would recognize best we are in a good position because there is so much learning that has gone on. lessons that need to be learned very rapidly by the automobile industry, but i think the capacity is there which is why it's been an outspoken advocate for making sure we think about working collaboratively with security researchers. one of the things we do have in this country is a really valuable resource. we have really good hackers but i'm not talking about the irresponsible once and the

criminals that we have experts who are really skilled and can be valuable resources and making sure that we can make our product is safe for consumers as possible. i think we have to think about responsible disclosure framework and other methods of crowdsourcing some of this work is how we will get a pass, more secure environment environment. >> we spent time in offshore drilling and you mentioned that in your opening and now you're involved in other operations for you are seeing other industries. tell us a little bit about what this industry might be able to learn what you have encountered. >> let me underscore what's been said by the other panelists. regulations is not necessarily the answer. place to tell the folks who worked for me, the code of regulation is the sum of all market failures. [laughter] they don't look forward. i tried for years, to do

regulatory performance inside the coast guard and down by years to get a regulation out. what you need to do is collaborate with the public. they're going to make the system collaboration enough what we need to focus on. it's everywhere. offshore drilling and dynamic positioning is not only it not together but gao as well. that's another issue to be together for the right way to do this since the means of production reside in the private sector and there's a blurry line between what the government should do and what the private sector should do, this needs to be renegotiated to produce outcome. you will get it quicker, better, and you will avoid some of the pitfalls when you have to go to

the regulatory process where legislation. i don't think there's any doubt you're on the right path. , when you look at critical technology, everybody knows about enhanced airbag, rear visibility cameras and electronic stability control. sixty-eight in 108 and ten years to get through the regulatory, that is not acceptable. >> you hit on the state threat. last night ralph nader was inducted into the motor hall of fame and as you know, his time 70s was really the forefront of getting conflicting measures. he said, there is no international treaty governing cyber security no treaty will. >> i think we have to focus on that issue much more than we have in the past. we know there are international state actors who engage in this type of activity on a regular basis.

we are constantly trying to defend our systems which we should, and we have to be aggressive to do that, but you also have to stop the sophisticated actors who are engaged in activity who are really, in my mind, .2 lead us to an act of war to break in and steal secrets, private information. in terms of activities, we had to say enough is enough. the world community has to come together and identify. let's be frank, there are only a few, a handful that we really know are engaged and we have to say there will be significant actions taken against those countries that engage in those types of activities on a systemic way and that was the sanctions or other types of enforcement mechanisms. it has to be two-pronged. it has been enforcement, this is what government does, what people do bad things they are reinforced that and have penalties associated but we have to think much broader given the extent of the challenges from sophisticated actors that will have the ability, especially as

we get more interconnected, everyone knows our vulnerabilities go up dramatically. if we have increased vulnerabilities, we have to be prepared to punish those who are trying to into that system. >> let's talk about the best practices that were just released. threat detection, awareness and collaboration. i'll start with you. how would you feel, or what your reaction to some of those best practices? >> they sound really similar to the types of best practices that we have been really underscoring seven this is underscored in its critical in the structure framework. i think what's important is that they are technology neutral because they're moving fast and they are process oriented. they can bring cases and we decide consumer data is not securely held.

that is primarily what we do. so were bringing cases under a standard that is reasonable security. it's not perfect security. we are trying to articulate what we think the best practices are, particularly for the interesting safe which really increases the vulnerability of consumers and even though devices like cars that will be connecting into those things. what we are trying to do is say, look, there's a set of best practices here. they involve a serious commitment from the highest levels to make sure they are being built in and being resource properly and responsible decisions are made, but the good news is, we know a lot about how to do this really well. we want to make sure we make good choices and then avoid, i would say making errors based on not understanding best practices and security are not really understanding the technology. i would hope the government that same standard as well. we need to make sure that we don't pass laws that really make the security process harder for

achieving it here. >> on the government side of things, there has been increased collaboration even involving academia. can you talk a little bit about those efforts trying to get security researchers and government all on board mark. >> short, everybody stay calm, but i really want to credit the industry because i think in january 1 of those four pillars was cyber security. just two aspects of that, one was an openness to engage the research community, the white house basically, and we been seeing that. just the last few weeks, new programs. it's translated from the agreement in a room to things are going on. there's all kinds of interactions about pressures of things that have been going on. i would say, right after that announcement, about a week later, we had a small roundtable of 300 plus people in washington to work on the approach of what

