but you know, whether it's her or donald trump, i think they're both people who want to grow the size of government and who don't respect our constitution in the way that mindy and i believe it should be. and so that's what i think the outcome will be of the presidential level. i believe that republicans will likely hold on to the house and the senate is less certain. i just don't know. it's hard to predict, but i think donald trump is definitely making it much more difficult for republicans to hold on to the senate and for them to hold on to the margin that they have had in the house for the last couple years. >> evan mcmullin, mindy finn, independent presidential and vice presidential candidates joining us on the campaign in salt lake city, utah. thank you both for being with us and here on c-span. we appreciate it. >> thanks for having us. >> thank you. on election day, november 8th, the nation decides our next president and which party controls the house and senate. stay with c-span for coverage of

the presidential race, including campaign stops with hillary clinton, donald trump, and their surrogates. and follow key house and senate races with our coverage of their candidate debates and speeches. c-span, where history unfolds daily. >> tonight, on american history tv primetime, world war ii programs from our reel america series, showing archival films on public affairs. at 8:00 eastern, the 1943 film on the battle of russia followed by a film called "know your ally, britain." at 10:10 eastern, films from 1944. the negro soldier and the hidden war. american history tv in primetime, all this week here on c-span3, while congress is on break. >> after i came up with my idea of reproductive rights, i went

and researched. with recent events i heard about in the news, i knew i could find information on that, and that would also help me figure out what points i wanted to say about it and how to form my outline for my piece. >> i took a very methodical approach to the process. you could if you wanted, but i think that really is a piece i don't, i would say. it's really a process of working and reworking. so as i was trying to come up with my theme was, i was doing research at the same time. i was coming up with more ideas for what i could film and you know, i would come up with an idea, that would be a great shot. i would think about that and that would give me a new idea, something else to focus on, so i would do research on that. the whole process was about building on other things and scratching what doesn't work and you keep going until you finally get what is the finished product. >> this year's theme, your message to washington, d.c. tell us, what is the most urgent issue for the new president and

congress to address in 2017. our competition is open to all middle school or high school students, grades 6 through 12, with $100,000 awarded in cash prizes. students can work alone or in a group of up to three to produce a five to seven minute documentary. include c-span programming and explore opposing opinions. the $100,000 in cash prizes will be awarded and shared between 150 students and 53 teachers. and the grand prize, $5,000, will go to the student or team with the best overall entry. this year's deadline is january 20th, 2017. mark your calendars and help us spread to word to student filmmakers. for more information, go to our website, studentcam.org. >> nsa director and u.s. cyber commander admiral michael rogers says the u.s. needs to train and retain highly skilled cybersecurity professionals. he spoke at the 2016 cybersma

cyber maryland conference in baltimore. this is 45 minutes. >> hi, good morning, everyone. we're going to go ahead and get started in a minute, so if we can have you find your seats. >> good morning. on behalf of the cyber maryland advisory board, i would like to welcome you to the sixth annual cyber maryland summit. i'm david powell. joining me is rick garetz. co-founders and co-chairs of the cyber maryland advisory board. my great pleasure to welcome the attendees, the speakers, the exhibitors, and the sponsors here to this event today.

and also, our local, state, and federal agency leaders and policymakers and other dignitaries in the audience. six years ago, cyber maryland started as an idea to build the silicon valley for cybersecurity. to unify the cyber maryland ecosystem around a common theme. to be the epicenter of cybersecurity. and six years later, looking around the room, i would say we have been successful. wouldn't you agree? [ applause ] but the question that we always ask is, what's next? cyber maryland has become the model for other states, and earlier today, we made an announcement about a program called cyber usa. community of communities and cyber states which will be led by the former undersecretary for commerce, bill bond. and the first dhs secretary, tom

ridge, former governor of pennsylvania. rick? >> yeah, thanks. so we wanted to kick off the session today, as everyone knows that cybersecurity is the new space race, right? what happened when the space race was going on? countries were trying to get to the moon. right now, we have a situation where cybersecurity does not have a zip code. it doesn't represent 21212. you know, colorado, california, and so on. so the first move was to now bring all the states together in a collaborative effort with cyber usa. and then what we wanted to do is one of the major parts of building a cyber ecosystem is building a generation, the next generation, which we call the cyber generation. we thought it would be appropriate to have a student in high school that is teaching introduce our keynote speaker. i had the pleasure of

notroducing emma rogers in very different sessions and conferences. what's unique about this is about a year ago, we stood on stage at this conference with rob joyce and cathy hudson and chris alex yeah, nsa launched a program called the nsa day of cyber. yesterday, we just reached 5 million students that signed up to start to explore their future. and as our introduction to the keysno keynote speaker happens, this all got started here because three years ago, i was teaching a high school at dunbar, a class on technology, and i asked a bunch of students, what do you want to be when you grow up? their answer was doctor, lawyer, ray lewis. now what we're hearing as early as last month in arkansas, california, virginia, maryland,

everywhere, is doctor, lawyer, forensic analyst. doctor, lawyer, reverse engineer. i think this grassroots movement has created a movement that our neighboring states are now starting to work upon and collaborate upon so we can protect the nation and create the cyber generation. so it's my pleasure now to introduce a teacher of a local high school, steve mauro, and one of the students to come up to introduce emma rogers, and steve, if you guys would make your way to the stage. and i want to just make a comment about this teacher in general. this is the world's first cyber teacher who at a high school level has now built a program in a high school where the most popular sport on campus is cyber. over 106 middle school, high

school -- middle school and high school students come after school from 3:00 to 7:00 under their own volition and learn, compete, and he has now built this into the cyber high school and the model. so now, high schools around the country and around the world are modeling this school on how do you give students who have the capabilities to really demonstrate cyber skills to be able to continue and grow this model across the country. so it's my pleasure to introduce steve morrill, from loy oola hi school. steve. [ applause ] >> good morning, folks. my name is steve morrill. i'm director of technology and cyber science in maryland. thank you for the opportunity to be here for the cyber maryland confrr conference that's near and dear to my heart.

this was the inspiration five years ago to start our program. it's nice to be in a roomful of like minded folks with the same goal, educating the next cybecyber cyber generation. over the last five years, one of loyola's goals and my goal is to solve the pipeline problem, from k-12, higher ed, and industry. we started five years ago with six students. and i thought, well, that was a fun club for a year. and now we have five years later, 106. i don't hang posters. i goent get on the morning announcements. it's all been driven by student interest because students in high school can do more than what we may think. so this morning, we're joined by several of our students. one in particular here is junior andrew. he's in his second year with us. this past summer as a sophomore, i think back to my sophomore year in high school, i think i was still mowing grass in my

summer. he did an internship at health systems in chattanooga, tennessee, where he was a member of the internet security team. he brought that information back to loyola and is now teaching sisco routing and switching to our students in great eight through 12. now he's a junior. he's already looking forward to continuing his education in college, when he graduates from us in 2016. he's carrying a full load of a.p. courses, plays varsity rugby and works in the cyber sients program because he wants to, not because he has to. so motivation is key. so with that, i'm pleased to introduce you to andrew. loyola high school student. >> thank you. i would also like to thank mr. powell for inviting me to the maryland cyber summit this morning.

