state. >> iran, overall iran views the islamic state as certainly a very significant dire and theoretically at least existential threat. i think they certainly do not view it right now as an imminent threat. given its current state of military weakness. but they certainly view it as an extension of efforts from saudi arabia. they blame both us and saudi arabia for creating isis. and for, you know, and they see isis as behind terrorist cells and activities inside their own country. they have a growing fear of isis

inside afghanistan. and they are building -- they're trying to build up their own security forces and new proxy forces and capabilities inside afghanistan to deal with isis there. which is an interesting kind of side theater that's developing. in syria, of course, it's been a different story. because to president assad, they have cynically used isis as a good excuse to fight the rebel opposition, and lumping all those as terrorists, and isis was -- they didn't go up against isis much during the civil war over the last few years. but they certainly look at isis as a real -- in 2014, it was a very clear threat. and they are the ones that, frankly, if it was not for the iranian intervention on the ground in june 2014, it is likely isis could have made it into the outskirts of baghdad

and the iranian government knows that. >> so excuse me for interrupting. but my time is unaring. miss dalton, do you agree with that? and given that, what are the relationship with iran with respect to isis? >> i think that iran definitely used isis as a significant threat to its interests in the region. manifestation of sunni extremism that is highly destabilizing. i think iran ideally enjoys a degree of instability in the region. it's through that level of instability and chaos that it is able to use its asymmetric influence and capabilities most effectively. but it is not in the long term iranian interests to have the level of instability and disorder that isis has been sowing. i think the end game for iran in both syria and iraq is a pliable

government that is sympathetic to iranian interests, that is going to push back against isis and likeminded groups. but its hedge in that, of course, is the defendant of shia militias in the countries. while there is short-term convergence with the united states in countering isis over the long term, i think iran and the united states are going to be at loggerheads at the long-term trajectory for both countries. >> so we shouldn't view their efforts in iraq, for example, to fight isis as beneficial to our efforts as well? >> i think that there may be short-term convergence of interests, but i don't think that it should be part of the long-term strategic planning for either iraq or syria. >> i think, misdalton, it was

you who mentioned that we should have amplified information operations against iran. i wonder if you could elaborate on what that means? >> there's a number of ways to take this. there's kind of the posture that seeks to unveil iran's, at times inflated capabilities and influence in the region, and really expose it for what it is. the iranians are quite influential and powerful in some ways. but they also use their own io to project their power and influence. kind of knit together all of their capabilities, whether it's proxies, missile capability, to really project their influence. and so there's a counter io strategy that the united states could take to unmask what iranian intentions and

capabilities truly are. acknowledge their significance and push back against them. but at the same time diminish any sort of inflation that is occurring. i think also there's more of a proactive approach that the united states could take to harness some of the nationalist sunni arab sentiment that are both at the government level and popular level that are very concerned about the increasing reach of iran in the region, and to try to mobilize some of the support from the population, from the government, in support of a strategy that presses back against iran. so that the io is kind of a connective tissue, if you will, for a deterrence approach that the united states might take going forward. >> can i ask just a follow-up question on that?

>> sure. >> so do you envision, and mr. mcinnis, i would ask you to jump in on this as well, do you envision a radio-free europe kind of operation? or are you thinking more of a social media campaign? or what? because clearly getting information out to the people who would want to influence is challenging. >> i think there are certainly overt and covert elements to this. there is never really a question of how credible some of the overt mechanisms can be. if it's coming from -- directly from the united states. so i think third parties in the region that share a similar mind-set are probably the best overt forms. and there are covert forms as well that i think we could bolster. >> i agree with almost of all of what miss dalton was saying. i think for the iranians, they

are voracious consumers of all sorts of media. they have extremely creative ways to get around pretty much anything that the government throws up at them. so i think that there are certainly ways that we can get through to the iranians. at the same time, the iranians be being increasingly clever at getting around that. it's a fascinating environment to work with. but i do think that the iranians are very keen to hear from us. i think the iranian people are. so i think that it's still fertile, is my opinion. >> thank you both very much. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. senator cain? >> thank you, chair. a lot of great questions that have been asked that i won't repeat. i'll get into two that i'm interested in. miss dalton, you said a minute ago that we need to think of a holistic approach to tehran. the areas we challenge as we work together, how do you push, and not push too far.

and i'm really grappling with the holistic approach to the region. i'm struck -- we'll have separate hearings on sunni and isis. i'll put these together a little bit. when i am in the region and i talk to lebanese or syrians in southern turkey or others, they often talk about their own feeling that they are in -- they're being crushed in a proxy war. but they talk about being crushed in a roxy war between iran and syria. and they view it somewhat as a war of two nations. and they view it somewhat as sunni and shia, and they view it somewhat as arab and persian, and they view it somewhat as economic competition and they view it somewhat as monarchy versus revolutionary guard. but they personify it in a proxy war between these two countries,

both of which are going to be there for a very long time. you used a phrase a second ago, is there a way that we could use sunni nationalist sentiment against iran. but i would worry that might continue to escalate the probability of this proxy war. we didn't start the proxy war. we can't solve the proxy war. there's a proxy war. the region is going to be very unstable as long as there's a proxy war between the saudis and iran. what are the prospects, if any, for using american influence to try to, if not make it warm and fuzzy, at least to ratchet down the proxy war as a way of promoting more stability in the region? >> i think that's the million-dollar question. i think that starting with the basics, you know, in a new administration, a new congress, have that political leverage and

opportunity to do that, to engage allies and partners not just in the region, but in europe and asia in terms of what really matters, and what it is that we want to accomplish. what are the outcomes that we want to achieve. and how best we can get there. and then working through, you know, perhaps through some scenario based planning, scenario based exercises, how we can all leverage our comparative advantages to achieve those outcomes. and the united states historically has been a great convener, a great mobilizer for those kind of conversations, even if it's not at the end of the day, you know, primarily u.s. resources that are committed. so i do think there's an opportunity there to have a fresh conversation despite all the multi-layered challenges that you have laid out. and an opportunity for the u.s.

to exert some leadership. but i do think that the stakes are stacked pretty high against us in terms of this cycle of unescalation amongst folks in the region, the sunni dimension, the saudi-iran regional balance. and i think it's trying to bring them to the table to look at the primarily iraq, syria and yemen, and how we can get to a sustainable enduring outcome for those conflicts at the political level, but also at the military level. and it's going to involve tradeoffs. but i think that having that sort of holistic approach, leveraging u.s. leadership to bring everyone to the table is

very important. >> let me ask a question question and i'll have mr. mcinnis tackle that first. but if you want to add in something in the proxy war, i would appreciate it. iran let to conduct bombing operations in support of the syrian government. traditionally there's been some wariness, suspicion to hostility between iran and russia. are you worried at all about an iran and russia growing into a more cooperative military partnership? or do you think that would be an unlikely think to have to worry about much? >> i'll tackle that one first. i think the iranians and russians have an enormously difficult history. deeply suspicious of each other. at the same time, there's a certain marriage of convenience that is useful for them

strategically right now. i think they're both very worried about the other selling each other out at the end. i think that there is, in syria being the obvious case for that, i think that the idea that the russians may cut a deal with us, or with some other power, that puts them at a disadvantage. at the same time as i was mentioning in my testimony, that iran has spent a lot of time in syria in the last few years. iranianizing the state. building this iran version of syria with this national defense forces, recreating parts of the intelligence structures in syria, that it used to only have one guy in syria, and that was assad. it didn't have anything else. now it has a lot of the state. not all of it. but it has large portions of the state that are really under iranian influence. to the -- on the ground, which russia really doesn't have. russia has a lot of conventional power on top.