you look like and the secretary will talk about that later this afternoon. i would also like to give credit , we were just talking they've been hacking for about 15 years. we had to get into the safety control systems to figure out what's going on. we've got to get into the safety control system to see what's going on. have having said that, the other part is it's not enough, and that's one of the challenges we have. just for the number, 265 million vehicles that are out there. that will change as we get to ride sharing, other mobility models et cetera. but, if there is connected, each one of those is a vulnerability. i think that's why i want to mention we have credit for all the work that's been going on but at the same time say we have to do more. nimble and flexible to us are just watchwords for how we go forward. at this point i want to give a lot of credit to everybody's

being collaborative but we are going to need some new models. that's the challenge. we'll finish with this, it's usually a swinging a big stick. this is not an arena for those bad actors. this is where where industry and government are on the same side. we have to make it an open system for communication so there can be quick action when these vulnerabilities are identified. >> we give you a lot of kudos for the collaborative efforts and the previous panel, but what more can you do from your site to make that more of a collaborative environment? >> short, i think when we come out with any kind of our own guidance, we have to make sure they are complementary with whatever the industry is doing. we don't want to risk stuff for interviews and to interfere with staff. we have to find ways that are complementary. another way is in direct conversation. we're meeting with industry makers last week saying this is not attractive, we don't want you to report stuff so we can

find defects, we want you to report stuff so we can get it fixed. we need to be part of that. that's new for the industry was built around competition and this is more about competition but this is where we are all on the same side and everybody has to be comfortable knowing this is for one channel of good rather than thinking again we are after other pieces around the edges. we have to do this cleverly or the traveling american public will suffer. >> i want to encourage everyone to submit questions on cars in front of you if you want those posed appear. you mentioned you were with automakers last night and you've done both sides of the fence inventing government as well as where you are now. how do both groups come together? what's the best way to make that happen? that collaborative instinct? >> well as i said earlier, i think there's a blurred line between what the government is responsible for and what it's capable of doing. the government doesn't do gas

exploration so we had the problem with that well well, we had to rely on government oversight on the private sector to do its job. i think we are overlooking a positive look what's happening over the last few months and that the process by which the industry came together and started working in advance of dealing with regulators that have come up with the best solution. their voluntary standards but the conversation maybe more important than anything else because it has to change and evolve and become more agile. i think that's not just in the automobile industry, it probably has everything to do with the government, private-sector interface moving forward. there is this asymmetry that keeps forming as i told you earlier about the rapid advance of technology and being able to absorb that on the government and regulation side and to make sure it is meeting the requirements but i need to go back and look at what's there and see if it can be enhanced.

if you don't have to create a new regulation and there's something out there you can leverage we should be doing that as well. >> and i jump in on this point really quickly before we get to the question. i would just understand or the points that have been made but i think there has been rapid process in the industry doing voluntary work. there's also some voluntary privacy guidelines that we've agreed to that are really promising, but i just want to underscore the fact that we need to not build in a really secure infrastructure and our supply chain. these are also issues and it was highlighted a little bit at the end, of piracy and data as well. what we are seeing in these other technology sectors is a real recognition of building with privacy and mine, building with security in mind and ethics in mind as well. i think there's a whole new line of profession in the automobile industry that will really emerge and they need to emerge

relatively quickly given the speed of this tremendous transformation. at the end of the day, the regulators are here, the enforces are here, the government is here, but mostly this is about consumers trusting the product and wanting to buy them. i think that is the biggest stick in the wind. >> one of the things that challenge coming up is the increased number of resources available, the best practices in the guidances and all the different things that are coming out. >> the workforce shortage as well. >> at 21 you be one of the challenges facing everybody, trying to figure out that were really smooth and effective in that agile response to things that,. >> questions are flying in. let's go after them. senator peters you said failure is not an option. will the auto industry be held liable for cyber security failures? >> i believe they will. that's why failure is not an

option for folks. those are some, these are some of the broad policy issues that i alluded to in my opening comments with technology. the insurance industry, how is is this going to change insurance, will companies be on the line for all of the layers the layers of autonomous vehicle, privacy issues, there's just this whole host of issues that are out there that have to be resolved if we expect the technology to beef to utilize. i think there's no question that the industry will be hit. there is a cyber attack in people get injured, there will because related to that. but i think, i also want to mention my initial comment is that they will be dead in their tracks. even a bigger majority want a bigger steering wheel.