as a junior in high school, as mr. morill said, i did an internship in chattanooga, tennessee, and i found great passion in the field within two years. it relates to everything we do every day, and it excites me the direction in which the field is heading. this morning, we're joined by a man whose position as head of the national security agency and a central security service, two organizations that play a crucial role in today's world. more information about admiral rogers, his career, can be found in your bio in your programs. as all of us are aware, cyber has become the next domain to defend and it's a space race of my generation. with the growth of the field, unemployment is nonexistent. under admiral rogers, i'm proud to say that the nsa has welcomed more interned my age than ever before. he has faced us with real world challenging issues we face, and

i'm willing and eager to fulfill the needs of the country. by accepting interns from high school and college, i appreciate that admiral rogers has recognized and embraced that us young adults can do more than expected. it's with great honor and privilege that i welcome admiral rogers to the stage. >> thank you, andrew. thank you very much. >> is that one impressive young man or what? thank you very much. imagine if you were 16 or 17 years old and somebody asked you to stand up in front of hundreds of people, cameras, to introduce a man you never met and do it in front of a whole lot of people. andrew, thank you very, very much. i want to thank very much for taking time to support cyber maryland. i'm here because i'm part of the maryland cyber ecosystem, both as the commander of the united

states cyber command and the director of the national security agency. we're proud to be a part of this ecosystem. i'm here today because i wanted to share a few thoughts on the challenges of cybersecurity. also selfishly, i'm here today because if there's a young man or woman in the audience who is interested in challenging work in the cyber field at nsa and cyber command, we have great opportunities. i'm interested in getting every motivated, talented young individual we can to be a part of our workforce, to help build the future, both in defending structures, networks within the united states government, but more broadly, how we as nsa and cyber command, small parts of a bigger team, can do our part in trying to defend our nation and help our friends and allies around the world. because cyber is the ultimate team activity. and the 35 years i have been a commissioned officer in the united states navy y have never been part of a mission set before in which your success and the ability to generate operational outcomes is so dependent on a broad variety of

partners. that is both challenging but it also represents opportunity. and you see that in this audience today. among you are high school students, college students, midshipmen at the naval academy. people involved in academic thought, people involved in industry, people involved in the government. at the state, at the federal, and at the local level. it's our ability to harness all of these capabilities that these groups represent into an integrated team that's working on some tough problems. i think we all have to acknowledge we're not where we want to be when it comes to cybersecurity. that's reflected in the increased level of investment. it's reflected in the increased level of activities you read about and whatever your potential source of news is, whether it be print, online media, whatever. you cannot go literally hours without something popping about

a major cyber challenge, somewhere, both here in the united states but globally as well, because this is not a phenomena that is restricted to a particular nation, a particular area, or a particular sector or segment. there is literally activity of concern out there in every segment of our private sector, across the u.s. government, with our allies and friends around the world. and i suspect that that dynamic is not going to be changing in the immediate near term. so collectively, we have to step back and ask ourselves, what can we do working together to attempt to address the challenges associated with the cyber environment we're dealing with today. that means information sharing is going to be critical. the government, legislation has been passed in the last 18 months, we have started an initial framework on how to do that. within the federal government, we have taken time in the last month, under the president's direction, to outline what are the roles of the different parts of the federal government and

how are we going to provide support both coordinating internally within the government and perhaps of greater importance to all of you, how are we going to apply that capability more broadly across our nation. as a part of that federal government team, i'm the first to acknowledge one of our objectives has got to be how can we help to simplify to our private sector friends how you interact with us. we have got to make it easier for you. and we have got to align the insights we generate to generate value for you. you need to define, what is the information you need, how do you need it, and what format, and what truly is the value to me, to you? you don't want us to tell you that. we need to partner with you and understand what it is you feel you need. at the same time, we are all out there competing for the same workforce. and that challenge isn't going away. right now f you look at the human capital piece of this

challenge, i would argue in some ways that it's the greatest challenge of all. that while the technology is incredibly important to our ability to meet the needs that are associated with the challenges of cyber and cybersecurity, perhaps the greatest challenge is not the technology but it's the human capital in all of this. how do you make users smarter so they're making smart, intelligent, well informed decisions? because you can have the greatest defensive strategy in the world, but if your users are making choices that undermine that security, you've made your job that much tougher. by the same token, you need an incredibly motivated and focused workforce. you not only have to have a workforce in which segments have very specified, specialized training and information in technology and cybersecurity, but as i said, we have to raise the knowledge level of every

single individual within our structures. so the human dimension here and the ability to generate trained men and women with the right kind of background and insight is a challenge that as a nation we're only beginning to come to gripsbeginning to come to grips with. i don't think there's any of us here in this audience that would tell you oh, yeah i have all the people i need with all the right skills and all the right background. we clearly are not where we need to be there. that's one of the reasons why i like to do things like cyber maryland. we want to be part of the solution. you heard in the introduction some of the things we're doing in terms of out reach to the private sector about in terms of the academic world with students. one of the things andrew mentioned was our internship program. we have come to the conclusion that the greatest things for us is getting young men and women familiar with us at cybercommand

and nsa earlier and earlier. we have an an aggressive inte internship for our organization. in fact, i've been a director for a little over two and a half years. and i can remember the first week on the job one of the things i like to do is go down, walk around, walk the halls, eat lunch in the catfeteria. the first week on the job i go down stairs from himy office ani stop and say hello to two young ladies. after lunch i go back to my office and i said to my team that works with me in my office, i can't believe how young we're hiring people. i met two young ladies who i swear looked like they were 14, 15 years old. i got, sir, they were probably interns. i said we have interns? the thought to me, again, just

starting the job was, you mean we're giving security clearances to, you know, 15 and 16 year olds? i'm the first to admit i was struck by this is a different world and we're going to have to do things a little differently than we have historically done. the internship program has among the highest returns on things we do. over 65% of the people who intern with us end up working with us once they complete their education. that's a great place plafor us be. as a naval officer i highlight what we're doing, you see midshipman here with us today. we're making cyber courses mandatory now for the naval academy. cyber is foundational tool the future. everyone must have a base line level of knowledge. we're way past the time where it

can be i don't need to worry about that. that's what my i.t. guys do. i don't have to know a thing about this. given the challenges associated with user behavior that's not going to work. we have cyber major, we have broken the ground or soon will, this month, on a new cyber center at the naval academy and we're directly commissioning officers out of the naval academy out of the cyber arena something we had not done until a few years ago. we recognize that the world around us is changing and we realize we have to do things differently. you see that in what the secretary has done in terms of our defense innovation and experimentation unit out in california in silicon valley. where we acknowledge as a department we have to go where the best technology and innovation resides, it's outside the government, outside the department of defense. we've got to be willing to go to the outside world and say what can we learn from you.

how can we partner? what kind of capabilities and insights do you have that will generate value for us and help us in our missions to help defend the nation as well as defend our key friends and allies. another thing that i'm always telling the work force at nsa and cyber command, the defensive side is a core aspect of our jobs. we must constantly drive for success, but at the same time we must acknowledge despite our best interest there will be times we will fail. we must be prepared to deal with failure in an aggressive way. when i started my personal time in cyber i can remember thinking the entire focus was to keep the opponent out of your network. that's the primary driver. but after 15 years doing this in the department, i've come to the conclusion you must not only spend time focused on that, but you must acknowledge that despite your best efforts you're likely to be penetrated. given that, what are you going to do. i would tell you as a individual

that has to deal with major penetrations in networks in the department of defense. it's a different thought process, a different methodology and a different leadership style at times when i'm dealing with problem and the investments we're trying to make, trying to forestall opponents' ability to enter network as opposed to when we find them there. it goes back to the human capital piece. as important as the technology is, don't forget about the importance of motivated men and women. because without motivated men and women, i don't care what your technology is, i don't care how good your defense scheme is, how great your network structure is. without motivated men and women, you don't have the edge that you really need. and that's what gives you the difference. that's why i think so many of you being here today is very, very important to the future. we've got to roll our sleeves up as a nation. we've got to realize this is not a short term phenomenon. this is long term, hard work for

all of us. we got to step back and ask ourselves what do we need to do to change the current dynamic we're in. as i said earlier, i don't think any of us would argue we are where we want to be right now in terms of cyber security. and with that, let's open it to some questions. you guys are a very quiet audience. >> good morning, my name is dave and i'm the host and producer of the cyber wire pod cast. we have some questions that were sent in through the conference app through social media from some of our local media outlets and we're going to have some time to take questions from the audience as well. we're going to start off with this one, is our ability to defend cyber space better today than five years ago, are we improving or deteriorating and what needs to happen. >> if you read the news it's

easy to tell yourself it's just getting worse and worse. what i try to tell our team is let's step back for a moment. let's think about where we've come in the last five years. the first thing i remind people is look, we are way past debating about whether this is something that merits attention. five years ago, i was spending a lot of time in discussions with leaders about is this something i should really care about? why should i put time, people, resources against this? we don't have those discussions anymore. so the number one positive for me is we have wide spread recognition we have a set of challenges here that are going to take focused effort and vestment investment to deal with. on the government side, partnering with the private sector, we've created well-defined lanes in the road, we have articulated how we're going to provide support and partnership with the private