but iran has built kind of a deep state. like it's doing in iraq for a few years. so you have this very weird russian-iran veto over each other that's really kind of interesting. so i think at the same time, russia doesn't necessarily want to manage all the middle east. iran has bigger plans for the middle east than russia does. so i think this is where you end up in situation where i'm very concerned about where russia wants to go in the region. i don't know how russia's now going to factor into iran's deterrent strategy, i.e., does any type of confrontation we or the saudis or the israelis have with iran in the future, does that implicitly mean that russia is going to come in and back up iran? does that trigger a russian intervention, or russian threat of force if we or the saudis or

israelis get into it with the iranians? i don't know. that's a very big question. >> and my time is expired. so i think i should defer now. thank you. >> thank you. i want to follow up on senate cain. you know, the great fear obviously that israel has is that there's going to be from tehran through baghdad through damascus into lebanon and hezbollah this greater threat to israel which is going to be created. the sunni, the saudi arabia, they have a fear that through baghdad, through tehran, through damascus is going to be a greater threat to them. so we have this thing that's developing. it can be dealt with realistically, or we can just

step back and wait for the whole dynamic to unfold. we have a choice here as americans to kind of anticipate the inevitable, and try to get into this underlying pathology with an intervention in a timely fashion. so we know that going back to the early '80s, that the iranians and the russians were the partners of assad's father, because the naval base was up in their hometown. the assad hometown. so we know that's going to be a driving force for the russians, and for the syrians. and we can see that until it's completed, the russians and iranians will partner with hezbollah to help assad finish the job, not just in aleppo, but in the other cities where the sunni moderates remain. and that it's more likely than not that they will be successful in accomplishing that. so i guess my question to you is, knowing that, or

anticipating that, and knowing that it's highly unlikely that assad is going to go to the international criminal court, and that we have to just deal with this realistically, what would you now say to american policy makers about what the united states should be specifically saying to the russians at this point before the mission is completed for the shia inside of syria? what would you say the words should be spoken to russia that looks like an understanding that we can reach that kind of de-escalates before there's a rapid escalation that allows the sunni-shia rivalry to just spiral out of control? >> i think to first narrowly address the problem of the iranian proxy influence in syria, and more broadly in the threats it presents to israel and the united states and then

more broadly looking at the syrian problem, i think when it comes to what specific steps the united states and its allies and partners can do, i think at a military operational level, doing more to interdict and constrict supply lines, to irgc backed groups in the region, the israelis are obviously closely tracking this. but the more that we can do to work together with other partners in the region as well. >> to interdict -- >> the supply lines to irgc backed groups that are operating in syria and more broadly in the region. i think we can step up our efforts to do that, such that it undermines the potential for there to be a long-standing -- >> do you think that could be successful? what do you think the probability of that being successful in the future is? >> i think that it's likely more could be done -- >> i'm asking, what is the likelihood of it being

successful at the end of the day? >> i think that there is likely to be some continuing presence as a hedge and as a protective force for assad, in a form of r irgc backed groups. i think we could mitigate the reach and power of the groups by interdicting and cutting off some supply lines. >> do you see a negotiation that begins? when did that begin in your mind? or does it begin? >> there's the military dimensional things that we can do, i think at the political and diplomatic level, that there are markers that the united states should set down very clearly in terms of the outcome and end state for syria that limits the influence and long-term presence of irgc backed groups in syria. >> okay. mr. mcinnis, how would you deal

with this in a way that anticipates what looks like it's emboldening to me. and when do you stop the process of trying to negotiate protections for the sunnis, politically, inside of that country, as the shia continue their inexorable march? when do you begin the process of protection for the sunni? >> well, i would think this is in some ways, there's a lot of parallels at this stage, in a more condensed time frame, to what's been happening in iraq over the last 10 to 15 years, where i think you're going to be dealing with a situation where protecting areas of -- where the -- what has happened with the irgc, and building up these capabilities, like the ndf, and in some ways there's a certain

degree of -- i won't say quite sectarian cleansing going on in syria, but creating what people expect to be these zones of control, or zones of influence that will probably be some form of whatever settlement if we ever get to that point. but i think that that the iranians have really staked a lot of their hope, or what they're going to fight for in any type of settlement, that they're able to contain these new forces that they have built as part of the government's apparatus. i'm not sure how you unhinge that, how you leverage that out. and i think really -- >> is it better done sooner than later? >> it's certainly better done sooner than later. the irany is that you end up in a situation similar to what we deal in the iraqi dynamic, where you find, as horrible as it sounds, you find yourself that the syrian government would rather not have to depend on all

these iranian capacities. and i think that any efforts that can be done, as you start forming some type of new reconciliation government, if you could call it that, that does not depend so much on the new capabilities that iran has built -- >> do you think that's likely? >> i think it's going to be very tough. >> then let's talk about that context, if you could, just so that -- >> say that again? >> let's deal with it in the context of what's likely to happen. it's always better in life to try to start out where you're going to be forced to wind up anyway. because it gets prettier that way. you can try to work it through, and just try to be realistic about what is going to happen, rather than -- >> you know, i think as much as you can build whatever international support for whatever settlement is there, that it's dependent as much as possible on local groups, local forces that are syrian based,

and minimize as much as possible what is coming in, you know, that are internationally sponsored. basically not foreign sponsored groups and militias operating as much as you can do that. that would be the best i could hope for. >> my hope would be that the sooner we can start being realistic about what's going to be needed to help the sunni population in that country, so that they're given places where they can return from lebanon, return from jordan, where they can be given some guarantees of being able to co-exist under, you know, some tension-packed relationships, but what's going on in some of the cities in iraq right now, so that we're beginning to think in those terms rather than allowing for a blood letting to just continue on indefinitely where we're contributing to the refugee and

the internally displaced person problem without having really anticipated what is -- what looks like is unfolding, okay? if you agree with that, then my time is expired, but i thank you both for your expert advice. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. senator carden, thank you for a very productive two hours. i think we've had a good closing out of witnesses. we thank you for your testimony today. we hope that we'll continue to have written questions through the close of business friday, if you could fairly promptly respond to those, with ewould appreciate it. thank you for your service to the country and helping us with this and being here today. with that, the meeting is adjourned.

c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies and is brought to you today by your cable or satellite provider. president-elect donald trump is on his way to north carolina, planning a victory rally, a thank you rally in fayetteville.

with him james mattis expected to be named secretary of defense in the trump administration. we'll have live coverage of the rally coming up this evening on c-span2. at 7:00 eastern. the president-elect earlier today came out of the trump tower elevator to announce a japanese billionaire is vowing to invest $50 billion in the united states. here's a look. [ cheers and applause ] >> ladies and gentlemen, this is massa from japan. and he's just agreed to invest $50 billion in the united states, and 50,000 jobs. and he's one of the great men of industry. so i just want to thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. if you'd like to speak to him, you can. but one of the truly great men.

thank you. >> thank you. thank you. >> you may want to say hello. i'll see you soon, okay? >> they've got to work that out. [ cheers and applause ] >> so, we are going to invest $50 billion in the u.s. and commit to making -- create 50,000 new jobs. >> how are you going to do that? >> we invest into the new startup companies in the united states. >> [ inaudible ]. >> no, no, we don't make a proposal. my friend make a proposal. we are softbank. we are investing in -- we own sprint.

we invest so many internet companies. >> [ inaudible ]. >> pardon me? >> do you own a firm now? >> we own 100% of a.r.m. we paid $32 billion in cash just july of this year. >> what brought you here? how did this come about? explain that. >> well, i just came to celebrate his new job. and we were talking about it. and then i said i would like to celebrate his presidential job and commit -- because he would do a lot of deregulation. i said this is great. the united states, the u.s. will become great again. >> exactly are you committing to? >> invest into new companies, startup companies in the united states.