must you ask a millennial, that's completely different. they have a different view about this. folks my age don't want to do that and there's already been hesitant about that. if you have a cyber attack, i'll ali some kind of catastrophic result, the whole industry will be in trouble. that's why we are talking about this. we are all in this together which is why we have to test together and know that all the companies have to talk to each other. it's a whole different business model in my view. it's not just competitive advantage, you have to work together in order to protect the entire industry or you're going to be in trouble. >> we are also looking at other issues so if you think of small nuisance attacks as an equally annoying vector for consumer. >> i think we also need to start looking at standard of care and behavior. there's a driver and i don't

want to overstate because we actually buy computers. [inaudible] >> the question about liability already exists. last year when the was attacked they were called within days. if it's an reasonable risk, we don't just regulate, we import. >> we also enforce you don't enforce. used to. >> hopefully we can rise above that. i don't know where the partisanship will rise but i'm always amazed at how it does. sometimes, logic doesn't factor

in to some of this process. to me this is a basic, first and foremost, it's it's a safety issue. we will be able to save lives. saving 80% in the short run is a big big deal, not to mention hundreds of thousands of folks were injured with serious injuries on a continuous basis. hopefully that is something we can all rally behind and understand how important that is and if he just look at some of the transformations of the economy in terms of efficiency want that's what you mean as far as productivity and how that will be directly translated into a growing economy, we change our infrastructure only may not have to invest in much infrastructure but that the a bipartisan issue. because of the safety features demo we don't have to build extra lanes. you can do that in a safe way. there's all sorts of advantages that will accrue to the government that will hopefully bring us together.

everyone knows the details of the tesla model and they came out last week and said there's no way they will stop it from continuing with this development. the question is we need to slow the adoption? >> thank you for that question phrase just right. i will not make any comments about open investigations, but it was on wednesday, and we been relatively silent on the issue and i appreciate highlighting your as well because whether it's technology development, cyber security, the secretary, they haven't very clear about leaning forward because of the 50 opportunities and we love to it knowing there will be incidents but we cannot wait for perfect. we will lose too many more lives while we are waiting for perfect riders, 35200 last year, over 30 billion injuries.

this is what were talking about and the toll it takes in lives, money, our society, it's just tremendous. we have got to be able to move forward to do everything we can i keep bringing this up because last year in 2015 number of fatalities one of percent of the first decade. he went 25% from decade. last year we lost one third of that paragraph. we cannot keep it flat. we can even double down. when a bad place. we should be desperate for anything we can find that can save more of those life. >> how does the rest of the panel feel on the was martineau senator peters you thousand this mark transportation bipartisan group that's looking at innovation you also have the national test factors that you've announced that willow run. you want to talk about that for sure. >> they'll be great to take that opportunity.

it's something i'm certainly focusing a lot on and engaging partners on that as well as the industry. that the importance of having a national testing and validation facility where we can put these new technologies through their faces before they get out on the road. the simulations will also have the track for the conversion of the new paradigm for us and how we test these applications in my mind. , every company represented here from efs tracks for you test your vehicle. testing them for competitive advantage and you hide them in camouflage and do you think the key photographers away and then have the next 3013 is over your this area, that's for you all have to talk to have occurred while i have to talk to tm and gm has to factor nissan and etc. you often in one place for that is. we are hoping that place will be here in michigan.

the center will be the willow run facility, but it will run that was the arsenal that turned out the 24 bombers in the second world war and out to be the place to usher in this incredible technology to bring folks together. we are asking the secretary of transportation department to put out a competition for that national testing and validation site. i personally believe by no surprise that michigan should be the place because it's the most competitive at all of the automotive companies are here, we have toyota in ann arbor and honda in northern ohio plus the suppliers, we also have a very vibrant defense sector here in michigan with land systems and research. obviously autonomous vehicles in the defense space is really important, it can protect work fighters life and allows us to use the drones. all of that is located here.

to put all of that here one place, we are hoping to get that designation by the end of year. >> is there anything defense can learn from automakers? >> how do you feel? >> we are talking a lot about work that's being done, if you can move supplies and achieve your operational objective, i think beyond that there's something else, we focus on safety and that should be the most important thing we talk about. there's probably a chance to do a leapfrog in infrastructure but also how we want this to work in the future. the highway trust fund cannot support reconstructing our highways forever. yet is looking at nexgen. these are always to more

efficiently and productively use our transportation systems. i think we may be offered a chance that we are a generation of technology, deciding what we want our new airspace and highways to look like if we can integrate this technology in a not only look at the safety aspects but ask how we actually make it more efficient and environmentally friendly and lower cost. >> commissioner, you been asked to elaborate on some of your views on the criminalization of hacking. you mentioned that at the beginning. >> so i think this falls in the category of government should do no harm. we should have passed laws that are actually going to be harmful to the evolution of really good security being wrapped around all of this amazing technology that were going to have in the automate of space. one of the things that we've learned in information technology after the fighting hackers is that hackers are going to hack. in fact, some some of the best, most efficient investments in

security research can be made by crowdsourcing and taking advantage of that incentive. we see already, i think it was discussed quite wellin the panel for us and with prominent companies because actually it's a very sufficient security investment. i think we want to make sure that we don't pass the laws and we don't pass federal laws that make that research and work impossible to do. >> absolutely there should be responsible disclosure and vision of the actors. we don't want to facilitate that , but there is such a thing of driving too broad of restriction. that's what i'm talking about. i think we need to be careful not to do that because the fact is, i've been going to hacker cap for years and i wasn't at all surprised by the two tax.