sector. and we have created the mechanisms to do that. those are the things i think are strong positives. on the other hand, i also remind myself, i think as i said earlier, i think we have to acknowledge we're not where we want to be. so i'm just not interested in sitting back, patting ourselves on the back and saying, hey, look how much better things are now than they were. that's interesting, but it's not particularly applicable or the primary focus to me. it's about what do we need to do to keep moving forward. so when i think about what do we need to do to keep moving forward, i'm struck by on the government side, we've got a transition point coming up in january. that's a great opportunity for us to step back and do a little internal assessment, where are we, are we happy with the structures we've created. are the assumptions we've made proving out to be actually factualfa

factual. and then don't ever forget the international dynamic in this. cyber doesn't recognize geographic boundaries. it's challenging to come up with solutions that only work for one particular country. we have to acknowledge we have to do something more global mere. >> one of your predecessors, general hayden described russian hacking as a legitimate intelligence breach. do you have any concerns? >> i love it when people say so and so said x, what do you think about it? we have acknowledged that russians were behind of the penetrations in democratic national committee and several other targets designed to generate insights with respect to political activity. we need to step back as a nation

and think about what is the implications, is that something we're comfortable with? in some ways i would argue this is a pattern of behavior in terms of the use of information, the attempt to persuade, manipulate others has been a fairly consistent pattern for the russians over time. cyber adds a whole other dimension to this. it enables individuals, actors, groups, nation states to acquire data at massive scale and divulge that and make that data publicly available. there's a lot of things we've got to think through with respect to that. fundamentally, as a nation, it's important to us that we all believe and trust that the mechanisms of governance are going to generate outcomes we can all believe in. that's foundational for us. as we work our way through this particular issue. that's always at the forefront of our mind. how do we help engender trust and confidence in our citizens and how do we send strong

messages to others in the world outlining what is acceptable and what is not acceptable. >> what are the biggest challenges facing a split between nsa and the u.s. cyber command outside of the previous comments on finding the right time and process for a split? >> so i've already talked publicly about, hey that's a matter that's under review by the president. he as the chief executive will make the ultimate decision. i'm not going to get into the specifics, good, bad, how would we. let's give it time and see what the process generates. hey as a good subordinate my job is to do it to the best of my ability. >> the technology evolution is out pacing the education of the work force. what is nsa and u.s. cyber command doing to address maintaining a worth fork force the acquisition perspective? >> on the acquisition side, the

thing i find very gratifying is we have some flexibility and capabilities that make us fairly fast and agile when it comes to generating capability. both in terms of what we're able to be internally as well as partnering with the private sector. cyber command, the challenges are a little different. cyber command is a traditional department of defense operational command. it's not an acquisition operation, it doesn't buy capability or design and generate. yet our experience with six years now as an organization, is we need to step back and ask ouvlg does that make sense and is that the model of the future. there's a test in the different language from last year's acquisition act which grants u.s. cyber command on a test basis for the first time both

acquisition authority and a small amount of money. we're working our way through with the department of defense what's the framework we're going to put in place to grant those authorities to cyber command and how we're going to execute those. you'll see that start to roll out in the current fiscal year, '17. then we owe a report back to congress on what's our experience been. >> all right. mobility is a mess within the federal government and dod. certifications get completed after devices have been moth-balls, not allowing mobile devices inside the agency is creating hiring issues for younger employees. how do you see mobility today and in the future and how is the agency trying to improve the certification process? >> so, clearly mobility is foundational to the future and the world we're liveriing. i bet less than 10% do not have a digital device on you right now. i don't see that changing. it's given us great benefit. i'm the first to acknowledge.

you know, as soon as i leave here and get in the vehicle, first thing i'll do is pull out my device and getting connected back into the world again and seeing what's going on. so it's foundational to the future. at the same time, we also have to acknowledge it's a bit of a double edged sword. it represents both connectivity and opportunity, but it also represents potential vulnerability. each organization has to make an assessment of risk and given that potential vulnerability, what's the level of risk you're comfortable with given your mission and the levels in kind of information you have. what might be acceptable for one organization, say, a company that's doing public service might be very acceptable versus as the national security agency is a leader of an intelligence organization. maybe that level of risk isn't acceptable to us. this is not going to be oo one size fits all. we have to educate our young work force.

i have two young millenial sons in their 20s. one of whom is a naval officer. they both believe the constitution forgot the part where they should have talked about and the ability to access data in the format of your choice at the time and place and in the device of you choice. for the life they've lived, it's all they've ever known. i can get whatever data i want in whatever format i want on any one of multiple devices or mediums. what's the matter with you that you don't get it? i'm here to be your fossils, sons. and it's funny, i have this conversation with both of them, with the older one that's a naval officer. i say, i got it, step back and look at this from the perspective of a naval officer. we're concerned about the security and the ability of others to use that device to gain insight as to where you are, what you're doing and who you're communicating with. trust me, there are nation

states, actors, groups out there who are doing that every day. who have interest in individuals and will use that connectivity as a vehicle to generate insights as to where they are and what they're doing. by the same token, i also acknowledge it offers great benefit. so i always remind them, hey, for example, to the older one i'll say what works for your brother who happens to work in the private sector, son, isn't necessarily going to work for you. it goes back to it's not a one size fits all. that's great challenge for leaders to find that balance. so for us, we're trying to do it at let's take nsa and cyber command as an example. the compromise we're working on is, let us provide you that unclassified connectivity in a format by means that we have high confidence we have minimized the risk. rather than each one of you bringing in your own device, let

us generate the means for you to access that information while you're at work and do it in multiple formats in a multiple mediums. you know, that's what we'll sign up to. we think there's value here, we want you to be able to do it. we understand, again, as i said, to many of our work force, i want to have access to this anytime, anyplace. when i can't bring my device in, i don't like that. i find that unsettling. it's something i'm not comfortable with. and it's not a sacrifice maybe that i'm prepared to make. remember, the people we're all competing for in terms of human capital, they've got a lot of options out there. for example, if that portable device and the connectivity that it implies is important to them, they may say, hey i'm going to go somewhere where i can do that. we're trying to anticipate and deal with this phenomenon. it's not unique to us. >> we are going to open up to the audience for questions, if you have a question, i believe we have some runners with microphones. raise your hand. we'll get the runners to you.

and in the meantime, i'm going to ask you another question. what do you see as the significance open source intelligence will play in national security as technology continues to be compromised at an alarming rate? >> i would argue open sources -- by open source that's the phrase we use in the intelligence community to describe information which is unclassified and readily available to all. we tend to use the phrase open source. unclassified, readily available to all. experience is telling us that open source represents another primary means of acquiring information and insight that are potentially of value. signal intelligence, our focus on one of our two missions at human intelligence, that open source offers an attractive set of insights that we may not have access to via other means.

by the same token as an intelligence professional i remind people every source of intelligence and insight has inherent limitations. not one single one of them. i don't care if it's human, it's automatic goal whatever you see or hear you can believe. open source is no different. and so we just always need to keep that in mind. and so open source, all of us with the intelligence community are trying to work on how can we bring that as another tool to compliment the work that we're already doing? because, again, a little bit to me is like the digital piece. it is not going to go away. and it represents an amazing potential source of insights. i want to take advantage of the insights. >> do we have questions ready out in the audience? >> sir, you spoke -- >> have we met before? >> i believe we have, sir. >> i thought so, you looked familiar. how you doing today? >> doing well, sir, thank you.