>> how many jobs would you create? >> 50,000 new jobs. we will invest $50 billion, and 50,000 new jobs. >> [ inaudible ]. >> how do you spell your name, sir? >> m-a-s-a -- no, i'm ceo of softbank. okay? that was earlier today in new york. this afternoon, in washington, the u.s. capitol christmas tree will be lit at 5:00 eastern. the tree from the fayette national forest in idaho, speaker paul ryan among those at the ceremony this afternoon. other congressional leaders as well. we'll have it live here on c-span3 at 5:00. then at 6:00 eastern, the cato

institute hosting a discussion about the future of freedom of speech, and freedom of the press in politics. we'll have that live at 6:00 eastern. abigail fillmore was the first first lady to work outside the home, teaching in a private school. mamie eisenhower's hairstyle and love of pink created fashion sensations. mamie pink was marketed as a color and stores sold clip-on bangs to women eager to replicate her style. jacqueline kennedy was responsible for the white house historical association. nancy reagan as a young actress, saw her name mistakenly on the black list of suspected communist sympathizers in the late 1940s. she appealed to ronald reagan for help. she later became his wife. these stories, and more, are featured in c-span's book first ladies, presidential historians on the lives of 45 iconic american women. the book makes a great gift for the holidays.

giving readers a look into the lives of the first ladies in american history. how their legacies resonate today. share the stories of america's first ladies for the holidays. first ladies, in paperback, published by public affairs, is now available at your favorite book seller, and also as an ebook. next up, egypt's foreign minister on his nation's partnership with the u.s. he spoke at the 2016 forum in washington that focuses on middle east issues and the u.s.-israeli relationship. he was introduced by a former u.s. ambassador to israel now with the brookings institution. we'll show you what we can until the capitol tree lighting ceremony scheduled to get under way at 5:00 eastern. [ applause ] >> good evening, ladies and gentlemen.

i'm delighted to have the opportunity to join bruce in welcoming you all to this 13th forum. it's also my special privilege and honor to introduce you to a very special guest, our keynote speaker this evening. his excellency the foreign minister of the arab republic of egypt. the foreign minister is well known here in washington as is his wife. we're very glad to have her join him this evening. he is one of the architects of the current u.s.-egyptian relationship, having served as ambassador to the united states between 2008 and 2012. in those dramatic years, his steady hand, his wise judgment, and his diplomatic skills helped

navigate the relationship through stormy seas, safeguarding and preserving the partnership between the united states and egypt. he left washington with the admiration and friendship of many people, including myself. during his long and distinguished career, he serbed as the representative of egypt to the united nations in london, buenos aires, new york, vienna and in many central roles in the ministry of foreign affairs in cairo. he is the very model of an egypt diplomat. in 2014, president assisi called minister shuckri out of retirement, back to serve his country as foreign minister. and in that role, as the representative of the largest, most powerful arab country, he's one of the key players in

shaping the middle east today. a task we need not envy. as part of his mission, he's been instrumental in the all-important relationship between egypt and its neighbor israel, which he visited just this summer, and again represented egypt at the funeral of the late president perez. this relationship between egypt and israel is critical for the peace and welfare of the two countries, but it is also central to the prospect of broader peace and cooperation in the region. cairo was and remains a key to regional stability and peace. while sadat was the first arab leader to make an official visit to israel, as we all remember, in jerusalem, egypt was the first arab country to make peace with israel. it was the first arab capital to host an israeli embassy. and with president assisi's

leadership and involvement, peace may again become possible. the relations between israel and egypt naturally depend upon a third partner, the united states. it is no accident that egyptian-israeli peace was cemented in a trilateral handshake between president sadat, prime minister begin and president jimmy carter. today, too, the strategic triangle between the united states, egypt and israel can serve as the cornerstone for a better, more stable and peaceful middle east. having had the opportunity to converse with president assisi, together with the minister recently, i know that this is the egyptian president's vision. we're truly honored and delighted that he accept our invitation to accept to be on the forum tonight. ladies and gentlemen, please join me in welcoming his

excellency of the foreign republic of egypt. [ applause ] >> thank you, martin, for that introduction. i'm honored and delighted to be with you tonight. at this important forum. and i'm definitely glad to be back in washington, to see so many friendly faces. ladies and gentlemen, it is indeed my pleasure to be back in washington today and to share with you egypt's perspective on the key questions of the guiding principles that guides egypt's foreign policy in our troubled region. to explore with you how egypt and the united states can join forces to navigate such a terrible regional environment in such troubled times. five years ago, the dynamics that governed the middle east for at least six decades were

profoundly changed. perhaps even irreversibly altered. a wave of large-scale societal change shook the region to its very core. launching a unique historic moment that is at once promising and alarming. how to navigate these turbulent waters is the key policy question of our time. and is indeed what will determine eventually to quote dickens whether we are on the eve of a spring of hope or a winter of despair. such navigation is quite inconceivable without some form of a guiding principle. a framework for making sense of the era we are in and a guide to policy therein. the crux of the debate over the significance of the historic moment we are witnessing, as well as how to navigate it revolves around two contradictory positions. the first focuses exclusively on

the opportunities for long-awaited change. its proponents argue that it is time for change. the structures of power and governance in the arab world. this is what the people want. and this is what they should get. at any cost. this is probably the thinking that has informed and continues to guide strategies of several regional and international actors, that sought to support change without necessarily being too fussy about their allies. and this is how several extremists and various terrorist organizations, including isis and al qaeda, found financial and military support in syria, iraq, and libya, to mention but a few examples. on the other end of the political spectrum is another diametrically opposed position that is in the face of a wave of messy social change, to reverse

the clock, dysfunctional governments that fail to address their people's aspirations, were on balance preferable to the warlords and militia leaders, or the terrorist threats. all that was needed, therefore, was to restore the old regime, and do business as usual. however, decadent and dysfunctional that may be. if a price of restoration of the old ways of governing is to quash every legitimate demand for change and crush popular votes thereof, then so be it. we are also quite familiar with the diabolical consequences of this strategy, as well as its inherent futility. any attempt to stop the legitimate cause for change and the march of progress, the question remains, however, how to reap the benefits of this tidal wave of change whilst minimizing the price thereof. this is the core dilemma of

foreign policy planning and the execution in the region. ladies and gentlemen, our approach in egypt is to this di lem na is pretty straightforward. our opening hypothesis is two-fold. first, let orderly change is the much-needed prerequisite to breaking through the historical impasse that the region has reached, and to fulfilling the aspirations of millions of young people in the middle east, a region in which more than 60% of the population are under the age of 30. second, that the compromise -- that come mizing the integrity of the institutions of nation states in the middle east is not the way to achieve the much-needed and much-desired change. indeed, the experience of the last five years has demonstrated beyond any doubt that undermining the institutions of the nation state creates a political and social vacuum that is quickly filled by

institutions, sect yant militias, and outright terrorists, whose ideologies are hostile to the hopes, for democracy, modernization, and the and the revival of civic order. from syria to libya, from iraq to yemen, examples abound. the challenge therefore is to achieve change within the nation-state, not on the ruins thereof. the nation-state remains the most vital vehicle for modernization and change. in its more progressive versions is the embodiment of civic order and democratic principles and policies. that is the hopes that inspired the calls for change since 2011. egypt, traditionally the intellectual and political powerhouse of the region, demonstrated through the two waves of its revolution in 2011 and 2013 that an orderly and

progressive change which responds to the aspirations of the vast majority of population while maintaining the integrity of the nation-state institutions is a viable choice. egyptians demanded change. but they rejected the ruin of their state institutions in the process. they believe that they can have a democratic government that is at once representative and responsive to tir needs and desires. forward-looking and boldly committed to ambitious reform. the foreign policy of this rejuvenated egyptian state is guided by principles that are deeply embedded in our millennial history and values. distrustful of conspiracy theories and conflictual world views and respect for the

independence of nations, while believing that regional and international interests are reconcilable and that there are always opportunities for regional and international cooperation to face the challenges of our times. if egypt could change and democratize its government, revive its regional role, and embark on the most ambitious program of political and economic reform in its modern history without undermining the integrity of the state, then so can our brethren, the arab world, and the region. this principle continues to guide our approach to our region. revive democratic and reformed nation-states are the answer to the civic uprisings that swept the region five years ago. sectarian militias, bloodthirsty warlords and identity-based cleansing are by contrast the product of the civil wars that the democratic aspirations of

several countries of our regions have regressed to. ladies and gentlemen, few would disagree that orderly change based on rejuvenation, reform and democratization of nation-states would probably be the best way out of today's turbulence in the middle east. and indeed this continues to be the guiding principle that governs egypt's policies towards the region. take syria, for example. with half a million syrians kills, millions of refugees and displaced persons, and unprecedented rise of sectarian war loalords and terrorist grou it's difficult to remember that this tragedy came out of perfectly reasonable demands of things that these people were entitled to. however, those who sought to reverse the clock at any cost, the syrian people had to endure

one of the bloodiest civil wars of modern times. how do we break the vicious cycle of destruction in syria? to start with, we need to accept that attempts to reverse the clock and restore the status quo in syria are as delusional as the reliance on militia-led transformation in syria. the way forward is based on two pillars. first is to preserve the national unity and territorial integrity of the syrian state and prevent the collapse of its institutions. the second is to support the legitimaslattimate as pipiratio syrian people through a political solution that represents them all and furtherance an enabling environment for reconstruction efforts. this is why we continue to support the efforts of the united nations special envoy and we call on him to resume