it's firmly established that cars will continue to be a huge target. it will matter what you half of the state level. what we need to be focused on his maximizing the work that we can do with the research community and bringing it into the security processes that we have an taking advantage of it. >> give push for collaboration, reduce the enforcement going in the future. with the va focus on prosecution rather than failure? probably the place to start readjusting is, as you know, over the past year and a half there's been push the move the auto industry to proactive culture and cyber security is a perfect example of the culture there. if there's a vulnerability is needed and then it's reacted present challenges you harden those. from a proactive template, i think think we want to do everything we can on the front-end, one of the all learned is that it balanced so

when people do violate they have to be there and make sure everyone knows that will not be tolerated. >> if i can just add emma in terms of our data security cases , our. [inaudible] is reasonable. the processes around security has become more established, we are are looking at things like whether you have responsible closure programs, whether you are responding to farms that are disclosed in a timely way in the kinds of processes are going to be very important in our estimate of weathered data security practices are reasonable. >> a great, for the measure because as a recovering nasa scientists with around a lot of the early anonymous reporting system with limited immunity i know i said earlier, it came up those are the conversations we need to have make sure that we can get those reported not just

a way to lack a stick. at the time, with clear people are doing things in a malicious way, we have to have the more entrance try to make sure they don't go out and repeat that kind of activity. >> the questions, given your support independent researchers should there be liability. should there be terminal or civil disclosure. >> i think that's a really interesting area we need to learn more about setting up mechanisms that will facilitate that kind of relationship. i think, just to pick up on the administrator's point, what we what we want to do is find ways to have security researchers be able to conduct the research but also have a mechanism whereby companies can have time to assess that research, test the research, make sure it's valid, figure out the right response and often notify customers if it a situation. things are really complicated areas and i think we can

collectively come up with a good solution that really text the first principle here which is rotating the collaboration and facilitating the responsible proposer and making sure that one side has time to make sure that response is adequate and sensible. >> and of a question for the panel, have you square the protection of intellectual property rights with the sharing of information and best practices? >> are you feel allen? >> i think there's a process in a constant dimension to the. if you have the communities and lines open you're having having a conversation that are resulting in the best practices, you basically have done the equivalent of removing the attribution of things that might be proprietary and just on the generic way that you need to attack the problem. i think probably the way to think about it. it will play itself out differently in a systemic situation that you talking about

, but i don't think that the bar or why this conversation can't move forward and be as robust as it has been. >> i will just add, in the safety principles, one of the pillars has to do with anonymous data sharing and i think we have two great examples for the industry to look at. one in this area where once you get rid about that proprietary stuff, there's a huge amount of data that can be shared anonymously that everybody can benefit from. there are just things that happen that are out there that are relatively unique that everybody can benefit from. again, no real issue but the kind of thing that everybody, i've been very fortunate to get to know jean. one of his favorite things is to say i'm never gonna live long enough to make all the mistakes that could kill me.

so, that's what data sharing is about. that's laser safety meetings. learn from everyone else is the six you don't have to make them yourself. i think those cases and cyber security or perfect" of where the industry can establish data sharing for the benefit of all what you want is the effect to happen, you need to tell them what to do to correct themselves. one of first is the method how you obtain the information. >> i want to go back to state laws. how do you avoid a patchwork of state laws that may otherwise inhibit advancement or adoption of certain technology? >> i think it's a significant threat that we will have a patch work of laws. it's very forward thinking, but there will be others that are coming out which i think it's quiet on the federal government and congress come forward and

put a federal guidelines out there or federal law that preempted state laws that are similar to families the others that have every state having zone fuel economy standards and build to a national economy. the same occurs with this industry across the board. that is something we definitely have to work on. mike's prints with the coast guard, the best, to make regulation is when industry comes to you. and then you know that the time for federal government. unfortunately what we know is that we have 27 different data breach laws and different data laws. it is an area where you see a myriad of action being taken quickly and i expect to see the same thing. >> then that they will be putting out guidance for this area. there were four elements. one was operational guidance, how you get you get them on the road safely. we have been working with the american association to come up with what a model state policy could look like, but i think

whatever that ends up being, the question remains, how do you take that model and then actually see it in acted in a way that provides a consistent national framework as opposed to the patchwork? that will be the challenge going forward. >> point and we expect to see that? >> you can ask the secretary this afternoon. [applause] >> good good answer. that is it template for what we can execute. i think the point is real well taken. it's dependent on the industry to come forward and say let's move forward. this is where we have agreement. that is my main point. the policy has to be moving in the parallel track with the technology otherwise it could come to a halt to the. this is a critical piece of that. >> me stay with you for a minute here. we just have a few more moments left on the panel. will cyber security be the new topic of trade?