>> so, sir, you spoke towards our struggles as a nation trying to -- as a work force, to catch up to the inhandle canning cyber threat. a good example being trying to reinforce our electrical grid against bombs or cyber attacks. with the accelerating rate that cyber is growing and the change of the approaching internet of things it seems this idea of mobility and that our only threat to our own personal information being our cell phones is changing to all the objects in our homes. with this interconnected network that's growing within our nation, not only in the private sector but in the military as well. how are we preparing ourselves to address such a drastic change with objects that were never designed to be cyber safe, such as wi-fi enabled toys or pacemakers? >> i think we've got to be honest with ourselves, as a

society we do not truly understand all of the implications of the internet of things being the most visible largest embodment. this is an autonomous object. no, it's connected to a broader set of capabilities. those connections offer both potential opportunity, make our lives easier, but they also offer potential points of vulnerability. to me you'll see this in many ways, the most visible manifestation of this phenomenal, it's only going to get tougher is the automobile. hey, when i got my license, the automobile was an autonomous mechanical device, had no software systems. it had no decision making capability. its only ability to receive

information was largely unless you were a cb individual, one way in the form of a radio. and its only ability to communicate to the outside world was either orally through a horn or visually through lights and signals. that was a car. that is not the automobile of the 21st century. the automobile of today that most of us, as we're all looking at, you know, getting transportation, the automobile of today is a series of integrated and autonomous software sets of capabilities in which a plethora of connectivity to the outside world is occurring at a level we don't understand or have awareness as the operator of the vehicle. it's built into the car in a way that none of us truly know and understand. so think through the implications of that. put another way, not just the

internet of things, it goes to the first part of your question. and i have this discussion with my family at times, where i will tell them, so tell me what you think autonomy and privacy means in the digital world and how do we as individuals achieve the degree of autonomy and privacy we're comfortable with? realizing that the footprints we're all leaving are growing in the number of footprints, and in the duration. we have really got to step back and ask ourselves what does that mean? for me, it's things like talking to the work force about you need to think about the social media profile you are creating. you need to think about the information you are comfortable sharing with others. because in the world we're living in, as we've seen over the last several months, the

idea that many of the things we're doing on our networks and in the digital world increased probability that these will become more readily accessible is a sad consequence in some ways of the world we find ourselves in right now. i don't see that phenomenon changing in the immediate near term. and so we've got to ask ourselves what does that mean for us? both as the leader of an organization, i think about what does that mean for us, the two organizations that i lead at cyber command and the national security agency. i think about that as a father and husband with a family what does that mean? for myself. and i think we need to step back and think about what does that mean for our country. another challenge we have got to acknowledge is we find ourselves in a world right now where technology has out paced the legal and policy frameworks we have in place. i'm not trying to argue is that

good or bad. i'm just trying to say, hey, looks folks we've got to acknowledge it is. so we've got to ask ourselves, number one, are we comfortable with that? number two, i would argue that next question we need to ask ourselves is what's the right level of -- the second question i think we need to ask ourselves is, it's not only just are we comfortable with this, but also what does it mean and what are the changes we need to make given the incredible rate of technological change. in some ways if you take the emotion out of it, that's at the heart of the encryption discussion right now. where technology and the legal and policy frameworks we've always had in place are totally mismatched right now. we need to step back and ask ourselves are we comfortable with that and what are the implications for that? thanks very much. >> thank you, sir. >> we've got time for a couple more questions. this gentleman here with your hand up. thank you. >> good morning, sir.

you mentioned the diu's and placement in silicon valley and boston. how does the robust innovation community here in maryland, northern virginia, plug into the department of defense so we're also helping to inform decisions about innovation and opportunity? >> so, remember, diux, we offense highlight as the most visible manifestation of a broader set of initiatives we're trying to execute. i don't want anybody thinking it's the only way we're trying to address the challenge of innovation and the challenge of how does dod interface with the private sector and to do it in a much broader way. if my memory is right -- i apologize i haven't done it in a few weeks, so i may be wrong. if you go to the dod website on the unclassified side, my memory is you'll see there's a mull do

pull down there how do crow connect with dod and what area might you be interested in connecting with. we're all within the government trying to come to grips with the phenomenon of how do we create the mechanisms that go from talking to this to actually doing some things. i'm the first to admit as i tell the teams i lead, don't ever forget it's all about outcomes, we be got to get to out governs. it ought to be focused to driving us to generating outcomes. i'm not interested in talking about things for the sake of talking about things, just as i'm not interested in developing technology for the sake of technology. i lead two technology focused organizations with motivated work forces that love technology for the sake of technology. i'll listen, i'm grateful but how does that tie to a mission

outcome? that's what we need to be held accountable for. we have to generate mission outcomes within our responsibilities. i would suggest that would be a good starting point. i thank you and others for your willingness to do that with the dod. we're the first to acknowledge we can be a cumbersome, unwieldy and bureaucratic organization to deal with. i acknowledge that. what can we do working together to try to overcome that? >> all right. >> water, thank you. >> sure. we have time for one more question, down front here. wait for the microphone. >> you are for here, okay. [ inaudible question ] >> -- within the various

countries in nato? >> nato has adopted a policy in which they acknowledge cyber is an operational domain. that was done in the war saw summit this summer with the alliance as a member of the alliance, the united states is one of the 28 nations that are members of the alliance, very supportive of that idea. we had been working with our nato teammates to try to say, here's been our experience. we think this has great appl applicability to that. the alliance announced that policy at the warsaw summit earlier this year. you know, as a member of the alliance we have to work our way through. now you recognize that what are the implications, how do you create a work force, an operational structure. how do you prioritize, how do you define risk. the alliance is working their way through it that. we're a part of those discussions. not easy trying to bring 28

nations to consensus on anything is not always easy. i'm grateful we're part of an alliance who is willing to have those discussions. with that i want to say thank you all very, very much. remember what cyber maryland is all about. it's the eco system we have in the state which we're proud to be a part of in both the united states cyber command and the national security agency. how can we work together to maximize outcomes for all of us? what -- at its heart that's all about the power of partnership. you see that in the garden reserve effort in the state. you see that in the academic arena. college as well as high school and below levels. you see that and what the state is trying to do you see that what employers, us and many others of you are trying to do out there. you know, this is an amazing place when it comes to cyber. there's a lot of great capability, there's a lot of great people. there is a sense of hey, look,

this is important to us as a region. we can do some good things here. i thank you for your willingness to be part of that. i thank you for your willingness to roll up your sleeves, as a nation, as a state as an area we got a lot of hard work here. it's amazing what you can do with motivated men and women. thank you all very, very much. [ applause ] >> thank you admiral rauogers a thank you for the work you do for the nsa and cyber command. can i have another round of applause for admiral rogers. [ applause ] also i'd like to thank dave bitner from the cyber wire. thank you for hosting and moderating that session, thank you. [ applause ]

and also one more recognition for steve moral from loyola blakefield high school. we're off to a great couple of days here. i want to make sure everyone suwear sis aware we have a conference app and everyone has a chance to download it. download it to your smartphone. there are instructions on the poster outside or the program. if anyone has questions about it see some of the event staff. we are going to be communicating any changes or updates to the event in realtime through the app. make sure you download it. you can communicate it, it's a great networking tool. and have a great couple of days, thank you for being here with us and this will conclude this morning's session. thank you again. [ applause ] former supreme court justice

john paul stevens is a cub fan. he's going home to chicago to cheer his team. he'll be in wrigley field for saturday's game as the cubs try to win their first championship in 108 years. tonight on american history tv, primetime, world war ii programs from our reel america series showing archival films on public affairs. at 8:00 eastern a 1943 film on the battle of russia. followed by a film called know your ally. britain. at 10:10. the negro soldier and the hidden war. american history tv primetime, all this week here on cspan 3 while congress is on break. a two day conference gets underway tomorrow exploring the legacy of former british prime minister winston churchill. cspan 2 will be live at 9:00

with a discussion on mr. churchill's relationship with u.s. presidents. his relationship with british royalty and churchill's financial team. this weekend on american history tv on cspan 3, saturday morning from 9:00 eastern to just after afternoon. >> the british empire and its common wealths last for a thousand years, men will still say this was their finest hour. >> we're live for the 33rd international churchill conference in washington, d.c. focusing on the former british prime minister's friends and contemporaries. speakers include andrew roberts, author of masters and commanders. how four titans won the war in the west. 1941-1945. and later on saturday, at 7:00, texas general land office commissioner george p. bush.

and musician phil collins talk about the alamo at the 2016 text tribune festival at austin. >> the memories i have were that this group of people were going and knew they were going to die and they went. they were there. crockett went. they kind of -- there was something very noble and very, you know, romantic. i've learnt that it wasn't quite as black and white as -- that's one of the things i think would be good in this day and age. that, you know, we put it into context. >> then sunday evening at 6:00, on american artifacts. >> mcarthur is up front. he's not wearing a weapon. he would lead attacks with nothing but that riding crop you see in his left hand. the men looked at this and said hey if the colonel can take it, i can take it, too. >> we visit the mcarthur

memorial in norfolk, virginia. to learn about the early life of douglas mcarthur who commanded allied forces in the pacific during world war ii. >> the great leaders serve as conscious in chief. with the highest level of integrity. with their moral compass locked on true north, so that we can always count on them to do the right thing when times get tough or when no one is looking. >> author talmage boston explains his ten commands for presidential leadership. what they are and provides examples of presidents who excelled at each one. for our complete schedule go to cspan.org. admiral john richardson chief of naval operations address climate change, naval readiness and maritime security at an event held by the center for strategic and international studies in washington. after his remarks, he took questions from the audience. this is about an hour.