political negotiations immediately and without delay. it is also why we hosted two all-inclusive conferences for the various moderate syrian opposition groups in cairo in 2012 and 2015, which brought together syrians from across the political spectrum and demonstrated that they can agree on a comprehensive document that included a doable roadmap from transition to the current plight in syria. you must have all noticed that these documents were the foundations upon which every subsequent effort, syrian or international, to put forward the practical political sentiment, were premised. ladies and gentlemen, the rerivre riv revival of a reformed state is not in a position to pass judgment on the suitability of national stakeholders, let alone

to decide to exclude any of them on the grounds of convenience. the experience of iraq and the debacle in syria should have taught us at least that much. the same applies to libya. underlying the agreement was the acknowledgement that any viable sentiment should revolve around the three legitimate state institutions. the presidency council, the house of representatives, and the national army. naturally, achieving consensus among the three institutions in the wake of violent upheaval is not easy. problems and contradictions abound. and deadlocks emerge profusely. however, this does not mean that we can opt to take sides between the three legitimate institutions in moments of disagreement or, even worse, decide to alienate one of them in the hope that this might speed up the process of reconciliation. in all frankness, several international and regional players have opted at one point or another to undermine one of

these institutions or to replace the national army with allegedly benign militias. but not egypt, though. we remain convinced of the futility of political engineering and we do not think any non-libyan party is in a position to award or exclude libyan stakeholders. thus our vision for libya is based on an unwaivering agreement and follow a sequential approach. our duty is to encourage the presidency council to fulfill its duty to present a new, more inclusive and representative government of national accord. subsequently we should all shift our attention to ensuring that the house of representatives meets to endorse the government and undertake its constitutional work in preparation for libyan elections that would bring about elected libyan governing bodies that exercise their full authority over a united and

territorially intact libyan national state. meanwhile, we should devote our efforts to supporting the libyan national army's efforts in the fight against the growing terrorist organizations in libya. i could go on and explore other cases of troubled nation statehood in the region, say in yemen or iraq. but they all follow the same pattern. troubled nation states faltering and creating a vacuum filled by primordial organizations and sectarian militias. they can all benefit by the same answer. revive, reform modern nation-states based on ethics and full citizenship. the request for reform and modernized statehood is not the only answer to emerging threats in the middle east. it is also the answer to the oldest of the conflicts in our region, the palestinian-israeli conflict.

egypt, as you all know, was the pioneer of peace in the middle east. our vision is based on full nation statehood for everyone in the region. we committed to bringing to a successful end to more than six decades of this conflict without which we can now shift the resources of our region to more productive channels. the palestinians should not be denied the right to an independent nation-state. the alternative of a two-state solution is open-ended turmoil, even if in the short term things look deceptively quiet and manageable. desperation and lack of any light at the i understand end o indeed a very long tunnel can only be detrimental to peace and security in the region. what remains is a return to the negotiations in good faith.

i would like here to rend you that president fattah el sisi has provided post-security guarantees. ladies and gentlemen, the rapid and large scale developments i have talked about in more than one area of our region obviously do not occur in a bubble. given the strategic importance of the middle east, it is only natural that regional powers may want to be involved in seeking to influence the course of developments in our region, benignly and otherwise. egypt appreciates that the stakes of the middle east are of interest to several international players. and whilst we insist on national ownership of all solutions to the arab world's problems, and reformed nation stays hood as the key response to challenges of our time, egypt remains as always ready to cooperate with all our partners to bring

satisfactory conclusions to the crisis that spread in our region. in so doing, we cannot accept any attempt by any regional or national actor to use substate intents anditias to further their interests. necessity of preserving territorial and institutional integrity and social cohesion of nation states is a core c criterion of deciding whether or not we can accord with regional or international stakeholders in this regard. ladies and gentlemen, i am back today in washington, at the moment full of promises and challenges. i come from a country that is moving quickly to restore its leading role in a rapidly changing region. the egyptian people have demonstrated their ability to take charge of their future through two revolutions in the span of three years. the first to initiate change and

the second to preserve the nature of egypt's unique moral and social foundation. we recognize that we face monumental changes and inherent problems. but the current determination to deal with these challenges is unshakeable. egypt has changed in many ways. most important of which is the confidence of egyptians and their leadership and the faith of the leadership and the resilience and fortitude of the people. this confidence and this faith allows us to embark on a new chapter in our history, to deal with our problems head on, and to find difficult decisions and rise to the occasion to create a better future for our children and grandchildren. we recognize our shortcomings and the necessity to achieve greater progress in the areas of political -- >> watch all of this event online on c-span.org. we're taking you live to capitol hill for the annual lighting of the capital christmas tree just getting under way live here on

c-span3. >> we're excited this evening to serve as your master of ceremonies. and first i would like to extend a big thank you to the united states air force ceremonial brass band under the direction of captain dustin doyle. let's give them a round of applause. [ applause ] thank you. in 1964, the eighth architectoft the capitol, george stewart, at the suggestion of the speaker of the house, established the annual tradition of decorating a tree. by 1970, the united states forest service joined in the holiday cheer by providing a capitol christmas tree from one of america's spectacular and inspiring national forests. and this year, ladies and

gentlemen, the payette national forest in idaho graciously, they graciously provided this magnificent ingleman spruce behind me to serve as the 2016 capitol christmas tree. in keeping with tradition, the speaker of the house, the honorable paul ryan, will share his holiday greetings with you and officially light this tree. but before we get there, let me welcome members congress and our distinguished guests, ow cur capitol hill neighbors, and those of you visiting the nation's capitol today. we're so happy you elected to join us in celebrating this wonderful time of year on the west front of the capitol. joining me this evening are members of the idaho delegation,

senator mike crapo, senator jim risch, congressman raoul labrador and congressman mike simpson. and this gorgeous ingleman spruce is a gift from the great state of idaho. the handmade ornaments from recycled materials were crafted by children and others in the community across the gem state. they represent the diversity and ingenuity of idaho. colorful flowers, bright blue birds, delicate butterflies, and of course sacks of potatoes. and speaking of ornaments, each year the united states capitol historical society presents a stunning ornament to place upon this tree. and this year's ornament features a capitol carved in

marble, resting on 24 karat gold filigree. it's my pleasure to introduce the chief historian of the capitol historical society. chuck? >> thank you, mr. ayers. on behalf of the u.s. capitol historical society, i would like to present the 2016 christmas tree ornament, made from marble recycled from the east steps of the house wing and they were removed in 1995. merry christmas, everyone, happy holidays. >> thank you so much, chuck. for more than four decades, the united states forest service and the architect of the capitol have partnered to bring a christmas tree to the capitol. and each year the forest service selects one of our nation's

marvelous national forests to provide a stunning tree to grace the west front lawn. and these beautiful and magnificent trees never disappoint. i would like to thank the dedicated folks of the united states forest service, both the staff in washington and the payette national forest staff in idaho who helped make this event possible. we really appreciate your commitment to #playitforward on your cross country journey to washington, dc by spreading holiday cheer across this great country. and joining us tonight is the honorable tom tidwell, chief of the united states forest service. now, he's a boise boy, born and raised in idaho. so i'm sure you want to listen to his message. tom?

>> i'll tell you, it's great to be here tonight. and thank you all for coming out and enjoying this kind of warm little wet evening here. i know folks from idaho, this is kind of a balanmy night for youi don't have to worry about you. thanks for coming out. each year, stephen shared, the forest service has the honor of providing a tree for the capitol. it's called the people's tree for a really good reason, because it reminds us as a nation that yes, there's a lot of diverse interests in this country, that we're one as american people. we share a unique history, unique values, and our homeland remains the envy of the world. i'll tell you, this tree stands for one of the many things that makes our country great. it's a place to live where millions of acres of forest contribute to so much of everything that we do, and

especially to the quality of life that we have. tonight this tree represents the challenges that we face today in our forest to make sure that they continue to provide the clean air, the clean water, the biodiversity, the recreational settings, the economic activity, and most of all, once again, that quality of life. it's great to be here tonight. i want to thank all the partners that made this happen. the way bowe get this done is t way we get everything done, working together with our communities and our partners. finally, i just want to share the holiday wish. as we're sitting here tonight, for all of us to think about the men and women that are out of this country in our military, protecting us to ensure that we get to enjoy these freedoms. for all of us, if we can just think about those folks throughout this holiday period, i would appreciate it. and thank you again for letting me be part of this evening with you. >> thank you, chief tidwell.

his team delivered the capitol christmas tree to the west front about a week ago. and once it arrived, our dedicated grounds crew went to work decorating it with thousands of lights and hung ornaments that we mentioned earlier. and didn't they do a fantastic job? let me also thank ted bechtel, our superintendent of capitol grounds, who worked closely with the team in idaho to bring this tree here to the capitol. ted had the tough task of selecting one tree from the millions of trees in the vast payette national forest. and i think he chose well. next, ladies and gentlemen, it's my pleasure to introduce members of the idaho congressional delegation. first up is the official sponsor of the tree, the honorable mike crapo.