>> i think you should be. it certainly has to be part of a discussion. you mentioned you have state actors, particularly those who engage in very sophisticated cyber activities to steal secrets and use espionage. we would consider those things in the past. we need to be able to identify it and no who's behind it. we have to have a much tougher approach than we've had in the past. >> the recent issue with microsoft and the data storage has brought to light that this

is a virtual industry. if you're connected to the internet, you're connected around the world, and i think that's the next conversation. >> what specific action should they use to punish state actors that hack. >> i don't have that framework right now as to where we should go, but certainly some of the normal tools could be sanctioned and brought about. something along those lines. you have to have a better understanding of who's behind it and some evidence to prove that. you can have all kinds of those issues because your dealing with appomattox issues. they would probably be in the area of sanction.

>> i've asked the government from time to time to define that and i think they will know when they see it but allows to issue sanctions against companies, organizations or people who engage in cyber activities. >> in the final comments, it's give everyone in the room something to think about over the next year or two. what would your view be for your question to the room be when you think about cyber security? >> in this particular area i think the biggest issue will be what we don't know. we are already trying to plan and i think the divide is so large and the vulnerability is so great that the concern is

what aren't we thinking about how that could be dangerous in the future. >> if were thinking about it now and trying to come up with this, we will be in a better position, but it's just changing too fast. i think we have a to have a different mindset to go after this in a proactive way. : >> i think it's difficult an operational area sometimes i think the feeling for an operator if you see something going on with a car that it might be a glitch in the software rather than a cyber attack. because of all of the items that

will be connected on the cars you really need to learn and defend against what is happening. >> as that ai increases we know the bad folks are going to use ai to fight ai systems. this is when the scary part starts. in the science fiction that is soon going to be scientific reality going forward. how do cyber security folks use ai to defend but understand they will be different defending ai systems that are very sophisticated against yours. >> i am not so worried about the robots taking over the world, although i think -- i think it's an important concern, i'm glad you're liking it. i'm hopeful. i cannot wait for the day where i can send my car to take mike appearance to the dr. appointments and have it pick up my kids from school. i'm afraid it will be a time for me.

my message would be, this is a sweet issue. it has has really become one over the last year. cyber security isn't just a chief security officer sitting over computer geeks thinking about security, it it is the core center of this business. that is privacy and so is data ethics. i think there are a lot of resources in this country and we have fantastic leadership on the issues. the auto industry is in a position to take advantage of this. i'm hopeful we will get there. if there's one message i can leave a big consumers are the hearts of this and we absolutely need this to be paid attention to and resourced appropriately at every level. >> in the last word is your. >> that's a great segue. we need to complement the discussion we had the other day and what behaviors are involved.

my grandson is usually glued to the couch playing video games is running in the backyard the other day i asked what he was chasing and it was pokémon characters. at least tooth getting exercise. >> the interface between human beings and information technology in my view is a equivalent to climate change. the way you react to climate changes that you suffer, adapt, or manage. manage. i suspect were somewhere in between what mannish means in the sociological equivalent of the it age we're living in. >> how about a round of applause for panel. [applause] >> never news outlets are reporting that president-elect donald trump has selected former arkansas governor and republican presidential candidate, mike huckabee to be the next u.s. ambassador to israel. earlier today mr. huckabee was

at trump tower in new york city. he spoke to the press briefly on the presidential transition. [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] >> we had next line meeting. mr. trump is doing a terrific job of looking for the best people he can find. other than that i don't have anything to report because it is not my job to report. [inaudible] >> i'm happy doing what i'm doing. my job right now is to listen to the president-elect, it is his job to make the decisions and whatever decisions those are it will be good. >> again that is not for me to

disclose. >> the only person given our jobs in this building is president-elect, donald trump. not me. i would respect any information about what our meeting was about it should come from him. [inaudible] >> concerned with it? i'm going to serve my country whether i'm inside or outside of government. i'm going to be loyal to donald trump because i believed in him as a candidate. i stood by him throughout. i am not looking come i not come here looking for a job and i did not campaign for him because i was needing work. >> i gave it a standing ovation. jeff sessions is one of the great concerted lives in the center. he's also been a loyal, faithful ally to donald trump about the campaign. i've. i've considered him one of my favorite senators. i appreciate the clarity,

especially to the tpp debate when it was going on. i think that was a good choice. i was thrilled. [inaudible] >> visiting with others, it was long enough and just appropriate. i have have to go. i have another meeting. thank you. >> this week this up in court heard oral argument in two cases brought on by the city of miami against bank of america and wells fargo. arguing that under the fair housing act and the banks were involved in discriminatory