>> good morning, everyone, welcome to csis. my name is kathleen hicks i direct the international security program here. i want to welcome you to our dialogue on maintaining maritime superiority. i want to share with you our building safety precautions. we're secure in our building, but we have a duty to prepare for an emergency. i'll serve as your responsibility safety officer. follow me should there be any fire alarm or anything along those lines. the maritime security dialogue brings together the u.s. naval institute, two of the nation's most respected non-partisan institutions. the series is intended to highlight the particular challenges facing the navy, marine corp and ghost guard from national level maritime policy to program design. we are very fortunate to have this sponsored with support from

lo lo lockheed martin. who better to speak to us in the maritime security dialogue than the chief of naval operations, admiral john richardson. we look forward to comments from admiral richardson followed by a discussion between him and the chief executive officer and my partner in crime, pete daly. and thank you all of you, for your attention today and over to you, admiral. >> good morning, everybody. and i want to also just share my thanks to csis and the naval institute for hosting today. admiral daly thanks for the work you do to increase awareness of things maritime and this dialogue has been fantastic as a series of exchanges.

i was talking to somebody recently, just sort of getting some advice about, okay, you know, you can be a lot better if you just do these sort of things. they said, you know, because, listen, in terms of the messaging you just can't do enough, right? people understand armies, they generally understand air forces but navies are just weird. you guys are different. and so just keep on explaining and that's what we do. i appreciate this venue. and i want to just start off rather than a general overview, which i am happy to do maybe during the q&a i want to dive in and have a discussion about a particular issue. and you know, i've been in my position now for labittle over year. it's been a vertical learning curve. i've started to wonder when that will stop. i have got to be the slowest kid

in the class. i relearned a couple of important things, too. one of those is the absolute critical important of making sure you're thinking is as clear as it can be. and that your communications follow and they are unambiguous and clear as well. and today i thought i would dive into one important example. i'll do so kind of -- i'll start it off with sort of a word association games when i say a word and you kind of give me the first word that comes to your mind, and so my word is at 2 ad. okay. what word or picture do you see? to many people, a 2 ad. anti-access aerial denial is a code word. a code word that indicates that some nation has established some

kind of keep out zone that forces can enter only at extreme peril, to their existence. never mind their mission. to others a 2 ad brings to mind some kind of a portfolio or basket of technology, a particular suite of technologies. and then others, will depict a 2 ad as a strategic approach. you know, regarding some employment of force or some national policy objectives or some kind of combination of the two. and so in summary a 2 ad for me is a term that's bandied about pretty freely and lacks the precise definition it probably would benefit from. and that ambiguousness sends a variety, i think, vague or conflicting signals depending upon the context in which that term is used.

either transmitted or received. i got to tell you that to me, i appreciate everything, through the absolute crystal clear lens of enhancing the navy's ability to conduct its mission which is laid out in title x and discussed in a design for maintaining maritime superiority which states the u.s. navy will operate at sea and be ready to conduct prompt and sustained combat to protect america from attack. and to insure the nation can project strategic influence around the globe, wherever, and whenever necessary in support of our national security objectives. and so to insure clarity in our thinking, and precision in our communications, we in the navy are going to refrain from using the term a 2 ad as just sord of a stand alone acronym that can mean all things to all people or

some things to some people or almost anything to anyone. i think we owe it to ourselves to the country to be better than that. so i'm encouraging the approach, really, for four reasons. let me take each one of these in order. first, the content of a 2 ad is not anything new. the history of military contests is all about adversaries. seeking to one up each other by identifying their foes at longer ranges and attacks them with ever more precise and destructive weapons. this is nothing new. as technologies change, tactics change to react and leverage them. it's relatively recently in our conversation about war fighting we've discussed the trend as something new or something different. but history has much to teach us about maintaining perspective on these developments and thereat will give us insight into

charting a path forward to address them. one only has to think of huh ratio nelson at the nile, admiral farragate at mobile bay. to see that a 2 ad and confronting a 2rks ad challenging is nothing new. protecting power, even in contested areas is exactly why our nation invests in and relies upon a naval force to begin with. that's the first reason. second reason is the term denial as in anti-access aerial denial is too often taken as a fate

accom pl acompl ac ac acomply. these images imply any military force that crosses that red line, into that arc faces certain destruction. it's a no go zone and we'll stay out of that place. the reality is far more complex. it's actually really hard to achieve a hit. it requires the successful completion of a very complex chain of events. each link in that chain is vulnerable and can be interrupted. and so these arcs represent danger to be sure. right? something to be thoroughly considered. and we're going to be thoughtful and well-prepared as we address them. the threats they are based on are not insurmountable and can be managed. and will be managed.

third reason is a 2 ad in my viewpoint is far too oriented to the defense. it can contribute to a mindset that starts with -- since these red arcs are so stark and impenetrable. we have to start with, you know, how -- are we going to start outside? we're going to think about how we're going to work our way from the outside in. but related to my last point, the reality is that we can fight from within these defended areas. if needed, we will. we'll fight outside, and yes, we'll fight inside out. we'll fight from the top, the bottom. it sounds like churchill at this point. we'll fight from every direction. right? and the examples that i've given the historical examples show this is nothing new and has been done before. finally, the fourth reason is that the a 2 ad threat is pretty

well understood. in my mind, the real challenges, the vexing challenges that we face are right around the corner. longer range, very precise and more powerful missiles, coupled with isr systems that can detect with precision for longer ranges. those have been with us for some time now. we understand that dynamic. it's true the systems, the system of systems gets more and more capable. and you know, one generation will beget a follow on generation. which extends that reach just a little bit further. and it's also true that this -- these systems are proliferating, they're spreading. the essential military problem they represent is largely the same and we've appreciated it and understood it for some time. it doesn't mean they don't present a challenge. if we fixate on a 2 ad we'll

miss the boat on the next challenge. we'll fail to consider that thing just around the corner that will entail a fundamental shift and takes the contest and competition to the next level. just as an example, what must be done -- this is a question that we're exploring -- what must be done to stay ahead of our adversaries when essentially anyplace in the world can be imaged in real time on demand with video? right? that world is right around the corner. so for those four reasons, we're going to scale down just the independent use of a 2 ad, the lack of precision has real consequences. potential adversaries actually have different geographic features like chokepoints, islands, ocean currents,

mountains, different geographies dictate a wide variety of concepts and technologies that enemies will use to fight in those different areas. this variety has a major impact on how u.s. forces best sees and maintains the initiative. while there may be some universal elements to the tactics, the technologies, the concepts that we might use, there are just as many differences. so we have to resist the temptation to oversimplify the conversation, the specifics matter. so what should we say instead? if we don't like a 2 ad, what do we say? and i'm afraid i'm just not going to propose replacing one acronym with another. right? this is going to disappoint many. we tend to try and force everything into an acronym. no matter what i say, we will eventually get to an acronym. i'll say that since different theaters present unique challenges, the one size fits