>> thank you. isn't it great to have this wonderful weather? we idahoans are proud to help kick off the christmas season by presenting the nation with the people's tree. my wish is that this tree will be the beacon of hope to those that may be struggling or are separated from loved ones. let this tree be a sign of good cheer and the holiday season and bring us together. merry christmas, everyone. >> thank you, senator crapo. please join me, ladies and gentlemen, in welcoming senator jim risch. >> merry christmas, america, on behalf of the people of the great state of idaho. this is our present to you from

mccall, idaho. god bless you. have a great and merry christmas. >> thank you so much, senator risch. and now, ladies and gentlemen, please join me in welcoming congressman raoul labrador. >> merry christmas! how many idahoans do we have here? thank you all for being here. too bad about the weather, but this is a wonderful event, this is a great pride for the state of idaho. and may god bless you and god bless the state of idaho. >> and now, ladies and gentlemen, it is my great privilege to introduce to you the speaker of the house of representatives, paul ryan. he has served the people from the first congressional district

of wisconsin since 1999. and speaker in 2015. tonight, the speaker will be joined by -- oops. >> i'm right here. >> i didn't see you there. i'll introduce isabella in a minute here. i can't help but think, if we were in idaho or wisconsin for that matter, it would be snowing right now, wouldn't it? just sideways, though. in the words of yogi berra, at least it's a dry rain. either way, this is a night to be grateful. grateful for everyone who put this together. steven and his team, the forest service, the people of idaho, we are just grateful to have this chance to celebrate this wonderful moment with you. so i simply want to say to all of you, whatever you did to make this happen, thank you very, very much. not to get too carried away, i couldn't help but be more hopeful about our country than we are tonight.

by that i don't just mean that we're optimistic, although we are. what i mean is to see so many people work so hard for so long to give our capitol some christmas cheer. it's not nothing short of inspiring. hope is not the expectation of good fortune. it is the demonstration of goodwill. it is the determination to do good, whatever the consequences may be. that is the message of the christmas story. christ's birth, like this tree, is a reminder that god is always with us. we may neglect him. we may reject him. but he never forsakes us. he always welcomes us back into his warm embrace. he lights our way. he makes straight our path. he fills every valley and brings every mountain low. we have only to accept the love that he offers us. that is what we are here to celebrate. and that is why we are so pleased to share this wonderful

wet moment with you. merry, merry christmas, everybody. and now, i would like to introduce our special guest this evening, miss isabella gerard. come on over here, isabella. isabella, this is her first time in washington, dc. she's going to read for us a poem that she wrote about the christmas tree. and then isabella is going to light it. i usually don't like to be upstaged, but she did such a great job, we thought we would save the best for last. isabella, please. the microphone is yours. >> idaho is blessed with beautiful mountains and immense forests. in the we'll be right back, the mountains and forests are covered with snow, making the landscapes look like never

ending clouds. big tall trees, beautiful to look at, amazing to see. pristine mountains. as i sit in the forest, i find peace. as the wind blows through the tall ponderosa pines, i feel a sense of solitude and peacefulness. to someone that has never been in an idaho forest, it is hard to understand the size and beauty. if only you could be here, looking at these beautiful idaho scenes. >> all right, isabella, this is the moment. let's everybody count down. you ready, isabella? >> yeah. >> five, four, three, two, one. [ cheering ] ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ >> what a stunning tree. thank you all so much, ladies and gentlemen, for joining us this evening. please enjoy a safe and joyous evening and a great holiday season. thank you.

♪ ♪ coming up shortly at 6:00 p.m. eastern, the cato institute

hosts a discussion about the freedom of speech and freedom of the press and politics. c-span. where history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies and is brought to you today by your cable or satellite provider. now a discussion of automotive cyber security. david johnson oversees the fbi's development of cyber policy and strategy and spoke at the inaugural automotive cyber security summit in july, talking about the fbi's role in preventing and investigating cyber security breaches. >> all right, everyone. my name is rob barnett. i'm with bloomberg intelligence. we're going to continue on with our discussion here this afternoon. so let me quickly introduce the panel here.

we've got jason miller from the white house here joining us. we've got mrinalini ingram from virne. we've got aubrey layne from the virginia secretary of transportation and mike johnson from parsons infrastructure. with this panel we have a good opportunity to have discussion among the public and private sector about infrastructure investment here in the united states. we had a big election here in the u.s. last week, and one of the consensus ideas that you're hearing discussed is interest in doing something on infrastructure across both sides of the aisle. so i think the great place to start, and we kind of heard this idea about a rural/urban divide in the last panel. what is the role of government in infrastructure spending as you see it? what's the role of the federal government and how does it trickle down to the states and local level? we'll go down with the panel

with that broad, kick-it-off, 30,000 foot idea. >> sure. i just wanted to build on, to start, a couple of things that the previous panel mentioned, which i can served well to set up the context for this question about the role of the federal government. everybody agrees we have a big funding problem. no matter which way you cut it, investment in infrastructure has been far below what it needs. somebody mentioned this in the previously panel, but i want to emphasize this point. our current funding levels, if we maintain them, are locking in the deterioration in our infrastructure system. so just to maintain, much less be the competitive economy that we need, we need significant increases in investment. in addition to just maintaining our settlements, there's a whole set of new challenges that we are confronting. one is the demographic reality of a growing population, a growing economy, with a

constrained amount of space. so that means higher freight costs. that means congestion in getting people to work or school or whatever they want to do that day. that creates real strain on the system. today our estimate is there is over $150 billion lost in economic value every year just from congestion alone. that's a huge number. it's not just that we're underinvesting. it's that we're creating costs today. the second thing is how are we going to happen bring new technologies into these systems? across the board, whether it's transportation, energy, water, communications. there's a whole set of new technologies that create new opportunities and new challenges. i spent a lot of time this year working on automated and connected vehicles. that will transform how we think about surface transportation systems. and that's a fundamental question we need to tackle.

how are we going to use that money effectively. and the third is addressing the needs of a changing climate. our transportation sector is an enormous consumer of energy and an enormous emitter of carbon emissions. it's not just about changing vehicle technologies through fuel economy standards. there's a national interaction between the choices and people and businesses are able to make to drive down emissions over time. you have to be able to give people more choices than just getting into a vehicle that burns oil, if we're going to confront some of these long term challenges. a long term plan needs to both address the challenges we've been facing and these new challenges that are going to increase over time. so in terms of the role for the federal government, i'll leave some additional ones. i'll just put two out there. one is, the federal government needs to maintain a key role in providing funding for a set of public infrastructure, primarily in surface transportation.

i think it is fair for us to evaluate, particularly as we have looked at some of the challenges of our water infrastructure, what should be the right role for the federal government in providing funding. the federal share of infrastructure has been declining. the federal investment in infrastructure as a share of gdp is at an almost historic low. that is something that we need to address and increase. the second is in setting standards. the federal government plays a key role in setting standards, whether it be for new technologies or how federal funding is used. in the space of automated and connected vehicles, for example, if we had every state setting its own policies for how automated vehicles worked, and you couldn't cross a border, which in this region would be a particularly complex challenge, you couldn't cross a border with the technology in your car. that's a place that the federal government plays a key role in establishing the standards by which we operate our

infrastructure systems. so let me pause there. >> so mrinalini, as an employee in the private sector, what are you looking to the federal government for? >> you know, i think that the whole idea around infrastructure is something that not only crosses lines between parties, but it also crosses lines between the federal government, the state government, and the local governments, all the way down to the citizens. the level of partnership that has to happen for this to work really needs to be seamless across all of those areas. i do believe that the role of the mayors is incredibly important around smart communities. and because really, it happens at the city level. the ability to have regulations starting at the state level and on to the federal level, is incredibly important. one of the main areas is providing incentives. and some of those initial pushes

to incentivize and encourage cities and communities to jump into this. look at what the usdot had recently done with the challenge that they had put out. although columbus is the winner and we're going to see some amazing things out of that particular city, all of the other cities that participated in this learned a tremendous amount, not only about what was available to them, but also the tremendous amount of support that is coming from the public and the private sector to make those activities happen. so i think doing more of those types of initiatives is incredibly important for the federal government. and the last thing i would like to be able to say is, not only does it cross the lines between these various broken silos, but also within the city, there is a lot of silos that happen. and technologies can't be done within those silos. silos such as transportation system may not necessarily have a working relationship with the health care department or with the energy departments.