mortgage practices against a black and latino homebuyers which resulted in loan defaults, foreclosures, and less tax revenue for the city. here the argument in the entirety this evening at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. >> c-span's washington journal, live every day with news a policy issue that impact too. coming up on saturday morning, timothy on the top 14 obama administration regulations that president-elect trump could undo. we'll take a look look at some of the challenges facing president-elect trump's administration. with the white house. chief, he will look at the president-elect selection of key members for his team as well as how he will manage his supporters expectations. university supporters expectations. university of minnesota law school professor joins us from minneapolis to talk about the various conflicts of interest in term of the president-elect's business business dealings. particularly roles for his children. c-span's washington journal, live at live at 7:00 a.m. eastern saturday morning. join the discussion.

>> next, senate hearing on the future of nuclear power in the us. what is what is being done to find solutions to nuclear waste disposal. john deutsch, chairman of the secretary of energy advisory board discussed specific measures for reestablishing a robust nuclear power initiative in the 2030 - 2050 timeframe. other front of a subcommittee this is an hour and a half. >> will have the second of two oversight hearings to discuss the future of nuclear power in the united states. in the previous hearing we discussed what action should be taken to maintain today's nuclear power plants to ensure country continues to invest in nuclear power. today today we will discuss the recent task force report on the future of nuclear power from the secretary of energy's advisory board. we will discuss basic energy research and development to support nuclear power, work that is being done to safely extend

reactor licenses from 60 - 80 years where appropriate. and the development of new nuclear technologies including advanced reactors, small modular reactors an accident tolerant fuels. senator feinstein will each have a opening statement and then recognize each for five minutes for an opening statement. we'll go from there. will turn to the witnesses for their testimony, the first panel will be doctor john deutsch. chair of the secretary of energy advisory board and institute professor at mit. he is former director of cia, do director of energy research, second panel includes doctor alan eisenhower, doctor eisenhower's associate lab director for nuclear science at oak ridge laboratory. doctor mckenzie is the director

of nuclear energy. then will have questions. i like to make a brief opening statement. today's hearing is our second oversight hearing to discuss steps we can take to ensure carbon free nuclear power has a strong future in our country. the first hearing we heard from secretary -- about the challenges, we heard about research a lot of which is being done and the national laboratories including oak ridge. we heard senator white house is very concerned about climate change to tell us in his view it made no sense to close carbon free reactors at the same time were trying to deal with climate change. we also heard from senator judd gregg who gave us much of the same message and talked about the amount of innovation, 40 or

50 companies are working on advanced reactor concepts that would lower construction costs, increase safety, make better use of fuel management than today's reactors. i believe our future nuclear power can be bright but we need to prepare now by billy moore reactors, and in the stalemate on what to do about nuclear waste. senator feinstein and i are ited on that. stop in washington from picking winners and losers in the marketplace which does incentivizes the use of nuclear power. pushing back on excessive regulation, feeling feeling free market innovation with government-sponsored research. witnesses will discuss a tax report, r&d r&d and steps to maintain the fleet. we received a report in october of the secretary's energy advisory board, examine the challenges the nuclear industry

is facing as well as steps necessary to develop new technologies. it emphasized but i'm sure we'll talk about five factors limiting investment in nuclear power. first is nuclear power doesn't get enough credit for being carbon free. second, nuclear technologies are complex, expensive and heavily regularly. third, we have not solved the nuclear waste stalemate which is been going on more than 25 years. market conditions and unanticipated events such as an accident. at a time when science academies of 20 devout 12 countries and many americans say climate change is a threat and humans are significant cause of that threat, nuclear power produces 60% of the countries covered for electricity free electricity and power plants produce nearly 40% of the carbon produced in our country. speaking for myself, in

tennessee, i had 20 fire marshals tell me my house might burn down and i might buy some fire insurance. my recommendation is that we should get some insurance in this country against climate change. i think the best insurance in the near term is nuclear power. makes no sense makes no sense to close reactors at a time people believe i'm a change is a problem. we need to to invest in the next generation of reactors, continue to react with the regulatory commission to move forward with small modular reactors. our bill, the appropriations bill of this committee includes 95,000,000 for that work. task force recommends we undertake an advanced nuclear reaction program, support the design, development and construction of a first of a kind commercial scale reactor. i'm looking forward to hearing about that.