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

of rising complexity. this is where our advantsages open us up on the competition. it must go beyond words. we must act and we are acting. we'll continue to up our game through training, experimentation, war games and introducing now technologies. our scientists, sailors and strategists are doing remarkable things to push today's boundaries and develop new ways to maintain our edge. we're forging deeper partnerships in the private sector, and researching more deeply into the worlds of academia and industry to bring the best ideas to the table and do that faster than we are now. similarly, we're forging deeper partnerships with like minded naval forces around the world. just about a week ago, we hosted the international c power symposium in newport, rhode

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

>> admiral, thanks for those remarks. al you already alluded to the fact you've been on station a year and a couple weeks. it's worth asking one time, you know, when you took command of different submarines and different boats and different commands you always subject to conditions as found. you change your ideas. is there something that you can point to after this first year that was either a surprise or just something that's changed that has caused you to either reevaluate or modify your design? >> the design was issued sort of as version 1.0, right? and this is sort of -- it's like when you watch the end of a movie and you can sort of see -- they're setting up for a sequel. you can kind of see that x-men, the next one is going to come down the road.

we built the design with that type of iteration in mind. as we looked for next steps, i think that one, we're going to say some things i think little more specifically about acquisition, okay, we need to focus on that a little bit more clearly in terms of executing a set of authorities and expectations in terms of the service chief's role in acquisition. as i have had a chance to go out and meet with senior industry leaders in our business and maybe just outside of business, we found that there's a great desire on both sides of that relationship to speed things out, to clean out the bu bureaucracy, to get new technologies into the system faster. with respect to the other lines of efforts.

we sort of built the whole design on the presumption that the pace is quickening. the pace is a consistent theme. and so we anticipated that this pace would be quick. but i would have to say that the developments -- even in the past year are probably quicker than we anticipated. just highlights that sense of urgency to get going. >> right. thanks. you know, there's been at least one study and some literature out there recently that suggests that the u.s. overall, it doesn't exactly point just to the navy by any means, but suggests that the u.s. overall is being out played in the gray zone. the area between peace and war. and i wanted to ask you has that caused you to take any additional actions? you came on board, obviously,

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

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

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

different parts of the world. and so as we work with our allies and partners enhancing each other's capability we can help them in some ways, they can help us in many ways. but overall, strengthening these other regions is a way to be more rezillant to this type of competition. >> this last question before we open it up. you're working on, obviously, high end capability, acquiring the navy of the future, yet you still have this relentless drum beat of deployments and the deployment cycle that has to be met. that near term execution. and i dare say that the navy did not get the luxury of a time out or a recess or a reset. it had to continue with heel to

toe deployments that the navy's been doing for 40 some years. could you talk a little bit about that, about the concurrency of and at the same time, having to meet the demands of 1500 today and how that's going. >> you just sort of outlined the job description for the chief of naval operation, right? how are you going to balance the need to modernize for the future versus those urgent needs that are pressing us today, readiness, throw the manpower piece in there and you've got it all. and so it is a constant dialogue that we have. part of the solution, again is working with industry in as collaborative way as possible to make sure that we're not missing any opportunities to bring that modernization to the navy and the joint force as quickly and at the best price as possible.

as i said before, i think there is a lot of opportunities. and many of those opportunities are actually being suggested to me by our industry partners in terms of hey, we could go faster and we could get it to you cheaper than the current system allows. so we're exploring those areas. part of it is looking at new operational concepts. how do you improve capability beyond just technologies, right. we're not going to be able to buy our way out of this thing, no matter what approach we take. so as you think of new combinations -- in fact, many of the revolutions in military affairs were not dependent upon a new technology. they were dependent on new combinations of current technologies. and so we're working particularly closely with the

marine corps in this area to make sure our naval war fighting operations and concepts are as creative as we can be, that we're not trapping ourselves with intellectual structures whose time may be past. and so the air force and us are starting to talk about these larger networks. and if you stitch things together, you allow more combinations of our current capabilities. and those combinations can be very agile, very capable, very hard to contend with. so from a mathematical standpoint, everybody talks about moore's law. and that's an exponential curve. but as you start to look at different common things, you start approaching factorial type of curves. and those can be exponential possibilities. i think this operational concept is one that we have to continue to be exploring. as i said, it's got to go beyond just ideas.

you've got to get out there at sea. you've got to connect these things physically, operate them together. and that's exactly what we're doing. >> okay. well, great. and i'd like to take a few questions, if i could. that gentleman right there with the blue tie. >> thank you, admiral, and thank you dcsis as well for bringing us all together. admiral, i wanted to ask since you mentioned the navy changing to a more region-specific playbook, does the navy at this time have any plans for the arctic region? any future thoughts on how naval affairs are going to be changing up there. >> yeah, that's a great question, and one that comes up. so climate change has really focussed a lot of attention on the arctic. the arctic icecap is as small as it's ever been in my time in service, which is probably longer than you've been born. but the -- so what does that mean?

well, from my standpoint, that gives rise to transit lanes that are open more often now than they have been ever. it gives rise to continental shelves and the resource on those shelves that are accessible, right, that were not accessible before. so how do we address that? well, we do so. one that's inform beside i the pace of things that are moving up there. and so while there are a lot of opportunities, in fact, we just discussed this. we held our staff talks with the coast guard just last week. and a big part of those talks, a big topic on those was the arctic. and so it's important that while there are things changing up there, they're changing at a certain pace.

and it's not like there is a gold rush up to the north pole right now. and so there is some time to do this smartly. and then we also have to be mindful that both the navy and the coast guard teams, sort of the two maritime forces that are up there, the marine corps also exercising up there will maintain the ability to operate in the arctic, but we do so on a priority basis. and so if we think of the other threats that we confront, we'll get up there as we can to make sure that we remain capable of operating up there. we remain aware of how things are changing and are ready to respond appropriately. >> i have to ask did the word "icebreaker" come up? >> icebreaker, yes, it did, of course. we're working very closely with the coast guard to work forward that in that. >> okay. this gentleman right here on the aisle. >> sir, in your design, you have talked about achieving high velocity learning at every level. nine months into that, i'm

wondering, how do you think the state of that is going for every level? and do you have mile markers of success to know the navy is on a trajectory that you want to it have? >> yeah, of all of the lines of effort in the design for maintaining maritime superiority, that green line of effort that talks about high velocity learning is probably the newest thing, the strangest thing, and the least understood thing to be honest. and so as with so many other of the lines of effort in the

design, we have taken this year to sort of talk a lot about it, right. i mean, it's sort of like putting commander's guidance out when you put a document out like the design. and while there was a tremendous amount of thinking and tremendous amount of collaboration to bring it together an issue it, there was a great ownership. certainly no surprises as we signed it out, as the navy's design for maintaining maritime superiority, now it hits the fleet at large, if you will. and you read it. and the words are as clear as they can be. is but there are still a lot of is questions in people's minds. just like you would do with any

other example of commander's is guidance, you start to talk to people and they start asking well, what does this mean in this situation? how does this go? what are your expectations here? so we've been doing that in all the lanes of effort. but because this one is the newest, and people are most curious about it, that conversation -- to gain everybody's real deep understanding has been going on. but probably the most rich conversation in terms of actually forging the way forward. and so i would say that overall, i'd have to give us maybe a c in that area. one, the navy, no doubt about it is committed to getting after this.

and so there is that. just like with all of the other lines of effort, they don't exist as independent variables there is a lot of overlap. an influence of one on the other. the green line of effort, this learning one permeates into every. but probably most into the goal line of effort in particular leader development, and how do we train leaders to go out and instill this fast learning. and then learning at sort of the division work center level is a lot different than learning at the fleet level. and so how about that? so we're exploring all those questions. but the enthusiasm is tremendous out there. people are really attaching themselves to it. i've got -- i've got this effort to reduce administrative distractions out there. in this area, i would have to give myself an f, okay. >> you really are a nuke. >> yeah. so we just for whatever reason, we've been unable to get our mind around that and actually offer up some programs to kill. i started this when i was at submarine forces and then at navel reactors and now as cno. and there is a -- there is a hesitation or reluctance to identify those things. so we're going to go after that

more aggressively. but i think that also is essentially intertwined with this fast learning thing. we've got to create space for people to go out and do these sorts of fast learning types of things, right, which involves a lot more doing than computing or writing or reading, that sort of thing. and so we've got -- i think that our thinking is much clearer now after discussing this around the force for a while. we've recently -- in fact, just last week, i had discussion up at the naval war college who is going to take the lead for this line of effort for us going forward. and i have so many other tools at their disposal up there. first, the faculty is world class in this area. second, they run so many of our other leadership programs. the navy leadership and ethic center, the senior enlisted academy. i just spoke at the 200th graduation of the senior enlisted academy. and so bringing this all together, injecting this how do we learn into leadership development i think we'll start to make some progress very quickly soon. thanks. >> robbie? >> admiral, thank you very much. rodney harris, former naval person. thank you for your comments. >> distinguished naval person, robbie. it almost goes without saying.