and really in the future we can't afford to have duplicate infrastructure across all of these various groups, to just have solutions that don't talk with one another. if we truly are going to do something around, say, autonomous vehicles, for example, it's going to require partnerships with what's happening on the light poles to what's happening in the automobiles to what's happening with policies, how this is going to be governed. there's a tremendous amount of synergies that are going to occur across departments in order to be able to afford these solutions and also ensure they're working together for the common goals. >> thank you. aubrey, what are you looking to the federal government for, besides funding, and how do you see these kind of silos mrinalini just mentioned? >> i've listened to the other two panels, and probably, i have the most responsibility for infrastructure, being secretary

of transportation, it's obviously something we think about daily. what i tend to hear is the same rhetoric. we all know we don't have enough money. we all know the federal government has to be a key player. i also think it's the responsibility of the states and those that use transportation dollars to prove that they're using them efficiently and that we make the case for having more money. we've done that in virginia by a couple of different ways. number one, we instituted what we call smart scale, a new prioritization process. we actually rank all the transportation projects across the commonwealth based on six factors, congestion mitigation, economic development, environmental, safety, land use, economic development. and from that, we get a relative understanding of what our needs are. but let me tell you what also we get. we understand what we're leaving on the table. so it's an out-based form of

measurement. it's not how many projects you get, it's how much money you're delivering. my background is business. you wouldn't complete half a hotel. why would you allocate money for half a road? these projects are allocated through construction, fiscally constrained. when we talk about what we're leaving on the table, it's not an esoteric conversation. i can talk with our state and federal legislators and say, here's what we're not funding and here's where we're missing out. virginia has been a leader in public/private partnerships. frankly there are things we did well, things we could have done better. we transformed that p-3 process, because it's not a default procurement. private dollars don't take the place of public. they enhance them. that's why i say there's two p's

in public/private partnerships. we did a project, interstate 66, governor mccullough just announced, the first time we've had a completely competitive process. in fact we competed against ourselves. we said this is where we're negotiating from, set those terms. now not only are we putting upstate subsidy, we're getting $500 million at closing for that project that now we can use to enhance other projects in the region. i certainly agree the federal partners have to be there. they've got to be a component of our infrastructure. in fact i believe infrastructure is a core component of government, whether it's state or federal. but it's also incumbent that we prove to the taxpayers we're oozing it wius using it wisely. i think that will be the missing piece of this, along with technology, because technology can drive costs down. let me point out, the technology

should be within the confines of what the policies are. technology is not just for technology's sake. we can talk about autonomous vehicles and they're coming, in fact i'm going to at uber tomorrow, a very big part of that, where we're headed. drones. but they need to fit within the policies you're trying to deliver, not just putting technology to say you did it. that will be the key. i think technology will help drive where we're going, if you have the right policies setting it out. i know we'll get into more detail later. that's an overview of how we've attacked this problem. >> thank you, aubrey. mike, let's build on that. with the idea of technology in mind, what is the potential for government to drive innovation in this infrastructure bill that seems to be potentially looming out there, and again, we would still love to hear from you, anything you're looking for from the government, at least at the federal level. >> sure. so in my view as an investor and

design/builder, i want the federal government to set that bar high. we have to develop projects that will move the needle. if we go back and look in time, whether it's the stimulus act or others, there wasn't enough ready to the shelves to get things built. you have to have projects. if we look across the river here to woodrow wilson as an example, that wasn't a formal design/build or a public/private partnership. the feds, the two states, invested in the program which led to the development of the national harbor. a billion and a half in, $3 billion back in development. one plus one equals three, that's what we're looking for. the role of the federal government, in addition to setting that bar high and making this a priority, because it is a priority for our country, if you look at our bridges, if you look at our transit systems, many of them are older than our population. our brinks are past baby boomers. you're talking about bridges that are 70 years old, 80 years

old. transit systems approaching 100 years old. there's a lot of work to be done. there's a lot of work to put people back in. there has been the president-elect and our current administration have both supported this. and i think it's now time to come together, all right, and drive this. it can be driven from the top and it can be driven from the bottom as well. >> with that in mind, i think everybody has mentioned autonomous vehicles of some sort. and there are techno-optimists who talk about them coming rapidly. what are the main problems that either the federal government or local governments have to solve to really facilitate some of these innovations like autonomous vehicles? we'll start with you, minuterin. >> this is not a problem that can be solved by one particular company. this is going to take an

ecosystem of different types of technologies, different types of players, both public and private, to be able to make this happen. a good example of that, you were talking about it earlier, let's just say the power of driving the lighting solutions, and autonomous vehicles at the same time. wherever there are automobiles, generally speaking, you've got streetlights that are going on along in the exact same manner. can we at one time build infrastructure into that particular light pole that not only saves energy but also provides solutions around traffic flows and traffic management, they say allowing the autonomous vehicle to take place in a more efficient manner? this is the only way we will be able to afford these solutions as well as leverage the infrastructure in a way that we're not creating massive description every time we have to go back in for a different solution. that's one of the things that i think are really important. and the other thing i just wanted to tag on, i totally agree with you saying go bold,

you know, basically with the federal government, raise those standards high and push the rest of the players in this area to kind of shoot for the moon. i think that we're ready for that as an industry. there has been a lot of conversation, there's been a lot of work that's been going on, a lot of solutions that have been developed. in order for us to really do something in, say, the autonomous vehicle area or other areas around our communities, we need to do it at scale. if we don't do it at scale, we won't get the synergy levels we truly need to make it affordable and to make it roll out in a manner that's going to impact all communities, not just one particular neighborhood. so those are just some initial thoughts on that. >> jason, maybe share some thoughts on where president obama's administration is at on autonomous vehicles. is it something that needs a lot of funding or is it more about standards? >> sure. so this summer, the administration released our federal automated policy,

automated vehicles policy. the president actually wrote an op ed sharing his views in "the pittsburgh post-gazette" when we rolled that out. one of the interesting things, if you take this from the body that has regulatory authority over vehicles, nhtsa, the department of transportation. the one number that nhtsa talks about at the beginning of every meeting, is 35,198. that's the number of americans that died due to vehicle accidents in 2015. 35,000 people. that's enormous. and something that, you know, when we think about automated vehicles, it's going to be awesome that i can sit in the car and do whatever i need to do and not worry about getting from point a to point b. but the prospect of saving tens of thousands of lives every year has huge implications. and that's first and foremost in the regulators' mind. this is the technology that has

the ability to dramatically change the trajectory on safety, safety on the road. but when you ask people, do you feel safe in these vehicles, there's a lot of people that are skeptical. and so part of the role of the federal government in outlining policy guidance and potentially regulations and establishing a path by which you can deploy these vehicles in a way that is safe and the public feels confidence in it. so you need both things. what we rolled out this summer required automakers to submit -- or not required, but sought voluntary letters from automakers laying out ways in which, across 15 different dimensions, they were testing and managing the safety of automated vehicle systems before they're on the road. that's a really key thing. the second is, making sure there is coherence, consistency between what the federal

government is doing and what states are doing. that is absolutely key. you need clear, strong partnership there, and everybody to understand who is in charge of what, so you have consistency so this can get rolled out. the third thing here is, there's going to be a lot of learning that happens. there's going to be a lot of learning and data that's captured. if that's done in a hundred different ways with a hundred different teams of people, we are losing a huge opportunity. it needs to be done in a way where there is strong sharing of data, strong sharing of learning, so that in these early stages, when we are testing and learning, it can then be deployed and scaled. you can't move to scale right away. you need to test and learn. and the federal government can play a key role in enabling and supporting that testing and learning. but it has to be done with states, with communities, and with the private sector if it's