doctor eisenhower who is here today on behalf of the oak ridge laboratory leaves a consortium of advanced simulation of light water reactors. i'm looking forward to hearing his discussion. secretary monies at the end of the year at the department would begin to process of moving forward with interim storage facilities for nuclear waste. that is something senator feinstein and i congratulated him for and encouraged. after hearing the department took the step of seeking information on private interim nuclear waste story sites. we need to move on all tracks at the same time to solve the stalemate. i appreciate your attention to this. the new congress should tape the next steps and pass the bipartisan nuclear waste administration act, it was introduced last year by senator feinstein, makowski and i.

congress should pass the pilot program that would allow the secretary to take title to use nuclear fuel. energy and water appropriations bill that senator feinstein and i recommended and the committee approved. we need to maintain our existing nuclear fleet, we need to extend reactor licenses from 60 - 80 years where it's appropriate and safe to do so. we need to relieve the burden said unnecessary regulation and use our supercomputing resources. since the hearing another reactor shutdown, it means we have lost another 484 megawatts of carbon free electricity. in conclusion i would say this,

imagine a day when the united states is without nuclear power. that's the day i do not want to see in our country's future. it seems it distant and unlikely but is a real threat. by 2038, 20 years from now, 50 reactors will have reached 60 years of operation representing 42% of the nuclear generating capacity in the united states. our country. our country could lose about half are reactors. if licenses cannot be extended from 60 - 80 years and those reactors close. are there new reactors being built in the southeast, there are a reactors, through the northeast which are scheduled to shut down by 2025. the energy information estimates shutting down these reactors plus the recent closing of four calhoun will result in a 3% increase in total carbon emissions from the u.s. electricity sector. we need to take steps to ensure nuclear power has a future in the country. and i recognize senator feinstein the committees ranking

member for her opening statement. >> thank you very much. i think you know there is really no one i respect more in the senate from either party than you. one of my great pleasures has been to work with you. on most things we have agreed. we do not agree on nuclear power as you know. also because i am a history major i thought i might in my opening remarks just cite facts of history about a nuclear experience. i think examining the potential risks and opportunity of advanced reactors is important. they're in competition with federal research funding, with other clean energy sources. the 4400 megawatts of california's nuclear power which is in the process of being shut down will be replaced with clean

energy. california is going to aim to make 50% of its power our whole clean power before too long. some make claimed the future is bright for this technology. i suggest otherwise. advanced nuclear reactors are those that achieve higher efficiencies in electricity production through the use of graphite, soft and metals as coolants and moderators instead of water. in 1956, the united states navy admiral, the father of our nuclear navy set up advanced reactors and i quote, they are expensive to build, complex to operate, susceptible to prolonged shutdown, as a result of even minor malfunctions and difficult and time-consuming to repair. ". strangely enough his words have

been prophetic. in 1965 the sodium cool fast reactor when online in southeast michigan. ten months later it suffered a partial month out when a coolant inlet inlet became blocks in the core overheated. it operated briefly from 1970 until late 1972 when it was shut down due to cost issues. the plant took nine years to build and operated for only three years. then in the 1970s the united's state spent over $1 billion on the clincher read river reactor project in eastern tennessee. costs were initially estimated at 400 million. by 1983 the gao said the project would cost $1 billion. something that we go through

with uranium and plutonium processing now. congress abandon the project before construction was complete. president carter, nuclear engineer said of the project and i quote, the clinch river breeder breeder reactor is a technological dinosaur. it's an assault on our attempts to control the spread of dangerous new clear materials. in march is our nuclear policy in exactly the wrong direction. now these are fundamentally the same reactor designs we are still discussing today. more recently, the mind you fast reader reactor in japan operated for only a few months in 1994 and 1995 before a coolant leak caused the fire. then it operated again for three months in 2010 before another accident during refueling. after spending $12 billion building, briefly operating and repairing the facility the

japanese government decided last month to abandon the project once and for all. the recent history in the united states is not much better. the energy policy act of 2005 authorize doe to work within industry to develop a next-generation nuclear plants. the plant was intended to process heat and hydrogen for use in industrial applications. the program included cross shared research and development activities within industry that would eventually lead to a demonstration facility. by 2012 this committee had invested 550 million in the next generation nuclear plant. was ready to move into face to by inviting industry participation. not a single company could be

found to put out the meager 40,000,000 dollar dollar cost share that was needed. doe ended the program in 2013 because the government cannot justify spending millions to develop advanced reactor designs that have no real support from the industry. even if advanced reactors overcome their history of disappointment, this congress has not yet grappled with the need to find a workable solution to nuclear waste despite the best efforts of this committee. a bottom line fact is that the existing fleet of reactors has generated 77000 metric tons of highly radioactive spent fuel. that staggering amount is growing by an average of 22 tons per year. even if some advanced reactor