>> a mic here for you. >> thank you, sir. thank you for your optimism regarding -- and i'll use the acronym. thank you for your optimism regarding dealing and overcoming a2ad. we don't hear much of that optimism to be candid with you. >> it's inherently defensive sort of. >> so here is a question for you, so you know. rating your optimism, but is that optimism -- is that justified, assuming that the budget control act continues? and assuming that we have a navy somewhere between 270 and maybe somewhere between 270 and maybe 300 ships? >> okay. so let's talk about the bunt control act first and foremost. i think all assumptions and optimism are off the table when we start with budget levels at sequestration types of levels. so that would make things extremely difficult to execute any of this balance admiral davis talked about maintaining a force today while planning for the future, organizing our people that all gets into the

mix when we start to talk about that. with respect to the force level, we're doing an awful lot of thinking this summer. and in fact, it's all coming to a closure now. and we're sort of digesting it and marinating in it, what do we do with all of this data that we'll get at exactly sort of the balance that admiral daly described. some of it is talking about future fleet designs and fleet architectures to meet the challenge of the future. some of it is sort of hey, we have a lot of the fleet that is going to be around for a while. how do we make best use of that. what is our force structure that is required both in the near term and in the far term, dovetailing in those technologies as they become available. and so the force size, your question about 275 ships moving up to 300. we're on a growth path there as you point out. but more to follow in the near future in terms of how we're going to see our future and what that may entail for force size and composition.

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

systems back, the people are worn out. the systems are worn out. the material, our ships and aircraft, you bring them in for maintenance, and you find that hey, that job that used to be predicted to kind of be this size is now bigger because we've been going longer and harder than we thought. and so that throws off some of your assumptions. you spend more time in maintenance and that cascades down. so one whammy is that the fleet has been run hard for 15 years. and that has effects. that has consequences. two is the budget levels, and they've got to be adequate. and the fact that we sort of start our conversations with the bca and work our way up, that's just work that we have to do

every single year. and then finally, i think your point about the predictability. >> yes. >> of the budget. we just went into year number nine of continuing resolution. and that also has consequences. it injects a stutterstep into a system that really thrives by predictability and confidence. so when we talk about delivering things on time, when we talk about delivering things at the lowest possible cost to the taxpayer, which i'm completely committed to doing, all of that gets perturbed in the wrong direction by these stuttersteps in predictability. these budget continuing resolutions. if you think about that, how behavior has modified over the

course of now nine years, nobody puts anything at risk in the first quarter. nothing important happens in the first fiscal corridor because it's so vulnerable. try and be a fortune 10 company trying to compete out there against your peers or near peers. throw on top of that we're talking about national security. and do that in three out of four fiscal corridors, very difficult. >> yes. especially for those big capital projects. >> of course nothing new starts on a continuing resolution. so there is no authorities to do that. but i'll tell you also, even things, our facilities, those have a lot of contracts associated with just managing those facilities. often you have to double the

contracting load, right, because you have to write a brand-new contract just to cover that period of a continuing resolution. and then you come in with another contract to finish out the rest of the year. and so as we are all committed to reducing headquarters numbers and overhead, if you will, everybody is in on that. but these sorts of things, they make it hard. i've just sort of -- i'm writing two contracts in many instances when one should have done. >> roger that. it's right behind you. >> it's wonderful to see you again, admiral. i'm missy worth. i'm with the naval postgraduate school. i'm a social anthropologist by training and was lucky enough to come to the navy 40 years ago. it's a little hard to believe that. but boy have things changed. >> i think this is where we do the emergency exit. social anthropologist comes to the mic! >> a word that has struck me that is now in the conversation that i just heard for the first time this year is called relationships. and i heard both the vice president and the secretary of defense use it. he was speaking at cnast this spring. what strikes me is when i came to the navy it was always a competition between the services. now you recognize you need to work together. the word complexity is now very much a part of the way you think about -- this is all so much

harder. and i've said this to you before. if you want to have accelerated learning, i think you need to take the term from apple computer, the most successful corporation in the world, which is if you don't know, ask. we all learn together. now, i've been to so many meetings with the military where they use your a2d2 terms, and not everybody knows what it is, and they walk out not knowing what they heard. so i think your whole idea of explaining in a way that nonexperts can understand will accelerate the learning for your entire team and the fact that you're working collaboratively really thrills me. >> mitzi, i have to ask you, because of our rules, would you ask a question, though? please. >> how will you do this? [ laughter ]

>> thank you, pete. >> i tried to help. i tried to help. it didn't work. >> well, i -- in many areas in this learning line of effort, as we think about those things that we can do to stimulate the right type of mind-set and behaviors in the fleet, a lot of it, particularly for senior leaders comes down to going to the right places and asking the right questions. we're not going to just dictate solutions. and so how do we get at that? well, oftentimes, and i know this is going to shock many of you.

but when i go visit a particular command, the commander or maybe, you know, three echelons above the commander will take me to the most bright and shiny area of that command. and then we will talk about all the success that that space or that area entails. and that's fine. that's a part of the program for sure. but it's much more useful to me if that commander takes me to the area where he is having actually the hardest challenge, right. this is the area where i'm struggling the most. and then we can have a conversation well, why is it so hard? let's talk about that. let's explore that. and what are you doing about it? what is your first try? how is that going? and when will you know that you're making some progress? how can i help you? and if we all get comfortable going to those hard areas and having those conversations in an

area that is not a climate that's not oppressive, that's just really focused on the solutions. and if we can get all of our senior leadership to do that, then we start to stimulate this conversation and set of behaviors that really gets at, okay, let's go talk about the hard things rather than gloss over the hard things by taking us to the easy solutions, the successful things. [ inaudible ] >> some do, your are right. it's not a new idea. you know me well enough i'm not smart enough to have a new idea. i can find others with great ideas. then in terms of being clear thinking. we hoped that we set a good example of that with the design. and we had many languages to choose from to publish that. and we chose english. and so as you read it, i hope that it speaks in clear terms there are very few if any acronyms in that. you don't have to be ten years inside the beltway to get a sense of what it's saying. and then to your point about asking questions again here, i think an example is a very powerful thing.

i rarely understand what an acronym is. in fact you get to sort of do the days that i have, you'll see the same acronym come through four times and it will mean four completely different things. so i'm always stopping and asking. i don't want to make any bad assumptions that i know what you're talking about. could you explain that a little more thoroughly. and again i think senior leadership, just like with the questions go, to the hard places, ask the right questions. we can start to maybe turn this corner. >> do your sailors feel free enough to ask questions? >> yeah. i go to all hands calls. and i used to -- well, my first one when i was a rookie so, you know, i thought, well, geez, this team is just going to be riveted by my every word, you know. what i got instead was a lesson about how fast the united states sailor can fall asleep. when they're not interested. it was not -- 90 seconds is

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

>> okay. let's spread it around here. this gentleman over here. >> admiral, my question, i'm ted kay, and i'm talking a little bit about information warfare and effects. and so my question is how would you define the capacity to engage when you're talking about the future family of ships? each ship's different capacity to engage. >> you mean -- how do you define engagement? >> it's a combination of the weapons system or the kinetic effect with the wb system? how does that work? >> what do you want, like a jane's fighting ship thing? >> no, sir. i'm coming from the same school. the issue is in order to get an effective weapon on target, for example, you need to have a cue with which comes from a lot of resources. they're all tied together. >> okay. we obviously exercise that a lot.