going to work well. >> aubrey, we were talking about before about the divide between someone living in the shenandoah valley and someone living here in the dc area. how do you think this question maybe from that rural/urban divide perspective? >> let's go back a little bit and back to the funding. there are consequences for having limited resources. not all of them are bad, quite frankly, because necessity is the mother of invention. and i'm quite sure that because of the states' resources, that the technology is going to be in the car. certainly in the roads makes a lot of sense, but it's initially going to have to be in the car as we merge these things. one of the side things we've developed, a lot of hot lanes, because a lot of technology in the road. but it's also, we've got to figure out how to use our current roads more efficiently, in other words how do we get more throughput, not necessarily more vehicles. autonomous vehicles can work very well into that, particularly if you're trying to introduce them in an urban area

versus a rural area where there may be more acceptance of them in that regard. i'm quite sure when they're actually out there, things will be different than we contemplate them today. that's why we've set up tests around the commonwealth. we do have autonomous vehicles that merge in, how they coordinate not only vehicle to vehicle about some of the smart things in the roads. and it does get back to education. 50% of the driving public are scared to death. they don't want them because they don't think they're safe. what we're trying to do is use real world applications. our test site in virginia tech. we have a roadway where we put them on, the whole bit. to see how do we best merge those in. i think it's going to be quicker in the urban areas. quite frankly, if you look at the stated objectives of uber or lyft, it's to get rid of personal car ownership. you're seeing that with the

smart car and all the things happening here. it's going to be a difference as we introduce them into the rural areas. again, that goes a lot into how we actually use the technology instead of forcing it on people, let it take itself naturally. so i would suggest that it would be a different approach in the rural versus the you are abouru the urban. >> great, thanks. mike, what do you see, outside the u.s., innovation doesn't just mean autonomous vehicles. you have elon musk talking about hypervehicles. >> if we start in the middle east as a good example, if you look at whether it's elon musk or any others looking to invest, what makes the middle east attractive is they've got the political will to get projects done. you see that in southeast asia and you certainly see it in

europe. i think the hallmark of what's making those projects really progress forward faster than here is our ability to share and manage risk. and i think it's going to start at the backbone of cyber security. if you just take a step back and think about how much data right now your transit agency has. but it take wmata or new jersey transit or vre, think about all the data they have about you, your credit card information, the fact that they've got ez pass, ez pass is the third largest holder of financial data in the united states. we talk about banks being secure. that's why public/private partnerships come into advent. we know that's working in other parts of the world such as in europe. what are we learning from that part of the world to help us here? >> thanks. i want to build off your idea about the speed with which you're seeing maybe other regions, other countries tackle

infrastructure spend. what do you think is required of the federal government to sort of have that same type of speed and approach? aubrey, you mentioned it's more than just money. but i mean, what's the criteria? >> it's political will. i mean, you've got to have the political will. we just had a project in the southeast part of virginia that we had funded, transportation project. but if you ask the public, many times they have to pay for it, they always say no. they want the infrastructure but they don't want to pay for it. political will is part of it. the federal government can set examples of how to utilizes monies. i really like their fast lane grant program. we just received $165 million where we competed for -- against -- around the country, but brought in private money, brought in two technologies,

both rail and vehicular traffic on 95, to open up a congested area. so i think when you really get down to it, we can set all the standards. we can set all the other parameters. but if we don't have the political will to provide the funding necessary to do these things, then we're still back to the same loop we've been in i think for the last several decades. >> jason, maybe you've got some perspective on the political realities of finding ways to seek funding. so what's the easiest lift here? you guys have probably studied it and seen that it's hard to maybe raise the gasoline tax or do anything else that sort of traditionally provides transportation funding. what are the sources available in your mind? >> sure. i mean, you know, when the administration stepped into

office, there was an opportunity through the recovery act to get a temporary boost in funding. i think in some places there was a bunch of projects ready to go, and in other places a scramble to identify potential projects. but that wasn't a long term solution. in december of last year, the president signed the fast act, a big improvement over where we had been, a big improvement because congress was doing these short term punts which create enormous uncertainty in many parts of the country who don't have the pipeline that aubrey and his team have developed. and you need that long term certainty if you're going to have the entire country evaluating projects from an outcome orientation. in 2012, we laid out an approach that i think still works, which is the combination of business tax reform and using the transition reverencnues, the

one-time transition revenues of moving to a new business tax system to fund infrastructure in a very large way. that proposal would have created enough increased investment for five to six years. so five to six years is a meaningful period of time. but it's still not the long term solution that we need. at the beginning of this year, the president laid out a proposal for a fee on oil. that would be one way that you could fund over a long period of time. but decades from now, you may need another approach. so i think part of the question that people need to grapple with is, what is the problem that we're trying to solve from an infrastructure standpoint? are we trying to provide a temporary boost of funding to address the fact that we have been underinvesting in things like maintenance so that we had, you know, structurally deficient bridges around the country and we want to prevent bridge collapses? or do we want to try and provide a long term solution that allows us to really evaluate the kinds

of projects that we need to transition the country's infrastructure systems forward into what we need 10 years, 20 years, 30 years from now? there's a lot of other challenges in between. but those are some of the questions people need to grapple with. i think we need to do both. that's why at the beginning of this year, we laid out what we think is a long term solution that also provides a near term boost to deliver on the short term. but, you know, people are going to need to grapple with that. >> mrinalini, are you seeing examples of states and municipalities that are sort of getting that equation right, finding the funding and sharing the experience? >> i think one of the key things for us to make this being successful is to break the fact that this just seems like an

infrastructure physical object technology play. because by doing that, we kind of forget about the human aspect of this. we're talking about people's ability to actually get from one place to the other, the security aspects of it, the freedom that people can have who may not have the same mobility capabilities as those of us who can just jump in a car and drive. and in order to do that, it almost feels like we need to move more into a 4-p model versus just a 3-p model. it's not just public and private. it's public, private, and people. and that's incredibly important. we need to figure out a way to get citizens involved in the solution creation, not just feel like we are creating solutions on their behalf and then wondering why they're not actually getting adopted as fast as they should be. people know what their issues are. they understand very well how solutions should be done within their own community. somehow or other we have to figure out how to tap into that

as part of that model, a 4-p model, p-p-p-p, is the way to go in this area. different cities that are getting it right and how we're learning at overall solutions, actually i think washington, dc is doing quite a bit in this area, when it comes to looking at traffic solutions, et cetera. boston is doing a tremendous amount. what i love about the way boston is doing it is they're starting from the overall communications. you know, obviously you can't have any of these technologies work if everything doesn't talk with one another. they're starting right from that base. if you look at what they're actually driving at, solutions such as vision zero, and the amount of data they're able to it from providing different solutions and integrating them together in a very safe and secure platform is incredibly powerful. that's another really good example of where we're seeing solutions starting to arise.