designs someday run more efficiently or even consume more spent fuel, future builds on nuclear power is impossible if we don't have a solution for dealing with existing waste. mr. chairman, the nation faces real challenges in addressing climate change. reliability, reliability, increase efficiency, a proper mix of generation sources. in each of these areas this committee funds complex unnecessary programs for research. i don't see how we can afford to divert several billion more dollars from these programs in order to explore technology that the industry itself has shied away from. i think nuclear power just has

its own significant shortcomings. one astronomical upfront cost into waste that is toxic for thousands of years. if nuclear is to be a significant solution to our climate challenges. before the committee, before they decide to use other resources i believe we need to see three things. one, a solution to nuclear waste. long-term and viable. two, an indication that these reactor designs can overcome their history of technical shortcomings. three, an industry willing to make a financial commitment on its own. i know that's a tall order. so i very much look forward to our witnesses today.

and i look forward to listening to testimony and the others. >> thank you senator. >> i'll be brief. thank you mr. chairman and ranking member for having the hearing. i think it's it's a good discussion to have. we talk about the challenges. i appreciate you mr. chairman bringing up climate change because it is occurring whether we want to deny it or not. it's happening. i've been on the farm now since 1978 and things are happening that never happened before. some are good, a lot or not. just for full disclosure, and i've been farming my whole life. i lost more money on an investment in an energy company that had nuclear power print plant than anything else i've ever done in life. so so with that aside it's really don't have issues with the power. i think there's positive things about the environment from a co2 standpoint. i think senator feinstein brought up points and reactor

design. the waste is the problem. we have to figure out how you can repurpose it and get it jennifer going to do this. we may be changing co2 for nuclear waste and i don't think we want to do that. i think we want to make sure that if we are going to have something that her kids and grandkids and generations from now can deal with his got to work. i appreciate the hearing and i think it's a good discussion. i think i don't think anybody on the committee and i have the utmost respect to wants to do something our kids are going to have to pay for forever. so thank you very much. >> senator udall. >> mr. chairman, ready ready to proceed to the witness. >> thank you. doctor deutsch, usually we ask witnesses to take about five minutes because that gives more time for questions but you are the only witness on the first panel and you have worked long and hard on a task force report

and you have a lot of experience or if you need more time than that when you take it. >> thank you very much mr. chairman. thank you senator feinstein, senator udall, very pleased to be here. i was chair of the secretary of energy task force. >> could you speak directly into the mic. >> yes, that better? if it's not, poke me again and i'll do better. >> so i'm here to report to you in this task force that i chaired and i want to make clear on what our task was. the secretary asked the task force it to describe an initiative that had the potential of giving the country the option, the ability to have between five and 10000 gigawatts of electricity built annually in a time.

30 - 2050. many other questions about nuclear power was not part of our task. and what would the country have to do to restore the level that for example is here when i joined the department of energy in 1976. that was a task. the summary report and charts are in the public domain and have been supplied to committee staff. i'm going to focus on the main use of the committee, what was the message is a mess a few words about five or six main points. here are the main takeaways. if the country is going to have a nuclear option in 2030, it must undertake an initiative of the scope and size that this

committee described. it doesn't have to be exactly the same, but if you do not undertake a major initiative now it is inevitable that in 2030 the 2030 the country will not have a nuclear option. secondly, any such initiative is going to require time, federal resources, redesign of electricity markets and sustained and skilled management. third, there's no shortcut to doing this. there's not going to be a magic technology provided at low cost, quickly can get you safe and reliable nuclear power. those are the take away messages. so i want to know speak to the five or six central findings and recommendations of the task force report. first, as you know the nuclear fleet is aging. there have been a number of early retirements.

the early retirements are due in many respects to the rules governing electricity rates and dispatch and they differ in different parts of the country which makes it challenging to have value -based nuclear power. examples include the structure rates and wholesale capacity markets, preferential dispatch rules for renewable generation. exclusion of nuclear power from renewable portfolio standards and rates that are inadequate to ensure the recovery investment. the task force report makes several suggestions for redesign with market rate structures but for existing plants this has to be done at a state-by-state basis in different states are approaching this in different ways. new york came to some agreement which seems to be suitable for that state. i believe in illinois is under detailed discussions at the present time. but for existing reactors that disparity in market structure needs to be addressed at a state

level. it is not going to be changed easily. the outlook for the construction of nuclear plants in the united states and other oecd countries is bleak. primarily because of the high overnight capital cost of nuclear power, roughly $5000 compared to natural gas, $1000 or less. this makes the levelized cost of nuclear power for the foreseeable future higher than the closest competitor which is for the time being with no load natural gas prices, the levelized cost of electricity from natural gas. the cost disparity would be diminished if a carbon free nature of nuclear power were recognized. to be recognized in two ways by the assessment of a carbon emission charge based on the cost of carbon on fossil fuel generating or alternatively on a production