and whether we do that at every level of evaluation. so some of these are just sort of tabletop, you know, do the systems talk to one another, is it physically possible. and then of course as you know, what might be theoretically physically possible in a classroom or a boardroom or some tabletop or a lab, you've got to get that out and get some saltwater mixed in, atmospheric effects, you know, the whole nine yards. so it's got to translate into fleet experimentation, fleet exercises. and what we're finding is that we're able to do more and more

synthetically in a virtual environment. the models are much more sophisticated now than they were. we're validating those molds against real world performance. so that part of our education and that part of our achieving that successful engagement and everything that is involved with it, more and more of that can be done in a synthetic or virtual environment. and that includes multiparty, right. and so we can stitch together different elements of that system, even though they're geographically dispersed in a

very realistic scenario. but even with all of that, there are some things that can't be done, except by going out and doing them. and sort of my community, the submarine community learned a valuable lesson about that at the start of world war ii. it took us a year and a half two, years to get confidence in our torpedos that they would actually home and detonate as they were designed to do. and so we want to make sure we never get into that place again. and so we do enough of that type of testing to ensure that we've got the requisite confidence. so that's in the systems that we have. and then there are those new possibilities. as we mentioned, we can now look at new connections, new connectivity, new possibilities in terms of sensor platform/weapon combinations. so that's kind of the horizon we're exploring. and we're doing that very practically as well. this is not just something that is in a power point or something that is on a computer screen. we're actually at sea doing those things.

and if you can start to think about that type of an approach proliferating, and you've got to make sure that you have the requisite security, the requisite reliability and all of those connections, all of that kind of comes with it. you know, i'm optimistic. and then of course you started with information warfare, i think. and a big and growing part of this is sort of information warfare, whether that be cyber, electromagnetic, spectrum type stuff. so it doesn't necessarily have to be kinetic in the traditional sense. all of that is being explored. i remain optimistic. >> okay. far side here. >> hi, chris cavas, defense news. just as a communicator, anybody who wants to drop jargon is doing a great job. so bonus to you. now for all the reasons you just said, a2ad is a confusing term, people spend time trying to figure out what it is, come up with all different kinds of answers. what can you do about the third offset? >> well, just like everything else, you just continue to ask questions, right. and so i encourage everybody to continue to ask challenging questions about what exactly is meant by the third offset. and so it includes elements of a lot of different things. it includes -- and you've heard secretary work speak about this as much as anybody, chris. some of the new capabilities/technologies right around the corner or the horizon or even here amongst us, things like artificial intelligence, things like new ways of man-machine teaming, all of those things are going to be part of that. but to me and secretary work and i have discussed this, and i

think we're in agreement that we're in a period of time where no one idea is going to be king for very long, right. and so we may achieve an advantage, but if we're not thinking about the next three, four steps down the road to maintain that advantage, it's someone is going to catch up or surpass us very, very quickly. it's just the nature of the environment right now. technology proliferates very fast; information even faster. so if we're not thinking about pace, not only this idea, but the next three moves, then we're going to be caught out of position. we're going to be caught behind. and so i think that this idea of pace of innovation, getting speed to the fleet is as much a part of the third offset as any single technology that is going to be part of that solution. >> okay. we have time for one more question. >> is the hour over already, pete? >> yes, it is. that lady far on -- my right. >> thank you. thank you very much, admiral richardson, and thank you for

giving me the last question. my name is lynn kuok, and i'm from brookings institution. i was wondering if you could turn your attention to the south china sea. can you give information on what activity the navy can bring to bear on activities that are over features on which sovereignty is still disputed.

thank you very much. >> okay, thanks. and that's, you know, a terrific geographical area, a very interesting that brings a lot of what we've talked about to very clear focus. i've had a chance to discuss the situation in the south china sea with my counterpart. is there are an awful lot of nations with huge stakes in how this comes out. watching that security dynamic play out with everybody participating is one thing that we must keep in mind. with respect to what options the united states navy can bring, with all of the partners in the region, including china, there

are many areas in which we've got common interests. even today. often those are glossed over. but there is an awful lot of area where we do have common interests and we have to make sure that we pile in and reinforce those areas where our interests a align. there are areas where certainly we have -- we don't agree. as we work towards a compromise, both -- i think everybody's desire in the region, all naval leaders especially would want to do so in a way that mitigates a risk of an escalation that would send us in the wrong direction. so the hope is that we'll reach an agreement that's acceptable to all players in the region, including the united states, china, and everybody else in a way that does not involve conflict. so certainly we wouldn't want to do any deliberate conflict, but

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

encountering between u.s. navy ships and others. by and large, not 100%, but the vast majority were conducted right in accordance with these cues that allow us to use all the tools that the nation has, and all of the mentions of our influence and power to come through a conflict resolution. and so our job as a navy is just to make sure one, we're there, we're present there. don't have many option it is you're not there. so we are there, we're going stay there. we've made that very clear. we're going to continue to enhance these sort of rules of behavior, advocating for rules and norms of behavior that will allow us to peacefully resolve differences, and then it was very important, i think, that we have a dialogue, so that in the rare event or unlikely event of something happening, we can get on the phone with one another and deescalate quickly and keep this thing in context so that we get to our -- an end state that

is acceptable by all in a way that doesn't involve conflict. >> thank you. admiral, our time is up. but on behalf of csif and the u.s. naval institute, we thank you for your time today. we know it's precious. we also want to acknowledge once again our sponsors, lockheed martin and huntington engle. so again, we thank you and appreciate your time. >> i'm very grateful for the chance to be here. thank you all for your terrifically inciteful questions. thanks for the challenges. >> thank you. [ applause ]

at 10:10 eastern, films from 1944, the negro soldier and the hidden war. american history tv all this week on c-span3 while congress is on break. a two-day conference gets under way tomorrow exploring the legacy of former british p.m. winston churchill.

c-span2 will be live at 9:00 eastern with a discussion on mr. churchill's relationship with u.s. presidents. also through the day, his relationships with british royalty and churchill's financial team. >> c-span brings you more debates this week from key u.s. house, senate, and governor races. republican senator kelly ayotte and maggie hassan. then at 9:00, the iowa senate debate. and at 10:00, colleen deacon for the new york 24th district seat. and friday night 8:00 eastern, georgia u.s. senate debate. just before 9:00, democratic congressman rick nolan and

republican stewart mills debate. at 9:30, a debate for co's 6th district. and saturday night at 10:00 on c-span, pennsylvania senate debate between republican senator toomey and katie mcginty. and the new hampshire governor's race. at midnight on c-span, the north carolina governor's debate between pat mccrory, roy cooper and laun cecil. watch key debates from house, senate and governor races on c-span.org and c-span app. where history unfolds daily. >> with the supreme court back in session, we have a special web page to help you follow the court.

go to c-span.org, select supreme court near the right-hand top of the page. you will see supreme court video on demand, watch oral arguments we have aired and recent c-span appearances by supreme court justices at c-span.org. . scottish national party leader nicholas sturgeon gave a closing speech in glasgow, warning of another independent referendum if the uk pushes for what she called a hard brexit. over the next 45 minutes, she outlines several initiatives on trade, education, and immigration. [ applause ]. >> delegates, we meet here in the city of glasgow five months

on from the scottish parliament's election. when we gathered back in march we were preparing to seek election as scotland's government for the third consecutive term. thanks to your hard work and your campaigning brilliance, we did just that. we won the election. [ applause ]. from the bottom of my heart, thank you for putting your trust in me as first minister. thank you for choosing us to be your government. [ applause ]. it was first opened back in 1985.

it has witnessed quite a few changes in the 30 years since. the biggest change of all has been in the politics of our country and of this city. in 1985, a scottish parliament seemed like a pipe dream. today it is the beating heart of our democracy. we no longer question if we should have a parliament of our own. instead, we asked if our parliament should be independent. we say yes. [ applause ]. >> in 1985, every constituency in this city bar one was held by labor. today the political landscape is very different. last year, every