>> great, thank you. time flies. the panel will be around afterwards, if you have questions. we were hoping to have a little bit of here. so please join me in thanking the panel. i'm going to turp n it over to josh for some quick closing remarks. >> thanks, rob. thanks to your panel. another great conversation. we've had a great series of conversations this morning and some guests that really gave us some great insight into this. thanks to all of our panelists and our moderators from this morning f. you enjoy today, just a reminder today is a kick off of a series of events we're hosting. take a look at bloomberg next.com and hopefully we'll get a chance to see you. i want to say a big word of thanks at building america's

future. we really enjoyed their partnership today. thanks for joining us. look forward to seeing you at another event soon. our next live event at 6:00 eastern comes from the institute? washington, d.c. a discussion about the future of the freedom of speech and freedom of the press in politics. president-elect donald trump is in north carolina tonight where he plans a victory rally for supporters in fey yetville. with him will be retired general james mattes to be named the defense secretary. cspan 2 will have live coverage at 7:00 eastern. >> cspan "washington journal"

live every day. coming up wednesday morning, just off his unsuccessful bid tim ryan will discuss the future of democratic leadership. his views on the election results and donald trump's presidency. sub committee on health will talk about how republicans plan to handle the affordable care act. plus new york university history professor will talk about the 75th anniversary of the bombing of pearl harbor and its impact on the world in the years since and today. be sure to watch these wednesday morning. join the discussion. this year we're asking students to tell us what's the most important issue for the new

president. joining me is ashley lee. she's a former student cam winner of 2015 for her documentary help for homeless her rows. >> in 2015 my partner and i produced a documentary where we covered issues of homeless veterans on the streets of orange count, california. we decided that these sort of people who have fought for our country, have given to our country and the fact that they are now living on the streets, not having family, not having anyone to care for them were not okay. we decided we were going to talk about this issue within our community and we decided to make a c-span documentary about it. >> i encourage all seniors in high school and even juniors in high school, even middle schoolers to use this platform to speak your voice, to raise your voice, to say that your generation deserves to be heard in the government and if there is a better place to speak these

issues, this is it. >> i think my advice for the students who are on the fence of starting this documentary is to really look into your community and see what is affecting those who are around you. because they are the one who you love. they are the one who you see the most. they are the one who you surround with almost every day. and so if there is an issue that you see happen every day on the street, that's probably where you can start. be a part of this documentary because you want to be a voice for your community. >> thank you, ashley, for all of your advice and tips on student cam. if you want more information on our student cam documentary contest, go to our website studentcam.org. >> while we wait for our live event, a discussion now of automotive cyber security. david johnson oversees the fbi's development of cyber policy and

tragedy and spoke at the inaugural automotive cybersecurity summit back in july. talking about the fbi's role in preventing and investigating cybersecurity breaches. >> good morning. thank you very much for the opportunity to be here today to talk about the fbi and what we're doing and seeing with regard to cyber crime. i feel morally obligated to start off by saying i know i am the last person between you and lunch. i will keep that in mind. i've got 15 minutes, give or take, for comments and then we've got some time for q. and a. i'll holdup my side of the bargain. you've got to holdup yours. i'm going to focus on four things today. first the current overall cyber threat stream. second, how we see this threat impacting the automotive industry.

third, what the fbi is doing to prevent and respond to cyber attacks. and lastly, the importance of public private sector engagement and collaboration and what you or the industry can expect from the fbi if you suffer a breach or the victim of an attack. i'm going to start with a little story. everybody loves a story, right? about a meeting i went to in march of this year. it was at intel corporation. at this meeting was a commercial futurist panel. there were three individuals on this particular panel. one was mark andriesen. second was peter fenton and third was jim gets. all very successful and prominent venture capital firms in california. one of the questions that was asked of them was where do you see future growth in the next ten years from a technology

perspective. they weren't all consistent in their responses, but one or two of the responses were consistent. they were mobile. they were quan tam computering. >> this is where they see technology over the next ten years. that gives us a pretty good idea where we're headed and what we are -- what we have to consider moving forward. the big question for us from a bureau perspective and from an industry perspective is what are we going to do about that today? let me talk a little bit about the current cyber threat. more losses. the bad guys are getting more sophisticated. so we've got that going for us, right? who are the players? nation state sponsored computer intrusions. usual cast of characters to clad china, russia, north korea and iran.

dealing with multi national cyber syndicates. hakt ti visits still out there. in the bureau we're still considered with the cyber terrorist from a cyber terrorist perspective. so we know that terrorists are highly pand executing attacks. we also know they asspire to gain access to our systems. we know they're not there yet. it's still very much a concern for us. so how do these groups operate? increasing complex attacks on larger targets. combining multiple techniques and inside knowledge. using social engineering to target us, to develop human vectors to get in your system. we also have been to-- the thre is not just limited to hackers

on the outside. it's an insider threat is also a significant problem. talking about disgruntled employees. employees who are targeted and employees who are willing to sell to the highest bidder. so what are they after? pretty much anything and everything from an information perspective. right? they want access. anything that will give them advantage, whether it's economic, political, or ideological. today we're not so much concerned about the loss of data. after the sony case it bake about lack of access. so why does this matter to everybody here in the room? so it's more than an attack on your infrastructure. these are attacks on employees and customers. they are attacks on your reputation and they are attacks on our economy and our security. real quickly, i'd like to talk a little bit about the impact to the automotive industry at least from the fbi perspective.

i know most of the folks in this room are all too familiar with the cybersecurity risk to automotive systems. we've heard a bunch of panels or several panels talking about that. from our perspective the vel ner abilities we see network in au ton mos systems. a didas atack could prevent vehicles from -- especially vulnerable to this type of a attack. i spent a lot of time working with the california highway patrol commissioner there joe farrow who was very interested in these particular issues. he comes at it from, want from a negative way, but he was constantly asking me when it comes to vehicles who was thinking about these issues and who was ago the hard questions. in the wake of the recent tragic accident involving a tesla using

auto pilot, safety is obviously front and center. but it's also critical that security in particular cybersecurity be a consideration in the design stage rather than as an afterthought. and it's not just tesla and google who are pushing the envelopes on autonomous vehicles. i am sure you have heard of the man building a vehicle in his basement in san francisco. what could possibly go wrong with that? i think we're going to talk about supply chain. another access point. transportation infrastructure, hackers could compromise gps or navigation systems and send drivers to the wrong way or use them to extort money in exchange for information to get them to the right place.

so here is what the fbi is doing about the cyber threat. director comey has recognized the severity of this particular risk and made combatting it one of his very top priorities. we as an organization are constantly evaluating how we go handling our cyber responsibilities. for those of you that have been looking at the new this is morning, the department of justice inspector general recently pushed out a report talking about how the fbi is looking at the cyber threat and giving us some areas for improvement, all of which we will take very seriously and implement if possible. so for the last 100 years the fbi has worked cases primarily the same way. we've assigned those cases to investigators that are either where the bad guys are or where the victim companies are. that doesn't work in cyber. we had to change that model. it has not been without some pain. now we make case assignments

based on subject matter expertise and where that technical expertise resides. we have created cyber action teams, so we are take our best trained technically trained agents and computer scientists and deploying them to locations when necessary as a fly team. we are maintaining a constant focus on recruiting, training and retaining cyber talent. obviously we know we need to hire more. just as everybody else does. right? but we are constantly thinking about this differently and how to go about it in different ways. the fbi generally would place technically trained folks into two different job families. put them as agents or put them as what we call professional support employees. which a computer scientist is. we're taking a look at whether or not that's a good idea. generally i think the sense it's not. we're looking at bringing additional computer scientists

on board, bringing data scientists on board and expanding the subject matter expertise that we have and we know we will need moving forward. we're trying to provide additional clarity on the lanes in the road. i know it can be confusing to the private sector in terms of who will respond to a particular event and who will do what following an intrusion. we've been working very hard with the enter agency to come up with additional guidance and clarity for the private sector. this is still ongoing. you can imagine how hard it is. we're close. we expect an announcement soon and i would think within the next week or so there'll be additional guidance coming from the federal government. imposing costs. we are doing our very best to impose costs. getting better at figuring out who the bad guys are and prosecuting them when appropriate. when we can't touch them, reach out and touch them, we expose

them publicly. i was skeptical of this approach at first, but it really has had a chilling effect. in march of this year we did this with regard to seven iranian hackers. it can be embarrassing to a country for those countries that care if the activity is state sponsored. it also has consequences to the individual in the event they decide they would like to travel with their family or otherwise. lastly, the fbi is helping our local and state law enforcement counterparts be more effective in dealing with computer-facilitated crime. providing them with training, equipment and expertise. we expect to continue to do so for the foreseeable future. so what can you expect? what can industry expect from the fbi? if you suffer an intrusion and where you should be at with regard to engagement with the organization. so is vehicle technology continues to evolve, the fbi or

automotive industry must continue to engage on cyber security issues. this is a no brainer to me. you haven't done it or you haven't heard it, please develop a relationship with your local fbi office if you have not already. the time to do that is on the front end before something happens as opposed to after something bad happens. the fbi will do everything we can to share all of the relevant information that we can share with you. we frequently push out what we call flash reports which allow us to share threat indicators, tactics and mal wear signatures to potential victims. we will provide threat briefings on request or otherwise to help companies learn from previous attacks and in the event you provide us with information, we will provide you with feedback and analysis on what you have given us. so the bottom line is we need your help to allow us to better address these threats. we know the private sector owns almost all of the infrastructure. it is the primary